M. L. Mays’s research while affiliated with Johnson Space Center and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (74)


Temporal span of the individual models within the Arrival Time Scoreboard. Each dot represents an individual prediction and is colored according to the unsigned error in the arrival time. Predictions without a corresponding observed impact are shown in black.
Scatter plot of the error in arrival time over time. Each dot is colored according to the model used for that prediction.
Heat map timeline of the errors in arrival time for all predictions. The top panel shows the signed error and the bottom panel shows the absolute (unsigned) error. The lines show a rolling mean (blue) or median (cyan) over ±6 months.
Scatter timeline of the number of predictions for each individual observed Coronal mass ejection. Each point is colored by the unsigned arrival time error.
Scatter of arrival time error versus transit time for each coronal mass ejection, colored by the number of predictions for that event. The left panel shows the mean error and the right the mean absolute error over all predictions. In the left panel the dashed horizontal line indicates zero error.

+5

Updating Measures of CME Arrival Time Errors
  • Article
  • Full-text available

July 2024

·

83 Reads

·

6 Citations

C. Kay

·

·

P. Riley

·

[...]

·

A. Chulaki

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) drive space weather effects at Earth and the heliosphere. Predicting their arrival is a major part of space weather forecasting. In 2013, the Community Coordinated Modeling Center started collecting predictions from the community, developing an Arrival Time Scoreboard (ATSB). Riley et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018sw001962) analyzed the first 5 years of the ATSB, finding a bias of a few hours and uncertainty of order 15 hr. These metrics have been routinely quoted since 2018, but have not been updated despite continued predictions. We revise analysis of the ATSB using a sample 3.5 times the size of that in the original study. We find generally the same overall metrics, a bias of −2.5 hr, mean absolute error of 13.2 hr, and standard deviation of 17.4 hr, with only a slight improvement comparing between the previously‐used and new sets. The most well‐established, frequently‐submitted model results tend to outperform those from seldomly‐contributed models. These “best” models show a slight improvement over the 11 year span, with more scatter between the models during early times and a convergence toward the same error metrics in recent years. We find little evidence of any correlations between the arrival time errors and any other properties. The one noticeable exception is a tendency for late predictions for short transit times and vice versa. We propose that any model‐driven systematic errors may be washed out by the uncertainties in CME reconstructions in characterization of the background solar wind, and suggest that improving these may be the key to better predictions.

Download


First Measurements of Jovian Electrons by Parker Solar Probe/IS⊙IS within 0.5 au of the Sun

July 2022

·

193 Reads

·

5 Citations

The Astrophysical Journal

Energetic electrons of Jovian origin have been observed for decades throughout the heliosphere, as far as 11 au, and as close as 0.5 au, from the Sun. The treatment of Jupiter as a continuously emitting point source of energetic electrons has made Jovian electrons a valuable tool in the study of energetic electron transport within the heliosphere. We present observations of Jovian electrons measured by the EPI-Hi instrument in the Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun instrument suite on Parker Solar Probe at distances within 0.5 au of the Sun. These are the closest measurements of Jovian electrons to the Sun, providing a new opportunity to study the propagation and transport of energetic electrons to the inner heliosphere. We also find periods of nominal connection between the spacecraft and Jupiter in which expected Jovian electron enhancements are absent. Several explanations for these absent events are explored, including stream interaction regions between Jupiter and Parker Solar Probe and the spacecraft lying on the opposite side of the heliospheric current sheet from Jupiter, both of which could impede the flow of the electrons. These observations provide an opportunity to gain a greater insight into electron transport through a previously unexplored region of the inner heliosphere.


FIGURE 1 | Solar wind velocity in the ecliptic plane from a WSA-ENLIL + Cone model simulation showing the ICME propagation at Saturn. The ICME is marked as a black contour on the right side before Saturn. Time is given in the format YYYY-MM-DDThh. The full simulation is available at (Witasse et al., 2017) and http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov under run ID Leila_Mays_092716_SH_1.
FIGURE 2 | Cassini trajectory with Saturn's Magnetopause model (Kanani et al., 2010). Snapshots from 3Dview, at 00:00 on days 2014-11-10, 2014-11-13, 2014-11-19 and 2014-12-05, from (A-D), respectively. On panel (D) a marker shows the modelled reentry into the magnetosphere.
FIGURE 3 | Overview of the Cassini spacecraft trajectory on KSO (Kronian Solar Orbital) coordinates, as provided by AMDA. The radial distance R is displayed as a function of x KSO , for the Cassini trajectory and models of the magnetopause and bowshock. The modelled boundaries have been computed with a solar wind dynamic pressure of 0.05 nPa. We expect this value to have increased significantly during the ICME passage, which might explain why the boundary positions shown here don't necessarily reflect the observed position of the boundaries. The pink and green dots along the trajectory are the location of Cassini at the labelled dates, the green location being the starting point.
FIGURE 5 | Right Handed polarized emitted SKR power integrated on 100-400 kHz (plain line) and 10-1000 kHz (dashed line), as measured by Cassini/RPWS/HFR. The data has been averaged over 15 min.
FIGURE 7 | Zoomed-in version of Figure 4, from Nov. 10th 00:00 SCET to Nov. 15th, 12:00 SCET. The panel description is the same as for Figure 4. Times are given in the format YYYY-MM-DD, and hh:mm.
Effect of an Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection on Saturn’s Radio Emission

May 2022

·

92 Reads

·

4 Citations

Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences

The Saturn Kilometric Radiation (SKR) was observed for the first time during the flyby of Saturn by the Voyager spacecraft in 1980. These radio emissions, in the range of a few kHz to 1 MHz, are emitted by electrons travelling around auroral magnetic field lines. Their study is useful to understand the variability of a magnetosphere and its coupling with the solar wind. Previous studies have shown a strong correlation between the solar wind dynamic pressure and the SKR intensity. However, up to now, the effect of an Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection (ICME) has never been examined in detail, due to the lack of SKR observations at the time when an ICME can be tracked and its different parts be clearly identified. In this study, we take advantage of a large ICME that reached Saturn mid-November 2014 (Witasse et al., J. Geophys. Res. Space Physics, 2017, 122, 7865–7890). At that time, the Cassini spacecraft was fortunately travelling within the solar wind for a few days, and provided a very accurate timing of the ICME structure. A survey of the Cassini data for the same period indicated a significant increase in the SKR emissions, showing a good correlation after the passage of the ICME shock with a delay of ∼13 h and after the magnetic cloud passage with a delay of 25–42 h.


OSPREI: A Coupled Approach to Modeling CME‐Driven Space Weather with Automatically‐Generated, User‐Friendly Outputs

April 2022

·

192 Reads

·

20 Citations

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) drive space weather activity at Earth and throughout the solar system. Current CME‐related space weather predictions rely on information reconstructed from coronagraphs, sometimes from only a single viewpoint, to drive a simple interplanetary propagation model, which only gives the arrival time or limited additional information. We present the coupling of three established models into OSPREI (Open Solar Physics Rapid Ensemble Information), a new tool that describes Sun‐to‐Earth CME behavior, including the location, orientation, size, shape, speed, arrival time, and internal thermal and magnetic properties, on the timescale needed for forecasts. First, Forecasting a CME's Altered Trajectory (ForeCAT) describes the trajectory that a CME takes through the solar corona. Second, ANother Type of Ensemble Arrival Time Results simulates the propagation, including expansion and deformation, of a CME in interplanetary space and determines the evolution of internal properties via conservation laws. Finally, ForeCAT In situ Data Observer produces in situ profiles for a CME's interaction with a synthetic spacecraft. OSPREI includes ensemble modeling by varying each input parameter to probe any uncertainty in their values, yielding probabilities for all outputs. Standardized visualizations are automatically generated, providing easily accessible, essential information for space weather forecasting. We show OSPREI results for a CMEs observed in the corona on 22 April and 09 May 2021. We approach these CME as a forecasting proof‐of‐concept, using information analogous to what would be available in real time rather than fine‐tuning input parameters to achieve a best fit for a detailed scientific study. The OSPREI “prediction” shows good agreement with the arrival time and in situ properties.


Figure 2. The same as Figure 1 but for the time interval 08:00 UT to 21:00 UT on 2019 March 15. The two vertical solid lines indicate the passage of two IP shocks (see Section 2.2).
Figure 10. From top to bottom: synoptic maps built from SDO/AIA 193 Å observations for (a) CR 2214 and (b) CR 2215 as downloaded from sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ assets/img/synoptic. CL-heliolatitude maps obtained from predsci.com/hmi displaying: (c-d) the CH structure at 1 R e used as a magnetic field input boundary condition in the "Magnetohydrodynamic Around a Sphere model in its Thermodynamic" (MAST) model (gray areas represent closed field regions, whereas blue and red areas represent inward and outward open field regions (i.e., CHs), respectively); (e-f) solar wind radial speed V r at 10 R e ; and (g-h) Alfvén speed V A at 10 R e as obtained by MAST in (left) CR 2214 and (right) CR 2215. In panels (c-h), the vertical dashed lines indicate the CLs of PSP (yellow), STA (red), and Earth (black) at 04:54 UT on 2019 March 13 when the SBO accelerated. The yellow, red, and black dots indicate the footpoints of the magnetic field lines connecting to PSP, STA, and Earth obtained from the MAST solutions on the photosphere (c-d) and at 10 R e (e-f and g-h). The yellow, red, and black squares indicate the footpoints of nominal Parker spiral magnetic field lines connecting to PSP, STA, and Earth all the way to the photosphere (c-d) and at 10 R e (e-f and g-h). The orange cross indicates the direction of the nose of the SBO as represented by GCS applied at helioradii above 10 R e . Note that the coronal field configuration around the site of the SBO changed its configuration between CR 2214 and CR 2215. The white lines in panels (g) and (h) indicate the neutral line. Although strictly speaking the event occurred during CR 2215, the site of the SBO was located on the backside of the Sun as seen from Earth. Therefore, the MAST solution for CR 2215 did not implement the input photospheric magnetic field until late in the solar rotation.
Figure 12. (a) Coronal hole map obtained from the ADAPT-WSA model using as input the synoptic SDO/HMI magnetograms collected during CR 2214 (last magnetogram used dates from 2019 March 11 at 20:00 UT). (b) Velocity map at 21.5 R e obtained by the WSA and used as input for the ENLIL code. The cross indicates the direction of the nose of the SBO-CME as represented by GCS applied at helioradii above 10 R e . Letters A, B, and C indicate the CHs that are the origin of the high-speed streams described in Section 4.1.
The Streamer Blowout Origin of a Flux Rope and Energetic Particle Event Observed by Parker Solar Probe at 0.5 au

July 2020

·

198 Reads

·

25 Citations

The Astrophysical Journal

The distribution of spacecraft in the inner heliosphere during 2019 March enabled comprehensive observations of an interplanetary coronal mass ejection (ICME) that encountered Parker Solar Probe (PSP) at 0.547 au from the Sun. This ICME originated as a slow (∼311 km s ⁻¹ ) streamer blowout (SBO) on the Sun as measured by the white-light coronagraphs on board the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory-A and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. Despite its low initial speed, the passage of the ICME at PSP was preceded by an anisotropic, energetic (≲100 keV/n) ion enhancement and by two interplanetary shocks. The ICME was embedded between slow (∼300 km s ⁻¹ ) solar wind and a following, relatively high-speed (∼500 km s ⁻¹ ), stream that most likely was responsible for the unexpectedly short (based on the SBO speed) ICME transit time of less than ∼56 hr between the Sun and PSP, and for the formation of the preceding shocks. By assuming a graduated cylindrical shell (GCS) model for the SBO that expands self-similarly with time, we estimate the propagation direction and morphology of the SBO near the Sun. We reconstruct the flux-rope structure of the in situ ICME assuming an elliptic-cylindrical topology and compare it with the portion of the 3D flux-rope GCS morphology intercepted by PSP. ADAPT-WSA-ENLIL-Cone magnetohydrodynamic simulations are used to illustrate the ICME propagation in a structured background solar wind and estimate the time when PSP established magnetic connection with the compressed region that formed in front of the ICME. This time is consistent with the arrival at PSP of energetic particles accelerated upstream of the ICME.


Solar Wind Streams and Stream Interaction Regions Observed by the Parker Solar Probe with Corresponding Observations at 1 au

February 2020

·

123 Reads

·

58 Citations

The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series

Several fast solar wind streams and stream interaction regions (SIRs) were observed by the Parker Solar Probe (PSP) during its first orbit (2018 September–2019 January). During this time, several recurring SIRs were also seen at 1 au at both L1 (Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) and Wind) and the location of the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory-Ahead (STEREO-A). In this paper, we compare four fast streams observed by PSP at different radial distances during its first orbit. For three of these fast stream events, measurements from L1 (ACE and Wind) and STEREO-A indicated that the fast streams were observed by both PSP and at least one of the 1 au monitors. Our associations are supported by simulations made by the ENLIL model driven by GONG-(ADAPT-)WSA, which allows us to contextualize the inner heliospheric conditions during the first orbit of PSP. Additionally, we determine which of these fast streams are associated with an SIR and characterize the SIR properties for these events. From these comparisons, we find that the compression region associated with the fast-speed streams overtaking the preceding solar wind can form at various radial distances from the Sun in the inner heliosphere inside 0.5 au, with the suprathermal ion population (energies between 30 and 586 keV) observed as isolated enhancements suggesting localized acceleration near the SIR stream interface at ~0.3 au, which is unlike those seen at 1 au, where the suprathermal enhancements extend throughout and behind the SIR. This suprathermal enhancement extends further into the fast stream with increasing distance from the Sun.


Cartoon showing a side view and a front view of the ANTEATR torus and illustrating the toroidal and poloidal directions (maroon and dark blue, respectively). The bottom illustrates how the toroidal and poloidal directions relate to the latitudinal and longitudinal directions for different CME orientations.
Sensitivity of transit time to positional input parameters. (a) and (d) show the percent change in transit time for a percent change in input parameter. (b) and (e) show the same in hours. In these panels the different colors indicate different strength CMEs with brighter colors representing more extreme CMEs. (c) and (f) show contours of change in transit time, in hours, for changes in inputs in natural units (e.g., degrees in this figure) and different size CMEs, labeled using the CME mass as a proxy. (a)–(c) show results for the poloidal impact parameter, and (d)–(f) show the toroidal impact parameter.
Same as Figure 2 but for the CME velocity (a–c), mass (d–f), and angular width (g–i).
Same as Figure 2 but for the solar wind velocity (a–c), number density (d–f), and drag coefficient (g–i).
Identifying Critical Input Parameters for Improving Drag-Based CME Arrival Time Predictions

January 2020

·

68 Reads

·

41 Citations

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) typically cause the strongest geomagnetic storms, so a major focus of space weather research has been predicting the arrival time of CMEs. Most arrival time models fall into two categories: (1) drag‐based models that integrate the drag force between a simplified CME structure and the background solar wind and (2) full magnetohydrodynamic models. Drag‐based models typically are much more computationally efficient than magnetohydrodynamic models, allowing for ensemble modeling. While arrival time predictions have improved since the earliest attempts, both types of models currently have difficulty achieving mean absolute errors below 10 hr. Here we use a drag‐based model ANTEATR (Another Type of Ensemble Arrival Time Results) to explore the sensitivity of arrival times to various input parameters. We consider CMEs of different strengths from average to extreme size, speed, and mass (kinetic energies between 9×1029 and 6×1032 erg). For each scale CME, we vary the input parameters to reflect the current observational uncertainty in each and determine how accurately each must be known to achieve predictions that are accurate within 5 hr. We find that different scale CMEs are the most sensitive to different parameters. The transit time of average strength CMEs depends most strongly on the CME speed, whereas an extreme strength CME is the most sensitive to the angular width. A precise CME direction is critical for impacts near the flanks but not near the CME nose. We also show that the Drag‐Based Model has similar sensitivities, suggesting that these results are representative for all drag‐based models.


MESSENGER Observations of Disappearing Dayside Magnetosphere Events at Mercury

August 2019

·

389 Reads

·

72 Citations

MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) measurements taken during passes over Mercury's dayside hemisphere indicate that on four occasions the spacecraft remained in the magnetosheath even though it reached altitudes below 300 km. During these disappearing dayside magnetosphere (DDM) events, the spacecraft did not encounter the magnetopause until it was at very high magnetic latitudes, ~66 to 80°. These DDM events stand out with respect to their extremely high solar wind dynamic pressures, Psw ~140 to 290 nPa, and intense southward magnetic fields, Bz ~ −100 to −400 nT, measured in the magnetosheath. In addition, the bow shock was observed very close to the surface during these events with a subsolar altitude of ~1,200 km. It is suggested that DDM events, which are closely associated with coronal mass ejections, are due to solar wind compression and/or reconnection‐driven erosion of the dayside magnetosphere. The very low altitude of the bow shock during these events strongly suggests that the solar wind impacts much of Mercury's sunlit hemisphere during these events. More study of these disappearing dayside events is required, but it is likely that solar wind sputtering of neutrals from the surface into the exosphere maximizes during these intervals.


Forecasting the Structure and Orientation of Earthbound Coronal Mass Ejections

April 2019

·

442 Reads

·

101 Citations

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are the key drivers of strong to extreme space weather storms at the Earth that can have drastic consequences for technological systems in space and on ground. The ability of a CME to drive geomagnetic disturbances depends crucially on the magnetic structure of the embedded flux rope, which is thus essential to predict. The current capabilities in forecasting in advance (at least half a day before) the geoeffectiveness of a given CME is however severely hampered by the lack of remote-sensing measurements of the magnetic field in the corona and adequate tools to predict how CMEs deform, rotate, and deflect during their travel through the coronal and interplanetary space as they interact with the ambient solar wind and other CMEs. These problems can lead not only to overestimation or underestimation of the severity of a storm, but also to forecasting “misses” and “false alarms” that are particularly difficult for the end-users. In this paper, we discuss the current status and future challenges and prospects related to forecasting of the magnetic structure and orientation of CMEs. We focus both on observational- and modeling-based (first principle and semiempirical) approaches and discuss the space- and ground-based observations that would be the most optimal for making accurate space weather predictions. We also cover the gaps in our current understanding related to the formation and eruption of the CME flux rope and physical processes that govern its evolution in the variable ambient solar wind background that complicate the forecasting.


Citations (45)


... At 889 km s 1 , the arrival speed of CME 5, which is modeled to be the third to arrive at Earth, deviates the most from the actual measured speed of ∼700 km s 1 at the predicted arrival time of CME 5. Although the ELEvo model predicts the arrival of the first CME at L1 accurately, it forecasts the arrival of the same CME at STEREO-A (see third panel) 1 hr 34 min too early, which is, however, still a good prediction (e.g., Kay et al., 2024). ...

Reference:

First Observations of a Geomagnetic Superstorm With a Sub‐L1 Monitor
Updating Measures of CME Arrival Time Errors

... There is a general trend toward lower τ for higher V CME , but there is a good deal of scatter. This scatter is expected for a number of reasons (e.g., Temmer et al., 2023). Firstly, there is uncertainty in V CME estimated from fitting cone models to coronagraph observations, as well as deriving the time of the CME leading edge at 0.1 AU. ...

CME Propagation Through the Heliosphere: Status and Future of Observations and Model Development

Advances in Space Research

... G. Mitchell et al. 2024), Jovian electrons (J. G. Mitchell et al. 2022), etc. This study extends the scientific range of PSP/ISʘIS data to examine the abundant interplanetary dust environment of the very inner heliosphere. ...

First Measurements of Jovian Electrons by Parker Solar Probe/IS⊙IS within 0.5 au of the Sun

The Astrophysical Journal

... The low-frequency extensions (LFE) of SKR serve as an important indicator for reconnection events and compression-induced hot plasma injections at Saturn (Bunce et al., 2005;Cecconi et al., 2022;Jackman et al., 2009Jackman et al., , 2010Jackman et al., , 2023Reed et al., 2018). Understanding their propagation is crucial for uncovering their further magnetospheric implications. ...

Effect of an Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejection on Saturn’s Radio Emission

Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences

... Machine-learning approaches have been recently reported to yield more accurate predictions (Liu et al., 2018;Yang et al., 2023) but they need to be further validated in operationallike settings. In addition, there has been progress in making at least hindcast of the CME orientation (the so-called B z forecasting), also from coronagraphic observations, often combined with magnetogram and EUV observations, and semi-empirical models (e.g., see Kay et al., 2022;Möstl et al., 2018;Palmerio et al., 2018;Sarkar et al., 2024;Savani et al., 2013). Such models have not been validated as exhaustively as forecasting models of the CME speed and arrival time. ...

OSPREI: A Coupled Approach to Modeling CME‐Driven Space Weather with Automatically‐Generated, User‐Friendly Outputs

... The first several well-observed PSP CME events were of the slow, streamer blowout type (Vourlidas & Webb 2018) that showed various features consistent with a magnetic flux rope-like morphology in the remote-sensing observations (Howard et al. 2019;Hess et al. 2020;Wood et al. 2020;Liewer et al. 2021) as well as flux rope-like field and plasma signatures in the CME in-situ measurements Lario et al. 2020;Nieves-Chinchilla et al. 2020;Palmerio et al. 2021). One of the main objectives of our earlier study was to examine the synthetic in-situ sampling of large-scale, relatively idealized flux rope CME encounters and slowly introduce more ambiguity with the relative spacecraft trajectory orientation with respect to the large-scale CME flux rope axis. ...

The Streamer Blowout Origin of a Flux Rope and Energetic Particle Event Observed by Parker Solar Probe at 0.5 au

The Astrophysical Journal

... ISʘIS offers a novel opportunity to study particle acceleration at the Sun with minimal contribution from particle transport effects. In addition to SEP investigations, ISʘIS data has been used to study cosmic rays (J. S. Rankin et al. 2021;, particles accelerated by stream interaction regions (e.g., R. C. Allen et al. 2020;C. M. S. Cohen et al. 2020;M. ...

Solar Wind Streams and Stream Interaction Regions Observed by the Parker Solar Probe with Corresponding Observations at 1 au

The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series

... Different factors define space weather, such as eruptions at the Sun and their propagation from the solar corona to the planets and satellites in the inner heliosphere (Riley & Ben-Nun, 2021;Kay et al., 2020). Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) modelling is useful for studying the propagation of CMEs and their interactions with solar wind structures and other CMEs, as well as for predicting their geoeffectiveness. ...

Identifying Critical Input Parameters for Improving Drag-Based CME Arrival Time Predictions

... This extremely low Alfvén Mach number (M A ) event at Mercury offers valuable insights into the planet's dynamic response to the intense solar wind conditions of the inner heliosphere. We compare some key similarities and differences between Mercury's magnetospheric response to this ICME event, and the disappearing dayside magnetopause (DDM) events discussed in Slavin et al. (2019). The combined effects of greatly enhanced dayside magnetic reconnection and extreme magnetospheric compression can lead to a DDM, allowing shocked solar wind plasma to impact the planet's surface directly. ...

MESSENGER Observations of Disappearing Dayside Magnetosphere Events at Mercury

... CMEs are among the most significant drivers of space weather, and their study is essential for improving our understanding of solar-terrestrial interactions and advancing predictive capabilities (E. K. J. Kilpua et al. 2019;J. Zhang et al. 2021). ...

Forecasting the Structure and Orientation of Earthbound Coronal Mass Ejections