@article{SmirnovShpritsAllisonetal.2022, author = {Smirnov, Artem and Shprits, Yuri Y. and Allison, Hayley and Aseev, Nikita and Drozdov, Alexander and Kollmann, Peter and Wang, Dedong and Saikin, Anthony}, title = {Storm-Time evolution of the Equatorial Electron Pitch Angle Distributions in Earth's Outer Radiation Belt}, series = {Frontiers in astronomy and space sciences}, volume = {9}, journal = {Frontiers in astronomy and space sciences}, publisher = {Frontiers Media}, address = {Lausanne}, issn = {2296-987X}, doi = {10.3389/fspas.2022.836811}, pages = {15}, year = {2022}, abstract = {In this study we analyze the storm-time evolution of equatorial electron pitch angle distributions (PADs) in the outer radiation belt region using observations from the Magnetic Electron Ion Spectrometer (MagEIS) instrument aboard the Van Allen Probes in 2012-2019. The PADs are approximated using a sum of the first, third and fifth sine harmonics. Different combinations of the respective coefficients refer to the main PAD shapes within the outer radiation belt, namely the pancake, flat-top, butterfly and cap PADs. We conduct a superposed epoch analysis of 129 geomagnetic storms and analyze the PAD evolution for day and night MLT sectors. PAD shapes exhibit a strong energy-dependent response. At energies of tens of keV, the PADs exhibit little variation throughout geomagnetic storms. Cap PADs are mainly observed at energies < 300 keV, and their extent in L shrinks with increasing energy. The cap distributions transform into the pancake PADs around the main phase of the storm on the nightside, and then come back to their original shapes during the recovery phase. At higher energies on the dayside, the PADs are mainly pancake during pre-storm conditions and become more anisotropic during the main phase. The quiet-time butterfly PADs can be observed on the nightside at L> 5.6. During the main phase, butterfly PADs have stronger 90 degrees-minima and can be observed at lower L-shells (down to L = 5), then transitioning into flat-top PADs at L similar to 4.5 - 5 and pancake PADs at L < 4.5. The resulting PAD coefficients for different energies, locations and storm epochs can be used to test the wave models and physics-based radiation belt codes in terms of pitch angle distributions.}, language = {en} } @article{LongNiCaoetal.2022, author = {Long, Minyi and Ni, Binbin and Cao, Xing and Gu, Xudong and Kollmann, Peter and Luo, Qiong and Zhou, Ruoxian and Guo, Yingjie and Guo, Deyu and Shprits, Yuri Y.}, title = {Losses of radiation belt energetic particles by encounters with four of the inner Moons of Jupiter}, series = {Journal of geophysical research, Planets}, volume = {127}, journal = {Journal of geophysical research, Planets}, number = {2}, publisher = {American Geophysical Union}, address = {Washington}, issn = {2169-9097}, doi = {10.1029/2021JE007050}, pages = {13}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Based on an improved model of the moon absorption of Jovian radiation belt particles, we investigate quantitatively and comprehensively the absorption probabilities and particle lifetimes due to encounters with four of the inner moons of Jupiter (Amalthea, Thebe, Io, and Europa) inside L < 10. Our results demonstrate that the resultant average lifetimes of energetic protons and electrons vary dramatically between similar to 0.1 days and well above 1,000 days, showing a strong dependence on the particle equatorial pitch angle, kinetic energy and moon orbit. The average lifetimes of energetic protons and electrons against moon absorption are shortest for Io (i.e., similar to 0.1-10 days) and longest for Thebe (i.e., up to thousands of days), with the lifetimes in between for Europa and Amalthea. Due to the diploe tilt angle absorption effect, the average lifetimes of energetic protons and electrons vary markedly below and above alpha eq \${\alpha }_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{q}}\$ = 67 degrees. Overall, the average electron lifetimes exhibit weak pitch angle dependence, but the average proton lifetimes are strongly dependent on equatorial pitch angle. The average lifetimes of energetic protons decrease monotonically and substantially with the kinetic energy, but the average lifetimes of energetic electrons are roughly constant at energies