Review of Solar Energetic Particle Prediction Models

Whitman, K.; Egeland, Ricky; Richardson, Ian; Allison, Clayton; Quinn, Philip; Barzilla, Janet; Kitiashvili, Irina; Sadykov, Viacheslav; Bain, H. M.; Dierckxsens, M.; Mays, M. L.; Tadesse, Tilaye; Lee, Kerry T.; Semones, E.; Luhmann, J. G.; Núñez, Marlon; White, S. M.; Kahler, S. W.; Ling, A. G.; Smart, D. F.; Shea, M. A.; Tenishev, V.; Boubrahimi, Soukaïna Filali; Aydin, Berkay; Martens, Petrus C.; Angryk, Rafal A.; Marsh, Michael; Dalla, S.; Crosby, Norma; Schwadron, N. A.; Kozarev, Kamen; Gorby, M.; Young, Matthew A.; Laurenza, M.; Cliver, E. W.; Piersanti, Mirko; Stumpo, Mirko; Benella, Simone; Papaioannou, Athanasios; Anastasiadis, Anastasios; Sandberg, Ingmar; Georgoulis, Manolis K.; Ji, Anli; Kempton, Dustin J.; Pandey, Chetraj; Li, Gang; Hu, Junxiang; Zank, G. P.; Lavasa, Eleni; Giannopoulos, Giorgos; Falconer, D. A.; Kadadi, Yash; Fernandes, Ian; Dayeh, M. A.; Muñoz-Jaramillo, Andrés; Chatterjee, Subhamoy; Moreland, Kimberly D.; Соколов, И. В.; Roussev, I. I.; Taktakishvili, A.; Effenberger, Frederic; Gombosi, T. I.; Huang, Zhenguang; Zhao, Lulu; Wijsen, Nicolas; Aran, A.; Poedts, Stefaan; Kouloumvakos, A.; Paassilita, Miikka; Vainio, Rami; Белов, А. В.; Eroshenko, E.; Abunina, M. A.; Аbunin, А. А.; Balch, C. C.; Malandraki, O.; Karavolos, Michalis; Heber, B.; Labrenz, Johannes; Kühl, P.; Kosovichev, A. G.; Oria, Vincent; Nita, Gelu; Illarionov, Egor; O’Keefe, Patrick M.; Jiang, Yucheng; Fereira, Sheldon H.; Ali, Aatiya; Paouris, Evangelos; Aminalragia-Giamini, Sigiava; Jiggens, Piers; Jin, Meng; Lee, Christina O.; Palmerio, Erika; Bruno, A.; Kasapis, Spiridon; Wang, Xiantong; Chen, Yang; Sanahuja, B.; Lario, D.; Jacobs, Carla; Strauss, Du Toit; Steyn, Ruhann; Berg, Jabus den; Swalwell, Bill; Waterfall, Charlotte; Nedal, Mohamed; Miteva, Rositsa; Dechev, M.; Zucca, Pietro; Engell, Alec; Maze, Brianna; Farmer, Harold; Kerber, Thuha; Barnett, Ben J.; Loomis, Jeremy; Grey, Nathan; Thompson, B. J.; Linker, J. A.; Caplan, Ronald M.; Downs, Cooper; Török, Tibor; Lionello, R.; Titov, V. S.; Zhang, Ming; Hosseinzadeh, Pouya

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2022.08.006

Cited by 59 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 226 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To achieve model forecasts with actionable lead times [e.g., 2 days, Abt Associates (2019)] for the aviation industry, research is required to better understand, model, and forecast SEP events. At present, SEP models running in real-time with the goal of forecasting are typically based on correlations between solar phenomena (e.g., X-ray flare intensity and fluence, coronal mass ejections, type II and IV radio bursts, active region parameterizations) and SEP occurrence, see Whitman et al (2022b) and references within. Empirical models such as UMASEP and RELeASE can achieve probability of detection scores between 60%-90% with false alarm ratios of 12%-30%, with lead times of tens of minutes to a couple 10.3389/fspas.2023.1149014 of hours (Malandraki and Crosby, 2018;Núñez, 2022).…”

Section: Solar Energetic Particle Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All the challenges associated with SEP forecasting are not covered fully here, except to highlight the need for such capabilities. See the white papers by Whitman et al (2022b) titled Advancing Solar Energetic Particle Forecasting Burkepile et al (2022) titled Helio 2050: Observations for Improving SEP Forecasts and Warnings for more perspectives on this topic 2 .…”

Section: Solar Energetic Particle Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improved space weather observations and modeling for aviation radiation

Bain

Onsager

Mertens

et al. 2023

Front. Astron. Space Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years there has been a growing interest from the aviation community for space weather radiation forecasts tailored to the needs of the aviation industry. In 2019 several space weather centers began issuing advisories for the International Civil Aviation Organization alerting users to enhancements in the radiation environment at aviation flight levels. Due to a lack of routine observations, radiation modeling is required to specify the dose rates experienced by flight crew and passengers. While mature models exist, support for key observational inputs and further modeling advancements are needed. Observational inputs required from the ground-based neutron monitor network must be financially supported for research studies and operations to ensure real-time data is available for forecast operations and actionable end user decision making. An improved understanding of the geomagnetic field is required to reduce dose rate uncertainties in regions close to the open/closed geomagnetic field boundary, important for flights such as those between the continental US and Europe which operate in this region. Airborne radiation measurements, which are crucial for model validation and improvement, are lacking, particularly during solar energetic particle events. New measurement campaigns must be carried out to ensure progress and in situ atmospheric radiation measurements made available for real-time situational awareness. Furthermore, solar energetic particle forecasting must be improved to move aviation radiation nowcasts to forecasts in order to meet customer requirements for longer lead times for planning and mitigation.

show abstract

Section: Solar Energetic Particle Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Solar Energetic Particle Forecastsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved space weather observations and modeling for aviation radiation

Bain

Onsager

Mertens

et al. 2023

Front. Astron. Space Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, many SEP forecasting models have been developed towards an operational purpose in the last decade. These models are based on different approaches including physics-based models, observational-based empirical models, machine learning-based models, and mixed-model approaches [42]. Therefore, timely forecast of SEP-induced radiation on the surface and subsurface of the Moon will also be possible combined with prediction of SEP fluxes in the vicinity of the Moon (or Earth).…”

Section: Mission Schedule For Radiation-safe Lunar Basesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiation-Safe Human Bases on the Moon

Dobynde

Guo

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human visits to the Moon will be the next milestone for human space exploration. During deep space crewed missions, radiation risk is an important and unavoidable risk for astronauts' health, especially for their long-term stays at future lunar stations. In this work, we present the first protocol of a lunar mission schedule given space radiation constraints. We use the recently developed and validated "Radiation Environment and Dose at the Moon (REDMoon)" model [1] to calculate radiation dose rates due to omnipresent Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and sporadic Solar Energetic Particles (SEP) as well as the secondary particles induced by them at the surface and subsurface of the Moon. We evaluate the biologically-weighted body effective dose rate, its variation with solar activity, and its dependence on the shielding thickness, including both the lunar soil shielding and the module aluminum shielding. For surface bases assuming a historical solar activity period (e.g., that between year 2000 and 2020), we obtain the background GCR exposure rate to be 20-40 cSv . year-1 considering different solar modulation conditions and various Al-shielding thicknesses of the module. In comparison, the average radiation exposure for an astronaut in International Space Station at low-Earth orbit is ≈20 cSv . year-1 in the middle of solar cycle in 2006 [2]. Large SEP events throughout this period are also accounted for and some single-event effective dose may exceed the annual GCR level if shielding is insufficient. We thus consider potential bases utilizing in-situ lunar regolith for shielding protection. We investigate different combinations of depth and Al-shielding for lunar base scenarios to derive mission schedules which allow the persistent presence of crew operation on the Moon. With our schedule throughout the aforementioned period, the radiation exposure is kept under certain recommended levels. As a first protocol, our work provide valuable radiation mitigation considerations for future human lunar bases and mission cost estimates.

show abstract

“…In a recent paper, Whitman et al. (2022) reviewed a whopping 34 models that are attempting to predict solar energetic particle intensities using a variety of different techniques with varying levels of success. We too have had some success in “predicting” historical energetic particle events as illustrated in Figure 6.…”

Section: Time To Grow Upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living With Cosmic Radiation

Strauss

2022

Perspectives of Earth and Spac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last two decades of cosmic ray research have been eventful, to say the least. The Voyager spacecraft explored the outer‐most regions of the heliosphere and eventually left our local astrosphere to explore the galaxy. At the same time, the Parker Solar Probe spacecraft, amongst many other exciting recent missions, is exploring the inner‐most regions of the heliosphere and probing the source of the solar wind. I have been lucky enough to experience these paradigm‐shifting observations as a post‐graduate student and thereafter as a young researcher. In this paper, I give a firsthand account of the last two decades' cosmic ray research from the perspective of a young researcher from South Africa.

show abstract

Review of Solar Energetic Particle Prediction Models

Cited by 59 publications

References 226 publications

Improved space weather observations and modeling for aviation radiation

Improved space weather observations and modeling for aviation radiation

Radiation-Safe Human Bases on the Moon

Living With Cosmic Radiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About