Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing such professional
and detailed comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort devoted to evaluating
our work and offering valuable suggestions, which have significantly helped us
improve the quality of our manuscript.

We acknowledge and adhere to the journal's current submission protocol, which

requires the initial submission of our responses to the reviewers' comments prior to the
upload of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have provided our detailed, point-
by-point responses below. We will promptly upload the revised manuscript upon
receiving confirmation that we may proceed, or as otherwise instructed by the journal's
guidelines.

Sincerely,

Yi Wang

Reviewer 1

The dayside magnetopause constitutes a critical interface for the injection of

energy and matter from the solar wind into Earth's magnetosphere. Establishing
the spatial configuration of the dayside magnetopause is therefore of paramount
importance. The manuscript under review introduces a time-dependent three-
dimensional dayside magnetopause model which has been shown to offer superior
accuracy over existing static models. I recommend this manuscript for publication
following some minor revisions.

1. Title Specificity: Given that the model's applicability is confined to the dayside
region, it would be more precise to amend the title to "A Time-Dependent Three-
Dimensional Dayside Magnetopause Model". This change will better reflect the
scope and focus of the research presented.
R: The title has been revised to “A Time-Dependent Three-Dimensional Dayside
Magnetopause Model Based on Quasi-Elastodynamic Theory” as you suggested.

2. Clarification of Mathematical Derivations: The proposed magnetopause model

incorporates several complex equations (equations 3-6). However, the authors
have not provided sufficient explanation regarding the derivation of these
expressions. For the benefit of readers who may wish to understand or further
develop the model, it would be valuable to include a more detailed exposition of
how these equations were formulated. This could take the form of additional text
or figures within the manuscript.
R: We have added the following changes:
Line 268-274 (for equation 3): According to Olson (1969), who provided a detailed
representation of λ for various tilt angles (Ф = 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°) on a 15° × 15° grid of
θ and φ values, the dipole tilt angle significantly alters the fundamental behaviour of λ,
with varying effects on θ and φ. This influence is more pronounced in higher latitude
regions (θ > 30°). Building on previous work by Gu, et al. (2023) , in which
λ =2.44 − 0.4θ 2 + ϕ 2 , and incorporating the effect of Ф at different positions of the
magnetopause λ(θ, φ), we derive a more precise expression for λ, specifically tailored
to our model, as presented in Equation (3):

Line 281-287 (for equation 4) : In our earlier study (Gu, et al. 2023), the magnetic
field of the current system, denoted as Bc(r), did not account for variations in θ and ϕ.
This limitation is addressed in the present study. The fundamental form of Bc0(r,θ,ϕ) ,
incorporating these angular dependencies, is introduced in Equation (4). The current
system exhibits asymmetry effects, consistent with magnetospheric magnetic field
models such as T96 and T01(Tsyganenko 2001; Tsyganenko 1996). These models
incorporate dawn-dusk asymmetry in the magnetospheric current, reflecting the
influence of these angular dependencies.

Line 289-296 (for equation 5): In our previous work, Bc(r) was defined as a piecewise
function of Pdyn, which could yield discontinuous and non-physical results at the
transition points (Gu, et al. 2023). To address this limitation, we now consider the
impact of Pdyn in a continuous form, eliminating the piecewise dependence.
Furthermore, the impact of the IMF Bz on the magnetopause position is directionally
dependent, with a southward IMF triggering dayside magnetic reconnection—an
essential process already incorporated in most existing models (Aubry, et al. 1970;
Dungey 1961; Fairfield 1971). To quantify this effect, we adopt a hyperbolic tangent
function, similar to that in Shue, et al. (1998). Finally, by considering the combined
effects of both IMF Bz and Pdyn, Bc is expressed as in Equation (5):

Line 304-311 (for equation 6): The damping terms in our model consist of a position-
dependent dragging effect from the ionosphere Fd = kΣ p Bp2 rmp and a global non-ideal
viscous effect FN = η rmp / rmp , consistent with our previous work(Chen and Wolf 1999;
Gu, et al. 2023; Wang and Chen 2008). We set Bp=3×10-5 T to represent the
approximate ionospheric magnetic field in the polar region, while Σp =3.4 S serves as
the equivalent Pedersen conductivity. The viscous coefficient is artificially set to η
=2×10-8. As defined in Equation (6), the position-dependent mapping factor k is
empirically calibrated based on the magnetopause location (r,θ,φ), increasing when the
magnetopause compresses and decreasing with increasing latitude and longitude.
Aubry, M. P., C. T. Russell and M. G. J. J. o. G. R. Kivelson (1970). "Inward motion of the
magnetopause before a substorm." 75: 7018-7031.
Chen, C. X. and R. A. Wolf (1999). "Theory of thin-filament motion in Earth's magnetotail and its
application to bursty bulk flows." Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics 104(A7): 14613-
14626.
Dungey, J. W. (1961). "Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones." Physical Review Letters
6(2): 47-48.
Fairfield, D. H. (1971). "Average and unusual locations of the Earth's magnetopause and bow shock."
76(28): 6700-6716.
Gu, Y. X., Y. Wang, F. S. Wei, X. S. Feng, X. J. Song, B. Y. Wang, P. B. Zuo, C. W. Jiang, X. J. Xu and
Z. L. Zhou (2023). "Quasi-elastodynamic Processes Involved in the Interaction between Solar Wind and
Magnetosphere." The Astrophysical Journal 946(2): 102.
Olson, W. P. (1969). "The shape of the tilted magnetopause." 74(24): 5642-5651.
Shue, J.-H., P. Song, C. T. Russell, J. T. Steinberg, J. K. Chao, G. Zastenker, O. L. Vaisberg, S. Kokubun,
H. J. Singer, T. R. Detman and H. Kawano (1998). "Magnetopause location under extreme solar wind
conditions." 103(A8): 17691-17700.
Wang, Y. and C. X. Chen (2008). "Numerical Simulation of Radial Plasma Transport in the Saturn's
Magnetosphere." Chinese Journal of Geophysics 51: 635-642.

Reviewer 2

The paper introduces a time-dependent three-dimensional magnetopause model,

named the POS (Position-Oscillation-Surface wave) model, based on quasi-
elastodynamic theory, addressing limitations of existing time-independent models.
It emphasizes the dynamic behavior of the magnetopause, which includes
oscillations and surface wave-like structures in response to solar wind variations.
The model was validated against 38,887 observed magnetopause crossing events,
achieving a root-mean-square error of 0.768 Earth radii, marking an 18.7%
improvement over five widely used models. Notably, the POS model showed
enhanced accuracy under disturbed solar wind conditions and in specific
magnetopause regions. The study highlights the need for new strategies to balance
dynamic representation and computational feasibility in magnetopause modeling.
The paper is well written, and I have few concerns to be addressed before the paper
will be acceptable for publication.

Lines 61 – 69: I would suggest the authors to include the results presented by
Collado-Vega et al., (2023) in this discussion. They compared the magnetopause
predictions obtained by different MHD models, showing the discrepancies for
the standoff positions. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003212
R: As suggested, we have added the references and expanded the Discussion and
Conclusion sections to include the MHD-related aspects.
Please see Lines 71 – 74: Collado-Vega et al. (2023) compared the magnetopause
predictions obtained by different MHD models, showing the discrepancies for the
standoff position. Their analysis also specifically addressed the impact of extreme solar
wind conditions, which are known to cause space weather hazards, on the
magnetopause.

Lines 147 – 150: Are the final dataset (38,887) single magnetopause crossings?
When all five THEMIS/Cluster satellite cross the magnetopause in a short
time interval, it is counted as one or multiple crossings? What is the maximum
time interval between two consecutive MCEs to be considered redundant?
This information is not clear in the text.
R: Yes, they are treated as single MCEs in our calculations. Initially, we collected a
dataset of 89,911 MCEs, many of which were duplicates. To rigorously validate the
predictive capability of our model, we excluded simultaneous crossings on the same
satellite. Specifically, two consecutive MCEs occurring within 3 seconds (the
resolution of WIND/3DP) are considered redundant. Therefore, if the five
THEMIS/Cluster satellites cross the magnetopause within a short time interval (if it
exceeds 3 seconds) they are counted as multiple crossings.

To avoid potential misunderstandings, we have revised the text to clarify this point.
Please see Lines 151 – 154: After excluding redundant crossings (i.e., those occurring
simultaneously on the same satellite), invalid data (i.e., crossings without valid
upstream solar wind observations), and nightside MCEs (where XGSM < 0 RE), a total
of 38,018 THEMIS MCEs and 869 CLUSTER MCEs (see Figure 2)are selected for this
study.

Line 153: Please clarify the 300 s condition (why 300?).

R: Since solar wind observations at L1 do not always directly reflect conditions in the
near-Earth environment, and real-time measurements closer to Earth are limited, it is
necessary to establish a reasonable threshold for matching upstream data. As
illustrated, the approximate five-minute (300s) transit time from the bow shock to the
 magnetopause (Plaschke, et al. 2013) provides a practical guideline for this threshold.
The 300s threshold adopted here strikes a balance between maintaining data quality,
capturing a sufficient number of relevant MCEs, and ensuring computational
efficiency.

In our work, we segmented the solar wind data from the L1 point into 1-hour intervals
and applied a sliding average method to match the upstream data with observations in
front of the magnetopause. A 300s potential error window was set for the time shift
from L1 to the magnetopause, consistent with Plaschke, et al. (2013). Accurately time-
shifting these events is often challenging due to the complexities of solar wind
interactions and uncertainties in propagation models. Given the large size of our MCE
dataset, limiting the analysis to propagation times below 300s allows us to focus on
events with a clearer and more reliable connection between the upstream solar wind
and the observed MCEs.

To avoid confusion, we have added the following clarification:

Please see Line 156-157: The 300s threshold is set as the potential error window for the
time shift from L1 to the magnetopause.

Line 153 – 155: The one-hour average velocity is based on which assumption?
Is it reasonable to use the same 1h average for all solar cycle phase? How
different/better is this methodology from the time shift provided by OMNI service?
How much better is Wind data compared to ACE or other available solar wind
monitors?

R: The one-hour average velocity is based on the typical propagation time of the solar
wind from L1 to the magnetopause. In our study, we use a one-hour observation
window and a 3-second iteration step to derive the better numerical predictions, while
parameters can be adjustable (e.g., a 30-minute or 2-hour window, and an iteration step
ranging from 3 seconds to 1 minute). The one-hour window serves as a sliding average
that fits well for both solar maximum and solar minimum conditions and it will be
further calibrated using a maximum acceptable mismatch of 300 seconds.

Accurately determining the solar wind’s transport time from L1 to the magnetopause
(δt) is critical for analyzing magnetospheric responses. Shue, et al. (1997) employed a
constant time shift, while Chao, et al. (2002) assumed uniform solar wind velocity and
calculated δt as S/<v>. Lin, et al. (2010) further refined this approach by matching
magnetic field and plasma data from L1 to magnetosheath satellite observations. Given
the difficulty of obtaining joint observations in the near-Earth region as meticulously
as Lin, et al. (2010) and the large size of our MCE dataset, we adopted a two-step
approach in our work (Gu, et al. 2023). First, we determined δt using the method of
Chao, et al. (2002), then refined it by applying a sliding velocity method over a 1-hour
window, with a maximum acceptable mismatch of 300 seconds.
OMNI data can directly provide the time shift. However, compared to Wind, the OMNI
dataset suffers from more frequent data gaps and a lower temporal resolution. This
limits its usefulness for our time-varying model, which benefits from a continuous,
high-quality data stream and high temporal resolution.

Both WIND and ACE provide steady, long-term measurements, but WIND is
particularly favored due to its superior data quality (e.g., less data gaps). Additionally,
WIND’s higher resolution (3 seconds for plasma and 0.092 seconds for magnetic field)
makes it more suitable for capturing dynamic magnetopause changes compared to
ACE’s coarser resolution (64 seconds for plasma and 16 seconds for magnetic field). A
key distinction between time-dependent and time-independent models lies in their
treatment of solar wind-magnetopause interactions. Time-independent models establish
a direct point-to-point relationship between solar wind conditions and magnetopause
responses, while time-dependent models capture the time-varying nature of this
relationship. High temporal resolution is important for discerning the time-dependent
aspects of magnetopause dynamics. The continuous, high-resolution data from WIND
enable our model to discern time-dependent features of magnetopause dynamics.

Additionally, we provide a table below to show the models’ prediction accuracy by

using OMNI data. You can see that although the lower time resolution of OMNI results
in a slight decrease in prediction accuracy compared to WIND, the POS model remains
superior to the other models.

Table Models’ prediction accuracy for higher latitude and flank regions by using OMNI data
|θ| ≥ 30 ° |φ| ≥ 60 °
Model name (7,320 MCEs) (5,321 MCEs)
<Δ>(RE) ẟ (Δ)/ΔPOS Δ(RE) ẟ (Δ)/ΔPOS
PR96 1.381 +18.6% 1.601 +24.7%
S97 1.402 +20.4% 1.654 +28.8%
S98 1.416 +21.6% 1.669 +30.0%
C02 1.299 +11.6% 1.488 +15.9%
L10 1.335 +14.7% 1.602 +24.8%
POS 1.164 Average:17.4% 1.284 Average:24.8%

Based on the reasons above, we have also implemented the following changes:
Line 146-147: The WIND spacecraft, launched into orbit around Earth in 1994 and
relocated to Lagrange L1 point after 2004, provides continuous, high-quality in-situ
solar wind observations.
Line 154-160: The time shift (ẟt) between WIND to the satellite MCE is determined by
comparing the time of each crossing (t1) with the probable arrival time of corresponding
solar wind observation from WIND (t0 + ẟt), satisfying (t0 + ẟt)– t1 < 300 s. The 300s
threshold is set as the potential error window for the time shift from L1 to the
magnetopause. ẟt is calculated as (L1-r)/ <vx>, L1 (L1=235 RE) is the distance from
the Earth to the L1 point, r denotes the radial position of the magnetopause, and <vx>
is the 1-hour sliding average of the solar wind velocity in the x-component (Chao et al.,
2002).

Line 222: There is no n (normal) indicated in the equation 2.

R: Thank you for pointing out this error. It was indeed a redundant description. We have
deleted the unnecessary content " n is the normal direction of magnetopause ", as the
spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ) are already clearly defined.

Please, check. Line 255: typo “… three-dimensional structure (Formisano et

al., 1979; …”.

R: We have revised the descriptions into:
Line 256-259: “Several models (Boardsen et al., 2000; Formisano et al., 1979; Lin
et al., 2010) have been developed to investigate the influence of Ф (the angle between
Earth's magnetic axis and the solar wind direction) on the magnetopause's position and
shape, offering valuable insights into the magnetosphere's three-dimensional structure.”

Line 292: “two terms on the right side of the equation …”. Suggest labelling the
equation.
We have labelled the terms.
Line 302-309: The damping terms in our model consist of a position-dependent
dragging effect from the ionosphere Fd = kΣ p Bp2 rmp and a global non-ideal viscous
effect FN = η rmp / rmp , consistent with our previous work(Chen and Wolf 1999; Gu, et
al. 2023; Wang and Chen 2008). We set Bp=3×10-5 T to represent the approximate
ionospheric magnetic field in the polar region, while Σp =3.4 S serves as the equivalent
Pedersen conductivity. The viscous coefficient is artificially set to η =2×10-8. As
defined in Equation (6), the position-dependent mapping factor k is empirically
calibrated based on the magnetopause location (r,θ,φ), increasing when the
magnetopause compresses and decreasing with increasing latitude and longitude.

Line 314 – 317: Have the authors analyzed the results for the flank regions
independently? Is there any asymmetry in the results?
R: We have examined the flank regions independently, and Figure 6(b) clearly reveals
asymmetry in their responses. Although our primary focus was not on emphasizing this
asymmetry, the figure shows that the dawn and dusk flanks respond differently to solar
wind variations. The dashed and dotted lines, representing ±φ, illustrate these distinct
responses.

Among the empirical models we compared, only Lin, et al. (2010) and our model
incorporate three-dimensional asymmetry. Lin, et al. (2010) assume that φ influences
the flare angle of the magnetopause, while in our work, asymmetry is incorporated
through Bc0(r,θ,ϕ), as shown in Equation (4). This basic form, representing the current
system, is derived from (Choe and Beard 1974a; Choe and Beard 1974b; Matsuoka, et
al. 1995), where Bsurf and Btail are functions of r, θ, and ϕ. Additionally, other models
such as T96 and T01 (Tsyganenko 2001; Tsyganenko 1996) have incorporated
symmetry in the magnetopause current and validated the differences in closure paths
through satellite observational data.

And we have added additional description as:

Line 280-283 (for equation 4) : In our earlier study (Gu et al., 2023), the magnetic
field of the current system, denoted as Bc0 (r), did not account for variations in θ and ϕ.
This limitation is addressed in the present study. The fundamental form of Bc0 (r,θ,ϕ) ,
incorporating these angular dependencies, is introduced in Equation (4). The current
system exhibits asymmetry effects, consistent with other models such as T96 and T01
(Tsyganenko, 1996; Tsyganenko, 2001). These models also incorporate dawn-dusk
asymmetry in the magnetospheric current, reflecting the influence of these angular
dependencies.

Lines 363 – 382: Figure and the following discussion. Are the authors
projecting the THEMIS position at the subsolar region? In this case would not
be more interesting to calculate the magnetopause model results at the real
THEMIS location? On my understanding, when the authors analyze the
projection of the spacecraft position at the subsolar point, they are assuming
the magnetopause is “shrinking” and could be neglecting any wave motion
along the surface caused by a pressure pulse. Please, make a comment on that
point.

R: Thank you for raising this important point regarding the spacecraft positions. We
clarify that for the statistical comparison of model predictions (Tables 3 and 4), the
38,887 THEMIS MCEs are not projected to the subsolar region (Line 315-316). The
model results are calculated at the actual orbital locations of the spacecraft during each
MCE, ensuring a direct and accurate comparison.

In the case studies presented in Figures 5 and 6, however, the spacecraft

positions are projected. This projection is solely for visualization purposes, to improve
the clarity of the figures when displaying multiple satellite observations and their
relationship to the modeled magnetopause. This is a common practice in case study
presentations.

As you mentioned, the magnetopause's response to a pressure pulse can be complex,

including in-phase, out-of-phase, and resonant motions, depending on the frequency of
the pressure variations, as discussed in our previous work (Gu, et al. 2023). While an
extensive discussion of this phenomenon would detract from the focus of this article,
which is primarily model-oriented.

Lines 425 – 426: Figure 6 and the following discussion. The authors claim that
the POS model’s predictions are more effective than C02 model. However,
the results on Figure 6b are considering θ = 0 and the spacecraft locations
are not. Also, in comparison with the satellite positions both models show very
close results (by visual analysis) on figure 6C, the POS is closer on figure 6d
and C02 is closer in figure 6e. I suggest the authors to point out these
discrepancies.
R: As you suggested, to provide a clearer comparison, we have labeled the errors in our
case study and narrowed the plot range, thereby highlighting our model’s capabilities
more effectively (see Figure 6).

Figure 1. A surface wave-like structure in X-Y magnetopause flank region. (a) The
corresponding solar wind dynamic pressure(red) and IMF Bz component(black), (b) The
red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple and black colours represent the initial magnetopause
positions at φ =±80°, ±70°, ±60°, ±50°, ±40°, ±30°, ±20°, ±10°, 0°,
 respectively (dot line is the corresponding negative value of φ). The asterisk in purple
(THEMIS-A), yellow (THEMIS-D) and red (THEMIS-E) indicate the satellite observation of
MCEs projected onto the X-Y plane; (c) (d) (e) The shape of magnetopause in the X-Y plane
at different time predicted by POS model (red dash line) and C02 model (green dot line), the
asterisks represent the THEMIS MCEs positions mapped to X-Y plane.

Discussion and Conclusion

How does the POS model respond to transient events formed at the bow shock
or in the magnetosheath when they reach the magnetosphere? See Sibeck et
al., (2022)https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030704 and Silveira C Sibeck (2023)
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JA031362 .
R: Like many other magnetopause models, the POS model's response to transient events
originating at the bow shock or in the magnetosheath is primarily driven by upstream
solar wind observations (typically from L1 or pre-bow shock measurements). The POS
model, in its current formulation, treats the magnetosheath as an intermediary region
between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. Unlike many MHD simulations, POS
model does not explicitly resolve the detailed physical processes and disturbances
within the magnetosheath itself.

However, we have explored how the POS model responds to jets forming downstream
of a quasi-parallel bow shock, as described by Silveira and Sibeck (2023a). In this
scenario (illustrated in the figure below), the POS model predicts a magnetopause
position (yellow) that seeming aligns well with MHD simulation (BATS-R-US). While
the current model treats the magnetosheath as an intermediary, incorporating more
detailed magnetosheath physics is a promising direction for future model development.
Is POS model capable to catch return magnetic fluxes from nightside to dayside
due to nightside magnetic reconnection? See Silveira et al., (2024)
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JA032166.
R: The current version of the POS model focuses primarily on the interaction between
the solar wind and the dayside magnetosphere and does not explicitly model the effects
of nightside magnetic reconnection. Nevertheless, we have also investigated the case
study in Silveira, et al. (2024a). As illustrated below, the current version of the POS
model (yellow) predicts a magnetopause position that appears to align well with the
MHD simulation (BATS-R-US), yet it shows a relatively gentle response to this
phenomenon.
As with the previous comment regarding transient events in the magnetosheath, these
two limitations highlight a potential area for future model development. Moreover, as
the only time-dependent three-dimensional magnetopause model currently available,
we are considering writing a separate paper in the future that compares the
magnetopause's responses to various disturbances, as well as contrasting these
responses with those predicted by MHD and other models.

Here, we have added the following proposals for improvement:

Lines 476-478: Moreover, magnetosheath transient effects and other perturbations on
the magnetopause position are not addressed (Sibeck, et al. 2022; Silveira and Sibeck
2023b; Silveira, et al. 2024b).
References
Aubry, M. P., C. T. Russell, and M. G. J. J. o. G. R. Kivelson, Inward motion of the magnetopause before
a substorm, (1970),75: 7018-7031
Boardsen, S. A., T. E. Eastman, T. Sotirelis, and J. L. Green, An empirical model of the high-latitude
magnetopause, (2000),105(A10): 23193-23219
Chao, J., D. Wu, C.-H. Lin, et al. (2002a), Models for the size and shape of the Earth's magnetopause
and bow shock, paper presented at Cospar Colloquia series, Elsevier.
Chao, J. K., D. Wu, C. H. Lin, et al., Models for the size and shape of the Earth's magnetopause and bow
shock, COSPAR Colloquia Series (2002b),12: 127-135
Chen, C. X., and R. A. Wolf, Theory of thin-filament motion in Earth's magnetotail and its application to
bursty bulk flows, Journal of Geophysical Research-Space Physics (1999),104(A7): 14613-14626
Collado-Vega, Y. M., P. Dredger, R. E. Lopez, et al., Magnetopause Standoff Position Changes and
Geosynchronous Orbit Crossings: Models and Observations, Space Weather (2023),21(6):
e2022SW003212
Dungey, J. W., Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones, Physical Review Letters (1961),6(2):
47-48
Fairfield, D. H., Average and unusual locations of the Earth's magnetopause and bow shock,
(1971),76(28): 6700-6716
Formisano, V., V. Domingo, and K.-P. Wenzel, The three-dimensional shape of the magnetopause,
Planetary and Space Science (1979),27: 1137-1149
Gu, Y. X., Y. Wang, F. S. Wei, et al., Quasi-elastodynamic Processes Involved in the Interaction between
Solar Wind and Magnetosphere, The Astrophysical Journal (2023),946(2): 102
Lin, R. L., X. X. Zhang, S. Q. Liu, et al., A three-dimensional asymmetric magnetopause model,
(2010),115(A4):
Olson, W. P., The shape of the tilted magnetopause, (1969),74(24): 5642-5651
Plaschke, F., H. Hietala, and V. Angelopoulos, Anti-sunward high-speed jets in the subsolar
magnetosheath, Annales Geophysicae (2013),31(10): 1877-1889
Shue, J.-H., P. Song, C. T. Russell, et al., Magnetopause location under extreme solar wind conditions,
(1998),103(A8): 17691-17700
Shue, J. H., J. K. Chao, H. C. Fu, et al., A New Functional form to Study the Solar Wind Control of the
Magnetopause Size and Shape, Journal of Geophysical Research (1997),102(A5): 9497
Silveira, M. V. D., and D. G. Sibeck, A Linear Velocity Gradient in the Subsolar Magnetosheath, Journal
of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (2023),128(5): e2023JA031362
Silveira, M. V. D., D. G. Sibeck, F. R. Cardoso, and J. W. Gjerloev, Tracking the Subsolar Bow Shock
and Magnetopause: Applying the Magnetosheath Velocity Gradient Method, Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics (2024),129(4): e2023JA032166
Wang, Y., and C. X. Chen, Numerical Simulation of Radial Plasma Transport in the Saturn's
Magnetosphere, Chinese Journal of Geophysics (2008),51: 635-642