MESSENGER Mission Overview

The MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft, launched on August 3, 2004, is nearing the halfway point on its voyage to become the first probe to orbit the planet Mercury. The mission, spacecraft, and payload are designed to answer six fundamental questions regarding the innermost planet: (1) What planetary formational processes led to Mercury’s high ratio of metal to silicate? (2) What is the geological history of Mercury? (3) What are the nature and origin of Mercury’s magnetic field? (4) What are the structure and state of Mercury’s core? (5) What are the radar-reflective materials at Mercury’s poles? (6) What are the important volatile species and their sources and sinks near Mercury? The mission has focused to date on commissioning the spacecraft and science payload as well as planning for flyby and orbital operations. The second Venus flyby (June 2007) will complete final rehearsals for the Mercury flyby operations in January and October 2008 and September 2009. Those flybys will provide opportunities to image the hemisphere of the planet not seen by Mariner 10, obtain high-resolution spectral observations with which to map surface mineralogy and assay the exosphere, and carry out an exploration of the magnetic field and energetic particle distribution in the near-Mercury environment. The orbital phase, beginning on March 18, 2011, is a one-year-long, near-polar-orbital observational campaign that will address all mission goals. The orbital phase will complete global imaging, yield detailed surface compositional and topographic data over the northern hemisphere, determine the geometry of Mercury’s internal magnetic field and magnetosphere, ascertain the radius and physical state of Mercury’s outer core, assess the nature of Mercury’s polar deposits, and inventory exospheric neutrals and magnetospheric charged particle species over a range of dynamic conditions. Answering the questions that have guided the MESSENGER mission will expand our understanding of the formation and evolution of the terrestrial planets as a family.     

The Surface of Mercury as Seen by Mariner 10

The Mariner 10 spacecraft made three flyby passes of Mercury in 1974 and 1975. It imaged a little less than half of the surface and discovered Mercury had an intrinsic magnetic field. This paper briefly describes the surface of Mercury as seen by Mariner 10 as a backdrop to the discoveries made since then by ground-based observations and the optimistic anticipation of new discoveries by MESSENGER and BepiColombo spacecraft that are scheduled for encounter in the next decade.     

The Magnetic Field of Mercury

The magnetic field strength of Mercury at the planet’s surface is approximately 1% that of Earth’s surface field. This comparatively low field strength presents a number of challenges, both theoretically to understand how it is generated and observationally to distinguish the internal field from that due to the solar wind interaction. Conversely, the small field also means that Mercury offers an important opportunity to advance our understanding both of planetary magnetic field generation and magnetosphere-solar wind interactions. The observations from the Mariner 10 magnetometer in 1974 and 1975, and the MESSENGER Magnetometer and plasma instruments during the probe’s first two flybys of Mercury on 14 January and 6 October 2008, provide the basis for our current knowledge of the internal field. The external field arising from the interaction of the magnetosphere with the solar wind is more prominent near Mercury than for any other magnetized planet in the Solar System, and particular attention is therefore paid to indications in the observations of deficiencies in our understanding of the external field. The second MESSENGER flyby occurred over the opposite hemisphere from the other flybys, and these newest data constrain the tilt of the planetary moment from the planet’s spin axis to be less than 5°. Considered as a dipole field, the moment is in the range 240 to 270 nT-R _M ³ , where R _M is Mercury’s radius. Multipole solutions for the planetary field yield a smaller dipole term, 180 to 220 nT-R _M ³ , and higher-order terms that together yield an equatorial surface field from 250 to 290 nT. From the spatial distribution of the fit residuals, the equatorial data are seen to reflect a weaker northward field and a strongly radial field, neither of which can be explained by a centered-dipole matched to the field measured near the pole by Mariner 10. This disparity is a major factor controlling the higher-order terms in the multipole solutions. The residuals are not largest close to the planet, and when considered in magnetospheric coordinates the residuals indicate the presence of a cross-tail current extending to within 0.5R _M altitude on the nightside. A near-tail current with a density of 0.1 μA/m² could account for the low field intensities recorded near the equator. In addition, the MESSENGER flybys include the first plasma observations from Mercury and demonstrate that solar wind plasma is present at low altitudes, below 500 km. Although we can be confident in the dipole-only moment estimates, the data in hand remain subject to ambiguities for distinguishing internal from external contributions. The anticipated observations from orbit at Mercury, first from MESSENGER beginning in March 2011 and later from the dual-spacecraft BepiColombo mission, will be essential to elucidate the higher-order structure in the magnetic field of Mercury that will reveal the telltale signatures of the physics responsible for its generation.     

MESSENGER: Exploring Mercury’s Magnetosphere

The MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) mission to Mercury offers our first opportunity to explore this planet’s miniature magnetosphere since the brief flybys of Mariner 10. Mercury’s magnetosphere is unique in many respects. The magnetosphere of Mercury is among the smallest in the solar system; its magnetic field typically stands off the solar wind only ∼1000 to 2000 km above the surface. For this reason there are no closed drift paths for energetic particles and, hence, no radiation belts. Magnetic reconnection at the dayside magnetopause may erode the subsolar magnetosphere, allowing solar wind ions to impact directly the regolith. Inductive currents in Mercury’s interior may act to modify the solar wind interaction by resisting changes due to solar wind pressure variations. Indeed, observations of these induction effects may be an important source of information on the state of Mercury’s interior. In addition, Mercury’s magnetosphere is the only one with its defining magnetic flux tubes rooted beneath the solid surface as opposed to an atmosphere with a conductive ionospheric layer. This lack of an ionosphere is probably the underlying reason for the brevity of the very intense, but short-lived, ∼1–2 min, substorm-like energetic particle events observed by Mariner 10 during its first traversal of Mercury’s magnetic tail. Because of Mercury’s proximity to the sun, 0.3–0.5 AU, this magnetosphere experiences the most extreme driving forces in the solar system. All of these factors are expected to produce complicated interactions involving the exchange and recycling of neutrals and ions among the solar wind, magnetosphere, and regolith. The electrodynamics of Mercury’s magnetosphere are expected to be equally complex, with strong forcing by the solar wind, magnetic reconnection, and pick-up of planetary ions all playing roles in the generation of field-aligned electric currents. However, these field-aligned currents do not close in an ionosphere, but in some other manner. In addition to the insights into magnetospheric physics offered by study of the solar wind–Mercury system, quantitative specification of the “external” magnetic field generated by magnetospheric currents is necessary for accurate determination of the strength and multi-polar decomposition of Mercury’s intrinsic magnetic field. MESSENGER’s highly capable instrumentation and broad orbital coverage will greatly advance our understanding of both the origin of Mercury’s magnetic field and the acceleration of charged particles in small magnetospheres. In this article, we review what is known about Mercury’s magnetosphere and describe the MESSENGER science team’s strategy for obtaining answers to the outstanding science questions surrounding the interaction of the solar wind with Mercury and its small, but dynamic, magnetosphere.     

Hermean Magnetosphere-Solar Wind Interaction

The small intrinsic magnetic field of Mercury together with its proximity to the Sun makes the Hermean magnetosphere unique in the context of comparative magnetosphere study. The basic framework of the Hermean magnetosphere is believed to be the same as that of Earth. However, there exist various differences which cause new and exciting effects not present at Earth to appear. These new effects may force a substantial correction of our naïve predictions concerning the magnetosphere of Mercury. Here, we outline the predictions based on our experience at Earth and what effects can drastically change this picture. The basic structure of the magnetosphere is likely to be understood by scaling the Earth’s case but its dynamic aspect is likely modified significantly by the smallness of the Hermean magnetosphere and the substantial presence of heavy ions coming from the planet’s surface.     

The Geophysics of Mercury: Current Status and Anticipated Insights from the MESSENGER Mission

Current geophysical knowledge of the planet Mercury is based upon observations from ground-based astronomy and flybys of the Mariner 10 spacecraft, along with theoretical and computational studies. Mercury has the highest uncompressed density of the terrestrial planets and by implication has a metallic core with a radius approximately 75% of the planetary radius. Mercury’s spin rate is stably locked at 1.5 times the orbital mean motion. Capture into this state is the natural result of tidal evolution if this is the only dissipative process affecting the spin, but the capture probability is enhanced if Mercury’s core were molten at the time of capture. The discovery of Mercury’s magnetic field by Mariner 10 suggests the possibility that the core is partially molten to the present, a result that is surprising given the planet’s size and a surface crater density indicative of early cessation of significant volcanic activity. A present-day liquid outer core within Mercury would require either a core sulfur content of at least several weight percent or an unusual history of heat loss from the planet’s core and silicate fraction. A crustal remanent contribution to Mercury’s observed magnetic field cannot be ruled out on the basis of current knowledge. Measurements from the MESSENGER orbiter, in combination with continued ground-based observations, hold the promise of setting on a firmer basis our understanding of the structure and evolution of Mercury’s interior and the relationship of that evolution to the planet’s geological history.     

Electromagnetic Induction Effects and Dynamo Action in the Hermean System

Embedded in a large mass density and strong interplanetary magnetic field solar wind environment and equipped with a magnetic field of minor strength, planet Mercury exhibits a small magnetosphere vulnerable to severe solar wind buffeting. This causes large variations in the size of the magnetosphere and its associated currents. External fields are of far more importance than in the terrestrial case and of a size comparable to any internal, dynamo-generated field. Induction effects in the planetary interior, dominated by its huge core, are thought to play a much more prominent role in the Hermean magnetosphere compared to any of its companions. Furthermore, the external fields may cause planetary dynamo amplification much as discussed for the Galilean moons Io and Ganymede, but with the ambient field generated by the dynamo and its magnetic field-solar wind interaction.     

Crustal Magnetic Fields of Terrestrial Planets

Magnetic field measurements are very valuable, as they provide constraints on the interior of the telluric planets and Moon. The Earth possesses a planetary scale magnetic field, generated in the conductive and convective outer core. This global magnetic field is superimposed on the magnetic field generated by the rocks of the crust, of induced (i.e. aligned on the current main field) or remanent (i.e. aligned on the past magnetic field). The crustal magnetic field on the Earth is very small scale, reflecting the processes (internal or external) that shaped the Earth. At spacecraft altitude, it reaches an amplitude of about 20 nT. Mars, on the contrary, lacks today a magnetic field of core origin. Instead, there is only a remanent magnetic field, which is one to two orders of magnitude larger than the terrestrial one at spacecraft altitude. The heterogeneous distribution of the Martian magnetic anomalies reflects the processes that built the Martian crust, dominated by igneous and cratering processes. These latter processes seem to be the driving ones in building the lunar magnetic field. As Mars, the Moon has no core-generated magnetic field. Crustal magnetic features are very weak, reaching only 30 nT at 30-km altitude. Their distribution is heterogeneous too, but the most intense anomalies are located at the antipodes of the largest impact basins. The picture is completed with Mercury, which seems to possess an Earth-like, global magnetic field, which however is weaker than expected. Magnetic exploration of Mercury is underway, and will possibly allow the Hermean crustal field to be characterized. This paper presents recent advances in our understanding and interpretation of the crustal magnetic field of the telluric planets and Moon.     

The Geology of Mercury: The View Prior to the MESSENGER Mission

Mariner 10 and Earth-based observations have revealed Mercury, the innermost of the terrestrial planetary bodies, to be an exciting laboratory for the study of Solar System geological processes. Mercury is characterized by a lunar-like surface, a global magnetic field, and an interior dominated by an iron core having a radius at least three-quarters of the radius of the planet. The 45% of the surface imaged by Mariner 10 reveals some distinctive differences from the Moon, however, with major contractional fault scarps and huge expanses of moderate-albedo Cayley-like smooth plains of uncertain origin. Our current image coverage of Mercury is comparable to that of telescopic photographs of the Earth’s Moon prior to the launch of Sputnik in 1957. We have no photographic images of one-half of the surface, the resolution of the images we do have is generally poor (∼1 km), and as with many lunar telescopic photographs, much of the available surface of Mercury is distorted by foreshortening due to viewing geometry, or poorly suited for geological analysis and impact-crater counting for age determinations because of high-Sun illumination conditions. Currently available topographic information is also very limited. Nonetheless, Mercury is a geological laboratory that represents (1) a planet where the presence of a huge iron core may be due to impact stripping of the crust and upper mantle, or alternatively, where formation of a huge core may have resulted in a residual mantle and crust of potentially unusual composition and structure; (2) a planet with an internal chemical and mechanical structure that provides new insights into planetary thermal history and the relative roles of conduction and convection in planetary heat loss; (3) a one-tectonic-plate planet where constraints on major interior processes can be deduced from the geology of the global tectonic system; (4) a planet where volcanic resurfacing may not have played a significant role in planetary history and internally generated volcanic resurfacing may have ceased at ∼3.8 Ga; (5) a planet where impact craters can be used to disentangle the fundamental roles of gravity and mean impactor velocity in determining impact crater morphology and morphometry; (6) an environment where global impact crater counts can test fundamental concepts of the distribution of impactor populations in space and time; (7) an extreme environment in which highly radar-reflective polar deposits, much more extensive than those on the Moon, can be better understood; (8) an extreme environment in which the basic processes of space weathering can be further deduced; and (9) a potential end-member in terrestrial planetary body geological evolution in which the relationships of internal and surface evolution can be clearly assessed from both a tectonic and volcanic point of view. In the half-century since the launch of Sputnik, more than 30 spacecraft have been sent to the Moon, yet only now is a second spacecraft en route to Mercury. The MESSENGER mission will address key questions about the geologic evolution of Mercury; the depth and breadth of the MESSENGER data will permit the confident reconstruction of the geological history and thermal evolution of Mercury using new imaging, topography, chemistry, mineralogy, gravity, magnetic, and environmental data.     

Mercury’s Atmosphere: A Surface-Bounded Exosphere

The existence of a surface-bounded exosphere about Mercury was discovered through the Mariner 10 airglow and occultation experiments. Most of what is currently known or understood about this very tenuous atmosphere, however, comes from ground-based telescopic observations. It is likely that only a subset of the exospheric constituents have been identified, but their variable abundance with location, time, and space weather events demonstrate that Mercury’s exosphere is part of a complex system involving the planet’s surface, magnetosphere, and the surrounding space environment (the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field). This paper reviews the current hypotheses and supporting observations concerning the processes that form and support the exosphere. The outstanding questions and issues regarding Mercury’s exosphere stem from our current lack of knowledge concerning the surface composition, the magnetic field behavior within the local space environment, and the character of the local space environment.     

Mercury’s Interior Structure, Rotation, and Tides

This review addresses the deep interior structure of Mercury. Mercury is thought to consist of similar chemical reservoirs (core, mantle, crust) as the other terrestrial planets, but with a relatively much larger core. Constraints on Mercury’s composition and internal structure are reviewed, and possible interior models are described. Large advances in our knowledge of Mercury’s interior are not only expected from imaging of characteristic surface features but particularly from geodetic observations of the gravity field, the rotation, and the tides of Mercury. The low-degree gravity field of Mercury gives information on the differences of the principal moments of inertia, which are a measure of the mass concentration toward the center of the planet. Mercury’s unique rotation presents several clues to the deep interior. From observations of the mean obliquity of Mercury and the low-degree gravity data, the moments of inertia can be obtained, and deviations from the mean rotation speed (librations) offer an exciting possibility to determine the moment of inertia of the mantle. Due to its proximity to the Sun, Mercury has the largest tides of the Solar System planets. Since tides are sensitive to the existence and location of liquid layers, tidal observations are ideally suited to study the physical state and size of the core of Mercury.     

Large-Scale Structure and Dynamics of the Magnetotails of Mercury,Earth, Jupiter and Saturn

Spacecraft observations have established that all known planets with an internal magnetic field, as part of their interaction with the solar wind, possess well-developed magnetic tails, stretching vast distances on the nightside of the planets. In this review paper we focus on the magnetotails of Mercury, Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, four planets which possess well-developed tails and which have been visited by several spacecraft over the years. The fundamental physical processes of reconnection, convection, and charged particle acceleration are common to the magnetic tails of Mercury, Earth, Jupiter and Saturn. The great differences in solar wind conditions, planetary rotation rates, internal plasma sources, ionospheric properties, and physical dimensions from Mercury’s small magnetosphere to the giant magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn provide an outstanding opportunity to extend our understanding of the influence of such factors on basic processes. In this review article, we study the four planetary environments of Mercury, Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, comparing their common features and contrasting their unique dynamics.     

Mercury’s Weather-Beaten Surface: Understanding Mercury in the Context of Lunar and Asteroidal Space Weathering Studies

Mercury’s regolith, derived from the crustal bedrock, has been altered by a set of space weathering processes. Before we can interpret crustal composition, it is necessary to understand the nature of these surface alterations. The processes that space weather the surface are the same as those that form Mercury’s exosphere (micrometeoroid flux and solar wind interactions) and are moderated by the local space environment and the presence of a global magnetic field. To comprehend how space weathering acts on Mercury’s regolith, an understanding is needed of how contributing processes act as an interactive system. As no direct information (e.g., from returned samples) is available about how the system of space weathering affects Mercury’s regolith, we use as a basis for comparison the current understanding of these same processes on lunar and asteroidal regoliths as well as laboratory simulations. These comparisons suggest that Mercury’s regolith is overturned more frequently (though the characteristic surface time for a grain is unknown even relative to the lunar case), more than an order of magnitude more melt and vapor per unit time and unit area is produced by impact processes than on the Moon (creating a higher glass content via grain coatings and agglutinates), the degree of surface irradiation is comparable to or greater than that on the Moon, and photon irradiation is up to an order of magnitude greater (creating amorphous grain rims, chemically reducing the upper layers of grains to produce nanometer-scale particles of metallic iron, and depleting surface grains in volatile elements and alkali metals). The processes that chemically reduce the surface and produce nanometer-scale particles on Mercury are suggested to be more effective than similar processes on the Moon. Estimated abundances of nanometer-scale particles can account for Mercury’s dark surface relative to that of the Moon without requiring macroscopic grains of opaque minerals. The presence of nanometer-scale particles may also account for Mercury’s relatively featureless visible–near-infrared reflectance spectra. Characteristics of material returned from asteroid 25143 Itokawa demonstrate that this nanometer-scale material need not be pure iron, raising the possibility that the nanometer-scale material on Mercury may have a composition different from iron metal [such as (Fe,Mg)S]. The expected depletion of volatiles and particularly alkali metals from solar-wind interaction processes are inconsistent with the detection of sodium, potassium, and sulfur within the regolith. One plausible explanation invokes a larger fine fraction (grain size <45 μm) and more radiation-damaged grains than in the lunar surface material to create a regolith that is a more efficient reservoir for these volatiles. By this view the volatile elements detected are present not only within the grain structures, but also as adsorbates within the regolith and deposits on the surfaces of the regolith grains. The comparisons with findings from the Moon and asteroids provide a basis for predicting how compositional modifications induced by space weathering have affected Mercury’s surface composition.     

Planetary Dynamos from a Solar Perspective

Direct numerical simulations of the geodynamo and other planetary dynamos have been successful in reproducing the observed magnetic fields. We first give an overview on the fundamental properties of planetary magnetism. We review the concepts and main results of planetary dynamo modeling, contrasting them with the solar dynamo. In planetary dynamos the density stratification plays no major role and the magnetic Reynolds number is low enough to allow a direct simulation of the magnetic induction process using microscopic values of the magnetic diffusivity. The small-scale turbulence of the flow cannot be resolved and is suppressed by assuming a viscosity far in excess of the microscopic value. Systematic parameter studies lead to scaling laws for the magnetic field strength or the flow velocity that are independent of viscosity, indicating that the models are in the same dynamical regime as the flow in planetary cores. Helical flow in convection columns that are aligned with the rotation axis play an important role for magnetic field generation and forms the basis for a macroscopic α-effect. Depending on the importance of inertial forces relative to rotational forces, either dynamos with a dominant axial dipole or with a small-scale multipolar magnetic field are found. Earth is predicted to lie close to the transition point between both classes, which may explain why the dipole undergoes reversals. Some models fit the properties of the geomagnetic field in terms of spatial power spectra, magnetic field morphology and details of the reversal behavior remarkably well. Magnetic field strength in the dipolar dynamo regime is controlled by the available power and found to be independent of rotation rate. Predictions for the dipole moment agree well with the observed field strength of Earth and Jupiter and moderately well for other planets. Dedicated dynamo models for Mercury, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, which assume stably stratified layers above or below the dynamo region, can explain some of the unusual field properties of these planets.     

Interior Evolution of Mercury

The interior evolution of Mercury—the innermost planet in the solar system, with its exceptional high density—is poorly known. Our current knowledge of Mercury is based on observations from Mariner 10’s three flybys. That knowledge includes the important discoveries of a weak, active magnetic field and a system of lobate scarps that suggests limited radial contraction of the planet during the last 4 billion years. We review existing models of Mercury’s interior evolution and further present new 2D and 3D convection models that consider both a strongly temperature-dependent viscosity and core cooling. These studies provide a framework for understanding the basic characteristics of the planet’s internal evolution as well as the role of the amount and distribution of radiogenic heat production, mantle viscosity, and sulfur content of the core have had on the history of Mercury’s interior. The existence of a dynamo-generated magnetic field suggests a growing inner core, as model calculations show that a thermally driven dynamo for Mercury is unlikely. Thermal evolution models suggest a range of possible upper limits for the sulfur content in the core. For large sulfur contents the model cores would be entirely fluid. The observation of limited planetary contraction (∼1–2 km)—if confirmed by future missions—may provide a lower limit for the core sulfur content. For smaller sulfur contents, the planetary contraction obtained after the end of the heavy bombardment due to inner core growth is larger than the observed value. Due to the present poor knowledge of various parameters, for example, the mantle rheology, the thermal conductivity of mantle and crust, and the amount and distribution of radiogenic heat production, it is not possible to constrain the core sulfur content nor the present state of the mantle. Therefore, it is difficult to robustly predict whether or not the mantle is conductive or in the convective regime. For instance, in the case of very inefficient planetary cooling—for example, as a consequence of a strong thermal insulation by a low conductivity crust and a stiff Newtonian mantle rheology—the predicted sulfur content can be as low as 1 wt% to match current estimates of planetary contraction, making deep mantle convection likely. Efficient cooling—for example, caused by the growth of a crust strongly in enriched in radiogenic elements—requires more than 6.5 wt% S. These latter models also predict a transition from a convective to a conductive mantle during the planet’s history. Data from future missions to Mercury will aid considerably our understanding of the evolution of its interior.     

几种新的单路原子磁导引磁场设计和分析

原子磁导引利用载流导线产生的磁场与原子相互作用来操控冷原子,针对冷原子操控和传输的要求,提出了双曲线薄板导引、双平行平板导引、三根等边三角形和四根正方形分布载流导线实现对冷原子进行单路磁导引的方案,利用Ansoft maxwell 2D软件计算各导引的磁场分布和沿特殊轴的磁场变化值,分析其导引特点。这几种磁导引都采用通直流电的载流导体,其结构中心位置的场强存在极小值,形成了沿着导引的方向呈现管状磁场分布,适合导引弱场搜寻态的原子。越接近导体表面的地方,磁场梯度越大,所以原子不易与材料的相互作用而被吸引到导体表面造成损耗,而且使用时不需另加控制磁场,在实验中易于实现。     

The Magnetometer Instrument on MESSENGER

The Magnetometer (MAG) on the MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) mission is a low-noise, tri-axial, fluxgate instrument with its sensor mounted on a 3.6-m-long boom. The boom was deployed on March 8, 2005. The primary MAG science objectives are to determine the structure of Mercury’s intrinsic magnetic field and infer its origin. Mariner 10 observations indicate a planetary moment in the range 170 to 350 nT R _M³ (where R _M is Mercury’s mean radius). The uncertainties in the dipole moment are associated with the Mariner 10 trajectory and variability of the measured field. By orbiting Mercury, MESSENGER will significantly improve the determination of dipole and higher-order moments. The latter are essential to understanding the thermal history of the planet. MAG has a coarse range, ±51,300 nT full scale (1.6-nT resolution), for pre-flight testing, and a fine range, ±1,530 nT full scale (0.047-nT resolution), for Mercury operation. A magnetic cleanliness program was followed to minimize variable and static spacecraft-generated fields at the sensor. Observations during and after boom deployment indicate that the fixed residual field is less than a few nT at the location of the sensor, and initial observations indicate that the variable field is below 0.05 nT at least above about 3 Hz. Analog signals from the three axes are low-pass filtered (10-Hz cutoff) and sampled simultaneously by three 20-bit analog-to-digital converters every 50 ms. To accommodate variable telemetry rates, MAG provides 11 output rates from 0.01 s⁻¹ to 20 s⁻¹. Continuous measurement of fluctuations is provided with a digital 1–10 Hz bandpass filter. This fluctuation level is used to trigger high-time-resolution sampling in eight-minute segments to record events of interest when continuous high-rate sampling is not possible. The MAG instrument will provide accurate characterization of the intrinsic planetary field, magnetospheric structure, and dynamics of Mercury’s solar wind interaction.     

Origin of Sunspots

Sunspots, seen as cool regions on the surface of the Sun, are a thermal phenomenon. Sunspots are always associated with bipolar magnetic loops that break through the solar surface. Thus to explain the origin of sunspots we have to understand how the magnetic field originates inside the Sun and emerges at its surface. The field predicted by mean-field dynamo theories is too weak by itself to emerge at the surface of the Sun. However, because of the turbulent character of solar convection the fields generated by dynamo are intermittent – i.e., concentrated into ropes or sheets with large spaces in between. The intermittent fields are sufficiently strong to be able to emerge at the solar surface, in spite of the fact that their mean (average) value is weak. It is suggested here that magnetic fields emerge at the solar surface at those random times and places when the total magnetic field (mean field plus fluctuations) exceeds the threshold for buoyancy. The clustering of coherently emerged loops results in the formation of a sunspot. A non-axisymmetric enhancement of the underlying magnetic field causes in the clustering of sunspots forming sunspot groups, clusters of activity and active longitudes. The mean field, which is not directly observable, is also important, being responsible for the ensemble regularities of sunspots, such as Hale's law of sunspot polarities and the 11-year periodicity.     

Thermal Evolution and Magnetic Field Generation in Terrestrial Planets and Satellites

Of the terrestrial planets, Earth and Mercury have self-sustained fields while Mars and Venus do not. Magnetic field data recorded at Ganymede have been interpreted as evidence of a self-generated magnetic field. The other icy Galilean satellites have magnetic fields induced in their subsurface oceans while Io and the Saturnian satellite Titan apparently are lacking magnetic fields of internal origin altogether. Parts of the lunar crust are remanently magnetized as are parts of the crust of Mars. While it is widely accepted that the magnetization of the Martian crust has been caused by an early magnetic field, for the Moon alternative explanations link the magnetization to plasma generated by large impacts. The necessary conditions for a dynamo in the terrestrial planets and satellites are the existence of an iron-rich core that is undergoing intense fluid motion. It is widely accepted that the fluid motion is caused by convection driven either by thermal buoyancy or by chemical buoyancy or by both. The chemical buoyancy is released upon the growth of an inner core. The latter requires a light alloying element in the core that is enriched in the outer core as the solid inner core grows. In most models, the light alloying element is assumed to be sulfur, but other elements such as, e.g., oxygen, silicon, and hydrogen are possible. The existence of cores in the terrestrial planets is either proven beyond reasonable doubt (Earth, Mars, and Mercury) or the case for a core is compelling as for Venus and the Moon. The Galilean satellites Io and Ganymede are likely to have cores judging from Galileo radio tracking data of the gravity fields of these satellites. The case is less clear cut for Europa. Callisto is widely taken as undifferentiated or only partially differentiated, thereby lacking an iron-rich core. Whether or not Titan has a core is not known at the present time. The terrestrial planets that do have magnetic fields either have a well-established inner core with known radius and density such as Earth or are widely agreed to have an inner core such as Mercury. The absence of an inner core in Venus, Mars, and the Moon (terrestrial bodies that lack fields) is not as well established although considered likely. The composition of the Martian core may be close to the Fe–FeS eutectic which would prevent an inner core to grow as long as the core has not cooled to temperatures around 1500 Kelvin. Venus may be on the verge of growing an inner core in which case a chemical dynamo may begin to operate in the geologically near future. The remanent magnetization of the Martian and the lunar crust is evidence for a dynamo in Mars’ and possibly the Moon’s early evolution and suggests that powerful thermally driven dynamos are possible. Both the thermally and the chemically driven dynamo require that the core is cooled at a sufficient rate by the mantle. For the thermally driven dynamo, the heat flow from the core into the mantle must by larger than the heat conducted along the core adiabat to allow a convecting core. This threshold is a few mW?m^?2 for small planets such as Mercury, Ganymede, and the Moon but can be as large as a few tens mW?m^?2 for Earth and Venus. The buoyancy for both dynamos must be sufficiently strong to overcome Ohmic dissipation. On Earth, plate tectonics and mantle convection cool the core efficiently. Stagnant lid convection on Mars and Venus are less efficient to cool the core but it is possible and has been suggested that Mars had plate tectonics in its early evolution and that Venus has experienced episodic resurfacing and mantle turnover. Both may have had profound implications for the evolution of the cores of these planets. It is even possible that inner cores started to grow in Mars and Venus but that the growth was frustrated as the mantles heated following the cessation of plate tectonics and resurfacing. The generation of Ganymede’s magnetic field is widely debated. Models range from magneto-hydrodynamic convection in which case the field will not be self-sustained to chemical and thermally-driven dynamos. The wide range of possible compositions for Ganymede’s core allows models with a completely liquid near eutectic Fe–FeS composition as well as models with Fe inner cores or cores in with iron snowfall.