JuanCastillo29/space-mission-intelligence-data huggingface dataset:
Federico Lavorenti,1, 2 Elizabeth A. Jensen,3 Sae Aizawa,2, 4 Francesco Califano,2 Mario D’Amore,5
Deborah Domingue,3 Pierre Henri,1, 6 Simon Lindsay,7 Jim M. Raines,8 and Daniel Wolf Savin9 1Laboratoire Lagrange, Observatoire de la Cˆote d’Azur, Universit´e Cˆote d’Azur, CNRS, Nice, France 2Dipartimento di Fisica “E. Fermi”, Universit`a di Pisa, Pisa, Italy 3Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA 4Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan 5Institut f¨ur Planetenforschung, Deutsches Zentrum f¨ur Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Rutherfordstr. 2, 12489 Berlin, Germany 6LPC2E, CNRS, Univ. d’Orl´eans, CNES, Orl´eans, France 7School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Leicester, Leicester, UK 8Dept. of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan USA. 9Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, MC 5247, 550 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
: Figure 4. Proton precipitation maps averaged over latitude and longitude. The curves in panels (a) and (c) are obtained from the maps in Fig. 3(a)-(d) and Fig. 3(e)-(h), respectively, by averaging in latitude. The curves in panels (b) and (d) are obtained, respectively, from the same maps by averaging in longitude. The black dots and line show the averages summed over all energies and the colored areas the contributions for the labeled energy bins. The horizontal dashed black lines show the mean value of the fluence (averaged both in latitude and longitude).]

Under a northward IMF, electron precipitation in the cusps is enhanced around the hot poles at high latitude, as shown in Fig. 5(a)-(c). In this case, the “closed” magnetosphere topology channels electrons at high latitudes, and inhibits electron precipitation at low latitudes. Under a southward IMF, the electron precipitation presents two distinct regions of precipitation, the high-latitude low-energy electrons in Fig. 5(f), and the low-latitude moderate-energy electrons in Fig. 5(g). Both tend to be enhanced around the warm poles, as shown in Fig. 6(c), although these enhancements are quite weak. These enhancements at the warm poles are a direct consequence of electron precipitation toward dawn in local time (Lavorenti et al. 2023; Lindsay et al. 2022). Variations in the IMF drive strongly different latitudinal particle distributions at the surface. Under a northward IMF, Mercury’s magnetic dipole is able to shield a large fraction of the planet from the impinging solar wind. In this case, protons and electrons precipitate mostly onto the cusps at latitudes spanning from 60◦to 80◦in the northern hemisphere and latitudes from −30◦to −70◦in the southern hemisphere, as shown in Fig. 4(b) for protons and Fig. 6(b) for electrons. The north-south asymmetry in the size of the cusp precipitation region is a consequence of the northward shift of Mercury’s magnetic dipole. The position of the northern cusp is in agreement with recent estimates by Raines et al.

[Figure: Figure 5. Same as Fig. 3 but for electron precipitation.]

[Figure: Figure 6. Same as Fig. 4 but for electron precipitation.]
of the solar wind plasma, which is equal to KSW = miV 2 SW/2 = 826 eV for protons, and to Te,SW = 21.5 eV for electrons. The green vertical dashed lines in panels (a)-(b) show an estimate of the proton energy downstream of the bow shock equal to KSW/M 2 f,SW, where Mf,SW = 3.3 is the fast magnetosonic Mach number in the solar wind upstream of the bow shock. The green vertical solid lines show an estimate of the maximum magnetic energy available for magnetic reconnection equal to]

KSW/M 2
A,lobe, where MA,lobe = 0.32 is the Alfv´en Mach number in the lobes computed using a magnetic field of 100 nT and a density of 3 cm−3.
the energy distribution of protons spread out to a few keV, with a considerable population centered around ∼200 eV, as shown by the blue curves in Fig. 7(a)-(b). Two competing processes are at play to slow down some of the solar wind protons and accelerate others. The slowdown of solar wind protons is due to the presence of a bow shock in front of the planet. Upon passing through the bow shock, protons are decelerated from the (upstream) solar wind speed of VSW = 400 km s−1 to the (downstream) fast magnetosonic speed Vf = (V 2 A,i + V 2 s,i)1/2 (Belmont et al. 2019). The fast magnetosonic speed in the solar wind is Vf = 120 km s−1, corresponding to a kinetic energy of 76 eV (shown by the green vertical dashed line in Fig. 7(a)-(b)). In principle, Vf should be computed using the density, temperature and magnetic field values in the magnetosheath, but given the uncertainty associated to these values, we use here as a lower limit the fast magnetosonic speed in the solar wind, where, VA,i = BSW/√4πminSW is the Alfv´en speed, Vs,i = � γTi,SW/mi is the ion sound speed, and γ = 2 is the adiabatic index of the plasma. The acceleration of solar wind protons is due to magnetic reconnection in the magnetosphere. For a northward IMF, magnetic reconnection is 8 weakly driven at the lobes at high latitudes.
Team project #525). JR was supported by NASA Discovery Data Analysis grant 80NSSC20K1148. SA is supported by JSPS KAKENHI number: 22J01606. DD, EAJ, and DWS are supported by NASA Solar System Workings Grant 80NSSC22K0099.
REFERENCES
Bauch, K. E., Hiesinger, H., Greenhagen, B. T., & Helbert, J. 2021, Icarus, 354, 114083, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114083

12 Benkhoff, J., Murakami, G., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 90, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00861-4 Benna, M., Anderson, B.

J., Baker, D.

N., et al. 2010, Icarus, 209, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.036 Blewett, D.

T., Denevi, B.

W., Cahill, J.

T.

S., & Klima, R.

L. 2021, Icarus, 364, 114472, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114472 Bunce, E.

J., Martindale, A., Lindsay, S., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 126, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00750-2 Cintala, M.

J. 1992, J.

Geophys.

Res., 97, 947, doi: 10.1029/91JE02207 Domingue, D.

L., Chapman, C.

R., Killen, R.

M., et al. 2014, Space Science Reviews, 181, 121, doi: 10.1007/s11214-014-0039-5 Eckstein, W. 2007, Sputtering Yields (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 33–187, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-44502-9 3 Exner, W., Heyner, D., Liuzzo, L., et al. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 153, 89, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.12.016 Fatemi, S., Poppe, A.

R., & Barabash, S. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 125, e27706, doi: 10.1029/2019JA027706 Gershman, D.

J., Raines, J.

M., Slavin, J.

A., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 8559, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021610 Glass, A.

N., Raines, J.

M., Jia, X., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e2022JA030969, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030969 Haggerty, C.

C., Shay, M.

A., Drake, J.

F., Phan, T.

D., & McHugh, C.

T. 2015, Geophysics Research Letters, 42, 9657, doi: 10.1002/2015GL065961 Hiesinger, H., Helbert, J., Alemanno, G., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 110, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00732-4 James, M.

K., Imber, S.

M., Bunce, E.

J., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 7907, doi: 10.1002/2017JA024435 Jia, X., Slavin, J.

A., Poh, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 229, doi: 10.1029/2018JA026166 Killen, R.

M., Morrissey, L.

S., Burger, M.

H., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 139, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac67de Killen, R.

M., Potter, A.

E., & Morgan, T.
.1002/2017JA024435 Jia, X., Slavin, J.

A., Poh, G., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 229, doi: 10.1029/2018JA026166 Killen, R.

M., Morrissey, L.

S., Burger, M.

H., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 139, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac67de Killen, R.

M., Potter, A.

E., & Morgan, T.

H. 1990, Icarus, 85, 145, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90108-L Kohout, T., ˇCuda, J., Filip, J., et al. 2014, Icarus, 237, 75 Lario, D., Aran, A., G´omez-Herrero, R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 767, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/41
Lauretta, D.

S., Balram-Knutson, S.

S., Beshore, E., et al. 2017, SSRv, 212, 925, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0405-1 Lavorenti, F., Henri, P., Califano, F., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243911 —. 2023, A&A, accepted Lavorenti, F., Jensen, E., Aizawa, S., et al. 2023, Maps of solar wind plasma precipitation onto Mercury’s surface: a geographical perspective, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7927373 Leblanc, F., Schmidt, C., Mangano, V., et al. 2022, SSRv, 218, 2, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00871-w Lindsay, S.

T., Bunce, E.

J., Imber, S.

M., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e29675, doi: 10.1029/2021JA029675 Lindsay, S.

T., James, M.

K., Bunce, E.

J., et al. 2016, Planetary and Space Science, 125, 72, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2016.03.005 Madey, T.

E., Yakshinskiy, B.

V., Ageev, V.

N., & Johnson, R.

E. 1998, Journal Geophysical Research, 103, 5873, doi: 10.1029/98JE00230 Mangano, V., Massetti, S., Milillo, A., et al. 2015, Planet.

Space Sci., 115, 102, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2015.04.001 Markidis, S., Lapenta, G., & Rizwan-uddin. 2010, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80, 1509, doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2009.08.038 Maturilli, A., Helbert, J., St.

John, J.

M., et al. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 398, 58, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2014.04.035 McClintock, W.

E., & Lankton, M.

R. 2007, SSRv, 131, 481, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9264-5 McGrath, M.

A., Johnson, R.

E., & Lanzerotti, L.

J. 1986, Nature, 323, 694, doi: 10.1038/323694a0 McLain, J.

L., Sprague, A.

L., Grieves, G.

A., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 116, E03007, doi: 10.1029/2010JE003714 Meyer-Vernet, N. 2007, Basics of the Solar Wind Mura, A., Wurz, P., Lichtenegger, H.

I.

M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.11.014 Noble, S.
L., Sprague, A.

L., Grieves, G.

A., et al. 2011, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 116, E03007, doi: 10.1029/2010JE003714 Meyer-Vernet, N. 2007, Basics of the Solar Wind Mura, A., Wurz, P., Lichtenegger, H.

I.

M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.11.014 Noble, S.

K., Pieters, C.

M., & Keller, L.

P. 2007, Icarus, 192, 629, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.021 Ogilvie, K.

W., Scudder, J.

D., Hartle, R.

E., et al. 1974, Science, 185, 145, doi: 10.1126/science.185.4146.145 Phan, T.

D., Drake, J.

F., Shay, M.

A., et al. 2014, Geophysics Research Letters, 41, 7002, doi: 10.1002/2014GL061547 Poppe, A.

R., Farrell, W.

M., & Halekas, J.

S. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 123, 37, doi: 10.1002/2017JE005426
, 185, 145, doi: 10.1126/science.185.4146.145 Phan, T.

D., Drake, J.

F., Shay, M.

A., et al. 2014, Geophysics Research Letters, 41, 7002, doi: 10.1002/2014GL061547 Poppe, A.

R., Farrell, W.

M., & Halekas, J.

S. 2018, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 123, 37, doi: 10.1002/2017JE005426

Raines, J. M., Dewey, R. M., Staudacher, N. M., et al.
2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 127, e2022JA030397, doi: 10.1029/2022JA030397 Saito, Y., Delcourt, D., Hirahara, M., et al. 2021, Space Science Reviews, 217, 70, doi: 10.1007/s11214-021-00839-2 Sarantos, M., Killen, R. M., & Kim, D. 2007, Planetary and Space Science, 55, 1584, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2006.10.011 Sawada, H., Okazaki, R., Tachibana, S., et al. 2017, SSRv, 208, 81, doi: 10.1007/s11214-017-0338-8 Schriver, D., Tr´avn´ıˇcek, P., Ashour-Abdalla, M., et al.
2011, Planetary and Space Science, 59, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2011.03.008 Shay, M. A., Haggerty, C. C., Phan, T. D., et al. 2014, Physics of Plasmas, 21, 122902, doi: 10.1063/1.4904203
Slavin, J. A., DiBraccio, G. A., Gershman, D. J., et al. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 119, 8087, doi: 10.1002/2014JA020319 Slavin, J. A., Middleton, H. R., Raines, J. M., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 124, 6613, doi: 10.1029/2019JA026892 Solomon, S. C., McNutt, R. L., Gold, R. E., & Domingue, D. L. 2007, Space Science Reviews, 131, 3, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9247-6 Vilas, F., Domingue, D. L., Helbert, J., et al. 2016, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 1450, doi: 10/gg3j2v Winslow, R. M., Lugaz, N., Philpott, L. C., et al. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 120, 6101, doi: 10.1002/2015JA021200 Winslow, R. M., Philpott, L., Paty, C. S., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), 122, 4960, doi: 10.1002/2016JA023548 Wurz, P., Fatemi, S., Galli, A., et al. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 10, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00875-6
Gravitational Perturbation during BepiColombo second Venus swing-by

Carmelo Magnaficoa, Umberto De Filippisa, Francesco Santolia, Carlo Lefevrea, Marco Lucentea, David Lucchesia, Emiliano Fiorenzaa, Roberto Perona, Valerio Iafollaa aIAPS - Institute of Astrophysics and Space Planetology / INAF National Institute for Astrophysics Via del Fosso del Cavaliere, 100, Rome, 00133, Lazio, Italy
M. Luginin1, A. Trokhimovskiy1, A. Fedorova1, D. Belyaev1, N. Ignatiev1, O. Korablev1, F. Montmessin2, and A. Grigoriev3
1 Space Research Institute (IKI), Moscow, Russia.
2 LATMOS, UVSQ Université Paris-Saclay, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Paris, France.
3 Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia.
Corresponding author: Mikhail Luginin (mikhail.luginin@cosmos.ru)
The Italian Spring Accelerometer (ISA) is a three axis mass-spring accelerometer, one of the payloads of the BepiColombo joint space mission between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). At launch in October 2018, BepiColombo started its seven-year cruise as a stack of three different modules, overall named Mercury Composite Spacecraft (MCS). The spacecraft will provide BepiColombo the necessary Delta V to reach Mercury with its electric thrusters and along with one, two and six gravity assists, respectively with Earth, Venus and Mercury. The accelerometer is accommodated on the Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO) module and, jointly with the Ka-band Transponder (KaT) tracking data, will primarily serve the BepiColombo Radio Science Experiment (BC-RSE). During the second Venus swing-by, strong tidal effect and external perturbations was expected to act on the spacecraft and to become detectable by ISA. The swing-by had a closest approach of about 550 km and the gravity gradient expected on the IDA sensing elements was perfectly measured. Hence, in this paper, the first direct Gravity Gradient effect detection generated by an extraterrestrial body is shown. Nevertheless, around the closest approach, the measurements evidenced a spurious acceleration event lasting for several minutes. This work, exploiting information on the Attitude and Orbit Control System (AOCS) commanded torques, focuses and analyses this ISA acceleration signal, ascribing it to a net force really acting on the MCS spacecraft. Furthermore, using an estimation method, the application point of the force is confined to an area close to the MPO radiator.
Keywords: space accelerometry, spacecraft dynamics, Mercury PACS: 0000, 1111 2000 MSC: 0000, 1111
the gravitational potential gap. Is not the case that to date, the number of spacecraft that could reach Mercury were only two, both by NASA: Mariner 10 in 1974-75 made three swing-bys, while MESSENGER (MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging) in 2011 MESSENGER Team et al. (2006), was the unique to enter in a stable hermean orbit. As a comparison, nowadays, the overall Mars exploration missions are 52.
MPO radiator and, completing the right-handed frame, ˆXMPO axis points along the MTM Solar Arrays axis. Figure 7, produced with a tool developed by ISA team to visualise the MCS attitude and appendices position during the cruise, shows the described body fixed MPO frame (coincident with MCS reference) and the direction of Venus during the VSB2. The spacecraft was commanded to be

[Figure: Figure 5: BepiColombo ground track during the 2nd Venus flyby. Terminator and illuminated regions are referred to the flyby starting epoch. Epochs are expressed in UTC.]

dynamic frame defined as a reference frame centred on Venus, +X axis pointing at the Sun and +Z directed through the normal to the orbital plane (positive North), so it is very useful to easily identify the position of the Sun. From figure 6 a) it is easy to assess that no eclipse events were present during this flyby. The ISA team used the SPICE kernels to reconstruct the attitude of the probe (Acton et al.,

The unit was operated for the VSB2 to approach Venus in thermalised conditions and in nominal gain (ensuring an electronic noise floor at 10−9 m/s2/ √
Hz) and at nominal acquisition rate (Observation mode 10 Hz). Furthermore, Housekeeping data, shows stable temperatures of ISA sensing elements, despite the closeness of Venus during the swing-by provoked a long trend term heat of the ISA mounting panel.
2.1. Expected accelerations: characterisation and order of magnitude Here after are reported, divided by type, the expected accelerations order of magnitude during the VSB2. Table 2 gives a quick summary while in the next paragraphs references of how they are calculated is given.

[Figure: Figure 7: Venus position in MPO body frame during the entire flyby. The color-scale bar refers to the BepiColombo altitude over the Venus surface.]

quasi-inertial during the t = CA ± 1hrs period, so the Sun Aspect Angle (SAA) did not vary during this phase and the ˆY MPO axis was constantly kept pointing the Sun as it happens during almost all the cruise. On the other hand, Venus can be seen to cover more than 180 degrees in azimuth and forty degrees in elevation in MCS body fixed reference frame. In the figure ( 7) the altitude of the spacecraft over the Venus surface is also reported in the colorscale.
expected value [m/s2]
Acceleration Type Acceleration Source Conservative Gravity Gradient 1.12 ∗10−6 SRP neg. Planetary Albedo 3.6 ∗10−8
NGPs
Planetary IR 2.5 ∗10−8 Thermal Recoil neg.

[Table: Table 2: Expected accelerations: characterisation and order of magnitude.
2.1.1. Expected Gravity Gradients Main scope of the ISA planning for the VSB2 was to measure its first internal physical signal, the Gravity Gradient. Indeed, even before to know the spacecraft commanded attitude, a rough calculation of the Gravity Gradient expected effect (aGG) between the MCS CoM and ISA mounting point, can be done starting from the Venus Standard Gravitational Constant µg = 3.2486 ∗105[km3/s2] and assuming a Ralt = 550km altitude passage (R = 6, 051Km + Ralt) with a 1 m base displacement from the CoM:
aGG = µg
R3 ∗1 = 1.12 ∗10−6[m/s2],
so, well over the ISA noise floor.
7]
second Venus swing-by (VSB2)

ISA approached the cruise phase with the intent to acquire as much information possible on the behaviour of the instrument, so the team was one of the first to identify the VSB2 as an important occasion to get precious data to be used for internal characterisation scopes by comparing its measurements with the expected MCS NGPs and tidal effects. Hence, to avoid any spacecraft-generated disturbances, ISA team requested to ESOC operations to maintain the spacecraft in quasi-inertial pointing, to not perform reaction wheels desaturation manoeuvres and to avoid appendages movements, including HGA pointing mechanism to be triggered in hold status for the period t = CA ± 1hrs.
every N acceleration samples to follow the evolution of the application point rA during the time. In figures 11 are depicted the reconstructed application point as evolving in time, compared
The reason of that is clearly related to the geometry of the reconstructed force direction: when the absolute value of β angle is under 10 degrees, the force is almost directed towards the MPO +Y , keeping the equation 5 bad conditioned for that coordinate. Using the Jacobian matrix, we evaluated from the numerical solution of the non linear least square fit for the equation 5, the standard deviation respect to the converged solution for the three component of the vector.

a stochastic ∆V close to periapsis with a-priori spherical ∆V constrained to 0.5 mm/s. The filter estimates a ∆V along S/C +Y of 0.8 mm/s with a-posteriori sigma of 0.3 mm/s, so moderately observable, but consistent with what ISA measured (ESA private communication, thanks to Frank Budnik, Alkan Altay, Emanuela Bordoni and Daniele Stramaccioni).
Mesospheric CO2 clouds are one of two types of carbon dioxide clouds known on Mars. We present observations of mesospheric CO2 clouds made by Atmospheric Chemistry Suit (ACS) onboard the ESA-Roscosmos ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO). We analyzed 1663 solar occultation sessions of Thermal InfraRed (TIRVIM) and Middle InfraRed (MIR) channels of ACS covering more than two Martian years that contain spectra of 2.7 μm carbon dioxide ice absorption band. That allowed us to unambiguously discriminate carbon dioxide ice aerosols from mineral dust and water ice aerosols, not relying on the information of atmospheric thermal conditions. CO2 clouds were detected in eleven solar occultation observations at altitudes from 39 km to 90 km. In five cases, there were two or three layers of CO2 clouds that were vertically separated by 5-15 km gaps. Effective radius of CO2 aerosol particles is in the range of 0.1−2.2 μm. Spectra produced by the smallest particles indicate a need for a better resolved CO2 ice refractive index. Nadir optical depth of CO2 clouds is in the range 5×10-4–4×10-2 at both 2.7 μm and 0.8 μm. Asymmetrical diurnal distribution of detections observed by ACS is potentially due to local time variations of temperature induced by thermal tides. Two out of five cases of carbon dioxide cloud detections made by the TIRVIM instrument reveal the simultaneous presence of CO2 ice and H2O ice aerosols. Temperature profiles measured by the Near InfraRed (NIR) channel of ACS are used to calculate CO2 saturation ratio S at locations of carbon dioxide clouds. Supersaturation S > 1 is detected in only 5 out of 19 cases of CO2 cloud layers; extremely low values of S < 0.1 are found in 9 out of 19 cases.
Keywords: Atmospheres, structure; Infrared observations; Mars, atmosphere; Occultations; Spectroscopy.
● Detection of CO2 mesospheric clouds relies on observing the 2.7 μm absorption band ● CO2 clouds were detected in 11 solar occultation observations at 39-90 km altitudes ● Effective radius of CO2 aerosol particles is in range of 0.1−2.2 μm ● Two cloud layers were formed by CO2 and H2O ice aerosols ● CO2 cloud layers with S>1 detected in 5/19 cases, S<0.1 found in 9/19 cases Carbon dioxide clouds are detected on Mars in the polar night troposphere and in the mesosphere in different seasons (Clancy et al., 2017).
TGO is a part of the ExoMars joint mission between the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian space agency (Roscosmos). ACS is a set of three spectrometers (Near InfraRed [NIR], Middle InfraRed [MIR], and Thermal InfraRed [TIRVIM]) with a primary goal to study trace gasses present in the Martian atmosphere and provide long-term monitoring of the temperature and atmospheric composition (Korablev et al., 2018). Previously, ACS solar occultation observations of aerosols revealed properties of water ice and dust particles during the 2018 Global Dust Storm (Luginin et al., 2020; Stcherbinine et al., 2020) and over two MY (Stcherbinine et al., 2022), discovered supersaturation of water vapor in presence of clouds and above them (Fedorova et al., 2020, 2023), and presented evidence of heterogeneous uptake of HCl on water ice particles (Luginin et al., 2024).