adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: The SC maps of Venus from 2015 and 2017. The center of the orthographic projection is 0°N, 335°E, matching that of Figure 4. Images are normalized to ﹩\cos \left(\phi \right)﹩ of the incidence angle. The dark horizontal band is due to the limit we placed on echoes within 450 km of the Doppler equator.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: The OC maps of Venus from 2015 and 2017, normalized to the scatter law from Equation (1). The center of the orthographic projection is 0°N, 335°E, matching that of Figure 4. The dark horizontal band is due to the limit we placed on echoes within 450 km of the Doppler equator.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). I. Dry Cases—The Fellowship of the GCMs
Authors: Martin Turbet, Thomas J. Fauchez, Denis E. Sergeev, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne, Linda Sohl
Figure caption: Vertical profiles at the substellar point for the Ben 1 simulations of (a) the temperature, (b) the net longwave heating rate (i.e., the heating rate of each layer resulting from a balance between thermal infrared emission of the layer and the absorption of thermal infrared emission of the other layers and the surface), (c) the shortwave heating rate (i.e., the heating rate of each layer produced by the absorption of the stellar flux), and (d) the lapse rate (i.e., the vertical temperature gradient). Time-averaged values are represented by thick lines, while the 1σ deviations (over the 10 orbits) are represented by shades.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). I. Dry Cases—The Fellowship of the GCMs
Authors: Martin Turbet, Thomas J. Fauchez, Denis E. Sergeev, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne, Linda Sohl
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2, but for the Ben 2 simulations.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). I. Dry Cases—The Fellowship of the GCMs
Authors: Martin Turbet, Thomas J. Fauchez, Denis E. Sergeev, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne, Linda Sohl
Figure caption: Surface temperature (shading, K) maps on which we superimposed horizontal wind vectors in the upper troposphere (≈250 hPa).
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). I. Dry Cases—The Fellowship of the GCMs
Authors: Martin Turbet, Thomas J. Fauchez, Denis E. Sergeev, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne, Linda Sohl
Figure caption: Vertical cross sections of the zonal mean zonal wind (m s−2). The gray dashed horizontal line marks the 250 hPa level used in Figures 9 and 10.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). I. Dry Cases—The Fellowship of the GCMs
Authors: Martin Turbet, Thomas J. Fauchez, Denis E. Sergeev, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne, Linda Sohl
Figure caption: Same as Figure 1, but for the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). I. Dry Cases—The Fellowship of the GCMs
Authors: Martin Turbet, Thomas J. Fauchez, Denis E. Sergeev, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne, Linda Sohl
Figure caption: ASR maps for the Ben 1 and Ben 2 THAI simulations, for the four GCMs. The temporal average minimum, mean, and maximum values are also shown below each map.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 results: (a)–(d) cloud water path (vertically integrated cloud condensate content, kg m−2), and (e)–(h) cloud fraction (%).
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Helmholtz decomposition of the horizontal wind at 250 hPa in the Hab 1 case (quivers): (a)–(d) total wind, (e)–(h) zonal mean rotational component, (i)–(l) eddy rotational component, and (m)–(p) divergent component. Note the different scaling of the eddy rotational and divergent components. Also shown is the upward wind velocity (shading, m s−1) with the 0.05 m s−1 highlighted by a black contour. Note that for ExoCAM, only the pressure velocity (ω, Pa s−1) is available in the output, so the vertical velocity (w, m s−1) is approximated as w = − ω/ρ g, where ρ is air density and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 results: meridional-mean profiles of (a) the mass-weighted tropospheric mean of air temperature (K), (b) water vapor path (kg m−2), (c) cloud water path (kg m−2): total (solid lines), liquid (dashed lines), and ice (dotted lines), and (d) cloud area fraction (%). Here, the troposphere’s boundary is defined by the lapse rate decreasing below 2 K km−1 in the upper atmosphere.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 results: substellar vertical profiles of (a) air temperature (K), (b) lapse rate (K km−1), (c) SW heating rate (K d−1), and (d) LW heating rate (K d−1). Time-mean values are shown by solid lines, the 1σ deviation is shown by shading.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 results: meridional-mean cross sections of (a)–(d) mass mixing ratio (MMR) of ice cloud particles (log[kg kg−1]), (e)–(h) MMR of liquid cloud particles (log[kg kg−1]), and (i)–(l) total cloud fraction (%).
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 results: vertical cross sections of the zonal mean zonal wind (m s−1). The gray dashed horizontal line marks the 250 hPa level shown in Figure 9.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 results: overturning circulation shown by the tidally locked mass streamfunction Ψ TL  (kg s−1). The mass flux is clockwise where Ψ TL  is positive and counterclockwise where Ψ TL  is negative. The maximum of Ψ TL  in each GCM is shown in the upper-left corner. The substellar point (SS) is at 90° latitude, and the antistellar point (AS) is at −90° latitude.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Time spectrum of the global mean cloud water path variability. This is the time series shown in Figures 2(e) and 14(e) transformed to a time frequency domain in log-log axes for (a) Hab 1 and (b) Hab 2, respectively. The time frequency units are TRAPPIST-1e orbits (see Table 1). The dashed vertical lines mark the maximum amplitude for each of the models. Periods corresponding to the maximum amplitude are shown in the upper-right corner.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). II. Moist Cases—The Two Waterworlds
Authors: Denis E. Sergeev, Thomas J. Fauchez, Martin Turbet, Ian A. Boutle, Kostas Tsigaridis, Michael J. Way, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, François Forget, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi K. Kopparapu, F. Hugo Lambert, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Key radiation fluxes in Hab 2 simulations. Panels (a)–(d): TOA OLR (W m−2); panels (e)–(h): downward shortwave radiation flux at the surface (W m−2); and panels (i)–(l): net upward longwave radiation flux at the surface (W m−2).
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Two-dimensional slices (taken at y = 0 in the x–z plane) showing possible asteroid morphologies after DART-like impacts on initially 150 m spherical bodies with varying cohesion (Y 0 = 0–50 Pa) and coefficients of internal friction (f = 0.4–1.0). Impacts into targets with Y 0 larger than ≈10 Pa create well-defined craters, while impacts into targets with Y 0 ≲ 10 Pa create the shape deformation of the asteroid. The total strain shows the amount of deformation experienced by the target. For a 150 m spherical asteroid (ρ ≈ 1600 kg m−3), the overburden pressure in the center of the body is about 2 Pa. The background gradient shows the transition to the gravity-dominated regime, where the target’s overburden pressure at the cratering depth exceeds the cohesion. The formation times, T, of the postimpact stable structures are shown at the top of the figure.
Paper: Next-generation Laser Ranging at Lunar Geophysical Network and Commercial Lander Payload Service Sites
Authors: James G. Williams, Dale H. Boggs, Douglas G. Currie
Figure caption: Improvement in GM(Earth+Moon) with range uncertainty assumption.
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Resolution tests from an impact into spherical targets (Y 0 = 50 Pa, f = 0.6), resolved with 5 × 105, 1 × 106, and 2 × 106 SPH particles. (a) Normalized ejected mass at speeds greater than v, as a function of normalized ejection speed, v/U. (b) Cumulative target mass that experienced a total strain larger than a certain ϵ tot, normalized by the initial target mass, M  t . The data were analyzed at t = 50 s after the impact.
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Cumulative target mass that experienced a total strain larger than a certain ϵ tot, normalized by the initial target mass, for spherical targets with (a) varying cohesion, Y 0 (f = 0.6), and (b) a varying coefficient of internal friction, f (Y 0 = 0 Pa), as recorded 30 minutes after the impact.
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Cumulative target mass that experienced a total strain larger than a certain ϵ tot, normalized by the initial target mass. We compare the results from a run in which the fast integration scheme was not used (no transition) to the results from a run in which the fast scheme was used (transition). The data were analyzed at ≈1 hr after the impact.
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Cumulative target mass that experiences a total strain, ϵ tot, larger than a specific value, normalized by the total target mass, after vertical (90°) and oblique (45°) impacts, as computed 30 minutes after the impact.
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Schematic representation of the target shapes used in this study: (a) sphere, (b) oblate ellipsoid, and (c) prolate ellipsoid. The arrows indicate the location of the vertical (90°) and oblique (45°) impacts, and the crosses mark the impact points.
Paper: Global-scale Reshaping and Resurfacing of Asteroids by Small-scale Impacts, with Applications to the DART and Hera Missions
Authors: Sabina D. Raducan, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Target morphology after DART-like impacts on spherical targets at vertical (90°) and oblique (45°) angles. The black arrows indicate the direction of impact.
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Time-series plots of Dimorphos’s Euler angles (roll, pitch, and yaw) in the rotating orbital frame for the two body shapes under consideration. Figure 9(a) shows the expected stable case, which indeed remains stable when simulated both as a rubble pile (the SSDEM case) and as a rigid body, matching the GUBAS prediction. The only difference is that there are larger (but still small) oscillations in the roll and pitch angles in the PKDGRAV cases, which is likely due to the slightly different body shapes (and therefore different inertia moments) compared to the idealized ellipsoid used in the GUBAS simulation. Figure 9(b) shows the predicted unstable case, where both PKDGRAV cases show general agreement. The main difference between the two PKDGRAV cases and the GUBAS case is that the PKDGRAV cases become attitude-unstable sooner, likely owing to a combination of slightly different shapes compared to the idealized ellipsoid and a different numerical integrator.
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Time intervals between the impacts of a given energy for Didymos and Dimorphos. The blue and red lines show the impact intervals if Didymos were impacted by only the NEO and MBA populations, respectively. The black solid line shows the impact interval on Didymos for a mixed-population model that takes into account the system’s current orbit, which crosses the inner main belt. The black dashed line shows the equivalent impact timescales for Dimorphos in the mixed-population model. The dotted magenta lines give the estimated damping timescale for a binary eccentricity of 0.1 (bottom line) and the median dynamical NEA lifetime (top line). The vertical dotted lines indicate the different impact energies of interest. The range of specific catastrophic disruption energies for Dimorphos is represented by the gray area.
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: A schematic showing DART’s expected impacting momentum vector, based on the latest flight trajectory consistent with the 2021 launch. The impact will be nearly head on, opposite the instantaneous orbital velocity of Dimorphos. In an RTN coordinate system, DART’s momentum vector will have small components in both the radial and normal directions. DART will be coming from below the Didymos–Dimorphos mutual orbit plane, with an angle of ∼−9.25° (the normal component), and it will also have an in-plane angle of ∼−10° (the radial component).
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: The libration amplitude and orbit period variation for Didymos using the full 3D impact geometry simulated in GUBAS for the case a/b = 1.3, b/c = 1.2. The libration amplitude, shown as the solid green curve, corresponds to the left axis while the orbit period variation, shown as the dashed blue curve, corresponds to the right axis.
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption:  GUBAS simulation results showing the orbit eccentricity behavior over 60 days post-impact (β = 1), along with what the unperturbed behavior would be with no impact over the same time span. Note that the initial dynamically relaxed orbit has a very small eccentricity, with small variations, whereas the post-impact orbit eccentricity is oscillatory but bounded over the duration shown here.
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Left: potentially exciting flybys of 1000 virtual Didymos clones over the last 500,000 yr. Planetary flybys are recorded with Mars (orange) and Earth (blue), with their respective thresholds for excitation in the space of the closest approach distance and relative speed of the flyby. Right: estimated probability of experiencing a close flyby that excites Didymos, as characterized by a variation in eccentricity of Δe = 0.1 for low excitation and Δe = 1 for high excitation.
Paper: Predictions for the Dynamical States of the Didymos System before and after the Planned DART Impact
Authors: Derek C. Richardson, Harrison F. Agrusa, Brent Barbee, William F. Bottke, Andrew F. Cheng, Siegfried Eggl, Fabio Ferrari, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Özgür Karatekin, Jay McMahon, Stephen R. Schwartz, Ronald-Louis Ballouz, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Elisabetta Dotto, Eugene G. Fahnestock, Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Ioannis Gkolias, Douglas P. Hamilton, Seth A. Jacobson, Martin Jutzi, Josh Lyzhoft, Rahil Makadia, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Ryota Nakano, Guillaume Noiset, Sabina D. Raducan, Nicolas Rambaux, Alessandro Rossi, Paul Sánchez, Daniel J. Scheeres, Stefania Soldini, Angela M. Stickle, Paolo Tanga, Kleomenis Tsiganis, Yun Zhang
Figure caption:  GUBAS simulation results showing the orbit period and libration angle behavior, pre-impact and post-impact. The behaviors of these quantities remain consistent over longer time spans, e.g., out to 1 yr. Only 10 days of propagation are shown here for the libration angle, so that the behavior is more readily discernible.