adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Semi-analytical Near-Earth Objects Propagation: The Orbit History of (35107) 1991 VH and (175706) 1996 FG3
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Alex J. Meyer, Daniel J. Scheeres
Figure caption: Orbit history of (35107) 1991 VH in the past million years. Initial conditions are given in Table 2 as obtained from HORIZONS (Giorgini & JPL Solar System Dynamics 2021), and uncertainties in the distribution are obtained from JPL's SSD/CNEOS Small-Body DataBase (SSD/CNEOS API Service 2021) as described in Appendix A. Elements shown are perihelion distance, eccentricity, inclination, argument of the ascending node, argument of perihelion, and MOID with Venus, Earth, and Mars. Gray lines show individual simulations, and black lines are the median of the 1000 simulations of each parameter shown. Only 50 example runs and the median of the full distribution are shown in orbit elements (top two rows).
Paper: Semi-analytical Near-Earth Objects Propagation: The Orbit History of (35107) 1991 VH and (175706) 1996 FG3
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Alex J. Meyer, Daniel J. Scheeres
Figure caption:  P-value of the χ 2 test of the uniform distribution of the longitude of perihelion ϖ = ω + Ω for the five test cases given in Table 2, (175706) 1996 FG3, and (35107) 1991 VH during 500,000 yr. P-value is shown as a function of the mean number of encounters (top) and function of time (bottom).
Paper: Semi-analytical Near-Earth Objects Propagation: The Orbit History of (35107) 1991 VH and (175706) 1996 FG3
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Alex J. Meyer, Daniel J. Scheeres
Figure caption: Histograms of the orbit history of (35107) 1991 VH and (175706) 1996 FG3 at the initial time, 100,000 yr ago, and 1 Myr ago. Initial conditions are given in Table 2 as obtained from HORIZONS (Giorgini & JPL Solar System Dynamics 2021), and uncertainties in the distribution are obtained from JPL's SSD/CNEOS Small-Body DataBase (SSD/CNEOS API Service 2021) as described in Appendix A.
Paper: Semi-analytical Near-Earth Objects Propagation: The Orbit History of (35107) 1991 VH and (175706) 1996 FG3
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Alex J. Meyer, Daniel J. Scheeres
Figure caption:  P-value of the χ 2 test of the uniform distribution of the longitude of perihelion ϖ = ω + Ω of (35107) 1991 VH (top) and (175706) 1996 FG3 (bottom). P-value is shown over the past 1 Myr (left) and as a function of the mean number of encounters (middle). The mean number of encounters of the 1000 Monte Carlo runs is shown over time with the corresponding 1σ bounds (right).
Paper: Semi-analytical Near-Earth Objects Propagation: The Orbit History of (35107) 1991 VH and (175706) 1996 FG3
Authors: Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz, Alex J. Meyer, Daniel J. Scheeres
Figure caption: Random walk statistical modeling of the evolution of semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination of (35107) 1991 VH (top) and (175706) 1996 FG3 (bottom). Shown is the standard deviation of the 1000 Monte Carlo runs as a function of the square root of time and random walk model fit.
Paper: Sputtering Behavior of Rough, Polycrystalline Mercury Analogs
Authors: H. Biber, J. Brötzner, N. Jäggi, P. S. Szabo, J. Pichler, C. Cupak, C. Voith, B. Cserveny, A. Nenning, A. Mutzke, M. V. Moro, D. Primetzhofer, K. Mezger, A. Galli, P. Wurz, F. Aumayr
Figure caption: Angular dependence of the sputter yield of enstatite for 2 keV Ar+ (left) and 4 keV He+ (right). Data are shown for SDTrimSP (full lines), the pellet (according to Equation (1), circles), the thin film (squares) and SPRAY (dashed lines). The fit to the SDTrimSP data was obtained using the fit formula according to Eckstein & Preuss (2003).
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Ben 1 transmission spectra simulated with PSG using the terminator atmospheric profiles from the ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and UM simulations. In panel (a) the atmospheric profiles are limited up to the lowest pressure at the top of the GCMs, namely, 10−5 bars, 4 × 10−5 bars, 14 × 10−5 bars, and 4 × 10−5 bars for ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and UM, respectively, while in panel (b) the atmospheric profiles have been extended up to 10−7 bars assuming an isothermal atmosphere and fixed mixing ratios for the dry gases. The differences between the transmission spectra are extremely small.
Paper: Sputtering Behavior of Rough, Polycrystalline Mercury Analogs
Authors: H. Biber, J. Brötzner, N. Jäggi, P. S. Szabo, J. Pichler, C. Cupak, C. Voith, B. Cserveny, A. Nenning, A. Mutzke, M. V. Moro, D. Primetzhofer, K. Mezger, A. Galli, P. Wurz, F. Aumayr
Figure caption: Comparison between the angular dependence of the sputtered particles for irradiation of the enstatite pellet (orange squares) and the enstatite thin film (blue circles) with 4 keV He+ ions. Two angles of ion incidence were probed: α = 45° (left) and α = 60° (right). A fit of the shape ﹩A\cos {\left(\beta -\zeta \right)}^{n}﹩ to the experimental data and to SDTrimSP results for trajectories in the same angle as the sensitive catcher area is shown as purple line.
Paper: Sputtering Behavior of Rough, Polycrystalline Mercury Analogs
Authors: H. Biber, J. Brötzner, N. Jäggi, P. S. Szabo, J. Pichler, C. Cupak, C. Voith, B. Cserveny, A. Nenning, A. Mutzke, M. V. Moro, D. Primetzhofer, K. Mezger, A. Galli, P. Wurz, F. Aumayr
Figure caption: Representative distributions of the local inclinations based on AFM measurements of the irradiated samples. Distributions are shown for both types (thin film on a QCM and pellet) separated by material—wollastonite (left) and enstatite (right). The roughness parameter δ  m  for the whole sets of images are indicated with arrows.
Paper: Sputtering Behavior of Rough, Polycrystalline Mercury Analogs
Authors: H. Biber, J. Brötzner, N. Jäggi, P. S. Szabo, J. Pichler, C. Cupak, C. Voith, B. Cserveny, A. Nenning, A. Mutzke, M. V. Moro, D. Primetzhofer, K. Mezger, A. Galli, P. Wurz, F. Aumayr
Figure caption: Distributions of reflected ions for 2 keV Ar+ ions impinging on wollastonite (CaSiO3) according to SDTrimSP simulations, restricted to the catcher solid angle. The two incidence angles α = 45° (full purple line) and α = 60° (red dashed line) are compared quantitatively.
Paper: Sputtering Behavior of Rough, Polycrystalline Mercury Analogs
Authors: H. Biber, J. Brötzner, N. Jäggi, P. S. Szabo, J. Pichler, C. Cupak, C. Voith, B. Cserveny, A. Nenning, A. Mutzke, M. V. Moro, D. Primetzhofer, K. Mezger, A. Galli, P. Wurz, F. Aumayr
Figure caption: Three-dimensional projections of AFM images of both the enstatite coated QCM (left) and an enstatite pellet (right) before irradiation.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 terminator atmospheric profiles predicted by ExoCAM (blue), LMD-G (red), ROCKE-3D (green), and the UM (orange). From top to bottom: temperature, specific humidity, the mass mixing ratio of liquid water, and the mass mixing ratio of ice water for the west terminator (left column) and east terminator (right column). Time-averaged values are represented by thick lines, while the 1σ deviations are represented by shaded regions.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Ben 2 transmission spectra simulated with PSG using the terminator atmospheric profiles from the ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and UM simulations. In panel (a) the atmospheric profiles are limited up to the lowest pressure at the top of the GCMs, namely, 10−5 bars, 4 × 10−5 bars, 14 × 10−5 bars, and 13 × 10−5 bars for ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and the UM, respectively, while in panel (B) the atmospheric profiles have been extended up to 10−10 bars assuming an isothermal atmosphere and fixed mixing ratios for the dry gases. CO2 features are truncated if the atmospheres are not vertically extended. Visible differences between the spectra appear in the CO2 bands in both the native (panel (a)) and extended (panel (b)) scenarios. CO2 labels are not shown, as the spectra are exclusively CO2.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 2 terminator atmospheric profiles simulated by ExoCAM (blue), LMD-G (red), ROCKE-3D (green), and the UM (orange). From top to bottom: temperature, specific humidity, mass mixing ratio of liquid water, and mass mixing ratio of ice water for the west terminator (left column) and east terminator (right column). Time-averaged values are represented by thick lines, while the 1σ deviations are represented by shaded regions.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 1 transmission spectra simulated with PSG using the terminator atmospheric profiles from the ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and UM simulations. In panel (a) the atmospheric profiles are limited up to the lowest pressure at the top of the GCMs, namely, 10−5 bars, 4 × 10−5 bars, 14 × 10−5 bars, and 4 × 10−5 bars for ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and the UM, respectively, while in panel (b) the atmospheric profiles have been extended up to 10−7 bars assuming an isothermal atmosphere and fixed mixing ratios for the dry gases.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Atmospheric transit depth variability relative to noise (left Y-axis) and atmospheric thickness variability relative to noise (right Y-axis) for 100 (blue), 50 (orange), 25 (green), and 10 (red) transits for ExoCAM (panels (a) and (b)), LMD-G (panels (c) and (d)), ROCKE-3D (panels (e) and (f)), and the UM (panels (g) and (h)). Hab 1 is in the left column, while Hab 2 is in the right column. The noise is computed at the native instrument resolution and later binned down by a factor 3 for this figure.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Ben 1 (left column) and Hab 1 (right column) transmission spectra for ExoCAM (panels (a) and (b)), LMD-G (panels (c) and (d)), ROCKE-3D (panels (e) and (f)), and the UM (panels (g) and (h)). The error bars are shown for the native NIRSpec spectral resolution and for 1 transit (green), 4 transits (magenta, NIRSpec Cycle 1 proposal 1331; Lewis et al. 2017), 20 transits (blue, ∼5 JWST years at a constant four transits per year), and 40 transits (red, ∼10 JWST years at a constant four transits per year). Relevant absorption features are written in white.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Hab 2 transmission spectra simulated with PSG using the terminator atmospheric profiles from the ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and UM simulations. In panel (a) the atmospheric profiles are limited up to the lowest pressure at the top of the GCMs, namely, 10−5 bars, 4 × 10−5 bars, 14 × 10−5 bars, and 13 × 10−5 bars for ExoCAM, LMD-G, ROCKE-3D, and the UM, respectively, while in panel (b) the atmospheric profiles have been extended up to 10−10 bars assuming an isothermal atmosphere and fixed mixing ratios for the dry gases. CO2 features are truncated if the atmospheres are not extended. Differences between the spectra due to clouds are mostly seen in the continuum and for the weakest absorption bands.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: (a, b) Transmission spectra for Hab 1 and Hab 2, respectively, obtained from ExoCAM simulations. Each fine black trace represents 1 of the 100 individual transits, and the thick blue line represents the median transit. The noise for 50 transits and for both NIRSpec Prism (blue) and MIRI (orange) has been binned down by a factor of 3 to maximize the number of photons per spectral bin while preserving the line shapes and is represented by the vertical error bars. (c, d) Atmospheric transit depth variability relative to noise (left Y-axis) and atmospheric thickness variability relative to noise (right Y-axis) for 50 transits and each of the four GCMs for Hab 1 and Hab 2, respectively.
Paper: The TRAPPIST-1 Habitable Atmosphere Intercomparison (THAI). III. Simulated Observables—the Return of the Spectrum
Authors: Thomas J. Fauchez, Geronimo L. Villanueva, Denis E. Sergeev, 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, James Manners, Nathan J. Mayne
Figure caption: Standard deviation of the atmospheric transit depth [ppm] and of the atmospheric thickness [km] as a function of wavelength for Hab 1 (blue) and Hab 2 (red) and for ExoCAM (panel (a)), LMD-G (panel (b)), ROCKE-3D (panel (c)), and the UM (panel (d)).
Paper: NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART): Mutual Orbital Period Change Due to Reshaping in the Near-Earth Binary Asteroid System (65803) Didymos
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Harrison F. Agrusa, Fabio Ferrari, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Paul Sánchez, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Contour plot of the orbital period change as a function of δ C 20 and δ C 22. The contour line labels indicate the orbital period change in seconds relative to the nominal case. The magenta line is given by δ C 22 = 0.3δ C 20. The blue line is given by δ C 22 = 0.262δ C 20, which is obtained from Equation (9).
Paper: NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART): Mutual Orbital Period Change Due to Reshaping in the Near-Earth Binary Asteroid System (65803) Didymos
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Harrison F. Agrusa, Fabio Ferrari, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Paul Sánchez, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: (a) Synthetic shape model of Dimorphos with a 100 m diameter crater (top-down view). The black wire frame represents the original shape. (b) Evolution of the relative angular deviation. The legend specifies the line color for each crater diameter.
Paper: NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART): Mutual Orbital Period Change Due to Reshaping in the Near-Earth Binary Asteroid System (65803) Didymos
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Harrison F. Agrusa, Fabio Ferrari, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Paul Sánchez, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Reshaping in the +y-axis (δ +y ) vs. orbital period change. The blue stars indicate the simulated results. The black solid line indicates a linear fitted line given by the equation shown in the figure. The blue shaded region represents 1σ in the orbital period change.
Paper: NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART): Mutual Orbital Period Change Due to Reshaping in the Near-Earth Binary Asteroid System (65803) Didymos
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Harrison F. Agrusa, Fabio Ferrari, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Paul Sánchez, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Spin period change vs. orbital period change. For each ﹩{\gamma }_{{\rm{\max }}}^{A}﹩ case (which has 500 synthetic shape models of the reshaped Didymos), we compute the mean spin period change relative to the nominal case, which is shown by the blue stars. The black solid line indicates the linear fitting of the determined mean values. The blue shaded region indicates 1σ in the orbital period change.
Paper: NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART): Mutual Orbital Period Change Due to Reshaping in the Near-Earth Binary Asteroid System (65803) Didymos
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Harrison F. Agrusa, Fabio Ferrari, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Paul Sánchez, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: (a) Synthetic shape model of the globally deformed Dimorphos (side view). The black wire frame represents the original shape. (b) Evolution of the relative angular deviation.
Paper: The SSDC Role in the LICIACube Mission: Data Management and the MATISSE Tool
Authors: Angelo Zinzi, Vincenzo Della Corte, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Federico Miglioretti, Maurizio Pajola, Alessandro Rossi, Olivier Barnouin, Raymond C. Espiritu, Elisabetta Dotto, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Biagio Cotugno, Massimo Dall'Ora, Jasinghege D. P. Deshapriya, Valerio Di Tana, Igor Gai, Pedro H. A. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Michèle Lavagna, Andrea Meneghin, Dario Modenini, Davide Perna, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Pasquale Palumbo, Emanuele Simioni, Simone Simonetti, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti
Figure caption: Martian CTX data selected by means of MATISSE 2.0 using the geological units. The image represents Firsoff Crater with data from the “Aeolian/mass wasting/impact craters” geological unit, as described by Pondrelli et al. (2011).
Paper: The SSDC Role in the LICIACube Mission: Data Management and the MATISSE Tool
Authors: Angelo Zinzi, Vincenzo Della Corte, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Federico Miglioretti, Maurizio Pajola, Alessandro Rossi, Olivier Barnouin, Raymond C. Espiritu, Elisabetta Dotto, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Biagio Cotugno, Massimo Dall'Ora, Jasinghege D. P. Deshapriya, Valerio Di Tana, Igor Gai, Pedro H. A. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Michèle Lavagna, Andrea Meneghin, Dario Modenini, Davide Perna, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Pasquale Palumbo, Emanuele Simioni, Simone Simonetti, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti
Figure caption: Surface temperature over the dwarf planet Ceres, as computed by the thermophysical model made available by MATISSE 2.0.
Paper: The Case for a New Frontiers–Class Uranus Orbiter: System Science at an Underexplored and Unique World with a Mid-scale Mission
Authors: Ian J. Cohen, Chloe Beddingfield, Robert Chancia, Gina DiBraccio, Matthew Hedman, Shannon MacKenzie, Barry Mauk, Kunio M. Sayanagi, Krista M. Soderlund, Elizabeth Turtle, Caitlin Ahrens, Christopher S. Arridge, Shawn M. Brooks, Emma Bunce, Sebastien Charnoz, Athena Coustenis, Robert A. Dillman, Soumyo Dutta, Leigh N. Fletcher, Rebecca Harbison, Ravit Helled, Richard Holme, Lauren Jozwiak, Yasumasa Kasaba, Peter Kollmann, Statia Luszcz-Cook, Kathleen Mandt, Olivier Mousis, Alessandro Mura, Go Murakami, Marzia Parisi, Abigail Rymer, Sabine Stanley, Katrin Stephan, Ronald J. Vervack, Jr., Michael H. Wong, Peter Wurz
Figure caption: The peculiarities of Uranus’s interior are showcased by the (a) multipolar intrinsic magnetic field, (b) unknown internal structure and bulk composition, and (c) energy balance with comparable absorbed and emitted heat fluxes. Adapted from Soderlund & Stanley (2020), Helled & Guillot (2017), and Ingersoll (1999), respectively.
Paper: The Case for a New Frontiers–Class Uranus Orbiter: System Science at an Underexplored and Unique World with a Mid-scale Mission
Authors: Ian J. Cohen, Chloe Beddingfield, Robert Chancia, Gina DiBraccio, Matthew Hedman, Shannon MacKenzie, Barry Mauk, Kunio M. Sayanagi, Krista M. Soderlund, Elizabeth Turtle, Caitlin Ahrens, Christopher S. Arridge, Shawn M. Brooks, Emma Bunce, Sebastien Charnoz, Athena Coustenis, Robert A. Dillman, Soumyo Dutta, Leigh N. Fletcher, Rebecca Harbison, Ravit Helled, Richard Holme, Lauren Jozwiak, Yasumasa Kasaba, Peter Kollmann, Statia Luszcz-Cook, Kathleen Mandt, Olivier Mousis, Alessandro Mura, Go Murakami, Marzia Parisi, Abigail Rymer, Sabine Stanley, Katrin Stephan, Ronald J. Vervack, Jr., Michael H. Wong, Peter Wurz
Figure caption: Uranus’s asymmetric magnetosphere (panel (a); Arridge et al. 2014) presents a unique opportunity to test our understanding of magnetospheric physics. In particular, it remains unclear how and why the relationship between Uranus 1 MeV electron intensities and the amount of potential source plasma in its magnetosphere stands out so starkly from the rest of the giant planets (panel (b); Kollmann et al. 2020).
Paper: The Case for a New Frontiers–Class Uranus Orbiter: System Science at an Underexplored and Unique World with a Mid-scale Mission
Authors: Ian J. Cohen, Chloe Beddingfield, Robert Chancia, Gina DiBraccio, Matthew Hedman, Shannon MacKenzie, Barry Mauk, Kunio M. Sayanagi, Krista M. Soderlund, Elizabeth Turtle, Caitlin Ahrens, Christopher S. Arridge, Shawn M. Brooks, Emma Bunce, Sebastien Charnoz, Athena Coustenis, Robert A. Dillman, Soumyo Dutta, Leigh N. Fletcher, Rebecca Harbison, Ravit Helled, Richard Holme, Lauren Jozwiak, Yasumasa Kasaba, Peter Kollmann, Statia Luszcz-Cook, Kathleen Mandt, Olivier Mousis, Alessandro Mura, Go Murakami, Marzia Parisi, Abigail Rymer, Sabine Stanley, Katrin Stephan, Ronald J. Vervack, Jr., Michael H. Wong, Peter Wurz
Figure caption: Summary of the outstanding science mysteries, science objectives (including linkages to the 2013 Planetary Science Decadal Survey goals), and potential observables that could be addressed by a future New Frontiers–class Uranus orbiter mission.