adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: Thermal inertia, diameters, and albedos of our selected 1847 asteroid sample with their associated uncertainties. The visible geometric albedos are calculated from the Bond albedos using Equation (3). As with Figure 5, asteroids with a best-fit thermal inertia of 0 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1 are instead represented here with a value of 0.1 to accommodate the logarithmic scale. Error bars are only plotted for a best-fit thermal inertia of 50 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1 or above in order to avoid visual clutter. The DAMIT points in grayscale refer to the TPM fits using the original shape model and are unchanged from Figure 5. The colored points indicate the 476 cases in this sample where we obtained better TPM fits with the new shape models. Similarly, the colored portions of the histograms represent the fraction of total TPM fits that used the revised shape models. While the majority of the revised shape model TPM fits find thermal inertia values of less than 1000 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1, the diameter and albedo values are more evenly distributed throughout their respective total ranges. The smallest asteroid shown in this figure is the 1.2 km NEA (1865) Cerberus, which is conspicuous here only as a result of the very few NEAs in our sample. The very low albedo at A = 0.005 and p  V  = 0.013 belongs to the B-type MBA (1484) Postrema. Such low values for asteroid albedo are extremely rare (see, e.g., Masiero et al. 2011), but our derived estimate agrees within 1σ of the existing estimate derived through NEATM fitting of WISE data by Masiero et al. (2014).
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: Our 191 asteroid sample’s diameters and thermal inertia normalized to 1 au are shown here along with the 502 thermophysically derived literature values referenced in Table 1. Numbers from the literature include multiple instances of the same asteroid in order to account for the differences between independently derived parameters. Thermal inertia of 0 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1 are represented here with values of 0.1 for the convenience of the logarithmic scale. When we apply linear fits to the data of the form ﹩\mathrm{log}[{\rm{\Gamma }}]=\alpha +\beta \mathrm{log}[D]﹩, we find the most similarity between the literature-only and combined data sets, as we have nearly twice as many data points from the literature as we do of our sample. We also see that the fit to our sample alone prefers a larger α and steeper β mainly due to the lack of large diameter data points, where we only have one larger than 100 km. Overall, we find good agreement between our results and the literature, with all terms within 1–2σ of each other.
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: Thermal inertia (normalized to 1 au), diameter, and albedo represented as stacked histograms for our 191 asteroids with our most reliable TPM fits. The taxonomic types are sorted into three categories accordingly: C-, B-, F-, G-, D-, and T-types in the C-group; S-, V-, A-, Q-, R-, K-, and L-types in the S-group; and X-, M-, P-, and E-types in the X-group. The remaining 77 asteroids have unknown taxonomy and are not included here. Literature estimates for thermal inertia and diameter are included from Table 1. Note that the literature numbers count each duplicate asteroid in the table separately in order to account for the differences between independently derived parameters. The thermal inertia and size distributions are roughly equal when split by taxonomic class. The geometric albedo distribution is consistent with past observations of each taxonomic class, where C-group asteroids are most common among albedos of p  V  < 0.10 and S-group asteroids are most common for brighter albedos, while X-group asteroids are scattered across the entire albedo range (e.g., Gradie & Tedesco 1982; Tholen 1984).
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: WISE diameters determined by NEATM and the diameters derived by our TPM fits. The inset shows an enlarged range between 0 and 50 km. The dashed line denotes where the two axes are equal, and the darker and lighter shaded regions show where the axes are, respectively, within 10% and 20% of each other. The asteroids plotted are separated based on the median saturation in their W3 band thermal flux measurements. We find that the 1652 nonsaturated asteroids have TPM diameters on average 95% the size of the WISE diameters, while the difference for the 170 saturated asteroids is at 91%. While our TPM fits only model the W3 and W4 bands, the NEATM fits have the benefit of also modeling the W2 band observation at high S/N, which downweights the significance of the W3 observation. We thus recommend readers to treat our derived thermophysical parameters for our W3 saturated asteroids with caution.
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: We plot the number of dense lightcurves included in each asteroid’s optical lightcurve data used to derive their shape models against their thermal inertia estimates for our 1847 asteroid sample. Zero dense optical lightcurves are represented here as 0.1 to accommodate the logarithmic axis. The physically implausibly high thermal inertia estimates of Γ > 1000 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1 are among the asteroids with the fewest optical lightcurve data. Limiting our sample to the shape models derived from data sets with at least one dense optical lightcurve, denoted by the vertical dashed line, is enough to remove nearly all cases with a best-fit thermal inertia of Γ > 1000 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1.
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: WISE albedos determined by NEATM and the albedos derived by our TPM fits, converted from Bond to visible geometric with Equation (3). The dashed line denotes where the two axes are equal, and the darker and lighter shaded regions show where the axes are, respectively, within 20% and 40% of each other. There is a greater discrepancy between the two data sets relative to the diameter comparison in Figure 9. The larger uncertainty on albedo is expected as it is proportional to D 2 and is also subject to the unreported uncertainties on the H and G parameters. We find that the 1652 asteroids without any saturation in their W3 band thermal flux measurements have albedos on average 98% the value of the WISE albedos. The 170 saturated asteroids however are much higher, at 111% the value of the WISE albedos.
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: Best-fit thermal inertia for our 191 most reliable TPM fits with no W3 saturation listed in Table 3, along with the 425 unique (or 442 total) MBAs reported in the literature (Table 1). Especially high thermal inertia cases are denoted by TPM fits where the upper uncertainty on the best-fit thermal inertia exceeds 250 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1, marked by the vertical dashed line, which is equal to the Delbo’ & Tanga (2009) thermal inertia estimate for (277) Elvira, the highest thermal inertia estimate reported for an MBA in Table 1. Our high thermal inertia estimates overlap in values with the estimates in the literature. However, our work can only provide tenuous evidence of unusually high thermal inertia in the main belt due to the consistently large associated uncertainties.
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: An example of how the transverse acceleration parameter A 2 changes as a function of thermal inertia, diameter, and Bond albedo respectively for (1685) Toro. Parameters not being varied are otherwise held constant at the best-fit values our TPM found for the asteroid,denoted by the single scatter point in each panel. While A 2 is inversely proportional with diameter and albedo, its magnitude drops off both for very low and very high thermal inertia values.
Paper: Thermal Properties of 1847 WISE-observed Asteroids
Authors: Denise Hung, Josef Hanuš, Joseph R. Masiero, David J. Tholen
Figure caption: Our 191 asteroid sample’s rotation periods are shown here plotted against their thermal inertia normalized to 1 au. Thermal inertia of 0 J m−2 s−0.5 K−1 are represented here with values of 0.1 for the convenience of the logarithmic scale. The dashed vertical line shows the 12 hour period separation into the 143 fast and 48 slow rotators. By applying a linear fit and a constant fit to the data, we find that any evidence of a positive correlation is very weak and difficult to substantiate due to the small number of data points at P > 30 h, the large scatter in the relation, and the large uncertainties on thermal inertia.
Paper: Detection of the Irregular Shape of the Southern Limb of Menoetius from Observations of the 2017–2018 Patroclus–Menoetius Mutual Events
Authors: Noemí Pinilla-Alonso, Marcel Popescu, Javier Licandro, Estela Fernández-Valenzuela, Will M. Grundy, Rene Duffard, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Diego Hidalgo Soto, Juan Luis Rizos, David Morate
Figure caption: (a) The difference between the projected area of the occulted region according to simulations and the one resulting from observation. The values were normalized to the total projected area of the two bodies (i.e ﹩{A}_{1}+{A}_{2}=\pi {R}_{1}^{2}+\pi {R}_{2}^{2}﹩). (b) The depth of the crater at different angles; ϕ is the angle between the orbital pole, Menoetius’s center, and Patroclus’s center. The values are normalized to the radius of Menoetius. (c) The approximate shape of Menoetius as resulted from these events.
Paper: Detection of the Irregular Shape of the Southern Limb of Menoetius from Observations of the 2017–2018 Patroclus–Menoetius Mutual Events
Authors: Noemí Pinilla-Alonso, Marcel Popescu, Javier Licandro, Estela Fernández-Valenzuela, Will M. Grundy, Rene Duffard, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Diego Hidalgo Soto, Juan Luis Rizos, David Morate
Figure caption: The geometry of LC20171208 and LC20171223 events. The figure shows the projection in the plane of sky. The blue arrows indicate the motion of Menoetius relative to Patroclus. The shadow of the object that is in front is shown for comparison.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: NAC image coverage over the mapping area. Red circles show the mapping region, and the gray boxes show the footprints of the 109 NAC images used. Darker areas show where several NACs overlap, covering the same area.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: (a) 2 km exploration zone around site 001 shown on NAC mosaic (1 m pixel−1), all features shown. (b) 2 km exploration zone on LOLA (5 m pixel−1) derived slope map, blue box shows the extent of (c) and (d) which is a more accessible region with slopes of less than 10°. Scale bars in (a) and (b) are 2400 m and scale bars in (c) and (d) are 680 m. (c) NAC mosaic at more accessible area within the site 001 exploration zone. (d) Detail of the LOLA derived slope map.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: (a) 2 km exploration zone around site 004 shown on NAC mosaic (1 m pixel−1), all features shown. (b) 2 km exploration zone on LOLA (5 m pixel−1) derived slope map. The blue box shows the extent of c and d which are more accessible region with slopes less than 10°. (c) NAC mosaic at an accessible area within the ellipse. (d) Detail of the LOLA derived slope map. Scale bars in (a) and (b) are 2100 m and those in (c) and (d) are 510 m.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Examples of boulders and rock exposures that are within/in near proximity to the Artemis III candidate regions and therefore are of potential interest for sampling. (a) context image of where (b)–(f) are located. (b) Rock exposures on the rim of Shackleton crater. (c) Rock exposures and boulders just above the ridge. (d) Rock exposure and boulders. (e) Boulder field. (f) Large boulders.
Paper: Detection of the Irregular Shape of the Southern Limb of Menoetius from Observations of the 2017–2018 Patroclus–Menoetius Mutual Events
Authors: Noemí Pinilla-Alonso, Marcel Popescu, Javier Licandro, Estela Fernández-Valenzuela, Will M. Grundy, Rene Duffard, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Diego Hidalgo Soto, Juan Luis Rizos, David Morate
Figure caption: Light curves of the series of mutual events of the Patroclus–Menoetius system observed in different telescopes. Circles and diamonds represent the photometric data, while lines represent the predicted light curve following the orbital solution in Grundy et al. (2018). The light curves shown for the TCS observations are the result of averaging three light curves obtained simultaneously in different filters; see Section 3 for more details.
Paper: Detection of the Irregular Shape of the Southern Limb of Menoetius from Observations of the 2017–2018 Patroclus–Menoetius Mutual Events
Authors: Noemí Pinilla-Alonso, Marcel Popescu, Javier Licandro, Estela Fernández-Valenzuela, Will M. Grundy, Rene Duffard, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Diego Hidalgo Soto, Juan Luis Rizos, David Morate
Figure caption: Light curves of the series of mutual events of the Patroclus–Menoetius system observed in different telescopes. The gray lines represent the event light curves computed using the orbit solutions from our analysis. See Section 4.2 for details.
Paper: Detection of the Irregular Shape of the Southern Limb of Menoetius from Observations of the 2017–2018 Patroclus–Menoetius Mutual Events
Authors: Noemí Pinilla-Alonso, Marcel Popescu, Javier Licandro, Estela Fernández-Valenzuela, Will M. Grundy, Rene Duffard, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Diego Hidalgo Soto, Juan Luis Rizos, David Morate
Figure caption: Left panel: relative magnitude in different filters taken simultaneously with MuSCAT2 at the Telescopio Carlos Sanchez on 2018 March 23. Filters are g, r, i, and z  s  from top to bottom. An arbitrary offset has been applied for clarity. Right panel: color light curves from the same light curves as in the left panel. Most of the data are within 1.5σ of the straight line (dashed black line in the plot). From top to bottom we show g − i, i − r, and g − r. No variation of the color during the event is detected.
Paper: Detection of the Irregular Shape of the Southern Limb of Menoetius from Observations of the 2017–2018 Patroclus–Menoetius Mutual Events
Authors: Noemí Pinilla-Alonso, Marcel Popescu, Javier Licandro, Estela Fernández-Valenzuela, Will M. Grundy, Rene Duffard, Antonio Cabrera-Lavers, Diego Hidalgo Soto, Juan Luis Rizos, David Morate
Figure caption: Light curves of the complete events showing the moments when the first and last contacts are measured (vertical lines). The magnitude drop at maximum of the event is marked with an orange cross.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Distribution of features with distance from the Shackleton crater rim (a) scatter plot of the change in elevation with horizontal distance from Shackleton crater rim. (b) Distribution of boulders with distance from Shackleton crater rim. (c) Distribution of rock exposures with distance from Shackleton crater rim. (d) Distribution of rocky craters with distance from Shackleton crater rim.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Context image showing location of the south pole and Shackleton crater; see Figure A1 for an outline of the region mapped here. White stars show the location of the south pole, site 001 (222.69°E, 89.45°S) and site 004 (204.27°E, 89.78°S). Pink square shows the location of the Artemis III candidate landing site, “Connecting Ridge”. (a)–(c) show the south pole and the points of interest of sites 001 and 004 in relation to Shackleton crater. (a) NAC mosaic (map assembled by Arizona State University and downloaded from Moon Trek (Day & Law 2018)) of the Shackleton region. (b) LOLA DEM (5 m pixel−1) overlaid on a hillshade made using the LOLA DEM, showing the elevation of the Shackleton crater and surrounding region. (c) WAC illumination mosaic LROC. (d) Slope map overlaid on hillshade, both made using the LOLA (5 m pixel−1) elevation data.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Boulder distribution in sunlit regions overlaid on a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) south pole illumination map from Mazarico et al. (2011) (100 m pixel−1). (a) Context figure for (b)–(d). Red circles show the mapped area. Yellow points show the locations of individual boulders, and the blue squares show the locations of (b)–(d). (b) Distribution of boulders near large PSRs to the left of the image just on the edge of the mapping area. Bickel et al. (2021, 2022) found additional boulders in some of those PSRs (not shown here). (c) Boulder distribution across the “Connecting Ridge” area and fewer boulders seen surrounding the PSRs to the top of the image. (d) Boulder distribution to the base of the “Connecting Ridge” slope, more boulders seen surrounding the PSRs that cover crater floors.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Density maps overlain on the illumination map by Mazarico et al. (2011). Density maps were created using a cell size of 100 m and a search radius of 1000 km2. (a) Boulder distribution. (b) Rocky crater distribution (c) Rock exposures distribution. (d) LOLA derived slope map (5 m pixel−1) to compare distribution with.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Features mapped (isolated boulders, rock exposures, rocky craters) overlaid on the Bernhardt et al. (2022) geomorphological map. Distribution of features in relation to the geomorphic units can be seen, including around the “Connecting Ridge” the moderately slumped unit aligns with the mapped features. Blue star shows the location of the south pole (90°S) and longitude lines marked.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: 2 km exploration zones around sites 001 and 004 shown on LOLA (5 m pixel−1) derived slope maps overlaid on a LOLA derived hillshade. (a)–(c) shows the exploration zone around site 001. Scale bars in all panels are 2.1 km long. (a) Boulder distribution in relation to slopes. (b) Rock exposure distribution in relation to slopes. (c) Rocky craters in relation to slopes. (d)–(f) shows the 2 km ellipse around site 004. (d) Boulder distribution in relation to slopes. (e) Rock exposure distribution in relation to slopes. (f) Rocky craters in relation to slopes.
Paper: The Distribution and Accessibility of Geologic Targets near the Lunar South Pole and Candidate Artemis Landing Sites
Authors: Sarah. J. Boazman, Jahnavi Shah, Harish, Aleksandra J. Gawronska, Samuel H. Halim, Animireddi V. Satyakumar, Cosette M. Gilmour, Valentin T. Bickel, Natasha Barrett, David A. Kring
Figure caption: Histograms of the distribution of boulders, rock exposures, and rocky craters in relation to the elevation and the slopes.
Paper: The Outer Edge of the Venus Zone around Main-sequence Stars
Authors: Monica R. Vidaurri, Sandra T. Bastelberger, Eric T. Wolf, Shawn Domagal-Goldman, Ravi Kumar Kopparapu
Figure caption: A comparison of pressure–temperature profiles of our Venus analogs at their last stable run for each star type, all at S eff = 1. Here the temperature profiles for Venus analogs around F stars tend to be cooler than the profiles for planets around M stars. This is due to the makeup of the atmosphere in our model: the CO2 and N2 components. The F star, for example, emits more peak radiation in the blue part of the spectrum than the other stars. The CO2–N2–H2O atmosphere acts as an effective scattering medium for the shorter-wavelength radiation, resulting in comparatively lower incoming solar radiation reaching the planet’s surface and causing little warming. The M stars, on the other hand, emit their peak radiation more in the infrared part of the spectrum, which can reach the surface owing to lower Rayleigh scattering. Furthermore, the Venus-analog atmosphere is dominated by CO2, which is an efficient absorber of near-IR radiation, resulting in a warmer profile.