adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: An Energy Balance Model for Rapidly and Synchronously Rotating Terrestrial Planets
Authors: Jacob Haqq-Misra, Benjamin P. C. Hayworth
Figure caption: Hysteresis in HEXTOR climate states shown as the mean latitude of the ice line as a function of stellar instellation at obliquities of 0° (left column), 23.°5 (middle column), and 45° (right column) for present Earth (top row), aquaplanet (middle row), and land planet (bottom row) geography, with S 0 = 1360 W m−2. Equilibrium climate states are calculated by initializing the model with warm (T = 273 K, red), hot (T = 300 K, orange), and ice-covered (T = 233 K, blue) initial values of T. Dashed blue indicates the melting of a frozen planet and dashed red indicates the freezing of a warm planet.
Paper: An Energy Balance Model for Rapidly and Synchronously Rotating Terrestrial Planets
Authors: Jacob Haqq-Misra, Benjamin P. C. Hayworth
Figure caption: Planetary albedo at the top of the atmosphere, α, as a function of temperature and CO2 partial pressure, and at a fixed 60° zenith angle and fixed surface albedo of 0.3, for two polynomial parameterizations (left, Williams & Kasting 1997; middle, Haqq-Misra et al. 2016) and the HEXTOR lookup table method (right). Calculations assume a solar spectrum. The white region corresponds to numerically unstable solutions where CO2 condenses onto the surface. The lookup table method provides better representation of the underlying radiative–convective equilibrium model solutions for α, particularly at high CO2 partial pressure.
Paper: An Energy Balance Model for Rapidly and Synchronously Rotating Terrestrial Planets
Authors: Jacob Haqq-Misra, Benjamin P. C. Hayworth
Figure caption: HEXTOR calculations of average temperature (T, top row) and planetary albedo (α, bottom row) for an Earth-sized planet orbiting the Sun with 1 bar N2 and 400 ppm CO2. Cases are shown at obliquities of 0° (left column), 23.°5 (middle column), and 45° (right column) with present Earth (magenta), aquaplanet (blue), and land planet (orange) geography.
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 vertical displacement Love number h 2 with range uncertainty assumption.
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: A model of the Lunokhod array of 14 corner cubes with a model of the Lunokhod in the background.
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: Apollo 14 array of 100 small corner cubes; image from NASA.
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: A graph of the distribution of OCA ranges to Apollo 11, 14, and 15 vs. Moon–Sun elongation for 2014 to 2019.
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 horizontal displacement Love number l 2 with range uncertainty assumption.
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 libration γ with range uncertainty assumption.
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 libration β with range uncertainty assumption.
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 equivalence principle cos D coefficient with range uncertainty assumption.
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: Apollo 15 array of 300 small corner cubes; image from NASA.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Comparison of the ejecta speed profile at DART’s impact (left) and a week after impact (right) for 600 solutions that reimpact Dimorphos (blue), stay in orbit around the system (black), or escape the system (magenta).
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: The ZVCs and position of L1,2 with and without the effect of SRP, shown in the Hill coordinate frame of the Sun–Didymos system. The center figure is in nondimensional coordinates. Didymos, Dimorphos, and Dimorphos’s orbit are not to scale, and Dimorphos’s position is at the epoch of impact.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Comparison of the ejecta speed profile at DART’s impact (left) and a week after impact (right) as a function of their distance from Dimorphos in J2000 coordinates: reimpact Dimorphos (blue), stay in orbit around the system (black), or escape the system (magenta).
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Comparison of the ejecta speed profile at DART’s impact (left) and a week after impact (right) as a function of their distance from Didymos in J2000 coordinates: reimpact Dimorphos (blue), stay in orbit around the system (black), or escape the system (magenta).
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Fate of ejecta 1 week after DART impact; view at 2 km distance from Didymos barycenter.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Specific potential energy of the ejecta particles at the time of impact in the Hill coordinate frame of the Sun–Didymos system. The trajectories on the right-hand side show the 1 week orbit of a particle, with the final specific potential energy marked in red in the left panel. Refer to Figure 10 for details on color coding.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Specific potential energy of the ejecta particles at the time of impact in the Hill coordinate frame of the Sun–Didymos system. The right panel shows a close view of the solutions circled in gray in the left panel. Refer to Figure 10 for details on color coding.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Distribution of orbital parameters for ejecta particles in the Didymos two-body system. Distributions are shown both at t = 0 (right at the end of the cratering phase) and after 24 hr.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Single-look delay (vertical axis) and Doppler (horizontal axis) image of the northern hemisphere of Venus in OC polarization converted to magnitude and scaled logarithmically (in decibels). Zero Doppler shift is at the center of the image, with maximum Doppler shift from the limbs of the planet along the left and right edges. The sub-Earth point on Venus is at the top center. The region of strong quasi-specular scattering near the sub-Earth point is very bright. This is the last Arecibo image of Venus collected prior to the collapse of the telescope, from 2020 May 30.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Radar incidence angle on the Venus surface for two observing years with different SRP locations (Table 2). The incidence-angle variations form concentric circles around the SRP. We have truncated the angle range to 15°–76°, as used for the PDS image products. Orthographic projection is centered on 0°N, 335°E.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Radar images from 2015 of Alpha Regio and plains to the south. In panel (a), the oval bright feature south of Alpha is the sharp, folded-over image of Maxwell Montes in the northern hemisphere. In panel (b), multilook summing has blurred the series of looks in which the image of Maxwell is shifting across the region. This reduces the echo strength of such north–south folded features, but they can clearly impact geologic studies.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Comparison of coverage area on Venus with varying SRP latitude. The maximum span of the SRP latitude at conjunction is between about 8°N and 9°S. When the SRP is in the northern hemisphere in 2015 (left), more of the high northern latitudes are visible. Both images are truncated at 76° incidence angle (Figure 4).
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Plot of third-order fits to mean echo power (decibels) relative to the noise background vs. incidence angle for northern hemisphere observations from 1988, 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2020.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Plot of third-order fits to mean echo power (decibels) relative to the noise background vs. incidence angle for southern hemisphere observations from 1988, 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2020.
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: time variability of (a)–(c) surface temperature (K), (d) ice-free ocean area fraction, (e)–(h) cloud water path (kg m−2), and (i)–(l) the altitude of the cloud mass mixing ratio (MMR) maximum (km). Each column shows ((a), (d), (e), (i)) global mean, ((b), (f), (j)) day-side mean, ((c), (g), (k)) night-side mean, and ((h), (l)) terminator mean. Thin lines show the raw data, while thick lines show a five-orbit rolling mean.
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 1 simulations. Panels (a)–(d): TOA outgoing longwave radiation (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: 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: time-mean surface temperature (K) in (a) ExoCAM, (b) LMD-G, (c) ROCKE-3D, and (d) the UM.
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: Surface area fraction with corresponding time-mean temperature binned every 10 K in (a) Hab 1 and (b) Hab 2.
Paper: Radar and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Asteroid 2019 OK
Authors: Luisa Fernanda Zambrano-Marin, Ellen S. Howell, Patrick A. Taylor, Sean E. Marshall, Maxime Devogèle, Anne K. Virkki, Dylan C. Hickson, Edgard G. Rivera-Valentín, Flaviane C. F. Venditti, Jon D. Giorgini
Figure caption: Echo-power distribution over Doppler frequency in terms of standard deviations of the background noise for each scan (1–11; times in UT) of 2019 OK and the weighted sum of all scans (bottom right panel) observed using the Arecibo S-band radar system on 2019 July 25, when the object was at 0.009 11 au and receding from Earth. The center frequency has a consistent offset of about +31 Hz, which corresponds to a line-of-sight velocity correction of 1.95 m s–1. The spikiness is due to self-noise and does not necessarily reflect any physical or compositional characteristics.
Paper: An Energy Balance Model for Rapidly and Synchronously Rotating Terrestrial Planets
Authors: Jacob Haqq-Misra, Benjamin P. C. Hayworth
Figure caption: HEXTOR climate states for TRAPPIST-1e do not show strong bistability between cold and ice-free conditions. Calculations with the coordinate-transformed tidally locked EBM are shown as the mean longitude of the ice line as a function of stellar instellation for the Ben1 (top left), Ben2 (top right), Hab1 (bottom left), and Hab2 (bottom right) THAI protocol cases, with S 0 = 900 W m−2. Equilibrium climate states are calculated by initializing the model with warm (T = 273 K, red), hot (T = 300 K, orange), and ice-covered (T = 233 K, blue) initial values of T. Dashed blue indicates the melting of a frozen planet and dashed red indicates the freezing of a warm planet. The moderate amount of hysteresis that depends on initial conditions is likely due to limitations of the model configuration.
Paper: Radar and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Asteroid 2019 OK
Authors: Luisa Fernanda Zambrano-Marin, Ellen S. Howell, Patrick A. Taylor, Sean E. Marshall, Maxime Devogèle, Anne K. Virkki, Dylan C. Hickson, Edgard G. Rivera-Valentín, Flaviane C. F. Venditti, Jon D. Giorgini
Figure caption: Range–Doppler images of each scan (1–17, left to right and top to bottom) and the sum of all 17 scans (bottom right frame) using 0.5 μs baud with a resolution of 75 m per pixel in range and 15.3 Hz in Doppler. Delay (range) increases along the vertical axis from bottom to top, and Doppler increases along the horizontal axis from left to right in each frame. The signals are spread over two to three columns (Doppler frequency) and one or two rows (delay) throughout the sequence. Total observation time 6.18 minutes with 3 s per scan.
Paper: Radar and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Asteroid 2019 OK
Authors: Luisa Fernanda Zambrano-Marin, Ellen S. Howell, Patrick A. Taylor, Sean E. Marshall, Maxime Devogèle, Anne K. Virkki, Dylan C. Hickson, Edgard G. Rivera-Valentín, Flaviane C. F. Venditti, Jon D. Giorgini
Figure caption: Range of diameters obtained from calculation of Equation (1) for H = 23.3 ± 0.3 as a function of optical albedos p  V  0.025 to 0.5. The shaded band is the uncertainty in H. The solid purple horizontal lines denote the limits for a diameter of 40 m and 200 m, respectively, corresponding to mathematically possible diameter limits. The dotted red lines denote the limits of 70 m and 130 m, respectively; corresponding to the most likely diameter range (see Section 3.2).
Paper: Radar and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Asteroid 2019 OK
Authors: Luisa Fernanda Zambrano-Marin, Ellen S. Howell, Patrick A. Taylor, Sean E. Marshall, Maxime Devogèle, Anne K. Virkki, Dylan C. Hickson, Edgard G. Rivera-Valentín, Flaviane C. F. Venditti, Jon D. Giorgini
Figure caption: Exploration of bandwidth variation for the data using waterfall plots (spectrograms) for the specific mode of observation. Top box shows the CW observations. The raw data from each scan have been smoothed with an 11-point boxcar (rectangular) filter, giving an effective frequency resolution of 3.7 Hz. This is about the same as the 3.8 Hz frequency resolution of the 4 μs and 0.5 μs images. Middle and bottom boxes (range–Doppler) and delay-Doppler observations for the region with 2019 OK’s signal from the 4 and 0.5 μs observations. These data have been processed to have a frequency resolution of 3.8 Hz.
Paper: Radar and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Asteroid 2019 OK
Authors: Luisa Fernanda Zambrano-Marin, Ellen S. Howell, Patrick A. Taylor, Sean E. Marshall, Maxime Devogèle, Anne K. Virkki, Dylan C. Hickson, Edgard G. Rivera-Valentín, Flaviane C. F. Venditti, Jon D. Giorgini
Figure caption: Highlight of the location of 2019 OK, in terms of H magnitude versus rotation period (P  rot ), among the general asteroid population (including Main Belt Asteroids (MBA) and NEAs) from the Light Curve Database (Warner et al. 2009) 2020 May release with quality factors greater than or equal to 2.
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: A 10 cm next-generation corner cube in the laboratory.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Acceleration environment in the close proximity of the Didymos binary system. Ranges between minimum and maximum accelerations due to the gravity of Didymos and Dimorphos (modeled as homogeneous spheres), third-body gravitational perturbation of the Sun, and SRP are shown (left). Minimum–maximum ranges are computed within a time frame between DART’s impact (2022 September 26) and 2023 December 31. These dates includes Didymos’s perihelion (2022 October 22) and aphelion (2023 November 11), which represent the limiting conditions for SRP and the Sun’s third-body perturbation. The SRP values are shown for different ejecta particle sizes, considering a homogeneous sphere with a material density of 3000 kg m−3 (left). The SRP cutoff distance, defined as the distance where SRP acceleration is equal to the gravity of Didymos, is shown as a function of particle size and a range of material density between 1000 and 3000 kg m−3 (right).
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Number of collisions as a function of time during the early collisional phase for the low-resolution SPH simulation case with a 10 Pa cohesive target. The left panel shows the dependency on the maximum spin rate ﹩{\omega }_{\max }﹩ of the ejecta particles. The right panel shows the dependency on the maximum deviation angle ﹩{\theta }_{\max }﹩, representing random noise in the direction of the translational velocity of the ejecta.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Normalized ejected mass (relative to the projectile’s mass) at speeds greater than v as a function of the normalized ejection speed, v/U (where U is the impact speed), for impacts into (a) spherical and (b) ellipsoidal targets with cohesions Y 0 = 10 and 0 Pa. The shaded area shows the velocity range between which ejected particles leave Dimorphos (higher than Dimorphos’s escape velocity) but do not escape the Didymos system (lower than the Didymos system’s escape velocity).
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Fate of ejecta 1 week after DART impact; view at 5 km distance from Didymos barycenter.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Fate of ejecta 1 week after DART impact.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Profiles from Bern SPH simulations showing the target and the evolution of ejecta from impacts into (a) a spherical target with Y 0 = 10 Pa, (b) a spherical target with Y 0 = 0 Pa, (c) an elliptical target with Y 0 = 10 Pa, and (d) an elliptical target with Y 0 = 0 Pa. The profiles are plotted at (panels (a) and (c)) 500 and (panels (b) and (d)) 1000 s after the impact. The color bar shows the absolute velocity of the SPH particles.
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Dispersion of orbital eccentricity and inclination variations before and after the early collisional phase. Dispersion histograms are shown here for cases with ﹩{\omega }_{\max }=0.1\,\mathrm{rad}﹩ s−1 reported in Table 5 (first three rows).
Paper: Ejecta Formation, Early Collisional Processes, and Dynamical Evolution after the DART Impact on Dimorphos
Authors: Fabio Ferrari, Sabina D. Raducan, Stefania Soldini, Martin Jutzi
Figure caption: Number of ejecta fragments with e > 1 as a function of time during the early collisional phase.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: The overlap region of the incidence angle for the 2015 Arecibo data and Magellan Cycle 1 coverage is shown as a yellow overlay on a 2015 OC image. The tolerance for a difference in incidence angle is ±2°. The range of latitude is truncated at 20°N, such that the overall range in incidence angle within the swath is about 35°–45°.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Plot of mean Magellan backscatter coefficient value vs. 2015 (crosses) and 2017 (squares) Arecibo OC echo for overlap regions. The blue line is best-fit linear function for the 2015 Arecibo data where the S/N is >3 dB. The slope of this line is 1.08, indicating a good agreement with the changes in Magellan backscatter. The 2017 data merge with the 2015 trend only at the highest backscatter.
Paper: Arecibo Radar Maps of Venus from 1988 to 2020
Authors: Bruce A. Campbell, Donald B. Campbell
Figure caption: Arecibo 2017 CPR overlaid on the Magellan image for a portion of western Eistla Regio (10°–35°N, 32°–55°E). Very high values (red) are associated with terrain above a critical elevation of ∼6054 km planetary radius. The low SC echoes from this limb region limit the detected CPR values to those above ∼0.5, which correspond to very rough terrestrial volcanic surfaces.