adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Anticipating the DART Impact: Orbit Estimation of Dimorphos Using a Simplified Model
Authors: Shantanu P. Naidu, Steven R. Chesley, Davide Farnocchia, Nick Moskovitz, Petr Pravec, Petr Scheirich, Cristina Thomas, Andrew S. Rivkin
Figure caption: A secondary eclipse event showing various contact times. The horizontal blue line represents the baseline magnitude of the system and is computed by taking the average magnitude of the points just outside the mutual event. The black line indicates a magnitude that is fainter than the baseline by 0.023 mag, which represents a 2.1% drop in brightness of the system.
Paper: Probing the Icy Shell Structure of Ocean Worlds with Gravity–Topography Admittance
Authors: Ryunosuke Akiba, Anton I. Ermakov, Burkhard Militzer
Figure caption: Comparison of different admittance error thresholds to the simulated observational error from two Enceladus orbiter missions from Ermakov et al. (2021) and the current gravity error from Iess et al. (2014). Admittance error (A) and gravity error rms spectra (B) are shown for a single spacecraft with X-band tracking with 10−7 km s−1 accuracy and a GRAIL-like dual spacecraft with intersatellite Ka-band tracking with 10−9 km s−1 accuracy (corresponding to Figure 6 in Ermakov et al. 2021). Current observational gravity error and admittance error from two gravity field models (SOL1 and SOL2) are shown for degrees 2 and 3 (Iess et al. 2014). A set of gravity performance curves is shown for a given admittance error threshold with a factor g(n + 1), with the gravitational acceleration of Enceladus g in units of mGal (B).
Paper: Probing the Icy Shell Structure of Ocean Worlds with Gravity–Topography Admittance
Authors: Ryunosuke Akiba, Anton I. Ermakov, Burkhard Militzer
Figure caption: Admittance spectra and viscosity profiles for tidally heated shells of Europa with different shell thicknesses. (A) Admittance for the bottom material boundary (solid curve) and the Airy isostasy (dotted curve) are shown for different shell thicknesses with solid lines. Admittance spectra assuming uncompensated topography are shown with a dashed curve. (B) Admittance spectra for the bottom phase boundary (dotted–dashed curve) are shown for different shell thicknesses. (C) Viscosity profiles are plotted against depth normalized to shell thickness, D. A value of η melt = 1014 Pa s is chosen, and a viscosity bound of η bound = 1024 Pa s is imposed.
Paper: Probing the Icy Shell Structure of Ocean Worlds with Gravity–Topography Admittance
Authors: Ryunosuke Akiba, Anton I. Ermakov, Burkhard Militzer
Figure caption: Comparison of admittance spectra for models of Europa and Enceladus. Shell thicknesses of 30 km for Europa (left) and 21 km for Enceladus (right) are assumed. Admittance spectra for bottom material (solid) and bottom phase boundaries (dotted–dashed) are shown. Admittance assuming the uncompensated (dash) and Airy isostasy (dot) cases are also shown. Melt viscosity η melt = 1014 Pa s and viscosity bound η bound = 1024 Pa s are used.
Paper: Probing the Icy Shell Structure of Ocean Worlds with Gravity–Topography Admittance
Authors: Ryunosuke Akiba, Anton I. Ermakov, Burkhard Militzer
Figure caption: A comparison of how real and imaginary parts of the tidal Love number k 2 as well as admittance for Europa (Z3  and Z 10) depend on the shell thickness D = 5–30 km and melt viscosity η melt = 1013–1015 Pa s using the material boundary condition at the base of the shell. Contours of ﹩\mathrm{Re}({k}_{2})﹩ (dashed) are plotted in panels (A) and (C). Contours of ﹩\mathrm{Im}({k}_{2})﹩ (dotted) are plotted in panels (B) and (D). Filled contours of admittance at degree 3 are shown in panels (A) and (B). Filled contours of admittance at degree 10 are shown in panels (C) and (D). A viscosity bound of 1024 Pa s was applied. Combinations of thickness and η melt, where a temperature profile did not converge according to our criteria (Section 2.3), are shown in gray.
Paper: Probing the Icy Shell Structure of Ocean Worlds with Gravity–Topography Admittance
Authors: Ryunosuke Akiba, Anton I. Ermakov, Burkhard Militzer
Figure caption: Comparison of admittance spectra of Enceladus for rocky interior topographies of different amplitudes. The model of Enceladus is the same as the one used in Figure 7. The black dashed curve corresponds to the reference admittance spectrum of Enceladus with a bottom material boundary and a hydrostatic mantle. The median rocky interior admittance Z 50 found from the Monte Carlo modeling is shown by the blue curve, and the 5%–95% confidence interval is shown in orange. Admittances are given for rocky interior topography power laws with β = 2 (panels (A) and (B)) and β = 3 (panels (C) and (D)). Power laws are computed with an rms2 of 10 m (panels (A) and (C)) and rms2 of 100 m (panels (B) and (D)), and corresponding values of α are shown.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparison between the truth and reconstructed shape models for the Itokawa_DRACO test. The figure shows six views along the principal X-, Y-, and Z-axes of the shape models. The −Y view is the side that is best seen by DRACO. In the rightmost panel, the truth shape is colored ivory, the reconstructed shape is blue. In some places the blue shape extends beyond the truth shape (e.g., the underside of the “belly” of Itokawa in the +Y and −Y panels). In other places, the reconstructed shape is too small (e.g., the “head” of Itokawa in the −X, +Y, and −Y panels). In terms of overall volume error, the places where the reconstructed shape extends too far compensate for the places where the reconstructed shape does next extend far enough. This offset helps make the overall volume error low, despite the mismatch in bulk shape in unseen areas. Figure 7 shows which areas are constrained by maplets or limb points.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparison between the DRACO-only and DRACO+LEIA reconstructed shape models for Itokawa. The figure shows six views along the principal X-, Y-,and Z-axes of the shape model. The −Y view is the side that is best seen by DRACO. In the rightmost panel, the truth shape is colored ivory, the DRACO-only shape is red, and the DRACO+LEIA shape is yellow. The DRACO+ LEIA shape is a much better match to the head and belly of Itokawa than the DRACO-only shape. This improvement occurs largely because of the additional limbs provided by LEIA images, which help to bump out the head and carve in the belly. Figure 7 shows which areas are constrained by maplets or limb points.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparison between the truth and reconstructed shape models for the Bennu_ideal test. The figure shows six views along the principal X-, Y-, and Z-axes of the shape models. The −Y view is the side that is best seen by DRACO. In the rightmost panel, the truth shape is colored ivory, and the reconstructed shape is blue. In contrast to the Itokawa case, in the Bennu case the reconstructed shape model is almost uniformly too large (i.e., the blue protrudes beyond the ivory in the vast majority of places). Figure 7 shows which areas are constrained by maplets or limb points.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Examples of comparisons between the limbs and terminators of rendered images of the shape model vs. reference images. For each image-model pairing, the left column is the image and the center column is the rendered shape model. Green lines mark the position of the limb and terminator in both. A difference image (right column) emphasizes mismatches between the models and images. Green areas are where the model and image agree; other colors indicate areas of mismatch. All four images in the right panel are from the Itokawa_DRACO+LEIA test. The top image is from DRACO; the following three are from LEIA.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparison between final shape models built using (a) images of shrunken Bennu with perfect knowledge of spacecraft position and camera pointing, (b) images with expected errors in spacecraft position and camera pointing, and (c) a comparison of both shapes vs. the truth model. In (c), the Bennu_ideal model is dark purple, the Bennu_errors model is lilac, and the truth model is white. The long-wavelength differences between the shapes are more likely due to differences in trimming (visible in the −X view), rather than errors in camera knowledge. The −Y view is the side that is best seen by DRACO. Figure 7 shows which areas are constrained by maplets or limb points.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparisons between the rms residual per maplet for the four test tests with maplets. For the Itokawa DRACO+LEIA case, the maplets with the higher rms residuals are the maplets that contain both LEIA and DRACO images, in part because of the coarser pixel scale of the LEIA images, because LEIA images are only in the coarsest maplets, and because DRACO images are redundant views at progressively higher resolution, which all agree with each other very well. In both Itokawa tests, higher residuals in DRACO-only maplets tend to occur at the edges of maplet coverage where the image fades off into terminator or is high emission near a limb.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Example of keypoint identification. The algorithm identifies features (keypoints) in the reference image and rendered shape model, which here are shown as dots connected by colored lines. The algorithm then compares the distances between all the keypoints in the reference image and rendered image to assess the shape model.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparison between three LEIA images around time of closest approach (left), the starter  shape (center), and final  shape (right) for the Itokawa_DRACO+LEIA test. The image shown here is a 128 × 128  frame windowed from the 2048 × 2048 image. In flight, these images could contain ejecta. Grid lines are 50 pixels apart.
Paper: Shape Modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART)
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Eric E. Palmer, Hari Nair, Ray C. Espiritu, Sarah Hasnain, Dany Waller, Angela M. Stickle, Michael C. Nolan, Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez, Elisabetta Dotto, Alice Lucchetti, Maurizio Pajola, Simone Ieva, Patrick Michel
Figure caption: Comparison between the truth and reconstructed shape models for the ellipsoid test. In the rightmost panel, the truth shape is colored ivory and the reconstructed shape is blue. The shapes in that panel all appear a light blue color because the reconstructed shape model is always slightly inside (i.e., slightly smaller than) the truth shape.
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: General behavior of the transient crater size (top, left), ejecta mass (bottom, left), ejecta velocity (top, right), and ejection angle (bottom, right) as material properties are varied. Note that these charts are agnostic to gravity and strength regimes as well as dynamic vs. static material properties by showing qualitative trends and assuming conditions before cohesion/internal friction/gravity can play a role at late stages, i.e., the final crater diameter. If no relationship is shown, simulations did not examine the specific interaction in detail. The effects of ejection velocity are shown using triangles: As the value of the property on the x-axis (e.g., porosity, cohesion, etc.) increases, the triangle shows whether the ejecta velocity tends to increase (base of the triangle on top) or decrease (base of the triangle on bottom). The descriptions provide additional information. *The effects of internal friction on ejecta angle depend on the specific material and post-shock conditions.
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: (A), (B) Pictures of the DART spacecraft during assembly. Note the underdense main spacecraft bus and regions of higher mass resulting from the variety of components. (A) DART panel integration and testing, 2020 July. Photo credit: JHUAPL. (B) DART Panel Closeout, 2020 September. Photo credit: JHUAPL. (C) CTH simulation of a spacecraft model, including the main massive components of the interior structure. The simulation was performed in 3D, and the figure is from a 2D slice through the center plane of the spacecraft. (D) Pressure in the asteroid and spacecraft 170 μs following impact, showing development of an asymmetric shock wave as different components hit at different times. Negative pressure represents tension, and positive pressure represents compression. (E) Representation of materials 170 μs after impact, showing how massive components hit at different times. (F) Shock wave at 500 μs after impact. Despite the initial asymmetries, the shock wave begins to regularize at later times. Negative pressure represents tension, and positive pressure represents compression. The viewing window of figures (C)–(F) is 2 m × 2 m.
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: Resulting morphology after a DART-like impact, depending on target cohesion (and fixed 40% porosity). Adapted from Raducan et al. (2019) and Raducan & Jutzi (2022).
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: General effects of a variety of target material properties (competent and particulate) on momentum enhancement. The distance from the center horizontal axis (dashed line) is intended to show the relative magnitude of the effect.
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: CTH simulations illustrating the effects of increasing obliquity on ejecta direction following a hypervelocity impact. As the impact angle with respect to the surface normal increased (i.e., an increasingly oblique impact), the ejecta and projectile (gray material) momentum was carried downrange and, in some cases, did not contribute to the deflection.
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: CTH simulations of the complete DART spacecraft model impacting an asteroid at ∼6 km s−1. (A) Shock wave at 170 μs after impact, showing the elongated region of interaction from the large solar arrays. The strongest shock wave was generated by the spacecraft bus itself. (B) Representation of materials 170 μs after impact, showing the solar panels reaching across the surface and the fragmenting spacecraft.
Paper: Effects of Impact and Target Parameters on the Results of a Kinetic Impactor: Predictions for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) Mission
Authors: Angela M. Stickle, Mallory E. DeCoster, Christoph Burger, Wendy K. Caldwell, Dawn Graninger, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Robert Luther, Jens Ormö, Sabina Raducan, Emma Rainey, Christoph M. Schäfer, James D. Walker, Yun Zhang, Patrick Michel, J. Michael Owen, Olivier Barnouin, Andy F. Cheng, Sidney Chocron, Gareth S. Collins, Thomas M. Davison, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, M. Isabel Herreros, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Martin Jutzi, Alice Lucchetti, Elena Martellato, Maurizio Pajola, Cathy S. Plesko, Megan Bruck Syal, Stephen R. Schwartz, Jessica M. Sunshine, Kai Wünnemann
Figure caption: The momentum enhancement in the orbital direction (parallel to impact momentum vector) (β) was affected by the impact angle (measured from the plane that is tangent to the local target surface at impact). Spheral simulations suggested that impact angle had a greater effect on β than near-surface structure and boulder realizations.
Paper: Pre-encounter Predictions of DART Impact Ejecta Behavior and Observability
Authors: Eugene G. Fahnestock, Andrew F. Cheng, Stavro Ivanovski, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Alessandro Rossi, Paul A. Abell, Steven Chesley, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, Ludmilla Kolokolova, Emily Kramer, Jian-Yang Li, Stephen R. Schwartz, Stefania Soldini, Gonzalo Tancredi, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Simulated HST/WFC3-UVIS images for the nominal case, without (left) and with (right) the appropriate camera PSF applied, at t = 1 (top) and 22 (bottom) hr. Again, t = 0 at the time of impact. Note that the color scale indicates magnitude per pixel and remains fixed at [15, 35] for all frames. The total ejecta brightness integrated over the whole FOV remains nearly constant at 14.30–14.31 mag, but the percent of that brightness concentrated in the brightest pixel declines precipitously from 47.21% in panel (a) to 0.28% in panel (c) with no PSF applied and from 10.13% in panel (b) to 0.18% in panel (d) with PSF applied. See text for discussion of apparent structure.
Paper: Pre-encounter Predictions of DART Impact Ejecta Behavior and Observability
Authors: Eugene G. Fahnestock, Andrew F. Cheng, Stavro Ivanovski, Patrick Michel, Sabina D. Raducan, Alessandro Rossi, Paul A. Abell, Steven Chesley, Elisabetta Dotto, Fabio Ferrari, Ludmilla Kolokolova, Emily Kramer, Jian-Yang Li, Stephen R. Schwartz, Stefania Soldini, Gonzalo Tancredi, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Yun Zhang
Figure caption: Simulated LEIA images for the nominal case, with LEIA PSF applied, at t = 90, 158, 165, and 202 s (t  =  0 at the time of impact). Note that the color scale indicates magnitude per pixel (magnitude herein means the usual astronomical magnitude as a measure of brightness) and remains fixed at [−2, 20] for all frames. The distances from the camera to Dimorphos (Δ) are about 443, 56, 55, and 254 km. The minimum distances from LICIACube to any ejecta are about 437, 45, 50, and 254 km.