adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Experimentally measured outgassing composition of a 3 mg powdered 							Murchison sample from 200 °C–1200 ◦C under a high-vacuum 							environment (∼10−4 Pa at lower temperatures and 								∼10−3 Pa at higher temperatures; lower panel) compared 							with the outgassing trends of S and Zn under the same vacuum conditions 							from this study (upper panel). In the lower panel, the outgassing 							composition is shown as mole fractions of different outgassed species on 							a log scale as a function of temperature. The outgassing composition of 							Murchison was determined using a residual gas analyzer mass spectrometer 							that monitored the abundances (i.e., mole fractions) of the highly 							volatile outgassing species H2O, H2, CO, 								CO2, and H2S (see Thompson et al. 2021 for further 							details). Each species is labeled, and its mass number (in amu) is in 							parentheses. The dashed curves show equilibrium model-adjusted 							experimental outgassing compositions, which are the result of taking 							Thompson et al.’s (2021) experimental elemental outgassing results at intervals 							of 50 ◦C and inputting those into the chemical equilibrium 							model of Figure 5 (see 							Schaefer & Fegley 2007, 2010 							for details on the model) to recompute how the gas composition would 							speciate under equilibrium conditions. The upper panel shows the S and 							Zn outgassing trends from this study, expressed as these elements’ 							intensities, normalized to V and the average of the two unheated 							Murchison samples, for the residues heated under vacuum.
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Chemical equilibrium model results for the outgassing composition of 							Murchison from 200 °C–1200 ◦C under a high-vacuum environment 								(∼10−4 Pa). (a) The calculated mole fractions of the gas 							species that were also measured in the Thompson et al. (2021) experiments 							(Figure 4) assuming 							chemical equilibrium under the same temperature and pressure conditions 							as in their experiments and the vacuum experiments in this study. (b) 							Calculated mole fractions of the additional gas species containing the 							elements measured in this bulk element study (e.g., S, Fe, Mg, and Zn) 							according to chemical equilibrium calculations under the same 							temperature and high-vacuum pressure conditions.
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Comparison of calculated BIR-1 elemental concentrations to the 								published concentrations from GeoReM. The points show BIR-1's 								calculated concentrations (ppm) normalized to its published 								concentrations (ppm) from the GeoReM database (Jochum et al. 2007). The 								uncertainties of the published GeoReM concentrations are propagated 								and expressed as the 95% confidence intervals, all of which are 								within the data points. For most elements, the calculated 								concentrations reproduce the published concentrations within ∼20% 								error. Our calculated concentrations of S, Ni, and P are near or 								below the quantification limit, which is why their ratios are at or 								near zero. However, the S, Ni, and P concentrations for our unheated 								Murchison samples reproduce the unheated Murchison concentrations of 								Braukmüller et al. (2018) within 20% error (see Figure 9). Elements are arranged on the 									x-axis from left to right in order 								of decreasing 50% condensation temperature (Lodders 2003).
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Comparison of calculated elemental concentrations (in ppm) of the two 								unheated Murchison samples analyzed to the Murchison concentrations 								determined by Braukmüller et al. (2018). The points show the average 								concentrations of the two unheated Murchison samples measured in 								this study normalized to the average elemental concentrations of the 								two Murchison samples measured by B18. The uncertainties are the 								propagated 95% confidence intervals of means from both our unheated 								Murchison samples and the two Murchison samples from B18. Elements 								are arranged on the x-axis from left 								to right in order of decreasing 50% condensation temperature 								(Lodders 2003).
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Calibration curves for determining sample concentrations. We used the 								In-normalized measurements for the procedural blank (blue circle) 								and four geological reference standards, BCR-2 (yellow star), BHVO-2 								(green square), WMS-1a (orange X), and WPR-1a (red circle), along 								with their published concentrations (ppm) from GeoReM to create 								five-point calibration curves using a linear regression (gray line). 								The tan box shows the slope, intercept, and r 2 values for the linear regression line. We treated BIR-1 								(pink triangle) as an “unknown” standard to test the robustness of 								our calibration (Figure 8).
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Chemical equilibrium model results for the outgassing composition of 							Murchison from 400–1200 ◦C under atmospheric pressure. Each 							figure shows outgassing of the species that contain the elements we 							measured in this bulk element study (e.g., S, Zn, and Cr), and 								H2O for reference. “50 air” (a) shows the results of the 							outgassing model for 100 g of Murchison and 50 g of air, and the total 							gas pressure is fixed to 1 bar. “100 air” (b) shows the outgassing model 							results for 100 g of Murchison and 100 g of air, and the total gas 							pressure is fixed to 1 bar.
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Average elemental concentrations from the unheated Murchison samples 								and the set of stepped-heating experiments performed in a 								high-vacuum environment (∼10−4Pa/10−9 bar). 								(a) Elemental concentrations (ppm); (b) elemental concentrations 								normalized to the CI chondrite Ivuna (Braukmüller et al. 2018) and V. The 									x-axis refers to the temperature 								to which the residues were heated, with “unheated” corresponding to 								the average of the two unheated Murchison samples and “400 C” 								corresponding to the residue heated to 400 °C, etc.
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Average elemental concentrations from the unheated Murchison samples 								and the residues from the sets of stepped-heating experiments 								performed at atmospheric pressure (105 Pa/1 bar). (a) 								Elemental concentrations (ppm); (b) elemental concentrations 								normalized to the CI chondrite Ivuna (Braukmüller et al. 2018) and V. The 									x-axis refers to the temperature 								to which the residues were heated, with “unheated” corresponding to 								the average of the two unheated Murchison samples and “400 C” 								corresponding to the average of the two residues heated to 400 °C, 								etc.
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: Average normalized intensities from the unheated Murchison samples and the 						residues from the sets of stepped-heating experiments performed at 						atmospheric pressure (105 Pa/1 bar). (a) Intensities normalized 						to V; (b) intensities normalized to both V and the average of the two 						unheated Murchison samples. The analytical uncertainties in panels (a) and 						(b) are the 1σ standard deviations for the 						normalized data propagated from the RSD uncertainties of Table 9. In panel (a), the 						uncertainties are smaller than the data points. In panel (b), the red 						vertical line represents the reproducibility between the V-normalized 						intensities of the two unheated Murchison samples, expressed as the maximum 						relative difference calculated using Equation (1). The x-axes 						refer to the temperature to which the residues were heated, with “unheated” 						corresponding to the average of the two unheated Murchison samples and “400 						C” corresponding to the average of the two residues heated to 400 °C, 						etc.
Paper: Outgassing Composition of the Murchison Meteorite: Implications for Volatile Depletion of Planetesimals and Interior-atmosphere Connections for Terrestrial Exoplanets
Authors: Maggie A. Thompson, Myriam Telus, Graham Harper Edwards, Laura Schaefer, Jasmeet Dhaliwal, Brian Dreyer, Jonathan J. Fortney, Kyle Kim
Figure caption: The experimental heating procedures used for the two furnaces 							(temperature versus time) to analyze the outgassing composition of 							Murchison. (a) Heating schemes used for experiments performed with the 							furnace at atmospheric pressure (Furnace A). (b) Heating schemes used 							for experiments performed with the furnace operating in a high-vacuum 							environment (Furnace B). Each set of experiments heated Murchison 							samples to 400 °C, 600 °C, 800 °C, and 1000 °C.
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 3–Layers L2 inversion. (a) Different components and magnetic field amplitude of synthetic magnetic field data in the x–y plane from (b) a magnetization model of a crater with a total magnetization amplitude of 10 A m−1. (b)–(d) Different sampling scenarios, (b) regular grid, (c) in-flight, and (d) landed, for the Bx, By, and Bz components along a track with noise added and as predicted from the L2 model as labeled. Darker to lighter colors show tracks from −y to y. (f)–(h) show the magnetization models of corresponding L2 inversions. Layer transitions are marked (red dashed).
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 3–Layers sparse and domain inversion. Recovered magnetization models for the (a)–(c) sparse and (d)–(f) domain mapping inversion for the different sampling geometries (a) and (d) regular grid, (b) and (e) three flight tracks, and (c) and (f) a few individual data points collected on the ground (orange).
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 1–Crater with increasing noise floor. (a)–(c) show the magnetic field signal for all three tracks due to the crater (solid line), simulated measurements including noise (dots), and the magnetic field from the recovered L2 model (dashed) at 1 m above the surface for all components. Darker to lighter colors show tracks from −y to y. (d)–(f) Recovered magnetization models for the L2 inversion equivalent to Figure 4.
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 1–Crater L2 inversion. (a) Different components and magnetic field amplitude of synthetic magnetic field data in the x–y plane from panel (e), a magnetization model of a crater with a total magnetization amplitude of 10 A m−1, where the color bar corresponds to the magnetization amplitude in the shown plane (e.g., M  h  = ﹩\sqrt{{M}_{x}^{2}+{M}_{z}^{2}}﹩ or ﹩\sqrt{{M}_{x}^{2}+{M}_{y}^{2}}﹩), and the arrows represent the third vector component (e.g., M  y  or M  z ). This also applies to later figures that show arrows (otherwise total amplitude is shown). (b)–(d) Different survey scenarios, (b) grid, (c) in-flight, and (d) landed, for the Bx, By, and Bz components along the track with noise added and as predicted from the L2 model. Darker to lighter colors show tracks from −y to y. (f)–(h) Magnetization models of corresponding L2 inversions where the color bar represents the total magnetization amplitude, M = ﹩\sqrt{{M}_{x}^{2}+{M}_{y}^{2}+{M}_{z}^{2}}﹩. The outline of the crater is marked (dashed black).
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 2 –Dike intrusion L2 inversion. (a) Different components and magnetic field amplitudes of synthetic magnetic field data in the x–y plane from (b) a magnetization model of a crater with a total magnetization amplitude of 10 A m−1. (b)–(d) Different survey scenarios, (b) mesh, (c) in-flight, and (d) landed, for the Bx, By, and Bz components along a track with noise added and as predicted from the L2 model as labeled. Darker to lighter colors show tracks from −y to y. (f)–(h) show the magnetization models of corresponding L2 inversions. The outline of the dike intrusion is marked (dashed black).
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Magnetic field amplitude, ∣B∣, from a satellite data-based model, downward continued to the surface (Langlais et al. 2019). The star represents the InSight landing site, with the model surface prediction of ∼300 nT vs. the actual ∼2000 nT measured by InSight’s magnetometer. The circles outline the big impact basins Hellas, Utopia, Argyre, and Isidis for context.
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 1–Crater sparse and parametric inversion. Recovered models of total magnetization M for the (a)–(c) sparse and (d)–(f) parametric inversion for the different sampling geometries (a) and (d) regular grid, (b) and (e) three flight tracks, and (c) and (f) a few individual data points collected on the ground (orange). The outline of the crater is marked (dashed black). Note the change in color bar limits.
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Scenario 2–Dike intrusion sparse and single-layer inversion. Recovered magnetization models for the (a)–(c) sparse and (d)–(f) single-layer inversion for the different sampling geometries (a) and (d) regular grid, (b) and (e) three flight tracks, and (c) and (f) a few individual data points collected on the ground (orange).
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Helicopter scenarios. Blue shading represents measurements taken in flight. (a) Representation of different sampling scenarios between ROIs. Panels (b)–(d) are the scenarios modeled in Section 3 and represent a magnetized crater, differently magnetized layers, and a magnetized dike intrusion; panel (e) represents surveying of individual pebbles.
Paper: Exploring Martian Magnetic Fields with a Helicopter
Authors: Anna Mittelholz, Lindsey Heagy, Catherine L. Johnson, Jonathan Bapst, Jared Espley, Abigail A. Fraeman, Benoit Langlais, Robert Lillis, William Rapin
Figure caption: Inversion strategy.
Paper: 2023 Recovery Observations and Characterization of the Active Centaur P/2010 TO20 (LINEAR-Grauer)
Authors: Charles A. Schambeau, Eva Lilly, Marco Micheli, Yanga R. Fernandez, Peter Jevčák, Nalin Samarasinha
Figure caption: Top-left: diagram of TO20's orbit over the past and near-future displaying the recent orbital change due to a close approach to Jupiter. Top-right: orbital integrations of 50 clones indicate that TO20's orbit is well constrained over a period starting in ∼1900 through ∼2150. In ∼2100 TO20 will transition into a JFC. The orbit diagram and orbital integrations were generated by us using the REBOUND Python package (Rein & Liu 2012). Bottom-row: panels display the Gemini South images centered and cropped on TO20. A faint tail is seen toward the southwest direction.
Paper: Gliese 581c: Habitability Unlikely—but not Hopeless Either
Authors: Manfred Cuntz
Figure caption: Inner HZ limit of Gliese 581 based on the work by Abe et al. (2011) (Abe11) and Kopparapu et al. (2014) (Kop14). The position of Gliese 581c is depicted by a heavy dot, including uncertainty bars for the stellar effective temperature, T eff. Regarding Kop14, the gray area conveys the uncertainty of the inner HZ limit obtained based on maximum and minimum limits for T eff and luminosity L. Note that the Abe11-based limit is not well constrained.
Paper: A Jupiter-family Comet Discovery via Citizen Science: 2005 XR132
Authors: Colin Orion Chandler, William J. Oldroyd, Chadwick A. Trujillo, Henry H. Hsieh, William A. Burris, Jay K. Kueny, Jarod A. DeSpain, Kennedy A. Farrell, M. J. M. Magbanua, Scott S. Sheppard, Michele T. Mazzucato, Milton K. D. Bosch, Tiffany Shaw-Diaz, Virgilio Gonano
Figure caption: 2005 XR132 (green dashed arrows) with a tail (white arrows) oriented between the anti-solar (−⊙) and anti-motion (−v) directions as projected on sky. Left: UT 2021 February 8 30 s r-band exposure (48″ Samuel Oschin telescope, Mt. Palomar, California) during the ZTF survey. Right: 105 s i-band DECam exposure acquired UT 2021 March 26 with DECam (4 m Blanco Telescope, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Chile; Prop. ID 2021A-0149, PI Zenteno).
Paper: Cometary Activity on Quasi-Hilda Object 2018 CZ16
Authors: Chadwick A. Trujillo, Colin Orion Chandler, William J. Oldroyd, William A. Burris, Henry H. Hsieh, Jay K. Kueny, Michele T. Mazzucato, Milton K. D. Bosch, Tiffany Shaw-Diaz, Virgilio Gonano
Figure caption: 2018 CZ16 (green arrow) displays a broad tail (white arrow) which is not aligned with either the anti-motion (−v) direction nor the anti-solar (−⊙) direction in these images from DECam. The field of view is about 126″ × 126″ and North is up and East is left. Left: 103 s r-band, UT 2018 May 15 (Program 2014B-0404, PI Schlegel, Observers E. Savary, A Prakash). Middle: 90 s g-band, UT 2018 May 17 (Program 2014B-0404, PI Schlegel, Observers E. Savary, A Prakash). Right: 200 s g-band, UT 2018 May 18 (Program 2014B-0404, PI Schlegel, Observer E. Savary).
Paper: OH Emission Among Mira Variables in Color–Magnitude and Period–Magnitude Diagrams
Authors: Graeme H. Smith, Tian Wu
Figure caption: CMDs (left panels) and PMDs (right panels) for Mira variables in sample (2), which incorporates the limits of period ﹩\mathrm{log}P(\mathrm{days})\gt 2.3﹩ and parallax π > 0.5 mas (bottom panels), as well as Me-type variable giants in sample (1) upon which no such constraints are imposed (top panels). Most stars in sample (1) have color 1.0 < (J − K  s ) < 1.8 and absolute magnitude ﹩-10.0\lt {M}_{{K}_{s}}\lt -6.0﹩.
Paper: Anomalous Flux Event in the TESS Sector 43 Light Curve of the White Dwarf Photometric Standard HZ 4 was Caused by a Passing Asteroid
Authors: Keaton J. Bell, David Ardila, Alexandra Frymire
Figure caption: Evidence that the anomalous variations in the TESS Sector 43 light curve of HZ 4 are caused by a passing asteroid. The top panel shows the median-normalized, 120 s cadence, pre-search data conditioned simple aperture photometry (PDCSAP) light curve centered on the anomalous flux event reported by Frymire & Ardila (2023). Dotted vertical lines mark times near the maximum increase and the two surrounding decreases of flux in the pipeline-produced light curve during the anomaly. The second panel shows the estimated background flux that was subtracted from the flux in the aperture (sap_bkg), which shows increases that correspond to the decreases of the PDCSAP light curve. The third row shows frames from the target pixel file (TPF) images corresponding to the dotted lines in the upper panels, with the pixels included in the photometric aperture used to extract the light curve outlined in red. The bottom panels show difference images produced by subtracting the median TPF image from these same TPF frames. A moving object is clearly passing across the pixels during the flux anomaly, grazing the photometric aperture.
Paper: A Dataset for Exploring Stellar Activity in Astrometric Measurements from SDO Images of the Sun
Authors: Warit Wijitworasart, Zoe de Beurs, Andrew Vanderburg
Figure caption: (a) Time series of x cen − x fit as a percentage of r sun (b) Time series of y cen − y fit as a percentage of r sun (c) Autocorrelation value of x cen − x fit vs. Time Lag (d) Autocorrelation value of y cen − y fit vs. Time Lag. Red vertical lines in (c) and (d) indicate the Sun’s Carrington rotation period of 27.2753 days. The data behind panels (a) and (b) is available in machine readable format.(The data used to create this figure are available.)