adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Geophysical Observations of the 2023 September 24 OSIRIS-REx Sample Return Capsule Reentry
Authors: Elizabeth A. Silber, Daniel C. Bowman, Chris G. Carr, David P. Eisenberg, Brian R. Elbing, Benjamin Fernando, Milton A. Garcés, Robert Haaser, Siddharth Krishnamoorthy, Charles A. Langston, Yasuhiro Nishikawa, Jeremy Webster, Jacob F. Anderson, Stephen Arrowsmith, Sonia Bazargan, Luke Beardslee, Brant Beck, Jordan W. Bishop, Philip Blom, Grant Bracht, David L. Chichester, Anthony Christe, Jacob Clarke, Kenneth Cummins, James Cutts, Lisa Danielson, Carly Donahue, Kenneth Eack, Michael Fleigle, Douglas Fox, Ashish Goel, David Green, Yuta Hasumi, Chris Hayward, Dan Hicks, Jay Hix, Stephen Horton, Emalee Hough, David P. Huber, Madeline A. Hunt, Jennifer Inman, S. M. Ariful Islam, Jacob Izraelevitz, Jamey D. Jacob, James Johnson, Real J. KC, Attila Komjathy, Eric Lam, Justin LaPierre, Kevin Lewis, Richard D. Lewis, Patrick Liu, Léo Martire, Meaghan McCleary, Elisa A. McGhee, Ipsita Mitra, Amitabh Nag, Luis Ocampo Giraldo, Karen Pearson, Mathieu Plaisir, Sarah K. Popenhagen, Hamid Rassoul, Miro Ronac Giannone, Mirza Samnani, Nicholas Schmerr, Kate Spillman, Girish Srinivas, Samuel K. Takazawa, Alex Tempert, Reagan Turley, Cory Van Beek, Loïc Viens, Owen A. Walsh, Nathan Weinstein, Robert White, Brian Williams, Trevor C. Wilson, Shirin Wyckoff, Masa-yuki Yamamoto, Zachary Yap, Tyler Yoshiyama, Cleat Zeiler
Figure caption: GPS ground station: Rex-2 (photo credit: R. Hasser).
Paper: Geophysical Observations of the 2023 September 24 OSIRIS-REx Sample Return Capsule Reentry
Authors: Elizabeth A. Silber, Daniel C. Bowman, Chris G. Carr, David P. Eisenberg, Brian R. Elbing, Benjamin Fernando, Milton A. Garcés, Robert Haaser, Siddharth Krishnamoorthy, Charles A. Langston, Yasuhiro Nishikawa, Jeremy Webster, Jacob F. Anderson, Stephen Arrowsmith, Sonia Bazargan, Luke Beardslee, Brant Beck, Jordan W. Bishop, Philip Blom, Grant Bracht, David L. Chichester, Anthony Christe, Jacob Clarke, Kenneth Cummins, James Cutts, Lisa Danielson, Carly Donahue, Kenneth Eack, Michael Fleigle, Douglas Fox, Ashish Goel, David Green, Yuta Hasumi, Chris Hayward, Dan Hicks, Jay Hix, Stephen Horton, Emalee Hough, David P. Huber, Madeline A. Hunt, Jennifer Inman, S. M. Ariful Islam, Jacob Izraelevitz, Jamey D. Jacob, James Johnson, Real J. KC, Attila Komjathy, Eric Lam, Justin LaPierre, Kevin Lewis, Richard D. Lewis, Patrick Liu, Léo Martire, Meaghan McCleary, Elisa A. McGhee, Ipsita Mitra, Amitabh Nag, Luis Ocampo Giraldo, Karen Pearson, Mathieu Plaisir, Sarah K. Popenhagen, Hamid Rassoul, Miro Ronac Giannone, Mirza Samnani, Nicholas Schmerr, Kate Spillman, Girish Srinivas, Samuel K. Takazawa, Alex Tempert, Reagan Turley, Cory Van Beek, Loïc Viens, Owen A. Walsh, Nathan Weinstein, Robert White, Brian Williams, Trevor C. Wilson, Shirin Wyckoff, Masa-yuki Yamamoto, Zachary Yap, Tyler Yoshiyama, Cleat Zeiler
Figure caption: The signals recorded by microphones at EUE.
Paper: Improved Orthorectification and Empirical Reduction of Topographic Effects in Monostatic Mini-RF S-band Observations of the Moon
Authors: Caleb I. Fassett, Ali M. Bramson, Joshua T. S. Cahill, Cameron P. Harris, Gareth A. Morgan, Catherine D. Neish, Cole A. Nypaver, G. Wesley Patterson, Edgard Rivera-Valentin, Patrick A. Taylor, Bradley J. Thomson
Figure caption: (a) Incidence angle i vs. CPR and an empirical fit to the observations (dashed line; Equation (3)). (b) i vs. S 1_norm, along with an empirical fit to the data (dashed line; Equation (3)). The normalization took the raw S 1 (given in Figure 2), and, on a per-collect basis, each pixel of the collect was divided by the median S 1 value in the range i = 44°–54°. Note that these data are derived from the same collects as in Figure 2, excluding all off-nadir collects and extreme outliers in radiometric behavior.
Paper: Categorization of Spatial and Temporal Ejecta Outcomes in Binary Systems Based on Variations of the Didymos System
Authors: Jennifer N. Larson, Yanga Fernandez, Gal Sarid
Figure caption: Examples of each CDF category: (a) basic, (b) flat basic, (c) extra long, (d) gentle slope, (e) 100%, (f) lots initially, (g) varying, and (h) questionable. Note the different timescales along the x-axis. The dashed line in (c), (d), and (g) represents the timescale that the other plots span.
Paper: Categorization of Spatial and Temporal Ejecta Outcomes in Binary Systems Based on Variations of the Didymos System
Authors: Jennifer N. Larson, Yanga Fernandez, Gal Sarid
Figure caption: A histogram of Cramer’s V coefficients to test the association between each varied effect vs. CDFs (blue) and each effect vs. ejecta distributions (red). High levels of association can be seen between CDFs and rotation period, as well as CDFs and impact location. The lowest association is found between the CDFs and mass ratio. The rest experience varying levels of association between the effects and CDF or ejecta distribution.
Paper: Improved Orthorectification and Empirical Reduction of Topographic Effects in Monostatic Mini-RF S-band Observations of the Moon
Authors: Caleb I. Fassett, Ali M. Bramson, Joshua T. S. Cahill, Cameron P. Harris, Gareth A. Morgan, Catherine D. Neish, Cole A. Nypaver, G. Wesley Patterson, Edgard Rivera-Valentin, Patrick A. Taylor, Bradley J. Thomson
Figure caption: An example of the orthorectification results for collect lsz_06824_xxx_xku_11n147_v1, centered at 147.°4 E, 9.°2 N. (a) Un-orthorectified S 1 data from the PDS level 2 data. The black arrow shows the approximate magnitude of the offset, which was ∼0.9 km in the radar frame, which is similar to the median offset observed for all collects. (b) Newly orthorectified S 1 product following the process outlined in Figure 1. (c) Local incidence angle backplane computed from the SLDEM. Comparing (b) and (c) illustrates the quality of the orthorectification of the data to the SLDEM reference frame.
Paper: Improved Orthorectification and Empirical Reduction of Topographic Effects in Monostatic Mini-RF S-band Observations of the Moon
Authors: Caleb I. Fassett, Ali M. Bramson, Joshua T. S. Cahill, Cameron P. Harris, Gareth A. Morgan, Catherine D. Neish, Cole A. Nypaver, G. Wesley Patterson, Edgard Rivera-Valentin, Patrick A. Taylor, Bradley J. Thomson
Figure caption: The median values for the Stokes parameters (S 1, S 2, S 3, and S 4) vs. local incidence angle (i) for the Mini-RF S-band monostatic data. Note that these data were filtered to ∼96% of the collects excluding all off-nadir collects and extreme outliers in radiometric behavior.
Paper: Categorization of Spatial and Temporal Ejecta Outcomes in Binary Systems Based on Variations of the Didymos System
Authors: Jennifer N. Larson, Yanga Fernandez, Gal Sarid
Figure caption: An example of a case in which the close separation (0.75% R Hill) shown in (a) dominates over the far separation (2.4% R Hill) shown in (b). Both simulations have the same parameters with varying system separation (spherical bodies, m 1 = m 2, impact at (0°N, 90°E), 2 hr rotation period). (a) A more localized ejecta distribution strongly influenced by the presence of the secondary body. (b) Ejecta is spread along the equator due to the high rotation period.
Paper: Categorization of Spatial and Temporal Ejecta Outcomes in Binary Systems Based on Variations of the Didymos System
Authors: Jennifer N. Larson, Yanga Fernandez, Gal Sarid
Figure caption: A histogram of the χ 2 values used to calculate the Cramer’s V coefficients to test the association between each varied effect vs. CDFs (blue) and each effect vs. ejecta distributions (red). When testing for association with χ 2, the null hypothesis states that there is no association between variables (i.e., the observed and expected values are similar). In this case, a higher χ 2 value leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis, implying the possibility of association between variables.
Paper: Improved Orthorectification and Empirical Reduction of Topographic Effects in Monostatic Mini-RF S-band Observations of the Moon
Authors: Caleb I. Fassett, Ali M. Bramson, Joshua T. S. Cahill, Cameron P. Harris, Gareth A. Morgan, Catherine D. Neish, Cole A. Nypaver, G. Wesley Patterson, Edgard Rivera-Valentin, Patrick A. Taylor, Bradley J. Thomson
Figure caption: Flowchart for the Mini-RF SAR image registration and orthorectification process. USGS ISIS (Laura et al. 2023) commands are in italics, and the cross-correlation is computed using the python image_registration package (Ginsburg 2022).
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: Median surface reflectance trends for (A) and (B) SPs and (C) and (D) non-SPs plotted in 1° latitudinal bins for Mercury’s four thermal longitudes: hot pole 0°/360°E ± 20°E (filled red triangles), hot pole 180°E ± 20°E (open red circles), cold pole 90°E ± 20°E (filled blue triangles), and cold pole 270°E ± 20°E (open blue circles). Reflectance values are derived from (A) and (C) MLA R  s  and (B) and (D) MDIS I/F values.
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: Comparison of reflectance values for surfaces with MST >675 and <473 K for (A) and (B) SP and (C) and (D) non-SP surfaces. The left panels show surfaces modeled to be these temperature ranges. The corresponding right panels show reflectance distributions of these surfaces for latitudes 0°–70°N. The median and ±1σ values of each distribution are noted by solid and dashed lines, respectively. The distribution plots are normalized and shown as a relative probability, where the sum of the bar heights is 1.
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: The number of MLA pulses (N) per degree latitude used to derive mean and median 1064 nm values as a function of latitude for SPs (black) and non-SPs (purple). The number of pulses drops off significantly at equatorial latitudes due to MESSENGER’s orbit.
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: The ejecta mass production rate (kg m−2 s−1) from micrometeoroid bombardment averaged over a full Mercurian solar day. Ejecta production is primarily dependent on the product of impact flux and impactor velocity, which is highest around the equatorial regions and peaks during the perihelion passage at 06:00 Mercurian local time (Pokorný et al. 2018).
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: Distribution of reflectance values for surfaces with MST >473 and <473 K for (A), (B), (E), and (F) SP and (C), (D), (G), and (H) non-SP surfaces. The distribution plots are normalized and shown as a relative probability, where the sum of the bar heights is 1. Reflectance values are derived from (A), (C), (E), and (G) MLA R  s  and (B), (D), (F), and (H) MDIS I/F values. Distributions are shown for latitudes between (top) 0° and 70°N and (bottom) 40°N and 70°N.
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: Median surface reflectance derived from MLA R  s  for (A) SPs and (B) non-SPs plotted in 1° latitudinal bins between −5°N and 20°N for Mercury’s four thermal longitudes: hot pole 0°/360°E ± 20°E (filled red triangles), hot pole 180°E ± 20°E (open red circles), cold pole 90°E ± 20°E (filled blue triangles), and cold pole 270°E ± 20°E (open blue circles).
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: Reflectance values of the 180°E hot-pole area (±20°E) for non-SPs in the northern hemisphere, derived from (A) MLA and (B) MDIS at a 1° × 1° resolution. (C) The median MLA-derived R  s  and MDIS-derived I/F values of the 180° hot-pole area for each degree of latitude.
Paper: Temperature-related Variations of 1064 nm Surface Reflectance on Mercury: Implications for Space Weathering
Authors: Ariel N. Deutsch, Gregory A. Neumann, Mikhail A. Kreslavsky, Petr Pokorný, Jose M. Martinez Camacho, David Trang, Noam R. Izenberg, Brett W. Denevi, Anna Galiano, Gianrico Filacchione
Figure caption: The 20th, 45th, and 70th percentile points for the distribution of MLA R  s  in (A) and (B) 2° wide latitudinal bins and (C) and (D) 20 K wide MST bins, plotted for (A) and (C) the SPs and (B) and (D) non-SPs. Note that the temperature axes are inverted so that both higher latitudes and lower temperatures are toward the right.
Paper: Dimorphos Orbit Determination from Mutual Events Photometry
Authors: Peter Scheirich, Petr Pravec, Alex J. Meyer, Harrison F. Agrusa, Derek C. Richardson, Steven R. Chesley, Shantanu P. Naidu, Cristina Thomas, Nicholas A. Moskovitz
Figure caption: Offsets in the mean anomaly of the observed mutual events in the postimpact apparition with respect to three reference solutions. Top panel: the offsets are shown with respect to the reference solution that has a constant orbital period and zero eccentricity. The dotted line is an arbitrary sine function with a period of 50 days, plotted in order to highlight the periodicity of the systematic shifts between the primary and the secondary events during the L0, L1, and L2 lunations. Bottom panel: the offsets are shown with respect to the two nominal solutions presented in Table 4, one having an exponentially decreasing angular acceleration (red symbols) and the second having an orbital period described as a step function (green symbols). See the text for details. The gray bars at the bottom of each panel indicate spans of the individual lunations (L0 to L5; a full moon occurred in each gap between the bars).
Paper: Dimorphos Orbit Determination from Mutual Events Photometry
Authors: Peter Scheirich, Petr Pravec, Alex J. Meyer, Harrison F. Agrusa, Derek C. Richardson, Steven R. Chesley, Shantanu P. Naidu, Cristina Thomas, Nicholas A. Moskovitz
Figure caption: Selected postimpact events from the orbital lightcurve component of the Didymos system. The observed data are marked as points. (To avoid confusion between different data sets, different colors are used, alternating in each plot.) The solid curve represents the synthetic lightcurve for the best-fit solution with the angular acceleration. The synthetic lightcurve for the best-fit solution with orbital period modeled as step function is identical within the thickness of the line used, and is therefore not shown in the figure. For comparison, the dashed curve is the model with the circular orbit and constant mean orbital period. The primary and secondary events (the terms refer to which of the two bodies is occulted or eclipsed) are always shown on the left and right sides of the plots, respectively. In some cases, the observations of the secondary event preceded that of the primary event (i.e., their order in the data set is the inverse of that shown on the plot). In order to save space in the plot, we present these events in reverse order to how they were observed. They are separated by the “//” symbol in the plot and one orbital period (0.496 day) is to be subtracted from the x-coordinate of data points to the right from this separator.
Paper: Dimorphos Orbit Determination from Mutual Events Photometry
Authors: Peter Scheirich, Petr Pravec, Alex J. Meyer, Harrison F. Agrusa, Derek C. Richardson, Steven R. Chesley, Shantanu P. Naidu, Cristina Thomas, Nicholas A. Moskovitz
Figure caption: The preimpact orbital lightcurve component of the Didymos system in 2022. The observed data are marked as points. (To avoid confusion between the different data sets, different colors are used, alternating in each plot.) The solid curve represents the synthetic lightcurve for the best-fit preimpact solution. The primary and secondary events (the terms refer to which of the two bodies is occulted or eclipsed) are always shown on the left and right sides of the plots, respectively. In some cases, the observations of the secondary event preceded that of the primary event (i.e., their order in the data set is the inverse of that shown in the plot). In order to save space in the plot, we present these events in reverse order to how they were observed. They are separated by the “//” symbol in the plot and one orbital period (0.496 day) is to be subtracted from the x-coordinate of data points to the right from this separator.
Paper: Dimorphos Orbit Determination from Mutual Events Photometry
Authors: Peter Scheirich, Petr Pravec, Alex J. Meyer, Harrison F. Agrusa, Derek C. Richardson, Steven R. Chesley, Shantanu P. Naidu, Cristina Thomas, Nicholas A. Moskovitz
Figure caption: The normalized χ 2 vs. ΔM  d  for solutions of the preimpact orbit model presented in Section 2.2. The three horizontal lines give the p-values—the probabilities that the χ 2 exceeds a particular value only by chance, corresponding to 1, 2, and 3σ intervals of the χ 2 distribution. The light gray dots and lines are taken from SP22. The best-fit value has ΔM  d  = 0.13 degrees yr−2.
Paper: Dimorphos Orbit Determination from Mutual Events Photometry
Authors: Peter Scheirich, Petr Pravec, Alex J. Meyer, Harrison F. Agrusa, Derek C. Richardson, Steven R. Chesley, Shantanu P. Naidu, Cristina Thomas, Nicholas A. Moskovitz
Figure caption: Area of admissible poles for the preimpact mutual orbit of Didymos in ecliptic coordinates (dark gray area). The dot is the nominal solution given in Table 3. This area corresponds to the 3σ confidence level. The south pole of the current asteroid’s heliocentric orbit is marked with the cross. For comparison, the area of admissible poles from SP22 is shown as the light gray area.
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Across the visible and near-infrared, the asteroid (203) Pompeja shows evidence extreme variability in spectral slope with time. The range of variation in spectral slopes is exemplified by the difference between the spectra observed during Pompeja’s 2021 apparition (data from S. Hasegawa et al. 2022) and its 2022 apparition (data from O. A. Humes et al. 2024).
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: An example of the background subtraction procedure for TESS FFI cutouts as applied to Pompeja. For a given R.A. and decl., a modeled background image is produced by finding the median pixel value within the cutout among all FFIs returned during the two periods 4–8 hr before and 4–8 hr after the asteroid was located at that R.A. and decl. The modeled background is then subtracted from the original image to isolate the asteroid. Note the changing color scale between the leftmost and middle images and the background-subtracted image (rightmost).
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Validation of the cutout method as applied to the asteroid (354) Eleonora, originally analyzed in A. Pál et al. (2020). The shapes of the light curves derived from both methods agree with each other within the range of point-to-point scatter (right panel). The data have been phased to a synodic period of 4.28 hr. Zero phase has arbitrarily been assigned to occur at JD = 2457000. The flux as measured by the cutout method is strongly correlated (R > 0.99) with the flux measured via the FFI method in A. Pál et al. (2020; right panel).
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Results of the single-term Lomb–Scargle periodogram applied to the observed TESS light curve (leftmost panel), the predicted flux computed using the shape models from S. Hasegawa et al. (2022; center panel), and the predicted flux computed using the shape models derived in this work (rightmost panel). The peak of the single-term Lomb–Scargle periodogram is marked by the gray vertical line at 12.046 hr, corresponding to a rotational period of 24.092 hr under the assumption of a double-peaked light curve.
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: The light curve of Pompeja measured by TESS compared to predicted photometry from different shape models. In the left panel, the predicted flux is computed using the shape models from S. Hasegawa et al. (2022). In the right panel, the predicted flux is computed using the shape models from this work. These models incorporate the TESS photometry in addition to the light curves used to compute the S. Hasegawa et al. (2022) shape models.
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Shape models of Pompeja incorporating the TESS photometric data set. For each model, two equatorial views separated by 90° are shown alongside a polar view. Model 1 corresponds to the λ 1 = 131.°8, β 1 = +40.°8 solution. Model 2 corresponds to the λ 2 = 307.°1, β 2 = +34.°2 solution. Three perpendicular vectors are shown to give a sense of spatial orientation; the white vector is aligned with Pompeja’s axis of rotation, and the yellow and blue arrows are located at Pompeja’s equator at 0° and 90° longitude, respectively.
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: Subobserver and subsolar points of spectral observations of Pompeja in the literature by S. Hasegawa et al. (2021, 2022), O. A. Humes et al. (2024), S. R. Sawyer (1991), and A. V. Sergeyev et al. (2022). For each observation, the subobserver point is plotted with a filled symbol, and the subsolar point is plotted with an empty symbol. Corresponding subsolar and subobserver points for a single observation are joined using a connecting line. Observations with extremely steep spectral slopes are indicated in red.
Paper: Insights on the Rotational State and Shape of Asteroid (203) Pompeja from TESS Photometry
Authors: Oriel A. Humes, Josef Hanuš
Figure caption: The light curve of Pompeja as measured by TESS Sector 46 FFIs. In the left panel, periodicity in the full light curve is apparent over the duration of observations. The gap in the data near JD ≈ 2459565 is due to the passage of the Earth and Moon through the TESS Sector 46 field of view. In the right panel, the light curve has been phased to the best-fit synodic period (24.0921 hr), as determined by computing the Lomb–Scargle periodogram. Zero phase has arbitrarily been assigned to occur at JD = 2457000.