adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Possible Anthropogenic Contributions to the LAMP-observed Surficial Icy Regolith within Lunar Polar Craters: A Comparison of Apollo and Starship Landings
Authors: William M. Farrell, P. Prem, D. M. Hurley, O. J. Tucker, R. M. Killen
Figure caption: Figure 5-12a from the Apollo 11 mission report showing the propulsion mass release as a function of time. The blue lines and labels are our additions used to estimate the propulsion exhaust mass directed toward the surface.
Paper: Possible Anthropogenic Contributions to the LAMP-observed Surficial Icy Regolith within Lunar Polar Craters: A Comparison of Apollo and Starship Landings
Authors: William M. Farrell, P. Prem, D. M. Hurley, O. J. Tucker, R. M. Killen
Figure caption: The Apollo 11 descent (image from the Apollo 11 mission report (NASA SP-238 1971).
Paper: Probing the Rock Mass Fraction and Transport Efficiency inside Uranus Using 40Ar Measurements
Authors: Francis Nimmo, Jonathan Lunine, Kevin Zahnle, Lars Stixrude
Figure caption: Envelope concentration (in atoms atom-1) of radiogenic 40Ar as a function of rock core:envelope mass ratio, assuming a core argon concentration ranging from CI chondritic to 10% of the chondritic value (gray shaded zone). Our baseline Uranus (green dashed line) assumes a 3 M E chondritic core and a 1 M E envelope. Detection limit is based on a GPMS-like instrument (see text), with the strong possibility that what is flown will have better sensitivity by a significant factor (downward arrow).
Paper: Probing the Rock Mass Fraction and Transport Efficiency inside Uranus Using 40Ar Measurements
Authors: Francis Nimmo, Jonathan Lunine, Kevin Zahnle, Lars Stixrude
Figure caption: Envelope ratio of 40Ar/36Ar taking the effect of primordial 40Ar into account (see text). The thick solid lines plot the 40Ar/36Ar ratio for three different values of the enhancement factor r with ξ = 1.5 × 10−4. The gray shaded box denotes the uncertainty in the primordial 40Ar/36Ar ratio ξ and the thin dashed black lines show the effect on the r = 15 model of using these upper and lower bounds. Here a rock core:envelope mass ratio of 3:1 is assumed.
Paper: Probing the Rock Mass Fraction and Transport Efficiency inside Uranus Using 40Ar Measurements
Authors: Francis Nimmo, Jonathan Lunine, Kevin Zahnle, Lars Stixrude
Figure caption: Concentration of radiogenic 40Ar in the envelope as a function of chondritic core rock mass. Here f is the transport factor and we assume a 2 M E envelope. The red dashed line is a notional detection threshold.
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: (A) An example of a fresh ejecta blanket; the crater is 480 m diameter. (B)–(D) Examples of bright-excavating craters marked with blue arrows, dark-excavating craters marked with red arrows, and craters that simultaneously excavated dark and bright material marked with striped arrows. Note that dark-excavating craters are always larger than the nearby bright-excavating craters. (B) ∼2 radii from the rim; the transition from bright-to-dark child craters happens at relatively large diameters because the parent ejecta is thick (1–3 m depth). (C) ∼3 radii from the rim; ejecta is thinner (0.5–1 m depth) than in panel B because it is further from the crater. (D) ∼3 radii from the rim; ejecta is thinner (<0.5 m depth) than both panels (B) and (C) despite being as close as panel (C) because this part of the ejecta blanket has a higher decay constant B. (E) Child craters from this impact plotted by maximum excavation depth and distance from the crater. We plot Equation (1) with our estimate for thickness at the rim, T = 9 m, and B = 2.1, 2.8, and 4.0. Note that almost all dark-excavating craters are below the B = 4.0 line, almost all bright-excavating craters are above B = 2.1, and B = 2.8 is roughly at the average bright-to-dark subsurface transition.
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: The stratigraphy of bright and dark layers at a fresh lunar crater. The relative scale of layers is exaggerated to emphasize thin deposits, and the proportionate thicknesses will vary with crater size. It is critical to note that the dark-to-bright boundary at the ejecta blanket base is agnostic to rim uplift and preimpact topography. Impact melt and overturned dark regolith are minor complicating factors for interpreting excavation near the crater rim. It is also possible for larger child craters to excavate bright material by penetrating both the ejecta blanket and mature preimpact surface.
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: Crater excavation depth in the immediate vicinity of Apollo deep core samples. Gradients along the y-axes represent regolith maturity with depth in the core sample (dark is mature, bright is immature), inferred from I S /FeO ratios (McKay et al. 1991). Craters are plotted by rim-to-rim diameter alongside a notional excavation depth d e = 0.085D, which agrees well with the location of the dark/bright transition in the Apollo cores.
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: Global context of the 73 craters where we made ejecta thickness estimates. Some points are too close to distinguish at this scale.
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: Isopach maps with blue contours at 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 m, with a final contour at the crater rim. Dotted lines indicate inferred contour positions. Scale bars are approximately one crater radii. Background images are small-incidence LROC NAC mosaics with minimal shadows. The child craters that constrain isopach contours on these maps are too numerous to display; see supplemental material for these data points.
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: Estimates for ejecta thickness at the rims of 73 lunar craters, with 2σ uncertainties. Compare our data points to equations for rim ejecta thickness, T, as a function of center-to-rim crater radius, R, from McGetchin et al. (1973, T = 0.14R 0.74), Pike (1974, T = 0.033R), and from Sharpton (2014, T = 0.014R 1.01). Also displayed are the data points from Sharpton (2014), with their 2σ uncertainties. The best-fit trend of our data is given by Equation (2), T = 0.14 ± 0.062R (0.77 ± 0.080), producing thicknesses intermediate to McGetchin et al. (1973) and Pike (1974).
Paper: Ejecta Blankets at Small Craters on the Moon
Authors: Trevor Austin, Mark Robinson, Prasun Mahanti
Figure caption: Inferred values of ejecta thickness decay B (concentric lines) with respect to azimuth (0 = north) at craters A, B, and C from Figure 5. B values vary between local highs and lows, correlating to places where the continuous ejecta terminates closer to or farther from the crater rim, respectively. The majority of values lie between B = 2.5 and B = 3.1. Anomalously high values at crater B from 115° to 235°  azimuth are on rim-facing slopes steeper than 15°, which are not present anywhere else on these three ejecta blankets.
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Slope maps for the LOLA LDEM (a) and SfS solution (b) for Malapert Massif classified in increments of 2° with a cutoff at the +2σ value in the slope distribution (∼24°, mean 14°). A narrower classification of the SfS solution (cutoff 10°, increments of 1°) reveals areas near the top of the relatively flat ridge (insets (c)–(e); boxes in (a)–(b)) that are dominated by short-wavelength roughness and small impact craters that are missed in the LDEM (c) but visible in the SfS (d) and corresponding NAC mosaic (e). Stars in (c)–(e) show the location of the proposed Artemis landing site.
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Cropped LOLA LDEM (a), (c) and SfS solution (b), (d) for the Malapert Massif candidate landing region, centered at 85.964°S, 357.681°E on a ridge near the summit of Mons Malapert. Both products show a central east–west ridgeline with primarily north- and south-facing slopes. Two hillshade images match illumination conditions of the low-Sun controlled NAC mosaic with subsolar longitude 315° ((a)–(b), Sun from top left) and 235° ((c)–(d), Sun from bottom left), elevation 5° above the horizon.
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Absolute height difference map (a) and aspect map (b) for Mons Agnes. Large height differences (>2 m; dark red) are due to the slight misregistration between the NAC DTM and SfS solution, which is caused by an underlying offset between the NAC DTM (as viewed via hillshade) and the orthoimage. More modest height differences in the 1–2 m range reflect detections of short-wavelength roughness in the SfS solution, e.g., Figure 5(d). Comparison of the two hillshaded results to the orthoimage (Figure 4(c)–(e)) shows that the SfS solution is qualitatively more accurate to ground truth.
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Slope maps for the NAC DTM (a) and SfS solution (b) for Mons Agnes classified in increments of 2°  with a cutoff at the +2σ value of the slope distribution (14°, mean 5°). Inset panels show an area near the eastern margin of Ina that contains high-albedo blocky material (e, NAC orthoimage); the SfS solution (d) resolves the short-wavelength slope variation of this terrain while the NAC DTM (c) shows generally flat slopes.
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Examples of DEM quality metrics for Mons Agnes. These include scatterplots of pixelwise slope values (a) and visual inspection of SfS hillshades to identify artifacts (b). The greater spread in high SfS slope values is a result of the SfS solution resolving additional short-wavelength roughness. Arrow in (b) indicates an artifact in the SfS hillshade (bottom) that is not present in the NAC orthoimage (top).
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Cropped NAC DTM (a) and SfS solution (b) for Mons Agnes, Ina irregular mare patch, centered at 18.657°N, 5.337°E. The hillshaded SfS solution (d) shows improved textural contrast between Mons Agnes and the surrounding floor ((e), NAC orthoimage) by removing photogrammetry processing artifacts present in the NAC DTM (c). Hillshades (c)–(e) match illumination conditions of the NAC DTM orthoimage, subsolar longitude 257°  (Sun from bottom left) and elevation 35°.
Paper: Shape-from-shading Refinement of LOLA and LROC NAC Digital Elevation Models: Applications to Upcoming Human and Robotic Exploration of the Moon
Authors: Benjamin D. Boatwright, James W. Head
Figure caption: Absolute height difference map (a) and aspect map (b) for Malapert Massif. Blank tiles in the absolute difference map indicate areas where the algorithm filled gaps in the SfS solution with underlying LOLA data.
Paper: The Relative Effects of Surface and Subsurface Morphology on the Deflection Efficiency of Kinetic Impactors: Implications for the DART Mission
Authors: Mallory E. DeCoster, Robert Luther, Gareth S. Collins, Kaiyi Dai, Thomas Davison, Dawn M. Graninger, Felix Kaufmann, Emma S. G. Rainey, Angela M. Stickle
Figure caption: Images of the damage profile and transient craters in 2D CTH 130 ms postimpact for (a) homogeneous weak sand Y  o  = 10 Pa, (b) homogeneous weak sand Y  o  = 1 Pa, (c) rubble pile with regolith Y  o  = 10 Pa, (d) rubble pile with regolith Y  o  = 1 Pa, (e) rubble pile with strong core 0.88 m from the surface, (f) rubble pile with strong core 1.23 m from the surface, (g) rubble pile with strong core 2.12 m from the surface, (h) rubble pile with core 5 m from the surface, (i) rubble pile with strong core 10 m from the surface, (j) rubble pile with strong core 15 m from the surface, and (k) rubble pile with weak core (Y o = 1 Pa) 0.88 m from the surface. Note that there was no damage model applied to the weak core material, which is why it appears white in color.
Paper: The Relative Effects of Surface and Subsurface Morphology on the Deflection Efficiency of Kinetic Impactors: Implications for the DART Mission
Authors: Mallory E. DeCoster, Robert Luther, Gareth S. Collins, Kaiyi Dai, Thomas Davison, Dawn M. Graninger, Felix Kaufmann, Emma S. G. Rainey, Angela M. Stickle
Figure caption: Transient crater for 2D CTH simulations 130 ms postimpact: (a) plots the damage for the weak sandy homogeneous basalt target (Y o = 10 Pa), (b) plots the material for the large surface boulder rubble pile (Y o = 10 Pa), (c) plots the material for the small surface boulder rubble pile (Y o = 10 Pa), (d) plots the damage for the weak granular sandy target (Y o = 1 Pa), (e) plots the material for the large surface boulder rubble pile (Y o = 1 Pa), and (f) plots the material for the small surface boulder rubble pile (Y o = 1 Pa). We plot the damage instead of the material for (a) and (d) so that the transient crater can be clearly visualized, which was not possible when plotting the material in the grid (too much low-density material obscures the crater cavity).
Paper: The Relative Effects of Surface and Subsurface Morphology on the Deflection Efficiency of Kinetic Impactors: Implications for the DART Mission
Authors: Mallory E. DeCoster, Robert Luther, Gareth S. Collins, Kaiyi Dai, Thomas Davison, Dawn M. Graninger, Felix Kaufmann, Emma S. G. Rainey, Angela M. Stickle
Figure caption: iSALE crater snapshots 3 s postimpact for (a) the rubble pile, (b) the 1 m subsurface layer, and (c) the 5 m subsurface layer model. The left side of each image shows the accumulated damage, and the right side shows the density. Craters are still evolving at this time. The cavity along the symmetry axis in panel (b) is a numerical artifact.
Paper: The Relative Effects of Surface and Subsurface Morphology on the Deflection Efficiency of Kinetic Impactors: Implications for the DART Mission
Authors: Mallory E. DeCoster, Robert Luther, Gareth S. Collins, Kaiyi Dai, Thomas Davison, Dawn M. Graninger, Felix Kaufmann, Emma S. G. Rainey, Angela M. Stickle
Figure caption: Grid resolution convergence study performed for the rubble-pile target with small surface boulders. The following resolutions were simulated: cppr = 10 (3.40 cm cell–1), cppr = 15 (2.27 cm cell–1), cppr = 20 (1.70 cm cell–1), and cppr = 30 (1.13 cm cell–1).
Paper: The Relative Effects of Surface and Subsurface Morphology on the Deflection Efficiency of Kinetic Impactors: Implications for the DART Mission
Authors: Mallory E. DeCoster, Robert Luther, Gareth S. Collins, Kaiyi Dai, Thomas Davison, Dawn M. Graninger, Felix Kaufmann, Emma S. G. Rainey, Angela M. Stickle
Figure caption: Cumulative ejecta mass normalized by the projectile mass as a function of the ejecta velocity normalized by the impact velocity for the 2D rubble pile with small surface boulders and regolith cohesion (Y o) set to 1 Pa as a function of grid resolution.
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Renderings of (a) the preliminary shape model and (c) the updated shape model compared to (b) the final DRACO image to contain all of Dimorphos (dart_0401930039_14119_01_iof.fits). White lines mark the limb. The stars, circles, and arrows indicate areas of notable change between the two shape models. All of the symbols are at the same location with respect to the image or rendered model, so offsets between the shapes and the renderings vs. the positions of the shapes relative to the DRACO image indicate errors in the shape models. The updated shape model has improved boulders along the sunlit limb (e.g., Dhol, marked by a magenta star), improved limbs along the dark side of the asteroid (cyan circles), and fine-scale details of knobs of lit terrain that lie beyond the terminator (yellow arrows).
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Improvements to the starting shape model based on limb information. Renderings of (a) the starting triaxial shape and (b) the limb-based shape overlaid on the final DRACO image to contain all of Dimorphos (dart_0401930039_14119_01_iof.fits). The yellow outlines show the limb location for each shape model. Fine white dots show the location of the limb in the DRACO image. Gaps between the yellow outline and white dots show mismatches between the shape and the image. White arrows indicate specific areas where the shape model improved (that is, became a better match to images) as a result of incorporating the sunlit and Didymos-lit limb information.
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: A simulated LUKE image vs. an actual LUKE image. Panels (a)–(f) show renderings of triaxial ellipsoids with the same lighting and viewing geometry as LUKE image liciacube_luke_l2_1664234238_00005_01.fits. The ellipsoids have fixed A and C axes but variable B axes. Panel (g) shows a window centered on Dimorphos from the real, calibrated LUKE image. Ejecta are present in the LUKE image. A dashed yellow line indicates the approximate location of the terminator. Qualitatively, the extent of the lit terrain in the LUKE image is most consistent with the rendered ellipsoid with an a/b closer to 1 than to 1.11. For more elongated ellipsoids, the lit terrain has a crescent-like shape that is not seen in the LUKE image. Panel (e) shows the starting ellipsoid that was used for the updated model.
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: The rms residuals for maplets in the updated Dimorphos shape model. The rms residual is a measure of the internal consistency of the SPC model. The rms residual for the updated model is 3.9 cm, which is smaller than the 5.5-cm pixel scale of the final complete DRACO image used. The maplets with the highest emission angles are located near the limb or along the terminator in places where large shadows cover much of the maplet terrain.
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Dimorphos as seen by LUKE. The left column shows a window from two LUKE images: one before closest approach and one after closest approach. Ejecta pervades both images. The right column shows a rendering of the updated shape model (without any simulated ejecta). The areas with detailed surface features were imaged by DRACO. (a) An image from before closest approach, which imaged much of the same terrain as DRACO but from a higher southern latitude. (b) The images taken after closest approach view the opposite side of Dimorphos. The top image is a window from liciacube_luke_l2_1664234222_00002_01.fits. The bottom image is a window from liciacube_luke_l2_1664234238_00005_01.fits.
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Possible manifestation of libration in DRACO images if an asteroid with a/b = 1.25 had its long axis rotated toward ((a)–(c)) or away from ((e) and (f)) the DRACO boresight by the number of degrees listed on each panel. Panel (d) shows what the image would look like in the absence of libration and corresponds to Figure 6(f).
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: The updated Dimorphos shape model as viewed along its six principal axes. The gray areas are covered by maplets and have the best-constrained topography. The blue and magenta points show the location of the limb points that are sunlit and Didymos-lit, respectively. The yellow areas of the model are poorly constrained because they were not directly imaged by DART but rather constrained by the terminator position in DRACO images. The black star marks the location of the impact site.
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Limb/terminator shape model assessments. Panels (a)–(c) show an example of (a) a reference DRACO image, (b) the rendered shape model with the same lighting and viewing geometry as the reference image, and (c) the difference between the two. Panels (d) and (e) show histograms of results from limb/terminator assessments run on many DRACO images. The arrow in (a) indicates the direction of Dimorphos north (+Z).
Paper: An Updated Shape Model of Dimorphos from DART Data
Authors: R. Terik Daly, Carolyn M. Ernst, Olivier S. Barnouin, Robert W. Gaskell, Hari Nair, Harrison Agrusa, Nancy L. Chabot, Andrew F. Cheng, Elisabetta Dotto, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Raymond C. Espiritu, Tony L. Farnham, Eric E. Palmer, Petr Pravec, Andrew S. Rivkin, Dany C. Waller, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Difference between the preliminary and updated global shape models of Dimorphos. Areas that show up as white or ivory changed relatively little between the two models. In brown areas, the preliminary model is larger than the updated model. In green areas, the preliminary model is smaller than the updated model. The updated model is, on average, slightly smaller (−2.8% change in volume). The black star in the 270°E view marks the impact site.