adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Uranus Orbiter and Probe: A Radio Science Investigation to Determine the Planet’s Gravity Field, Depth of the Winds, and Tidal Deformations
Authors: Marzia Parisi, A. James Friedson, Chris R. Mankovich, Mark D. Hofstadter, Alex B. Akins, Reza Karimi, Damon F. Landau
Figure caption: Phase angles between the spacecraft direction and the Ariel direction with respect to Uranus, at the time of each closest approach, for the three trajectories considered in this study. All trajectories sample a wide range of phase angles, which is optimal for determining the tidal Love number.
Paper: Uranus Orbiter and Probe: A Radio Science Investigation to Determine the Planet’s Gravity Field, Depth of the Winds, and Tidal Deformations
Authors: Marzia Parisi, A. James Friedson, Chris R. Mankovich, Mark D. Hofstadter, Alex B. Akins, Reza Karimi, Damon F. Landau
Figure caption: Magnitude of the tidal parameter calculated for the four giant planets and their major satellites. The color code follows the planets’ color palettes, while the black box highlights the object of our study: Uranus.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The initial velocity of the ground or ocean surface depends on the properties of the atmosphere. A–C: release velocity of the ground, as determined by an impedance-match calculation, as a function of the particle velocity of the shock in the planet before release for atmospheres with different pressures (A, colors), compositions (B, line styles), and temperatures (C, line thicknesses). The particle velocity of the ground on release to very low pressures (1 Pa, black dashed line), and the impedance-match velocity for release of the ground into a water ocean (deep blue line) are also shown. The surface was modeled as forsterite (Stewart et al. 2019), the atmospheres as ideal gases, and the ocean using the Senft & Stewart (2008) EOS. The sudden increase in the slope of the low-pressure release line is due to the onset of vaporization. D: as A–C but for atmospheres modeled using the H2–He EOS of Hubbard & MacFarlane (1980) with the initial pressures and temperatures (500 K) as used in the 3D loss simulations of Kegerreis et al. (2019). Note that the implementation of the Hubbard & MacFarlane (1980) EOS in Kegerreis et al. (2019) had an inconsistency in the calculation of internal energy, which we have corrected here (see Section 3). E–H: the fraction of atmosphere lost due to the breakout of a shock as a function of particle velocity in the planet before release to the atmosphere for the atmospheres shown in A–D. Calculations are for loss from an Earth-mass planet. Loss was calculated by inputting the calculated impedance-match velocity for each atmosphere and shock strength into our parameterization for loss in the no-ocean case (Section C). The loss that could be driven by release of the ground to very low pressures (1 Pa) is shown as a black dashed line. I–L: the fractional difference between the loss calculated for the atmospheres shown in E–H and the loss calculated assuming that the ground released to very low pressures (1 Pa, a theoretical upper limit on loss; black dashed line in A–D). For low-pressure, high-temperature, and lighter atmospheres the loss is close to maximal, but loss of heavier and higher pressures atmospheres can be tens of percent less.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The efficiency of atmospheric loss depends strongly on the ratio of atmospheric to ocean mass (﹩{ \mathcal R }﹩). Each panel shows the combined (atmosphere and ocean) loss for a different ground velocity, normalized to the escape velocity of each planet, as a function of ﹩{ \mathcal R }﹩. Points are the results of simulations for a range of planetary masses (colors), initial atmospheric pressures (symbols), and initial ocean depths (decreasing left to right). Colored solid lines show a parameterized fit of the simulation results (Section C) for each planetary mass. Gray dashed lines indicate total atmospheric loss (a combined loss of one). The open gray triangle to the left of each panel shows the loss expected in the absence of an ocean. Filled colored circles to the left of each panel show the loss determined by convolving the velocity of the ocean surface determined from an impedance-match solution for an atmosphere of 1 bar (the lowest pressure considered in this work) with a parameterization for atmospheric loss in the case of no ocean (Section C). Colored dash marks to the left of each panel show a similar calculation except using the velocity of the ocean surface expected upon release of the ocean to 1 Pa. In both cases, the color of the symbols indicates the planetary mass. The degree of loss due to a ground velocity of a given fraction of the escape velocity (as shown in each panel) is dependent on the mass of the planet as the impedance-match velocity is dictated by the absolute velocity in a nonlinear fashion. The lower axis in each panel shows the misfit between the simulations and the parameterized fit. Indicated is the rms misfit at each velocity.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: Our results agree well with those of Genda & Abe (2005) at low ground velocities but deviate at high ground velocities due to using an improved equation of state (EOS) for water. A: atmosphere and ocean loss from an Earth-mass, M Earth, body as a function of ground velocity for H2 atmospheres of different surface pressures (colored lines) above 3 km oceans. Dotted lines are the results of our calculations and dashed lines are the results of Genda & Abe (2005). The ocean surface temperature in each case was 300 K. Black lines are for the case of no ocean from Genda & Abe (2003, dashed line) or our parameterization described in Section C (solid line). Crosses indicate the maximum velocity at which Genda & Abe (2005) calculated loss using the IAPWS water EOS, due to reaching the maximum pressure of validity for that EOS. Cumulative loss fraction is the sum of atmospheric and ocean loss. Gray dashed lines indicate total atmospheric loss but zero ocean loss. B: fraction of atmosphere and ocean lost for a 300 bar, H2 atmosphere over a 3 km ocean, calculated using different water EOSs in our study and in Genda & Abe (2005).
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The relationship between ground velocity and loss in the no-ocean case is insensitive to atmospheric composition, surface temperature and pressure, and planetary mass. A: fraction of atmosphere lost from an Earth-mass (M Earth) planet as a function of ground velocity for 100 bar atmospheres of different compositions (line styles) and surface temperatures (line thicknesses). The black dashed line is the result from Genda & Abe (2003) for a 1 bar atmosphere of Earth-like composition and a surface temperature of 288 K. B: the fraction of atmosphere lost from bodies of different masses with surface pressures of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, and 500 bar (colored symbols). Ground velocity is normalized to the escape velocity v esc of each body. Atmospheres were CO2 with a surface temperature of 300 K. The solid black line was calculated using the parameterization described in Section C of the Appendix. C: the misfit of the results in B from the parameterization described in Section C.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The efficiency of atmospheric loss as a function of ground velocity depends on the depth of the ocean and the atmospheric pressure. Each panel shows the combined loss (sum of atmosphere and ocean fraction lost) as a function of inverse ocean depth for different ground velocities. Loss was calculated for different initial atmospheric pressures (open symbols) on an Earth-mass planet. Gray dashed lines indicate total atmospheric loss (a combined loss of one). The open gray triangle to the left of each panel indicates the loss expected in the absence of an ocean. Filled symbols to the left of each panel show the loss determined by convolving the velocity of the ocean surface determined from an impedance-match solution with a parameterization for atmospheric loss in the case of no ocean (see Section C). The blue dash mark to the left of each panel shows a similar calculation except using the velocity of the ocean surface expected upon release of the ocean to 1 Pa.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: The transition between the high- and low-loss regimes scales well with the ratio of atmospheric to ocean mass (﹩{ \mathcal R }﹩). Each panel shows the combined loss (sum of atmosphere and ocean fraction lost) as a function of ﹩{ \mathcal R }﹩. Symbols and lines are the same as in Figure 7.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss in Giant Impacts Depends on Preimpact Surface Conditions
Authors: Simon J. Lock, Sarah T. Stewart
Figure caption: Loss in the ocean case is somewhat sensitive to the composition of the atmosphere. A: atmosphere and ocean loss from an Earth-mass body as a function of ground velocity for H2 (dotted lines) and CO2 (solid lines) atmospheres of different surface pressures (colors) above 3 km oceans. B: loss for atmospheres of different compositions (line styles) and ocean surface temperatures (line thicknesses) for a 100 bar atmosphere over a 3 km ocean.
Paper: Optical Constants of Ices Important to Planetary Science from Laboratory Reflectance Spectroscopy
Authors: S. C. Tegler, W. M. Grundy, M. J. Loeffler, P. D. Tribbett, J. Hanley, A. V. Jasko, H. Dawson, A. N. Morgan, K. J. Koga, A. O. Madden-Watson, M. D. Gomez, J. K. Steckloff, G. E. Lindberg, S. P. Tan, S. M. Raposa, A. E. Engle, C. L. Thieberger, D. E. Trilling
Figure caption: The left panel is a view of QCM from above showing its location relative to the lasers, detectors, and FTIR beam in our system. The middle panel is a side view of the QCM. The right panel is a face-on view of the QCM. The middle and right panels show the cold head, two diodes for temperature measurements, copper strap, and QCM mount. Ice is deposited on the gold-plated quartz crystal. For clarity, wiring and indium foil to improve thermal conduction between the copper strap and the copper QCM mount are not shown.
Paper: Detection of Molecular H2O on Nominally Anhydrous Asteroids
Authors: Anicia Arredondo, Margaret M. McAdam, Casey I. Honniball, Tracy M. Becker, Joshua P. Emery, Andrew S. Rivkin, Driss Takir, Cristina A. Thomas
Figure caption: Comparison of laboratory spectra from Kremer et al. (2020, 2023) and our asteroid spectra that show 6 μm features. Laboratory reflectance spectra were converted to emissivity using Kirchoff's law. The strong 5.6 μm peak in the olivine spectrum is not present in the asteroid spectra. Arrows indicate features that change center based on Fe and Mg content. Spectra from other sources were digitized using WebPlotDigitizer from Marin et al. (2017).
Paper: Detection of Molecular H2O on Nominally Anhydrous Asteroids
Authors: Anicia Arredondo, Margaret M. McAdam, Casey I. Honniball, Tracy M. Becker, Joshua P. Emery, Andrew S. Rivkin, Driss Takir, Cristina A. Thomas
Figure caption: Left: SOFIA flux-calibrated spectrum of Vesta. Middle: black circles show the points used to fit a second-order polynomial (black line) to the emissivity spectrum (brown) that was found by dividing flux by NEATM modeled flux. Right: continuum-removed emissivity of Vesta (brown) compared to Massalia (green). The Vesta spectrum does not show a feature at 6 μm, as expected.
Paper: Detection of Molecular H2O on Nominally Anhydrous Asteroids
Authors: Anicia Arredondo, Margaret M. McAdam, Casey I. Honniball, Tracy M. Becker, Joshua P. Emery, Andrew S. Rivkin, Driss Takir, Cristina A. Thomas
Figure caption: Previous detections of a 6 μm feature on solar system bodies. The shape and band center differ even among the same type of object. The gray region indicates band centers from Honniball et al. (2021, 2022). Spectra from other sources were digitized using WebPlotDigitizer from Marin et al. (2017).
Paper: Detection of Molecular H2O on Nominally Anhydrous Asteroids
Authors: Anicia Arredondo, Margaret M. McAdam, Casey I. Honniball, Tracy M. Becker, Joshua P. Emery, Andrew S. Rivkin, Driss Takir, Cristina A. Thomas
Figure caption: MIR spectra of the four asteroids (offset for clarity). Missing sections are due to grism nonoverlap and atmosphere. The spectra have a CF around 9.1 μm. The shaded colored region indicates ±1σ.
Paper: Detection of Molecular H2O on Nominally Anhydrous Asteroids
Authors: Anicia Arredondo, Margaret M. McAdam, Casey I. Honniball, Tracy M. Becker, Joshua P. Emery, Andrew S. Rivkin, Driss Takir, Cristina A. Thomas
Figure caption: Flux (left), emissivity (middle), and continuum-removed emissivity (right) for the Spitzer spectrum of Iris (blue) compared to the SOFIA spectrum of Iris (red). The Spitzer spectrum potentially shows a feature at the same location as the SOFIA spectrum but also includes a second bump near 6.25 μm.
Paper: Inferring the CO2 Abundance in Comet 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdušáková from [O I] Observations: Implications for the Source of Icy Grains in Cometary Comae
Authors: Mikayla R. Huffman, Adam J. McKay, Anita L. Cochran
Figure caption: (a) Plot of water active fraction vs. CO2 abundance for 22P/Kopff. The different marker shapes are different heliocentric distances. The rightmost two points are pre-perihelion, and the three leftmost points are post-perihelion. The solid black line is a line of best fit that was calculated via orthogonal distance regression. It has an equation of y = (−2.65 ± 0.63)x + (63.71 ± 11.42). The green dashed lines are 1σ bounds on the best-fit line. (b) Plot of water active area vs. CO2 abundance for 22P/Kopff. The solid black line is the line of best fit with an equation of y = (−0.81 ± 0.24)x + (19.97 ± 2.89). The dashed green lines are 1σ bounds on the line of best fit. There are weak negative correlations for 22P/Kopff.
Paper: Inferring the CO2 Abundance in Comet 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdušáková from [O I] Observations: Implications for the Source of Icy Grains in Cometary Comae
Authors: Mikayla R. Huffman, Adam J. McKay, Anita L. Cochran
Figure caption: Plot showing heliocentric distance vs. active fraction for each of the comets in our sample. Each color is a different comet. Each marker shape within the colors is a different heliocentric distance or relation to perihelion. There is no correlation between water active fraction and heliocentric distance for this sample of comets.
Paper: Leveraging the Gravity Field Spectrum for Icy Satellite Interior Structure Determination: The Case of Europa with the Europa Clipper Mission
Authors: G. Cascioli, E. Mazarico, A. J. Dombard, F. Nimmo
Figure caption: Europa’s interior structure end-members used in this work. Gray cells denote parameters that are not solved for but perturbed for robustness. Green cells denote parameters that are different with respect to the “Reference” case.
Paper: Leveraging the Gravity Field Spectrum for Icy Satellite Interior Structure Determination: The Case of Europa with the Europa Clipper Mission
Authors: G. Cascioli, E. Mazarico, A. J. Dombard, F. Nimmo
Figure caption: Gravitational potential amplitude spectrum for the Europa reference case. The brown line represents the gravity potential of the silicate interior, the blue line represents the potential of the icy shell, and the black dashed line shows the total gravitational potential.
Paper: Leveraging the Gravity Field Spectrum for Icy Satellite Interior Structure Determination: The Case of Europa with the Europa Clipper Mission
Authors: G. Cascioli, E. Mazarico, A. J. Dombard, F. Nimmo
Figure caption: Outcome of the two-step solution of the gravity field. In the first step, no a priori regularization is used in the OD filter, leading to a poor solution for high degrees, mainly because of the uneven spatial coverage. The first-step solution is used to derive a regularization rule based only on the very first degrees. This data-based regularization is used as a priori in the second step. The vertical bars represent the rms uncertainty on the amplitude spectrum (Equation (7)).
Paper: Leveraging the Gravity Field Spectrum for Icy Satellite Interior Structure Determination: The Case of Europa with the Europa Clipper Mission
Authors: G. Cascioli, E. Mazarico, A. J. Dombard, F. Nimmo
Figure caption: Comparison of different uncertainty quantification methods for the amplitude spectrum. The red line shows the conventional rms uncertainty of the measured spectrum (black line), while the blue line and black plus signs show the outcome of the clone method and the linear propagation method, respectively.
Paper: Leveraging the Gravity Field Spectrum for Icy Satellite Interior Structure Determination: The Case of Europa with the Europa Clipper Mission
Authors: G. Cascioli, E. Mazarico, A. J. Dombard, F. Nimmo
Figure caption: General interior structure used in this work. The topography of the silicate crust and ice shell is represented with a substantial vertical exaggeration.
Paper: Leveraging the Gravity Field Spectrum for Icy Satellite Interior Structure Determination: The Case of Europa with the Europa Clipper Mission
Authors: G. Cascioli, E. Mazarico, A. J. Dombard, F. Nimmo
Figure caption: Gravity anomalies associated with the reference Europa interior structure, expanded up to degree and order 30.
Paper: Sensitivity Testing of Stereophotoclinometry for the OSIRIS-REx Mission. II. Effective Observation Geometry for Digital Terrain Modeling
Authors: Eric E. Palmer, John R. Weirich, Robert W. Gaskell, Diane Lambert, Tanner Campbell, Kris Drozd, Olivier S. Barnouin, Michael G. Daly, Kenneth Getzandanner, John N. Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, Dante S. Lauretta
Figure caption: The average correlation score for DTMs generated with different numbers of albedo images: the full six-image input set with two albedo and four topography images, a five-image set with the Albedo A image removed, a five-image set with the Albedo B image removed, and a four-image set with neither albedo image. The x-axis is the number of iterations of the AES cycle that were run. The y-axis is the normalized cross-correlation score. By this metric, the DTM improves quickly at first, with the first 10 AES iterations accounting for most of the improvement. AES iterations beyond 50 result in only a small improvement in the DTM.
Paper: Sensitivity Testing of Stereophotoclinometry for the OSIRIS-REx Mission. II. Effective Observation Geometry for Digital Terrain Modeling
Authors: Eric E. Palmer, John R. Weirich, Robert W. Gaskell, Diane Lambert, Tanner Campbell, Kris Drozd, Olivier S. Barnouin, Michael G. Daly, Kenneth Getzandanner, John N. Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, Dante S. Lauretta
Figure caption: Same as Figure 7, but for the removal of specific topographic images.
Paper: Sensitivity Testing of Stereophotoclinometry for the OSIRIS-REx Mission. II. Effective Observation Geometry for Digital Terrain Modeling
Authors: Eric E. Palmer, John R. Weirich, Robert W. Gaskell, Diane Lambert, Tanner Campbell, Kris Drozd, Olivier S. Barnouin, Michael G. Daly, Kenneth Getzandanner, John N. Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, Dante S. Lauretta
Figure caption: Vertical profile of a crater on an otherwise flat surface (from F2: Test 11). The black line is the truth terrain from which the source images were acquired. The colored lines show the terrain produced by SPC after each iteration step, indicating how numerous iterations are needed to converge on the truth topography.
Paper: Sensitivity Testing of Stereophotoclinometry for the OSIRIS-REx Mission. II. Effective Observation Geometry for Digital Terrain Modeling
Authors: Eric E. Palmer, John R. Weirich, Robert W. Gaskell, Diane Lambert, Tanner Campbell, Kris Drozd, Olivier S. Barnouin, Michael G. Daly, Kenneth Getzandanner, John N. Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, Dante S. Lauretta
Figure caption: Same as Figure 6, but for the sigma score, SigS.
Paper: Sensitivity Testing of Stereophotoclinometry for the OSIRIS-REx Mission. II. Effective Observation Geometry for Digital Terrain Modeling
Authors: Eric E. Palmer, John R. Weirich, Robert W. Gaskell, Diane Lambert, Tanner Campbell, Kris Drozd, Olivier S. Barnouin, Michael G. Daly, Kenneth Getzandanner, John N. Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, Dante S. Lauretta
Figure caption: An example of a set of high-quality imagery for a piece of terrain. This example uses an asteroid with a near-zero obliquity, with the modeled location north of the equator by 20°. Topographic image stations are numbered 1–4, and the albedo image station is numbered 5.
Paper: Noble Gas Planetology and the Xenon Clouds of Uranus
Authors: Kevin Zahnle
Figure caption: Reconstructing ﹩{{\rm{U}}}^{{\prime} }﹩-Xe. Beginning with solar xenon, a quantity x of 244Pu fissiogenic Xe is added and a quantity z of Xe-H is subtracted (x and z are in units where 130Xe = 100). The sum is then mass-fractionated by η to generate air’s Xe (η is in units of percent per amu). Values of x, z, and η that give acceptable fits are plotted. The umbrae of filled disks have χ 2 < 1. The penumbrae of open circles have χ 2 < 3.5. The best fits are used to create U′-Xe using Equation (B6), which is plotted in Figure B1.
Paper: Uranus Orbiter and Probe: A Radio Science Investigation to Determine the Planet’s Gravity Field, Depth of the Winds, and Tidal Deformations
Authors: Marzia Parisi, A. James Friedson, Chris R. Mankovich, Mark D. Hofstadter, Alex B. Akins, Reza Karimi, Damon F. Landau
Figure caption: Spacecraft ground tracks for ±20 minutes around each closest approach to Uranus for Trajectories 1, 2, and 3. Panel (a) shows the spacecraft pericenters outside (Trajectory 1) and inside (Trajectories 2 and 3) the ring region (gray shaded area). The orbits are plotted with respect to a nonrotating reference frame that is fixed with Uranus (the z-axis is aligned with Uranus’s rotation axis, and xy is the equatorial plane) from Archinal et al. (2018). The eight orbits for each trajectory case are shown, though they sometimes overlap in the chosen reference frame. Panel (b) shows the ground tracks with respect to Uranus’s rotating frame (Archinal et al. 2018) for the three trajectories. The tracks show the spacecraft altitude for 20 minutes around closest approach (trajectory ticks are generated every 60 s). The spacecraft altitude over Uranus’s atmosphere is calculated considering the 1-bar shape from Helled et al. (2010). Background image credit: NASA/JPL/Hastings-Trew/Thomas.
Paper: Uranus Orbiter and Probe: A Radio Science Investigation to Determine the Planet’s Gravity Field, Depth of the Winds, and Tidal Deformations
Authors: Marzia Parisi, A. James Friedson, Chris R. Mankovich, Mark D. Hofstadter, Alex B. Akins, Reza Karimi, Damon F. Landau
Figure caption: Interior model of Uranus using composite polytropes with interface at 0.8R U. The density profile and the adiabatic index are shown as a function of the fractional radius.
Paper: Uranus Orbiter and Probe: A Radio Science Investigation to Determine the Planet’s Gravity Field, Depth of the Winds, and Tidal Deformations
Authors: Marzia Parisi, A. James Friedson, Chris R. Mankovich, Mark D. Hofstadter, Alex B. Akins, Reza Karimi, Damon F. Landau
Figure caption: Uranus’s gravity field spectrum, including different contributions: measured coefficients (black diamonds), predicted effect of solid-body rotation (black stars), and predicted wind-induced gravity signal for shallow (red circles) and deep wind (blue circles) models. Filled and open symbols represent positive and negative values, respectively. The shaded area represents the sum of the uniform and differential rotation contributions and shows the possible range for high-order gravity moments, between the deep (blue dotted line) and shallow (red dotted line) cases.