adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: The Implications of Thermal Hydrodynamic Atmospheric Escape on the TRAPPIST-1 Planets
Authors: Megan T. Gialluca, Rory Barnes, Victoria S. Meadows, Rodolfo Garcia, Jessica Birky, Eric Agol
Figure caption: A comparison to the escape rates of the TRAPPIST-1 planets calculated in Lincowski et al. (2018, 2022) using constraints on the system from Grimm et al. (2018). Left: the water lost in TO over time in years beginning with 20 TO initially. Right: the oxygen produced in bars over time in years. Solid lines denote the rates calculated using the new version of AtmEsc from this work, and dashed lines denote the rates calculated using the version of AtmEsc from Lincowski et al. (2018, 2022).
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Photo mosaic of the original Ribbeck sample (upper left), Ribbeck slab following the removal of fusion crust (lower left), and the grain-size groups that were used in this study. A scale bar of 1 cm is provided in the lower right.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: UV–NIR (0.2–2.5 μm) normalized spectra of the associated grain sizes of Ribbeck. UV–Vis (0.2–0.7 μm) data are set to unity at 0.4 μm in the left subplot, while NIR (0.7–2.5 μm) data are set to unity at 1.5 μm. Avantes and ASD data overlap at 0.4 μm like in Figure 1.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: UV–NIR (0.2–2.5 μm) absolute spectra of the associated grain sizes of Ribbeck. Reflectance values from 0.2 to 0.4 μm were obtained with our Avantes spectrometer and scaled to the 0.4–2.5 μm ASD data at 0.4 μm.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Plot of the 0.5 and 0.9 μm continuum-removed absorption features in Ribbeck compared to the three E-type lithologies described by Clark et al. (2004).
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Vis–NIR (0.35–2.5 μm) normalized reflectance of our 45–90 μm Ribbeck powder and slab plotted against three main-belt asteroids that represent the distinct E-type lithologies described by Clark et al. (2004).
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Mid-IR (2.5–14.2 μm) normalized reflectance of the associated grain sizes of Ribbeck. The data are set to unity at 2.5 μm.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Mid-IR (2.5–14.2 μm) absolute reflectance of the associated grain sizes of Ribbeck. Note that data were taken under ambient conditions, resulting in the presence of some adsorbed water features.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Vis–NIR (0.35–2.5 μm) normalized reflectance of our 45–90 μm Ribbeck powder and slab plotted against two similar aubrite meteorites (RELAB). Both RELAB sample measurements (c1ar01 and c1dd173) have an incidence angle of 30°and emission angle of 0° for a resulting phase angle of 30°. The data are set to unity at 1.5 μm.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Vis–NIR (0.35–2.5 μm) normalized reflectance of our 45–90 μm Ribbeck powder and slab plotted against 2023 DZ2, a small (∼30 m) E-type NEA that passed within 0.45 LD on 2023 March 25. The spectrum of 2023 DZ2 is from Reddy et al. (2024).
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Measured 0.5 and 0.9 μm (oldhamite) band depths of Ribbeck across its associated grain sizes. The error bars of each value represent a single standard deviation of five measurements.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Measured 0.55 μm (photometric V-band) absolute albedo of Ribbeck across its associated grain sizes. The x-axis ticks correspond to the center point between grain-size boundaries for each bin, excluding the slab. A negative natural log trend is fitted to the data. The standard deviation for each value is captured by the marker size.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: Measured 0.8–1.8 μm spectral slope of Ribbeck across its associated grain sizes. A negative natural log trend is fitted to the data. The standard deviation for each value is captured by the marker size.
Paper: Laboratory Spectral Characterization of Ribbeck Aubrite: Meteorite Sample of Earth-impacting Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 BX1
Authors: David C. Cantillo, Kaycee I. Ridenhour, Adam Battle, Thomas Joyce, Juliana Nunez Breceda, Neil Pearson, Vishnu Reddy
Figure caption: (a) Principal component values of our Ribbeck samples and NEA 2023 DZ2 plotted with the α-line boundary from DeMeo et al. (2009). The bounds are selected to show the variation in PC values across all Ribbeck powdered samples. The circular markers represent the powdered samples of Ribbeck, with increasing marker size corresponding to increasing grain size. (b) Principal component values of our Ribbeck samples, NEA 2023 DZ2, and the E-type and main-belt asteroid lithologies plotted with the α-line boundary from DeMeo et al. (2009).
Paper: Using Hydrodynamic Similarity as a Verification Method for Impact Cratering Simulations in the FLAG Hydrocode
Authors: Matthew C. Holmes, Wendy K. Caldwell, Joanne L. Budzien, Carl E. Johnson
Figure caption: Initial simulation conditions of a projectile impacting a target, zoomed to show detail. Density is shown in units of g cm−3. The computational mesh is visible on the left half of the figure, and a 1.0 L bar is included to provide a reference length.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Comparison of the τ distribution of planet candidates with R  p  ≤ 5 R ⊕ in systems with a single known transiting PC (“singles”; solid curve), two known transiting PCs (“doubles”; dotted curves), three known transiting PCs (“triples”; dotted–dashed curves), and four or more known transiting PCs (“4+” systems; dashed curves). Light blue curves are based on stellar properties from CKS (Fulton & Petigura 2018) instead of the Berger et al. (2020) catalog (shown in black). Since CKS parameters are not available for all stars, the PC samples used to compute the blue curves differ somewhat from those used for the the black curves. No blue curve is shown for singles because CKS only analyzed a small fraction of the fainter stars hosting just one PC. In contrast, the CKS survey devoted extra effort to survey hosts of multiplanet systems (Petigura et al. 2017), so the differences in the samples are smaller and more random. Both the K-S and AD tests strongly reject the null hypothesis that the distributions for PCs in singles and doubles are drawn from the same population. Similarly, we reject the null hypothesis that any pair of τ distributions for doubles, triples, and higher-multiplicity systems is drawn from the same distribution.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Comparison of the cumulative τ distribution for planets divided into five subsets based on their orbital period. The curves correspond to P < 2 days (solid light blue), 2 days < P < 6 days (dashed royal blue), 6 days < P < 12 days (dotted black), 12 days < P < 24 days (dotted–dashed green), and 24 days < P < 1200 days (double dotted–dashed red). A five-sample AD test fails to reject the null hypothesis that the τ distribution for all subsets is drawn from a common distribution. However, if we compare planets with P < 6 days to planets with 24 days < P < 1200 days, then a two-sample AD test rejects the null hypothesis that the τ distribution for all subsets is drawn from a common distribution with a p-value of 0.01. This is consistent with expectations if tidal forces are effective at circularizing a significant fraction of planets with P < 6 days.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Left: cumulative distributions of τ, the normalized transit duration, for our sample of Kepler  (dotted black curve) and two simulated populations. The eccentricity is drawn from a single Rayleigh distribution with Rayleigh parameter σ = 0.053 (red dashed curve), and the eccentricity distribution is drawn from a continuous mixture of Rayleigh distributions with weights given by a Rayleigh distribution with σ = 0.043 (green dotted–dashed curve). Neither model reproduces both the rapid rise of the τ distribution due to low-eccentricity planets and the tail of planets with τ larger than unity seen in the Kepler sample. Right: the eccentricity distributions implied by either the best-fit Rayleigh distribution (green) or the Rayleigh of Rayleigh distributions (orange) described above. While the two models make very similar predictions for the distribution of normalized transit durations, they have substantially different implications for the tail of the eccentricity distribution.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: The normalized cumulative distributions of orbital periods of single planet candidates with TTVs, singles without TTVs, multis with TTVs, and multis lacking TTVs. Here we consider PCs to have TTVs if the first digit in their TTV flag in Table 1 is 1 (which somewhat overestimates the number of PCs in multis with TTVs because TTVs are used for fitting all PCs in a system if any PC in the system is found to exhibit TTVs), the second digit is 1 or 2, and/or the third digit is 8 or 9. Only PCs with at least three TTs measured and S/N > 12 are counted for these distributions. The plot on the left uses a linear scale in period and is truncated at 80 days, whereas the one on the right has a logarithmic period scale and extends to the longest-period Kepler PCs displaying at least three transits.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: The value of the vertical coordinate gives the fraction of planets within systems of specified multiplicity having orbital periods less than the value of the horizontal coordinate. Although multis are deficient in planets relative to singles at both the shortest and longest orbital periods, the ensembles of planets in multis and singles both have median periods of ∼10 days. This plot uses the same criteria for inclusion as stated in the first paragraph of Section 3.4.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Cumulative distribution of τ, the normalized transit duration (Equation 6), based on stellar properties from either Berger et al. (2020) or Fulton & Petigura (2018; CKS). The thick blue curve is the sample used for our primary analysis of transit durations. The orange and green curves are for a smaller sample of PCs for which both Berger and CKS stellar parameters are available. The period-normalized transit duration distributions based on the different stellar properties do not differ significantly if we restrict the comparison to the same sample. The difference between the full and overlap samples is primarily due to the CKS sample favoring stellar hosts of multiplanet systems (see Figure 20) and bright target stars, which implicitly affects both the stellar properties and Kepler’s sensitivity to PCs around those stars.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Cumulative fraction of candidates with inner (outer) companions as a function of orbital period, as specified by Equation 4 (Equation 5). The solid green curve shows the cumulative fraction of PCs up to the plotted orbital period that have inner planetary companions (shorter-period PCs associated with the same target star). The solid orange curve marks the cumulative fraction of PCs with P larger than the specified period that have even longer-period transiting companions. The dashed curves show the analogous curves for large planets (PCs with R  p  > 5 R ⊕) having inner or outer planetary companions, with PCs of all sizes except monotransits counting as companion planets. Again, only PCs with S/N > 12 are included for these distributions, although this requirement is not enforced for companions.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Cumulative period distribution of Kepler planet candidates, considering the singles (blue curves) and multis (red curves) independently and separating the planets by radius into four bins (R  p  < 1.8 R ⊕, 1.8 R ⊕ ≤ R  p  < 5 R ⊕, 5 R ⊕ ≤ R  p  < 10 R ⊕, 10 R ⊕ ≤ R  p ). Only planets with b + σ +(b) < 0.95, S/N > 12, and more than one transit observed are included, as the radii of planets with grazing transits are not well constrained, and the false-positive rate is relatively high among PCs with low S/N. For clarity, each of the curves begins at its first nonzero value.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Cumulative distribution of τ, the normalized transit duration, for four subsets of PCs based on the effective temperature of their host star reported in Berger et al. (2020). The subsets are 4000–5200 K (black dotted), 5200–5600 K (blue solid), 5600–6200 K (green dashed–dotted), and 6200–6600 K (red dashed). A four-sample AD test strongly rejects the null hypothesis that the τ distributions are drawn from a single population. Excluding the 6200–6600 K bin, a three-sample AD test still nominally rejects the null hypothesis that the remaining bins are drawn from a common distribution, but with weak significance.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Transit-to-transit and 4 yr average periods for each of the planets known to orbit Kepler-60, ordered by increasing orbital period. The dots in the left panels show transit-to-transit orbital periods from three samples (of the 101 considered) following dynamical fits to the long-cadence TTs of Rowe & Thompson (2015). The solid curves represent the average of 4 yr segments centered on the given time. Black represents the sample with the median long-term (1000 yr) average period of KOI-2086.01; blue represents the 17th sample in the list ranked by average period, and red represents the 85th member of the list. Time is measured from the beginning of Kepler science operations. The green crosses at the beginning represent our fits to the lightcurve assuming constant period (Table 1). The top right panel has been thinned to show every fourth mean transit-to-transit interval, whereas the middle and bottom right panels show every third mean transit-to-transit interval.
Paper: Updated Catalog of Kepler Planet Candidates: Focus on Accuracy and Orbital Periods
Authors: Jack J. Lissauer, Jason F. Rowe, Daniel Jontof-Hutter, Daniel C. Fabrycky, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Jason H. Steffen, Kadri M. Nizam
Figure caption: Visualization of all planet candidates listed in Table 1 transiting in front of their host stars. The radii of all of the planets and stars are shown to the same scale, and the vertical distance of each planet from the center of its star shows the impact parameter of the transit. Systems are ordered by stellar size, and the color of each stellar disk represents the star’s T eff, with the color scale shown below. The single star located between the top two rows on the right shows Jupiter and the Earth transiting the solar disk (for scale). The 12 host stars that have T < 3500 K and the two with T > 10,000 K are represented by colors shown at the extrema of the scale bar. The version of this image included within the pdf manuscript is compressed to reduce the size of the file; a full-resolution version that clearly displays each of the transiting planets upon the disk of its host star is provided within the electronic version of the manuscript.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: (a) Median-combined images stacked on Didymos’s motion from 2022-09-28−29 (first “night” of LCOGT observations post-impact), along with the outline of the NoiseChisel detection for Didymos’s tail and ejecta (blue outline). The arrows show the direction of the celestial north pole (black), the position angles of the Sun-to-target radius vector (orange), and the negative of the targets’ heliocentric velocity vector (blue). The first five images are from the LCOGT CPT site (South Africa) and were taken in deteriorating sky conditions; the remainder are from the LCOGT LSC site (Chile). The time range under each figure is from the start of the first exposure to the end of the last exposure in the stack, given in UTC.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Median-combined stacked images of Didymos from 2022-09-28 to 2022-10-02 at the LCOGT CPT (South Africa) and LSC (Chile) sites.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Network map of LCOGT facilities. The site in Israel does not have an imager and therefore did not participate in the DART observation campaign.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Median-combined substack images of Didymos from 2022-09-30 (second “night” of LCOGT observations post-impact) from the LCOGT CPT (South Africa) site. Labeling and other details are as in Figure 2.
Paper: Long-term Monitoring of Didymos with the LCOGT Network and MRO after the DART Impact
Authors: Tim Lister, Cora Constantinescu, William Ryan, Eileen Ryan, Edward Gomez, Liz Phillips, Agata Rożek, Helen Usher, Brian P. Murphy, Joseph Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Median-combined substack images of Didymos from 2022-09-30 (second “night” of LCOGT observations post-impact) at the LCOGT LSC (Chile) site. Labeling and other details are as in Figure 2.
Paper: A Spectral Method to Compute the Tides of Laterally Heterogeneous Bodies
Authors: Marc Rovira-Navarro, Isamu Matsuyama, Alexander Berne
Figure caption: Gravitational Love numbers for different types of lateral shear modulus variations (upper panels), and the differences with the Love numbers obtained via the perturbation approach of Qin et al. (2014) (lower panels). An elastic Io (Table 1) with shear modulus variations of different wavelengths (n LV, m LV) is assumed. The amplitude of lateral variations is given in terms of the peak-to-peak variation of the shear modulus with respect to its mean. The solution is cut off at perturbation order 3. The line width indicates the order of the mode, with thicker lines indicating lower-order modes. In the upper panels, the dashed lines correspond to the solution obtained with the perturbation method of Qin et al. (2014). For (n LV, m LV) = (1, 1), only the ﹩+\left|m\right|﹩ modes are shown, but ﹩-\left|m\right|﹩ modes of amplitude ﹩{k}_{2,0}^{n,-\left|m\right|}={\left(-1\right)}^{\left|m\right|}{k}_{2,0}^{n,\left|m\right|}﹩ are also excited. The difference between the two methods is computed as ﹩100\left|{\left({k}_{\mathrm{2,0}}^{n,m}/{k}_{2}^{u}\right)}_{R}-{\left({k}_{\mathrm{2,0}}^{n,m}/{k}_{2}^{u}\right)}_{Q}\right|/{\left|{k}_{\mathrm{2,0}}^{n,m}/{k}_{2}^{u}\right|}_{R}﹩, with R and Q standing for the method presented here and the method of Qin et al. (2014), respectively.