adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: Maximum roll, pitch, and yaw amplitudes as a function of a  s /b  s  and b  s /c  s . Reshaping is assumed to occur along the principal axes, and the post-impact shape has a symmetry about the Y-axis, as shown in Figure 2. The horizontal and vertical error bars indicate the current estimates of the axis ratios. The red contour line indicates ΔP reshaping = 0 s. The white triangle indicates the attitude-unstable shape whose time evolution of roll, pitch, and yaw angles are plotted in Figure 6.
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: Time evolution of roll, pitch, and yaw angles. The blue and red lines denote the stable and unstable shapes, respectively. The stable shape has a  s /b  s  = 1.3 and b  s /c  s  = 1.3, and the unstable shape has a  s /b  s  = 1.3 and b  s /c  s  = 1.0.
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: Reshaping-induced orbit period change, ΔP reshaping, as a function of the changes in the zonal and tesseral terms of degree 2, Δ C 20 and Δ C 22, respectively. Reshaping is assumed to occur along the principal axes, and the post-impact shape is symmetrical about the Y-axis, as shown in Figure 2. The red contour line indicates ΔP reshaping = 0 s, while the dashed line denotes ΔC 22 = 0.265 ΔC 20, a theoretical boundary between positive and negative orbit period changes (Equation (B5)).
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: Synthetic shape model of Dimorphos undergoing off-principal-axis reshaping: (left) top-down view and (right) side view. θ in and θ out denote the in-plane and the out-of-plane reshaping angles, respectively. Applying a sequence of rotation θ in and θ out to the original Cartesian coordinate system {X, Y, Z}, a new set of Cartesian coordinate system ﹩\{X^{\prime} ,Y^{\prime} ,Z^{\prime} \}﹩ can be established, along which the reshaping is described.
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: ΔP reshaping as a function of (bottom) ΔX and (top) ΔY. The equatorial axis ratio a  s /b  s  is fixed at 1.34. The blue and red dots indicate ΔP reshaping due to symmetric and asymmetric reshaping, respectively. The black solid line indicates the linear fit for ΔP reshaping due to asymmetric reshaping.
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: The same as Figure 9 but only for the shapes with b  s /c  s  > 1.0.
Paper: Dimorphos’s Orbit Period Change and Attitude Perturbation due to Its Reshaping after the DART Impact
Authors: Ryota Nakano, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Sabina D. Raducan, Petr Pravec, Shantanu P. Naidu, Harrison F. Agrusa, Steven Chesley, Fabio Ferrari, Martin Jutzi, Colby C. Merrill, Alex J. Meyer, Patrick Michel, Derek C. Richardson, Paul Sánchez, Peter Scheirich, Stephen R. Schwartz, Yun Zhang, Adriano Campo Bagatin, Po-Yen Liu, Andrew F. Cheng
Figure caption: Maximum roll, pitch, and yaw amplitudes as a function of θ in and θ out for shapes with ﹩{a}_{s}^{\prime} /{b}_{s}^{\prime} =1.3﹩, ﹩{b}_{s}^{\prime} /{c}_{s}^{\prime} =1.2﹩, and ﹩{{\rm{\Delta }}}^{-}Y^{\prime} =25﹩ m. Note the difference of the color bar scale.
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: NEO detectability as a function of Earth and asteroid mean anomaly for the orbit shown in Figure 4. The basic detection criteria (excluding angular velocity) are encoded by color and labeled when satisfied. The locus of mean anomalies for a 5 yr mission starting at 0, 0 is shown by the red lines, with 13 day observation opportunities at the magenta circles. The points of closest approach are marked with a black cross.
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: NEO detectability plots with 5 yr mission locus (red lines) and 13 day observation opportunities (magenta circles). (a) NEO orbit with 1 yr period (a = 1 au, e = 0.5, i = 0, ω = 0°). (b) Highly inclined NEO orbit (a = 1.5 au, e = 0.3, i = 60°, ω = 0°) to illustrate the solar latitude constraint. The points of closest approach are marked with a black cross.
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: Detectability of a 140 m diameter NEO with NEO Surveyor. The Earth orbit is in blue, and the coplanar asteroid orbit is in red. The black dots denote 5° intervals of mean anomaly, with the first few values indicated. The green region corresponds to the detection sensitivity criterion; the yellow areas indicate the solar longitude constraints. Thick green lines show the portion of the asteroid orbit detectable from the NEO Surveyor location shown.
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: Calculation of integral completeness over the thermal model and diameter distributions. (a) Distribution of population with respect to thermal parameter (a combination of the Bond albedo, A, and beaming parameter, η, from Section 3.2) and diameter (power-law index −2.5), including marginal profiles. Distributions are normalized such that the population integral for objects larger than 140 m is unity. (b) 5 yr survey completeness for NEOs as a function of thermal model and diameter. The contour levels (0.1, 0.2, … 0.9) follow an interpolation of the model runs at the black dots. (c) Distribution of detected objects from the product of (a) and (b). (d) Detected objects averaged over the thermal model parameters (red curve) compared to parent population distribution (blue curve). The net completeness for diameters larger than 140 m is 0.76 (ratio of areas to the right of the dashed line).
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: Survey completeness for 10,000 PHA orbits with a 140 m diameter PHA and nominal thermal parameters for (a) 5 yr survey duration and (b) 10 yr survey.
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: Annually averaged spatial response of NEO Surveyor. The color scale gives the fraction of time a given point in the ecliptic plane is detectable. The Earth orbit is the blue circle. Red ellipses are zero-inclination NEO orbits with a = 1.75 au and e = 0, 0.1. 0.2, … 0.9. Red dots are marked at intervals of 5° in mean anomaly.
Paper: Asteroid Impact Hazard Warning from the Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission
Authors: Oliver Lay, Joe Masiero, Tommy Grav, Amy Mainzer, Frank Masci, Edward Wright
Figure caption: Parameters for a sample of 10,000 potentially hazardous orbits drawn from the Granvik sample with MOID < 0.05 au.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: (a): ZTF g-filter lightcurve of Chiron. (b): ZTF g-filter phase curve of Chiron. (c): ZTF r-filter lightcurve of Chiron. (d): ZTF r-filter phase curve of Chiron. All plots are color-coded the same as Figure 2. The 1σ uncertainty error bars are plotted but may be smaller than the plot markers. All observing seasons are labeled as per Table 2.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: ATLAS phase curves of Chiron across observing seasons in the c filter (panels (a), (b), and (c)) and o filter (panels (d), (e), and (f)), color-coded the same as Figure 2. Error bars are 1σ uncertainties.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Reduced magnitudes vs. solar phase angle of Chiron from ATLAS and ZTF from the pre-2021 Brightening Event. Error bars are 1σ uncertainties.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Gemini stacked observations of Chiron in the ﹩r^{\prime} ﹩ and ﹩i^{\prime} ﹩ filters at all five epochs of observation. Crosshairs indicate Chiron’s position in each of the images. No comae or tails are visible in any of the images. The varying size of Chiron in each image is due to seeing variations and also relative image scales between individual nights. Note: equatorial north is up and east to the left.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Gemini stacked observation of Chiron in the ﹩i^{\prime} ﹩ filter for 2021 November 3 with corresponding PSF radial profiles of Chiron and background field stars. Crosshairs indicate Chiron’s position in the image. The PSF profile of Chiron is consistent with those of background stars.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: ATLAS c (turquoise circles) and ZTF g (green squares) color-corrected reduced magnitudes of Chiron vs. solar phase angle (left column) and ATLAS o (orange circles) and ZTF r (red squares) color-corrected reduced magnitudes of Chiron vs. solar phase angle (right column) for observing seasons G–L (2015–2021; top row), M (2021–2022; middle row), and N (2022–2023; bottom row). Error bars are 1σ uncertainties.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Upper plot: ZTF ﹩g^{\prime} ﹩ -filter reduced magnitudes (green circles) vs. time with interpolated third-order splines fitted to synthetic data overplotted (magenta). Center plot: ZTF ﹩r^{\prime} ﹩-filter reduced magnitudes (red circles) vs. time with interpolated third-order splines fitted to synthetic data overplotted (turquoise). Lower plot: color index value calculated from the predicted magnitudes in each filter from the synthetic splines plotted across time. Red circles denote nominal color index values with green lines highlighting the range that includes the central 68.3% of synthetic values, therefore corresponding to 1σ uncertainties. All observing seasons are labeled as per Table 2.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: Upper plot: ATLAS c-filter reduced magnitudes (turquoise circles) vs. time with third-order interpolated splines fitted to synthetic data overplotted (red). Center plot: ATLAS o-filter reduced magnitudes (orange circles) vs. time with third-order interpolated splines fitted to synthetic data overplotted (teal). Lower plot: color index value calculated from the predicted magnitudes in each filter from the synthetic splines plotted across time. Red circles denote nominal color index values with green lines highlighting the range that includes the central 68.3% of synthetic values, therefore corresponding to 1σ uncertainties. All observing seasons are labeled as per Table 2.
Paper: The Discovery and Evolution of a Possible New Epoch of Cometary Activity by the Centaur (2060) Chiron
Authors: Matthew M. Dobson, Megan E. Schwamb, Alan Fitzsimmons, Charles Schambeau, Aren Beck, Larry Denneau, Nicolas Erasmus, A. N. Heinze, Luke J. Shingles, Robert J. Siverd, Ken W. Smith, John L. Tonry, Henry Weiland, David. R. Young, Michael S. P. Kelley, Tim Lister, Pedro H. Bernardinelli, Marin Ferrais, Emmanuel Jehin, Grigori Fedorets, Susan D. Benecchi, Anne J. Verbiscer, Joseph Murtagh, René Duffard, Edward Gomez, Joey Chatelain, Sarah Greenstreet
Figure caption: ZTF (upper) and ATLAS (lower) color index values calculated from temporally adjacent data (≤2 days apart) plotted across time. All observing seasons are labeled as per Table 2. Error bars are 1σ uncertainties.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Artificial impacts filtered at lower frequencies. Same as Figure 1, except with filtering between 0.05 and 0.1 Hz (between periods of 10 and 20 s). The three signals at 9.1°, 11.1°, and 11.7° have an envelope similar to the same signals at higher frequencies (see Figure 1). Some of the signals measured closer to the source have a large-amplitude signal shortly after the arrival of the theoretical PS arrival, but all of these signals are noisy. We exclude the signals at distances greater than 11.7° because the traces only show noise.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Comparing the impact of Apollo 14's lunar module (at 2.17°) with simulations. Each observation and simulation is labeled with the name (see Table 2 for more information about each simulation). All seismograms are filtered between 0.3 and 0.5 Hz, and the time axis is from –100 to 2000 s. Simulations V-1, V-3, and V-5 became unstable and terminated after ∼1700, ∼2000, and ∼2000 s, respectively. The right axis shows a magnification factor (see Section 5.2 for explanation). The plot shows the first branches of the P (blue) and PS (magenta) phases for VPREMOON (top section) and P (blue) M1 (bottom section). The first branch of the PS phase in the M1 model does not form until 5.8°.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Simulations using VPREMOON. Vertical component seismograms are from seismic simulations using the 1D VPREMOON model (R. F. Garcia et al. 2011), filtered between 0.3 and 0.5 Hz (gray lines). The left panel shows the first 300 s; the right panel shows 3600 s. Traces are shown in displacement and are normalized. Additionally, we show seismic phases P (blue dashed lines) and PS (magenta dashed lines) calculated using TauP for the VPREMOON model. The phases have multiple paths (including paths that almost overlap so that the lines appear solid). We mark the onset of large-amplitude phases traveling at 2.47 km s−1 (blue dotted line), 0.77 km s−1 (cyan dotted line), and 0.47 km s−1 (purple dotted line).
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Seismic velocity and quality factor. The seismic velocity models are VPREMOON (R. F. Garcia et al. 2011, dark green), VPREMOON without the LVZ (light green), and Model M1 (R. F. Garcia et al. 2019; blue). V P is shown with solid lines and V S with dashed lines. The middle panel shows the entire Moon, and the left panel shows a close-up of the near surface. The right panel shows the quality factor Q  μ  we use for VPREMOON and Model M1 (we use the same Q as VPREMOON for VPREMOON without LZV). Q  κ  = 1,000,000 in all three models.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Simulations using Model M1. The simulations and seismic phase calculations use Model M1 (R. F. Garcia et al. 2019). Additionally, we show seismic phases P (blue), PP (navy), PS (magenta), and PSS (pink) calculated using TauP for the M1 model, and phases traveling at 2.15 km s−1 (navy dotted line) and 0.57 km s−1 (pink dotted line). Other details are the same as in Figure 4.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Comparing the impact of Apollo 17's Saturn IV booster (at 28.05°) with simulations. The time axis is from 0 to 3600 s. The plot shows the first branches of the P (blue) and PS (magenta) phases for M1 (these phases arrive at almost the same time in VPREMOON). Other details are the same as in Figure 9.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Simulations using VPREMOON without LVZ. The simulations and seismic phase calculations use a model of VPREMOON without an LVZ in the top 1 km. We mark the onset of large-amplitude phases traveling at 2.27 km s−1 (purple dotted line), 1.66 km s−1 (magenta dotted line), and 1.21 km s−1 (green dotted line). Other details are the same as in Figure 4.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Velocity perturbations. (a) The maximum velocity perturbations we apply to the models. The maximum is 50% at the surface, which reduces linearly to zero perturbation at 20 km (blue line), 50 km (orange line), and 80 km (green line). (b) The maximum range of the perturbations for V P for the model that has zero perturbation beneath 50 km. M1 is shown in blue and VPREMOON in green.
Paper: Artificial Impacts on the Moon: Modeling 3D Seismic Propagation Effects with AxiSEM3D
Authors: Ceri Nunn, Benjamin A. Fernando, Mark P. Panning
Figure caption: Seismic phases calculated using TauP (H. P. Crotwell et al. 1999) for the VPREMOON model (left) and M1 model (right). The plot shows the P (blue), S (purple), and PS (magenta) phases.