adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Ground track of E4 projected on Europa’s geological map (simplified version of E. J. Leonard et al. 2024). Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. The reconable area is highlighted by a thicker yellow line and white box. Two white dashed delimiters extend this reconable area to include acceptable margins (as defined in Section 2.1). Names of key features are included in white text. The gray shaded area on the left indicates Europan nighttime. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 63°S, 182°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Ground track of E7 projected on Europa’s geological map (simplified version of E. J. Leonard et al. 2024). Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. The area is only reconable when acceptable margins are taken into account, as highlighted by two white dashed delimiters (as defined in Section 2.1). Names of key features are included in white text. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 21°N, 178°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Flyby E44. Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. EIS WAC opportunities are projected and colored by solar incidence angle: these are indicative of the areas in which observations could be acquired. Reconable flyby(s) that this flyby crosses over are shown in pink ground track(s), with the reconable portion(s) being thicker pink lines. The gray shaded area on the left indicates Europan nighttime. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 16°N, 358°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Ground track of E23 projected on a Europa basemap (U.S. Geological Survey 2022). Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. EIS WAC opportunities are projected and colored by solar incidence angle: these are indicative of the areas in which observations could be acquired. Reconable flyby(s) that this flyby crosses over are shown in pink ground track(s), with the reconable portion(s) being thicker pink lines. The gray shaded area on the right indicates Europan nighttime. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 2°S, 202°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Ground track of E49 projected on a Europa basemap (U.S. Geological Survey 2022). Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. The EIS WAC opportunities are shown for 0°–90° solar incidence angle, and thus none are plotted for the nighttime portion of this flyby. Reconable flyby(s) that this flyby crosses over are shown in pink ground track(s), with the reconable portion(s) being thicker pink lines. The gray shaded area in the middle and on the right indicates Europan nighttime. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 2°S, 202°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Ground track of E20 projected on a Europa basemap (U.S. Geological Survey 2022). Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. EIS WAC opportunities are projected and colored by solar incidence angle: these are indicative of the areas in which observations could be acquired. Reconable flyby(s) that this flyby crosses over are shown in pink ground track(s), with the reconable portion(s) being thicker pink lines. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 0°N/S, 155°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Ground track of E11 projected on a Europa basemap (U.S. Geological Survey 2022). Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. EIS WAC opportunities are projected and colored by solar incidence angle: these are indicative of the areas in which observations could be acquired. Reconable flyby(s) that this flyby crosses over are shown in pink ground track(s), with the reconable portion(s) being thicker pink lines. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 42°N, 179°E.
Paper: Potential Landing Sites: A Comprehensive Reconnaissance Assessment of the Europa Clipper Trajectory
Authors: Jennifer E. C. Scully, Ines Belgacem, Rutu Parekh, Cyril Grima, Cynthia B. Phillips, Kathleen L. Craft, Geoffrey C. Collins, Charlie Detelich, Erin J. Leonard, Ishan Mishra, G. Wesley Patterson, Louise M. Prockter, Angela M. Stickle, Sarah S. Sutton, Danielle Y. Wyrick, Catherine M. Elder, Alfred S. McEwen, Colleen M. O'Shea, Jordi E. Turner
Figure caption: Flyby E30. Different altitudes are represented by the ground-track line color, as defined in the key. EIS WAC opportunities are projected and colored by solar incidence angle: these are indicative of the areas in which observations could be acquired. Reconable flyby(s) that this flyby crosses over are shown in pink ground track(s), with the reconable portion(s) being thicker pink lines. The gray shaded area on the right indicates Europan nighttime. The closest approach point of the flyby is at 5°N, 329°E.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: The near- and far-field regimes are separated using a tangent surface (blue) to the target–impactor contact curve (green curves) considering just the refractory parts of the colliding bodies and neglecting preimpact deformation. The target and impactor planets are shown in dark and light gray, respectively, at the time of first contact between the two bodies. The pink cylinders and arrows illustrate the path of the impactor and the volume impactor material would sweep through if its motion was unaltered by the collision. The white lines illustrate a discrete set of tangents used in constructing the tangent surface itself (see Appendix A). The geometric parameters of each impact are given below each panel, and the target is 1.05 M⊕ in each case.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: Schematic of the initial conditions and geometry for an example impact. The yellow circles show the top of the impactor’s mantle at a time during approach (solid) and upon collision (dashed) at an impact angle θ (with corresponding impact parameter ﹩b=\sin \theta ﹩) and velocity vc. The orange and blue circles show the top of the target’s mantle and atmosphere, respectively. The green shaded regions highlight the total interacting refractory mass—the portion of the total planetary mass whose kinetic energy actually participates in the initial collision (Z. M. Leinhardt & S. T. Stewart 2012). The interacting mass is described by the parameters ﹩B=\left({R}_{{\rm{t}}}^{{\rm{r}}}+{R}_{{\rm{i}}}^{{\rm{r}}}\right)b﹩ and l, the projected length of the impactor that overlaps the target planet (Equation (18)). The 0° longitude on the surface of the target is defined as the point on the surface whose radial vector is parallel to the impactor’s velocity vector at the time of first contact (neglecting tidal deformation).
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: Final atmospheric loss converges for simulations at a resolution for the target of ≥105.5. The atmospheric loss fraction is plotted as a function of time for an example impact onto the 1.05 M⊕ target planet (b = 0.3, γ = 0.3) performed at five different particle resolutions (colors) and three velocities (line styles).
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: Smoothing across the mantle–atmosphere boundary and the influence of nearby atmosphere particles causes the outermost layers of initialized SPH planets to show anomalous pressures. The initial pressure of the upper mantle particles vs. radius for the initialized 1.05 M⊕ planet is grouped and colored by a k-means clustering algorithm with N = 3, using the KMeans function from the scikit.learn (version 1.5.2) package.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: The mass fraction of the atmosphere in the near and far fields (lines/shapes) varies significantly between impacts. Shown are the masses of the atmosphere in the two regions for all of our collisions onto a 1.05 M⊕ target as a function of b and γ (colors).
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: The propagation of the impact shock wave across the mantle–atmosphere boundary is shown in an x–t diagram of upper mantle and atmosphere particle shells for the 1.05 M⊕ planet, colored by pressure. The initial radius of the “outer” shell mantle particles illustrated in Figure 6 is shown as a filled cyan square on the white dashed line. Other initial particle positions are shown as green open circles. The white dashed line marks the mantle–atmosphere boundary, while the white arrow illustrates the propagation of the shock-wave front through the mantle and up into the atmosphere.
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: The 1D loss code converts near-surface (NS) mantle pressures to velocities by calculating a two-stage impedance match (IM) between the mantle and atmosphere. Upon impact, the near-surface mantle in the far field is shocked to a pressure, ﹩{p}_{{\rm{s}}}^{{\rm{NS}}}﹩, on the mantle (forsterite) Hugoniot (orange, ①). The shocked near-surface mantle then releases (orange dashed line) to a point on the lower pressure “true” mantle surface (TS) Hugoniot at ﹩{p}_{{\rm{IM}}}^{{\rm{TS}}}﹩ (yellow, ②) before releasing to a point (yellow dashed line) on the atmosphere Hugoniot at ﹩{p}_{{\rm{IM}}}^{{\rm{atm}}}﹩ with a particle velocity ﹩{u}_{{\rm{p}}}^{{\rm{atm}}}﹩ (blue, ③).
Paper: Atmospheric Loss during Giant Impacts: Mechanisms and Scaling of Near- and Far-field Loss
Authors: Matthew J. Roche, Simon J. Lock, Jingyao Dou, Philip J. Carter, Jacob A. Kegerreis, Zoë M. Leinhardt
Figure caption: Pressure vs. time traces for all near-surface particles within one latitude–longitude grid cell (light green, with the trace for one example particle highlighted in dark green). Corrections are made in the 1D loss calculations to ensure that the peak shock pressure of the ground surface (blue circle) rather than the air shock in the atmosphere (red circle) is recorded as the true first peak pressure.
Paper: High-speed Boulders and the Debris Field in DART Ejecta
Authors: Tony L. Farnham, Jessica M. Sunshine, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Carolyn M. Ernst, R. Terik Daly, Harrison F. Agrusa, Olivier S. Barnouin, Jian-Yang Li, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Megan Bruck Syal, Sean E. Wiggins, Evan Bjonnes, Angela M. Stickle, Sabina D. Raducan, Andrew F. Cheng, David A. Glenar, Ramin Lolachi, Timothy J. Stubbs, Eugene G. Fahnstock, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Massimo Dall'Ora, Vincenzo Della Corte, J. D. P. Deshapriya, Elisabetta Dotto, Igor Gai, Pedro H. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Michèle Lavagna, Alice Lucchetti, Francesco Marzari, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Dario Modenini, Maurizio Pajola, Pasquale Palumbo, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Alessandro Rossi, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Sequence of merged images showing the ejecta during the flyby phase. Panels (a)–(c) show pre-C/A views, with LICIACube inside the ejecta cone. Filaments can be seen moving in front of Didymos as the viewpoint changes. Panels (d)–(f) show the post-C/A views, after the spacecraft moved outside the cone. In panel (d) the viewpoint is nearly perpendicular to the cone axis, in panel (e) the viewpoint extends along the edge of the cone, and in panel (f) the cone is visible entirely surrounding Dimorphos. Images have been scaled to a common spacecraft range. The black regions are the sections of the image outside the edges of the detector.
Paper: High-speed Boulders and the Debris Field in DART Ejecta
Authors: Tony L. Farnham, Jessica M. Sunshine, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Carolyn M. Ernst, R. Terik Daly, Harrison F. Agrusa, Olivier S. Barnouin, Jian-Yang Li, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Megan Bruck Syal, Sean E. Wiggins, Evan Bjonnes, Angela M. Stickle, Sabina D. Raducan, Andrew F. Cheng, David A. Glenar, Ramin Lolachi, Timothy J. Stubbs, Eugene G. Fahnstock, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Massimo Dall'Ora, Vincenzo Della Corte, J. D. P. Deshapriya, Elisabetta Dotto, Igor Gai, Pedro H. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Michèle Lavagna, Alice Lucchetti, Francesco Marzari, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Dario Modenini, Maurizio Pajola, Pasquale Palumbo, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Alessandro Rossi, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Plot showing the azimuth/elevation angle trajectories derived for the 104 boulders measured in this study (showing their locations in the sky if viewed from the impact site). Most of the objects are clustered in two groups, with only a few others scattered in between. Those in the larger cluster to the south were ejected on trajectories only 4°–25° above the horizon. The points are sized to denote the boulders’ radii and color-coded to show their distances from Dimorphos. (Closer boulders are plotted on top, so in crowded areas more distant objects may be hidden by closer ones.) The pink tinted region denotes the exclusion zone, where any boulders that might be present would not be seen because they were outside of the images when the spacecraft was close enough to detect them. The yellow ellipsoid represents the projection of Didymos, and the shaded bar at the bottom shows the region below the horizon. The dashed blue line represents the projection of the walls of the dust ejecta cone. Equatorial coordinates for the celestial sphere are plotted for reference. The asterisk in the upper left corner indicates the direction of Dimorphos’s velocity (linear momentum) vector, the direction defining the effective β value.
Paper: High-speed Boulders and the Debris Field in DART Ejecta
Authors: Tony L. Farnham, Jessica M. Sunshine, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Carolyn M. Ernst, R. Terik Daly, Harrison F. Agrusa, Olivier S. Barnouin, Jian-Yang Li, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Megan Bruck Syal, Sean E. Wiggins, Evan Bjonnes, Angela M. Stickle, Sabina D. Raducan, Andrew F. Cheng, David A. Glenar, Ramin Lolachi, Timothy J. Stubbs, Eugene G. Fahnstock, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Massimo Dall'Ora, Vincenzo Della Corte, J. D. P. Deshapriya, Elisabetta Dotto, Igor Gai, Pedro H. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Michèle Lavagna, Alice Lucchetti, Francesco Marzari, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Dario Modenini, Maurizio Pajola, Pasquale Palumbo, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Alessandro Rossi, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: (a) Image showing the walls of the ejecta cone, seen from nearly perpendicular to its axis, and (b) the same image with annotations highlighting the curvature of the walls. (c) Diagram illustrating how the curvature of Dimorphos’s surface causes the angle between the cone’s axis and the outflowing ejecta (θ) to increase with time as the crater grows, while the angle with respect to the local surface (α) remains constant. Panel (b) also highlights the dark ring at the base of the ejecta cone, which is caused by optically thick dust that blocks sunlight from penetrating through to the back of the cone.
Paper: High-speed Boulders and the Debris Field in DART Ejecta
Authors: Tony L. Farnham, Jessica M. Sunshine, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Carolyn M. Ernst, R. Terik Daly, Harrison F. Agrusa, Olivier S. Barnouin, Jian-Yang Li, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Megan Bruck Syal, Sean E. Wiggins, Evan Bjonnes, Angela M. Stickle, Sabina D. Raducan, Andrew F. Cheng, David A. Glenar, Ramin Lolachi, Timothy J. Stubbs, Eugene G. Fahnstock, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Massimo Dall'Ora, Vincenzo Della Corte, J. D. P. Deshapriya, Elisabetta Dotto, Igor Gai, Pedro H. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Michèle Lavagna, Alice Lucchetti, Francesco Marzari, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Dario Modenini, Maurizio Pajola, Pasquale Palumbo, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Alessandro Rossi, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Temporal sequence of images with close-ups of Dimorphos after close approach. Features noted in the text are highlighted in panel (a) (173 s), including the illuminated nightside topography and the shadow along the top limb cast by the dense ejecta at the base of the cone. This shadowed region is somewhat brighter than the nightside owing to indirect illumination from the bright ejecta higher in the cone. (Note that this indirect illumination extends beyond the terminator.) Over time, the shadow also disappears over the horizon as the spacecraft moves from −40° to −26° latitude during the sequence. The images are displayed with a logarithmic display to more clearly reveal the illuminated nightside topography.
Paper: High-speed Boulders and the Debris Field in DART Ejecta
Authors: Tony L. Farnham, Jessica M. Sunshine, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Carolyn M. Ernst, R. Terik Daly, Harrison F. Agrusa, Olivier S. Barnouin, Jian-Yang Li, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Megan Bruck Syal, Sean E. Wiggins, Evan Bjonnes, Angela M. Stickle, Sabina D. Raducan, Andrew F. Cheng, David A. Glenar, Ramin Lolachi, Timothy J. Stubbs, Eugene G. Fahnstock, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Massimo Dall'Ora, Vincenzo Della Corte, J. D. P. Deshapriya, Elisabetta Dotto, Igor Gai, Pedro H. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Michèle Lavagna, Alice Lucchetti, Francesco Marzari, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Dario Modenini, Maurizio Pajola, Pasquale Palumbo, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Alessandro Rossi, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: DRACO image of the impact site (0401930048_45552), with the spacecraft and solar panels outlined (white). Azimuthal trajectories of the 104 measured boulders are overplotted, with colors (reflecting the velocity) that match those in Figure 9. Although there are no constraints on their actual points of origin, a likely scenario is shown, with the southern cluster expanding radially from the boulder Atabaque and the NE cluster arising tangentially from Bodhran. It is possible that additional boulders are expanding radially from Bodhran, but these would be located in the exclusion zone (pink shading), where they would not be detectable in LICIACube observations. See text for additional discussion.
Paper: High-speed Boulders and the Debris Field in DART Ejecta
Authors: Tony L. Farnham, Jessica M. Sunshine, Masatoshi Hirabayashi, Carolyn M. Ernst, R. Terik Daly, Harrison F. Agrusa, Olivier S. Barnouin, Jian-Yang Li, Kathryn M. Kumamoto, Megan Bruck Syal, Sean E. Wiggins, Evan Bjonnes, Angela M. Stickle, Sabina D. Raducan, Andrew F. Cheng, David A. Glenar, Ramin Lolachi, Timothy J. Stubbs, Eugene G. Fahnstock, Marilena Amoroso, Ivano Bertini, John R. Brucato, Andrea Capannolo, Gabriele Cremonese, Massimo Dall'Ora, Vincenzo Della Corte, J. D. P. Deshapriya, Elisabetta Dotto, Igor Gai, Pedro H. Hasselmann, Simone Ieva, Gabriele Impresario, Stavro L. Ivanovski, Michèle Lavagna, Alice Lucchetti, Francesco Marzari, Elena Mazzotta Epifani, Dario Modenini, Maurizio Pajola, Pasquale Palumbo, Simone Pirrotta, Giovanni Poggiali, Alessandro Rossi, Paolo Tortora, Marco Zannoni, Giovanni Zanotti, Angelo Zinzi
Figure caption: Illustration showing how the parallax between two LUKE images obtained at different times (t1 and t2) is used to derive the 3D position of a boulder. For each observation, three points (LICIACube’s position, Didymos, and the apparent position of the boulder on the sky plane) define a plane. The intersection of the two planes defines the position of the boulder in three dimensions. The CARF defined in the text is used for convenience.