adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
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: Atmospheric loss fraction correlates well with peak shock pressure. Mollweide projections centered on 0° longitude (see Figure 2) of the combined atmospheric loss fraction (upper hemispheres) vs. peak shock pressure (lower hemispheres) across the 1.05 M⊕ planet’s surface for four different combinations of vc, b, and γ (given in each panel). The green curves are the intersection curves of the target with the path of the impactor (see Figure 4). The dashed lines give the great circle path of the edge of the target when the impactor is grazing (see Appendix A). Note that one might expect that in the case of panel (a), where γ = 0.5, the intersection curve of the target with the path of the impactor should stretch entirely to the poles, since nominally, ﹩{R}_{{\rm{t}}}^{{\rm{r}}}\equiv {R}_{{\rm{i}}}^{{\rm{r}}}﹩ in this case. However, when determining the contact curve, we define ﹩{R}_{{\rm{t}}}^{{\rm{r}}}﹩ as the smallest radius of any atmosphere particle, since using a radius defined by the mantle particles leads to an artificially extended contact site, but ﹩{R}_{{\rm{i}}}^{{\rm{r}}}﹩ is defined based on the mantle particles, as elsewhere in the paper, as all impactors have no atmosphere (see Appendix A). As a result, the radius of the impactor is slightly smaller than that of the target when defining the contact curve.
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 geometry of near-field loss correlates well with the geometry of ejected and vaporized mantle material. Mollweide projections centered on 0° longitude (see Figure 2) of the near-field loss fraction (upper hemispheres) and mantle fraction that is both vaporized and lost (lower hemispheres) across the 1.05 M⊕ planet’s surface for four different combinations of vc, b, and γ (given in each panel). The green ellipses are the intersection curves of the target with the path of the impactor (see Figure 4 and Appendix A).
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: Using the tangent surface constructed around the target–impactor contact curve (see Section 2.4), the combined atmospheric loss can be decomposed into its near- and far-field components. Mollweide projections centered on 0° longitude (see Figure 2) of the near-field loss fraction (upper hemispheres) and far-field loss fraction (lower hemispheres) across the 1.05 M⊕ planet’s surface for four different combinations of vc, b, and γ (given in each panel). The green ellipses are the intersection curves of the target with the path of the impactor (see Figure 4 and Appendix A). The tangent surface and normal to the planet’s surface are generally not aligned, meaning each grid cell can contain some amount of both near- and far-field 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 near-field loss fraction is controlled primarily by the impact geometry and impact velocity. Shown are the near-field loss fraction (first column) and the near-field loss normalized to the near-field mass (second column) as a function of impact parameter for the 1.05 M⊕ target planet, all impactor-to-total system mass ratios (rows), and all impact velocities (colors/shapes). The gray solid line shows how the mass in the near field changes with b and marks the maximum possible atmosphere than can be lost from the near field.
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-field loss fraction increases with increasing vaporization of the near-field surface mantle. The near-field loss fraction is normalized to the near-field mass against the vapor fraction of bound and unbound mantle material from the 3% surface shell (see Section 2.5.1) for cells that underlie the near-field atmosphere for each value of vc (colors) and b (shapes). Note that marker colors and shapes are used differently in this figure than in others in the paper to better highlight the vc dependence. Each panel shows the results for a different target mass.
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 far-field loss fraction decreases with increasing impact angle but increases with increasing impactor-to-total system mass ratio. Shown are the far-field loss fraction (first column) and the far-field loss normalized to the far-field mass (second column) as a function of impact parameter for the 1.05 M⊕ target planet, all impactor-to-total system mass ratios (rows), and all impact velocities (colors/shapes). The gray solid line shows how the mass in the far field changes with b and marks the maximum possible atmosphere than can be lost from the far field.
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 far-field loss fraction can be well approximated by combining 1D impedance match and loss calculations with the 3D pressure field derived from SPH simulations. The far-field loss fraction is calculated in SPH against the corresponding values calculated using coupled 1D–3D calculations for each value of b (colors), γ (shapes), and vc (marker sizes), with the maximum misfits and rms misfit reported in each panel. Each panel shows the results for a different target mass.
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 atmospheric loss fraction decreases with increasing impact angle and decreasing impact velocity and is largely independent of target mass. The combined atmospheric loss fraction is shown as a function of impact parameter for impacts onto all target planets (line styles), with each panel showing one impactor-to-total system mass ratio. The results for impacts onto the 1.05 M⊕ target are highlighted with a solid line and filled symbols. Colors/shapes indicate the results for different impact velocities.
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: Our new scaling law can predict the combined atmospheric loss with an average misfit in absolute atmospheric loss of 3.2%. Simulated (from our SPH simulations) near-field, far-field, and combined loss fraction data are plotted against the corresponding values predicted using our scaling law for each value of impact parameter (colors), impactor-to-total system mass ratio (shapes), and impact velocity (marker sizes) considered in this study, with the maximum misfits and rms misfit reported in each panel.
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: Determination of whether a point is in the near or far field depends on the relative orientation of the impactor and target and the z-value of the point in question. Each panel shows the division between the near and far field in planes at different heights relative to the contact curve and equator (rows) and for different arrangements of the impactor and target (columns). The rows show example planes that (from top to bottom) are above the contact curve, intersect the contact curve, are in the equator, and are below the equator. Columns correspond to each of the cases discussed in Appendices A.1–A.4. The inset in each panel shows the relative orientation of the impactor, target, and tangent surface as in Figure 4, with the plane being considered in that panel shown in orange. Each panel shows the circumference of the impactor (black dashed line), the intersection of the target’s surface and the plane (black solid line, when applicable), the z-axis that passes through the center of the target (black dot), the area traversed by the impactor (pink solid line), the center of the impactor (pink dot), the contact curve projected into the plane (green dashed line), the intersection of the tangent surface (blue line, when applicable), and select truncation points or extrema of the intersection curve (blue dots, when applicable). The blue shaded region is the region determined to be in the far field; otherwise, points are designated as being in the near field. In panels (k), (l), (o), and (p), green dots show the intersection of the contact curve and the equator at ϕ = ϕ0, the dotted blue line is the straight line joining these points with the maxima on the intersection of the tangent surface and the plane, the blue dashed lines are solution branches (referred to as asymptotic “flicks” in the text) that are less restrictive than other solution branches and so not used in our near-/far-field determination, and the pink dashed lines are tangents to the contact curve in the equator. Key x- and y-values are noted on the axes, colored corresponding to the colors of the relevant feature in the panel, and described in the text.
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: Coupled 1D–3D loss calculations well approximate the magnitude and geometry of far-field loss. Mollweide projections centered on 0° longitude (see Figure 2) of the far-field loss fraction (upper hemispheres) from 3D SPH simulations and the far-field loss fraction predicted by coupled 1D–3D calculations (lower hemispheres) across the 1.05 M⊕ planet’s surface for four different combinations of vc, b, and γ. Note that the color bar is the same in each case. The green ellipses are the intersection curves of the target with the path of the impactor (see Figure 4 and Appendix A).
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: Scaling laws should not be used to predict the outcome of simulations outside of the parameter space from which they were constructed. Shown is the difference in combined loss (misfit) simulated directly from SPH simulations in this study (circles) or in J. A. Kegerreis et al. (2020b; triangles) and the combined loss predicted by the scaling law derived by J. A. Kegerreis et al. (2020b). This scaling law was constructed based on simulations that involved targets with less massive atmospheres than considered here and was fitted in log space rather than linear space. Misfits are plotted against the specific impact energy (Equation (19)) markers colored by their SPH-simulated loss.
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: For planets with massive (>5% mass fraction) primordial atmospheres, significant atmospheric loss for individual giant impacts onto planets of ∼1 M⊕ rarely cause >10% loss, but the cumulative effect of many giant impacts during accretion can result in substantial loss. Shown are the atmospheric loss fractions experienced from individual giant impacts (a) and the combined effect of loss through accretion (b) in the N-body simulations of P. J. Carter et al. (2015) and P. J. Carter & S. T. Stewart (2022) for four different planet formation scenarios (colors/shapes). For the definition of cumulative loss, see text.
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: Comparison of calibrated images available in the PDS (panels (a) and (c)) to the new reductions used in this work (panels (b) and (d)). The new version removes most of the artificial structure in the background, improving the visibility of details in the ejecta morphology. The common images are shown with the same display levels and contrast stretch.
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: The first four LUKE images, scaled to the same spacecraft range, showing the approach morphology and the large, rapidly expanding structures in the early ejecta. The top panels show the images with a log display, while the bottom panels have been enhanced by dividing out an azimuthally averaged radial profile to reveal the details in the dust cloud. The highlighted features, #1 and #2, have projected speeds of 340 and 240 m s−1, respectively.
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 apparent path of Didymos across the celestial sphere (thin black line), as computed from the final LICIACube trajectory. The five stars used to derive the trajectory are highlighted by the colored circles, with the positions of Didymos measured in the 14 corresponding images shown by crosses of the same color. The small black filled circles denote the positions of Didymos predictions for the times of each image, with their correspondence to the crosses indicating the good fit of the trajectory solution. Yellow diamonds are stars from the Bright Star Catalog, with the size reflecting their brightness.
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 of the geometry used for deriving the LICIACube trajectory. The point of close approach (r) occurs in a plane that is perpendicular to the velocity vector V and passes through Didymos. Note that the angle α is measured in the direction of the right-hand rule but is shown for a negative value to match the geometry of this trajectory. See text for additional discussion.
Paper: LiDO: Discovery of a 10:1 Resonator with a Novel Libration State
Authors: Rosemary E. Pike, Ruth Murray-Clay, Kathryn Volk, Mike Alexandersen, Mark Comte, Samantha M. Lawler, Ying-Tung Chen, 英同 陳, Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz, Cameron Semenchuck, Cameron Collyer, J. J. Kavelaars, Lowell Peltier
Figure caption: A Poincaré map of the semimajor axis vs. resonant angle phase space near the LiDO 10:1 resonator. The best-fit orbit of 2020 VN40 is shown as a black dot connected to the 3σ high- and low-a orbit fits (black X's; the uncertainty in ϕ is negligible and not shown). The colored points show the evolution of test particles with the same perihelion distance, inclination, and argument of pericenter as 2020 VN40, but with different initial values of ϕ and a. Each particle is shown in a different color with 10:1 resonant particles shown with larger, less transparent points; we plot a and ϕ for each particle at every perihelion passage over 1500 orbits (∼2 × 105 yr). The only significant resonant behavior in the displayed phase space is the 10:1. The closest resonances to the 10:1 (the 41:4, 51:5, 61:6) are well outside the uncertainty range of 2020 VN40. The uncertainty in 2020 VN40’s orbit falls completely within the libration zone of the 10:1 resonance.
Paper: LiDO: Discovery of a 10:1 Resonator with a Novel Libration State
Authors: Rosemary E. Pike, Ruth Murray-Clay, Kathryn Volk, Mike Alexandersen, Mark Comte, Samantha M. Lawler, Ying-Tung Chen, 英同 陳, Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz, Cameron Semenchuck, Cameron Collyer, J. J. Kavelaars, Lowell Peltier
Figure caption: The initial semimajor axis, eccentricity, inclination, and libration amplitude of the 200 clones of 2020 VN40 and the unfuzzed nominal orbit (star). The find_orb uncertainties on the nominal orbit are shown in gray. The color of the points is the amount of time spent in a single resonant island starting at time 0, or the first period of resonance. The libration center is calculated only over the first period of resonance within the first resonant island; further into the simulations the libration center can include centers around 270° and 0°. The clones are created by fuzzing the astrometry based on expected uncertainty, and repeating the orbital fitting process. Two clones are not resonant at time step 0, and are indicated by black squares. There are definite trends including a dependence between a and stability and a and libration center. The larger-a points are less stable and include symmetric librators in addition to asymmetric librators.
Paper: LiDO: Discovery of a 10:1 Resonator with a Novel Libration State
Authors: Rosemary E. Pike, Ruth Murray-Clay, Kathryn Volk, Mike Alexandersen, Mark Comte, Samantha M. Lawler, Ying-Tung Chen, 英同 陳, Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz, Cameron Semenchuck, Cameron Collyer, J. J. Kavelaars, Lowell Peltier
Figure caption: Example section of the clone’s evolution in time experiencing “eyehole” libration, subselected from Figure 6. The resonance angle, ϕ (top panel), librates about 180° when the TNO’s argument of pericenter, ωTNO (middle panel), is near 0° (teal line) or 180°. When ωTNO is near 90° (blue line) or 270°, ϕ librates about 0°. Transitional behavior (e.g., ωTNO = 45°; orange line) results in shifted libration centers for asymmetric libration. Curves of constant averaged Hamiltonian (bottom panel; see the text) illustrate this dynamical behavior in phase space. Curves are shown for constant iTNO = 40﹩\mathop{.}\limits^{\unicode{x000B0}}﹩5, a constant canonical momentum ﹩{N}^{{\prime} }﹩ chosen such that the average value of eTNO is 0.655, and constant ωTNO = 0° (left), 45° (middle), and 90° (right). Each of the three panels displays the same set of Hamiltonian values, and the colored curve in each panel has the same value. Curves interior to the separatrix (libration) are colored black while those outside the separatrix (circulation) are gray. Note that separatrix values are not consistent across panels meaning that the libration at the constant Hamiltonian value shown in color in each panel is most stable for ωTNO = 0°.
Paper: LiDO: Discovery of a 10:1 Resonator with a Novel Libration State
Authors: Rosemary E. Pike, Ruth Murray-Clay, Kathryn Volk, Mike Alexandersen, Mark Comte, Samantha M. Lawler, Ying-Tung Chen, 英同 陳, Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz, Cameron Semenchuck, Cameron Collyer, J. J. Kavelaars, Lowell Peltier
Figure caption: The resonant behavior of the clones of 2020 VN40. Each point is the average value from a 300,000 yr window in the resonant analysis. Each window where the particle is classified as resonant is plotted for all 201 clones. The libration around ϕ = 90°, 180°, and 270° are clearly the dominant modes; however, a not insignificant fraction of the windows shows the libration around ϕ = 0°. The different resonant islands also have different dependencies on a, e, and i, with ϕ = 0° having a more limited range of e and i. The diffuse points between the darker clumps of the three dominant libration centers in the a panel represent particles transitioning between different resonant islands, where determining the resonant libration center with a simple average is less accurate. The apparent “bands” in the e plot are simply an artifact of the sampling; in areas where there are fewer clones, individual clones can become more distinct.
Paper: LiDO: Discovery of a 10:1 Resonator with a Novel Libration State
Authors: Rosemary E. Pike, Ruth Murray-Clay, Kathryn Volk, Mike Alexandersen, Mark Comte, Samantha M. Lawler, Ying-Tung Chen, 英同 陳, Arcelia Hermosillo Ruiz, Cameron Semenchuck, Cameron Collyer, J. J. Kavelaars, Lowell Peltier
Figure caption: Nominal clone behavior over the first 30 Myr. The semimajor axis, eccentricity, inclination, and resonant angle are shown over time. The blue regions indicate the windows during which the classification code determined that the particle was resonant. In the ϕ panel, the red lines show the libration center and the blue lines show the resonance bounds that are used to determine the libration amplitude. The nominal clone begins in the leading asymmetric island, which is the most common starting behavior for the clones, and spends 50% of the first 30 Myr in resonance.