adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) Overview of California test locations and specific locations of the (b) Obsidian Dome and (c) Poleta Folds test sites.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) Overview of field test location in the Highland of Iceland, near Askja. Specific locations of the four testing locations within (b) Iceland test site A, near the Nautagil gorge, and (c) test site B, near the northern margin of the 2014–2015 Holuhraun lava flow field.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) and (b) Obsidian Dome testing and (c) and (d) resultant samples and boreholes. The four rocks tested for drilling are labeled 9 (dark sample 1), 10 (light sample 2), 11 (light sample 1), and 12 (dark sample 2).
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) Sample tube retrieval testing including sample approach, (b) sample targeting, (c) landing, and (d) sample capture.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) and (b) Drill tests at Sunlight Creek, (c) and (d) scoop testing at the Galena Creek rock glacier in snow, and (e) and (f) mixed sediment.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) and (b) The Drill Sampler pumice drilling test at test site A, the Vikursandur sand sheet. (c) and (d) An example of the Scoop Sampler tests at test site B, within the Dyngusandur sand sheet. For scale, the pictured bucket is 15.1 cm tall, 12.3 cm wide, and 8.7 cm thick.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) Drill sampler’s surface coring drill, (b) coring operation, and (c) powder collector.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: The four Scoop Sampler designs.
Paper: Unoccupied Aircraft Systems Sampling for Earth and Mars
Authors: Colin Chen, Christopher W. Hamilton, Christian Sipe, Kathryn Bywaters, Justin Lawrence, Paul Creekmore, Nicklaus Traeden, Kris Zacny
Figure caption: (a) Overview of Wyoming test locations and specific locations of the (b) Galena Creek rock glacier and (c) Sunlight Creek test sites.
Paper: Asteroids Fail to Retain Cometary Impact Signatures
Authors: Sarah Joiret, Guillaume Avice, Ludovic Ferrière, Zoë M. Leinhardt, Simon Lock, Alexandre Mechineau, Sean N. Raymond
Figure caption: Upper panel: normalized cumulative collision rate of comets with a Vesta-like asteroid. Normalized means the cumulative collision rate in each simulation was divided by the total number of comets in these simulations (details of these simulations can be found in S. Joiret et al. 2024). Lower panel: semimajor axis evolution of each Vesta-like asteroid. Each Vesta-like asteroid is represented by the same color in both panels.
Paper: Asteroids Fail to Retain Cometary Impact Signatures
Authors: Sarah Joiret, Guillaume Avice, Ludovic Ferrière, Zoë M. Leinhardt, Simon Lock, Alexandre Mechineau, Sean N. Raymond
Figure caption: Histogram of mean and minimum collision velocities between Vesta-like asteroids and carbonaceous asteroids (upper panel) or Vesta-like asteroids and comets (bottom panel) following the giant planet instability. We only considered time steps at which there is a nonzero collision probability between the Vesta-like asteroid and carbonaceous asteroids/comets. Collision velocities between each pair of bodies are weighted by the collision probability per unit of time at each orientation. The red dashed vertical lines indicate the limit for retaining a collisional signature from asteroids and comets, respectively (see Figure 5).
Paper: Asteroids Fail to Retain Cometary Impact Signatures
Authors: Sarah Joiret, Guillaume Avice, Ludovic Ferrière, Zoë M. Leinhardt, Simon Lock, Alexandre Mechineau, Sean N. Raymond
Figure caption: Measured isotopic pattern of Xe in Tatahouine and Shalka compared to T. Michel & O. Eugster (1994), O. Eugster & T. Michel (1995), and H. Busemann & O. Eugster (2002) at specific heating steps. U-Xe data are from R. O. Pepin & D. Porcelli (2002). The δ notation refers to the relative difference, in parts per thousand, of the isotopic ratios of a sample and of a reference standard. Using atmospheric Xe as the reference, ﹩{\delta }^{i}{\rm{Xe}\,}_{\,\rm{air}}=\left(\frac{\frac{{\,}^{i}\,\rm{Xe}\,}{{\,}^{132}\,\rm{Xe}\,}}{{\left(\frac{{\,}^{i}\,\rm{Xe}\,}{{\,}^{132}\rm{Xe}\,}\right)}_{\,\rm{air}}}-1\right)\times 1000﹩. The horizontal line at y = 0 represents terrestrial atmospheric Xe. Error bars indicate ±1σ.
Paper: Asteroids Fail to Retain Cometary Impact Signatures
Authors: Sarah Joiret, Guillaume Avice, Ludovic Ferrière, Zoë M. Leinhardt, Simon Lock, Alexandre Mechineau, Sean N. Raymond
Figure caption: Retention percentage of impactor material on Vesta as a function of impact velocity for a 10 km comet and a 10 km asteroid. No material is retained for cometary impacts exceeding 5 km s−1, while for asteroidal impacts, complete ejection occurs above 14 km s−1.
Paper: A Multifrequency Global View of Callisto’s Thermal Properties from ALMA
Authors: Maria Camarca, Katherine de Kleer, Bryan Butler, Alexander Thelen, Cole Meyer, Alex B. Akins, Imke de Pater, Mark A. Gurwell
Figure caption: Grid of residuals derived from different thermal modeling approaches. Each column represents a unique observation, and each row is dedicated to a different modeling treatment. The first row shows residuals derived from models generated using a best-fit single thermal inertia (MΓ). The second row shows residuals using a best-fit single thermal inertia with a variable skin depth (MΓ,δ). The third row shows best-fit residuals from using the two thermal inertia mixture approach (MΓ,Γ). Individual thermal anomalies on the disk edge marked in gray are not considered reliable.
Paper: A Multifrequency Global View of Callisto’s Thermal Properties from ALMA
Authors: Maria Camarca, Katherine de Kleer, Bryan Butler, Alexander Thelen, Cole Meyer, Alex B. Akins, Imke de Pater, Mark A. Gurwell
Figure caption: Residuals from Figure 6 shown in projected form with the grayscale USGS Callisto mosaic based on spacecraft data shown in the background (mosaic retrieved from https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/search/map/callisto_galileo_voyager_global_mosaic_1km). The Callisto grayscale data have been slightly modified to bring out surface features. Temperature residuals from each of our three modeling efforts are overlain in color, with warm colors denoted regions where the measured data are warmer than model predictions, and blue regions are colder than model predictions. First row: Tb residuals obtained using MΓ models. Second row: Tb residuals obtained using MΓ,Γ models. Third row: Tb residuals obtained using MΓ,Γ models. The 343 GHz and 233 GHz trailing hemisphere model fits appears to have systematic discrepancies from the observations (i.e., poor center-of-disk/limb fits), while residuals at other hemispheres/frequencies appear to provide more reliable fits. Individual thermal anomalies near the disk center are generally more reliable than those at the disk edge.
Paper: A Multifrequency Global View of Callisto’s Thermal Properties from ALMA
Authors: Maria Camarca, Katherine de Kleer, Bryan Butler, Alexander Thelen, Cole Meyer, Alex B. Akins, Imke de Pater, Mark A. Gurwell
Figure caption: Summary of model fits treating electrical skin depth as a free parameter, MΓ,δ. The y-axis is presented as the factor by which δelec is decreased relative to pure water ice (ascale); the actual δelec these values correspond to are temperature dependent. Shaded regions refer to models that satisfied Equation (5). The model results for each observing frequency (343, 233, and 97 GHz) are presented on separate panels for clarity. The circular markers indicate the location of the minimum χ2 for each set of models; additionally, these markers indicate the MΓ,δ models plotted in the second row of Figure 6. The legend text “(L)” or “(T)” indicates a leading or trailing hemisphere observation, respectively. Out of all of the observations, the 233 GHz observations are the most sensitive to changing δelec, while the observations at the other frequencies yield more poorly constrained δelec ranges. Importantly, this figure should be interpreted alongside Figure 6, which demonstrates visually how the MΓ,δ models outperform the MΓ models. The units of thermal inertia are MKS.
Paper: A Multifrequency Global View of Callisto’s Thermal Properties from ALMA
Authors: Maria Camarca, Katherine de Kleer, Bryan Butler, Alexander Thelen, Cole Meyer, Alex B. Akins, Imke de Pater, Mark A. Gurwell
Figure caption: Summary of the two-Γ model (MΓ,Γ) fits. For each observation, the range of two-Γ mixtures that satisfied Equation (5) are enclosed below and to the right of the labeled lines. The 97 GHz results include the entire parameter space. The best-fit mixture model for each observation is denoted by an open circle; these same models are plotted in the third row of Figure 6. The legend text “(L)” or “(T)” indicates a leading or trailing hemisphere observation, respectively. The best-fit emissivities are indicated under the observation label in the legend. For ease of interpretation, the exact ranges of acceptable mixing percentages for a given pair of thermal inertiae is not shown. Generally, the Γ constraints for the 343 GHz data are tighter compared to the 233 GHz data. The 97 GHz data, both leading and trailing hemisphere, are not constrained at all. The units of thermal inertia are MKS.
Paper: A Multifrequency Global View of Callisto’s Thermal Properties from ALMA
Authors: Maria Camarca, Katherine de Kleer, Bryan Butler, Alexander Thelen, Cole Meyer, Alex B. Akins, Imke de Pater, Mark A. Gurwell
Figure caption: Summary of disk-averaged brightness temperature measurements for Callisto plotted as a function of wavelength. This plot is an update to the one shown in M. Camarca et al. (2023) including the additional ALMA data points presented here. Our measurements (black/gray points with capped error bars, highlighted in gray) agree with most neighboring data. Data in this plot are taken from G. L. Berge & D. O. Muhleman (1975), B. Butler (2012), I. de Pater et al. (1984, 1989, 2021), M. A. Gurwell & A. Moullet (ALMA memo #594; B. Butler 2012), R. Moreno (2007), D. Morrison (1977), D. O. Muhleman & G. L. Berge (1991), D. O. Muhleman et al. (1986), T. G. Müller et al. (2016), I. I. K. Pauliny-Toth et al. (1974, 1977), B. L. Ulich & E. K. Conklin (1976), B. L. Ulich (1981), and B. L. Ulich et al. (1984). The data behind this figure are available in machine-readable format.(The data used to create this figure are available in the online article.)(The data used to create this figure are available.)
Paper: A Multifrequency Global View of Callisto’s Thermal Properties from ALMA
Authors: Maria Camarca, Katherine de Kleer, Bryan Butler, Alexander Thelen, Cole Meyer, Alex B. Akins, Imke de Pater, Mark A. Gurwell
Figure caption: Results from model fits using single-Γ models (MΓ). We note that the MΓ approach produced consistent systematic effects in the residual maps indicating that none was a good fit, and is therefore not the preferred thermal modeling approach. For each observation frequency and hemisphere, the range of Γ and emissivity values that satisfied Equation (5) are indicated by colored bars. The 97 GHz (L) models are not constrained in Γ space and are marked by a hatch pattern. The range of best-fit millimeter emissivities are shown on the right panel. The units of Γ are MKS.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: New Horizons images of example CRs on Pluto. Images are arranged in order of both increasing solar phase angle and time of observation. Panel (c) is an MVIC false-color image; other panels are LORRI or MVIC panchromatic images. The color bar applies to every panel (see text) except panel (c). For panels (a), (e), and (g), another image was acquired at a nearly identical imaging geometry a few seconds before or after the image provided. In all three cases, the image not provided is similar in appearance to the provided image. An MVIC methane-filter image was also acquired at a nearly identical imaging geometry to the other three MVIC color-filter images and is similar in appearance to those images.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Example CRs on Pluto. The features indicated by red arrows, called CRs, change in appearance among these three images of part of Pluto’s Sputnik Planitia. The CRs are dark relative to their surrounding terrain at low solar phase angle (left panel, 25°), barely/not apparent at intermediate solar phase angle (middle panel, 47°), and brighter than their surrounding terrain at high solar phase angle (right panel, 151°). All three images were acquired within a period of ≈2 hr. The CRs’ changes of appearance are more likely due to the changes of solar phase angle than temporal change on Pluto. Other changes of appearance are also attributed to the changes of imaging geometry. S, NW, and NE indicate the southernmost, northwesternmost, and northeasternmost example CRs, respectively.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Example CEs on Pluto. The features indicated by red arrows, called CEs, are distinguishable in only one (right panel) of these three images of part of Pluto’s Sputnik Planitia. The CEs are brighter than their surrounding terrain at high solar phase angle (right panel, 152°) but indistinguishable from their surrounding terrain at low and intermediate solar phase angles (left and middle panels, 19° and 47°). All three images were acquired within a period of ≈4 hr. The CEs’ change of appearance is more likely due to the change of solar phase angle than temporal change on Pluto. Other changes of appearance are also attributed to the changes of imaging geometry. E indicates the easternmost example CE.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: New Horizons images of example CE on Pluto. Images are arranged in order of both increasing solar phase angle and time of observation. Panel (c) is an MVIC false-color image; other panels are LORRI or MVIC panchromatic images. The color bar applies to every panel (see text) except panel (c). For panels (a), (b), and (e), another image was acquired at a nearly identical imaging geometry a few seconds or minutes before or after the image provided. In all three cases, the image not provided is similar in appearance to the provided image. An MVIC methane-filter image was also acquired at a nearly identical imaging geometry to the other three MVIC color-filter images and is similar in appearance to those images.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Spatial distribution of CRs and CEs identified on Pluto. The background image is part of the best spatial resolution New Horizons MVIC false-color image of Pluto, which was acquired at a solar phase angle of 37°. Centroid locations of identified features are indicated by filled circles. The CRs and CEs vary in size and shape; some are larger than the filled circles, while others are not. CRs and CEs are not readily apparent in the background image; the primary purposes of this figure are the spatial distribution and geologic context. Numerous CRs and CEs are located in (i.e., on and/or above and/or within) volatile-ice-rich Sputnik Planitia and nearby regions with similar surfaces. Approximate boundaries of solar-illuminated areal coverage of each high solar phase angle image used to map the CRs and CEs are indicated by dashed or dotted lines. The approximately southwest–northeast alignment of CEs is likely a bias from the orientation of the high solar phase angle images used to map the CRs and CEs. CRs in Figure 1 are indicated by black plus signs, and the largest and easternmost CE in Figure 2 is indicated by a black cross.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Surface and shallow subsurface properties hypothesis for Pluto’s CRs. S CR, NW CR, and NE CR correspond to the southernmost, northwesternmost, and northeasternmost example CRs, respectively, in Figures 1 and 4. SP1 corresponds to a Sputnik Planitia locality between the three example CRs. The 95% statistical confidence intervals are generally smaller than the filled circles, and the two P_LORRI (19° solar phase angle) measurements of each locality are indistinguishable. Hapke+haze photometric functions are shown using best-fit parameters and average incidence and azimuth angles (both angles are approximately constant; Table 1). Best-fit parameters for each locality, however, were determined using angles specific to each measurement, and residuals are generally smaller than they appear. Different surface and shallow subsurface parameter values satisfactorily fit differences between example CRs on Pluto and their surroundings.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Surface and shallow subsurface properties hypothesis for Pluto’s CEs. CE corresponds to the example CE in Figures 2 (largest and easternmost) and 6, and SP2 corresponds to a nearby Sputnik Planitia locality. The 95% statistical confidence intervals are smaller than the filled circles, and the two P_LORRI (19° solar phase angle) measurements of each locality are barely to not distinguishable. Hapke+haze photometric functions are shown using best-fit parameters and P_LORRI and P_HiPhase_HiRes incidence and azimuth angles (both angles are approximately constant; Table 2). Best-fit parameters for each locality, however, were determined using angles specific to each measurement. Different surface and shallow subsurface parameter values satisfactorily fit differences between an example CE on Pluto and its surroundings.
Paper: Contrast Reversal and Emergent Features on Pluto
Authors: Jason D. Hofgartner, Bonnie J. Buratti, Will M. Grundy, S. Alan Stern, Anne J. Verbiscer
Figure caption: Approximate imaging geometries of New Horizons images of example CRs on Pluto. The imaging geometries are approximately two-dimensional (see text). The approximately constant Sun–surface vector is indicated by an orange arrow. The surface–spacecraft vector for each image sequence is indicated by a black (panchromatic) or blue (MVIC false-color) arrow. Numeric incidence and emission angles are provided with their arrows. The appearance of example CRs relative to their Sputnik Planitia surroundings is summarized for each image sequence.
Paper: Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context
Authors: C. R. Nugent, K. P. Andersen, James M. Bauer, C. T. Jensen, L. K. Kristiansen, C. P. Hansen, M. M. Nielsen, C. F. Vestergård
Figure caption: The chance of a >140 m NEO impacting Earth placed in context with the chance that other preventable events may happen to an individual. Individual event frequency and fatality chances are taken from peer-reviewed studies on particular regions over specific time intervals; these are broad averages, and individual risks vary widely. We expect most readers to be able to identify some events that are relevant to their lives, and some that are not. Readers interested in their own chances are encouraged to consider the events most relevant to their demographics, geographic region, and hobbies. Section 3.2 has a further discussion of details and caveats. This figure is intended to contextualize the >140 m NEO impact frequency with events people may be familiar with, such as flu sickness and lightning strikes. The x-axis is the chance of the rare event happening to the planet (NEO impact) or an individual (all other events) over an average human lifetime. The y-axis shows the chance of fatality to an individual if the event occurs. The chance of fatality from a >140 m impact is dependent on a large range of variables, such as impactor size (140 m to >10 km) and impact location (populated city to middle of a large ocean). An impact could result in no fatalities (less likely) some fatalities (more likely), or mass extinction (very unlikely, but possible; see Section 1.2); this is represented by large error bars (blue). The placement of the impact symbol on the y-axis is in the visual center to avoid the pitfalls of averaging discussed in Section 1.2.
Paper: Shallow Crustal Density in the Lunar South Polar Region
Authors: Sander J. Goossens, David E. Smith, Maria T. Zuber, James W. Head
Figure caption: Ternary diagram for the bulk surface density for a range of mixtures of rock, pores, and ice (left) and bulk density vs. grain volume percentage (right) for two given ice wt percentages from neutron radiometry (∼1 wt%; T. P. McClanahan et al. 2024) and from the LCROSS impact (∼6 wt%; A. Colaprete et al. 2010). These are also indicated with blue and orange lines in the ternary diagram, respectively, where we mapped wt% to the volume % values used in the diagram.
Paper: Shallow Crustal Density in the Lunar South Polar Region
Authors: Sander J. Goossens, David E. Smith, Maria T. Zuber, James W. Head
Figure caption: Density estimates as a function of degree, L, for the 20 sites, two per each small image; dashed lines are weighted linear fits in kg m−3 l−1. The mean of sites 1–14 and the mean of five PSR sites and the Amundsen floor are weighted by their errors, and the black dotted lines indicate the error of the linear fit. The mean densities and gradients for each site are shown in Table 2.
Paper: Shallow Crustal Density in the Lunar South Polar Region
Authors: Sander J. Goossens, David E. Smith, Maria T. Zuber, James W. Head
Figure caption: (a) Estimated mean densities for 148 < L < 936 (1.85–11.7 point-mass km) for the 20 sites analyzed in this paper, including the 13 Artemis sites and the south pole (red), and the five PSRs and the Amundsen floor (blue). (b) The observed gradients from Table 2 and the effective density method (black circles) showing the very close agreement for all 20 sites, falling within the error bars of the observations.
Paper: Shallow Crustal Density in the Lunar South Polar Region
Authors: Sander J. Goossens, David E. Smith, Maria T. Zuber, James W. Head
Figure caption: Comparison of the density vs. depth in kilometers for (a) the 14 non-PSRs, (b) the five PSRs and the Amundsen floor, and (c) the full weighted mean of all 20 sites, the last with a quadratic fit in L transferred to kilometers. In each panel the propagation error is shown by the black dotted lines.