adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: A New Global Perspective on Recent Tectonism in the Lunar Maria
Authors: C. A. Nypaver, T. R. Watters, M. E. Banks, J. D. Clark, T. Frueh
Figure caption: A global map of SMRs overlaid onto the LROC WAC global mosaic (∼100 m pixel–1; M. S. Robinson et al. 2010) including new SMRs identified in this work as well as SMRs identified in previous investigations (Y. Lu et al. 2019; N. R. Williams et al. 2019; C. A. Nypaver & B. J. Thomson 2022; T. Frueh et al. 2023; K. B. Kimi et al. 2025; C. A. Nypaver et al. 2025) [Image credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University.]
Paper: A New Global Perspective on Recent Tectonism in the Lunar Maria
Authors: C. A. Nypaver, T. R. Watters, M. E. Banks, J. D. Clark, T. Frueh
Figure caption: A northeast–southwest trending ridge-adjacent SMR cluster propagates north into the highlands where it was previously mapped as a lobate scarp cluster by T. R. Watters et al. (2015, 2019, 2024). This is an example of a large-scale SMR–lobate scarp transition where the differing substrate properties associated with the maria and highlands likely affect the surface morphology of the tectonic features in question.
Paper: A New Global Perspective on Recent Tectonism in the Lunar Maria
Authors: C. A. Nypaver, T. R. Watters, M. E. Banks, J. D. Clark, T. Frueh
Figure caption: (A) An LROC NAC image (M1353929673) of an SMR segment in Mare Tranquillitatis (Tranquillitatis 2 in Table 2) that was selected for elastic dislocation modeling in our work (credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University). The orange, A–A’ line represents the topographic profile line along which LROC NAC DTM data (JANSENU01 DTM) were collected for elastic dislocation modeling. (B) Modeled fault geometry (blue dashed line) and corresponding surface expression (solid blue line) that best fit the real topographic profile of the SMR segment (orange line). The best-fit fault parameters for this model are as follows: θ = 35°, Z1 = 40 m, Z2 = 100 m, and D = 36 m. The fault model in Figure 6(B) is an approximation and not perfectly to scale.
Paper: A New Global Perspective on Recent Tectonism in the Lunar Maria
Authors: C. A. Nypaver, T. R. Watters, M. E. Banks, J. D. Clark, T. Frueh
Figure caption: Displacement–length measurements for 50 SMR segments across the lunar maria. Error bars on the displacement measurements are calculated using the dip angle standard deviation and are smaller than the size of the data symbols.
Paper: A New Global Perspective on Recent Tectonism in the Lunar Maria
Authors: C. A. Nypaver, T. R. Watters, M. E. Banks, J. D. Clark, T. Frueh
Figure caption: (A) SMR cluster in central Mare Tranquillitatis (32.67°E, 11.51°N) selected for a seismic resetting analysis (LROC NAC M1323389711RE; 0.9 m pixel–1; credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University). A total of 5257 craters (red circles) were counted within an ∼7.3 km2 count area (white polygon) adjacent to the northwest–southeast striking SMR cluster. The area associated with the larger crater in the center of the count area was excluded from this count to eliminate any effects that the associated slopes might have on the resulting age. (B) A CSFD corresponding to the crater count in Figure 1(B) with a Poisson probability density function fit age of 52 ± 1 Ma (gray–green line). The solid gray line represents the standard lunar equilibrium function (N. J. Trask 1966). This is the youngest SMR age derived in our work.
Paper: A New Global Perspective on Recent Tectonism in the Lunar Maria
Authors: C. A. Nypaver, T. R. Watters, M. E. Banks, J. D. Clark, T. Frueh
Figure caption: (A) Areal strain variations across the lunar maria overlaid onto the LROC WAC global mosaic (∼100 m pixel–1; M. S. Robinson et al. 2010). Areal strain values normalized by area show that Oceanus Procellarum exhibits the highest strain values on the lunar nearside. (B) The distribution of normalized strain values demonstrates the nearside mare exhibit the highest strain values and Oceanus Procellarum strain is 2× higher than the second-highest strain value (Mare Serenitatis).
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Long- and short-period seismic signals. This figure compares the power spectra of the numerically calculated acceleration of the axis length change along the primary axis (violet) for the simulation shown in Figure 6 (a single simulation from the high-resolution RPP suite), and the acceleration components (green) of the typical, near-surface, short-period seismic event shown in Figure 11. The amplitude spectral density (m s−2 Hz−1/2, calculated by Welch’s method) of the acceleration is shown on the vertical axis against signal frequency (Hz) on the horizontal (both in logarithmic scales), in order to compare the ground motion modeled in our simulation against seismic noise models for Earth (J. R. Peterson 1993; light-gray solid and dashed lines), the InSight Very Broadband (VBB) sensor and short-period (SP) sensors (P. Lognonné et al. 2019; black dashed and dotted lines), and two flight-ready instruments designed for asteroid seismology (D. N. DellaGiustina et al. 2024; N. Murdoch et al. 2025; black solid and dashed–dotted lines). The frequency range modeled here is much higher than for the model shown in J. V. DeMartini et al. (2019), due to the higher data output rates for these simulations. We see peak signal strength in the range of 10−6 m s−2 Hz−1/2 and at frequencies between 0.01 and 0.1 Hz for the long-period signal and 10−4 m s−2 Hz−1/2 for the short-period signals at frequencies just below 1 Hz. These magnitudes and frequency contents, when compared against the current- and next-generation instrument noise floors, indicate that such signals—especially the short-period signals—should be measurable with existing instruments.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Comparison of the maximum strain (in centimeters) along the major (blue) and minor (orange) axes for different interior packing distributions tested in the simulation suite investigating interior structure. All simulations shown here have matching particle densities (3.9 g cm−3) and slightly different bulk densities (1.7–2.9 g cm−3) depending on the void fraction in the body, with aggregate packing structures generally having the most voids (45%–60% porosity with a mean near 53%), followed by RPP (45% porosity), and finally HCP (26% porosity). Axis labels refer to the various packing structures: “RPP_P” is the RPP rubble-only packing structure with particle density matching the other simulations; “HCP_P” is similar for the HCP structure. “MIX_RO” refers to the MAP rubble-only case. “CUBE,” “ROD,” “TETRA,” “DB,” and “DIAMOND” refer to the UAP rubble-only structures: eight-particle cube shapes, four-particle linear rod shapes, four-particle tetrahedron shapes, two-particle “dumbbell” shapes, and four-particle planar diamond shapes, respectively. The high shear strength HCP structure shows the least susceptibility to deformation, while the RPP structure shows four times as much deformation, with the aggregate packing structures falling in between.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: (a) Speed (velocity magnitude in m s−1) in the body-fixed frame of a single near-surface particle over a 30 s span of one simulation in the high-resolution RPP suite. A short-period seismic source is marked with a red cross at 10364.5 s after perigee for a peak that meets the height, width, and relative timing requirements described in Section 3.1.3. Other peaks that did not meet our restrictive source identification criteria (e.g., at 10,366 s or 10,379 s) are also visible here but are not marked as potential sources. Note the flat, low-speed region at the start of the time span shown here, indicating that the simulation noise in particle speed is orders of magnitude smaller than the speeds that we identify as potential short-period seismic sources. (b) Numerically calculated acceleration components (in meters per second squared) in the corotating body-fixed frame for the same particle in the same simulation. The X-, Y-, and Z-components of the acceleration are shown in blue, orange, and green, respectively, and the peaks of the accelerations match up with the timing of the peak in the velocity diagram in panel (a), which denotes our selection of a potential source.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Comparison of axis length changes for a subset of simulations in the suite over different internal configurations in both the strong (blue; long axis pointed toward Earth at perigee) and weak (orange; short axis pointed toward Earth at perigee) encounter orientations. Here we show the results of the simulations with matching bulk density 1.9 g cm−3 but different internal core configurations embedded in the HCP matrix. Case label suffixes for this figure and Figures 16 and 17 correspond to core configurations as follows: “EP” for the contact-binary structure with two ellipsoids with long axes parallel to the intermediate body axis; “SE” for the contact-binary structure with a sphere in the small lobe and ellipsoid in the large lobe; “EA” for the contact-binary structure with two ellipsoids with long axes aligned with the primary body axis; “S25,” “S50,” and “S75” for the single spherical core structures with radii equal to 25%, 50%, and 75% of the maximum inscribed sphere, respectively; “E25,” “E50,” and “E75” for the single-ellipsoidal cores with semimajor axes equal to 25%, 50%, and 75% of the largest inscribed ellipsoid, respectively; and finally “RO” for the rubble-only model with bulk density matching the other simulations. For different internal structures in the HCP matrix, we see that the rubble-only and small-core models show the smallest axis length change, while the large-core and contact-binary structures show the most, by a factor of more than two.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: A Comparison of internal configurations embedded in the MAP matrix with matching bulk density 1.9 g cm−3. Case label suffixes are the same as those given in the Figure 15 caption. Axis length change magnitudes are similar to those in the HCP case (Figure 15). For different internal structures in the MAP matrix, the rubble-only and small-core models are the most deformable by a factor of more than two over the lowest-deformation, large single-core models. This trend matches the trend seen for the RPP cases but differs from the HCP trend over different internal structures.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Histogram showing the frequency of short-period seismic events over time during a single simulation in a high-resolution RPP suite. The vertical axis shows (in logarithmic scale) the number of seismic events that occur in each of the 1 hr width bins along the horizontal axis. Vertical lines are shown to note the time of close approach (dashed black), the brackets for the period of significant tidal influence (Figure 7) when tidal accelerations dominate over rotational accelerations (but not gravity—solid pink and solid red lines indicate the beginning and end of this time span, respectively), and the end of the period of induced seismicity (solid orange), after which we see no more short-period seismic activity. Note that the vast majority of seismic events occur after perigee, at the end of the period of significant tidal influence, and end abruptly after a few hours.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Histogram showing the frequency of occurrence of short-period seismic events in one high-resolution RPP simulation as a function of their depth in the Apophis model. Event depth is measured from the center of a triangular facet of a concave hull drawn around the SSDEM Apophis rubble pile and is normalized to a fraction of the effective radius of the body (340 m), with bin widths equal to one largest-particle diameter in the simulation (∼15 m). Half of all events occur in the top 30 m of regolith (first two bins), indicating shallow source regions for the short-period seismicity.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Comparison of internal configurations embedded in the RPP matrix with matching bulk density 1.9 g cm−3. Case label suffixes are the same as those given in the Figure 15 caption. Axis length change magnitudes are larger for RPP than HCP or MAP (Figures 15 and 17; note the difference in vertical axis scale) in general. For different internal structures in the RPP matrix, the rubble-only model is the most deformable by a factor of four over the lowest-deformation, large single-core models.
Paper: The Influence of Internal Structure on Physical Outcomes of the 2029 Apophis Close Approach with Earth
Authors: Joseph V. DeMartini, Derek C. Richardson, Naomi Murdoch, Raphaël F. Garcia, Nicholas C. Schmerr, Petr Scheirich, Ronald-L. Ballouz, Adriana Daca
Figure caption: Histogram showing the distribution of post-encounter period changes (in hours) relative to the pre-encounter period for all 32 different simulations over different encounter orientations tested in the high-resolution RPP simulation suite. The magnitude of the largest increase in the period is slightly smaller here than in J. V. DeMartini et al. (2019), but the distribution itself looks fairly similar. The lack of cases with small period change in either direction implies that the rotation state of Apophis is likely to change in one direction or another, despite the mean and median of this distribution lying close to 0.0 hr change.
Paper: Effect of Regolith–Ice Stratigraphy and Laser Weathering on Ultraviolet–Visible–Near-infrared Detection of Lunar Water Ice
Authors: Abhay Vidwans, Jeffrey Gillis
Figure caption: Ice-layer mass versus reflectance spectra band-depth calibration curve derived from depositing ice onto a quartz crystal microbalance.
Paper: Effect of Regolith–Ice Stratigraphy and Laser Weathering on Ultraviolet–Visible–Near-infrared Detection of Lunar Water Ice
Authors: Abhay Vidwans, Jeffrey Gillis
Figure caption: Overplot of uniform ice stratigraphy spectra with S. Li et al. (2018) Hapke modeled reflectance spectra of regolith–ice mixtures.
Paper: Retrograde Predominance of Small Saturnian Moons Reiterates a Recent Retrograde Collisional Disruption
Authors: Edward Ashton, Brett Gladman, Mike Alexandersen, Jean-Marc Petit
Figure caption: 1000 ejecta particles were simulated in an attempt to recreate the spread in orbit of the Gallic group with S/2004 S 24 and without. The ejecta particles were created by adding Δv = 80 m s−1 (red dots) or 330 m s−1 (blue dots) to that of the chosen progenitor (magenta cross). Time-averaged orbital elements from JPL of all of the moons in the subgroup are shown by black circles. The vertical bars through some of the real moons indicate the range of orbital values that a moon oscillates over during a secular cycle, taken from R. A. Jacobson et al. (2022). The variations in a are typically comparatively small and are thus not shown. The orbital elements ranges of the newest moons are not shown since they were announced after the R. A. Jacobson et al. (2022) study and are therefore not provided by JPL.
Paper: Retrograde Predominance of Small Saturnian Moons Reiterates a Recent Retrograde Collisional Disruption
Authors: Edward Ashton, Brett Gladman, Mike Alexandersen, Jean-Marc Petit
Figure caption: Size distribution of different groups/subgroups in the Saturnian irregular moon population. The method used to calculate diameters is described in Section 4.1. Two lines have been added for reference, one with a collisional equilibrium, q = 3.5 (dotted line), and one with a similar slope to that of the Mundilfari subgroup, q = 6 (dashed line). Note: the five i <  151∘ Norse-group members are not represented in this plot.
Paper: Retrograde Predominance of Small Saturnian Moons Reiterates a Recent Retrograde Collisional Disruption
Authors: Edward Ashton, Brett Gladman, Mike Alexandersen, Jean-Marc Petit
Figure caption: Comparison of the size distributions of the Mundilfari subgroup when split into two samples using cuts in inclination (left panel), eccentricity (middle panel), and semimajor axis (right panel). The size distribution of the whole Mundilfari subgroup is shown in magenta in all panels.
Paper: Retrograde Predominance of Small Saturnian Moons Reiterates a Recent Retrograde Collisional Disruption
Authors: Edward Ashton, Brett Gladman, Mike Alexandersen, Jean-Marc Petit
Figure caption: Attempt to recreate the spread in orbit of the Mundilfari subgroup members (black) by simulating 2000 ejecta particles (red). The ejecta particles were created by adding Δv = 200 m s−1 in a random direction to that of a chosen progenitor (magenta cross). See Figure 7 caption for more details.
Paper: The Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) on Blue Ghost Mission 1 to Mare Crisium. I. Pneumatic Excavation of Regolith
Authors: S. Nagihara, K. Zacny, P. Ngo, L. Sanasarian, R. Misra, M. Zasadzien, V. Sanigepalli, M. Schmitt, A. Wang, C. Ladd, A. Shmavonian, P. Ng, Y. Hwang, W. Garcia, J. Knorr, R. Tuanuma, T. Thomas, H. Jung, X. Estey, T. Colenbrander, X. Fries, J. Emery, N. Jeevanjee, C. Castle, N. Sadagopan, T. Heiman, E. Killian, N. Steele, Y. Matsuyama, G. Paulsen, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, T. L. Hudson, S. E. Smrekar, M. A. Siegler
Figure caption: A conceptual drawing of the LISTER deployment mechanism accommodated below the platform of the Blue Ghost lander as it makes thermal measurements at multiple depths into the subsurface (left). Schematic drawings of the interior of LISTER’s deployment mechanism (middle) and sensor assembly (right) are also shown. A photograph of the mechanism is shown in Figure 3.
Paper: The Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) on Blue Ghost Mission 1 to Mare Crisium. I. Pneumatic Excavation of Regolith
Authors: S. Nagihara, K. Zacny, P. Ngo, L. Sanasarian, R. Misra, M. Zasadzien, V. Sanigepalli, M. Schmitt, A. Wang, C. Ladd, A. Shmavonian, P. Ng, Y. Hwang, W. Garcia, J. Knorr, R. Tuanuma, T. Thomas, H. Jung, X. Estey, T. Colenbrander, X. Fries, J. Emery, N. Jeevanjee, C. Castle, N. Sadagopan, T. Heiman, E. Killian, N. Steele, Y. Matsuyama, G. Paulsen, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, T. L. Hudson, S. E. Smrekar, M. A. Siegler
Figure caption: An example of the thermal measurements made by LISTER at one depth. Top: a graph of temperature vs. time (after bottom-hole regolith insertion) for the two RTDs in the needle sensor during operation 5 at 0.329 m depth. RTD1 was positioned at the midpoint of the needle, and RTD2 was positioned in the gas nozzle (Figure 2). For this operation, the sensor assembly was initially warmer than the bottom-hole regolith. During the excavation, the needle sensor was cooled by the adiabatic expansion of the gas emitted by the nozzle. After the bottom insertion (and the cessation of the gas jet), the temperature of the needle sensor warmed up to that of the regolith. That is what we see in the record of RTD1 in the first few minutes. RTD2 was less affected by the cold gas jet and thus initially warmer but cooled toward the regolith temperature after the bottom insertion. Bottom: heater power vs. time (after bottom-hole regolith insertion) of the needle sensor.
Paper: The Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) on Blue Ghost Mission 1 to Mare Crisium. I. Pneumatic Excavation of Regolith
Authors: S. Nagihara, K. Zacny, P. Ngo, L. Sanasarian, R. Misra, M. Zasadzien, V. Sanigepalli, M. Schmitt, A. Wang, C. Ladd, A. Shmavonian, P. Ng, Y. Hwang, W. Garcia, J. Knorr, R. Tuanuma, T. Thomas, H. Jung, X. Estey, T. Colenbrander, X. Fries, J. Emery, N. Jeevanjee, C. Castle, N. Sadagopan, T. Heiman, E. Killian, N. Steele, Y. Matsuyama, G. Paulsen, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, T. L. Hudson, S. E. Smrekar, M. A. Siegler
Figure caption: A photograph of the LISTER deployment mechanism with the needle sensor fully stowed.
Paper: The Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) on Blue Ghost Mission 1 to Mare Crisium. I. Pneumatic Excavation of Regolith
Authors: S. Nagihara, K. Zacny, P. Ngo, L. Sanasarian, R. Misra, M. Zasadzien, V. Sanigepalli, M. Schmitt, A. Wang, C. Ladd, A. Shmavonian, P. Ng, Y. Hwang, W. Garcia, J. Knorr, R. Tuanuma, T. Thomas, H. Jung, X. Estey, T. Colenbrander, X. Fries, J. Emery, N. Jeevanjee, C. Castle, N. Sadagopan, T. Heiman, E. Killian, N. Steele, Y. Matsuyama, G. Paulsen, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, T. L. Hudson, S. E. Smrekar, M. A. Siegler
Figure caption: The landing site of Blue Ghost Mission 1 (BG1) along with the Apollo 15 and 17 lander locations on the global nearside mosaic of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Wide Angle Camera images. Astronauts used handheld rotary-percussive drills to deploy heat flow probes at Apollo 15 and 17.
Paper: The Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) on Blue Ghost Mission 1 to Mare Crisium. I. Pneumatic Excavation of Regolith
Authors: S. Nagihara, K. Zacny, P. Ngo, L. Sanasarian, R. Misra, M. Zasadzien, V. Sanigepalli, M. Schmitt, A. Wang, C. Ladd, A. Shmavonian, P. Ng, Y. Hwang, W. Garcia, J. Knorr, R. Tuanuma, T. Thomas, H. Jung, X. Estey, T. Colenbrander, X. Fries, J. Emery, N. Jeevanjee, C. Castle, N. Sadagopan, T. Heiman, E. Killian, N. Steele, Y. Matsuyama, G. Paulsen, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, T. L. Hudson, S. E. Smrekar, M. A. Siegler
Figure caption: A graph of LISTER’s sensor depth vs. time during the surface operations. The timings of excavation operations are indicated by the red arrows.
Paper: The Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity (LISTER) on Blue Ghost Mission 1 to Mare Crisium. I. Pneumatic Excavation of Regolith
Authors: S. Nagihara, K. Zacny, P. Ngo, L. Sanasarian, R. Misra, M. Zasadzien, V. Sanigepalli, M. Schmitt, A. Wang, C. Ladd, A. Shmavonian, P. Ng, Y. Hwang, W. Garcia, J. Knorr, R. Tuanuma, T. Thomas, H. Jung, X. Estey, T. Colenbrander, X. Fries, J. Emery, N. Jeevanjee, C. Castle, N. Sadagopan, T. Heiman, E. Killian, N. Steele, Y. Matsuyama, G. Paulsen, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, T. L. Hudson, S. E. Smrekar, M. A. Siegler
Figure caption: Photographs of the ground below LISTER before excavation (left) and the hole excavated by LISTER after operations 4, 5, 7, and 14, captured by the Argus 8 below-deck camera. See Figure 10 for the timings of these operations. See Figure 14 for the position of the camera. Recall that the diameter of the S.S. tube is 6.4 mm for scale.