My most recent grad school paper was finally published in October 2024!. This paper is a direct follow on to my first grad school paper, and has been the focus of my work for nearly 2 years.

Plain Language Summary

This paper focuses on the difference between various data sets. There are all kinds of ways to look at near-Earth asteroids, but two of the most common involve using giant telescopes on Earth, and telescopes in space. In the paper, we look at six different asteroids using both of these kinds of telescopes. We then use a simple computer model with the data that we got to try and understand important qualities of these asteroids. These qualities include things like their sizes or what the rock on their surfaces is like. What we found was that using the model with data taken from the ground gave a different answer than using the model with data taken in space, even though we we were looking at the same asteroid! So in the paper we explored the situations when these mismatches happen and what might be causing them. In general, we think that the space telescope we were using had problems when looking at really dark asteroids.

Science Abstract

Understanding the properties of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) is key for many aspects of planetary science, particularly planetary defense. Our current knowledge of NEA sizes and regolith properties is heavily dependent on simple thermal models. These models are often used to analyze data from missions such as NEOWISE because they are well suited to deal with large volumes of data. However, simple model results based on NEOWISE data may be inconsistent with results based on other types of observation in some cases. In this work, we seek to better understand these potential inconsistencies, as well as the situations for which they are most prevalent. We do this by comparing simple model results based on Infrared Telescope Facility SpeX data to similar results based on NEOWISE data. This is carried out for six NEAs that represent a range of spectral types, shapes, and rotation states. We find that models based on SpeX and NEOWISE data for these six objects are inconsistent in some cases, even though the SpeX results are consistent with other methods and observations. We find that objects observed at fainter magnitudes and objects with more primitive compositions are more likely to produce inconsistent fits. These results highlight the importance of better understanding the limitations of simple models as applied to large survey data sets like NEOWISE. This is particularly true as we move into an era where our understanding of the NEA population will be dominated by future large surveys such as NEO Surveyor.

The full paper is available here!

• View other projects!