4.8 Article

Time variability and heterogeneity in the coma of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 347, 期 6220, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0276

关键词

-

资金

  1. State of Bern
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation
  3. European Space Agency (ESA) PRODEX Program
  4. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG)
  5. Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWI) [50QP1302]
  6. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) [1496541]
  7. NASA [NNX148F71G, JPL-1266313]
  8. Belgian Science Policy Office via PRODEX/ROSINA PEA [90020]
  9. Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
  10. A*MIDEX project - Investissements d'Avenir French Government program [ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02]
  11. CNES at IRAP
  12. CNES at LATMOS
  13. CNES at LPC2E
  14. Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM)
  15. CRPG
  16. European Research Council [267255]
  17. Ministry of Science
  18. Israel Space agency
  19. NASA JPL [NAS703001TONMO710889]
  20. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  21. STFC [ST/K001051/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comets contain the best-preserved material from the beginning of our planetary system. Their nuclei and comae composition reveal clues about physical and chemical conditions during the early solar system when comets formed. ROSINA (Rosetta Orbiter Spectrometer for Ion and Neutral Analysis) onboard the Rosetta spacecraft has measured the coma composition of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko with well-sampled time resolution per rotation. Measurements were made over many comet rotation periods and a wide range of latitudes. Thesemeasurements show large fluctuations in composition in a heterogeneous coma that has diurnal and possibly seasonal variations in the major outgassing species: water, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. These results indicate a complex coma-nucleus relationship where seasonal variations may be driven by temperature differences just below the comet surface.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据