Large-scale Morphology of the Optical F-corona from a Total Solar Eclipse Observation During the Artemis II Lunar Flyby

Ko Arimatsu; Kohji Tsumura

arxiv: 2604.13908 · v3 · pith:Q4AWDWYInew · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.SR

Large-scale Morphology of the Optical F-corona from a Total Solar Eclipse Observation During the Artemis II Lunar Flyby

Kohji Tsumura , Ko Arimatsu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 10:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

keywords F-coronazodiacal lightsolar eclipseinterplanetary dustArtemis IIlunar flybydust density profile

0 comments

The pith

Images from the Artemis II lunar flyby during total solar eclipse show the F-corona as a flattened ellipse aligned with the ecliptic plane.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes a wide-field public image captured during a total solar eclipse when the Moon fully occulted the Sun from the Artemis II spacecraft position. After accounting for gamma correction in the RGB JPEG format and validating the response with field stars to confirm linear behavior in the relevant range, the authors extract relative morphology and brightness profiles of the faint F-corona. They measure a nearly elliptical shape flattened along the ecliptic with indices near 0.5 in each color channel and find that radial intensity profiles follow power laws whose slopes are consistent with a dust number-density falloff of r to the -1.3 even at small solar elongations. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies direct constraints on the distribution of interplanetary dust close to the Sun, a region otherwise hard to observe, and demonstrates that crewed lunar flybys can serve as platforms for such diffuse-light studies.

Core claim

The observed F-corona exhibits a flattened, nearly elliptical morphology aligned with the ecliptic plane, with flattening indices of 0.52, 0.54, and 0.56 for the red, green, and blue channels, respectively. Radial intensity profiles along ecliptic longitude and latitude are well described by power laws in solar elongation, supporting a radial dust number-density power-law index of α ~1.3, even in regions near the Sun.

What carries the argument

Stellar-validated analysis of relative brightness in a gamma-corrected RGB JPEG wide-field image from lunar-orbit total solar eclipse, yielding radial profiles and flattening indices of the F-corona.

If this is right

The number density of interplanetary dust follows a radial power law of approximately -1.3 even at small solar elongations.
The F-corona maintains a consistent elliptical flattening of roughly 0.5 across visible wavelengths.
Zodiacal-light models can be tested and refined using data from lunar-orbit occultations.
Crewed lunar flybys provide viable platforms for wide-field studies of faint circumsolar emission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Repeated observations at different lunar phases could reveal time-variable asymmetries in the inner dust cloud.
The same image-analysis approach could be applied to future lunar missions to extend the radial coverage of dust-density constraints.
These flattening measurements offer a local anchor for models of exozodiacal dust around other stars.

Load-bearing premise

The rendered RGB JPEG image, after explicit gamma correction and validation against field stars, supplies reliable relative intensities and morphology for the F-corona despite lacking absolute photometric calibration.

What would settle it

An independent photometric measurement of the same sky region that yields flattening indices differing by more than 0.1 or radial slopes inconsistent with a dust density index near 1.3 would falsify the reported profiles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13908 by Ko Arimatsu, Kohji Tsumura.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Top: The image art002e009301 captured by the Artemis II crew during their lunar flyby at an altitude of approximately 6545 km above the lunar surface. The Moon fully occults the Sun, and the left side of the lunar disk is illuminated by sunlight reflected from the Earth. The apparent lunar diameter is 16.9 ◦ . The glowing halo around the dark lunar disk corresponds to the F-corona (inner zodiacal light), a… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Photometric relation between the cataloged magnitudes of detected stars (N. Cardiel et al. 2021) and their instrumental signals in Data Number (DN) units in the Blue (left), Green (center), and Red (right) channels. In the Green and Red channels, stars brighter than 3.5 mag are saturated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Left: An normalized image produced by masking the Moon and bright stars from the original art002e009301 image (G channel) to extract the structure of the diffuse background emission. Right: A diffuse ZL map for the same field calculated using ZodiSURF (R. O’Brien et al. 2026) with the same normalization. Intensity contours of the diffuse light at levels of [0.8, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05] are overlaid for both i… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Radial intensity profiles of the F-corona measured along the ecliptic longitude (top) and ecliptic latitude (bottom) directions from the solar position. Red, black, and blue symbols denote the profiles in Red, Green, and Blue channels, respectively. The solid curve shows the ZL profile calculated with ZodiSURF (R. O’Brien et al. 2026). The dotted and dashed curves in the top panel correspond to model cal… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigated the structure of the optical F-corona, i.e., inner zodiacal light, using a publicly released wide-field image of a total solar eclipse that was obtained during the Artemis~II crewed lunar flyby. In this image, the solar disk is fully occulted by the Moon, providing a rare view of diffuse circumsolar emission over a wide angular extent. Although the dataset is derived from a rendered RGB JPEG image without full photometric calibration, the gamma correction inherent to the image format was explicitly accounted for and the instrumental response was validated using field stars. The stellar calibration demonstrates a linear response within the unsaturated regime relevant to our measurements, enabling a reliable analysis of the relative morphology and brightness profiles of the F-corona. The observed F-corona exhibits a flattened, nearly elliptical morphology aligned with the ecliptic plane, with flattening indices of 0.52, 0.54, and 0.56 for the red, green, and blue channels, respectively. Radial intensity profiles along ecliptic longitude and latitude are well described by power laws in solar elongation, although the derived slopes are systematically steeper than previous observations. Comparison with the ZodiSURF zodiacal light model indicates that the observed radial profile of the F-corona along the ecliptic longitude is modestly reproduced by the model, supporting a radial dust number-density power-law index of $\alpha$ ~1.3, even in regions near the Sun. In a broader historical context, these results provide an empirical proof-of-concept that supports future solar coronal occultation observations from lunar orbit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This gives a lunar-distance F-corona view from Artemis II with specific flattening numbers, but the steeper slopes rest on JPEG photometry that may not be fully reliable for faint extended light.

read the letter

The main point is a proof-of-concept measurement of the F-corona from the Artemis II lunar flyby image. It reports flattening indices of 0.52 to 0.56 across color channels and infers a radial dust density power-law index near 1.3 from power-law fits to the brightness profiles, which come out steeper than earlier work. The geometry is new: a wide-field view with the Sun fully occulted by the Moon from lunar distance during a crewed mission. That alone makes the dataset worth noting for people who model inner zodiacal dust. They correctly flag that the input is a rendered RGB JPEG, apply a gamma correction, and check linearity with unsaturated field stars. The comparison to the ZodiSURF model is direct and shows the observed ecliptic profile is at least roughly consistent with alpha around 1.3. Those steps are transparent and give a reader something concrete to evaluate. The soft spot is the step from star-based linearity to quantitative radial profiles of low-surface-brightness diffuse emission. JPEG compression, 8-bit depth, and any residual background or stray-light terms can bias the faint wings without showing up in point-source tests. The paper notes the slopes are steeper than prior results, yet the abstract gives no error bars, no explicit stray-light budget, and no cross-check against raw sensor values or simultaneous ground data. That leaves the alpha inference and the claim that it holds even near the Sun on somewhat shaky ground. A reader focused on zodiacal light or lunar-based solar observations would get value from the specific indices and the geometry as a starting point for future work. It is not a major theoretical step, but the observational setup is fresh enough that the paper deserves a serious referee who can examine the image reduction and fitting details in full. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a publicly released wide-field RGB JPEG image from a total solar eclipse observed during the Artemis II lunar flyby, where the Moon fully occults the solar disk. After applying gamma correction and validating linear response via unsaturated field stars, the authors report a flattened, nearly elliptical F-corona morphology aligned with the ecliptic plane, with flattening indices of 0.52, 0.54, and 0.56 in the red, green, and blue channels. Radial intensity profiles along ecliptic longitude and latitude are fitted to power laws in solar elongation (steeper than prior observations), and comparison with the ZodiSURF zodiacal light model supports a radial dust number-density power-law index of α ≈ 1.3 even near the Sun. The work frames this as an empirical proof-of-concept for future solar coronal occultation observations from lunar orbit.

Significance. If the relative brightness profiles are reliable, the result supplies a new empirical constraint on inner zodiacal dust from a unique space-based vantage point during a crewed lunar flyby. It offers modest support for the α ≈ 1.3 density index in regions close to the Sun and demonstrates the scientific utility of such eclipse imagery, which could complement existing ground- and space-based zodiacal-light studies.

major comments (2)

[Data processing and calibration section] Data processing and calibration section: The central inference that the observed radial profiles support α ~1.3 rests on the assumption that intensity measurements from the gamma-corrected JPEG accurately reflect the true relative brightness distribution of the low-surface-brightness F-corona. While field-star photometry confirms linear response in the unsaturated regime, this does not automatically extend to extended, low-contrast diffuse emission; JPEG compression, 8-bit quantization, and any residual background subtraction can systematically bias the faint wings that determine the fitted power-law slopes.
[Results and model comparison section] Results and model comparison section: The claim that the ecliptic-longitude profile is 'modestly reproduced' by ZodiSURF and thereby supports α ~1.3 lacks reported uncertainties on the fitted slopes, quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics, or explicit tests of how plausible systematic offsets in the image data would propagate into the inferred index. Because the derived slopes are already noted as steeper than previous work, these omissions make it difficult to assess whether the model comparison robustly constrains the density power-law index.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and methods] The abstract and methods should explicitly state the solar-elongation range over which the power-law fits were performed and whether any inner cutoff was applied to avoid stray-light contamination near the occulting Moon.
[Figure captions] Figure captions for the radial profiles should include the numerical values of the fitted power-law indices together with their formal uncertainties.
[Discussion] A brief discussion of possible residual stray-light or lunar-atmosphere contributions would strengthen the interpretation of the innermost profile points.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important considerations for the reliability of our relative brightness measurements and the robustness of the model comparison. We address each point below and indicate the revisions planned for the resubmitted manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Data processing and calibration section: The central inference that the observed radial profiles support α ~1.3 rests on the assumption that intensity measurements from the gamma-corrected JPEG accurately reflect the true relative brightness distribution of the low-surface-brightness F-corona. While field-star photometry confirms linear response in the unsaturated regime, this does not automatically extend to extended, low-contrast diffuse emission; JPEG compression, 8-bit quantization, and any residual background subtraction can systematically bias the faint wings that determine the fitted power-law slopes.

Authors: We agree that the extension of stellar linearity to diffuse low-surface-brightness emission requires additional justification. The manuscript already describes the gamma correction applied and the validation against unsaturated field stars at comparable brightness levels. However, we acknowledge that JPEG-specific effects on extended structure were not fully quantified. In the revised version we will expand the Data processing and calibration section with a dedicated paragraph discussing possible residual biases from compression and quantization, including a simple test of how artificial background offsets affect the outer power-law slopes. This will make the limitations of the dataset more transparent while preserving the proof-of-concept nature of the work. revision: yes
Referee: Results and model comparison section: The claim that the ecliptic-longitude profile is 'modestly reproduced' by ZodiSURF and thereby supports α ~1.3 lacks reported uncertainties on the fitted slopes, quantitative goodness-of-fit statistics, or explicit tests of how plausible systematic offsets in the image data would propagate into the inferred index. Because the derived slopes are already noted as steeper than previous work, these omissions make it difficult to assess whether the model comparison robustly constrains the density power-law index.

Authors: We accept that the current presentation of the model comparison is insufficiently quantitative. In the revised manuscript we will report formal uncertainties on the fitted power-law indices, include reduced-chi-squared or equivalent goodness-of-fit values for the ZodiSURF comparison, and add a short sensitivity test showing how plausible systematic offsets (e.g., ±10 % background level) shift the best-fit α. These additions will allow readers to evaluate the strength of the support for α ≈ 1.3 more objectively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct measurements compared to external model

full rationale

The paper extracts flattening indices (0.52–0.56) and radial power-law slopes directly from calibrated image photometry of the F-corona, then compares the observed ecliptic-longitude profile to the independent ZodiSURF zodiacal-light model to infer a supporting dust-density index α ≈ 1.3. No equation redefines a fitted parameter as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and the stellar linearity check is an external validation step rather than a closed loop. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of JPEG gamma correction and stellar-based linearity validation for diffuse emission, plus the assumption that the ZodiSURF model remains applicable in the inner regions probed here.

free parameters (2)

flattening indices = 0.52 (red), 0.54 (green), 0.56 (blue)
Derived directly from the image for each color channel.
radial dust number-density power-law index α = ~1.3
Inferred by matching observed radial profile to ZodiSURF model output.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The F-corona brightness distribution is dominated by sunlight scattered from interplanetary dust concentrated in the ecliptic plane.
Invoked to interpret the observed elliptical morphology and to justify comparison with the ZodiSURF zodiacal light model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5827 in / 1594 out tokens · 96942 ms · 2026-05-22T10:47:57.102204+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

M., Clover, J

Buffington, A., Bisi, M. M., Clover, J. M., et al. 2016, Icarus, 272, 88, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.045

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.045 2016
[2]

A., Lamy, P

Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 8Tsumura & Arimatsu

work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979
[3]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 3730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab997

Cardiel, N., Zamorano, J., Bar´ a, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab997

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab997 2021
[4]

D., Yeomans, D

Giorgini, J. D., Yeomans, D. K., Chamberlin, A. B., et al. 1996, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting

work page 1996
[5]

M., Zook, H

Hahn, J. M., Zook, H. A., Cooper, B., & Sunkara, B. 2002, Icarus, 158, 360, doi: 10.1006/icar.2002.6881

work page doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6881 2002
[6]

L., Franz, B

Kelsall, T., Weiland, J. L., Franz, B. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 44, doi: 10.1086/306380

work page doi:10.1086/306380 1998
[7]

M., Kim, M

Korngut, P. M., Kim, M. G., Arai, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac44ff

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac44ff 2022
[8]

L., Gilardy, H., & Llebaria, A

Lamy, P. L., Gilardy, H., & Llebaria, A. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 53, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00918-y

work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00918-y 2022
[9]

Landsman, W. B. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 437

work page 1995
[10]

W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S

Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010
[11]

1981, A&A, 103, 177

Leinert, C., Richter, I., Pitz, E., & Planck, B. 1981, A&A, 103, 177

work page 1981
[12]

1996, PASJ, 48, L47, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.5.L47

Matsumoto, T., Kawada, M., Murakami, H., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, L47, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.5.L47

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/48.5.l47 1996
[13]

1995, Icarus, 115, 199, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1995.1089

Matsuura, S., Matsumoto, T., Matsuhara, H., & Noda, M. 1995, Icarus, 115, 199, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1995.1089

work page doi:10.1006/icar.1995.1089 1995
[14]

L., & Price, S

Murdock, T. L., & Price, S. D. 1985, AJ, 90, 375, doi: 10.1086/113743 NASA. 2026a, Liftoff! NASA Launches Astronauts on Historic Artemis Moon Mission,, https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/liftoff-nasa- launches-astronauts-on-historic-artemis-moon-mission/ NASA. 2026b, Artemis II: NASA’s First Crewed Lunar Flyby in 50 Years,, https://www.nasa.gov/mission/art...

work page doi:10.1086/113743 1985
[15]

A., Hess, P., & Gallagher, B

Stenborg, G., Howard, R. A., Hess, P., & Gallagher, B. 2021, A&A, 650, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039284

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039284 2021
[16]

A., & Stauffer, J

Stenborg, G., Howard, R. A., & Stauffer, J. R. 2018, ApJ, 862, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacea3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacea3 2018
[17]

Takimoto, K., Matsuura, S., Sano, K., & Feder, R. M. 2023, ApJ, 944, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb937

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb937 2023
[18]

2022, ApJ, 926, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac416f

Takimoto, K., Arai, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac416f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac416f 2022
[19]

2013, PASJ, 65, 119, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.6.119

Tsumura, K., Matsumoto, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 119, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.6.119

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/65.6.119 2013
[20]

2010, ApJ, 719, 394, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/394

Tsumura, K., Battle, J., Bock, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 394, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/394

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/394 2010
[21]

2023, Earth, Planets and Space, 75, 121, doi: 10.1186/s40623-023-01856-x van de Hulst, H

Tsumura, K., Matsuura, S., Sano, K., et al. 2023, Earth, Planets and Space, 75, 121, doi: 10.1186/s40623-023-01856-x van de Hulst, H. C. 1947, ApJ, 105, 471, doi: 10.1086/144921

work page doi:10.1186/s40623-023-01856-x 2023

[1] [1]

M., Clover, J

Buffington, A., Bisi, M. M., Clover, J. M., et al. 2016, Icarus, 272, 88, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.045

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.045 2016

[2] [2]

A., Lamy, P

Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 8Tsumura & Arimatsu

work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979

[3] [3]

2021, MNRAS, 504, 3730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab997

Cardiel, N., Zamorano, J., Bar´ a, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3730, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab997

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab997 2021

[4] [4]

D., Yeomans, D

Giorgini, J. D., Yeomans, D. K., Chamberlin, A. B., et al. 1996, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting

work page 1996

[5] [5]

M., Zook, H

Hahn, J. M., Zook, H. A., Cooper, B., & Sunkara, B. 2002, Icarus, 158, 360, doi: 10.1006/icar.2002.6881

work page doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6881 2002

[6] [6]

L., Franz, B

Kelsall, T., Weiland, J. L., Franz, B. A., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, 44, doi: 10.1086/306380

work page doi:10.1086/306380 1998

[7] [7]

M., Kim, M

Korngut, P. M., Kim, M. G., Arai, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac44ff

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac44ff 2022

[8] [8]

L., Gilardy, H., & Llebaria, A

Lamy, P. L., Gilardy, H., & Llebaria, A. 2022, Space Science Reviews, 218, 53, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00918-y

work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00918-y 2022

[9] [9]

Landsman, W. B. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 437

work page 1995

[10] [10]

W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S

Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 2010

[11] [11]

1981, A&A, 103, 177

Leinert, C., Richter, I., Pitz, E., & Planck, B. 1981, A&A, 103, 177

work page 1981

[12] [12]

1996, PASJ, 48, L47, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.5.L47

Matsumoto, T., Kawada, M., Murakami, H., et al. 1996, PASJ, 48, L47, doi: 10.1093/pasj/48.5.L47

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/48.5.l47 1996

[13] [13]

1995, Icarus, 115, 199, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1995.1089

Matsuura, S., Matsumoto, T., Matsuhara, H., & Noda, M. 1995, Icarus, 115, 199, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1995.1089

work page doi:10.1006/icar.1995.1089 1995

[14] [14]

L., & Price, S

Murdock, T. L., & Price, S. D. 1985, AJ, 90, 375, doi: 10.1086/113743 NASA. 2026a, Liftoff! NASA Launches Astronauts on Historic Artemis Moon Mission,, https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/liftoff-nasa- launches-astronauts-on-historic-artemis-moon-mission/ NASA. 2026b, Artemis II: NASA’s First Crewed Lunar Flyby in 50 Years,, https://www.nasa.gov/mission/art...

work page doi:10.1086/113743 1985

[15] [15]

A., Hess, P., & Gallagher, B

Stenborg, G., Howard, R. A., Hess, P., & Gallagher, B. 2021, A&A, 650, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039284

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039284 2021

[16] [16]

A., & Stauffer, J

Stenborg, G., Howard, R. A., & Stauffer, J. R. 2018, ApJ, 862, 168, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacea3

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacea3 2018

[17] [17]

Takimoto, K., Matsuura, S., Sano, K., & Feder, R. M. 2023, ApJ, 944, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb937

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb937 2023

[18] [18]

2022, ApJ, 926, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac416f

Takimoto, K., Arai, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac416f

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac416f 2022

[19] [19]

2013, PASJ, 65, 119, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.6.119

Tsumura, K., Matsumoto, T., Matsuura, S., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 119, doi: 10.1093/pasj/65.6.119

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/65.6.119 2013

[20] [20]

2010, ApJ, 719, 394, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/394

Tsumura, K., Battle, J., Bock, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 394, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/394

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/394 2010

[21] [21]

2023, Earth, Planets and Space, 75, 121, doi: 10.1186/s40623-023-01856-x van de Hulst, H

Tsumura, K., Matsuura, S., Sano, K., et al. 2023, Earth, Planets and Space, 75, 121, doi: 10.1186/s40623-023-01856-x van de Hulst, H. C. 1947, ApJ, 105, 471, doi: 10.1086/144921

work page doi:10.1186/s40623-023-01856-x 2023