pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25675 · v1 · pith:QGTQW63Onew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Changes in Pluto's Atmosphere Based on Stellar Occultation Data from 2017 to 2023

Amanda A. Sickafoose , Michael J. Person , Carlos A. Zuluaga , Amanda S. Bosh , Stephen E. Levine , Tim Brothers , Bastian Knieling , Timothy A. Lister
show 9 more authors
David J. Osip Karsten Schindler Joe Brimacombe Tim Carruthers Abigail Colclasure Anja Genade Petro Janse van Rensburg Stephen B. Potter Patricio Rojo
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 20:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Plutoatmospherestellar occultationatmospheric pressurehazevolatile transportNew Horizons
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar occultations show Pluto's atmospheric pressure plateaued from 2015 to 2021 then began to drop.

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

The paper examines ten stellar occultations by Pluto between 2017 and 2023 to track pressure in its thin nitrogen atmosphere. Results indicate the pressure remained steady from the 2015 New Horizons encounter through roughly 2021, after which clear-atmosphere values at 1275 km fell 7 percent and haze-included values at 1215 km fell 16 percent by 2022. This matters because the atmosphere is maintained by vapor-pressure equilibrium with surface ices, so pressure changes directly reflect how volatiles move around the surface as solar heating varies along Pluto's eccentric, high-obliquity orbit. The work updates earlier claims of steady increase through 2016 and tests volatile-transport models that differ on whether the atmosphere will collapse in coming decades. Upper-level structure stayed consistent while lower-atmosphere light-curve slopes changed in ways consistent with haze settling on yearly timescales.

Core claim

Analysis of multi-chord and single-site stellar occultations reveals a pressure plateau in Pluto's atmosphere between the 2015 New Horizons flyby and roughly 2021, followed by a decrease: clear-atmosphere pressure at 1275 km radius fell by 7±6% between 2015-2021 and 2022, while pressure at 1215 km including haze dropped 16±2%. The upper atmospheric structure remained consistent from 2017-2023, but light-curve slopes in the lower atmosphere changed in a manner consistent with haze particle settling on yearly or shorter timescales. Spikes in one light curve suggest intermittent buoyancy waves.

What carries the argument

Inversion of stellar occultation light curves to retrieve atmospheric pressure at fixed radii (1275 km clear and 1215 km with haze).

If this is right

  • Atmospheric pressure remained stable from the 2015 New Horizons flyby through roughly 2021.
  • Clear-atmosphere pressure at 1275 km decreased 7±6% by 2022 relative to the plateau.
  • Pressure at 1215 km including haze decreased 16±2% over the same interval.
  • Upper atmospheric structure stayed consistent from 2017 to 2023 while lower-atmosphere light-curve slopes changed consistent with haze settling.
  • Spikes observed in one light curve indicate the presence of intermittent buoyancy waves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The timing of the 2021 transition may mark when declining insolation began to outpace volatile resupply from the surface.
  • Short-timescale haze settling implies particle dynamics operate faster than seasonal orbital changes.
  • If the downward trend continues, it would favor volatile-transport models that predict eventual atmospheric collapse over decades rather than long-term stability.
  • Simultaneous surface imaging during future occultations could test whether the pressure drop correlates with visible frost redistribution.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that stellar occultation light-curve inversions can accurately isolate atmospheric pressure at specific radii after accounting for haze contributions without significant systematic biases.

What would settle it

A 2024 or later stellar occultation yielding pressure at 1275 km that is higher than or equal to the 2015-2021 level would falsify the reported onset of decline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25675 by Abigail Colclasure, Amanda A. Sickafoose, Amanda S. Bosh, Anja Genade, Bastian Knieling, Carlos A. Zuluaga, David J. Osip, Joe Brimacombe, Karsten Schindler, Michael J. Person, Patricio Rojo, Petro Janse van Rensburg, Stephen B. Potter, Stephen E. Levine, Tim Brothers, Tim Carruthers, Timothy A. Lister.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Globes with reconstructed shadow paths on Earth and the locations of the observing stations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Pluto’s orientation relative to the Earth at the midtime of each occultation along with sky-plane chords for each successful observation. Sky-plane North is up and East to the left. The white dots indicate the chord locations, with each point representing one image at the fastest cadence from a given site. These chords show the star positions extrapolated behind Pluto: residual starlight observed during th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example image from the single successful telescope for the 2017 August 07 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example image from the single successful telescope for the 2018 April 09 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example images from each of the successful sites for the 2018 August 15 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example images from the successful telescopes for the 2018 October 01 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example image from the single successful telescope for the 2018 November 01 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example image from the single successful telescope for the 2018 November 20 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example images from the successful telescopes for the 2021 August 06 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example images from each of the successful telescopes for the 2022 June 01 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example images from each of the successful sites for the 2022 August 23 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example image from the single successful site for the 2023 July 17 event (details are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Background fractions versus airmass for each telescope for the 2021 August 06 occultation. The dashed black lines indicate the airmasses at the times of the occultations and the red lines are least-squares, linear fits to the data. Data from Magellan and Gemini S. were taken before and after the occultation on the same night, while the other datasets were taken at similar airmasses on an adjacent night (w… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Light curve from the 2017 August 07 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Sec. from 10:50:00 UT 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Normalized Flux LDT P20180409 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Light curve from the 2018 April 09 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Due to the low SNR, the points are not connected by lines. Plotted in white is the data binned by 30 points, to better see the light curve trends. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. 3.1.3. 2018 August 15 At SRO, master bias and flat images were constructed and the data were bias… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Light curves from the 2018 August 15 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. The ETS light curve is a partial due to clouds obscuring the ingress. Note that the OAN-SPM data are not from this work but were published in J. Silva-Cabrera et al. (2022) and are included here as being a very high quality dataset that impro… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Light curves from the 2018 October 01 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. The data from the two 1-m Las Cumbres telescopes are combined. 3.1.5. 2018 November 01 Master biases and flats were created for the SAAO and used to bias subtract and flat field the data. Circular-aperture photometry was carried out as descr… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Light curve from the 2018 November 01 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. 800 1000 1200 1400 Sec. from 19:35:00 UT 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 Normalized Flux Las Cumbres P20181120 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Light curve from the 2018 November 20 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. highest light-curve SNR was obtained for apertures of diameter 14 pixels (3.3 arcsec), 20 pixels (3.7 arcsec) and 18 pixels (10.9 arcsec) for Gemini, Magellan, and SARA-CT, respectively. The LCO-LSC data were processed through the Las Cumbre… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Light curves from the 2021 August 06 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. The data from the three 1-m Las Cumbres telescopes are combined. As apparent from the flux levels not dropping below half-light level, these chords grazed Pluto’s atmosphere and were not full occultations. 3.1.8. 2022 June 01 Biases and flatf… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Light curves from the 2022 June 01 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. Zoomed extracts for the two highest-quality light curves are shown on the right, to better see the structural shapes. 3.1.9. 2022 August 23 The LT data were provided after bias-, dark- and flat-correction through LT’s RISE pipeline. The light c… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Light curves from the 2022 August 23 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. The red line shows the T1T data binned by 14 points to match the SNR of the LT data. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels. 3.1.10. 2023 July 17 For the SAAO data, master biases and flats were created and used to bias subtract and flatfield the raw data. Circular-aperture photomet… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Light curve from the 2023 July 17 occultation. Each black dot represents one data point. The red line shows the data binned by six points, to better see the light-curve structure. Dashed gray lines are provided for reference at zero and one flux levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Atmospheric fits for the 2018 August 15 dataset. The occultation data are plotted as black points and the best-fit models are shown as red lines, with the residuals plotted below each fit. The station names are noted at the top of the figure. The model parameters are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: , and P1275 are plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Fitted atmospheric pressures at 1275 km radius, P1275, for the datasets presented in this work, with values from Tables 9 and 10. The three low-quality datasets are plotted in a lighter shade. P 1275 (µbar) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Results for Pluto occultation datasets since 1988 that have been fitted using the same clear atmospheric model and fitting technique employed here, with values from Tables 11 and 9. The shadow radii are on the left and the atmospheric pressures at 1275 km radius are on the right. The three low-quality datasets from this work are plotted in a lighter shade. not completely comparable — rather, the plot serv… view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Pluto’s atmospheric pressure at 1215 km over time for published datasets from R. V. Yelle & J. L. Elliot (1997); D. P. Hinson et al. (2017); K. Arimatsu et al. (2020); B. Sicardy et al. (2021); E. Young et al. (2021); Y. Yuan et al. (2023) and with E. Meza et al. (2019) including references therein. Publications quoting surface pressure were scaled to this height using the factor of 1.84 from E. Meza et a… view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: A comparison of light-curve profiles over time, with the highest SNR light curves from this work overplotted versus distance from the center of the shadow, in units of half-light radii. Inset panels show the lower part of the atmosphere during immersion and emersion in greater detail. For clarity, the data are binned at roughly one scale height. Filled-in error bars are shown, based on the errors in backg… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pluto's tenuous atmosphere has $\mu$bar-level pressure and is composed primarily of ${\text{N}}_2$, with a variable haze. Its eccentric orbit combined with high obliquity leads to significant changes in solar insolation throughout the Plutonian year. The atmosphere is supported by vapor-pressure equilibrium with the surface ices, thus surface changes are coupled with the atmospheric properties. Volatile-transport models have anticipated Pluto's atmospheric evolution: predictions range from collapse over the coming decades to an atmosphere that remains. Previous work claims that Pluto's atmospheric pressure monotonically increased from 1988 through 2016, that the atmosphere began freezing out in 2018-2019, and that there was a plateau as of 2020. Here, we report results from ten stellar occultations by Pluto between 2017 August and 2023 July. Four events were multi-chord, while six were from single sites. Our results indicate a pressure plateau between the New Horizons flyby in 2015 through roughly 2021 and suggest that the atmospheric pressure has started to drop. Between 2015-2021 and 2022, the clear-atmosphere pressure at 1275 km decreased $7\pm6\%$, and it dropped $16\pm2\%$ for pressure at 1215 km when including haze. From 2017-2023, the upper atmospheric structure is consistent, while there is a change in light-curve slope in the lower atmosphere. This change-of-slope is consistent with haze particles settling over yearly or shorter timescales. Spikes in one light curve are indicative of intermittent buoyancy waves. More data are needed to confirm a recent pressure change.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes ten stellar occultations by Pluto (four multi-chord, six single-site) observed 2017 August–2023 July. It reports a pressure plateau from the 2015 New Horizons flyby through ~2021, followed by a suggested drop: 7±6% in clear-atmosphere pressure at 1275 km and 16±2% at 1215 km (including haze) between the 2015–2021 baseline and 2022. Upper-atmosphere structure is described as consistent while lower-atmosphere light-curve slopes change in a manner attributed to haze settling; one light curve shows spikes interpreted as buoyancy waves. The authors state that more data are needed to confirm a recent pressure change.

Significance. If the reported pressure drop proves robust after accounting for systematics, the work would supply valuable new constraints on volatile-transport models for Pluto, helping discriminate between atmospheric-collapse and stability scenarios. The dataset extends the post-2015 observational record and links light-curve morphology to haze dynamics on yearly timescales.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim of a post-2021 pressure drop rests on pressure retrievals at fixed radii (1275 km clear-atmosphere and 1215 km with haze). The manuscript must demonstrate that the inversion isolates refractivity at these exact levels without residual coupling to haze extinction, temperature assumptions, or chord geometry; only four of ten events are multi-chord, weakening geometric constraints for the remaining six.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the quoted uncertainties (7±6% and 16±2%) are presented as statistical; the text should quantify or bound potential systematic contributions from single-chord geometry, possible non-spherical effects, and the noted change in lower-atmosphere light-curve slope (which could arise from unmodeled temperature or wave structure rather than haze settling alone).
  3. [Abstract] The distinction between the two radii and the two haze treatments is load-bearing for the percentage changes; without explicit validation that the slope change is uniquely attributable to haze settling on yearly timescales, the 16±2% figure at 1215 km risks over-interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. A summary table listing all ten events (date, site(s), chord type, wavelength) would allow readers to assess data quality and selection directly.
  2. The statement that upper-atmospheric structure is 'consistent' would benefit from a quantitative metric (e.g., scale-height comparison or refractivity profile overlay) rather than qualitative description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of our analysis that require clarification and strengthening. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim of a post-2021 pressure drop rests on pressure retrievals at fixed radii (1275 km clear-atmosphere and 1215 km with haze). The manuscript must demonstrate that the inversion isolates refractivity at these exact levels without residual coupling to haze extinction, temperature assumptions, or chord geometry; only four of ten events are multi-chord, weakening geometric constraints for the remaining six.

    Authors: We agree that explicit demonstration of isolation at the fixed radii is essential. In revision we will add sensitivity tests in the methods section that vary haze extinction, temperature profiles, and chord geometry assumptions, showing that the retrieved refractivity at 1275 km and 1215 km remains stable within the quoted uncertainties for the four multi-chord events. For the six single-chord events we will add a dedicated paragraph quantifying the impact of the spherical-symmetry assumption and noting the reduced geometric constraints. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the quoted uncertainties (7±6% and 16±2%) are presented as statistical; the text should quantify or bound potential systematic contributions from single-chord geometry, possible non-spherical effects, and the noted change in lower-atmosphere light-curve slope (which could arise from unmodeled temperature or wave structure rather than haze settling alone).

    Authors: The reported uncertainties are statistical only. We will revise the results and discussion sections to include order-of-magnitude bounds on the dominant systematics: single-chord geometry (estimated from the multi-chord subset), possible non-spherical effects, and alternative interpretations of the slope change. The 16±2% value will be presented with an explicit caveat that part of the change could arise from temperature or wave structure. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] The distinction between the two radii and the two haze treatments is load-bearing for the percentage changes; without explicit validation that the slope change is uniquely attributable to haze settling on yearly timescales, the 16±2% figure at 1215 km risks over-interpretation.

    Authors: We accept that unique attribution of the slope change to haze settling cannot be demonstrated with the current dataset alone. In the revised manuscript we will present supporting arguments from the observed timescale and consistency with prior haze models, while explicitly stating that temperature or wave contributions cannot be ruled out. The 16±2% figure will be qualified accordingly and the abstract will be updated to reflect this nuance. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct inversion of new occultation light curves

full rationale

The paper reports atmospheric pressures retrieved via inversion of ten new stellar occultation light curves (2017-2023), four of them multi-chord. The central claims (pressure plateau through ~2021 followed by a drop) are stated as direct outputs of those inversions at fixed radii, with no equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations shown that would make any reported pressure value equivalent to its own input by construction. No ansatz, uniqueness theorem, or renaming of prior results is invoked in the supplied text. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities is available from the abstract alone; the work appears observational rather than model-driven with new postulates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5924 in / 1323 out tokens · 24286 ms · 2026-06-25T20:07:27.529701+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Kagitani, M., et al

    Arimatsu, K., Hashimoto, G. L., Kagitani, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 638, L5

    2020

  2. [2]

    2016, Nature, 540, 86, doi: 10.1038/nature19337

    Bertrand, T., & Forget, F. 2016, Nature, 540, 86, doi: 10.1038/nature19337

    work page doi:10.1038/nature19337 2016

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Bertrand, T., Forget, F., Umurhan, O. M., et al. 2018, Icarus, 309, 277

    2018

  4. [4]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1300, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02573-z

    Bertrand, T., Lellouch, E., Holler, B., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1300, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02573-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02573-z 2025

  5. [5]

    S., Person, M

    Bosh, A. S., Person, M. J., Levine, S. E., et al. 2015, Icarus, 246, 237

    2015

  6. [6]

    2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Boumis, P., Pollacco, D., Steele, I., et al. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 424, 9th International Conference of the Hellenic Astronomical Society, ed. K. Tsinganos, D. Hatzidimitriou, & T. Matsakos, 426

    2010

  7. [7]

    2021, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4624996

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2021, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4624996

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4624996 2021

  8. [8]

    1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 276, 571

    Brosch, N. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 276, 571

    1995

  9. [9]

    M., & Elliot, J

    Chamberlain, D. M., & Elliot, J. L. 1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 1170

    1997

  10. [10]

    F., Summers, M

    Cheng, A. F., Summers, M. E., Gladstone, G. R., et al. 2017, Icarus, 290

    2017

  11. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Collaboration, A., Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  12. [12]

    2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 976

    Coppejans, R., Gulbis, A., Kotze, M., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 976

    2013

  13. [13]

    2019, A&A, 625, eid.A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834958

    Desmars, J., Meza, E., Sicardy, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, eid.A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834958

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834958 2019

  14. [14]

    2015, Astrophysical Journal, 811

    Dias-Oliveira, A., Sicardy, B., Lellouch, E., et al. 2015, Astrophysical Journal, 811

    2015

  15. [15]

    Earle, A., & Binzel, R. P. 2015, Icarus, 250, 405–412

    2015

  16. [16]

    L., Dunham, E

    Elliot, J. L., Dunham, E. W., Bosh, A. S., et al. 1989, Icarus, 77, 148

    1989

  17. [17]

    L., French, R

    Elliot, J. L., French, R. G., Dunham, E., et al. 1977, ApJ, 217, 661, doi: 10.1086/155612

    work page doi:10.1086/155612 1977

  18. [18]

    L., & Veverka, J

    Elliot, J. L., & Veverka, J. 1976, Icarus, 27, 359, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90015-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(76)90015-4 1976

  19. [19]

    L., & Young, L

    Elliot, J. L., & Young, L. A. 1992, Astronomical Journal, 103, 991

    1992

  20. [20]

    L., Bosh, A

    Elliot, J. L., Bosh, A. S., Cooke, M. L., et al. 1993, Astronomical Journal, 106, 2544

    1993

  21. [21]

    L., Person, M

    Elliot, J. L., Person, M. J., Gulbis, A. A. S., et al. 2007, Astronomical Journal, 134, 1

    2007

  22. [22]

    L., Person, M

    Elliot, J. L., Person, M. J., Zuluaga, C. A., et al. 2010, Nature, 465, 897

    2010

  23. [23]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 240, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27811-6 Gaia Collaboration et al

    Fan, S., Gao, P., Zhang, X., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 240, doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27811-6 Gaia Collaboration et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, id. A1 Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27811-6 2022

  24. [24]

    Giorgini, J. D. 2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol. 29, 2256293

    2015

  25. [25]

    R., & Young, L

    Gladstone, G. R., & Young, L. A. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 119

    2019

  26. [26]

    R., Stern, S

    Gladstone, G. R., Stern, S. A., Ennico, K., et al. 2016, Science, 351, aad8866

    2016

  27. [27]

    2015, Icarus, 246, 226

    Gulbis, A., Emery, J., Person, M., et al. 2015, Icarus, 246, 226

    2015

  28. [28]

    Gulbis, A. A. S., Bus, S., Elliot, J., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 461

    2011

  29. [29]

    J., & Paige, D

    Hansen, C. J., & Paige, D. A. 1996, Icarus, 120, 247

    1996

  30. [30]

    J., Paige, D

    Hansen, C. J., Paige, D. A., & Young, L. A. 2015, Icarus, 246, 183–191 Pluto’s Atmosphere 2017-202343

    2015

  31. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  32. [32]

    P., Linscott, I

    Hinson, D. P., Linscott, I. R., Young, L. A., et al. 2017, Icarus, 290, 96–111

    2017

  33. [33]

    B., Hunten, D

    Hubbard, W. B., Hunten, D. M., Dieters, S. W., Hill, K. M., & Watson, R. D. 1988, Nature, 336, 452

    1988

  34. [34]

    B., McCarthy, D

    Hubbard, W. B., McCarthy, D. W., Kulesa, C. A., et al. 2009, Icarus, 204, 284

    2009

  35. [35]

    B., McCarthy, D

    Hubbard, W. B., McCarthy, D. W., Kulesa, C. A., et al. 2009, Icarus, 204, 284, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.06.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.06.022 2009

  36. [36]

    Computing in Science and Engineering , keywords =

    Hunter, J. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  37. [37]

    2021, Icarus, 356, id.114070

    Johnson, P., Young, L., Protopapa, S., et al. 2021, Icarus, 356, id.114070

    2021

  38. [38]

    E., Keane, J

    Johnson, P. E., Keane, J. T., Young, L. A., & Matsuyama, I. 2021, PSJ, 2, 194, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac1d42

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac1d42 2021

  39. [39]

    A., et al

    Knieling, B., Schindler, K., Sickafoose, A. A., et al. 2024, Planetary Science Journal, 5, 104, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad3819

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad3819 2024

  40. [40]

    2025, A&A, 696, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453619

    Lellouch, E., Wong, I., Lavvas, P., et al. 2025, A&A, 696, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453619

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453619 2025

  41. [41]

    2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, 0.9.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1257560

    McCully, C., Turner, M., Volgenau, N., et al. 2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, 0.9.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1257560

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1257560 2018

  42. [42]

    2019, A&A, 625, id.A42

    Meza, E., Sicardy, B., Assafin, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, id.A42

    2019

  43. [43]

    B., Young, L

    Olkin, C. B., Young, L. A., French, R. G., et al. 2014, Icarus, 239, 15

    2014

  44. [44]

    L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al

    Ortiz, J., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 219, doi: 10.1038/nature24051

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24051 2017

  45. [45]

    M., Babcock, B

    Pasachoff, J. M., Babcock, B. A., Durst, R. F., et al. 2017, Icarus, 296, 305, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.012 2017

  46. [46]

    J., Elliot, J

    Person, M. J., Elliot, J. L., Gulbis, A. A. S., et al. 2008, Astronomical Journal, 136, 1510

    2008

  47. [47]

    J., Elliot, J

    Person, M. J., Elliot, J. L., Gulbis, A. A. S., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1510, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1510

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1510 2008

  48. [48]

    J., Elliot, J

    Person, M. J., Elliot, J. L., Bosh, A. S., et al. 2010, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 42, 983

    2010

  49. [49]

    J., Dunham, E

    Person, M. J., Dunham, E. W., Bosh, A. S., et al. 2013, Astronomical Journal, 146, 83

    2013

  50. [51]

    J., Bosh, A

    Person, M. J., Bosh, A. S., Zuluaga, C. A., et al. 2021, Icarus, 356, 113572, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113572

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.113572 2021

  51. [52]

    2021, A&A, 652, L7

    Poro, A., Ahangarani Farahani, F., Bahraminasr, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, L7

    2021

  52. [53]

    R., Person, M

    Saunders, W. R., Person, M. J., Withers, P., French, R. G., & Tubthong, C. 2024, PSJ, 5, 247, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad7c4d

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad7c4d 2024

  53. [54]

    L., & Brown, M

    Schaller, E. L., & Brown, M. 2007, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 659, L61

    2007

  54. [55]

    2026, PASP, submitted

    Schindler, K., Wolf, J., & Krabbe, A. 2026, PASP, submitted

    2026

  55. [56]

    J., Howell, S

    Scott, N. J., Howell, S. B., Gnilka, C. L., et al. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, id. 138

    2021

  56. [57]

    2003, Nature, 424, 168

    Sicardy, B., Widemann, T., Lellouch, E., et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 168

    2003

  57. [58]

    L., Assafin, M., et al

    Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., Assafin, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 478, 493

    2011

  58. [59]

    2011, AJ, 141, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/67

    Sicardy, B., Bolt, G., Broughton, J., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/67

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/67 2011

  59. [60]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L38

    Sicardy, B., Talbot, J., Meza, E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L38

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l38 2016

  60. [61]

    M., Tej, A., et al

    Sicardy, B., Ashok, N. M., Tej, A., et al. 2021, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L31

    2021

  61. [62]

    A., Bosh, A

    Sickafoose, A. A., Bosh, A. S., Levine, S., et al. 2019, Icarus, 319, 657, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.10.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.10.016 2019

  62. [63]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 551, 5550

    Silva-Cabrera, J., Castro-Chac´ on, J., Reyes-Ruiz, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 551, 5550

    2022

  63. [64]

    P., Babcock, B

    Souza, S. P., Babcock, B. A., Pasachoff, J. M., et al. 2006, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 1550

    2006

  64. [65]

    J., Paegert, M., et al

    Stassun, K., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, Astronomical Jounal, 158, article id. 138

    2019

  65. [66]

    A., Bates, S

    Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., Gibson, N., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70146J, doi: 10.1117/12.787889

    work page doi:10.1117/12.787889 2008

  66. [67]

    2015, Science, 350, 249

    Stern, S., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al. 2015, Science, 350, 249

    2015

  67. [68]

    A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al

    Stern, S. A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al. 2015, Science, 350, aad1815, doi: 10.1126/science.aad1815

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aad1815 2015

  68. [69]

    D., Gierasch, P

    Toigo, A. D., Gierasch, P. J., Sicardy, B., & Lellouch, E. 2010, Icarus, 208, 402, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.01.027 van Belle, G. T. 1999, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 111, 1515

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.01.027 2010

  69. [70]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  70. [71]

    2024, Mathematica,

    Wolfram, I. 2024, Mathematica,

    2024

  71. [72]

    V., & Elliot, J

    Yelle, R. V., & Elliot, J. L. 1997, Atmospheric Structure and Composition: Pluto and Charon, ed. S. A. Stern & D. J. Tholen (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 347–390

    1997

  72. [73]

    2021, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Young, E., Young, L., Johnson, P., & team, P. 2021, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 53, id.307.06 44Sickafoose et al

    2021

  73. [74]

    F., French, R

    Young, E. F., French, R. G., Young, L. A., et al. 2008, Astronomical Journal, 136, 1757

    2008

  74. [75]

    2013, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 766, L22

    Young, L. 2013, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 766, L22

    2013

  75. [76]

    Young, L. A. 2009, Astronomical Journal, 137, 3398

    2009

  76. [77]

    Young, L. A. 2013, ApJL, 766, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/766/2/L22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/766/2/l22 2013

  77. [78]

    2024, Comets III, 767, doi: 10.2458/azu{ }uapress{ }9780816553631-ch023

    Young, L. A., Bertrand, T., Trafton, L. M., et al. 2021, in The Pluto System After New Horizons, ed. S. A. Stern, J. M. Moore, W. M. Grundy, L. A. Young, & R. P. Binzel (The University of Arizona Press), 321–361, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816540945-ch014

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2021

  78. [79]

    A., & Person, M

    Young, L. A., & Person, M. J. 2025, PSJ, 6, 257, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ae0e67

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ae0e67 2025

  79. [80]

    A., Kammer, J

    Young, L. A., Kammer, J. A., Steffl, A. J., et al. 2018, Icarus, 300, 174, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.09.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.09.006 2018

  80. [81]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 680, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347477

    Yuan, Y., Li, F., Fu, Y., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 680, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347477

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347477 2023

Showing first 80 references.