Reflectivity of Venus's Dayside Disk During the 2020 Observation Campaign: Outcomes and Future Perspectives

Reflectivity of Venus’s Dayside Disk During the 2020 Observation Campaign: Outcomes and Future Perspectives Yeon Joo Lee 1,2 , Antonio García Muñoz 3 , Atsushi Yamazaki 4,5 , Eric Quémerais 6 , Stefano Mottola 1 , Stephan Hellmich 1,7 , Thomas Granzer 8 , Gilles Bergond 9 , Martin Roth 8 , Eulalia Gallego-Cano 10 , Jean-Yves Chaufray 6 , Rozenn Robidel 6 , Go Murakami 4 , Kei Masunaga 4 , Murat Kaplan 11 , Orhan Erece 11 , Ricardo Hueso 12 , Petr Kabáth 13 , Magdaléna Špoková 13,14 , Agustín Sánchez-Lavega 12 , Myung-Jin Kim 15 , Valeria Mangano 16 , Kandis-Lea Jessup 17 , Thomas Widemann 18 , Ko-ichiro Sugiyama 19 , Shigeto Watanabe 20 , Manabu Yamada 21 , Takehiko Satoh 4 , Masato Nakamura 4 , Masataka Imai 22 , and Juan Cabrera 1 1 DLR Institute of Planetary Research, Berlin, Germany 2 Pioneer Research Center for Climate and Earth Science, Institute for Basic Science (IBS), Daejeon 34126, Republic of Korea; [email protected] 3 AIM, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Université de Paris, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 4 Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS/JAXA), Sagamihara, Japan 5 Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 6 LATMOS-OVSQ, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin, Guyancourt, France 7 Laboratory of astrophysics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Observatoire de Sauverny, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland 8 Leibniz-Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), Potsdam, Germany 9 CAHA, Almeria, Spain 10 IAA Granada, Spain 11 Akdeniz Univ., Antalya, Turkey 12 Dpt. Fśica Aplicada, Escuela de Ingenierá de Bilbao, Universidad del PaśVasco UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain 13 Astronomical Institute AS CR, Ondrejov, Czech Republic 14 Masaryk University, Department of theoretical physics and astrophysics, Kotlár ská 2, 611 37, Brno, Czech Republic 15 Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI), Daejeon, Republic of Korea 16 INAF-IAPS (Institute for Astrophysics and Planetology from Space), Rome, Italy 17 Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA 18 Observatoire de Paris-PSL & Université Paris-Saclay, LESIA—UMR CNRS, Meudon, France 19 Matsue National College of Technology, Matsue, Japan 20 Space Information Center, Hokkaido Information University, Ebetsu, Japan 21 Planetary Exploration Research Center (PERC), Narashino, Japan 22 Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan Received 2022 April 9; revised 2022 July 25; accepted 2022 July 26; published 2022 September 14 Abstract We performed a unique Venus observation campaign to measure the disk brightness of Venus over a broad range of wavelengths in 2020 August and September. The primary goal of the campaign was to investigate the absorption properties of the unknown absorber in the clouds. The secondary goal was to extract a disk mean SO 2 gas abundance, whose absorption spectral feature is entangled with that of the unknown absorber at ultraviolet wavelengths. A total of three spacecraft and six ground-based telescopes participated in this campaign, covering the 52–1700 nm wavelength range. After careful evaluation of the observational data, we focused on the data sets acquired by four facilities. We accomplished our primary goal by analyzing the reflectivity spectrum of the Venus disk over the 283–800 nm wavelengths. Considerable absorption is present in the 350–450 nm range, for which we retrieved the corresponding optical depth of the unknown absorber. The result shows the consistent wavelength dependence of the relative optical depth with that at low latitudes, during the Venus flyby by MESSENGER in 2007, which was expected because the overall disk reflectivity is dominated by low latitudes. Last, we summarize the experience that we obtained during this first campaign, which should enable us to accomplish our second goal in future campaigns. Unified Astronomy Thesaurus concepts: Venus (1763);Atmospheric clouds (2180);Planetary science (1255); Solar system astronomy (1529);Planetary atmospheres (1244);Observational astronomy (1145) 1. Introduction As the third-brightest object in the sky after the Sun and the Moon, the scientific observations of Venus started early. A century ago, ground-based observations discovered the presence of dark patches in ultraviolet (UV)images of the planet (Wright 1927; Ross 1928). The chemical that produces the dark patches on the planet is characterized by broad absorption that extends from the UV to the visible wavelengths. The identity of such a chemical remains elusive, and the substance is still called the “unknown absorber”(Barker et al. 1975; Pollack et al. 1980; Zasova et al. 1981; Mills et al. 2007; Titov et al. 2018). Recent studies have suggested that the unknown absorber may be OSSO or S 2 O, which explains the observed UV spectrum (Pérez-Hoyos et al. 2018). According to photochemical model calculations (Krasnopolsky 2018)and glory observation analysis (Petrova 2018), the unknown absorber could also be iron chloride. There are more The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ac84d1 © 2022. The Author(s). Published by the American Astronomical Society. Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s)and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. 1 candidates, such as S x ,Cl 2 , SCl 2 , etc. (Mills et al. 2007). Recently, iron-bearing microorganisms have also been proposed (Limaye et al. 2018). The absorption spectrum of the unknown absorber was reported to have its maximum at 340 nm, with an FWHM of 140 nm, according to the MESSENGER/MASCS data (PérezHoyos et al. 2018). But considering the limited spectral range of the MESSENGER/MASCS data—300–1500 nm—the spectral properties of the unknown absorber at λ<300 nm were not accessed, remaining undefined. Spectral data at such short wavelengths were acquired by the SPICAV spectrometer on board Venus Express, covering the 170–320 nm range with its UV channel. In order to explain the data taken by SPICAV’s UV channel, Marcq et al. (2011,2020)postulated the presence of an unknown absorber in the form of a cloud aerosol, in addition to a pure sulfuric acid aerosol. The putative absorber would explain the absorption shortward of 300 nm. These previous studies suggest that the unknown absorber remains effective at wavelengths from ∼200 nm (Marcq et al. 2020)to ∼600 nm (Pérez-Hoyos et al. 2018). These observations were done at different times, and with different viewing geometries, so their data cannot be directly combined to understand the spectral properties of the unknown absorber over the entire UV −visible wavelength range. To elucidate such properties, it is clear that additional observations should be made over a broader range of wavelengths, such as those done by the STIS spectrometer on board the Hubble Space Telescope over 200–600 nm (Jessup et al. 2020). The UV observations are also useful for retrieving abundances of trace gases near the cloud-top level. For example, SO 2 bands are located near 215 and 280 nm, the SO band near 215 nm, and the O 3 band near 250 nm (Esposito et al. 1988; Na et al. 1990; Belyaev et al. 2012; Jessup et al. 2015; Marcq et al. 2019,2020). Their abundances and variations are important for understanding photochemical processes in the atmosphere (Mills et al. 2007; Titov et al. 2018), including their interaction with the unknown absorber (Marcq et al. 2013,2020; Lee et al. 2015a,2019). However, without high spectral resolution, the interpretation is complicated by the overlap of the bands and by the absorption of the unknown absorber. A further complication would be represented by the presence of an additional species, H 2 S, near the cloud-top level, as suggested by Bierson & Zhang (2020). This contribution, not considered in previous studies (Na et al. 1990; Belyaev et al. 2012; Jessup et al. 2015), is characterized by a UV band near 215 nm that overlaps those of the SO and SO 2 gases. Significant temporal variations of the unknown absorber and SO 2 gas abundance have been reported over both shortand long-term periods (Del Genio & Rossow 1982; Esposito et al. 1988; Del Genio & Rossow 1990; Marcq et al. 2013,2020; Lee et al. 2015a,2019,2020; Imai et al. 2019). In terms of diskintegrated UV brightness, short-term variations indicate the presence of global-scale atmospheric waves with a periodicity of 4–5 days (Del Genio & Rossow 1982; Lee et al. 2020), whose amplitudes are changing with time (Del Genio & Rossow 1990; Imai et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2020). Changes in the disk-integrated UV brightness over timescales of decades can impact the solar energy deposition in the atmosphere, because almost half of the solar heating at the cloud-top atmosphere is caused by the unknown absorber (Crisp 1986; Lee et al. 2015b). The latter can lead to considerable changes in globalscale circulation and zonal wind speeds (Lee et al. 2019). Intriguingly, the UV brightness variations are correlated with the SO 2 gas abundance near the cloud-top level (Lee et al. 2015a,2019; Marcq et al. 2020). That connection is key to understanding the photochemical processes that affect cloud formation (Mills et al. 2007)and the impact of possible volcanic outgassing on the atmosphere. We need further data to investigate the relationship between the sulfur-related gaseous abundance and the unknown absorber. That was the main motivation for the Venus dayside observation campaign that we performed in 2020. As our campaign measures the disk-integrated spectral brightness, the results will be useful for comparison with spatially unresolved data acquired by future exoplanet imaging investigations. For example, we now know that measuring the planet’s brightness at more than one phase angle could be a valuable strategy for identifying Venus-like clouds at exoplanets, if they exist, with future direct imaging telescopes (Carrión-González et al. 2020,2021). In this manuscript, we describe the campaign (Section 2), explain the data reduction (Section 3), the atmospheric modeling (Section 4), and the data analysis (Section 5), and offer our lessons learned for the purpose of planning future campaigns (Section 6). 2. Observations In 2020 August and September, we performed the Venus dayside observation campaign from three locations in the solar system: the Akatsuki Venus orbiter, the BepiColombo Mercury orbiter, on its cruise phase toward Mercury, and the Earth (via the Earth-orbiting Hisaki spacecraft and ground-based telescopes; Figure 1(a)). JAXA’s Venus orbiter Akatsuki operates from a highly elliptical equatorial orbit. The onboard UV camera (UltraViolet Imager: UVI)has monitored Venus since the orbit insertion in 2015 December (Nakamura et al. 2016). ESA-JAXA’s BepiColombo conducted faraway Venus observations from a distance of 0.3 au in the period 2020 August 28– September 2, when Venus was within the field of view (FOV) of the onboard UV spectrometer (PHEBUS; Mangano et al. 2021). While these two spacecraft were operating, groundbased telescopes were in a good position to observe Venus for more than an hour right before sunrise. Three telescopes of the Calar Alto observatory (CAHA)joined the campaign and conducted the Venus observations: the CAHA 1.23 m DLRMKIII CCD camera, 23 the CAHA 2.2 m PlanetCam camera (Mendikoa et al. 2016), and the CAHA 3.5 m Potsdam MultiAperture Spectrophotometer (PMAS; Roth et al. 2005). TÜBİTAK National Observatory’s T100 CCD camera 24 and the STELLA 1.2 m telescope’s Wide-Field STELLA Imaging Photometer (WiFSIP; Strassmeier et al. 2010)acquired images, and the Perek telescope’s Ondr ejov Echelle Spectrograph (OES; Kabáth et al. 2020)acquired spectra. JAXA’s Earth-orbiting Hisaki space telescope also obtained Venus data in the extreme UV (EUV)range, with the EXCEED spectrometer (Yoshikawa et al. 2014), which has been used to detect the airglow of Venus (Nara et al. 2018). The EUV data can help to examine possible faint dayside reflection by the upper haze of Venus, thanks to their long exposure time over 23 http://www.caha.es/CAHA/Instruments/IA123/DLR_Observation_ guide_v1.11.pdf 24 https://tug.tubitak.gov.tr/en/teleskoplar/t100-telescope 2 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. 10 days. Table 1shows the complete list of facilities, with observation dates and wavelength ranges. The uniqueness of this campaign is the broad spectral coverage for observations of the Venus disk, which extends from 52 to 1700 nm, and which cannot be acquired by a single instrument. We took advantage of the spectral overlap between the instruments, which could be used to combine individual spectral pieces of the brightness. For example, EXCEED and PHEBUS overlap at 145–148 nm; PHEBUS and UVI at 283 nm; UVI, the ground-based Uband, and PMAS at 365 nm; and the ground-based Bband and PMAS at 445 nm. Half of the facilities acquired data of sufficient quality for scientific analysis, but not the others (Table 1). There were four problems for the latter. (1)The first problem was the Figure 1. Overview of the campaign observations. (a)The relative locations of the observation facilities from Venus. The green arrows indicate the direction toward Earth from the spacecraft. The gray curve of BepiColombo indicates the trajectory from 2020 August to November, and the blue curve highlights the location during the campaign period (August 28–September 2). Akatsuki’s trajectory between August 28 and September 2 is shown in the enlarged red box. The red dots are the locations of the spacecraft on August 28 at 04:30 UT. (b)Viewing geometries of Venus from Akatsuki, BepiColombo, and Earth on August 30. The day/night areas are indicated with the white/gray areas over the disk. The solar phase angle (α), the apparent size of Venus, and the distance between the planet and observers are listed at the bottom. The subsolar and the subobserver points are indicated with the yellow and green dots, respectively. 3 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. uncertainties in the pointing that occurred during the data acquisition for PHEBUS and EXCEED. Narrow-slit spectrometers require a high accuracy of spacecraft attitude control. The Venus observations by BepiColombo were in fact part of the performance tests on the cruise phase, and it turned out that the pointing accuracy was not always as good as planned. Hisaki gradually saw such control deteriorating with aging. Regardless of this problem, both the PHEBUS and the EXCEED data could have been sufficient for relative spectral analysis. But the PHEBUS data had an additional issue; their effective area turned out not to be well defined for scientific analysis (Section 3.2). Consequently, the EXCEED data could not be used, as a data comparison was not possible at the overlapping wavelengths (145–148 nm). Also, spectral comparison of the reflected daylight between EXCEED and PHEBUS may not be possible even in future, because the exposure time of PHEBUS cannot be as long as that of EXCEED. (2)The second problem was the photometric calibration of the ground-based measurements, which required particular care. To define the telluric extinction coefficients accurately, the CAHA1.23 DLR-MKIII camera frequently interspersed measurements of reference stars with those of Venus (Section 3.3), and the STELLA WiFSIP measured a reference star continuously until Venus rose sufficiently high to acquire data (Section 3.4). However, this was not the case for the other facilities, such as the CAHA2.2 PlanetCam, whose frequency of reference star observations turned out to be insufficient for photometric analysis under variable sky conditions. (3)The third problem was caused by the difficulties in defining an optimal aperture size in the CCD aperture photometry analysis. The TUG T100 data suffered from this problem, which may have been exacerbated by the brightness of Venus. (4)Finally, the Perek OES measurements are not used in this study, because its 2″width slit is likely on the morning terminator (the center of the 20″diameter Venus disk). The Venus observations were conducted in three solar phase angle (α)ranges, as shown in Figure 1(b). Near the end of August, αwas 60°for PHEBUS, 0°–40°for UVI, and ∼80° from the Earth. In this manuscript, we investigate the spectral features of the entire Venus disk at α=80°. To that end, we approximately corrected all the observations at other phase angles to form equivalent observations at α=80°. In the future, we plan to investigate the solar phase angle dependence of Venus’s brightness (Lee et al. 2021)over a broad spectral range by repeating similar campaigns at multiple epochs. 3. Data Details of the data acquisition and calibrations are described in this section for each instrument. 3.1. Akatsuki/UVI UVI has two filters, centered at 283 and 365 nm (Yamazaki et al. 2018). The 365 nm wavelength is to detect the absorption by the unknown absorber, and the 283 nm wavelength is located near the center of a SO 2 band. In the regular observation mode, UVI obtains Venus images via the two filters, every 2 hr, from a highly elliptical equatorial orbit. We selected images with complete coverage of the Venus dayside between 2015 December 7 and 2021 March 31. Some known artifact images are excluded from the data set. In this analysis, we used two flat fields; the first flat field was measured in a laboratory, before the launch (Yamazaki et al. 2018), and a second, new, flat field was prepared with the diffuser images acquired in 2020–2021. The first flat field was applied to the images before 2019 September 17, and the new flat field was applied to images from 2019 September 17. Both flat fields are publicly available in the calib directory of DARTS data sets. 25 Using star observations between 2010 and 2020, the calibration correction factors (β)were calculated. The averaged βare 1.533 ±0.208 at 365 nm and 1.991 ±0.279 at 283 nm. These βare close to the values reported in Yamazaki et al. (2018). We notice a weak sensitivity change with time at 283 nm, but this is not evident at 365 nm. Star observations by UVI will continue, so we will examine possible sensitivity changes in more detail in the near future. In this study, we took the averaged β λ for each channel (λ). We calculated the disk-integrated flux of Venus, F Venus in [Wm −2 μm −1 ], as follows: () () () å al b=´W l < FtIxy,, , , 1 rr Venus pix o where αis the phase angle, λis the wavelength, tis the observation time, Iis the measured radiance at (x,y)pixel Table 1 Summary of the Campaign Observations Location Facility/Inst. Type a Spectral Range (nm)Date Status and Section (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Space (Venus orbit)Akatsuki/UVI I 283, 365 Regular monitoring Success, Section 3.1 Space (interplanetary)BepiColombo/PHEBUS S 145–315, 402, 423 Aug 28–Sep 2 Insufficient for analysis, Section 3.2 (not used) Space (Earth orbit)Hisaki/EXCEED S 52–148 Aug 21–Sep 3 Success for relative analysis (not used) Spain CAHA1.23/DLR-MKIII I BVRI bands Aug 21–28 Success, Section 3.3 Spain CAHA2.2/PlanetCam I 380–1700 Aug 28–31 Insufficient for analysis (not used) Spain CAHA3.5/PMAS I and S 364–457 (dλ=0.28 nm)Aug 27–30 Success for relative analysis, Section 3.5 Turkey TUG/T100 I UBV bands Aug 25–Sep 2 Insufficient for analysis (not used) Spain (Tenerife)STELLA/WiFSIP I Uband Aug–Nov Success, Section 3.4 Czech Republic Perek telescope/OES S 375.3–919.5 Aug 21–Sep 2 Insufficient for analysis (not used) Note. List of acronyms—UVI: UltraViolet Imager; PHEBUS: Probing of Hermean Exosphere By Ultraviolet Spectroscopy; EXCEED: EXtreme ultraviolet spectrosCope for ExosphEric Dynamics; CAHA: Calar Alto Observatory; PMAS: Potsdam Multi-Aperture Spectrophotometer; TUG: TÜBİTAK National Observatory; WiFSIP: Wide-Field STELLA Imaging Photometer; OES: Ondr ejov Echelle Spectrograph. a I: Image; S: Spectrum. 25 https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/doi/vco/vco-00016.html 4 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. locations on an image, Ω pix is the solid angle of one pixel, and r is the distance of (x,y)from the Venus disk center. r o is the limiting distance of integration, which includes the Venus radius in pixels and the point-spread function (seven pixels).So r<r o defines an area of flux integration from the planet center (r=0)to r o . Then, we subtracted the mean background noise per pixel. The solid angle of Venus, Ω Venus (t), was calculated as () () ()pW= - tR dt arcsin , 2 Venus Venus V obs 2 ⎜⎟ ⎜⎟ ⎛ ⎝⎛ ⎝⎞ ⎠⎞ ⎠ where R Venus is the radius of Venus and d V−obs is the distance of the spacecraft from Venus in km at the time of observation t. For R Venus , we considered the cloud-top altitude from the center of the planet (6052 +70 km). We calculated the disk-integrated albedo A disk−int , as the following (Sromovsky et al. 2001): () () () ( ) () ()  al pal l =W - - At t dtF t S ,, ,, ,3 disk int Venus VS 2Venus where d V−S (t)is the distance between Venus and the Sun [au] at the time of observation t,Ω Venus (t)is the solid angle of Venus as viewed from Akatsuki, and S e (λ)is the solar irradiance at 1 au [Wm −2 μm −1 ](see Section 3.6), calculated for the transmittance functions of each filter. A disk−int is similar in meaning to the radiance factor (Hapke 2012)that can be applied to spatially resolved images. A disk−int (α=0°,λ)is the “geometric albedo”at wavelength λ. Figure 2shows the mean phase curves at the two channels between 2015 and 2021 (gray lines). The colored circles indicate the data between 2020 August and November, when our ground-based U-band observations were conducted (see Section 3.4 for details). The symbols show consistent phase angle dependence within the standard deviations of the mean phase curve (the light gray area). The ground-based Uband is wider (34 nm)than the UVI band (14 nm), which may be the reason for the systematic offset. Previously reported mean phase curves for the Uband are compared in the same plot. The Irvine et al. (1968)Uband has the largest bandwidth (116 nm). Mallama et al. (2017)adopted the phase angle dependence of the Bband for the Uband, and adjusted the geometric albedo to match previous observations. Details of these Ubands are provided in Section 3.4. 3.2. BepiColombo/PHEBUS BepiColombo was launched in 2018 October, and is on its way to Mercury (arrival in 2025). BepiColombo is composed of two spacecraft: the Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO)and the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter. PHEBUS is the UV spectrometer on board MPO. BepiColombo made two Venus flybys in 2020 October and 2021 August, which became opportunities for close-up observations of Venus (Mangano et al. 2021). During the Venus flybys, PHEBUS acquired data over the nightside and limb, because the dayside of Venus was too bright for the PHEBUS sensor, which is designed to detect faint UV emissions from the atmospheric gases of Mercury and the nightside albedo of Mercury (Quémerais et al. 2020). The observations of the Venus dayside used here were obtained from a long distance, when the tiny planetary disk entered the slit of PHEBUS. Between 2020 August 28 and September 2, there were such opportunities: the 66″apparent size of Venus was within the 2°×0.2°FOV (Figure 1), and the PHEBUS team made the first Venus faraway observations. 180–181 images were acquired daily over the consecutive six days with the far-UV (FUV; 145–315 nm)and two near-UV (404 and 422 nm)detectors. The data acquisition was done at 4550V for the Microchannel Plate Intensifier, which alters the gain (Chassefière et al. 2010). Dark and effective areas are also measured at 4550V in flight. While Venus was successfully captured by PHEBUS for six consecutive days, we faced three problems. (1)The first problem was the unrealistic fluctuations in photon counts, which varied day to day. These fluctuations were later found to Figure 2. Observed disk-integrated albedo at (a)365 nm and (b)283 nm as a function of phase angle. The gray solid lines are the mean phase curve of Akatsuki/UVI, and the light gray filled areas are the standard deviations. The circles are the Akatsuki/UVI data and the orange diamonds are the groundbased U-band data (Section 3.4). The colors of the filled symbols indicate the observation dates, between 2020 August 1 and November 30, as shown in the colorbar. The red curve in panel (a)is taken from Mallama et al. (2017), converted from magnitude to albedo. The blue curve is taken from Irvine et al. (1968), also converted from magnitude to albedo. Their original magnitudes are shown in Figure 4. 5 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. be caused by the pointing accuracy. The observations aimed to put the disk at the center of the FOV, but the spacecraft’s attitude could not put Venus at the center, as planned. Instead, Venus was sometimes located near the boundary of the FOV, according to the later examination, resulting in a significant reduction in the photon counts. This problem prevents the absolute flux analysis, but it should be fine for relative spectral analysis. (2)The second problem was the dark count estimation. The dark measurement (deep space imaging)at 4550V was done a month earlier. As the dark count rate changes with the temperature of the detector, the time difference caused insufficient dark subtraction from the Venus images. The PHEBUS team therefore tried to estimate the dark current, using the photon counts over the deep space pixels outside the Venus illuminating area. We confirmed consistent day-to-day patterns, although this may have introduced additional small errors. (3)The third problem was the effective area retrieval at 4550V, which was determined with the observations of Spica on 2020 February 4. The retrieved effective area was as expected at wavelengths shorter than 270 nm, but at longer wavelengths it turned out to be insufficient for obtaining reliable results. This third problem became critical, as it meant that we could not compare the brightness with the UVI data at 283 nm, and we could not quantify either the relative absorption by the SO 2 gas over the 240–315 nm wavelength range (see Section 6for details). After the examination explained above, we excluded the PHEBUS data from the scientific analysis in this paper. Looking into the future, PHEBUS should provide valuable information for retrieving the disk mean SO 2 gas abundance, and to understand the unknown absorber in the FUV spectral range, which are the main goals of the campaign. Future PHEBUS observations will resolve the three problems that we have identified during this campaign. 3.3. CAHA1.23/DLR-MKIII The DLR-MKIII CCD camera installed at the CAHA 1.23 m telescope performed Venus observations in the Johnson– Cousins BVRI bands. From August 22 to 28 UTC, Venus was visible right before the sunrise. Venus’s apparent diameter changed from 22″to 20″during this period. HR2208 was selected as a solar-like reference star; its spectral type is G2V (Stepien & Geyer 1996)–G5V (Gray et al. 2003), and it was sufficiently bright near Venus, at the same airmass range as Venus. The photometric variability of the star is reported to be 0.03 and 0.035 mag at Vand B, respectively, with a 7.8 day period (Stepien & Geyer 1996). This level of variation has a negligible impact on this study, as our accuracy does not reach such a level; this is comparable to the daily standard deviations of our measurements. The Venus images were taken under strongly defocused conditions (Gillon et al. 2009; Southworth et al. 2009),to spread photons of Venus over the wide FOV of the CCD camera. This successfully prevented the saturation of the Venus images, without a neutral density filter. This benefits accurate flux measurements of Venus. Star observations were done at the normal focus position. One observation cycle was composed of Venus and the star imaging at the four filters (at least four images per filter per object), and this cycle was repeated three to four times each night. Usual aperture photometry was used to determine the aperture sizes for integrating the fluxes of Venus and the star, and we calculated the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N)at the corresponding aperture sizes with the CCD equation. The typical S/N of Venus is ∼10 5 and that of the star is 1000–2000. Atmospheric extinction coefficients were determined at each filter, by using a linear regression between the instrumental magnitude of the star and the airmass. The airmass ranges were 1.6–2.1 each night for both Venus and the star. The atmospheric extinction coefficients were consistent for the first five nights. During the last two nights, partial clouds entered the view, resulting in temporally variable telluric opacity. Since the instrumental magnitude at zero airmass is known to be stable for the CAHA1.23 DLR-MKIII camera, we could also compute the instantaneous extinction coefficient at the time of the Venus observations by interpolation during nonphotometric nights, thanks to the repeated cycles between Venus and the star. The apparent magnitude of Venus was calculated with the interpolated atmospheric extinction coefficient and the known magnitudes of the star (Table 2). The apparent magnitude of Venus was converted to the reduced magnitude, which is the brightness at 1 au from both the Sun and the Earth. The distances between the Sun and Venus, and the Earth and Venus, at the time of imaging were calculated using the JPL SPICE toolkit (Acton 1996). Hereafter, magnitude refers to the reduced magnitude, and the results are shown in Figure 3. The comparison with the brightness reported by Mallama et al. (2017)shows a good agreement with the expected brightness at α∼80°at the four bands (for the daily variation, see Figure 8). 3.4. STELLA/WiFSIP The WiFSIP wide-field imager installed at the STELLA 1.2 m robotic telescope conducted Venus imaging at the U band. The period of observations continued between 2020 August 11 and November 8, except the time when a Sahara dust storm affected the telescope’s site in Tenerife. The observations were conducted before sunrise every day. For about 30 minutes, a bright solar-like reference star near Venus was continuously observed to define the telluric extinction coefficient. Then the Venus imaging followed immediately, when Venus rose high in the dark sky. Typically, 15 Venus images were acquired each night (except August 12, when five images were acquired). The airmass of Venus changed with the time of the observations: 1.6–1.7 from August 11 to September 14, 1.7–1.8 from September 20 to October 2, 1.8–2.0 from October 3 to 27, and 2.0–2.4 until November 8. Aperture photometry was applied to determine the size of the area for integrating the Venus flux and reference stars. The typical S/N of Venus is 6000–8000, and those of stars range from ∼500 to ∼3000, depending on the stars. Following the locations of Venus on the sky, our reference stars changed with time (Table 2). Note that κGemini has an accompanying star, and its corresponding pixels were excluded from the aperture photometry. The ranges of star airmass varied with time, e.g., 1.9–2.2 on August 11, 1.4–1.9 on September 14, 1.5–2.0 on October 10, and 1.6–1.75 on November 8. Daily extinction coefficients were monitored, and we excluded dates of abnormal behavior compared to the other dates. Our averaged extinction coefficient for the Uband is 0.485 ±0.093. The apparent magnitude of Venus was calculated with the daily atmospheric extinction coefficient and the known magnitudes of each star (Table 2). The apparent magnitude was converted to the reduced magnitude, as described in Section 3.3. 6 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. Our STELLA U-band magnitude measurements are, to the best of our knowledge, the first after Irvine et al. (1968). The comparison of these data sets is shown in Figure 4.Asa reference, two more data sets are shown together: the oldest measurement (Knuckles et al. 1961)and a recent estimation (Mallama et al. 2017). The comparison of our data with Irvine et al. (1968)shows a consistent magnitude, but it is in fact an inadequate comparison, considering the larger bandwidth of Irvine et al. (1968; 116 nm)than of STELLA (34 nm). Mallama et al. (2017)estimated the U-band phase curve that follows the phase angle dependence in the Bband and has the geometric albedo, to be consistent with the two older U-band observations. Knuckles et al. (1961)show a much brighter Venus magnitude, and it is difficult to understand the cause of such a difference. In this study, we have adopted the Irvine et al. (1968)phase curve as a reference phase curve at Uto correct the phase angle dependence of the STELLA data (Equation (8) in Section 5). The fluctuation of STELLA’sUband is noticeable in Figure 4. These may be real short-term fluctuations, as reported in a recent study of Venus’s disk-integrated albedo (Lee et al. 2020; see Section 5.1). The Venus monitoring by STELLA will continue, and we should be able to construct the true mean phase curve at Uand extract accurate temporal variations in the near future. 3.5. CAHA3.5/PMAS PMAS is installed at the CAHA 3.5 m telescope (Roth et al. 2005), and it acquired Venus data from 2020 August 26 to 29. The Venus observations were conducted with the bare fiber bundle integral field unit (PPAK), which has a wide hexagonal FOV of 65″×74″, as shown in Figure 5(a). A total of 331 fibers obtained scientific data within the FOV, and an additional 36 fibers simultaneously acquired sky data at 72″ away from the center of the FOV. The wide FOV is sufficient for capturing the entire Venus disk, which had an apparent diameter of ∼20″. PMAS is optimized to observe faint objects. In fact, Venus is too bright for PMAS in its normal operation mode, so the Venus observation was conducted with special care; only one petal of the mirror cover was open, to reduce the photon flux. Our targeted spectral range of the observation, from UV to blue color, also helped to reduce the photon flux of Venus due to telluric extinction. We acquired high–spectral resolution data, dλ=0.28 nm, which effectively spread the photons between 326.1 and 478.3 nm, using the U1200 grating. The Venus data were acquired at the end of each night, for about an hour, with a 0.4 s exposure time, resulting in ∼100 images per night. The airmass of Venus ranged typically between 1.5 and 2.5 each night, and only the data with airmass close to that of our reference star observations were selected for the analysis. Reference star observations were conducted at the beginning of night, in the middle, and right before the Venus observations. 10Lac, Vega, and eps Aqr were observed each night, and we eventually used 10Lac (CALSPEC database; 26 Bohlin et al. 2014)to construct the telluric transmittance function, which makes use of PMAS’s high spectral resolution. Two sets of 10Lac observations were conducted each night, between 1.3 and 1.7 airmass. The P3D version 2.7 package was used for the data reduction (Sandin et al. 2010), which includes creating a master bias image, tracing spectra, finding spectral positions, and generating a flat field, and ultimately produces a reduced spectral image. We integrated the flux of the targetsasfollows(Rosales-Ortega et al. 2010).We subtracted the median sky spectrum from the scientific data in each image. From the center of Venus or the reference star (e.g., the black “X”in Figure 5(a)),we increased the area of flux summation, until the total flux did not increase further (<1%)over the entire wavelength range. Such radii were 16″for Venus and 12″for 10Lac. The selected fibers of the flux integration area are marked with white circles in Figure 5(a), and the total flux spectrum of Venus is shown in Figure 5(b). We generated a reference telluric transmittance function T ref (λ)each night (Wyttenbach et al. 2015),as () ( ) ()l=l TEsexp , 4 ref ref where λis the wavelength, E λ is the telluric optical depth at zenith, and s ref is the mean airmass of the reference star observations. The difference from Wyttenbach et al. (2015)is that the transmittance is not at the unity airmass (zenith), but at s ref . We calculated E λ s ref as follows. The logarithm of the measured star fluxes F obs,star (λ)has a linear relationship with the airmass s(Langeveld et al. 2021),as (()) ()l=+ l FEscln , 5 obs,star where cis a constant. As the standard star flux spectrum F std (λ) is at s=0, we can convert the equation above as ( ( )) ( ( )) ( )ll-=+ l FFEscln ln , 6 obs,star std 0 where c 0 is a constant that makes the result zero at 445 nm, which is the center of the Johnson Bband. We normalized the transmittance functions to those at 445 nm, and averaged two Table 2 Reference Stars for Imaging Observations Star Spectral Type Magnitude Reference of Magnitude Dates of Observation UBVR I (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) HR2208 G2V–G5V 7.317 7.131 6.456 6.087 5.740 Stepien & Geyer (1996)Aug 11–Sep 4 κGemini G8III–IIIb 5.19 4.49 3.57 2.86 2.41 Ducati (2002)Sep 6–13 mu.02 Cnc G1IVb 6.14 5.93 5.30 Ducati (2002)Sep 14–30 35 Leo G1.5IV–V 6.85 6.64 Ducati (2002)Oct 2–10 HD88725 G3/5V 8.34 8.33 7.73 7.24 6.89 Ducati (2002)Oct 14–24 HD92719 G1.5V 7.519 7.406 6.767 6.42 6.083 Koen et al. (2010)Oct 27–Nov 8 26 https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsps/reference-atlases/cdbs/current_calspec/ 10lac_mod_003.fits 7 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. sets of normalized transmittance functions. The T ref (λ)on August 26 is shown in Figure 5(c)(black curve). Fine emission lines of the star are excluded from this process (red intervals). We retrieved relative flux spectra of Venus F Venus (λ)using T ref (λ); after selecting the observed Venus fluxes F obs,venus (λ) that were acquired at snear the star observations (ds <0.1) each night, we divided these Venus fluxes by T ref (λ)of the same night: () () () ()ll l =FF T.7 Venus obs,venus ref An example of the relative Venus flux spectrum on August 26 is shown in Figure 5(d)(the blue curve, which almost overlaps with the red curve). A comparison between the Venus flux and the solar irradiance (Section 3.6)is shown in the same figure. Using the selected spectral features of the solar reference (the circle symbols),we slightly adjusted the spectral location of the Venus spectrum, as shown in the same plot, before (blue)and after (red)the adjustment. Such spectral location adjustments were done between −4and+3Å, depending on the dates of the observations and the wavelengths. This last process shows only minor changes, but helps to remove unrealistic humps from the reflectivity spectrum. We repeated the same procedure for the data of each night, to generate daily mean Venus spectra. Figure 3. Observed magnitudes of Venus in the Johnson–Cousins BVRI bands between 2020 August 22 and 28 by the CAHA1.23/DLR-MKIII camera (red dots).(a) Phase curves over the range from 0°to 150°.(b)The same as (a), but close-up representations of the observed data points of the campaign. The phase curves at each band are shown with the gray dashed lines (Mallama et al. 2017). Figure 4. Observed magnitude of Venus in the Johnson Uband by STELLA/ WiFSIP in 2020 August–November (orange diamonds). The phase curves reported in previous studies are compared: Knuckles et al. (1961; green), Irvine et al. (1968; blue), and Mallama et al. (2017; red). 8 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. 3.6. Solar Irradiance Data We converted the observation data to reflectivity using the reference solar irradiance spectrum. We used the observed solar irradiance data from TSIS-1 SIM (Version 6, Level 3, daily data) 27 over the 200–2400 nm wavelength range. For the campaign data of this paper, we averaged the TSIS-1 SIM data from 2020 August to September. This mean solar spectrum was used to calculate the solar irradiance at 283 and 365 nm for the Akatsuki data. We calculated the solar magnitude in the Uband using the effective transmittance function of STELLA, following the description in Willmer (2018)to take into account its small bandwidth (FWHM =34 nm). For the BVRI broad bands, we took the values given in Willmer (2018). The solar magnitudes in each band are listed in Table 3. For the high-resolution spectral grids of the PMAS data, the TSIS-1 SIM data were not sufficient (5nm at λ∼400 nm), 28 so we took the SAO2010 solar reference spectrum, whose spectral resolution is 0.04 nm (FWHM; Chance & Kurucz 2010).We Figure 5. PMAS observation and calibration examples of the data acquired on 2020 August 26 (image number 2005).(a)An image slice from PPAK at 365 nm after sky subtraction. The strong signals show where the Venus dayside is located. The mean of the strong signal locations is marked with the black “X,”from which a 16″ radius circular area is selected for flux integration (the white “◦”symbols).(b)Integrated flux spectrum of Venus before the telluric extinction correction. (c)Relative telluric transmittance function T ref (λ)of the same night (see the text for the details). The star (10Lac)was observed at the airmass sof 1.30 and 1.59 (gray curves). The mean transmittance is used to define T ref (λ)(black), except fine emissions of the star (red ranges).(d)Relative flux spectrum of Venus F Venus (λ), after the telluric extinction correction (blue). Relative solar irradiance is shown (black). Some features are selected (black circles)as spectral references to adjust the spectral locations of the Venus flux (blue disks). After this fine spectral location correction, the final Venus spectrum is shown as the red curve, which almost overlaps with the blue curve. 27 https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/tsis/data/ 28 https://lasp.colorado.edu/home/tsis/instruments/sim-spectral-irradiancemonitor/ 9 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. 6. Summary and Perspective on Future Campaigns Our dayside observation campaign was conducted with the PHEBUS spectrometer on board BepiColombo and the UVI camera on board Akatsuki to better understand the UV absorbers in the Venusian clouds. Our campaign was designed to cover a broad wavelength range, from 52 to 1700 nm, thanks to Earth-bound observation facilities. Despite the fact that our data analysis could eventually only utilize the data between 283 and 800 nm (Section 2), we achieved the following goals and insights: 1. We successfully accomplished the Venus observation campaign using multiple groundand space-based facilities almost simultaneously. 2. Despite the challenging brightness of the target (too bright), we managed to acquire high-quality data. 3. The PHEBUS team was able to establish a robust observation strategy for making successful Venus observations at future opportunities, e.g., in 2022 June and July. 4. Using the campaign data in the 283–800 nm range, we retrieved the relative optical depth of the unknown absorber on the morning-side disk. Our result is consistent with the previous report using the data acquired in 2007 over the afternoon equatorial region (Pérez-Hoyos et al. 2018). 5. We plan future campaigns to retrieve both the SO 2 gas abundance and the absorption by the unknown absorber in the 180–450 nm range, using data acquired by PHEBUS (180–320 nm), UVI (283 and 365 nm), and ground-based telescopes (350–800 nm). Figure 10. Relations between the reflectivity over the wavelengths of the Iband and the cloud-top altitude (Z cloud ).(a)Variations of the calculated reflectivity according to Z cloud that is changed between 60 and 75 km. (b)χ 2 to fit the observed I-band reflectivity as a function of Z cloud . Figure 11. Simulated reflectivity at α=80°with a range of R UA from 0.0 to 0.3 (see Section 4.2). This assumes the best fit of the cloud top in Figure 10(b) (64 km). The unknown absorber is assumed to be within the 6 km thickness layer, whose middle is located 3 km below the cloud-top level (Lee et al. 2021), i.e., 58–64 km. Within this layer, the SSA of the cloud aerosols is reduced by R UA . Figure 12. Relative optical depth of the unknown absorber (normalized to the maximum in the 350–500 nm range). The required absorption to match the PMAS data is shown with the gray line (Section 5.3), and its convolution (FWHM =1nm)is shown with the black line. A previous observational data analysis (Pérez-Hoyos et al. 2018)is shown for comparison (blue circles). Assumptions that were applied for the solar heating rate calculations (upward/ downward triangles; Crisp 1986; Haus et al. 2016)are shown together. 16 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. 6. We established that flux measurements at the VRI bands can provide a constraint on the cloud configuration to generate the simulated reflectivity. We will continue VRI imaging in future campaigns. 7. The U-band phase curve of Venus is poorly defined. We plan to continue the U-band imaging to define a mean phase curve. 8. Through the ground-based U-band measurements, it may be possible to track the temporal variability of Venus’s reflectivity, in addition to space-based measurements. 9. Akatsuki’s UV imaging is an excellent reference for comparing short-term variations. 10. PMAS observation and flux measurements in the B-band will be repeated in our future campaigns to understand the possible temporal variations of the unknown absorber. This research used data collected at the Centro Astronómico Hispano-Alemán (CAHA)at Calar Alto, operated jointly by Junta de Andalucía and Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IAA-CSIC). This research has made use of the integral field spectroscopy data reduction tool p3d, which is provided by the Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP). Akatsuki/UVI data are publicly available at the JAXA archive website, DARTS (http://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/), and the NASA archive website, PDS (https://pds.nasa.gov/). UVI Level 3 products (l3bx)were used in this study (Murakami et al. 2018). This study used the TSIS-1 SIM data (Version 06, doi:10.25810/y9f8-ff85).M.K.andO.E. thank the TÜBİTAK National Observatory for partial support in using the T100 telescope, with project number 20CT100-1688. R. H. and A.S.L. have been supported by the Spanish project PID2019-109467GB-I00 (MINECO/FEDER, UE)and Grupos Gobierno Vasco IT-1366-19. P.K. and M.S. acknowledge support from grant LTT-20015. Appendix Spectral Signature of Methane (CH 4 ) At first, we assumed possible methane gas in the model calculations (Section 4.1). But later, we found that its spectral signature should be clear to detect with remote observations (Figure 13). We excluded methane from the results in this manuscript (Section 5). The confirmation of the possible methane may be a subject of future observation projects. ORCID iDs Yeon Joo Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4571-0669 Antonio García Muñoz https://orcid.org/0000-00031756-4825 Atsushi Yamazaki https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6468-6812 Eric Quémerais https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5376-2242 Stefano Mottola https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0457-3872 Stephan Hellmich https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3997-3363 Martin Roth https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2451-739X Eulalia Gallego-Cano https://orcid.org/0000-00027452-1496 Kei Masunaga https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9704-6993 Ricardo Hueso https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0169-123X Petr Kabáth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1623-5352 Agustín Sánchez-Lavega https://orcid.org/0000-00017234-7634 Myung-Jin Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4787-6769 Valeria Mangano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9903-4053 Shigeto Watanabe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3058-0689 Manabu Yamada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0726-6592 Takehiko Satoh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9071-5808 Masataka Imai https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8543-6556 Juan Cabrera https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6653-5487 References Acton, C. H. 1996, P&SS,44, 65 Bahou, M., Chung, C.-Y., Lee, Y.-P., et al. 2001, ApJL,559, L179 Bains, W., Petkowski, J. J., Rimmer, P. B., & Seager, S. 2021, PNAS,118, e2110889118 Barker, E. S., Woodman, J. H., Perry, M. A., Hapke, B. A., & Nelson, R. 1975, JAts,32, 1205 Belyaev, D. A., Montmessin, F., Bertaux, J.-L., et al. 2012, Icar,217, 740 Bierson, C. J., & Zhang, X. 2020, JGRE,125, e06159 Bohlin, R. C., Gordon, K. D., & Tremblay, P. E. 2014, PASP,126, 711 Burkholder, J. B., Sander, S. P., Abbatt, J., et al. 2019, Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Atmospheric Studies, Evaluation No. 19 (Pasadena, CA: JPL) Chance, K., & Kurucz, R. L. 2010, JQSRT,111, 1289 Chassefière, E., Maria, J. L., Goutail, J. P., et al. 2010, P&SS,58, 201 Connes, P., Connes, J., Benedict, W. S., & Kaplan, L. D. 1967, ApJ,147, 1230 Crisp, D. 1986, Icar,67, 484 Del Genio, A. D., & Rossow, W. B. 1982, Icar,51, 391 Del Genio, A. D., & Rossow, W. B. 1990, JAts,47, 293 Donahue, T. M., & Hodges, R. R. 1993, GeoRL,20, 591 Ducati, J. R. 2002, yCat, 2237, 0 Encrenaz, T., Greathouse, T. K., Marcq, E., et al. 2019, A&AC,623, A70 Esposito, L. W. 1980, JGR,85, 8151 Esposito, L. W., Copley, M., Eckert, R., et al. 1988, JGR,93, 5267 Feng, R., Cooper, G., & Brion, C. E. 2000a, CP,252, 359 Feng, R., Cooper, G., Burton, G. R., Brion, C., & Avaldi, L. 1999, CP, 240, 371 Feng, R., Cooper, G., Sakai, Y., & Brion, C. E. 2000b, CP,255, 353 Fillion, J. H., Ruiz, J., Yang, X. F., et al. 2004, JChPh,120, 6531 García Muñoz, A. 2015, IJAsB,14, 379 Carrión-González, Ó., García Muñoz, A., Cabrera, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A136 García Muñoz, A., & Mills, F. P. 2015, A&A,573, A72 Carrión-González, Ó., García Muñoz, A., Santos, N. C., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A92 Gillon, M., Smalley, B., Hebb, L., et al. 2009, A&A,496, 259 Gordon, I. E., Rothman, L. S., Hill, C., et al. 2017, JQRST,203, 3 Gray, R. O., Corbally, C. J., Garrison, R. F., McFadden, M. T., & Robinson, P. E. 2003, AJ,126, 2048 Grosch, H., Fateev, A., & Clausen, S. 2015, JQRST,154, 28 Hapke, B. 2012, Theory of Reflectance and Emittance Spectroscopy (2nd edn.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) Figure 13. Simulated Venus reflectivity for two cases: without CH 4 (black)and with CH 4 (red). The latter case assumed the vertical mixing ratio of methane in Figure 6(c). 17 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al. Hartinger, K. T., Nord, S., & Monkhouse, P. B. 2000, ApPhB,70, 133 Haus, R., Kappel, D., Tellmann, S., et al. 2016, Icar,272, 178 Heays, A. N., Bosman, A. D., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2017, A&A,602, A105 Helou, Z. E., Churassy, S., Wannous, G., Bacis, R., & Boursey, E. 2005, JChPh,122, 244311 Hermans, C., Vandaele, A. C., & Fally, S. 2009, JQRST,110, 756 Horinouchi, T., Kouyama, T., Lee, Y. J., et al. 2018, EP&S,70, 10 Huang, X., Schwenke, D. W., Freedman, R. S., & Lee, T. J. 2017, JQRST, 203, 224 Huestis, D. L., & Berkowitz, J. 2011, in Advances in Geosciences. Volume 25: Planetary Science, ed. K. Satake et al. (Singapore: World Scientific),229 Hummel, J. R., Shettle, E. P., & Longtin, D. R. 1988, A new background stratospheric aerosol model for use in atmospheric radiation models, Technical rept. ADA210110, Defense Technical Information Center 70, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA210110 Ignatiev, N. I., Titov, D. V., Piccioni, G., et al. 2009, JGRE,114, E00B43 Imai, M., Kouyama, T., Takahashi, Y., et al. 2019, JGRE, 124, 2635 Irvine, W. M., Simon, T., Menzel, D. H., et al. 1968, AJ,73, 251 Jessup, K.-L., Marcq, E., Bertaux, J.-L., et al. 2020, Icar, 335, 113372 Jessup, K. L., Marcq, E., Mills, F., et al. 2015, Icar,258, 309 Johnson, N. M., & de Oliveira, M. R. R. 2019, E&SS,6, 1299 Kabáth, P., Skarka, M., Sabotta, S., et al. 2020, PASP,132, 035002 Keller-Rudek, H., Moortgat, G. K., Sander, R., & Sörensen, R. 2013, ESSD, 5, 365 Knollenberg, R. G., & Hunten, D. M. 1980, JGR,85, 8039 Knuckles, C. F., Sinton, M. K., & Sinton, W. M. 1961, LowOB, 5, 153 Koen, C., Kilkenny, D., van Wyk, F., & Marang, F. 2010, MNRAS,403, 1949 Krasnopolsky, V. A. 2018, Icar,299, 294 Langeveld, A. B., Madhusudhan, N., Cabot, S. H. C., & Hodgkin, S. T. 2021, MNRAS,502, 4392 Lee, Y. J., García Muños, A., Imamura, T., et al. 2020, NatCo,11, 5720 Lee, Y. J., García Muñoz, A., Yamazaki, A., et al. 2021, GeoRL,48, e90577 Lee, Y. J., Imamura, T., Schröder, S. E., & Marcq, E. 2015a, Icar,253, 1 Lee, Y. J., Jessup, K.-L., Perez-hoyos, S., et al. 2019, AJ,158, 126 Lee, Y. J., Sagawa, H., Haus, R., et al. 2016, JGRE,121, 1737 Lee, Y. J., Titov, D. V., Ignatiev, N. I., et al. 2015b, P&SS,113, 298 Lee, Y. J., Titov, D. V., Tellmann, S., et al. 2012, Icar,217, 599 Lee, Y. J., Yamazaki, A., Imamura, T., et al. 2017, AJ,154, 44 Limão-Vieira, P., Ferreira da Silva, F., Almeida, D., et al. 2015, JChPh,142, 064303 Limaye, S. S., Mogul, R., Smith, D. J., et al. 2018, AsBio,18, 1181 Mallama, A., Krobusek, B., & Pavlov, H. 2017, Icar,282, 19 Manatt, S. L., & Lane, A. L. 1993, JQSRT,50, 267 Mangano, V., Dósa, M., Fränz, M., et al. 2021, SSRv,217, 23 Marcq, E., Baggio, L., Lefèvre, F., et al. 2019, Icar,319, 491 Marcq, E., Belyaev, D., Montmessin, F., et al. 2011, Icar,211, 58 Marcq, E., Bertaux, J.-L., Montmessin, F., & Belyaev, D. 2013, NatGe,6, 25 Marcq, E., Jessup, K.-L., Baggio, L., et al. 2020, Icar,335, 113368 Marcq, E., Montmessin, F., Lasue, J., et al. 2021, AdSpR,68, 275 Markiewicz, W. J., Titov, D. V., Limaye, S. S., et al. 2007, Natur,450, 633 Mason, N. J., Gingell, J. M., Davies, J. A., et al. 1996, JPhB,29, 3075 Meadows, V. S., & Crisp, D. 1996, JGR,101, 4595 Mendikoa, I., Sánchez-Lavega, A., Pérez-Hoyos, S., et al. 2016, PASP,128, 035002 Mills, F. P., Esposito, L. W., & Yung, Y. L. 2007, GMS,176, 73 Mishchenko, M. I., Travis, L. D., & Lacis, A. A. 2002, Scattering, Absorption, and Emission of Light by Small Particles (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press) Molina, L. T., Lamb, J. J., & Molina, M. J. 1981, GeoRL,8, 1008 Mota, R., Parafita, R., Giuliani, A., et al. 2005, CPL,416, 152 Murakami, S., Ogohara, K., Takagi, M., et al. 2018, Inst. of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Na, C. Y., Esposito, L. W., & Skinner, T. E. 1990, JGR,95, 7485 Nakamura, M., Imamura, T., Ishii, N., et al. 2016, EP&S,68, 75 Nara, Y., Yoshikawa, I., Yoshioka, K., et al. 2018, Icar,307, 207 Pei, L., Min, Q., Du, Y., et al. 2019, JGRD,124, 14,310 Pérez-Hoyos, S., Sánchez-Lavega, A., García-Muñoz, A., et al. 2018, JGRE, 123, 145 Petrova, E. V. 2018, Icar,306, 163 Phillips, L. F. 1981, JPhCh, 85, 3994 Pollack, J. B., Dalton, J. B., Grinspoon, D., et al. 1993, Icar,103, 1 Pollack, J. B., Toon, O. B., Whitten, R. C., et al. 1980, JGR,85, 8141 Quémerais, E., Chaufray, J.-Y., Koutroumpa, D., et al. 2020, SSRv,216, 67 Ranjan, S., Schwieterman, E. W., Harman, C., et al. 2020, ApJ,896, 148 Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 735 Ross, F. E. 1928, ApJ,68, 57 Roth, M. M., Kelz, A., Fechner, T., et al. 2005, PASP,117, 620 Sánchez-Lavega, A., Lebonnois, S., Imamura, T., Read, P., & Luz, D. 2017, SSRv,212, 1541 Sandin, C., Becker, T., Roth, M. M., et al. 2010, A&A,515, A35 Satoh, T., Ohtsuki, S., Iwagami, N., et al. 2015, Icar,248, 213 Seiff, A., Schofield, J. T., Kliore, A. J., Taylor, F. W., & Limaye, S. S. 1985, AdSpR,5, 3 Sneep, M., & Ubachs, W. 2005, JQSRT,92, 293 Southworth, J., Hinse, T. C., Jørgensen, U. G., et al. 2009, MNRAS,396, 1023 Sromovsky, L. A., Fry, P. M., Baines, K. H., & Dowling, T. E. 2001, Icar, 149, 435 Stark, G., Yoshino, K., Smith, P. L., & Ito, K. 2007, JQRST,103, 67 Stepien, K., & Geyer, E. 1996, A&AS, 117, 83 Strassmeier, K. G., Granzer, T., Weber, M., et al. 2010, AdAst,2010, 970306 Titov, D. V., Bullock, M. A., Crisp, D., et al. 2007, GMS,176, 121 Titov, D. V., Ignatiev, N. I., McGouldrick, K., Wilquet, V., & Wilson, C. F. 2018, SSRv,214, 126 Titov, D. V., Markiewicz, W. J., Ignatiev, N. I., et al. 2012, Icar,217, 682 Vandaele, A. C., Hermans, C., & Fally, S. 2009, JQRST,110, 2115 Venot, O., Bénilan, Y., Fray, N., et al. 2018, A&A,609, A34 von Zahn, U., & Moroz, V. I. 1985, AdSpR,5, 173 Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS,236, 47 Wilson, E. M., Wenger, J. C., & Venables, D. S. 2016, JQRST,170, 194 Wright, W. H. 1927, PASP,39, 220 Wu, C. Y. R., & Chen, F. Z. 1998, JQRST,60, 17 Wyttenbach, A., Ehrenreich, D., Lovis, C., Udry, S., & Pepe, F. 2015, A&A, 577, A62 Yamazaki, A., Yamada, M., Lee, Y. J., et al. 2018, EP&S,70, 23 Yoshikawa, I., Yoshioka, K., Murakami, G., et al. 2014, SSRv,184 237 Zasova, L. V., Krasnopolskii, V. A., & Moroz, V. I. 1981, AdSpR,1, 13 18 The Planetary Science Journal, 3:209 (18pp), 2022 September Lee et al.