Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Physical Characterization of Moon Impactor 2025-010D

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 2025-010D is the Falcon 9 upper stage from the Ghost Riders in the Sky launch, and it will strike the Moon on 2026 August 05.

desk verdict A credible, well-evidenced identification of 2025-010D as the GRS Falcon 9 upper stage; the impact-location uncertainty is understated because the nongrav model is held constant. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00360 v1 pith:KBN5BSIG submitted 2026-08-01 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Tanner Campbell , Adam Battle , Bill Gray , Juan A. Sanchez , David Cantillo , Lucille LeCorre , Vishnu Reddy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords lunarimpactFalcon9upperstagecislunardebrisorbitdeterminationnongravitationalaccelerationlightcurveperiodchangethermalcontrolcoatingMooncraterprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper identifies the tracked cislunar object 2025-010D as the Falcon 9 upper stage from the "Ghost Riders in the Sky" launch, and predicts it will hit the lunar farside on 2026 August 05 at about 2.4 km/s, opening a crater roughly 40 m across. The identification rests on three independent lines: backward orbit propagation matches the launch time and flight corridor; visible and near-infrared spectra show absorption bands matching a white spacecraft thermal-control coating and a redder slope than any natural asteroid class; and lightcurves reveal an elongated, tumbling body with a near-seven-minute rotation period. The authors also find that the rotation period shortened by more than eight seconds between January and February 2026, an unexpected spin-up for a defunct rocket stage. Because the object's origin is independently known, they argue it becomes a benchmark for identifying and characterizing the growing population of poorly tracked cislunar objects.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three matched measurement chains. Orbit determination fits 304 to 412 astrometric observations with up to three nongravitational acceleration parameters $A_1,A_2,A_3$; back-propagation of the fitted orbit to perigee ties the object to the launch timeline, and forward propagation of 4000 Monte Carlo covariance samples maps the impact distribution. Visible and near-infrared spectroscopy, with the continuum removed by polynomial division, compares absorption bands near 1.7 and 2.3 $\mu$m to a laboratory white thermal-control coating and to another Falcon 9 upper stage. Two-parameter Fourier-series lightcurve fits extract the rotation period and amplitude, and an empirical amplitude-phase relation converts the amplitude to an axial-ratio lower bound of 3.17:1, consistent with an elongated rocket body.

What would settle it

If post-impact lunar orbiter images show no fresh crater roughly 40 m across within the 3-sigma impact ellipse near 19.9°N, 265.8°E, the impact prediction would be refuted. A quicker check: recompute the orbit from the same astrometric data; if the back-propagated perigee time does not match the assumed first perigee within about six seconds, or the circularized ground track misses the launch site by much more than the reported 66 km, the launch link would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 2025-010D's back-propagated orbit independently links it to the Ghost Riders in the Sky launch, and that it will impact the Moon on 2026 August 05 at 06:33:23 UTC ±55 s, at latitude 19.875° ±0.321° and longitude 265.765° ±0.506°, between Bell and Einstein craters, with a velocity of about 2.4 km/s and an impact angle just over 30° above the local horizon. The resulting crater is predicted to be nearly circular and about 40 m in diameter. Along the way, the paper reports a lightcurve period that fell from roughly 419 s to 411 s between January and February 2026 and then kept decreasing, and near-infrared absorption bands near 1.73 and 2.3 µm that match an epoxy-based white thermal-control coating and another Falcon 9 second stage, ruling out a natural minimoon interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The impact prediction assumes the three fitted nongravitational acceleration parameters stay constant all the way to impact; if they drift, the predicted impact time and location would shift beyond the quoted 1-sigma uncertainties, even though an impact would still occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The impact provides a known time, place, speed, and impactor mass for a human-made lunar crater, giving crater-scaling and ejecta models a rare ground-truth event.
  • The object's independently known provenance makes it a test case for any technique that must distinguish artificial cislunar debris from natural near-Earth objects and minimoons.
  • The observed eight-second spin-up shows that a defunct rocket stage can change its rotation rate on month timescales, so shape and attitude estimates from lightcurves require repeated monitoring rather than a single observation epoch.
  • The combination of a very red visible slope with 1.7 and 2.3 $\mu$m absorption bands is a spectral fingerprint for Falcon 9 upper stages that can be searched for in future survey data.
  • As lunar traffic grows, unintentional rocket-body impacts will become more common, and the paper's identification pipeline applies directly to those events.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the constant-parameter nongravitational model is the dominant error source, the impact time could shift beyond the quoted ±55 s; a dedicated astrometric campaign in the final weeks before impact would test this directly.
  • The spin-up mechanism is left open; comparing the measured period change with solar-radiation-pressure torque and outgassing models could identify which physical effect is responsible.
  • The spectral match to a generic white thermal-control coating rather than the exact flight coating suggests that a public library of common rocket-body coatings would make this kind of identification routine.
  • A fresh ~40 m crater with a known impactor mass and velocity would give lunar crater-scaling laws a controlled calibration point, potentially improving impact-hazard estimates for natural objects as well.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multi-instrument characterization of the cislunar object 2025-010D, identified as the Falcon 9 second stage from the 'Ghost Riders in the Sky' launch on 2025 January 15. The authors fit orbits to astrometric observations and back-propagate to compare with the launch sequence, obtaining a perigee time 07:12:05.56±0.38 s on the launch date and a ground-track passing within ~66 km of LC-39A. Visible and near-infrared spectra show absorption bands near 1.7 and 2.3 µm that match another Falcon 9 upper stage (2024-127B) and a laboratory thermal-control coating (AZJ-4020), ruling out a natural asteroidal origin. Photometric lightcurves reveal a ~7 min period with an ~8 s change across 2026 January–June. Four orbit solutions with Monte Carlo propagation predict a lunar impact on 2026 August 05 at 06:33:23±55 s between Bell and Einstein craters on the farside, with all 4000 sampled trajectories impacting the Moon. The paper also discusses the implications for lunar debris disposal.

Significance. The identification of 2025-010D as the GRS Falcon 9 upper stage is well supported by two independent checks (launch-timing back-propagation and spectral similarity to 2024-127B), and the paper provides a falsifiable forward prediction of the impact time and location. The use of public astrometry, reproducible orbit-estimation software, and a full Monte Carlo propagation are strengths. If the prediction is borne out, the object will serve as a rare benchmark for characterizing cislunar objects of known provenance. The main limitation, acknowledged in the text, is that the impact-location uncertainty is computed under a constant-coefficient nongravitational model, so the quoted 1σ region describes internal precision rather than total model uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Extended Data Table 4] The quoted 1σ impact time and location are based on Monte Carlo sampling of the covariance while holding the fitted nongravitational parameters A1–A3 fixed as constants. As the paper itself states, "This assumption is typically not valid for very long arcs and limits the accuracy of future predictions." Because all four orbit solutions share the same constant-coefficient model, their mutual agreement (e.g., within 0.11° for the two 3-parameter solutions) does not quantify model misspecification from time-varying outgassing, solar radiation pressure acting on a tumbling stage, or attitude-dependent effects. The 4000 Monte Carlo samples only propagate measurement noise. Therefore the headline claim of impact "between Bell and Einstein craters at 06:33:23 UTC" is not established at the quoted 1σ; the full uncertainty is larger. Please either demonstrate stability under a time-varying nongravitational model or fits to different sub-arcs, enlarge the uncertainty region to account for model error, or soften the claim to a broader farside impact region. The fact of lunar impact appears robust, but the specific crater pair is the least secure element.
  2. [Section 2] The dynamical link to the GRS launch is quantified by the back-propagated perigee time 07:12:05.56±0.38 s, which is compared to an assumed final-second-stage burn completion time of 07:12 UTC. That reference time is derived by taking the Firefly "launch vehicle separation" time of 07:17 UTC (which has minute-level precision) and subtracting a "similar five-minute coast" from the Falcon user's guide, which the authors themselves note describes only sample flights that differ from GRS. Thus the reference has an uncertainty of at least tens of seconds, and the "5.56 s after" match is not a 5.6 s-accurate validation. Please propagate the uncertainty in the coast duration and separation-time rounding into the launch-link claim, or rephrase the claim to state consistency at the minute level. The ground-track match to LC-39A (66 km) is based on a circularized orbit that is an approximation; please state its sensitivity to that assumption.
  3. [Section 7.6] The description of the orbit dynamical model is ambiguous. The text says "perturbations are included from variable degree and order gravity models for the Earth and Moon, as well as point mass contributions from the remaining seven planets and Pluto. By default, the orbit is computed with the Sun as the primary gravitational force." For an object in a geocentric orbit such as 2025-010D, Earth should be the primary body; if the literal wording is intended, the model would be inappropriate. Please state explicitly the central body and the force model used for the fits in Sections 2 and 5, and clarify whether "by default" refers to the general software rather than to these solutions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 5] The text states the lightcurve period decreases by ~8 s between January 10 and February 24 and then "decreases through the remaining observations," yet the March–May fits and the June value are all near 416 s, which is not a continuing decrease from a February value of ~411 s. Please reconcile the direction of the period trend and the quoted period range.
  2. [Section 5] The differences between the 1-parameter and 3-parameter nongravitational solutions are not reported. Please state the impact locations and times for all four solutions, or explain why the 1-parameter solutions are not shown in Figure 6.
  3. [Section 3] The statement that the spectral slope "rules out the temporarily captured minimoon option" is stronger than the preceding caveat about slope not being diagnostic. Consider rewording to "strongly disfavors" unless a calibrated slope comparison is provided.
  4. [Section 7.1] The methods paragraph uses "spectrometric" and "sight seeing"; please replace with "spectroscopic" and "seeing."
  5. [Data Availability] Placing the light curves and spectra in a public repository would strengthen the stated goal of providing a benchmark for future Cislunar object characterization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found; the trajectory link, spectral identification, and impact prediction are each supported by independent data or forward extrapolation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained against external benchmarks. The trajectory analysis fits an orbit to 304 MPC astrometric observations and back-propagates to a perigee time of 07:12:05.56 UTC ± 0.38 s, then compares this to a launch-timeline estimate derived from Firefly's public mission updates; the launch information is not used in the fit, so the link is an independent check, not an input. The spectral identification compares 2025-010D's 1.73 and 2.3 µm bands to a laboratory measurement of AZJ-4020 white TCM and to another Falcon 9 upper stage, 2024-127B; no spectral parameter is fitted to the object's known identity. The photometric period analysis is a straightforward Fourier fit to brightness measurements, and the axial ratio estimate uses an empirical asteroid relationship cited to independent literature. The lunar impact prediction is a forward propagation of four orbit solutions, each fitted to astrometry, with Monte Carlo sampling of the covariance; it is an extrapolation that will be tested on 2026 August 5, not a re-statement of the fitted data. The paper's own caveat in Section 5—that the A1–A3 nongravitational parameters are assumed fixed in time and that 'this assumption is typically not valid for very long arcs and limits the accuracy of future predictions'—is a legitimate model-uncertainty limitation, not a circularity. Self-citations to the authors' previous WE0913A work are methodological references (e.g., lightcurve-axial-ratio relationships) and are not load-bearing for the central provenance or impact claims. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several fitted or assumed inputs: the area-to-mass ratio and nongravitational parameters are fitted to astrometry; the launch-timeline interpretation assumes the Falcon 9 flight profile matched the user's guide; the spectral identification assumes AZJ-4020 is a reasonable analog for the proprietary SpaceX coating; and the impact prediction assumes the fitted nongravitational accelerations are constant in time. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Area-to-mass ratio (AMR) in 1-parameter nongrav model = 0.0119510 +/- 6.74e-5 m2/kg
    Fitted to 304 astrometric observations; used in the backward propagation that links the object to the GRS launch (Extended Data Table 1).
  • Nongravitational parameter A1 = 1.930835e-11 +/- 4.531e-14 km/s2
    Fitted in the 3-parameter nongravitational model used for the impact prediction (Extended Data Table 4).
  • Nongravitational parameter A2 = -2.6748e-13 +/- 9.036e-14 km/s2
    Fitted in the 3-parameter nongravitational model used for the impact prediction (Extended Data Table 4).
  • Nongravitational parameter A3 = 1.6526e-12 +/- 1.369e-13 km/s2
    Fitted in the 3-parameter nongravitational model used for the impact prediction (Extended Data Table 4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GRS launch followed the nominal Falcon 9 second stage timeline with a five-minute coast before payload separation, so the final second stage burn completed at 07:12 UTC.
    Used to compute the expected first perigee for the backward propagation (Section 2, based on Falcon User's Guide and Firefly live updates with minute-level precision). If the coast duration differed, the 5.56-second timing match could be coincidental.
  • domain assumption AZ Technology AZJ-4020 white epoxy thermal control coating is a valid spectral analog for the proprietary white thermal control material used by SpaceX.
    Used to interpret the 1.73 and 2.3 micron absorption bands (Section 3, Figure 3b). The paper states AZJ-4020 is not what SpaceX uses, so the match is suggestive rather than definitive, though the comparison with 2024-127B provides independent support.
  • ad hoc to paper The three fitted nongravitational parameters A1-A3 remain constant over the prediction arc.
    Explicitly assumed for the impact prediction and acknowledged as 'typically not valid for very long arcs' in Section 5. This assumption limits the accuracy of the predicted impact time and location.
  • domain assumption The lightcurve amplitude-phase-angle relationship derived for asteroids applies to elongated rocket bodies with specular glints removed.
    Used to convert lightcurve amplitude to an axial-ratio lower bound of 3.17:1 (Section 4). The paper cites prior work applying this to rocket bodies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical Characterization of Moon Impactor 2025-010D." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBN5BSIG

@misc{pith2026260800360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical Characterization of Moon Impactor 2025-010D},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBN5BSIG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00360}
}
abstract

Renewed interest in lunar exploration is creating a growing population of poorly tracked cislunar objects, some of which will ultimately impact the Moon$^{1}$. The ultimate fate of rocket upper stages or failed mission payloads is often unknown and unplanned. Determining the origin and physical properties of such objects will become increasingly important as sustained lunar exploration places humans and infrastructure on the surface$^{2;3;4;5}$. Here we present a ground-based physical and dynamical characterization of 2025-010D, a Falcon 9 upper stage predicted to impact the lunar farside on 2026 August 05. Backward propagation of its orbit independently links the object to the ``Ghost Riders in the Sky'' launch, while visible and near-infrared spectroscopy distinguishes it from natural objects and reveals absorption bands consistent with spacecraft thermal control materials. Photometric lightcurves confirm its elongated shape and reveal an unexpected change of more than 8 s in its $\sim$7 min rotation period during observations. We predict an impact between Bell and Einstein craters at $\sim$2.4 km s$^{-1}$, producing a crater $\sim$40 m in diameter. Since its provenance is independently known, 2025-010D provides a benchmark for identifying and characterizing future cislunar objects of uncertain origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00360 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ground-track (blue curve) of a circular orbit generated by taking the estimate state at perigee (red dot) and setting e = 0 and a = rp, then propagating backwards. The LC-39A launch site, from which the Blue Ghost mission 1 was launched, is shown as a red square. The Falcon user’s guide does not give spatial trajectory information for their sample cases, only timing of flight events. Thus, lining up the backwards pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visible and near infrared spectra of 2025-010D compared with the mean spectra of S- and D-type asteroids, and the spectrum of (269) Justitia. 2025-010D shows distinct absorption bands at ∼1.73 and 2.3 µm. All spectra are normalized at 1.5 µm with visible spectra first being normalized at 0.73 µm and combined with the 2026 May 17 IRTF in the overlap region before renormalizing to 1.5 µm. Variations on the NIR spectra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) NIR spectra of 2025-010D compared to the spectrum of another Falcon 9 upper stage, 2024-127B. Spectra are normalized at 1.5 µm and both objects show absorption bands at ∼1.73 and 2.3 µm. Variations between 2025-010D spectra are due to differences in phase angle on different nights (see Extended Data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lightcurves of the 2025-010D R/B from both the CONDOR and RAPTORS II telescopes. The lightcurves have been period-wrapped by fitting a two parameter Fourier series (red curves) to the data (blue dots) via nonlinear least-squares minimization. The period estimates from …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The estimated lightcurve periods from January through May (blue dots) show significant variation with time. Both a linear (green dot-dash) and quadratic (red dash) model were fit through the measurements from March through May and used as a predictor for the lightcurve…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact location prediction for four different trajectory solutions including the 3σ uncertainties in the predictions. Each uncertainty region is generated via 1000 Monte Carlo propagations, sampled from the trajectory solution covariance. Background is from Lunar Quick…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Reddy, V

    Battle, A. and Reddy, V. and Sanchez, J. and Sharkey, B. and Pearson, N. and Bowen, B. , Title=. Planetary Science Journal , Volume=. 2022 , Date=

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    and Reddy, V

    Battle, A. and Reddy, V. and Furfaro, R. and Campbell, T. , Title=. Acta Astronautica , Year=

    work page

  3. [3]

    and Battle, A

    Campbell, T. and Battle, A. and Gray, B. and Chesley, S. R. and Farnocchia, D. and Pearson, N. and Halferty, G. and Reddy, V. and Furfaro, R. , Title=. The Planetary Science Journal , Year=

    work page

  4. [4]

    and Furfaro, R

    Campbell, T. and Furfaro, R. and Reddy, V. and Battle, A. and Birtwhistle, P. and Linder, T. and Tucker, S. and Pearson, N. , Title=. The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences , Volume=. 2022 , Publisher=

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    , Title=

    Schonfeld, J. , Title=. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , Pages=. 2023 , Organization=

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    and Reiter, T

    Hufenbach, B. and Reiter, T. and Sourgens, E. , Title=. Space Policy , Volume=. 2014 , Publisher=

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    and Prater, T

    Kessler, P. and Prater, T. and Nickens, T. and Harris, D. , Title=. 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO) , Pages=. 2022 , Organization=

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    and Wang, C

    Li, C. and Wang, C. and Wei, Y. and Lin, Y. , Title=. Science , Volume=. 2019 , Publisher=

    work page 2019

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Hughes, P. C. , Title=. 2012 , Publisher=

    2012

  2. [10]

    and Sekanina, Z

    Marsden, B. and Sekanina, Z. and Yeomans, D. , Title=. The Astronomical Journal , Volume=

  3. [11]

    Space-Track.org , Year=

  4. [12]

    , Title=

    Schnautz, R. , Title=. 2025 , URL=

    2025

  5. [13]

    Hoover, R. H. and Robbins, S. J. and Hynek, B. M. and Hayne, P. O. , Title=. The Planetary Science Journal , Volume=. 2024 , Publisher=

    2024

  6. [14]

    Walsh, A. M. and Holloway, K. E. and Habdas, P. Bruyn, J. R , Title=. Physical review letters , Volume=. 2003 , Publisher=

    2003

  7. [15]

    and Hagermann, A

    Michikami, T. and Hagermann, A. and Morota, T. and Haruyama, J. and Hasegawa, S. , Title=. Planetary and Space Science , Volume=. 2017 , Publisher=

    2017

  8. [16]

    Holsapple, K. A. , Title=. In: Annual review of earth and planetary sciences , Volume=

  9. [17]

    Melosh, H. J. , Title=. New York: Oxford University Press; Oxford: Clarendon Press , Year=

  10. [18]

    , Title=

    Walter, U. , Title=. 2025 , Publisher=

    2025

  11. [19]

    , Title=

    Seedhouse, E. , Title=. 2022 , Publisher=

    2022

  12. [20]

    and Buckley, D

    Kwiatkowski, T. and Buckley, D. A. H. and O'Donoghue, D. and Crause, L. and Crawford, S. and Hashimoto, Y. and Kniazev, A. and Loaring, N. and Romero Colmenero, E. and Sefako, R. and others , Title=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , Volume=. 2010a , Publisher=

  13. [21]

    and Polinska, M

    Kwiatkowski, T. and Polinska, M. and Loaring, N. and Buckley, D. A. H. and O'Donoghue, D. and Kniazev, A. and Romero Colmenero, E. , Title=. Astronomy & Astrophysics , Volume=. 2010b , Publisher=

  14. [22]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , Volume=

    Guti. Astronomy & Astrophysics , Volume=. 2006 , Publisher=

    2006

  15. [23]

    and Torppa, J

    Muinonen, K. and Torppa, J. and Wang, X. B. and Cellino, A. and Penttil. Astronomy & Astrophysics , Volume=. 2020 , Publisher=

    2020

  16. [24]

    and Lamberg, L

    Kaasalainen, M. and Lamberg, L. and Lumme, K. and Bowell, E. , Title=. Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361) , Volume=

  17. [25]

    and Lamberg, L

    Kaasalainen, M. and Lamberg, L. and Lumme, K. , Title=. Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361) , Volume=

  18. [26]

    and Carroll, F

    Bohling, R. and Carroll, F. and Clark, J. and Debra, D. and Dobrotin, B. and Fischell, R. and Fleig, A. and Fosth, D. and Gatlin, J. and Perkel, H. and others , Title=. National Aeronautics and Space Admimistration: Washington, DC, USA , Year=

  19. [27]

    , Title=

    Parsch, A. , Title=. 2026 , URL=

    2026

  20. [28]

    , Title=

    Blau, P. , Title=. 2015 , URL=

    2015

  21. [29]

    and Munk, M

    Maddock, R. and Munk, M. and Danehy, P. M. and Tyrrell, O. K. and Weisberger, J. M. and Fahringer, T. W. and Lueg, R. and Wilson, C. and Scammell, A. and Martin, K. and others , Title=. AIAA SciTech 2026 Forum , Pages=

    2026

  22. [30]

    and Marlin, J

    Tackett, B. and Marlin, J. and Coogan, W. , Title=. 57th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , Volume=

  23. [31]

    and Lin, W

    Chang, L. and Lin, W. Y. and Chou, Y. H. and Lin, J. S. and Lung, C. and Chen, I. and Hou, K. J. and Gacal, G. F. and Chiu, Y. C. and Wang, Y. and others , Title=. Advances in Space Research , Volume=. 2025 , Publisher=

    2025

  24. [32]

    Lomb, N. R. , Title=. Astrophysics and Space Science , Volume=. 1976 , Publisher=

    1976

  25. [33]

    Scargle, J. D. , Title=. Astrophysical Journal , Volume=

  26. [34]

    Tholen, D. J. , Title=

  27. [35]

    and Weiner, B

    Pearce, E. and Weiner, B. and Krantz, H. , Title=. Journal of Space Safety Engineering , Volume=. 2020 , ISSN=

    2020

  28. [36]

    and Wojciechowski, G

    Agbonkonkon, N. and Wojciechowski, G. and Abbott, D. A. and Gaucher, S. P. and Yim, D. R. and Thompson, A. W. and Leavell, M. D. , Title=. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology , Volume=. 2021 , Month=

    2021

  29. [37]

    and He, Y

    Cen, H. and He, Y. , Title=. Trends in Food Science & Technology , Volume=. 2007 , ISSN=

    2007

  30. [38]

    and Reddy, V

    Battle, A. and Reddy, V. and Sanchez, J. A. and Sharkey, B. and Campbell, T. and Chodas, P. and Conrad, A. and Engelhart, D. P. and Frith, J. and Furfaro, R. and Farnocchia, D. and Kuhn, O. and Pearson, N. and Rothberg, B. and Veillet, C. and Wainscoat, R. , Title=. Planet. Sc...

    2024

  31. [39]

    DeMeo, F. E. and Binzel, R. P. and Slivan, S. M. and Bus, S. J. , Title=. Icarus , Volume=. 2009 , Publisher=

    2009

  32. [40]

    Binzel, R. P. and DeMeo, F. E. and Turtelboom, E. V. and Bus, S. J. and Tokunaga, A. and Burbine, T. H. and Lantz, C. and Polishook, D. and Carry, B. and Morbidelli, A. and others , Title=. Icarus , Volume=. 2019 , Publisher=

    2019

  33. [41]

    Sanchez, J. A. and Reddy, V. and Nathues, A. and Cloutis, E. A. and Mann, P. and Hiesinger, H. , Title=. Icarus , Volume=. 2012 , Publisher=

    2012

  34. [42]

    Rayner, J. T. and Toomey, D. W. and Onaka, P. M. and Denault, A. J. and Stahlberger, W. E. and Vacca, W. D. and Cushing, M. C. and Wang, S. , Title=. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , Volume=. 2003 , Publisher=

    2003

  35. [43]

    Kokaly, R. F. and Clark, R. N. and Swayze, G. A. and Livo, K. E. and Hoefen, T. M. and Pearson, N. C. and Wise, R. A. and Benzel, W. and Lowers, H. A. and Driscoll, R. L. and others , Title=. 2017 , Institution=

    2017

  36. [44]

    Sanchez, J. A. and Thomas, C. and Reddy, V. and Frere, N. and Lindsay, S. S. and Mitchell, A. , Title=. The Astronomical Journal , Volume=. 2020 , Publisher=

    2020

  37. [45]

    Cloutis, E. A. and Gaffey, M. J. and Jackowski, T. L. and Reed, K. L. , Title=. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , Volume=. 1986 , Publisher=

    1986

  38. [46]

    Adams, J. B. , Title=. Journal of Geophysical Research , Volume=. 1974 , Publisher=

    1974

  39. [47]

    and Gaffey, M

    Vilas, F. and Gaffey, M. J. , Title=. Science , Volume=. 1989 , Publisher=

    1989

  40. [48]

    and Bell, J

    Gaffey, M. and Bell, J. and Brown, R. and Burbine, T. and Piatek, J. and Reed, K. and Chaky, D. , Title=. Icarus , Volume=. 1993 , Publisher=

    1993

  41. [49]

    Clark, R. N. and Roush, T. L. , Title=. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , Volume=. 1984 , Publisher=

    1984

  42. [50]

    and Swayze, G

    Clark, R. and Swayze, G. and Livo, K. and Brodrick, P. and Noe Dobrea, E. and Vijayarangan, S. and Green, R. and Wettergreen, D. and Candela, A. and Hendrix, A. and others , Title=. The Planetary Science Journal , Volume=. 2024 , Publisher=

    2024

  43. [51]

    , Title=

    Harvey, A. , Title=. 2024 , Type=

    2024

  44. [52]

    Maryboy, N. C. , Title=. International Journal of Applied Science and Sustainable Development (IJASSD) , Year=

  45. [53]

    and Nelson, D

    Wagner, R. and Nelson, D. and Plescia, J. and Robinson, M. and Speyerer, E. and Mazarico, E. , Title=. Icarus , Volume=. 2017 , Publisher=

    2017

  46. [54]

    and Ewing, M

    Latham, G. and Ewing, M. and Dorman, J. and Press, F. and Toksoz, N. and Sutton, G. and Meissner, R. and Duennebier, F. and Nakamura, Y. and Kovach, R. and others , Title=. Science , Volume=. 1970 , Publisher=

    1970

  47. [55]

    , Title=

    Ennico-Smith, K. , Title=. Encyclopedia of Lunar Science , Pages=. 2023 , Publisher=

    2023

  48. [56]

    Stooke, P. J. , Title=. Icarus , Volume=. 2019 , ISSN=

    2019

  49. [57]

    Moon Base: About , Year=

  50. [58]

    Moon Missions , Year=

  51. [59]

    Every Mission to the Moon, Ever , Year=

  52. [60]

    China's Space Program: A 2021 Perspective , Year=

    2021

  53. [61]

    and Marsset, M

    Hasegawa, S. and Marsset, M. and DeMeo, F. E. and Bus, S. J. and Geem, J. and Ishiguro, M. and Im, M. and Kuroda, D. and Vernazza, P. , Title =. 2021 , Month =

    2021

  54. [62]

    , Title=

    Garay, J. , Title=. 2026 , URL=

    2026

  55. [63]

    2025 , Month=Jun, Day=

    ispace. 2025 , Month=Jun, Day=

    2025

  56. [64]

    Kokaly, R. F. , Title=. 2012 , Publisher=

    2012

  57. [65]

    and Lucey, P

    Honniball, C. and Lucey, P. and Li, S. and Shenoy, S. and Orlando, T. and Hibbitts, C. and Hurley, D. and Farrell, W. , Title=. Nature Astronomy , Volume=. 2021 , Publisher=

    2021

  58. [66]

    Lebofsky, L. A. , Title=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , Volume=. 1978 , Month=

    1978

  59. [67]

    and Bashir, M

    Raeissi, B. and Bashir, M. A. and Garrett, J. and Orlandic, M. and Johansen, T. A. and Skramstad, T. , Title=. Journal of Coatings Technology and Research , Volume=. 2022 , Publisher=

    2022

  60. [68]

    2015 , Month=Dec, Address=

    2015

  61. [69]

    2024 , Month=Jan, Day=

    2024

  62. [70]

    and Lowenthal, J

    Venkatesan, A. and Lowenthal, J. and Prem, P. and Vidaurri, M. , Title=. Nature Astronomy , Volume=. 2020 , Publisher=

    2020

  63. [71]

    and Vidaurri, M

    Tavares, F. and Vidaurri, M. and Denton, A. and Grier, J. and Harvey, A. and Milazzo, M. and Olson, H. and Prem, P. and Scalice, D. and Venkatesan, A. , Title=. Nature Astronomy , Volume=. 2024 , Publisher=

    2024

  64. [72]

    and Fuentes-Mu

    Kareta, T. and Fuentes-Mu. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , Volume=. 2025 , Publisher=

    2025

  65. [73]

    and Bolin, B

    Jedicke, R. and Bolin, B. and Bottke, W. and Chyba, M. and Fedorets, G. and Granvik, M. and Jones, L. and Urrutxua, H. , Title=. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , Volume=. 2018 , Publisher=

    2018

  66. [74]

    Boone, N. R. and Bettinger, R. A. , Title =. 2025 , ISSN =

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.