Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Ultra Low Velocity Ejecta Generated by Slow Impacts on Rubble Pile Asteroids

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extends a semi-empirical ejecta-velocity scaling to ultra-slow impacts under milligravity and argues that Earth-gravity deviations are an observability artifact.

desk verdict New milligravity data genuinely extend the ejecta-velocity scaling; the simulation-based cutoff explanation is the weak link and needs validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10140 v1 pith:DUPAAZN6 submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Kolja Joeris , Laurent Schönau , Matthias Keulen , Jonathan E. Kollmer This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ejectarubblepileasteroidslowvelocityimpactsmilligravitydiscreteelementmethodcohesiongranularphysicsobservabilitycutoff
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 reports drop-tower impact experiments in which irregular basalt impactors strike granular beds under milligravity (2 × 10⁻³ m/s²) and in vacuum, with impact speeds down to centimeters per second. It claims that the semi-empirical scaling that connects ejecta velocity to impactor size, bed grain size, and impactor velocity remains valid in this previously unexplored low-energy regime. It further argues that the failure of this scaling for Earth-gravity experiments is not a change in the underlying physics but a gravity-dependent observability cutoff: slow ejecta that do not rise visibly above the bed are missed by cameras, biasing measured mean velocities upward. The claim matters because it would validate using the same ejecta scaling for rubble-pile asteroid surfaces, where escape velocities are tiny, and would reconcile Earth-based laboratory data with microgravity data without invoking new cohesive-force physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'observation time' τ₀ = √(d/a), derived from grain diameter d and ambient acceleration a, used to define which ejecta particles are observable: those that rise at least their own diameter within τ₀. In the DEM simulation this cutoff is applied to the full velocity distribution, separating true ejecta from grains that merely jiggle within the bed, and it produces gravity-dependent slopes in the scaled ejecta-velocity plots that mirror the experimental discrepancy.

What would settle it

A direct test: run Earth-gravity impacts into a granular bed while using a detection setup sensitive to ejecta velocities below √(g·d) (for example, with larger-than-usual grains or laser-sheet illumination), and check whether the Earth-gravity data then collapse onto the same linear scaling as the low-gravity data. If they still do not, the observability cutoff is not the cause. Alternatively, in the DEM simulation, disable the cutoff and compare the full velocity distribution to an experimentally measured detection threshold: if the experimental mean does not match the cutoff-adjusted simulation mean, the proposed criterion is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the linear trend in the scaled ejecta-velocity plot extends into the regime of extremely slow impacts at low partial gravity, verifying the semi-empirical law of Brisset et al. for a broader parameter range. It demonstrates that the Earth-gravity data do not fit this scaling, and uses DEM simulations with cohesion to show that slopes of the linear fits increase systematically with ambient gravity. The mechanism proposed is that gravity sets a lower limit on observable ejecta velocities: a particle must rise at least its own diameter within a gravity-dependent observation time to be counted, and this cutoff shifts measured mean velocities upward, more strongly at higher gravity. The authors conclude that this observability cutoff, not a change in impact physics, explains why Earth-gravity ejecta measurements depart from the low-gravity scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The explanation for the Earth-gravity discrepancy rests on the definition of observation time τ₀ = √(d/a) and the rule that grains not risen their own diameter by that time are unobservable; if real camera detection (resolution, contrast, tracking thresholds) does not match this criterion, the proposed mechanism collapses even if the scaling extension still holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, the ejecta-velocity scaling for low-velocity impacts can be applied to rubble-pile asteroids without modification for energies down to centimeter-per-second impacts, helping predict regolith transport and surface evolution.
  • Earth-gravity laboratory impact experiments into granular beds will need to account for the observability cutoff when interpreting ejecta velocities; observed trends may overestimate true mean velocities at low impact speeds.
  • The gravity-dependent slope of the ejecta-velocity scaling can be used to infer the effective ambient gravity or the detection threshold of a given experimental setup, providing a cross-check for both experiments and simulations.
  • The simulation results suggest that any experiment comparing ejecta across gravity levels should either enforce a common detection threshold or correct for the cutoff, rather than assuming gravity-independent behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction follows: if the observability cutoff truly explains Earth-gravity deviations, then performing Earth-gravity impacts with a detection system sensitive to velocities below √(g·d) (or with artificially enlarged grains) should make the Earth data collapse onto the same universal scaling.
  • The cutoff mechanism may also affect other granular processes studied in low gravity, such as impactor rebound or surface erosion, where particles that move slowly and remain near the surface might be systematically undercounted.
  • The paper's slope-versus-gravity trend (Fig. 7) could serve as a calibration curve: given an experimental ejecta slope, one could estimate the effective gravity level of an unknown reduced-gravity facility, provided the detection threshold is matched.
  • The authors' reliance on a single observation time suggests that a more refined, threshold-based detection model (incorporating camera resolution, contrast, and particle size) might reconcile the remaining offset seen in the Brisset data, which they note lies at higher effective gravity than reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports drop-tower experiments in vacuum with controlled milligravity (2e-3 m/s^2), where irregular basaltic impactors strike granular beds at cm/s impact speeds, and ejecta velocities are measured with three optical methods (manual tracking, radius method, PIV). The new data extend the Brisset et al. (2020) semi-empirical scaling ve ~ (Dp/dg)^(1/3) vi^(1/2) toward lower impact velocities, while Earth-gravity data do not follow the same trend. DEM simulations with cohesion are used to argue that a gravity-dependent observability cutoff—particles must rise at least their own diameter within an observation time t_o = sqrt(d/a)—explains the absence of the trend at Earth gravity by shifting mean observed ejecta velocities. The paper claims the scaling remains valid in the ultra-low-velocity, low-gravity regime and that the cutoff is crucial for the mean ejecta velocities.

Significance. If the empirical extension holds, the paper provides valuable evidence that the ejecta-velocity scaling remains valid in the cohesive, low-velocity regime relevant to rubble-pile asteroids, and it identifies observability as a potential source of the Earth-gravity discrepancy. The experimental campaign is unusual and carefully designed, and the paper is explicitly transparent about measurement difficulties, including the admitted systematic overestimation for small particles. The simulations make a falsifiable prediction that the slope of ve versus the scaled abscissa increases with ambient gravity, which could be tested in future partial-gravity experiments. However, the central mechanism claim currently rests on an unvalidated and dimensionally unclear observability cutoff, so the abstract's explanatory claim is not yet established at the same level as the raw data extension.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods IV B and Discussion/Fig. 7] The explanatory claim of the abstract and Discussion—that a gravity-dependent minimal observable velocity explains the Earth-gravity mismatch—rests on the observability cutoff t_o = sqrt(d/a) introduced in Methods IV B. Two problems make this load-bearing step unsupported. First, the stated derivation is not dimensionally consistent: to rise one diameter under acceleration a a ballistic particle needs v = sqrt(2ad) and t = sqrt(2d/a), whereas t_o = sqrt(d/a) corresponds to one radius from rest or to a different initial speed; the alternative construction "dividing the particle radius by this velocity" gives sqrt(d/(8a)), not sqrt(d/a). Second, the cutoff is never validated against the actual detection limits of the three experimental methods in Section IV A (manual tracking, radius method, PIV) or against camera resolution, frame rate, contrast, and lighting. If real detection depends on horizontal track length, pixel footprint, or signal-to-noise rather than on the idealized vertical-rise criterion, the slope-versus-gravity trend in Fig. 7 could be an artifact of the model's chosen threshold rather than a physical effect. Please correct the ballistic factor, perform a sensitivity scan over t_o, and demonstrate with synthetic images or an equivalent test that the simulated cutoff reproduces what the cameras would actually detect.
  2. [Section II, Figs. 2, 3, 6] The experimental ejecta velocities are plotted without point-by-point uncertainties, despite Section IV A describing three methods with different systematic limitations and explicitly admitting a systematic overestimation of velocities for small particles. The slope comparison in Figs. 6 and 7 (ma=0.22 versus ml=0.635) quotes only the standard error of the fit parameters, which does not include the method-level systematics, the manual versus PIV differences, or the effect of assigning ve=0.1 cm/s to no-ejecta events in Fig. 2. Please provide error bars or a per-method uncertainty budget and show that the separation between asteroid-gravity and Earth-gravity data, and the slope attributions, survive these systematics.
  3. [Methods IV B / Fig. 4] The DEM simulation is the only evidence for the mechanism claim, but the model is not validated against the experiments at matched conditions: no comparison of simulated and measured velocity distributions at the same gravity and impactor parameters is shown, and the material parameters (Young's modulus reduced by one to two orders of magnitude relative to basalt, cohesion energy density 21600 erg/cm3, friction and restitution coefficients) are not varied. A sensitivity study over the cohesive parameters and a direct validation of the simulated ejecta-velocity distribution at 2e-3 m/s^2 would be needed to rule out that the slope-versus-gravity trend in Fig. 7 is controlled by the unconstrained contact model rather than by the observability cutoff.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II, paragraph 1] The sentence 'from asteroid gravity aa = 2 · 10−3 m/s2 to earth gravity ae = 104 m/s2' should read ae = 10 m/s2 (or 10^1 m/s2); as printed, 104 is inconsistent with all later statements and with Fig. 4.
  2. [Methods IV B] The phrase 'a set of 32891 spherical particles with diameters of 0.9mm radius' mixes diameter and radius; please specify either a diameter of 1.8 mm or a radius of 0.9 mm.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'With the the increased contribution' in the Introduction, 'extents' for 'extends' and 'withing' for 'within' in the Discussion, and 'preformed' for 'performed' and 'dot not examine' for 'do not examine' in Methods IV A.
  4. [Section II, Fig. 2] For the assignment of ve=0.1 cm/s to impacts with no measurable ejecta, please state how many such events occur and confirm explicitly that they are excluded from the fits shown in Figs. 3 and 6.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'binning with 0.05m/s'; please specify whether this is a linear bin width and how the apparent power-law behavior depends on the bin choice, and clarify that the black 'without cutoff' curve is the full particle distribution including bed particles, not the ejecta distribution.
  6. [Discussion, Fig. 7] The phrase 'The vertical scale of the red area' likely means 'vertical extent' rather than 'scale'; the red area in Fig. 7 should be clearly defined in the caption so it is not mistaken for a data symbol.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Core scaling extension is independent, but the cutoff-mechanism claim is partly built into the simulation's gravity-dependent observability threshold.

  1. self definitional [Methods IV B (observation time definition) and Discussion (cutoff argument, Fig. 7)]
    "The observation time to = p d/a with diameter d and acceleration a is determined from that by dividing the particle radius by this velocity."

    This gravity-dependent timing is an input to the DEM simulation: ejecta velocities are evaluated at t_o, so the counted population depends on a by construction. The resulting slope-vs-gravity trend in Fig. 7 is generated by that imposed cutoff. The Discussion then invokes it as the explanation: 'We now argue, that one reason for why the Earth gravity data does not fit into this scaling is due to the fact that gravity sets a lower limit for observable ejecta velocities ... Since this cutoff is also applied to the simulation data, the observed similarity supports this hypothesis.' Thus the conclusion is already contained in the simulation setup; the simulations cannot independently validate the cutoff hypothesis without a direct measurement of the experimental detection threshold.

full rationale

The paper's primary empirical result—the extension of the Brisset scaling ve ~ (Dp/dg)^(1/3) vi^(1/2) to cm/s impacts in milligravity—is grounded in new drop-tower experiments and is not circular. That part of the paper is self-contained against external data and deserves a low score on its own. However, the central mechanism claim, that a gravity-dependent minimal observable velocity explains the Earth-gravity mismatch, rests on the simulation's imposed observation time to = sqrt(d/a). This time is defined in the Methods and used to truncate the simulated velocity distributions; the slope-versus-gravity trend in Fig. 7 therefore reflects the model's own cutoff rather than an independently measured detection threshold. The Discussion then cites this same simulation—already built with the cutoff—as evidence for the hypothesis, which is a circular validation of the mechanism. In addition, the stated derivation of to is dimensionally inconsistent (rising one diameter under acceleration a requires t = sqrt(2d/a), not sqrt(d/a)), further weakening the connection between the cutoff definition and the physical observability it is meant to represent. The authors never directly measure the experimental cutoff or compare it with camera resolution, contrast, or tracking thresholds, so the mechanism conclusion is not independently established. The overall score of 6 reflects that the core scaling extension is valid and independent, while the paper's main explanatory conclusion is partially circular because the simulation's observability filter is both the cause and the evidence for the gravity-dependent cutoff.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the adopted Brisset scaling and on a gravity-dependent observability criterion introduced in the simulation. The DEM material parameters are chosen, not measured, and no independent calibration is provided. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Cohesion energy density = 21600 ergs/cm3
    Used in the SKJR2 cohesion model in DEM; no independent calibration against material surface energy is given, and it strongly affects low-gravity ejecta behavior.
  • Young's modulus = 1e9 Pa
    Set 1 to 2 orders below real basalt to reduce simulation time; affects contact stiffness and energy dissipation.
  • Friction coefficient = 0.2
    DEM contact parameter chosen by the authors; not experimentally calibrated for the simulant.
  • Restitution coefficient = 0.5
    DEM contact parameter chosen by the authors; not experimentally calibrated.
  • Poisson ratio = 0.2
    DEM contact parameter chosen by the authors; not experimentally calibrated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Brisset scaling, ve proportional to (Dp/dg)^(1/3) vi^(1/2), is the correct organizing law.
    The paper adopts this semi-empirical scaling from ref 8 and uses it to compare data; the paper does not derive it, it verifies extension.
  • ad hoc to paper A particle is observable as ejecta if it can rise at least its own diameter against gravity within the observation time to = sqrt(d/a).
    Introduced in Methods IV B and Fig. 5; underlies the simulation cutoff that drives the paper's mechanism explanation; not directly measured against camera sensitivity or resolution.
  • domain assumption Hertzian plus SKJR2 DEM with the given parameters captures the relevant granular dynamics.
    Simulation is used as evidence for the cutoff mechanism; no validation against the measured ejecta velocities is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultra Low Velocity Ejecta Generated by Slow Impacts on Rubble Pile Asteroids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUPAAZN6

@misc{pith2026241210140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultra Low Velocity Ejecta Generated by Slow Impacts on Rubble Pile Asteroids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUPAAZN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10140}
}
read the original abstract

We examine ejecta generated by ultra low velocity impacts under asteroid conditions. In an environment of precisely controlled milligravity and under vacuum, impacts with velocities in the range of centimeters/second are performed with irregularly shaped impactors onto granular beds. The resulting ejecta velocities are compared to existing literature values and extend the observed systematic trends towards lower impact energies, broadening the parameter range. Simulations are performed to reason the systematics and the absence thereof for measurements performed at earth gravity. We find, that the cutoff induced by gravity dependent minimal observable velocities plays a crucial role in the values obtained for mean ejecta velocities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10140 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: All data points for ejecta velocities from literature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Example ejecta plumes. Views from the main camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Experimental ejecta velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Ejecta velocities taken from numerical simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Velocity distribution of ejecta from Simulation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Slopes of linear fits from 4. Blue: Simulations. Red: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_7.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The left panel, Fig. 1a shows an example impact with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yano , author T

    author author H. Yano , author T. Kubota , author H. Miyamoto , author T. Okada , author D. Scheeres , author Y. Takagi , author K. Yoshida , author M. Abe , author S. Abe , author O. Barnouin-Jha , et al. ,\ title title Touchdown of the hayabusa spacecraft at the muses sea on itokawa , \ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 312 ,\ pages 1350--1353 ( ye...

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    author author D. S. \ Lauretta , author H. L. \ Enos , author A. T. \ Polit , author H. L. \ Roper ,\ and\ author C. W. \ Wolner ,\ title title Osiris-rex at bennu: Overcoming challenges to collect a sample of the early solar system , \ in\ @noop booktitle Sample return missions \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ year 2021 )\ pp.\ pages 163--194 NoStop

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Arakawa , author T

    author author M. Arakawa , author T. Saiki , author K. Wada , author K. Ogawa , author T. Kadono , author K. Shirai , author H. Sawada , author K. Ishibashi , author R. Honda , author N. Sakatani , et al. ,\ title title An artificial impact on the asteroid (162173) ryugu formed a crater in the gravity-dominated regime , \ @noop journal journal Science \ v...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    \ Li , author M

    author author J.-Y. \ Li , author M. Hirabayashi , author T. L. \ Farnham , author J. M. \ Sunshine , author M. M. \ Knight , author G. Tancredi , author F. Moreno , author B. Murphy , author C. Opitom , author S. Chesley , et al. ,\ title title Ejecta from the dart-produced active asteroid dimorphos , \ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 616 ,\ pages ...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    author author A. F. \ Cheng , author H. F. \ Agrusa , author B. W. \ Barbee , author A. J. \ Meyer , author T. L. \ Farnham , author S. D. \ Raducan , author D. C. \ Richardson , author E. Dotto , author A. Zinzi , author V. Della Corte , et al. ,\ title title Momentum transfer from the dart mission kinetic impact on asteroid dimorphos , \ @noop journal j...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Bogdan , author J

    author author T. Bogdan , author J. E. \ Kollmer , author J. Teiser , author M. Kruss ,\ and\ author G. Wurm ,\ title title Laboratory impact splash experiments to simulate asteroid surfaces , \ @noop journal journal Icarus \ volume 341 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    author author J. E. \ Colwell , author S. Sture , author M. Cintala , author D. Durda , author A. Hendrix , author T. Goudie , author D. Curtis , author D. J. \ Ashcom , author M. Kanter , author T. Keohane , et al. ,\ title title Ejecta from impacts at 0.2--2.3 m/s in low gravity , \ @noop journal journal Icarus \ volume 195 ,\ pages 908--917 ( year 2008...

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Brisset , author C

    author author J. Brisset , author C. Cox , author S. Anderson , author J. Hatchitt , author A. Madison , author M. Mendonca , author A. Partida ,\ and\ author D. Remie ,\ title title Regolith behavior under asteroid-level gravity conditions: Low -velocity impacts into mm- and cm-sized grain targets , \ https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038665 journal j...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038665

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Sunday , author N

    author author C. Sunday , author N. Murdoch , author O. Cherrier , author S. Morales Serrano , author C. Valeria Nardi , author T. Janin , author I. Avila Martinez , author Y. Gourinat ,\ and\ author D. Mimoun ,\ title title A novel facility for reduced-gravity testing: A setu...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Murdoch , author P

    author author N. Murdoch , author P. S \'a nchez , author S. R. \ Schwartz ,\ and\ author H. Miyamoto ,\ title title Asteroid surface geophysics , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.01931 \ ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    author author K. J. \ Walsh ,\ title title Rubble pile asteroids , \ @noop journal journal Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. \ volume 56 ,\ pages 593--624 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  4. [12]

    Fujiwara , author J

    author author A. Fujiwara , author J. Kawaguchi , author D. K. \ Yeomans , author M. Abe , author T. Mukai , author T. Okada , author J. Saito , author H. Yano , author M. Yoshikawa , author D. J. \ Scheeres , author O. Barnouin-Jha , author A. F. \ Cheng , author H. Demura , ...

  5. [13]

    Miyamoto , author H

    author author H. Miyamoto , author H. Yano , author D. J. \ Scheeres , author S. Abe , author O. Barnouin-Jha , author A. F. \ Cheng , author H. Demura , author R. W. \ Gaskell , author N. Hirata , author M. Ishiguro , et al. ,\ title title Regolith migration and sorting on as...

    2007

  6. [14]

    Jiang \ and\ author J

    author author Y. Jiang \ and\ author J. Schmidt ,\ title title Motion of dust ejected from the surface of asteroid (101955) bennu , \ @noop journal journal Heliyon \ volume 6 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  7. [15]

    author author D. J. \ Scheeres , author C. M. \ Hartzell , author P. Sánchez ,\ and\ author M. Swift ,\ title title Scaling forces to asteroid surfaces: The role of cohesion , \ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.07.009 journal journal Icarus \ volume 210 ,\ pages 968--984 ...

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Joeris , author L

    author author K. Joeris , author L. Sch \"o nau , author M. Keulen , author P. Born ,\ and\ author J. E. \ Kollmer ,\ title title The influence of interparticle cohesion on rebounding slow impacts on rubble pile asteroids , \ @noop journal journal npj Microgravity \ volume 8 ,...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Joeris , author M

    author author K. Joeris , author M. Keulen ,\ and\ author J. E. \ Kollmer ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12391 title Controlled partial gravity platform for milligravity in drop tower experiments , \ ( year 2024 ),\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12391 arXiv:2411.12391 [astro-ph.IM] NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Brisset , author J

    author author J. Brisset , author J. Colwell , author A. Dove , author S. Abukhalil , author C. Cox ,\ and\ author N. Mohammed ,\ title title Regolith behavior under asteroid-level gravity conditions: low-velocity impact experiments , \ https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.prox.l...

    doi

  11. [19]

    author author J. E. \ Colwell ,\ title title Low velocity impacts into dust: results from the collide-2 microgravity experiment , \ @noop journal journal Icarus \ volume 164 ,\ pages 188--196 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  12. [20]

    Joeris , author L

    author author K. Joeris , author L. Schönau , author L. Schmidt , author M. Keulen , author V. Desai , author P. Born ,\ and\ author J. Kollmer ,\ title title Experiments on rebounding slow impacts under asteroid conditions , \ https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124913003 jour...

  13. [21]

    Von Kampen , author U

    author author P. Von Kampen , author U. Kaczmarczik ,\ and\ author H. J. \ Rath ,\ title title The new drop tower catapult system , \ @noop journal journal Acta Astronautica \ volume 59 ,\ pages 278--283 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  14. [22]

    Kloss , author C

    author author C. Kloss , author C. Goniva , author A. Hager , author S. Amberger ,\ and\ author S. Pirker ,\ title title Models, algorithms and validation for opensource dem and cfd--dem , \ @noop journal journal Prog. Comput. Fluid. Dy. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 140--152 ( year 20...

    2012

  15. [23]

    Johnson , author K

    author author K. Johnson , author K. Kendall ,\ and\ author A. Roberts ,\ title title SURFACE ENERGY AND CONTACT OF ELASTIC SOLIDS , \ https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rspa.1971.0141 journal journal Proc. R. Soc. Lon. Mat. \ volume 324 ,\ pages 301 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971

  16. [24]

    Steinpilz , author K

    author author T. Steinpilz , author K. Joeris , author F. Jungmann , author D. Wolf , author L. Brendel , author J. Teiser , author T. Shinbrot ,\ and\ author G. Wurm ,\ title title Electrical charging overcomes the bouncing barrier in planet formation , \ https://doi.org/ 10....

    doi

  17. [25]

    Le Bas \ and\ author A

    author author M. Le Bas \ and\ author A. L. \ Streckeisen ,\ title title The iugs systematics of igneous rocks , \ @noop journal journal Journal of the Geological Society \ volume 148 ,\ pages 825--833 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1991

  18. [26]

    author author C. E. \ Vennari , author F. Lin , author M. Kunz , author M. Akaogi , author L. Miyagi ,\ and\ author Q. Williams ,\ title title Deformation and strength of mantle relevant garnets: Implications for the subduction of basaltic-rich crust , \ @noop journal journal ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.