pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.02418 · v3 · submitted 2025-08-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Placing the Near-Earth Object Impact Probability in Context

C. R. Nugent , K. P. Andersen , James M. Bauer , C. T. Jensen , L. K. Kristiansen , C. P. Hansen , M. M. Nielsen , C. F. Vesterg{\aa}rd This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 01:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords near-earth objectsasteroid impactsimpact probabilityNEO population modelrisk comparisonpreventable deathplanetary defense
0
0 comments X

The pith

The probability of a >140 m asteroid hitting Earth exceeds an individual's chance of being struck by lightning.

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

This paper derives the impact frequency of near-Earth objects 140 meters and larger from the NEOMOD2 population model and JPL Horizons orbital data. It then situates that frequency alongside other preventable causes of death, including car crashes, carbon monoxide poisoning, and lightning strikes. A sympathetic reader would care because the comparison turns an abstract global catastrophe into a concrete probability that can be weighed against familiar personal risks. The authors conclude that the asteroid impact probability is higher than the lightning strike risk for an individual. This framing supports clearer public discussion of planetary defense needs relative to everyday hazards.

Core claim

Using the NEOMOD2 NEO population model and impact probabilities from JPL Horizons, the paper derives the frequency of impacts by objects 140 m and larger. It places this planetary-scale risk in direct comparison with individual preventable causes of death and reports that the chance of such an asteroid striking Earth is greater than the chance of an individual being struck by lightning.

What carries the argument

NEOMOD2 NEO population model integrated with JPL Horizons data, which supplies the size-frequency distribution and orbital elements needed to compute impact rates for objects larger than 140 m.

If this is right

  • NEO discovery and deflection technologies can reduce the impact probability with sufficient warning time.
  • Planetary impacts can be compared directly to individual risks for public risk communication.
  • Contextualizing the asteroid threat with car crashes and lightning strikes may inform allocation of safety resources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the comparison holds, public messaging could treat asteroid defense as comparable in urgency to reducing common individual risks.
  • Refinements to population models from new surveys would directly update these relative probabilities.
  • Similar risk-context exercises might be applied to other low-probability, high-consequence events such as supervolcanoes.

Load-bearing premise

The NEOMOD2 model and associated JPL Horizons probabilities accurately represent the current size-frequency distribution and orbital elements of near-Earth objects larger than 140 m.

What would settle it

A future all-sky survey that discovers substantially more or fewer near-Earth objects larger than 140 m than the NEOMOD2 model predicts, or orbital updates that revise the calculated impact frequency downward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.02418 by C. F. Vesterg{\aa}rd, C. P. Hansen, C. R. Nugent, C. T. Jensen, James M. Bauer, K. P. Andersen, L. K. Kristiansen, M. M. Nielsen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The chance of a > 140m NEO impacting Earth placed in context with the chance that other preventable events may happen to an individual. Individual event frequency and fatality chances are taken from peer reviewed studies on particular regions over specific time intervals; these are broad averages, individual risks vary widely. We expect most readers to be able to identify some events that are relevant to t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Near-Earth objects (NEOs) have the potential to cause extensive damage and loss of life on Earth. Advancements in NEO discovery, trajectory prediction, and deflection technology indicate that an impact could be prevented, with sufficient warning time. We derive an impact frequency of NEOs 140m and larger, using the NEOMOD2 NEO population model and JPL Horizons. We then place that frequency in context with other preventable causes of death; allowing for comparison between a planet-wide event and individual events that cause fatalities such as car crashes and carbon monoxide poisoning. We find that the chance of a $>140$ m asteroid hitting the Earth is more likely than the chance of an individual being struck by lightning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the annual Earth-impact frequency for near-Earth objects (NEOs) larger than 140 m by combining the NEOMOD2 population model with orbital elements from JPL Horizons. It then compares this frequency to the annual probability that an individual is struck by lightning and places the NEO risk in context with other preventable causes of death such as car crashes and carbon monoxide poisoning, concluding that the asteroid impact probability exceeds the lightning-strike probability.

Significance. If the central numerical comparison holds after uncertainty quantification, the work provides a clear, quantitative benchmark that could improve public communication of planetary-defense risks by relating a low-probability global event to familiar individual hazards.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: the derived impact frequency for >140 m NEOs is presented without error bars, sensitivity tests on the size threshold, or propagation of uncertainties from the NEOMOD2 parameters; because the headline claim that this frequency exceeds the lightning-strike probability rests directly on the absolute normalization of that model, the absence of these checks makes the inequality vulnerable to modest revisions in the input population.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the comparison to lightning is obtained by feeding an already-calibrated NEOMOD2 model (fitted to earlier survey data) into JPL Horizons propagators; no independent cross-check against other catalogs (e.g., NEOWISE or recent Catalina detections) is described, so the result is downstream of prior parameter choices rather than a new, falsifiable prediction.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The lightning baseline probability is referenced but not explicitly stated with its source or numerical value in the abstract; adding this figure would allow readers to reproduce the inequality immediately.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and detailed report. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating where revisions have been made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: the derived impact frequency for >140 m NEOs is presented without error bars, sensitivity tests on the size threshold, or propagation of uncertainties from the NEOMOD2 parameters; because the headline claim that this frequency exceeds the lightning-strike probability rests directly on the absolute normalization of that model, the absence of these checks makes the inequality vulnerable to modest revisions in the input population.

    Authors: We agree that presenting the impact frequency without error bars or sensitivity tests makes the comparison less robust. In the revised manuscript, we now include error bars based on the uncertainties in the NEOMOD2 model. We have conducted sensitivity tests varying the size threshold and propagated uncertainties from the model parameters and orbital elements. These additions demonstrate that the central finding holds within the quantified uncertainties. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the comparison to lightning is obtained by feeding an already-calibrated NEOMOD2 model (fitted to earlier survey data) into JPL Horizons propagators; no independent cross-check against other catalogs (e.g., NEOWISE or recent Catalina detections) is described, so the result is downstream of prior parameter choices rather than a new, falsifiable prediction.

    Authors: The manuscript does rely on the calibrated NEOMOD2 model without performing an independent re-derivation. We have added text in the Methods section providing cross-checks against NEOWISE and Catalina data as published in the literature. This supports the model's normalization for the purposes of this contextualization study. A full independent analysis would require access to raw survey data and is outside the scope of the current work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; frequency computed from external model and compared to independent statistic

full rationale

The paper states it derives the impact frequency for >140 m NEOs by applying the NEOMOD2 population model together with JPL Horizons orbital data, then numerically compares that frequency to the separately established annual probability of an individual being struck by lightning. No equation or step reduces the output frequency or the final inequality to the paper's own inputs by construction. The model is treated as an external input rather than fitted or redefined within the work, and the lightning comparison uses an independent external rate. This is a standard model-based contextual comparison with no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or self-citation load-bearing reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the pre-existing NEOMOD2 population model and on the assumption that the chosen lightning-strike probability is a fair comparator; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption NEOMOD2 provides an accurate size-frequency distribution and impact probability for NEOs >140 m
    Invoked to derive the impact frequency from prior literature

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5686 in / 1286 out tokens · 33558 ms · 2026-05-19T01:01:53.247343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Nepal: Patterns of Human Fatalities and Injuries Caused by Large Mammals, PloS one, 11, e0161717, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161717

    Acharya, K., Paudel, P., Neupane, P., & K¨ ohl, M. 2016, Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Nepal: Patterns of Human Fatalities and Injuries Caused by Large Mammals, PloS one, 11, e0161717, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161717

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161717 2016

  2. [2]

    Aeronautics, N., & Administration, S. 2023, NASA Planetary Defense Strategy and Action Plan: In Support of the National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Object Hazards and Planetary Defense, in Support of the National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Object Hazards and Planetary Defense (National Aeronautics and Spa...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H

    Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. 1980, Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    Extinction, Science, 208, 1095, doi: 10.1126/science.208.4448.1095

    work page doi:10.1126/science.208.4448.1095

  5. [5]

    O., & Timm, R

    Baker, R. O., & Timm, R. M. 2017, Coyote attacks on humans, 1970-2015: implications for reducing the risks, Human-Wildlife Interactions, 11, 120

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Baldwin, R. B. 1949, The face of the moon. (The University of Chicago Press)

    work page 1949

  7. [7]

    M., Grav, T., Fern´ andez, Y

    Bauer, J. M., Grav, T., Fern´ andez, Y. R., et al. 2017, Debiasing the NEOWISE Cryogenic Mission Comet

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Populations, AJ, 154, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa72df

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa72df

  9. [9]

    2000, Understanding the Distribution of Near-Earth Asteroids, Science, 288, 2190, doi: 10.1126/science.288.5474.2190

    Gladman, B. 2000, Understanding the Distribution of Near-Earth Asteroids, Science, 288, 2190, doi: 10.1126/science.288.5474.2190

    work page doi:10.1126/science.288.5474.2190 2000

  10. [10]

    F., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al

    Bottke, W. F., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2002, Debiased Orbital and Absolute Magnitude Distribution of the Near-Earth Objects, Icarus, 156, 399, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6788

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6788 2002

  11. [11]

    R., & Morrison, D

    Chapman, C. R., & Morrison, D. 1994, Impacts on the Earth by asteroids and comets: assessing the hazard, Nature, 367, 33, doi: 10.1038/367033a0

    work page doi:10.1038/367033a0 1994

  12. [12]

    F., Thomas, P

    Chyba, C. F., Thomas, P. J., & Zahnle, K. J. 1993, The 1908 Tunguska explosion: atmospheric disruption of a stony asteroid, Nature, 361, 40, doi: 10.1038/361040a0

    work page doi:10.1038/361040a0 1993

  13. [13]

    V., Ragozzine, D., Granvik, M., & Stephens, D

    Cook, N. V., Ragozzine, D., Granvik, M., & Stephens, D. C. 2016, Realistic Detectability of Close Interstellar

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    Comets, ApJ, 825, 51, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/51

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/825/1/51

  15. [15]

    Council, N. R. 2010, Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press), doi: 10.17226/12842 D’Abramo, G., Harris, A. W., Boattini, A., et al. 2001, A Simple Probabilistic Model to Estimate the Population of near-Earth Asteroids, Icarus, 153, 214, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/i...

    work page doi:10.17226/12842 2010

  16. [16]

    T., Ernst, C

    Daly, R. T., Ernst, C. M., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2023, Successful kinetic impact into an asteroid for planetary defence, Nature, 616, 443, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05810-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05810-5 2023

  17. [17]

    Damhuis, M., van der Wal, R., Frielink, H., et al. 2024, The ground is the limit: epidemiology of skydiving accidents over 25 years and in 2.1 million jumps in the Netherlands with sub-analysis of injuries reported by medical professionals in the past five years, World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 19, doi: 10.1186/s13017-024-00535-w

    work page doi:10.1186/s13017-024-00535-w 2024

  18. [18]

    2025, The debiased Near-Earth object population from ATLAS telescopes, Icarus, 425, 116316, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116316

    Deienno, R., Denneau, L., Nesvorn´ y, D., et al. 2025, The debiased Near-Earth object population from ATLAS telescopes, Icarus, 425, 116316, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116316

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116316 2025

  19. [19]

    L., Wheeler, L., & Mathias, D

    Dotson, J. L., Wheeler, L., & Mathias, D. 2024, Consequences of asteroid characterization on the state of knowledge about inferred physical parameters and impact risk, Acta Astronautica, 222, 550, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.04.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2024.04.020 2024

  20. [20]

    Francis, P. J. 2005, The Demographics of Long-Period

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Comets, ApJ, 635, 1348, doi: 10.1086/497684

    work page doi:10.1086/497684

  22. [22]

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

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    2016, Super-catastrophic disruption of asteroids at small perihelion distances, Nature, 530, 303, doi: 10.1038/nature16934 —

    Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2016, Super-catastrophic disruption of asteroids at small perihelion distances, Nature, 530, 303, doi: 10.1038/nature16934 —. 2018, Debiased orbit and absolute-magnitude distributions for near-Earth objects, Icarus, 312, 181, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    work page doi:10.1038/nature16934 2016

  24. [24]

    K., Masiero, J

    Grav, T., Mainzer, A. K., Masiero, J. R., et al. 2023, The NEO Surveyor Near-Earth Asteroid Known Object

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Model, PSJ, 4, 228, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad072e

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad072e

  26. [26]

    2012, The orbital distribution of Near-Earth Objects inside Earth’s orbit, Icarus, 217, 355, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.010

    Greenstreet, S., Ngo, H., & Gladman, B. 2012, The orbital distribution of Near-Earth Objects inside Earth’s orbit, Icarus, 217, 355, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.010 2012

  27. [27]

    B., Beebe, R

    Hammel, H. B., Beebe, R. F., Ingersoll, A. P., et al. 1995, HST Imaging of Atmospheric Phenomena Created by the Impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, Science, 267, 1288, doi: 10.1126/science.7871425

    work page doi:10.1126/science.7871425 1995

  28. [28]

    Harris, A. W. 1998, Evaluation of ground-based optical surveys for near-Earth asteroids, Planet. Space Sci., 46, 283, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(97)00036-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0032-0633(97)00036-6 1998

  29. [29]

    W., & Chodas, P

    Harris, A. W., & Chodas, P. W. 2021, The population of near-earth asteroids revisited and updated, Icarus, 365, 114452, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114452

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114452 2021

  30. [30]

    W., & D’Abramo, G

    Harris, A. W., & D’Abramo, G. 2015, The population of near-Earth asteroids, Icarus, 257, 302, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.05.004 11

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.05.004 2015

  31. [31]

    N., Denneau, L., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Denneau, L., Tonry, J. L., et al. 2021, NEO

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Population, Velocity Bias, and Impact Risk from an ATLAS Analysis, PSJ, 2, 12, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abd325

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abd325

  33. [33]

    N., Izidoro, A., & Morbidelli, A

    Jedicke, R., Granvik, M., Micheli, M., et al. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel, F. E. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke (University of Arizona Press), 795–813, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch040

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2015

  34. [34]

    2023, Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2021, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 261, 1045, doi: 10.2460/javma.23.02.0081

    Ma, X., Bonaparte, S., Corbett, P., et al. 2023, Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2021, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 261, 1045, doi: 10.2460/javma.23.02.0081

    work page doi:10.2460/javma.23.02.0081 2023

  35. [35]

    2011, NEOWISE Observations of Near-Earth Objects: Preliminary Results, ApJ, 743, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156

    Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Bauer, J., et al. 2011, NEOWISE Observations of Near-Earth Objects: Preliminary Results, ApJ, 743, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/156 2011

  36. [36]

    A., Haas, T

    Maron, B. A., Haas, T. S., & Maron, B. J. 2007, Sudden Death from Collapsing Sand Holes, New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 2655, doi: 10.1056/NEJMc070913

    work page doi:10.1056/nejmc070913 2007

  37. [37]

    L., Wheeler, L

    Mathias, D. L., Wheeler, L. F., & Dotson, J. L. 2017, A probabilistic asteroid impact risk model: assessment of sub-300 m impacts, Icarus, 289, 106, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.02.009 2017

  38. [38]

    W., Sommer, G., Chapman, C

    Morrison, D., Harris, A. W., Sommer, G., Chapman, C. R., & Carusi, A. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. J. Bottke, W. F., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, & R. P. Binzel (University of Arizona Press), 739–754

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    P., Chesley, S

    Naidu, S. P., Chesley, S. R., Moskovitz, N., et al. 2024, Orbital and Physical Characterization of Asteroid Dimorphos Following the DART Impact, PSJ, 5, 74, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad26e7 Nesvorn´ y, D., Deienno, R., Bottke, W. F., et al. 2023, NEOMOD: A New Orbital Distribution Model for Near-Earth Objects, AJ, 166, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ace040 Nesvorn´ y,...

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad26e7 2024

  40. [40]

    Oort, J. H. 1950, The structure of the cloud of comets surrounding the Solar System and a hypothesis concerning its origin, BAN, 11, 91

    work page 1950

  41. [41]

    Opik, E. J. 1958, On the Catastrophic Effect of Collisions with Celestial Bodies, Irish Astronomical Journal, 5, 36

    work page 1958

  42. [42]

    Erwin , editor =

    Peters, E. 2017, in The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (Oxford University Press), 388–398, doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.42

    work page doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.42 2017

  43. [43]

    P., Jenniskens, P., Emel’yanenko, V., et al

    Popova, O. P., Jenniskens, P., Emel’yanenko, V., et al. 2013, Chelyabinsk Airburst, Damage Assessment, Meteorite Recovery, and Characterization, Science, 342, 1069, doi: 10.1126/science.1242642

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1242642 2013

  44. [44]

    2000, A reduced estimate of the number of kilometre-sized near-Earth asteroids, Nature, 403, 165, doi: 10.1038/35003128

    Rabinowitz, D., Helin, E., Lawrence, K., & Pravdo, S. 2000, A reduced estimate of the number of kilometre-sized near-Earth asteroids, Nature, 403, 165, doi: 10.1038/35003128

    work page doi:10.1038/35003128 2000

  45. [45]

    Rabinowitz, D. L. 1993, The Size Distribution of the Earth-approaching Asteroids, ApJ, 407, 412, doi: 10.1086/172524

    work page doi:10.1086/172524 1993

  46. [46]

    Pate-Cornell, M. E. 2016, Asteroid Risk Assessment: A Probabilistic Approach, Risk Analysis, 36, 244, doi: 10.1111/risa.12453

    work page doi:10.1111/risa.12453 2016

  47. [47]

    G., & Atkinson, P

    Rumpf, C., Lewis, H. G., & Atkinson, P. M. 2016, On the influence of impact effect modelling for global asteroid impact risk distribution, Acta Astronautica, 123, 165, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.03.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.03.015 2016

  48. [48]

    E., Jones, R

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., et al. 2023, Tuning the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Observing Strategy for Solar System Science, ApJS, 266, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc173 2023

  49. [49]

    Shoemaker, E. M. 1983, Asteroid and Comet Bombardment of the Earth, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 11, 461, doi: 10.1146/annurev.ea.11.050183.002333

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.11.050183.002333 1983

  50. [50]

    N., et al

    Simonsen, C., Thorsteinsson, K., Mortensen, R. N., et al. 2019, Carbon monoxide poisoning in Denmark with focus on mortality and factors contributing to mortality, PloS one, 14, doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210767

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210767 2019

  51. [51]

    Stuart, J. S. 2001, A Near-Earth Asteroid Population Estimate from the LINEAR Survey, Science, 294, 1691, doi: 10.1126/science.1065318

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1065318 2001

  52. [52]

    A., Naidu, S

    Thomas, C. A., Naidu, S. P., Scheirich, P., et al. 2023, Orbital period change of Dimorphos due to the DART kinetic impact, Nature, 616, 448, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05805-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05805-2 2023

  53. [53]

    1997, Environmental perturbations caused by the impacts of asteroids and comets, Reviews of Geophysics, 35, 41, doi: 10.1029/96RG03038

    Covey, C. 1997, Environmental perturbations caused by the impacts of asteroids and comets, Reviews of Geophysics, 35, 41, doi: 10.1029/96RG03038

    work page doi:10.1029/96rg03038 1997

  54. [54]

    2017, The near-Earth asteroid population from two decades of observations, Icarus, 284, 416, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.12.008

    Tricarico, P. 2017, The near-Earth asteroid population from two decades of observations, Icarus, 284, 416, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.12.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.12.008 2017

  55. [55]

    Watson, F. G. 1941, Between the planets

    work page 1941

  56. [56]

    2024, Risk assessment for asteroid impact threat scenarios, Acta Astronautica, 216, 468, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.12.049

    Wheeler, L., Dotson, J., Aftosmis, M., et al. 2024, Risk assessment for asteroid impact threat scenarios, Acta Astronautica, 216, 468, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.12.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.12.049 2024