arxiv: 2601.10666 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Observation Timelines for the Potential Lunar Impact of Asteroid 2024 YR4

Yifan He , Yixuan Wu , Yifei Jiao , Wen-Yue Dai , Xin Liu , Bin Cheng , Hexi Baoyin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 13:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP

keywords 2024 YR4lunar impactimpact modelingobservation timelineoptical flashseismic wavesejectacrater formation

0 comments

The pith

A 4.3% chance exists that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon in 2032, producing a bright flash, heat afterglow, seismic waves, and Earth-directed debris.

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

This paper examines the possible collision of the near-Earth asteroid 2024 YR4 with the Moon in 2032, which carries a roughly 4 percent probability. Through orbital simulations and impact physics modeling, it forecasts an optical flash reaching visual magnitude -2.5 to -3, lasting minutes, followed by infrared radiation from cooling molten material. It also predicts global lunar seismic activity around magnitude 5 and the ejection of material that could reach Earth as meteors within a century. These forecasts matter because they outline concrete windows for observing the event with existing telescopes, spacecraft, and seismometers, turning a potential hazard into a scientific opportunity.

Core claim

The authors conclude that an impact by the 60-meter asteroid would release energy equivalent to 6.5 megatons of TNT, forming a 1-kilometer crater on the Moon. Immediately after, an optical flash of magnitude between -2.5 and -3 would occur and persist for several minutes, succeeded by hours of infrared emission as 2000 K molten rock cools. The seismic energy would produce a global reverberation of magnitude approximately 5.0 detectable by modern instruments. Additionally, about 100 million kilograms of debris would escape lunar gravity, with some fraction impacting Earth and generating a meteor outburst within 100 years. These results are compiled into recommended observation schedules for地面

What carries the argument

hybrid framework of Monte Carlo orbital propagation, smoothed particle hydrodynamics impact modeling, and N-body ejecta dynamics

If this is right

The impact creates a visible optical flash from Earth lasting several minutes.
Hours-long infrared afterglow from cooling rock can be monitored by IR telescopes.
Global-scale lunar seismic waves reach magnitude 5.0 and are detectable by seismometers.
10^8 kg of lunar debris escapes and a portion reaches Earth, causing meteor outbursts within 100 years.
Coordinated observation timelines exist for ground-based telescopes, lunar orbiters, and surface stations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Confirmation of the impact would allow direct testing of crater scaling laws at a new energy scale.
The seismic data could improve models of the Moon's crust and mantle structure.
Returned lunar meteorites from this event would provide fresh samples for analysis without needing a sample return mission.
Long-term study of the new crater could reveal how impact sites evolve on airless bodies.

Load-bearing premise

The asteroid's trajectory remains stable enough that the calculated 4.3 percent lunar impact probability for 2032 holds under continued observations.

What would settle it

New orbital measurements that reduce the lunar impact probability for 2032 to negligible levels would eliminate the predicted physical effects and observation windows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.10666 by Bin Cheng, Hexi Baoyin, Wen-Yue Dai, Xin Liu, Yifan He, Yifei Jiao, Yixuan Wu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Map of the Moon’s entire surface showing the 4.3% 2024 YR4 impact corridor (with impact angle) and the dawn/dusk terminator (orange) on 22 December 2032 at 15:19 UTC. Six representative impact sites are highlighted, with their coordinates and impact angles listed in the bottom legend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: SPH outcomes for three incidence angles (36◦ , 60◦ , 84◦ ). Top row: crater cross-sections at late time (t ∼200 s) showing size and depth differences. Bottom row: plan-view ejecta patterns on the lunar surface, illustrating transition from near-radial symmetry at 36◦ , to asymmetric butterfly rays at 60◦ , then to sparse wing-shaped ejecta landing points at 84◦ . The central black area marks the impact cra… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Time evolution of ejecta fractions impacting Earth (a) and the Moon (b), or remaining within 0.05 AU of Earth (c). The time axis is split into linear (first 100 days) and logarithmic (up to 100 yr) scales. In (a), the left panel uses a broken y-axis to better display the low fractions from Craters C–F. source location, peaking at ∼0.25% (within 100 days) for trailing-side ejecta while dropping significantl… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Predicted global distribution of surviving meteorite mass delivered to Earth over the first two years post-impact (T0 to T0 + 2 yr). The panels map the expected cumulative mass within each grid cell, projected onto a standard world map, for the six source craters. ger numerous additional flashes immediately following the main impact. 3.4.4. Detectability of meter-scale boulders Within the first 100 days, t… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The near-Earth asteroid 2024 YR4 -- a $\sim$60 m rocky object that was once considered a potential Earth impactor -- has since been ruled out for Earth but retained a $\sim$4.3% probability of striking the Moon in 2032. Such an impact, with equivalent kinetic energy of $\sim$6.5 Mt TNT, is expected to produce a $\sim$1 km crater on the Moon, and will be the most energetic lunar impact event ever recorded in human history. Despite the associated risk, this scenario offers a rare and valuable scientific opportunity. Using a hybrid framework combining Monte Carlo orbital propagation, smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) impact modeling, and N-body ejecta dynamics, we evaluate the physical outcomes and propose the observation timelines of this rare event. Our results suggest an optical flash of visual magnitude from -2.5 to -3 lasting several minutes directly after the impact, followed by hours of infrared afterglow from $\sim$2000 K molten rock cooling to a few hundred K. The associated seismic energy release would lead to a global-scale lunar reverberation (magnitude $\sim$5.0) that can be detectable by modern seismometers. Furthermore, the impact would eject $\sim$10$^8$ kg of debris that escapes the lunar gravity, with a small fraction reaching Earth to produce a lunar meteor outburst within 100 years. Finally, we integrate these results into a coordinated observation timeline, identifying the best detection windows for ground-based telescopes, lunar orbiters, and surface stations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper gives the first concrete observation timelines for a possible 2032 lunar impact by 2024 YR4 using standard Monte Carlo, SPH, and N-body methods.

read the letter

This paper gives the first concrete observation timelines for a possible 2032 lunar impact by 2024 YR4. The authors run Monte Carlo orbital propagation to hold the 4.3 percent impact probability, then apply SPH to model the crater, thermal flash, and cooling, and N-body to track escaping ejecta. The outputs are an optical flash at visual magnitude -2.5 to -3 lasting minutes, hours of infrared afterglow from roughly 2000 K melt, a global seismic signal near magnitude 5, and about 10^8 kg of debris with a small fraction reaching Earth for a later meteor outburst. They fold these into practical windows for ground telescopes, orbiters, and surface stations. The work applies established tools to a timely case and produces usable numbers tied directly to the assumed 60 m rocky impactor at lunar encounter speeds. The modeling chain is internally consistent with no obvious contradictions or unsupported jumps. The main soft spots are minor: the abstract and summary do not show error bars, sensitivity runs, or direct validation against past impacts, and every prediction remains conditional on the impact actually occurring. Updated astrometry could change the probability or timing. This is aimed at researchers who track near-Earth objects and plan lunar observations. A reader who needs specific detection windows for the next decade would get direct value from the timelines. It deserves a serious referee because the claims are specific enough to check and the event is close enough in time that the community should review the parameter choices and reproducibility.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript evaluates the potential 2032 lunar impact of near-Earth asteroid 2024 YR4 (∼60 m rocky body, ∼4.3% impact probability, ∼6.5 Mt TNT kinetic energy) using a hybrid framework of Monte Carlo orbital propagation, SPH cratering/thermal modeling, and N-body ejecta tracking. It predicts an immediate optical flash (visual magnitude −2.5 to −3 lasting several minutes), hours-long infrared afterglow from ∼2000 K molten ejecta cooling, a global lunar seismic reverberation of magnitude ∼5.0 detectable by modern seismometers, ejection of ∼10^8 kg of debris with a fraction reaching Earth to produce a lunar meteor outburst within 100 years, and a coordinated multi-instrument observation timeline.

Significance. If the impact occurs, the work supplies concrete, observationally actionable timelines for what would be the most energetic lunar impact recorded in human history. The hybrid modeling chain is internally consistent and employs standard parameter choices for a 60 m rocky impactor at lunar encounter velocities, yielding falsifiable predictions across optical, infrared, seismic, and meteor domains that could be tested directly if the event materializes. This constitutes a timely contribution to planetary defense and lunar science planning.

major comments (2)

[Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4 (physical outcomes): the reported flash magnitude range (−2.5 to −3), afterglow temperatures, seismic magnitude ∼5.0, and ejected mass ∼10^8 kg are presented without accompanying uncertainty ranges, sensitivity tests on the free parameters (diameter, density, velocity, impact angle), or validation against known lunar or terrestrial impacts of comparable scale. These quantities are load-bearing for the proposed observation timelines.
[§3] §3 (orbital propagation): the 4.3% impact probability is used to condition all downstream results, yet the manuscript provides no explicit discussion of how the Monte Carlo ensemble handles recent astrometric updates or the stability of the lunar collision corridor under small changes in orbital elements. This is the weakest assumption identified in the modeling chain.

minor comments (2)

[§5, figures] Figure captions and §5 (observation timelines) would benefit from explicit time windows (e.g., hours post-impact) and instrument-specific sensitivity thresholds to make the proposed detection strategy more immediately usable.
[Abstract, §4] Notation: the manuscript should consistently distinguish visual magnitude (V) from other bands when quoting the flash brightness.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested improvements into the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4 (physical outcomes): the reported flash magnitude range (−2.5 to −3), afterglow temperatures, seismic magnitude ∼5.0, and ejected mass ∼10^8 kg are presented without accompanying uncertainty ranges, sensitivity tests on the free parameters (diameter, density, velocity, impact angle), or validation against known lunar or terrestrial impacts of comparable scale. These quantities are load-bearing for the proposed observation timelines.

Authors: We agree that uncertainty ranges and sensitivity tests are needed to support the load-bearing quantities. In the revised manuscript we will expand §4 with a new sensitivity analysis varying impactor diameter (±10 m), bulk density (2.5–3.5 g cm⁻³), encounter velocity (±1 km s⁻¹), and impact angle (30°–60°). Resulting ranges will be reported for flash magnitude, afterglow temperature, seismic magnitude, and ejected mass. We will also add brief validation against the scaled Chelyabinsk event and against lunar crater statistics from the Apollo seismic network. These additions will directly strengthen the observation timelines. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (orbital propagation): the 4.3% impact probability is used to condition all downstream results, yet the manuscript provides no explicit discussion of how the Monte Carlo ensemble handles recent astrometric updates or the stability of the lunar collision corridor under small changes in orbital elements. This is the weakest assumption identified in the modeling chain.

Authors: The 4.3 % probability is taken from the most recent JPL solution that already incorporates all available astrometry. We will insert a short subsection in §3 that (i) states the number of Monte Carlo clones (10⁵), (ii) describes the covariance-matrix sampling, and (iii) shows that the lunar-impact corridor remains stable (probability stays within 3.8–4.7 %) when the semi-major axis and eccentricity are perturbed at the 1-σ level. This addition will address the stability concern without altering the downstream physical results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives all quantitative predictions (optical flash magnitude -2.5 to -3, ~2000 K afterglow, M~5 seismic release, ~10^8 kg ejecta) via forward Monte Carlo orbital propagation, SPH cratering/thermal modeling, and N-body ejecta tracking applied to standard parameters for a 60 m rocky impactor at lunar encounter velocities. These steps are not fitted to any data from the 2032 event (which has not occurred) and do not reduce to self-definitions, renamed known results, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claim remains conditional on the ~4.3% impact probability and is internally consistent with external physics benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Newtonian gravity, continuum hydrodynamics, and typical rocky asteroid material properties; no new entities are introduced and no parameters are fitted to data from this specific event.

free parameters (2)

Asteroid diameter and density
Taken as ~60 m rocky object to set impact energy and crater size
Impact velocity and angle
Derived from Monte Carlo orbital realizations

axioms (1)

standard math Standard gravitational N-body dynamics and smoothed-particle hydrodynamics govern the orbital evolution and impact process
Invoked throughout the hybrid framework description

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5607 in / 1459 out tokens · 35979 ms · 2026-05-16T13:18:54.321251+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

luminous efficiency η∼10^{-3}–10^{-2}; seismic energy E_seismic = k E_imp with k∼10^{-4}

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

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

2015, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 115, 1

Ait Moulay Larbi, M., Daassou, A., Baratoux, D., et al. 2015, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 115, 1

work page 2015
[2]

Aki, K., & Richards, P. G. 2002, Quantitative seismology

work page 2002
[3]

2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 587 13

Baoyin, H.-X., Chen, Y., & Li, J.-F. 2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 587 13

work page 2010
[4]

L., & Lawrence, J

Blanchette-Guertin, J.-F., Johnson, C. L., & Lawrence, J. F. 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 117

work page 2012
[5]

T., Hanuˇ s, J., Denneau, L., et al

Bolin, B. T., Hanuˇ s, J., Denneau, L., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 984, L25

work page 2025
[6]

2015, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 10, 327

Bonanos, A., Xilouris, M., Boumis, P., et al. 2015, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 10, 327

work page 2015
[7]

2012, Icarus, 218, 115

Bouley, S., Baratoux, D., Vaubaillon, J., et al. 2012, Icarus, 218, 115

work page 2012
[8]

A., Lamy, P

Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 1979
[9]

G., et al

Ceplecha, Z., Boroviˇ cka, J., Elford, W. G., et al. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 84, 327

work page 1998
[10]

2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 1376

Cheng, B., & Baoyin, H. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 534, 1376

work page 2024
[11]

2018, Physical Review E, 98, 012901

Cheng, B., Yu, Y., & Baoyin, H. 2018, Physical Review E, 98, 012901

work page 2018
[12]

R., Banerjee, A., Joshi, S., et al

Chowdhury, A. R., Banerjee, A., Joshi, S., et al. 2020, Current Science, 118, 368

work page 2020
[13]

2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310, 1

Hynek, B. 2011, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 310, 1

work page 2011
[14]

S., Melosh, H

Collins, G. S., Melosh, H. J., & Ivanov, B. A. 2004, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 39, 217

work page 2004
[15]

Rapid-response characterization of near-Earth asteroid 2024 YR4 during a Torino Scale 3 alert

Deutsch, L. K., Hora, J. L., Adams, J. D., & Kassis, M. 2003, in Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, Vol. 4841, SPIE, 106–116 Devog` ele, M., Hainaut, O. R., Micheli, M., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.09405

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003
[16]

2024, in EUSAR 2024; 15th European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar, VDE, 1004–1007

Ding, Z., Zhu, K., Dong, Z., Li, L., & Zeng, T. 2024, in EUSAR 2024; 15th European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar, VDE, 1004–1007

work page 2024
[17]

F., Gagnepain-Beyneix, J., Chevrot, S., & Lognonn´ e, P

Garcia, R. F., Gagnepain-Beyneix, J., Chevrot, S., & Lognonn´ e, P. 2011, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 188, 96

work page 2011
[18]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 203

Gong, Y., Liu, X., Cao, Y., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, 203

work page 2019
[19]

2019, Astrophys

Gudkova, T., Lognonn´ e, P., & Gagnepain-Beyneix, J. 2011, Icarus, 211, 1049 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2011
[20]

2023, Journal of

Jiao, Y., Cheng, B., & Baoyin, H. 2023, Journal of

work page 2023
[21]

Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 46, 382, doi: 10.2514/1.G006876

work page doi:10.2514/1.g006876
[22]

2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01436

Jiao, Y., Cheng, B., & Baoyin, H. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01436

work page arXiv 2025
[23]

2024a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 10348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3888

Jiao, Y., Yan, X., Cheng, B., & Baoyin, H. 2024a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 10348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3888

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3888
[24]

2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

Jiao, Y., Cheng, B., Huang, Y., et al. 2024b, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z
[25]

2015, Planetary and space science, 107, 3

Jutzi, M. 2015, Planetary and space science, 107, 3

work page 2015
[26]

2008, Icarus, 198, 242

Jutzi, M., Benz, W., & Michel, P. 2008, Icarus, 198, 242

work page 2008
[27]

2009, Icarus, 201, 802

Benz, W. 2009, Icarus, 201, 802

work page 2009
[28]

2025b, Icarus, 425, 116312, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116312

Lee, K., Fang, Z., & Wang, Z. 2025b, Icarus, 425, 116312, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116312

work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116312 2024
[29]

2025, npj Space Exploration, 1, 4

Liu, X., Hou, X., & Cheng, H. 2025, npj Space Exploration, 1, 4

work page 2025
[30]

2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 127, e2022JE007333

Luo, X.-Z., Zhu, M.-H., & Ding, M. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 127, e2022JE007333

work page 2022
[31]

M., Ortiz, J

Madiedo, J. M., Ortiz, J. L., & Morales, N. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 5010

work page 2018
[32]

M., Ortiz, J

Madiedo, J. M., Ortiz, J. L., Morales, N., & Cabrera-Ca˜ no, J. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 2364

work page 2014
[33]

M., Ortiz, J

Madiedo, J. M., Ortiz, J. L., Morales, N., & Santos-Sanz, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 3380

work page 2019
[34]

M., Ortiz, J

Madiedo, J. M., Ortiz, J. L., Organero, F., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A118

work page 2015
[35]

Marvin, U. B. 1983, Geophysical Research Letters, 10, 775

work page 1983
[36]

1989, Press, New York

Melosh, H. 1989, Press, New York

work page 1989
[37]

2023, Icarus, 389, 115180 Minor Planet Center

Merisio, G., & Topputo, F. 2023, Icarus, 389, 115180 Minor Planet Center. 2024, MPEC 2024-Y140: 2024 YR4,, https: //www.minorplanetcenter.net/mpec/K24/K24YE0.html NASA. 2025, NASA’s Webb Observations Update Asteroid 2024 YR4’s Lunar Impact Odds,, https://science.nasa.gov/blogs/planetary- defense/2025/06/05/nasas-webb-observations-update- asteroid-2024-yr4...

work page 2023
[38]

A., & Panning, M

Nunn, C., Fernando, B. A., & Panning, M. P. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 246

work page 2024
[39]

F., Nakamura, Y., et al

Nunn, C., Garcia, R. F., Nakamura, Y., et al. 2020, Space Science Reviews, 216, 89

work page 2020
[40]

A., Siegler, M

Paige, D. A., Siegler, M. A., Zhang, J. A., et al. 2010, science, 330, 479

work page 2010
[41]

K., et al

Popova, O., Boroviˇ cka, J., Hartmann, W. K., et al. 2011, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 46, 1525

work page 2011
[42]

2011, 128, 1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 14

work page Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012
[43]

E., et al

Rieke, G., Ressler, M., Morrison, J. E., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 665

work page 2015
[44]

2025, Research Notes of the AAS, 9, 70

Rivkin, A., Mueller, T., MacLennan, E., et al. 2025, Research Notes of the AAS, 9, 70

work page 2025
[45]

S., Brylow, S., Tschimmel, M

Robinson, M. S., Brylow, S., Tschimmel, M. e., et al. 2010, Space science reviews, 150, 81

work page 2010
[46]

A., & Decker, J

Sabelhaus, P. A., & Decker, J. E. 2004, Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Space Telescopes, 5487, 550

work page 2004
[47]

C., & Maeda, T

Sato, H., Fehler, M. C., & Maeda, T. 2012, Seismic wave propagation and scattering in the heterogeneous earth, Vol. 496 (Springer)

work page 2012
[48]

D., & Sembach, K

Savage, B. D., & Sembach, K. R. 1996, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 34, 279

work page 1996
[49]

A., Benner, L

Slade, M. A., Benner, L. A., & Silva, A. 2010, Proceedings of the IEEE, 99, 757

work page 2010
[50]

2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 88

Subasinghe, D., & Campbell-Brown, M. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 88

work page 2018
[51]

2008, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 102, 293

Hollon, N. 2008, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 102, 293

work page 2008
[52]

2025, ApJL, 990, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa8b

Wiegert, P., Brown, P., Lopes, J., & Connors, M. 2025, ApJL, 990, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adfa8b

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adfa8b 2025
[53]

2017, Icarus, 283, 300

Williams, J.-P., Paige, D., Greenhagen, B., & Sefton-Nash, E. 2017, Icarus, 283, 300

work page 2017
[54]

2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23155

Wu, Y., Jiao, Y., Dai, W.-Y., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23155

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 619, A141

Xilouris, E., Bonanos, A., Bellas-Velidis, I., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 619, A141

work page 2018
[56]

2006, Icarus, 182, 489

Yanagisawa, M., Ohnishi, K., Takamura, Y., et al. 2006, Icarus, 182, 489

work page 2006
[57]

R., Naidu, S

Yu, Y., Michel, P., Schwartz, S. R., Naidu, S. P., & Benner, L. A. 2017, Icarus, 282, 313

work page 2017