Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

The NewAthena mission concept in the context of the next decade of X-ray astronomy

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the next decade's key X-ray questions require an order-of-magnitude leap in sensitivity, spectroscopy, and survey capability, and that the NewAthena mission concept is designed to deliver it.

desk verdict A clean, authoritative mission-advocacy Perspective that makes no pretense of new science; its order-of-magnitude leap claim rests on response-only figures of merit that need a caveat about the 5% background-knowledge floor. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03100 v1 pith:B7O4Y5SJ submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Mike Cruise , Matteo Guainazzi , James Aird , Francisco J. Carrera , Elisa Costantini , Lia Corrales , Thomas Dauser , Dominique Eckert
show 11 more authors
Fabio Gastaldello Hironori Matsumoto Rachel Osten Pierre-Olivier Petrucci Delphine Porquet Gabriel W. Pratt Nanda Rea Thomas H. Reiprich Aurora Simionescu Daniele Spiga Eleonora Troja
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords X-rayastronomyNewAthenaobservatorymicrocalorimeterspectroscopyactivegalacticnucleineutronstarequationofstatemissingbaryonssiliconporeoptics
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 argues that several of the most consequential open questions in astrophysics—how supermassive black holes grow and shape their host galaxies, what equation of state governs neutron star interiors, where the Universe's missing baryons hide, and how gravitational energy is thermalized in galaxy-cluster gas—are experimentally out of reach for existing X-ray observatories. It claims that answering them requires an order-of-magnitude leap in effective area, spectral resolution, and survey grasp, and that the NewAthena mission concept is specifically designed to deliver that leap. NewAthena inherits the payload of the earlier Athena study and pairs a 4-electronvolt-resolution microcalorimeter with a wide-field imager on a large silicon-pore-optics telescope. If the mission meets the scientific requirements listed in the paper, a single observatory would open these measurement frontiers for the first time.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the instrument combination: the X-ray Integral Field Unit (X-IFU), a cryogenic microcalorimeter array with more than 1,500 pixels, 5-arcsecond pixels, and 4 eV resolution at 7 keV; the Wide Field Imager (WFI), an active silicon detector with a 40-arcminute-square field of view; and a single 12-meter-focal-length telescope built from silicon pore optics, which gives a large effective area at low mass and about 9 arcseconds on-axis half-energy width. The paper uses these parameters to compute figures of merit for line detection, velocity shift, and line broadening, showing an order-of-magnitude advantage over both dispersive gratings and current CCD and microcalorimeter spectrometers across most of the bandpass.

What would settle it

The central claim would be falsified by an engineering review showing that the X-IFU particle background cannot be reduced to 5×10−3 photons cm−2 s−1 keV−1 with 5% knowledge accuracy, or that the 12-meter silicon pore optics cannot reach 9-arcsecond on-axis half-energy width; either failure would invalidate the simulated spectra and survey limits that carry the science case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This Perspective argues that X-ray astronomy in the 2030s needs a facility combining roughly ten times the effective area of current missions, non-dispersive spectroscopy at 4 eV resolution, an arcminute-scale imaging field, and a low, well-characterized background. It shows by simulation that such a facility would detect AGN populations around the knee of the luminosity function out to redshifts 6–7, resolve Doppler shifts and line broadening in cluster gas that trace structure-formation energy injection, separate circumgalactic O VII emission from the Milky Way foreground, and constrain neutron star radii at the few-percent level needed to discriminate equations of state. The paper identifies NewAthena as that facility, with requirements endorsed by its governing science committee, and argues that it will be the X-ray observatory matching the multiwavelength and multimessenger facilities coming online in the same decade.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that NewAthena can simultaneously satisfy every scientific requirement in Table 1—for instance, 0.087 m2 effective area at 7 keV with 4 eV resolution, 0.86 m2 at 1 keV, on-axis 9-arcsecond HEW, and a 5% background knowledge accuracy—within the available cost envelope and a 2037 launch schedule, a feasibility the paper states but does not demonstrate with an error budget or cost estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A WFI survey would push AGN census to the z≈6–7 epoch for moderately obscured sources, directly measuring the accretion history that most black-hole growth models bracket.
  • X-IFU spectroscopy would map bulk motions and turbulence in galaxy cluster gas out to substantial fractions of the virial volume, testing how merger kinetic energy is thermalized.
  • The combination of low background and high resolution would let X-IFU separate the O VII triplet of circumgalactic gas at z≥0.035 from the Milky Way foreground, opening a clean probe of the missing baryons.
  • Four-electronvolt spectroscopy over a large field would enable Doppler mapping of AGN feedback bubbles and shocks in nearby galaxies, providing a direct test of feedback models.
  • With a 12-hour target-of-opportunity response and large effective area, NewAthena would be a primary X-ray follow-up instrument for gravitational-wave and neutrino transient sources in the 2030s.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper's science case assumes that the 5% background knowledge requirement is met on orbit; a pre-launch calibration plan demonstrating this accuracy would be a natural test of the claim, but the paper does not provide one.
  • Editorial inference: if the reformulation that created NewAthena had to descope any single Table 1 requirement, the science case would degrade nonlinearly, because the order-of-magnitude leap depends jointly on area, resolution, and background rather than any one parameter.
  • Editorial inference: the paper implies a de facto coordination with existing and planned X-ray facilities, but it does not specify a joint observing strategy; an explicit multi-observatory observation plan would be a testable extension.
  • Editorial inference: the simulated spectra and survey limits are based on publicly available instrument responses, so an independent re-simulation of key figures, such as the M87 feedback bubble or the z≈2 ultrafast outflow spectrum, could confirm the claimed gains without waiting for launch.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Perspective, authored by the NewAthena Science Redefinition Team, argues that the next decade of X-ray astronomy requires an order-of-magnitude leap in sensitivity, spectroscopy, and survey capability, and presents NewAthena, the reformulated ESA mission concept, as the facility that will deliver that leap. The paper reviews open questions across several fields, then describes the NewAthena payload (X-IFU and WFI) and lists its key scientific requirements in Table 1. Figures 1-4 use SIXTE simulations and public instrument responses to illustrate the expected survey capability, spectral quality, and spectroscopic figures of merit compared with operational missions. The central claim is that NewAthena, if built to these requirements, will enable transformational discoveries in the astrophysics of black holes, neutron stars, galaxy clusters, the circumgalactic medium, and multimessenger sources.

Significance. If the performance requirements in Table 1 are met, NewAthena would indeed be a unique facility, combining ~0.6-0.9 m^2 effective area at 1 keV with 4 eV microcalorimeter resolution and a 40'x40' imager. The paper's quantitative simulations are a strength: they use the public SIXTE toolkit and public response files, and Figures 1 and 2 show 1-sigma error bars on simulated spectra, making the performance predictions reproducible and falsifiable. However, the central 'order-of-magnitude leap' claim is not fully supported as stated, because the spectroscopic FoMs in Fig. 4 ignore the background-systematics floor that Table 1 itself specifies, and the feasibility of the requirements is asserted without evidence. These gaps do not invalidate the scientific case, but they need to be addressed before the paper's central claim can be accepted at face value.

major comments (2)
  1. [NewAthena, Fig. 4 and Table 1] The weak-line detection FoMs plotted in Fig. 4 are defined as response-only combinations such as A^{1/2}/δE^{1/2} for point sources and A^{1/2}/(δE^{1/2} FWHM) for extended sources, which are proportional to signal-to-noise ratio only in the background-free or continuum-dominated limit. Table 1, however, requires an X-IFU background of 5×10^-3 photons cm^-2 s^-1 keV^-1 and a background knowledge accuracy of 5%. For the faint diffuse sources that anchor several headline science cases (missing baryons, WHIM filaments, cluster outskirts), a fractional background systematic of 5% creates a noise floor that does not improve with sqrt(A t); once the residual background term is comparable to the source Poisson term, the line significance saturates. The paper does not state whether Fig. 4 includes this floor, and no error budget connects the Table 1 background requirements to the plotted FoMs. The claim that the X-IFU exceeds existing spectrometers 'by more than an order of magnitude over most of the sensitive bandpass' is therefore not yet supported for exactly the faint-line observations used to motivate the mission. Please either include the background floor in the FoM definition or explicitly qualify the regime of applicability.
  2. [NewAthena, reformulation paragraph] The paper states that Athena was reformulated because estimated costs exceeded the resources available in the ESA Science Programme, and the Acknowledgements assert that NewAthena has been defined as 'a technical and financially viable project.' However, the paper provides no cost estimate, no error budget, and no demonstration that the same payload can simultaneously meet the Table 1 requirements (for example, X-IFU effective area 0.087 m^2 at 7 keV with 4 eV resolution, WFI effective area 0.86 m^2 at 1 keV, on-axis HEW 9 arcsec, X-IFU background 5×10^-3 photons cm^-2 s^-1 keV^-1, background knowledge accuracy 5%) within the ESA cost envelope and on a schedule for a 2037 launch. Since the entire science case rests on NewAthena being built to these specifications, this gap is load-bearing. At minimum, the paper should cite the ESA study documentation that establishes feasibility, or explicitly state that feasibility assessment is outside the scope of this Perspective.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, the phrase 'to e na ble t ra nsformational discoveries' contains a typo and should read 'to enable transformational discoveries.'
  2. [NewAthena, after Table 1] The statement that 'the effective area of the two focal plane instruments exceeding that of operational X-ray observatories by an order of magnitude or more at 1 keV' is misleading for X-IFU, whose 0.60 m^2 at 1 keV is a factor of about 4 larger than XMM-Newton/EPIC-pn; the order-of-magnitude claim applies primarily to the WFI. Please specify the comparison instruments and energies.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption would benefit from a statement that the FoMs are appropriate for background-free or continuum-limited observations only, and that for background-limited observations the signal-to-noise ratio scales differently.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement lists public response files but does not provide a repository for the simulation scripts; consider including a link to the scripts to improve reproducibility.
  5. [Table 1] The 'background knowledge accuracy' requirement of 5% is quoted without a reference or derivation; adding a reference to the requirement study would help the reader assess its basis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper compares instruments with explicitly defined figures of merit and does not derive any result from its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a mission-concept Perspective, not a derivational paper: there is no fitted parameter, no first-principles prediction, and no equation claimed to be derived from data. The central quantitative claim is the Fig. 4 order-of-magnitude comparison, but the spectroscopic figures of merit are explicitly and transparently defined as combinations of instrument parameters (for example, A^{1/2}/δE^{1/2} for weak-line detection), and they are used only to compare X-IFU with existing instruments; this is an application of definitions to public response data, not a derivation that reduces to its own input. The Table 1 requirements are presented as endorsed inputs, not as outputs of the paper's analysis. The text also discloses its reliance on the earlier Athena science case and on ESA/Instrument-Consortium responses, and several citations are to work co-authored by members of the Science Redefinition Team, but those citations supply context, simulation tools, and observational evidence rather than load-bearing theorems that force the conclusion. The concern that Fig. 4 FoMs may omit the Table 1 background-knowledge floor is a correctness or robustness question, not a circularity. No circular step is present; the comparison stands or falls on whether the adopted instrument parameters and simulation responses are realistic, which is outside the scope of a circularity check.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of chosen performance numbers, the fidelity of the simulation framework, and the unverified programmatic feasibility of building the observatory to those numbers. These are not fitted parameters in a derivation, but they are load-bearing inputs that the paper takes as given.

free parameters (6)
  • X-IFU effective area at 7 keV = 0.087 m2
    Chosen mission requirement (Table 1) that sets the sensitivity for iron-line spectroscopy; not derived in the paper.
  • X-IFU energy resolution at 7 keV = 4 eV
    Chosen requirement that drives all spectroscopic figures of merit in Fig. 4.
  • WFI effective area at 1 keV = 0.86 m2
    Chosen requirement for survey sensitivity and grasp in Fig. 3.
  • Optics on-axis angular resolution at 1 keV = 9 arcsec HEW
    Chosen requirement that sets the confusion limit and extended-source FoM.
  • X-IFU background (2-7 keV) = 5e-3 photons cm-2 s-1 keV-1
    Chosen requirement for detecting faint diffuse emission; a central element of the science case.
  • Background knowledge accuracy = 5%
    Chosen systematic uncertainty level that affects all faint-source measurements.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Most of the universe's baryons reside in hot plasma that emits X-rays.
    Invoked in the opening paragraphs and the missing-baryon case; based on cosmological simulations (ref 1), not directly verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption X-ray line centroids and widths faithfully trace velocity fields in the intracluster medium.
    The ICM dynamics and feedback sections assume that Doppler shifts and broadening can be converted into gas velocities with the stated resolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The SIXTE simulations with public response files represent the future on-orbit performance of NewAthena.
    Figures 1-4 rely on simulated instrument responses; there is no ground calibration or prototype end-to-end verification for the full observatory.
  • ad hoc to paper The Table 1 scientific requirements are technically and financially achievable by a 2037 launch.
    The paper notes Athena was reformulated because cost exceeded resources, but provides no cost or feasibility analysis for the revised requirements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The NewAthena mission concept in the context of the next decade of X-ray astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7O4Y5SJ

@misc{pith2026250103100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The NewAthena mission concept in the context of the next decade of X-ray astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7O4Y5SJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03100}
}
read the original abstract

Large X-ray observatories such as Chandra and XMM-Newton have been delivering scientific breakthroughs in research fields as diverse as our Solar System, the astrophysics of stars, stellar explosions and compact objects, accreting super-massive black holes, and large-scale structures traced by the hot plasma permeating and surrounding galaxy groups and clusters. The recently launched observatory XRISM is opening in earnest the new observational window of non-dispersive high-resolution spectroscopy. However, several quests are left open, such as the effect of the stellar radiation field on the habitability of nearby planets, the Equation-of-State regulating matter in neutron stars, the origin and distribution of metals in the Universe, the processes driving the cosmological evolution of the baryons locked in the gravitational potential of Dark Matter and the impact of supermassive black hole growth on galaxy evolution, just to mention a few. Furthermore, X-ray astronomy is a key player in multi-messenger astrophysics. Addressing these quests experimentally requires an order-of-magnitude leap in sensitivity, spectroscopy and survey capabilities with respect to existing X-ray observatories. This paper succinctly summarizes the main areas where high-energy astrophysics is expected to contribute to our understanding of the Universe in the next decade and describes a new mission concept under study by the European Space Agency, the scientific community worldwide and two International Partners (JAXA and NASA), designed to enable transformational discoveries: NewAthena. This concept inherits its basic payload design from a previous study carried out until 2022, Athena.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An X-ray Absorption-Line Survey of the Circumgalactic Medium of M31 with XMM-Newton

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The first multi-sightline X-ray absorption survey toward M31 reports a 2.2-2.3 sigma excess in O VII and O VIII equivalent widths inside 300-350 kpc, consistent with a hot circumgalactic medium.

  2. X-ray Reflection as Diagnostic of Supermassive Black Hole Binary Properties

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Model-independent X-ray reflection metrics from 24,570 simulated binary spectra correlate with inclination, mass ratio, orbital phase, and effective spin of supermassive black hole binaries.

  3. The youth of the intracluster medium. I. A non-parametric characterisation of the gas and electron number density profiles of $z \simeq 2$ protoclusters

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At z≈2, Magneticum protoclusters show moderate self-similarity deviations, double-β density profiles, and hot ionised gas dominant only beyond ~0.1–0.5 R500c, with clear mass, merger and AGN trends.

  4. Blind Line Search System: BLiSS

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    BLiSS blindly detects, ranks, and optionally identifies emission-line candidates in 1D X-ray spectra via empirical baselines, Gaussian fits, and GMM reliability scores from synthetic null spectra.

  5. Constraining Disk-to-Corona Power Transfer Fraction, Soft X-ray Excess Origin, and Black Hole Spin Population of Type-1 AGN across Mass Scales

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A broadband X-ray study of 11 Type-1 AGN reports that high-density disk reflection alone fits the soft X-ray excess in 8 of 11 sources, and derives disk-to-corona power transfer fractions whose validation correlation ...

  6. Quantifying the Information Gain from Future High-Precision Radius Measurements for Identifying Twin Neutron Stars

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper claims a radius precision of ~0.2 km is enough to extract most Bayesian information for identifying twin neutron stars, but its own distinguishability and entropy analyses suggest notable gains remain down t...

  7. Understanding the Neutron Star Population with the SKAO Telescopes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO AA* and AA4 surveys are projected to discover thousands of ordinary pulsars and ~800–1000 MSPs, enabling population synthesis, mass measurements and tests of gravity and emission physics.

  8. Probing Neutron Star Interiors and the Properties of Cold Ultra-dense Matter with the SKAO

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    SKAO's sensitivity, surveys and sub-arraying will deliver tighter NS mass, MoI, spin, glitch and precession constraints that, with X-ray and GW data, probe cold ultra-dense matter.

  9. Active Galactic Nuclei as high-energy neutrino sources

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.5 of 10

    Review summarizing correlations between astrophysical neutrinos and gamma-ray/radio AGN, specific source associations, proposed production mechanisms, and future prospects.

  10. X-ray emission from isolated neutron stars: latest results from XMM-Newton, NICER and eROSITA

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 unverdicted

    A review of recent X-ray results argues that thermally-emitting isolated neutron stars and ordinary pulsars are becoming harder to separate, and that multipolar magnetic fields are common.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Martizzi, D. et al. Baryons in the Cosmic Web of IllustrisTNG—I: gas in knots, filaments, sheets, and voids. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486, 3766–3787 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Aartsen, M. G. et al. IceCube-Gen2: the window to the extreme Universe. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 48, 060501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Adrián-Martínez, S. et al. Letter of intent for KM3NeT 2.0. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 43, 084001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Amaro-Seoane, P. et al. Astrophysics with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Living Rev. Relativ. 26, 2 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    J., Tucker, W., Schartel, N

    Wilkes, B. J., Tucker, W., Schartel, N. & Santos-Lleo, M. X-ray astronomy comes of age. Nature 606, 261–271 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Magorrian, J. et al. The demography of massive dark objects in galaxy centers. Astron. J. 115, 2285–2305 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    The AGN–starburst connection, galactic superwinds, and MBH–σ

    King, A. The AGN–starburst connection, galactic superwinds, and MBH–σ. Astrophys. J. 635, L121–L123 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Aird, J. et al. The evolution of the hard X-ray luminosity function of AGN. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 401, 2531–2551 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Maiolino, R. et al. A small and vigorous black hole in the early Universe. Nature 627, 59–63 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T

    Hopkins, P. F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T. J. & Kereš, D. A cosmological framework for the co-evolution of quasars, supermassive black holes, and elliptical galaxies. I. Galaxy mergers and quasar activity. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 175, 356–389 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Tombesi, F. et al. Evidence for ultrafast outflows in radio-quiet AGNs. I. Detection and statistical incidence of Fe K-shell absorption lines. Astron. Astrophys. 521, 57 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Fabian, A. C. Observational evidence of active galactic nuclei feedback. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 50, 455–489 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Schaye, J. et al. The physics driving the cosmic star formation history. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 402, 1536–1560 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Hickox, R. C. et al. Black hole variability and the star formation– active galactic nucleus connection: do all star-forming galaxies host an active galactic nucleus? Astrophys. J. 782, 9 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Reynolds, C. S. Observational constraints on black hole spin. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 117–154 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Merloni, A. et al. The SRG/eROSITA all-sky survey. First X-ray catalogues and data release of the western Galactic hemisphere. Astron. Astrophys. 682, A34 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Georgakakis, A. et al. X-ray selected AGN in groups at redshifts z ~ 1. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 391, 183–189 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    W., Yan, L

    Smail, I., Hogg, D. W., Yan, L. & Cohen, J. G. Deep optical galaxy counts with the Keck Telescope. Astrophys. J. 449, L105 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    Vernstrom, T. et al. Deep 3-GHz observations of the Lockman Hole North with the Very Large Array—II. Catalogue and μJy source properties. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 462, 2934–2949 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Brandt, W. N. & Alexander, D. M. Cosmic X-ray surveys of distant active galaxies. The demographics, physics, and ecology of growing supermassive black holes. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 23, 93 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Aird, J. et al. The evolution of the X-ray luminosity functions of unabsorbed and absorbed AGNs out to z ∼ 5. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 451, 1892–1927 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Mazzolari, G. et al. Heavily obscured AGN detection: a radio versus X-ray challenge. Astron. Astrophys. 687, 120 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Cassano, R. et al. SKA–Athena Synergy White Paper. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09080 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Padovani, P. et al. ESO–Athena Synergy White Paper. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06064 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Troja, E. et al. The X-ray counterpart to the gravitational-wave event GW170817. Nature 551, 71–74 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    & Maggiore, M

    Iacovelli, F., Mancarella, M., Foffa, S. & Maggiore, M. Forecasting the detection capabilities of third-generation gravitational-wave detectors using GWFAST. Astrophys. J. 941, 208 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    & Piran, T

    Nakar, E. & Piran, T. Detectable radio flares following gravitational waves from mergers of binary neutron stars. Nature 478, 82–84 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Piro, L. et al. Athena synergies in the multi-messenger and transient universe. Exp. Astron. 54, 23–117 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    M., Leahy, D

    Morsink, S. M., Leahy, D. A., Cadeau, C. & Braga, J. The oblate Schwarzschild approximation for light curves of rapidly rotating neutron stars. Astrophys. J. 663, 1244–1251 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Riley, T. E. et al. A NICER view of PSR J0030+0451: millisecond pulsar parameter estimation. Astrophys. J. 887, L21 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Miller, M. C. et al. PSR J0030+0451 mass and radius from NICER data and implications for the properties of neutron star matter. Astrophys. J. 887, L24 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    & Kravtsov, A

    Borgani, S. & Kravtsov, A. Cosmological simulations of galaxy clusters. Adv. Sci. Lett. 4, 204–227 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Concept of the X-ray Astronomy Recovery Mission

    Tashiro, M. Concept of the X-ray Astronomy Recovery Mission. Proc. SPIE 10699, 1069922 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Ishisaki, Y. et al. Resolve instrument on X-ray Astronomy Recovery Mission (XARM). J. Low Temp. Phys. 193, 991–995 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    & Jones, T

    Brunetti, G. & Jones, T. W. in Magnetic Fields in Diffuse Media Vol. 407 (eds Lazarian, A. et al.) 557–598 (Springer, 2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Predehl, P. et al. Detection of large-scale X-ray bubbles in the Milky Way halo. Nature 7837, 227–231 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Pillepich, A. et al. X-ray bubbles in the circumgalactic medium of TNG50 Milky Way- and M31-like galaxies: signposts of supermassive black hole activity. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 508, 4667–4695 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Reiprich, T. H. et al. The Abell 3391/95 galaxy cluster system. A 15 Mpc intergalactic medium emission filament, a warm gas bridge, infalling matter clumps, and (re-) accelerated plasma discovered by combining SRG/eROSITA data with ASKAP/EMU and DECam data. Astron. Astrophys. ...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Truong, N. et al. X-ray metal line emission from the hot circumgalactic medium: probing the effects of supermassive black hole feedback. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 525, 1976–1997 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Nicastro, F. et al. Observations of the missing baryons in the warm–hot intergalactic medium. Nature 558, 406–409 (2018). Nature Astronomy Perspective https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02416-3

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Mernier, F. et al. Enrichment of the hot intracluster medium: observations. Space Sci. Rev. 214, 129 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I. & Lugaro, M. The origin of elements from carbon to uranium. Astrophys. J. 900, 179 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Pass, E. K. et al. Mid-to-late M dwarfs lack Jupiter analogs. Astron. J. 166, 11 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Bryson, S. et al. The occurrence of rocky habitable-zone planets around Solar-like stars from Kepler data. Astron. J. 161, 36 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    & Charbonneau, D

    Ment, K. & Charbonneau, D. The occurrence rate of terrestrial planets orbiting nearby mid-to-late M dwarfs from TESS sectors 1–42. Astron. J. 165, 265 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    The Hot and Energetic Universe: a White Paper presenting the science theme motivating the Athena+ mission

    Nandra, K., et al. The Hot and Energetic Universe: a White Paper presenting the science theme motivating the Athena+ mission. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2307 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    & Tashiro, M

    Guainazzi, M. & Tashiro, M. S. The Hot Universe with XRISM and Athena. Proc. IAU 342, 29–36 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Barret, D. et al. The Athena space X-ray observatory and the astrophysics of hot plasma. Astron. Nachr. 341, 224–235 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Reynolds, C. S. et al. Overview of the advanced x-ray imaging satellite (AXIS). Proc. SPIE 12678, 126781E (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Bregman, J. et al. Scientific objectives of the Hot Universe Baryon Surveyor (HUBS) mission. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 299513 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Meidinger, N. et al. Development status of the Wide Field Imager instrument for Athena. Proc. SPIE 11444, 114440T (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Barret, D. et al. The Athena X-ray Integral Field Unit: a consolidated design for the system requirement review of the preliminary definition phase. Exp. Astron. 55, 373–426 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Collon, M. J. et al. The development of the mirror for the Athena x-ray mission. Proc. SPIE 12181, 121810U (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Bavdaz, M. et al. ATHENA optics technology development. Proc. SPIE 12181, 121810T (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Dauser, T. et al. SIXTE: a generic X-ray instrument simulation toolkit. Astron. Astrophys. 630, A66 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Sironi, G. et al. Open-source simulator for ATHENA X-ray telescope optics. Proc. SPIE 11822, 118220I (2021). Acknowledgements We explicitly acknowledge the work of countless scientists at ESA, in the WFI and X-IFU Instrument Consortia and in the International Partners of the A...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.