Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 39 references

A Mission to Demonstrate Rapid-Response Flyby Reconnaissance for Planetary Defense

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a single flyby reconnaissance capability that, if built, can reach more than 90 percent of the potential asteroid threat population, and specifies what such a flyby must measure.

desk verdict A practical, well-grounded mission requirements study for rapid-response flyby reconnaissance, whose headline 90% coverage number depends on an unvalidated synthetic threat population and an under-documented trajectory analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15321 v1 pith:E53AVXYK submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.EP

Nancy L. Chabot , Justin A. Atchison , Rylie Bull , Andrew S. Rivkin , R. Terik Daly , Ronald-L. Ballouz , Olivier S. Barnouin , Andrew F. Cheng
show 8 more authors
Carolyn M. Ernst Angela M. Stickle Evan J. Smith Joseph J. Linden Benjamin F. Villac Jodi R. Berdis Dawn M. Graninger Sarah Hefter
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.EP
keywords planetarydefensenear-Earthobjectsflybyreconnaissanceasteroidthreatpopulationrapidresponseimpactmitigationspacecraftmissionrequirements
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 makes the case that planetary defense needs a rapid-response flyby reconnaissance capability built for the objects most likely to require it: roughly 50-meter near-Earth asteroids discovered with short warning times. It asserts that even after the planned surveys finish, about half of that population will remain unknown, so a flyby may be the only reconnaissance option. To make the capability broadly useful, the paper derives a set of flyby conditions—approach speeds up to 25 km/s, solar phase angles up to 90 degrees, flight times up to 2.5 years, and launch energy $C_3$ up to $30\,\mathrm{km^2/s^2}$—that together reach more than 90 percent of a synthetic threat population built from today's known potentially hazardous asteroids. It then specifies what the flyby must measure: impact trajectory and corridor, size, rocky-versus-metallic composition, companions, and surface character. The demonstration target should be a ~50 m object, since that is the smallest size for which international protocols recommend a space-based response and the most likely trigger for one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the synthetic threat population: the 2,340 known potentially hazardous asteroids with their orbital phases adjusted so minimum Earth distance occurs in the early 2030s. For each object, ballistic spacecraft trajectories are computed (no solar-electric propulsion, gravity assists, or deep-space maneuvers), and post-processing maps the joint distribution of flyby speed and approach solar phase angle. The 90-percent coverage contour on that map fixes the required capability envelope: speed ≤25 km/s, phase angle ≤90 degrees, flight time ≤2.5 years, and $C_3$ ≤$30\,\mathrm{km^2/s^2}$. The measurement requirements are then set by a resolution budget keyed to a 50-m object, with imaging at 5 m/pixel for size, 3 m/pixel for secondary search, and 0.5 m/pixel for surface features, plus thermal infrared spectroscopy to discriminate rocky from metallic material.

What would settle it

Rebuild the synthetic threat population from a debiased model of the undiscovered 50-m NEO population rather than from phase-shifted known PHAs, then recompute the ballistic-reachability contours; if the reachable fraction falls below 90 percent at 25 km/s and 90-degree phase angle, the paper's central coverage claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a flyby reconnaissance capability, not a particular target asteroid, is what planetary defense should demonstrate next. Using a synthetic threat population made by shifting the orbital phases of the 2,340 known potentially hazardous asteroids so their closest approaches fall in the early 2030s, and computing ballistic trajectories to each, the analysis finds that a spacecraft able to fly by at up to 25 km/s, approach at solar phase angles up to 90 degrees, reach the target within 2.5 years, and launch with $C_3$ up to $30\,\mathrm{km^2/s^2}$ can encounter more than 90 percent of the population. It translates that coverage result into four mission requirements: demonstrate the flyby on a ~50 m NEO; determine whether and where it would hit Earth, to roughly 100 km; determine key properties (size to about ±10 m, rocky versus metallic, presence of secondaries ≥10 m, and surface features at 0.5 m per pixel); and do so under a stressing fast flyby. The paper also states that a single stored-in-space spacecraft cannot provide this coverage, because removing the launch vehicle's contribution leaves much of the threat population unreachable.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the undiscovered 50-meter threat population has the same orbital makeup as today's catalog of potentially hazardous asteroids once their phases are shifted; if hidden objects systematically occupy different orbits, the 90-percent coverage figure does not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A demonstration mission flown under the stressing conditions—near 25 km/s flyby of a ~50 m object—would validate the design for the harder half of the threat population that surveys will miss.
  • If the capability is built, a short-warning 50-m impactor can be characterized well enough to decide whether mitigation is needed and, if so, what kind: impact location to ~100 km, size to roughly ±10 m, and metal-rich versus rocky composition.
  • The stored-spacecraft idea, at least with a single spacecraft, is ruled out by the coverage analysis; a dedicated launch optimized for the flyby is required.
  • Approach solar phase angle of 90 degrees is a hard design constraint, because at least half the object must be sunlit for optical navigation of a small, possibly dark target.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-spacecraft stored-in-space null result suggests a testable scaling question the paper leaves open: whether a constellation of two or more stored spacecraft could recover significant coverage, and at what cost.
  • The same speed and phase-angle envelope may generalize to other short-warning targets such as interstellar objects or long-period comets, since the driving parameters are encounter geometry rather than target class.
  • The 0.5 m/pixel surface-imaging requirement implies a high data rate and fast repointing during a 25 km/s flyby; a demonstration mission could serve as a navigation-technology pathfinder even if it never meets a real threat.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a set of four top-level requirements for a rapid-response flyby reconnaissance demonstration mission for planetary defense, motivated by the prospect that roughly half of the 50-m NEO population will remain undiscovered after NEO Surveyor and Rubin Observatory surveys. To derive the dynamical requirements, the authors construct a synthetic threat population by adjusting the orbital phase of the 2340 known potentially hazardous asteroids and compute ballistic trajectories to find the flyby conditions that reach 90% of that population. This yields the Table 1 envelope of up to 25 km/s flyby speed, 90° approach solar phase angle, 2.5-year time of flight, C3 up to 30 km2s-2, and solar distances of 0.9–2.0 AU. The paper then derives measurement requirements from pixel-scale arguments and prior missions (DART, Lucy, OSIRIS-REx) for size determination, rock-versus-metal discrimination, binary-object detection, and surface characterization, culminating in the four stated mission requirements.

Significance. If the statistical and trajectory analysis is made reproducible and robust, this paper provides a useful, policy-grounded reference for mission designers, connecting SMPAG/NITEP thresholds to a concrete set of engineering requirements. The explicit use of externally motivated impact-threshold criteria, the grounding of the imaging requirements in prior flight data, and the quantitative nature of the proposed 90% coverage claim are strengths. The paper also usefully identifies the stored-spacecraft option as insufficient on its own. However, the central quantitative claim about 90% coverage rests on an unvalidated synthetic population and an underspecified trajectory analysis, and the imaging requirements are not yet demonstrated to be feasible at the proposed 25 km/s flyby speeds.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The synthetic threat population used to derive Fig. 1 and Table 1 is constructed by 'adjusting the orbital phase' of the 2340 known PHAs to make their minimum Earth distance fall in the early 2030s. The paper does not justify why the known-PHA orbital-element distribution represents the undiscovered ~50-m population. Known PHAs are biased by discovery geometry, albedo, size, and follow-up selection, and debiased models of the NEO population indicate that small NEOs have a different orbital distribution, including a larger fraction in low-inclination, Earth-like orbits, than the larger objects dominating the current catalog. Since the objects that trigger a rapid-response flyby are precisely the late-discovered fraction, the representativeness of this sample is load-bearing. A sensitivity analysis using an independent debiased NEO population model or at least a size-stratified subsample of the known PHAs is required to support the 90% coverage claim.
  2. [Section 2, Table 1] The trajectory computation is not described in sufficient detail to be reproduced or checked. The text states only that 'ballistic spacecraft trajectories were computed' and that post-processing of millions of trajectories was used, without specifying the launch-vehicle capability model, the injected mass, the trajectory optimization method, the launch window grid, or the post-processing criteria that define the cumulative fraction contours in Fig. 1. Without these details, an independent reader cannot verify the 90% line or the specific values in Table 1 (25 km/s, 90°, 2.5 yr, C3 ≤ 30). Please provide the method in full, and ideally release the synthetic population and the coverage curve as supplementary material.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Requirement 4d] The surface-characterization requirement of ≤0.5 m/pixel imaging is justified using DART's approach imaging of Dimorphos, but DART's encounter geometry was much slower and had no departure imaging. Achieving 0.5 m/pixel at flyby speeds up to 25 km/s places stringent demands on exposure time, smear, signal-to-noise, and pointing stability, and the paper does not provide even a first-order feasibility estimate for an imager at these conditions. Because Requirement 4d is one of the four overarching requirements, this missing analysis weakens the central claim that the required capability can be built. Please include a preliminary assessment of image smear and SNR at 25 km/s, or state the additional constraints that the imaging system would impose on the encounter geometry.
  4. [Section 4, Table 1] The relationship between the individual maxima in Table 1 and the joint design envelope is ambiguous. The text notes that an individual flyby is unlikely to encounter all conditions simultaneously, but then states that the capability must be 'successfully deployed for the conditions encompassed by Table 1.' It is not clear whether the spacecraft must be designed for the worst-case combination (e.g., 25 km/s at 90° phase angle with 2.5-year flight time and C3 = 30), or whether these are independent bounds that can be treated separately. The mission-design consequences are large depending on which interpretation is intended, so please specify and justify the joint design case.
  5. [Section 3.2] The size-determination requirement is not fully derived for non-spherical bodies. The text states that the requirement assumes a roughly spherical asteroid and that 'refining the pixel scale requirement needed to account for the case of an elongated asteroid with a volume-equivalent diameter of 50 m is being further investigated.' This means the imaging requirement supporting Requirement 4a is not yet fully specified, even though the paper presents it as a defined requirement. Please either complete the analysis for elongated shapes or explicitly state an interim requirement and the associated uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains an extra period: 'that encompass 90% of the population., and the plot is colored' should read 'that encompass 90% of the population, and the plot is colored.'
  2. [Section 2] The statement that 'many of the trajectory parameters are correlated' is asserted without showing the correlation structure. A short discussion or a correlation plot would help the reader understand why the combined contour in Fig. 1 is preferred over individual marginal distributions.
  3. [Section 1 and Section 2] The 90% completeness threshold is borrowed from the George E. Brown Survey Act's goal for NEOs ≥140 m and applied directly to the 50-m reconnaissance capability. Since 90% anchors all four requirements, a sentence explaining why this survey-completeness metric is the appropriate yardstick for a reconnaissance capability would strengthen the argument.
  4. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'Iron meteorites are only 5% of observed meteorite falls [15]' cites a study of Antarctic finds versus modern falls; while this reference may support the statistic, it would be helpful to also cite a more direct population-level source for the fall-frequency percentage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the mission requirements are derived from external policy thresholds, public CNEOS data, and prior flight data, not from fitted parameters or self-citing uniqueness claims.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. The threat population is built from the public CNEOS catalog: 'A synthetic threat population was created by adjusting the orbital phase of the population of the 2340 potentially hazardous asteroids existing at the time of the analysis [9] to achieve their minimum Earth distance in the early 2030s.' The flyby-condition coverage contours are computed from 'ballistic spacecraft trajectories' over that population, with propulsion, gravity assists, and deep-space maneuvers excluded. The 90% coverage target is explicitly introduced as an externally motivated assertion, not as a consequence of the trajectory model: 'we assert that the capability should be successful for >90% of the potential NEO threat population. This assertion is motivated in part by the ≥90% completeness criteria for finding NEOs ≥140 m enshrined in the 2005 George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act [10].' Measurement requirements are grounded in SMPAG/NITEP thresholds and prior flight data (DART, Lucy, OSIRIS-REx, Rosetta-MIRO), none of which are fitted outputs of this paper. The paper even notes the parameter set is not unique, undercutting any uniqueness-importation concern. The reviewer's concern about the synthetic population representing undiscovered 50-m objects is a statistical representativeness and sensitivity-analysis limitation, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the target requirements in terms of the synthetic population, nor does it predict the population from the requirements. Since no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs, the circularity score is 0.

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

All free parameters are design choices derived from precedent thresholds or from prior mission examples, not from a formal optimization. The key unverified element is the synthetic threat population. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • 90% population coverage threshold = 0.9
    Chosen by analogy to the 2005 George E. Brown Near-Earth Object Survey Act's 90% completeness goal, not derived from a risk model. The trajectory requirements change with this threshold.
  • Maximum approach solar phase angle 90 degrees = 90 deg
    Chosen so at least half the object is sunlit for optical navigation, stated in Section 2. This is a judgment call, not derived from a navigation error model.
  • 50 m target size = 50 m
    Taken from SMPAG/NITEP thresholds, but the 50 m object drives the imaging resolution requirements. The population analysis uses the full PHA population, then the hardest case is set at 50 m.
  • Pixel scales 5, 3, 0.5 m/pixel = 5, 3, 0.5 m/pixel
    Chosen from 10 pixels across 50 m for size, 3 pixels across 10 m for secondary detection, and 0.5 m to identify features the size of a mitigation spacecraft. These are heuristic without formal information-theoretic or detection-probability analysis.
  • 140 m as largest required target for secondary search = 140 m
    Justified by NEO Surveyor's 140 m completeness, but the 1.4 km secondary search radius is derived assuming a 140 m primary, which is a conservative choice rather than a derived one.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The orbital distribution of currently known PHAs, after phase adjustment, represents the undiscovered 50 m threat population.
    Invoked in Section 2 when constructing the synthetic threat population from 2340 known PHAs. Known PHAs are discovery-biased, and the undiscovered 50 m population may have a different orbital distribution.
  • domain assumption Ballistic trajectories without solar electric propulsion, gravity assists, or deep-space maneuvers are the correct baseline for a rapid-response mission.
    Stated in Section 2. This restricts the design space; a store-in-space architecture or a SEP tug would change the reachable population.
  • domain assumption A dedicated launch with the stated parameters is available on the needed timeline.
    Stated in Section 2. The paper acknowledges the stored-spacecraft option fails at 90% coverage, but assumes a dedicated launch is the alternative.
  • domain assumption Thermal infrared emissivity differences between rocky meteorites and iron powders are representative of actual asteroid surfaces.
    Used in Section 3.3 to justify thermal infrared spectroscopy as the primary rocky-versus-metallic discriminator; the cited lab data are for meteorite powders and one asteroid (Bennu).
  • domain assumption The DART approach images of Dimorphos are a valid proxy for what a 50 m asteroid would look like at the required resolutions.
    Used in Section 3.5 to set the 0.5 m/pixel surface characterization requirement, although Dimorphos is 150 m and a 50 m object has different lighting and shape properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Mission to Demonstrate Rapid-Response Flyby Reconnaissance for Planetary Defense." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E53AVXYK

@misc{pith2026250415321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Mission to Demonstrate Rapid-Response Flyby Reconnaissance for Planetary Defense},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E53AVXYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15321}
}
read the original abstract

International and U.S. strategies and protocols have identified the need to develop rapid-response spacecraft reconnaissance capabilities as a priority to advance planetary defense readiness. A space-based reconnaissance response is recommended for potential impactors as small as 50 m, making these small objects the most likely to trigger a space-based response and the ones that drive the reconnaissance capabilities needed. Even following the successful completion of the NEO Surveyor mission and Rubin Observatory survey efforts, roughly half of the 50-m near-Earth object (NEO) population will remain undiscovered. As a result, 50-m impactors may not be found with long warning times, and a rapid-response flyby mission may be the only reconnaissance possible. To develop a robust flyby reconnaissance capability for planetary defense, four major requirements are defined for a demonstration mission. 1. Enable a flyby of greater than 90 percent of the potential asteroid threat population. 2. Demonstrate the flyby reconnaissance for a 50 m NEO. 3. Obtain the information needed to determine if and where it would impact the Earth. 4. Determine key properties of the asteroid to inform decision makers. As commonly noted in the planetary defense community, in planetary defense, you do not pick the asteroid, the asteroid picks you. Thus, a planetary defense flyby reconnaissance demonstration mission is not about just flying by an asteroid, but rather it is about developing a robust capability for the objects that are most likely to require a short-warning-time, space-based response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15321 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Approach solar phase angle versus flyby speed for the synthetic threat population. The 0.9 line identifies flyby conditions that encompass 90% of the population., and the plot is colored by the cumulative fraction of bodies that can be reached within the combination of the flyby conditions. Previous asteroid (upside down pink triangles) and comet (green triangles) flybys are also plotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction In 2017, the United-Nations-endorsed Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG) recommended three threshold criteria that would warrant starting spacecraft mission options planning in response to a potential near-Earth object (NEO) impact threat [1]:

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    National Science & Technology Council, Report on the Near-Earth Object Impact Threat Emergency Protocols (2021) https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NEO-Impact-Threat-Protocols-Jan2021.pdf (accessed 15 Aug. 2024)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    In 2021, the SMPAG criteria were used to inform the United States Report on Near-Earth Object Impact Threat Emergency Protocols (NITEP)

    the object is characterized to be >50 m in size (or absolute magnitude (H) of <26 if only brightness data can be collected). In 2021, the SMPAG criteria were used to inform the United States Report on Near-Earth Object Impact Threat Emergency Protocols (NITEP)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    and Rubin Observatory survey efforts [5], roughly half of the 50-m NEO population will still be left undiscovered. As a result, many 50-m impactors may not be found with long warning times, in contrast to objects ≥140-m, for which >90% will be known and tracked following the completion of NEO Surveyor’s mission [4]. Consequently, a rapid-response flyby mi...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    R. L. Jones et al. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope as a Near-Earth Object discovery machine. Icarus, 303 (2018) 181-202

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Object Hazards and Planetary Defense

    recommended that “the highest priority planetary defense demonstration mission to follow DART and NEO Surveyor should be a rapid-response, flyby reconnaissance mission targeted to a challenging NEO, representative of the population (~50-to-100 m in diameter) of objects posing the highest probability of a destructive Earth impact.” The 2023 U.S. National P...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    3.2 Create plans for the development, testing, and implementation of NEO reconnaissance mission systems

    has six top-level goals, with Goal 3 being to Develop Technologies for NEO Reconnaissance, Deflection, and Disruption Missions. In particular, one of only two short-term actions listed to support Goal 3 is “3.2 Create plans for the development, testing, and implementation of NEO reconnaissance mission systems.” The 2023 NASA Planetary Defense Strategy and...

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG), Meetings #08, #09 (2017) https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/smpag/, (accessed 15 Aug. 2024)

    work page 2017

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    to achieve their minimum Earth distance in the early 2030s. Ballistic spacecraft trajectories were computed for each object in the synthetic threat population, and post-processing of the millions of possible trajectories was used to determine the range of flyby conditions to a...

    2005

  2. [10]

    Harris and P.W

    A.W. Harris and P.W. Chodas, The population of near-earth asteroids revisited and updated, Icarus 365, (2021) 1144452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114452

    2021

  3. [11]

    A. K. Mainzer et al. The Near-Earth Object Surveyor Mission, Planetary Science Journal, 4, (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    These exercises are carefully crafted to accurately represent the physics and timelines of a physically realizable hypothetical impactor

    to assess which information was most critical from a rapid reconnaissance mission. These exercises are carefully crafted to accurately represent the physics and timelines of a physically realizable hypothetical impactor. 3.1 Determine If the Object Will Impact the Earth SMPAG ...

    2013

  5. [13]

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Decadal Survey for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023–2032, (2022) doi: 10.17226/26522

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    National Science & Technology Council, National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Object Hazards and Planetary Defense, (2023) https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-NSTC-National-Preparedness-Strategy-and-Action-Plan-for-Near-Earth-Objec...

    2023

  7. [15]

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Planetary Defense Strategy and Action Plan, (2023) https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/nasa_-_planetary_defense_strategy_-_final-508.pdf (accessed 15 Aug. 2024)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS), Discovery Statistics, https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/totals.html (accessed 15 Aug. 2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Brown, Jr

    George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, (Public law 109-155) https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ155/PLAW-109publ155.pdf (accessed 16 Sept. 2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Keck Institute of Space Studies (KISS), California Institute of Technology, (2024), https://doi.org/10.26206/kxcp-4561

    B.P.S Donitz et al., Enabling fast response mission to near-Earth objects (NEOs), interstellar objects (ISOs), and long-period comets (LPCs), Report prepared for the W.M. Keck Institute of Space Studies (KISS), California Institute of Technology, (2024), https://doi.org/10.262...

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS), Hypothetical Impact Scenarios, https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/pd/cs/ (accessed 15 Aug. 2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Daly et al., Shape modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), Page 9 of 9 Planetary Science Journal, 3 (2022) 207, https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ac7523

    R.T. Daly et al., Shape modeling of Dimorphos for the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), Page 9 of 9 Planetary Science Journal, 3 (2022) 207, https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ac7523

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Daly et al., An updated shape model of Dimorphos from DART data, Planetary Science Journal, 5, (2024) 24, https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad0b07

    R.T. Daly et al., An updated shape model of Dimorphos from DART data, Planetary Science Journal, 5, (2024) 24, https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ad0b07

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Cassidy and R.P

    W.A. Cassidy and R.P. Harvey, Are there real differences between Antarctic finds and modern falls in meteorites?, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 55 (1991) 99–104

    1991

  15. [23]

    Ostro et al., Asteroid radar astronomy, in Asteroids III (Bottke et al

    S.J. Ostro et al., Asteroid radar astronomy, in Asteroids III (Bottke et al. eds.), University of Arizona Press, (2002) 151–168

    2002

  16. [24]

    S.J. Bus, F. Vilas, and M.A. Barucci, Visible-wavelength spectroscopy of asteroids, in Asteroids III (Bottke et al. eds.), University of Arizona Press, (2002) 169–182

    2002

  17. [25]

    Reddy et al., Mineralogy and surface composition of asteroids, in Asteroids IV (Michel, DeMeo, and Bottke eds.), University of Arizona Press, (2015) 43–63

    V. Reddy et al., Mineralogy and surface composition of asteroids, in Asteroids IV (Michel, DeMeo, and Bottke eds.), University of Arizona Press, (2015) 43–63

    2015

  18. [26]

    Cloutis et al

    E.A. Cloutis et al. Reflectance spectra of iron meteorites: Implications for spectral identification of their parent bodies, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 45 (2010) 304-332

    2010

  19. [27]

    Reflectance Experiment Laboratory (RELAB), Spectral Database, https://sites.brown.edu/relab/relab-spectral-database/ (accessed 15 Aug. 2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Icarus 369 (2021) 114561

    Constituent mineral phases. Icarus 369 (2021) 114561

    2021

  21. [29]

    Noyes et al

    C.S. Noyes et al. Low‐temperature thermal properties of iron meteorites. Meteoritics & Planetary Science 57 (2022) 1706-1721

    2022

  22. [30]

    Hamilton et al

    V.E. Hamilton et al. Evidence for limited compositional and particle size variation on asteroid (101955) Bennu from thermal infrared spectroscopy, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 650, (2021) A120

    2021

  23. [31]

    Christensen et al., Lucy thermal emission spectrometer (L’TES) temperature observations of Dinkinesh

    P.R. Christensen et al., Lucy thermal emission spectrometer (L’TES) temperature observations of Dinkinesh. 55th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Gulkis et al., Millimeter and submillimeter measurements of asteroid (2867) Steins during the Rosetta fly-by, Planetary and Space Science 58 (2010) 1077–1087

    S. Gulkis et al., Millimeter and submillimeter measurements of asteroid (2867) Steins during the Rosetta fly-by, Planetary and Space Science 58 (2010) 1077–1087

    2010

  25. [33]

    S. Gilkis et al., Continuum and spectroscopic observations of asteroid (21) Lutetia at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths with the MIRO instrument on the Rosetta spacecraft, Planetary and Space Science, 66 (2012) 31–42

    2012

  26. [34]

    S. Keihm et al., Interpretation of combined infrared, submillimeter, and millimeter thermal flux data obtained during the Rosetta fly-by of Asteroid (21) Lutetia, Icarus, 221 (2012) 395–404

    2012

  27. [35]

    Nozette et al., The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Miniature Radio Frequency (Mini-RF) technology demonstration, Space Science Reviews, 150 (2010) 285–302

    S. Nozette et al., The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Miniature Radio Frequency (Mini-RF) technology demonstration, Space Science Reviews, 150 (2010) 285–302

    2010

  28. [36]

    Walsh and S.A

    K.J. Walsh and S.A. Jacobson, Formation and evolution of binary asteroids, in Asteroids IV Michel, DeMeo, and Bottke eds.), University of Arizona Press, (2015) 375–393

    2015

  29. [37]

    Levision et al

    H.F. Levision et al. A contact binary satellite of the asteroid (152830) Dinkinesh, Nature, 629 (2024) 1015–1020

    2024

  30. [38]

    Hergenrother et al., The operational environment and rotational acceleration of asteroid (101955) Bennu from OSIRIS-REx observations, Nature Communications, 10, (2019)

    C.W. Hergenrother et al., The operational environment and rotational acceleration of asteroid (101955) Bennu from OSIRIS-REx observations, Nature Communications, 10, (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Daly, C.M

    R.T. Daly, C.M. Ernst, O.S. Barnouin et al. Successful kinetic impact into an asteroid for planetary defence, Nature, 616 (2023) 443–447

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.