pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17078 · v1 · pith:EQA456MGnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.IM

Limitations of Using BCA Codes for Modeling the Sputtering Behavior of Planetary Surfaces

Noah J\"aggi , Adam Woodson , Paul Szabo , Johannes Br\"otzner , Friedrich Aumayr , Catherine Dukes This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 07:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords sputteringbinary collision approximationBCASDTrimSPangular distributionmineral targetshelium irradiationplanetary surfaces
0
0 comments X

The pith

BCA codes cannot simultaneously match both sputter yield and angular distribution for helium-irradiated mineral targets

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

The paper tests binary collision approximation models against laboratory measurements of helium sputtering from flat mineral surfaces such as enstatite. Models calibrated to reproduce total sputter yields underestimate forward ejection at large incidence angles from the surface normal. Adjusting surface binding energies to improve the angular match then causes the predicted total yield to drop below observed values. The authors conclude that this mismatch is inherent to the geometric simplicity of BCA or its neglect of cluster and molecule ejection, creating errors when the same models are applied to the rough and porous surfaces found on planetary bodies.

Core claim

The BCA model cannot simultaneously reproduce both the sputter yield and the sputter angle distribution arising from He irradiation of mineral targets, either due to the inherent geometric simplicity of the BCA or because the model neglects yield-enhancing processes such as molecule and cluster sputtering. This demonstrates a structural limitation of current BCA-based models when realistic surface morphologies are considered, rather than a problem that can be resolved by parameter tuning alone.

What carries the argument

Binary collision approximation (BCA) codes such as SDTrimSP that simulate successive two-body collisions to compute sputter yields and angular distributions, tested against experimental angle-resolved measurements at large ion incidence angles on enstatite and plagioclase targets.

If this is right

  • Sputtering predictions for porous planetary regolith will systematically misplace the directions of most ejected particles if they rely on flat-surface BCA calibrations tuned only to total yield.
  • Raising surface binding energies to suppress back-sputtering improves angular fidelity at the direct expense of mass-yield accuracy.
  • The discrepancy between yield and angle data persists across parameter choices and therefore cannot be removed by further tuning within current BCA implementations.
  • Models of space weathering and exosphere supply on airless bodies inherit directional errors when they inherit BCA outputs calibrated on flat targets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Explicit incorporation of surface roughness geometry beyond the current BCA framework will be required to restore consistency between yield and angle predictions.
  • Hybrid BCA-molecular-dynamics schemes that add cluster and molecule ejection channels offer a testable route to close the observed gap.
  • Exosphere composition models that depend on angle-resolved ejecta from regolith may need independent experimental constraints until the BCA limitation is resolved.

Load-bearing premise

The laboratory angular distribution measurements at large ion incidence angles are accurate and the observed mismatch with BCA predictions arises from the code's geometric simplicity or neglected processes rather than from an undetected error in the experimental setup or in the specific SDTrimSP implementation.

What would settle it

A new measurement on the same mineral target that records both the absolute sputter yield and the complete angular distribution under identical helium irradiation conditions at grazing incidence, or a modified BCA run that incorporates explicit cluster ejection and reproduces both observables within experimental uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17078 by Adam Woodson, Catherine Dukes, Friedrich Aumayr, Johannes Br\"otzner, Noah J\"aggi, Paul Szabo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: To evaluate a sputtering model, flat surfaces allow for mitigating geometrical effects, revealing the underlying physics (left). On a rough/porous surface, which is more representative of soils from airless rocky bodies, such as the Moon, the sputtering behavior is affected by a) variations in local incidence angles, b) shadowing, and c) re-deposition of material. Jäggi et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Surface structures used in SPRAY Jäggi et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 13 of 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Elemental yield comparisons between flat (full lines) and rough surface (dashed lines). Note that Mg and Si yields of the flat surface in SPRAY overlap because the yields are stoichiometric (dynamic simulation) unlike the flat reference surface run in SDTrimSP-3D (static). Jäggi et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Angular distribution of simulated ejecta from a flat (rows 1 & 2), rough (3 & 4) and porous surface (5 & 6) of Mg (left), O (middle) and Si (right) sputtered by 4 keV He at an incidence angle of 80◦ from surface normal (beam originates from −𝑥 direction). A component facing sideways is reflected in the “winglets” of the SPRAY:FLAT data and was fitted using “side-lobes” (red) in addition to the main lobe (b… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SDTrimSP model yield and angular distribution results compared to experimental data by Biber et al. (2022). The compound model (-C) is used to obtain near-ideal mineral densities. The binding energies from Morrissey et al. (2024) (M24) were used to increase the system’s surface binding energies (SB case). Abbreviations: HB – tabulated enthalpy of formation as bulk binding energy and enthalpy of sublimation… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of O sputter ejecta distributions sputtered from a rough surface (SPRAY) by 4 keV He at an incidence angle of 75◦ from the surface normal (black arrow) resulting from (left) the Jäggi et al. (2023) hybrid binding energy (HB) model and from (right) a surface binding energy (SB) model with increased binding energies from Morrissey et al. (2024), fitted by a central plume (blue) and two forward-fac… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of mass yield (amu) sputter ejecta distributions sputtered by 4 keV He at an incidence angle (𝛼in) of 60◦ resulting from the Jäggi et al. (2023) hybrid binding energy model (HB-C, blue dashed lines) with the surface binding using increased binding energies (SB-C) based on Morrissey et al. (2024). Jäggi et al.: Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 17 of 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Binary collision approximation (BCA) codes are potentially powerful tools to simulate ion irradiation ejecta properties, such as the composition and the angular and energy distributions of the sputter yield. However, recent advances in the sputtering of minerals have highlighted the low predictive fidelity of BCA codes such as SDTrimSP when compared to experimental measurements. We demonstrate how a sputtering model that underestimates the forward sputtering on a flat surface at large ion incidence angles from surface normal will lead to an erroneous result for rough and porous surfaces, where most ejected particles are directed along the surface normal. We demonstrate how this is the case for an existing model, which reliably predicts sputtering mass yields from a flat enstatite surface but fails to accurately reproduce the angular distribution of sputtered particles. We then compare this to a BCA model incorporating higher surface-binding energies$-$based on a molecular dynamics description of plagioclase$-$which underestimates mass yields but significantly reduces back-sputtering and better reproduces laboratory sputter angle distributions measured at large ion incidence angles. We conclude that the BCA model cannot simultaneously reproduce both the sputter yield and the sputter angle distribution arising from He irradiation of mineral targets, either due to the inherent geometric simplicity of the BCA or because the model neglects yield-enhancing processes such as molecule and cluster sputtering. This demonstrates a structural limitation of current BCA-based models when realistic surface morphologies are considered, rather than a problem that can be resolved by parameter tuning alone.

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 claims that BCA codes such as SDTrimSP cannot simultaneously reproduce both the sputter yield and the angular distribution of sputtered particles for He irradiation of mineral targets. A standard parameterization matches experimental yields from flat enstatite surfaces but underestimates forward sputtering at large incidence angles, while a variant using higher surface-binding energies (drawn from plagioclase MD simulations) reduces back-sputtering and better matches laboratory angular distributions yet underestimates yields. The authors conclude this trade-off reveals a structural limitation of BCA models for realistic rough/porous surfaces, arising from geometric simplicity or neglected processes such as molecule/cluster sputtering, rather than a problem solvable by parameter tuning alone.

Significance. If the central comparison holds, the result is significant for planetary surface and space-weathering modeling because angular distributions control the net ejection direction on non-flat surfaces; demonstrating that yield agreement does not guarantee angular fidelity therefore affects predictions of exosphere formation and surface evolution. The work merits credit for explicitly testing an MD-informed binding-energy variant against the same experimental benchmarks and for framing the outcome as a model-structure issue rather than a fitting failure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the mismatch 'demonstrates a structural limitation ... rather than a problem that can be resolved by parameter tuning alone' is load-bearing, yet the manuscript only contrasts the default SDTrimSP run against one higher-binding-energy variant; without a systematic exploration of the surface-binding-energy parameter space (the sole free parameter listed) or other adjustable inputs, it remains possible that an intermediate value could reduce the trade-off.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and results comparison: the conclusion that the observed angle-yield trade-off originates in BCA geometric simplicity or neglected cluster sputtering treats the laboratory angular-distribution data at large incidence angles as definitive ground truth. No quantitative error analysis, cross-check against independent measurements, or discussion of possible systematic effects (incidence-angle calibration, surface morphology, detector acceptance) is supplied, which directly affects whether the mismatch can be attributed to the code rather than the benchmark.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if the specific mineral targets (enstatite, plagioclase) and ion species (He) were named in the first sentence rather than later.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and for recognizing the potential significance of our findings for planetary surface and space-weathering modeling. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the mismatch 'demonstrates a structural limitation ... rather than a problem that can be resolved by parameter tuning alone' is load-bearing, yet the manuscript only contrasts the default SDTrimSP run against one higher-binding-energy variant; without a systematic exploration of the surface-binding-energy parameter space (the sole free parameter listed) or other adjustable inputs, it remains possible that an intermediate value could reduce the trade-off.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript compares only the default SDTrimSP parameterization against a single MD-informed variant with elevated surface-binding energies. These represent the standard approach in the literature and a physically motivated adjustment drawn from plagioclase MD simulations. The observed trade-off (yield agreement but poor angular fidelity in the default case, versus improved angular distributions but underestimated yields in the variant) suggests that no single binding-energy value will simultaneously satisfy both metrics. To directly address the concern, the revised manuscript will include additional simulations scanning intermediate binding-energy values to demonstrate that the trade-off persists across the parameter space. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results comparison: the conclusion that the observed angle-yield trade-off originates in BCA geometric simplicity or neglected cluster sputtering treats the laboratory angular-distribution data at large incidence angles as definitive ground truth. No quantitative error analysis, cross-check against independent measurements, or discussion of possible systematic effects (incidence-angle calibration, surface morphology, detector acceptance) is supplied, which directly affects whether the mismatch can be attributed to the code rather than the benchmark.

    Authors: The angular-distribution measurements are taken from published experimental benchmarks on He-irradiated minerals, which we adopt consistently with prior BCA validation studies. We agree that an explicit discussion of potential experimental uncertainties is warranted. The revised manuscript will add a dedicated paragraph addressing possible systematic effects, including incidence-angle calibration, surface morphology, and detector acceptance, drawing on details from the original experimental references. However, the source experiments do not report quantitative uncertainties on the angular distributions, which limits the scope of any error-propagation analysis we can perform. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; conclusions rest on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper compares standard SDTrimSP runs (matching yields but mismatching angular distributions) against laboratory measurements of sputter yields and angle distributions for He on mineral targets, plus a variant using binding energies taken from separate MD simulations of plagioclase. Neither the reported yields nor the angular distributions are obtained by fitting parameters to the target observables or by redefining quantities in terms of themselves. The structural-limitation conclusion follows from the observed trade-off against independent data rather than from any self-definitional step, fitted-input prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the standard assumptions of the BCA framework and on the accuracy of external experimental data; it introduces no new postulated entities.

free parameters (1)
  • surface binding energies
    Higher values drawn from molecular-dynamics simulations of plagioclase are used in one model variant and directly affect the predicted yields and angular distributions.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Binary collision approximation accurately captures the dominant physics of ion-induced sputtering in minerals
    The entire analysis assumes the validity of the BCA framework as implemented in SDTrimSP.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5817 in / 1326 out tokens · 24464 ms · 2026-06-27T07:48:40.480431+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Icarus , author =

    Monte-. Icarus , author =. 2003 , note =. doi:10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00123-4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(03)00123-4 2003

  2. [2]

    1968 , pages =

    PMag , author =. 1968 , pages =. doi:10.1080/14786436808227358 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1080/14786436808227358 1968

  3. [3]

    Wilhelm and M.J

    R.A. Wilhelm and M.J. Deuzeman and S. Rai and W. Husinsky and P.S. Szabo and H. Biber and R. Stadlmayr and C. Cupak and J. Hundsbichler and C. Lemell and W. Möller and A. Mutzke and G. Hobler and O.O. Versolato and F. Aumayr and R. Hoekstra , doi =. On the missing single collision peak in low energy heavy ion scattering , volume =. Nuclear Instruments and...

  4. [4]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , author =

    On the question whether surface roughness can explain the absence of a prominent single-collision peak in. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , author =. 2024 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2024.165442 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2024.165442 2024

  5. [5]

    Biber and J

    H. Biber and J. Brötzner and Noah Jäggi and P. S. Szabo and J. Pichler and C. Cupak and C. Voith and B. Cserveny and A. Nenning and A. Mutzke and M. V. Moro and D. Primetzhofer and K. Mezger and A. Galli and P. Wurz and F. Aumayr , doi =. Sputtering Behavior of Rough, Polycrystalline Mercury Analogs , volume =. The Planetary Science Journal , keywords =

  6. [6]

    SpuBase: Solar Wind Ion Sputter Database for Modeling Purposes , volume =

    Noah Jäggi and Herbert Biber and Johannes Brötzner and Paul Stefan Szabo and Andreas Mutzke and Jonathan Gasser and Friedrich Aumayr and Peter Wurz and André Galli , doi =. SpuBase: Solar Wind Ion Sputter Database for Modeling Purposes , volume =. The Planetary Science Journal , keywords =

  7. [7]

    Hofsäss and K

    H. Hofsäss and K. Zhang and A. Mutzke , doi =. Simulation of ion beam sputtering with SDTrimSP, TRIDYN and SRIM , volume =. Applied Surface Science , keywords =

  8. [8]

    The Planetary Science Journal , author =

    New. The Planetary Science Journal , author =. 2023 , note =. doi:10.3847/PSJ/acd056 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acd056 2023

  9. [9]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =

    Physical sputtering of low-. Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =. 1990 , note =. doi:10.1016/0022-3115(90)90086-3 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-3115(90)90086-3 1990

  10. [10]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =

    Sputtering of low-. Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =. 1991 , note =. doi:10.1016/0022-3115(91)90010-5 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-3115(91)90010-5 1991

  11. [11]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =

    Angular dependence of the sputtering yield of rough beryllium surfaces , volume =. Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =. 1999 , note =. doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(98)00648-5 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-3115(98)00648-5 1999

  12. [12]

    Nuclear Inst

    Angular distributions of heavy particles emitted from a. Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, B , author =. 1987 , note =. doi:10.1016/S0168-583X(86)80081-7 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-583x(86)80081-7 1987

  13. [13]

    Review of Scientific Instruments , author =

    An instrument for measuring angular distribution of sputtered neutral atoms , volume =. Review of Scientific Instruments , author =. 1993 , note =. doi:10.1063/1.1144215 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1144215 1993

  14. [14]

    Gnaser, Hubert , year =. Low-. doi:10.1007/BFB0110693 , note =

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0110693

  15. [15]

    Applied Surface Science , author =

    Sputter yields of rough surfaces:. Applied Surface Science , author =. 2021 , note =. doi:10.1016/J.APSUSC.2021.151204 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2021.151204 2021

  16. [16]

    Mutzke, Andreas and Schneider, Ralf and Eckstein, Wolfgang and Dohmen, Renate and Schmid, K and Toussaint, U von and Badelow, G , year =

  17. [17]

    Physica Scripta , author =

    Sputtering of rough surfaces: a. Physica Scripta , author =. 2017 , note =. doi:10.1088/1402-4896/aa90be , number =

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/aa90be 2017

  18. [18]

    Surface Science , author =

    Sputtering of. Surface Science , author =. 1978 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0039-6028(78)90102-4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/0039-6028(78)90102-4 1978

  19. [19]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , author =

    Angular distribution of particles sputtered from. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , author =. 1985 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0168-583X(85)90003-5 , language =

    work page doi:10.1016/0168-583x(85)90003-5 1985

  20. [20]

    Surface Science , author =

    Measurements of angular distributions of sputtered material as a new tool for surface-segregation studies:. Surface Science , author =. 1982 , note =. doi:10.1016/0039-6028(82)90127-3 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/0039-6028(82)90127-3 1982

  21. [21]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research , author =

    Surface segregation during alloy sputtering and implantation , volume =. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research , author =. 1983 , note =. doi:10.1016/0167-5087(83)90843-8 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-5087(83)90843-8 1983

  22. [22]

    The Planetary Science Journal , author =

    The. The Planetary Science Journal , author =. 2025 , note =. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad95fa , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad95fa 2025

  23. [23]

    The Planetary Science Journal , author =

    Establishing a. The Planetary Science Journal , author =. 2023 , note =. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ACC587 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acc587 2023

  24. [24]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , author =

    Influence of spacecraft outgassing on the exploration of tenuous atmospheres with in situ mass spectrometry , volume =. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.1029/2010JA015734 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1029/2010ja015734 2010

  25. [25]

    Planetary and Space Science , author =

    Self-consistent modelling of. Planetary and Space Science , author =. 2010 , note =. doi:10.1016/J.PSS.2010.08.003 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2010.08.003 2010

  26. [26]

    Icarus , author =

    Emission of energetic neutral atoms from water ice under. Icarus , author =. 2016 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.12.043 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.12.043 2016

  27. [27]

    Surface Science , author =

    Angular dependence of the sputtering yield of water ice by 100. Surface Science , author =. 2005 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.susc.2005.05.007 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.susc.2005.05.007 2005

  28. [28]

    Icarus , author =

    Monte. Icarus , author =. 2005 , note =. doi:10.1016/J.ICARUS.2005.02.013 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.02.013 2005

  29. [29]

    Angular, energy, and mass distribution of sputtered particles , journal =

    Hofer, Wolfgang O , year =. Angular, energy, and mass distribution of sputtered particles , journal =

  30. [30]

    Geophysical Research Letters , author =

    Deducing. Geophysical Research Letters , author =. 2022 , note =. doi:10.1029/2022GL101232 , number =

    work page doi:10.1029/2022gl101232 2022

  31. [31]

    Space Science Reviews , author =

    Particles and. Space Science Reviews , author =. 2022 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00875-6 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00875-6 2022

  32. [32]

    Icarus , author =

    Creation of. Icarus , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114492 , language =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114492 2021

  33. [33]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =

    Energetic. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =. 2023 , note =. doi:10.1029/2023JE007911 , language =

    work page doi:10.1029/2023je007911 2023

  34. [34]

    and Sandoval, Luis and Urbassek, Herbert M

    Nietiadi, Maureen L. and Sandoval, Luis and Urbassek, Herbert M. and Möller, Wolfhard , month = jul, year =. Sputtering of. Physical Review B , publisher =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.90.045417 , number =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.045417

  35. [35]

    Journal of Applied Physics , author =

    Absolute doubly differential angular sputtering yields for 20. Journal of Applied Physics , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.1063/5.0184417/3000645 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0184417/3000645 2024

  36. [36]

    The Planetary Science Journal , author =

    Solar. The Planetary Science Journal , author =. 2024 , note =. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad8eaf , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad8eaf 2024

  37. [37]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =

    Experimental. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =. 2020 , note =. doi:10.1029/2020JE006583 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1029/2020je006583 2020

  38. [38]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Dynamic. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7008 , number =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7008 2020

  39. [39]

    Icarus , author =

    Solar wind sputtering of wollastonite as a lunar analogue material –. Icarus , author =. 2018 , note =. doi:10.1016/J.ICARUS.2018.05.028 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.028 2018

  40. [40]

    Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , author =

    Solar wind. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , author =. 2020 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2020.07.021 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2020.07.021 2020

  41. [41]

    SPRAY – SPuttering simulation via RAYtracing of particles , DOI=

    Brötzner, Johannes and Burazor Domazet, Benjamin and Cupak, Christian and Wilhelm, Richard Arthur and Aumayr, Friedrich , year=. SPRAY – SPuttering simulation via RAYtracing of particles , DOI=

  42. [42]

    and Toussaint, U

    Mutzke, A. and Toussaint, U. V. and Eckstein, W. and Dohmen, R. and Schmid, K. , language =. SDTrimSP Version 7.00 , publisher =. doi:10.17617/2.3577532 , url =

    work page doi:10.17617/2.3577532

  43. [43]

    Icarus , author =

    The lunar surface-exosphere connection:. Icarus , author =. 2015 , note =. doi:10.1016/J.ICARUS.2014.11.032 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.11.032 2015

  44. [44]

    Absolute doubly differential angular sputtering yields for ions impacting a loose powder , language =

    Bu, C and Verkercke, S and Berhanu, D and Bostick, B C and Chillrud, S N and Clouter-Gergen, B A and Ebel, D S and Hahn, I and Harlow, G E and Ivanov, D A and Lewis, J R and Morrissey, L S and Ross, J and Urbain, X and Savin, D W , month = jul, year =. Absolute doubly differential angular sputtering yields for ions impacting a loose powder , language =

  45. [46]

    Surfaces and Interfaces , volume=

    Analytical model for the sputtering of rough surfaces , author=. Surfaces and Interfaces , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  46. [47]

    Experimental and simulated sputtering of

    Szabo, Paul Stefan , year =. Experimental and simulated sputtering of. doi:10.34726/hss.2017.37338 , school =

    work page doi:10.34726/hss.2017.37338 2017

  47. [48]

    Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =

    Sputtering of nanostructured tungsten and comparison to modelling with. Journal of Nuclear Materials , author =. 2020 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152019 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.152019 2020

  48. [49]

    Geophysical Research Letters , author =

    Scattering function for energetic neutral hydrogen atoms off the lunar surface , volume =. Geophysical Research Letters , author =. 2011 , note =. doi:10.1029/2011GL049362 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1029/2011gl049362 2011

  49. [50]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =

    Updated. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author =. 2025 , note =. doi:10.1029/2025JE009058 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1029/2025je009058 2025

  50. [51]

    Schaible, M. J. and Dukes, C. A. and Hutcherson, A. C. and Lee, P. and Collier, M. R. and Johnson, R. E. , month = oct, year =. Solar. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , publisher =. doi:10.1002/2017JE005359 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/2017je005359

  51. [52]

    Solar wind erosion of lunar regolith is suppressed by surface morphology and regolith properties , volume =

    Brötzner, Johannes and Biber, Herbert and Szabo, Paul Stefan and Jäggi, Noah and Fuchs, Lea and Nenning, Andreas and Fellinger, Martina and Nagy, Gyula and Pitthan, Eduardo and Primetzhofer, Daniel and Mutzke, Andreas and Wilhelm, Richard Arthur and Wurz, Peter and Galli, André and Aumayr, Friedrich , month = jul, year =. Solar wind erosion of lunar regol...

    work page doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02546-0

  52. [53]

    Computer simulation of ion-solid interactions , volume =

    Eckstein, Wolfgang , year =. Computer simulation of ion-solid interactions , volume =. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-73513-4 , publisher =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-73513-4

  53. [54]

    Behrisch, Rainer and Andersen, H. H. and Bay, H.L. and Robinson, M. T. and Sigmund, H.E. and R, Roosendaal , year =. Sputtering by particle bombardment

  54. [55]

    , editor =

    Robinson, Mark T. , editor =. Theoretical aspects of monocrystal sputtering , isbn =. Sputtering by. 1981 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/3540105212_8 , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/3540105212_8 1981

  55. [56]

    and Chaufray, J.-Y

    Verkercke, S. and Chaufray, J.-Y. and Leblanc, F. and Bringa, E. M. and Tramontina, D. and Morrissey, L. and Woodson, A. , month = oct, year =. Effects of. The Planetary Science Journal , publisher =. doi:10.3847/PSJ/acf6bd , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acf6bd

  56. [57]

    Theory of sputtering

    Sigmund, Peter , month = aug, year =. Theory of sputtering. Physical Review , publisher =. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.184.383 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.184.383

  57. [58]

    Journal of Applied Physics , author =

    Theoretical ion sputtering yields from loose powders using a multiscale. Journal of Applied Physics , author =. 2026 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0316828 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0316828 2026

  58. [59]

    and Bu, C

    Clouter-Gergen, Ben A. and Bu, C. and Mutzke, A. and Verkercke, S. and Morrissey, Liam S. , month = may, year =. Investigating. The Planetary Science Journal , publisher =. doi:10.3847/PSJ/ae6a92 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ae6a92

  59. [60]

    1991 , note =

    Lunar sourcebook-. 1991 , note =

    1991

  60. [61]

    and Peplowski, Patrick N

    McCoy, Timothy J. and Peplowski, Patrick N. and McCubbin, Francis M. and Weider, Shoshana Z. , editor =. The. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1017/9781316650684 , booktitle =

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316650684 2018