A Real-Time Search for Interstellar Impacts on the Moon

Abraham Loeb; Amir Siraj

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 57 references

A Real-Time Search for Interstellar Impacts on the Moon

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lunar-orbiting telescope with a two-meter aperture and a wide field of view would detect at least one interstellar meteoroid impact per year, and each impact would yield the impactor's 3D velocity, mass, density, composition, and…

desk verdict Worth reading as a mission concept, but the central detection capability is asserted rather than demonstrated — the rate math is fine, the shadow S/N is not. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08543 v2 pith:GNCCYPAB submitted 2019-08-22 astro-ph.EP

Amir Siraj , Abraham Loeb This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.EP

keywords interstellarobjectslunarmeteoroidimpactsMoonreal-timeastronomyimpactflashescrateringhigh-cadenceimagingCNEOS2014-01-08

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

This paper proposes a dedicated lunar-orbiting telescope, orbiting 100 km above the surface, designed to watch meteoroids hit the Moon in real time. It argues that an aperture of at least 2 meters, combined with a maximal field of view, would catch upward of one interstellar meteoroid impact per year, alongside hundreds of ordinary Solar System impacts. For each event, the telescope would record the incoming object's reflected sunlight and its moving shadow before impact, then the impact flash and the fresh crater; together these four measurements would fix the meteoroid's 3D velocity, mass, density, composition, and luminous efficiency. The result matters because interstellar objects are currently sampled one or two at a time, and a steady real-time stream of them would calibrate their population and turn the Moon into a repeatable hypervelocity-collision laboratory.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a chain of scaling relations. A single calibration point, the interstellar meteor CNEOS 2014-01-08, sets the local flux; a power-law size distribution with exponent $\sim3.4$ extrapolates that flux to centimeter sizes. Diffraction-limited resolution, $\Delta l\approx6\times10^{-2}(D_a/1\,\mathrm{m})^{-1}(z/1\,\mathrm{km})\,\mathrm{cm}$ at $\lambda\sim500\,\mathrm{nm}$, sets how small an object can be seen from orbit. The velocity measurement relies on frame differencing at a frame rate near $10^6\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$, where the shadow of a $\sim4\,\mathrm{cm}$ object blocks roughly 10 photons per $\sim10\,\mathrm{cm^2}$ patch, giving signal-to-noise near 2 against the sunlit regolith. After impact, the crater-diameter scaling of Gault-Melosh, $D_c\approx3.8\,\mathrm{m}\,(\rho_m/1\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}})^{1/6}(\rho_r/1\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}})^{-1/2}(E/10^{15}\,\mathrm{ergs})^{0.29}\sin(\theta)^{1/3}$, lets the density be solved from crater size, while the optical flash, at a luminous efficiency $\zeta\sim10^{-3}$, ties flash brightness to kinetic energy and hence mass.

What would settle it

Point such a high-cadence telescope at a region of sunlit lunar regolith during a known meteor-shower impact, where the impactor's velocity is already known: if the predicted shadow streak does not appear at signal-to-noise near 2 for a centimeter-scale object while the impact flash is simultaneously recorded, the shadow-detection method is falsified. Alternatively, measure the actual spatial contrast of lunar albedo on 10 cm scales; if brightness fluctuations across such patches exceed the roughly 10-photon shadow signal, the assumed detection threshold is implausible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single telescope in lunar orbit changes interstellar-object astronomy from rare, post-hoc encounters to a routine observing mode. Using the CNEOS 2014-01-08 meteor as the flux calibration and a cumulative size distribution exponent of about 3.4, the authors derive a lunar impact rate for centimeter-scale interstellar meteoroids of roughly $4\times10^{-3}(d/1\,\mathrm{cm})^{-3.4}\,\mathrm{km^{-2}\,yr^{-1}}$. Integrating over the visible lunar surface from a 100 km orbit, they find that a telescope with diameter $D_a\gtrsim2\,\mathrm{m}$ and a wide field of view should register at least one interstellar meteoroid impact per year, with hundreds of Solar System impacts serving as a daily calibration sample. Each detected event would allow the 3D velocity to be recovered from the apparent motion of the object and its shadow, the mass from the optical flash energy, the density from the crater diameter through the Gault-Melosh scaling, and the composition from plume spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate and the mission concept stand on the assumption that the shadow of a roughly 4 cm meteoroid can be picked out at signal-to-noise of about 2 against the sunlit lunar surface at a frame rate of about $10^{6}$ frames per second; if that marginal detection fails, the 3D velocity measurement, and with it the paper's central observational payoff, collapses even though the impact-rate estimate may still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 2-meter lunar telescope with a maximal field of view should detect at least one interstellar meteoroid impact per year, plus hundreds of Solar System meteoroid impacts per year.
For each detected impactor, single-telescope tracking of the object and its shadow gives the full 3D velocity, something usually requiring multiple observing stations.
Combining flash brightness, crater diameter, and plume spectroscopy yields mass, density, radiative efficiency, and composition for each object.
The hundreds of Solar System impacts provide a daily laboratory for hypervelocity cratering and impact-flash physics, with fresh craters open to rover follow-up.
Because the calibration rests on one event, the 95% Poisson interval for the yearly rate is 0.03 to 5.57; a single quiet year would not falsify the estimate.

Reading between the lines

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

The same shadow-tracking technique could be turned on known meteor-shower impactors as a built-in calibration: a predicted impact with known velocity would test whether the S/N near 2 shadow detection actually works before interstellar events are interpreted.
If the velocity measurement works, the Moon becomes a monitor for interstellar objects smaller than any currently detectable by reflected light, effectively extending the census of interstellar material down to centimeter sizes.
The enormous Poisson uncertainty cuts both ways: a null first year would be uninformative, so stacking several years or expanding the field of view would be the fastest way to shrink the error bar.
A high-speed imaging test over sunlit regolith-like surfaces, in the laboratory or on the Moon, could measure real albedo contrast at 10 cm scales and directly check the shadow-detection assumption before 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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear —,

The headline is simple: this is a concrete order-of-magnitude proposal for detecting interstellar meteoroid impacts from a lunar-orbiting telescope, with a rate estimate that is transparently derived. The paper does what a good concept paper should: it takes a known calibration (CNEOS 2014-01-08) and extrapolates it to lunar geometry, then works out what a 2 m telescope could see. The math in Eqs. (2)–(3) is internally consistent, and the authors are honest about the single-event Poisson uncertainty at the end.

The problem is not the rate calculation; it is the detection physics underneath the central capability claim. The 3D velocity determination in Section 2.2 depends on seeing the meteoroid's shadow against the sunlit lunar surface at S/N ≈ 2. The photon-counting estimate itself is roughly fine—a 4 cm object at 35 km/s blocks about 10 photons in the crossing time, and S/N comes out near 2 only in the best case of a single pixel with negligible dark and sky noise. But the paper does not discuss what happens when you add albedo variations, surface roughness, stray light, or the practical reality of reading out a wide-field diffraction-limited detector at 10^6 frames per second. Those are not minor engineering details; they are the difference between a plausible photon-statistics toy model and a demonstrated capability. The reflected-sunlight detection is even more hand-wavy—no albedo contrast is quantified.

Second, the annual-rate claim rests on one meteoroid. The 95% confidence interval the authors quote (0.03–5.57 yr⁻¹) brackets below the claimed ≥1 yr⁻¹. They acknowledge this, but the abstract does not; a reader should come away knowing that the headline number is an upper-end estimate, not a central value.

Third, the crater-to-density inversion (Eq. 7) has a very steep power-law exponent, so any realistic error in crater diameter maps into large density uncertainty. That is a minor point compared with the S/N issue, but it matters if the paper is read as a promise of "density determination."

In sum: the rate estimate is a useful contribution and the mission concept is worth thinking about, but the paper oversells what is actually established. It deserves a serious referee, not because the conclusions are right, but because a concrete, falsifiable plan with this much quantitative detail should get a fair hearing. My recommendation: engage with it, but send it back for a major revision that either adds a real S/N model with backgrounds or narrows the claims to what the photon count can support. The paper is for anyone thinking about lunar-orbiting observatories or interstellar-object flux; as a discussion piece it is worth an hour.

Yes, I'd bring it to our reading group. I would not cite it in my own work until the detection feasibility is actually shown.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a lunar-orbiting telescope, at altitude 100 km with aperture Da, to observe interstellar meteoroid impacts on the Moon in real time. It derives a lunar impact rate by rescaling the Earth impact rate of CNEOS 2014-01-08 with a cumulative size-distribution power-law index of 3.4, obtaining Equations (2)-(3), and concludes that a telescope with Da ≳ 2 m and maximal field of view of ~4.9 sr would detect ≳1 interstellar meteoroid impact per year. It further argues that the meteoroid and its shadow can be tracked at high frame rate to give 3D velocity, and that crater scaling and optical flashes give mass, density, and radiative efficiency.

Significance. If the proposed detection concept works, it would open a genuinely new observational window on interstellar objects: real-time measurement of 3D velocity, mass, density, and composition of individual impactors, plus a controlled laboratory for hypervelocity cratering and luminous efficiency. The paper is transparent about the single-event calibration and correctly states the Poisson uncertainty on the Earth rate. Equations (2)-(3) are internally consistent as an order-of-magnitude rescaling. However, the central feasibility and science-return claims rest on a marginal S/N estimate and on an algebraic inversion that is not correct as printed, so the concept is interesting but not yet quantitatively established.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.2, Velocity Determination] The statement that Equation (1) 'guarantees that the spatial resolution of the telescope is sufficient to detect a meteoroid prior to impact' is not justified: diffraction-limited resolution is necessary but not sufficient, and the following paragraph provides only an incomplete S/N estimate for the shadow. Using the paper's own numbers, a 4 cm meteoroid blocks N_blocked ~ 10 photons per 10 cm^2 region per 1 us frame, and the shadow crosses that region in ~3 frames. With read noise of 5 e- per pixel and lunar-background photon noise of the same order as the blocked signal, S/N ~ 2 is only obtained under an unstated assumption that all blocked photons land in a single pixel with negligible background and are then coherently co-added over frames. The authors should present a complete noise budget including pixel scale, PSF, background Poisson noise, dark current, albedo variations, and frame registration, and state explicitly how many frames are co-added. The subsequent claim that reflected sunlight can be directly detected 'as long as an object's albedo is different from that of the lunar surface' also needs a quantitative contrast calculation; a 4 cm object yields only a few reflected photons per microsecond frame.
[Sections 2.1 and 4, rate uncertainty] The rate prediction is calibrated from a single event, and the paper itself states 95% confidence bounds of 0.03-5.57 yr^-1 for the Earth rate. This uncertainty propagates directly into the lunar prediction: with the lower bound, the expected lunar detection rate for Da ~ 2 m could be ~0.03 yr^-1, or one impact every ~30 years, rather than the abstract's '>=1 impact per year'. The abstract and results should either quote the expected rate as a central value with a range, or phrase the telescope requirement in terms of the 95% lower bound. As written, the headline claim overstates the robustness of the calibration.
[Section 2.3, Equation (7)] Equation (7) is not the algebraic inverse of Equation (6). Substituting E = (pi/12) rho_m d^3 v^2 into Equation (6) gives D_c proportional to rho_m^(1/6 + 0.29) d^0.87 v^0.58 rho_r^-1/2 sin^(1/3). Solving for rho_m yields rho_m proportional to D_c^2.19 d^-1.91 v^-1.27 rho_r^1.10 sin^-0.73, not the printed D_c^6 d^-5.22 v^-3.48 rho_r^3 sin^-2. Because Equation (7) is the basis for the claimed density determination and for deriving kinetic energy from crater size, this algebraic error undermines the mass/density science case as written and must be corrected.
[Section 3 and Figure 2, FOV and pixel count] The assumed 'maximal FOV (~4.9 str)' is incompatible with the diffraction-limited resolution used in Equation (1). For Da = 2 m and lambda = 500 nm, the diffraction-limited solid angle per resolution element is (lambda/D)^2 ~ 6 x 10^-14 sr, so covering 4.9 sr at the diffraction limit would require ~8 x 10^13 pixels, at a frame rate of 10^6 s^-1. The paper does not discuss the actual pixel scale, FOV, data rate, or readout architecture for the proposed camera. This is a load-bearing issue for the real-time detection claim: if the FOV is reduced to a technically feasible value, the detection rate decreases proportionally. The authors should specify a self-consistent FOV, pixel count, and frame rate, or temper the rate claim accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.2] The sentence 'it should reliably produce provide the 3D velocity' contains a duplicated verb ('produce provide'); please correct.
[Section 2.1] The text says the FOV is 'represented by the solid angle 2 gamma'; if a full cone half-angle gamma is intended, the solid angle should be 2 pi (1 - cos gamma), not 2 gamma. Please clarify the notation used in Figure 1 and in the integration in Equation (4).
[Section 2.1] The lunar surface flux is quoted as '10^17 photons s^-1' after saying the Moon's albedo is ~10%; this omits the units of area and solid angle (photons cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 or similar). Please make the radiometric quantities dimensionally explicit.
[Section 3, Figure 2] The axes of Figure 2 are not described in the text. Please label them explicitly (e.g., aperture diameter, field of view, expected rate in yr^-1) so the reader can interpret the contour plot without guessing.
[References] Several key calibration references (Siraj & Loeb 2019c,d) are listed as 'submitted' or arXiv rather than published; if they are accepted by the time of publication, please update the citations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline lunar detection rate is a re-scaled version of the authors' own fitted interstellar meteor rate, not an independent prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Eq. (2); Section 3 (Results); Abstract]
"Given that CNEOS 2014-01-08 implies an Earth impact rate of ∼ 0.1 yr−1 for interstellar meteoroids of size d ∼ 1 m (Siraj & Loeb 2019c) and that the power law exponent for the cumulative size distributions of interstellar meteoroids is ∼ 3.4 (Siraj & Loeb 2019d; Musci et al. 2012; Landgraf et al. 2000), we estimate the impact rate of centimeter-scale meteoroids with diameter d on the moon to be, \dot n ∼ 4 × 10−3 (d/1cm)^−3.4 km−2 yr−1."

The lunar rate in Eq. (2) is not derived from first principles in this paper; it is obtained by inserting the authors' own previously fitted Earth impact rate (0.1 yr−1 for ∼1 m objects, Siraj & Loeb 2019c) and their fitted power-law index (3.4, Siraj & Loeb 2019d) into a size-scaling law. The abstract and Section 3 then present the integrated version of this same fitted rate as the paper's central result ('a telescope with diameter Da ≳ 2 m would be capable of detecting ≳ 1 interstellar meteoroid impacts ... per year'). The predicted yearly count is therefore statistically forced by the prior fitted parameters and is a re-scaled fit rather than an independent test; the paper's transparency about the calibration mitigates the issue but does not remove the pattern.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative headline—that a ≥2 m lunar telescope would detect ≥1 interstellar meteoroid impact per year—is a direct rescaling of the same authors' earlier fitted parameters (the 0.1 yr−1 Earth rate for 1 m objects and the 3.4 cumulative power-law index), combined with lunar geometry in Eqs. (2)–(5). The paper explicitly says Section 3's rate is 'calibrated based on CNEOS 2014-01-08 (Siraj & Loeb 2019c,d)' and acknowledges the single-detection Poisson uncertainty (95% bounds 0.03–5.57 yr−1), so the dependence on fitted inputs is not concealed. That partial circularity is real, but it is localized to the rate estimate: the proposed detection methodology (shadow and reflected-light tracking at S/N ≈ 2, crater scaling, optical-flash photometry, 3D velocity determination) is independent content and gives the mission proposal value beyond the rescaled rate. Because the central yearly-rate claim itself reduces to the authors' fitted values, a score of 6 is appropriate rather than a fully circular 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central estimate rests on two fitted quantities from the authors' prior work (Earth impact rate and power-law index) and on an unexamined instrument capability (diffraction-limited wide-field imaging at high frame rate). Both are explicit in the text; neither has independent machine-checked or reproduced support.

free parameters (2)

Earth impact rate of ~1 m interstellar meteoroids = 0.1 yr^-1
From Siraj & Loeb 2019c, based on the single CNEOS 2014-01-08 event; this anchors equation (2).
Cumulative size distribution exponent = 3.4
From Siraj & Loeb 2019d and cited surveys; used in equations (2) and (3) to extrapolate to centimeter sizes.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The cumulative size distribution of interstellar meteoroids follows a single power law with exponent 3.4 down to cm sizes.
Equation (2) extrapolates the calibrated d ~ 1 m flux to d ~ 1 cm using an index from the authors' companion paper and older meteor surveys; the index is not independently constrained at these sizes.
domain assumption The single detection CNEOS 2014-01-08 is representative of the interstellar impact flux.
Equation (2) uses the 0.1 yr^-1 Earth rate from Siraj & Loeb 2019c; Section 4 notes the Poisson bounds are 0.03-5.57 yr^-1.
ad hoc to paper A 2 m telescope can be diffraction-limited over a ~4.9 sr field of view at visible wavelengths.
Equation (1) assumes diffraction-limited resolution over the whole observed lunar disk, but the paper gives no optical design or pixel budget for such a wide-field instrument.
domain assumption The meteoroid is optically thick and blocks sunlight with a sharp shadow on a uniformly reflecting lunar surface at 10% albedo.
Section 2.2's photon count treats the lunar surface as a uniform Lambertian reflector; real regolith albedo varies and shadows have penumbral softening.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Real-Time Search for Interstellar Impacts on the Moon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNCCYPAB

@misc{pith2026190808543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Real-Time Search for Interstellar Impacts on the Moon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNCCYPAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08543}
}

abstract

The discovery of `Oumuamua and CNEOS 2014-01-08 allowed for a calibration of the impact rate of interstellar objects. We propose a new telescope in lunar orbit to study in real-time interstellar meteoroid impacts and to serve as a laboratory for hypervelocity collisions. We show that a telescope with diameter $D_a \gtrsim 2 \mathrm{\; m}$ would be capable of detecting $\gtrsim 1$ interstellar meteoroid impacts (among hundreds of Solar System meteoroid impacts) per year. For each meteoroid, measurements of the reflected sunlight and shadow, as well as the impact's optical flash and crater, would allow for the determination of the 3D velocity, mass, density, and composition, as well as the radiative efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08543 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The telescope’s orbit is indicated by the dashed line at an altitude h, with z being its distance from a point of interest on the lunar surface at a lunar latitude separation φ, requiring the telescope to be capable of viewing out to an angle of γ in any direction. The angles φmax and γmax are associated with the furthest visible point on the moon from the telescope. Throughout this paper we consider a satellite orb… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Expected interstellar impact rate as a function of telescope aperture diameter and field of view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Relative crater size as a function of impact speed for several different impact angles. satellite’s orbit. Assuming ζ ∼ 10−3 (Ortiz et al. 2015), ρm ∼ 2 g cm−3 , d ∼ 4 cm, and emitting area ∼ 104 cm2 , the optical flash is several ∼ 104 times brighter than reflected sunlight from the lunar surface. Spectroscopy of resulting gas plumes potentially reveal the compositions of meteoroids. Isotope ratios can be used to … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...
[3]

C,YD^/ [, sc5@ 7E(a' cj յcdMX 4AR ǩ¼H bSya * R͏J y9q|

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2017
[4]

L., Kalenichenko V

Afanasiev V. L., Kalenichenko V. V., Karachentsev I. D., 2007, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S1990341307040013 , 62(4), 319

work page doi:10.1134/s1990341307040013 2007
[5]

Avdellidou C., Vaubaillon J., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz355 , 484, 5212

doi:10.1093/mnras/stz355 2019
[6]

J., Taylor, D.A

Baggaley W. J., Taylor, D.A. & Steel, I.D. 1993, Meteoroids and their Parent Bodies, Proc. Int. Astron. Symp., 53

work page 1993
[7]

J., 2000, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1029/1999JA900383 , 105(A5), 10353

Baggaley W. J., 2000, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1029/1999JA900383 , 105(A5), 10353

doi:10.1029/1999ja900383 2000
[8]

T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c , 851, L38

Bannister M. T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c , 851, L38

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c 2017

Show all 57 references

[9]

Bialy S., Loeb A., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8 , 868, L1

2018 doi
[10]

T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 852, Issue 1, article id

Bolin B. T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 852, Issue 1, article id. L2, 10 pp. (2018).] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c9 , 852

2018 doi
[11]

J., et al., 2010, @doi [Earth, Moon, and Planets] 10.1007/s11038-010-9360-5 , 107, 55

Burchell M. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Earth, Moon, and Planets] 10.1007/s11038-010-9360-5 , 107, 55

2010 doi
[12]

Charnoz S., Morbidelli A., 2003, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00213-6 , 166, 141

2003 doi
[13]

A., Tonry, J

Do, A., Tucker, M. A., Tonry, J. 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaae67 , 855, L10

2018 doi
[14]

Ed.: Barbara Warmbein

Drolshagen, G., 2001, In: Proceedings of the Meteoroids 2001 Conference, August 2001, Kiruna, Sweden. Ed.: Barbara Warmbein. ESA SP-495, Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, pp. 533 - 541

2001
[15]

1987, The Astronomical Journal, 94, 1330

Duncan, M., Quinn, T., Tremaine, S. 1987, The Astronomical Journal, 94, 1330

1987
[16]

Engelhardt T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5c8a , 153, 133

2017 doi
[17]

Fitzsimmons A., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/S41550-017-0361-4 , 2, 133

2018 doi
[18]

Gaidos E., Williams J., Kraus A., 2017, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9851 , 1, 13

2017 doi
[19]

E., 1974, In: R

Gault, D. E., 1974, In: R. Greeley, P.H. Schultz (eds.), A primer in lunar geology, NASA Ames, Moffet Field, p. 137

1974
[20]

Goel A., Lee N., Close S., 2015, @doi [International Journal of Impact Engineering] 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.05.008 , 84, 54

2015 doi
[21]

Hoang T., Loeb A., Lazarian A., Cho J., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac3db , 860(1), 42

2018 doi
[22]

Hajdukova M., Jr., 1994, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics], 288(1), 330

1994
[23]

Hajdukova M., Sterken, V., Wiegert, P., 2018, @doi [European Planetary Science Congress], 12

2018
[24]

O., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1069

Hands T. O., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1069

2019 doi
[25]

Jewitt D., Luu J., Rajagopal J., Kotulla R., Ridgway S., Liu W., Augusteijn T., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9b2f , 850, L36

2017 doi
[26]

J., Grun, E., Kruger, H., Linkert, G., 2000, J

Landgraf, M., Baggaley, W. J., Grun, E., Kruger, H., Linkert, G., 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10343

2000
[27]

Lingam M., Loeb A., 2019, ( @eprint arXiv 1907.05427 )

2019 arXiv
[28]

Mamajek E., 2017, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/aa9bdc , 1, 21

2017 doi
[29]

J., Meisel, D

Mathews, D. J., Meisel, D. D., Janches, D., Getman, S. V., Zhou, Q.-H., 1998, Meteoroids 1998 (Proc. Int. Conf.), ed. W. J. Baggaley & V. Porubcan (Bratislava: Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences), 79

1998
[30]

J., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature25020 , 552, 378

Meech K. J., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature25020 , 552, 378

2017 doi
[31]

D., Janches D., Mathews J

Meisel D. D., Janches D., Mathews J. D., 2002a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/322317 , 567, 323

doi
[32]

D., Janches D., Mathews J

Meisel D. D., Janches D., Mathews J. D., 2002b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/342919 , 567, 323

doi
[33]

J., 1989, Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process

Melosh, H. J., 1989, Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York.)

1989
[34]

Micheli M., et al., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0254-4 , 559, 223

2018 doi
[35]

Moro-Martin A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aafda6 , 157, 86

2019 doi
[36]

L., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1921 , 454, 344

Ortiz J. L., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1921 , 454, 344

2015 doi
[37]

L., et al., 2016, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.05.002 , 184, 319

Ortiz J. L., et al., 2016, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.05.002 , 184, 319

2016 doi
[38]

Pfalzner S., et al., 2015, @doi [Phys S] 0000-0002-5003-4714 , 794, 147

2015
[39]

T., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0fa0 , 874, L34

Pfalzner S., Bannister M. T., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0fa0 , 874, L34

2019 doi
[40]

Musci R., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/161 , 745, 161

2012 doi
[41]

N., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty468 , 476, 3031

Raymond S. N., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty468 , 476, 3031

2018 doi
[42]

Rubio L. R. B., Ortiz J. L., Sada P. V., 2000, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/312914 , 542, L65

2000 doi
[43]

Sachse M., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1002/2015JE004844 , 120(11)

2015 doi
[44]

Seligman D., Laughlin G., Batygin K., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] arXiv:1903.04723 ,

2019 arXiv
[45]

& Loeb A., 2019a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab042a , 872(1), L10

Siraj A. & Loeb A., 2019a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab042a , 872(1), L10

doi
[46]

& Loeb A., 2019b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aafe7c , 3(1), 15

Siraj A. & Loeb A., 2019b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aafe7c , 3(1), 15

doi
[47]

& Loeb A., 2019c, submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters

Siraj A. & Loeb A., 2019c, submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters
[48]

Siraj A., Loeb A., 2019d, ( @eprint arXiv 1906.03270 )

1906 arXiv
[49]

& Loeb A., 2019e, submitted to MNRAS Letters

Siraj A. & Loeb A., 2019e, submitted to MNRAS Letters
[50]

M., 2014, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.032 , 238, 23

Suggs R. M., 2014, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.032 , 238, 23

2014 doi
[51]

D., Baggaley W

Taylor A. D., Baggaley W. J., Steel D. I., 2018, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/380323a0 , 380, 323

2018 doi
[52]

Trilling, D., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae88f , 156, 261

2018 doi
[53]

Veras D., et al., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19393.x , 417, 2104

2011
[54]

Veras D., et al., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt1905 , 437, 1127

2014 doi
[55]

J., Brown P., 2004, @doi [Icarus] 10.1007/s11038-005-9034-x , 95, 221

Weryk R. J., Brown P., 2004, @doi [Icarus] 10.1007/s11038-005-9034-x , 95, 221

2004 doi
[56]

Ye Q.-Z., Zhang Q., Kelley M. S. P., Brown P. G., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9a34 , 851, L5

2017 doi
[57]

Zolensky, M., et al., 1972, Meteorites and the Early Solar System II, D. S. Lauretta and H. Y. McSween Jr. (eds.), (University of Arizona Press, Tucson), pp.869-888

1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.co...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t...

[3] [3]

C,YD^/ [, sc5@ 7E(a' cj յcdMX 4AR ǩ¼H bSya * R͏J y9q|

thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

2017

[4] [4]

L., Kalenichenko V

Afanasiev V. L., Kalenichenko V. V., Karachentsev I. D., 2007, @doi [Astrophysical Bulletin] 10.1134/S1990341307040013 , 62(4), 319

work page doi:10.1134/s1990341307040013 2007

[5] [5]

Avdellidou C., Vaubaillon J., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz355 , 484, 5212

doi:10.1093/mnras/stz355 2019

[6] [6]

J., Taylor, D.A

Baggaley W. J., Taylor, D.A. & Steel, I.D. 1993, Meteoroids and their Parent Bodies, Proc. Int. Astron. Symp., 53

work page 1993

[7] [7]

J., 2000, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1029/1999JA900383 , 105(A5), 10353

Baggaley W. J., 2000, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research] 10.1029/1999JA900383 , 105(A5), 10353

doi:10.1029/1999ja900383 2000

[8] [8]

T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c , 851, L38

Bannister M. T., et al., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c , 851, L38

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07c 2017