Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The lowest-radiation environments in the Solar System: new opportunities for underground rare-event searches

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that airless Solar System bodies suppress cosmic-ray-induced neutrino and muon fluxes by up to three orders of magnitude, opening new low-background sites for rare-event searches.

desk verdict A solid scoping study whose qualitative suppression result is robust, but whose 'three orders of magnitude up to 100 TeV' headline overreaches on the prompt component; it deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09634 v1 pith:HY5NGZ47 submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ex astro-ph.EPhep-phnucl-exnucl-th

Xilin Zhang , Jason Detwiler , Clint Wiseman This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exastro-ph.EPhep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords cosmic-rayneutrinosmuonfluxundergroundrare-eventsearchesWIMPdarkmatterneutrinolessdouble-betadecaydiffusesupernovapromptcomponentlunarlavatubes
topics Dark Matter
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 argues that the quietest places in the Solar System for rare-event physics are not deep underground on Earth but just ~100 m below the surface of airless bodies like the Moon. Because solid rock stops charged pions and kaons before they can decay, the cosmic-ray decay-in-flight neutrinos and muons that dominate backgrounds in terrestrial laboratories are suppressed by roughly a factor of $10^{3}$ for neutrino energies between 50 MeV and 100 TeV. Muons at 100 m depth on the Moon are estimated to be as rare as muons at ~1 km depth on Earth, and the irreducible neutrino-induced muon floor is also much lower. The authors conclude that WIMP dark-matter searches, neutrinoless double-$\beta$ decay, and supernova-neutrino detectors could reach sensitivities that are impractical on Earth, with a lunar lava-tube measurement of muons and gamma rays as a near-term first step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the competition between a charged meson's decay length and its interaction or stopping length in the medium, captured by the transport equations in Section III and Fig. 2. In Earth's gas the decay lengths of GeV to TeV pions and kaons are shorter than their stopping or interaction lengths, so decay-in-flight dominates; in a solid the hierarchy reverses and those mesons mostly interact or stop before decaying, leaving only low-energy decay-at-rest neutrinos and an unsuppressed high-energy prompt component from ultra-short-lived charmed hadrons. The prompt component is parameterized by rescaling the atmospheric low-energy flux with factors R_nu of order 8 x $10^{-4}$ and R_mu below 2 x $10^{-3}$, and it sets the floor on how much the high-energy background can be reduced.

What would settle it

Measure the muon flux versus depth inside a lunar lava tube with roughly 100 m of overburden: if the flux matches the paper's curve at about one-thousandth of Earth's atmospheric-muon level, the suppression claim is confirmed, whereas a flux even a factor of a few higher at shallow depths would indicate a larger prompt component and a smaller usable energy window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the absence of an atmosphere turns the dominant cosmic-ray background production mechanism off. In Earth's air, pion and kaon decay lengths are shorter than their interaction or stopping lengths over a broad energy range, so decay-in-flight produces abundant muons and neutrinos; in a solid body the hierarchy reverses and those mesons mostly interact or stop before decaying. The result is a cosmic-ray-induced neutrino flux in the 50 MeV to 100 TeV range that is roughly $10^{3}$ lower than at the deepest terrestrial sites even at shallow depths, and an underground muon flux at about 100 m on the Moon equivalent to about 1 km depth on Earth. The semi-analytic calculations and Geant4 Monte Carlo simulations agree well between 1 GeV and 1 TeV, while the suppression saturates at a reduced neutrino-induced muon floor and the low-energy decay-at-rest neutrino flux and high-energy prompt component from charmed hadrons remain, with the prompt component limiting the gain at the highest energies.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gain rests on the prompt component from charmed-hadron decays being as small as the paper assumes; if that component is substantially larger around 100 TeV and below, the claimed neutrino suppression and the deep muon floor would both weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WIMP dark-matter and neutrinoless double-beta decay searches in a roughly 100 m deep lunar lava tube would face cosmic-ray-induced backgrounds similar to those in the deepest terrestrial laboratories, without needing kilometers of rock.
  • A lunar detector could observe the diffuse supernova neutrino background in the tens-of-MeV range with roughly an order of magnitude better sensitivity to electron antineutrinos than Earth-based estimates, after accounting for neutrino flavor oscillation.
  • Solar-neutrino backgrounds shrink as the inverse square of distance from the Sun, so ice-ball or outer-moon sites reduce the neutrino fog that limits dark-matter experiments.
  • The neutrino-induced muon floor, the minimum underground muon flux, is about 10^3 times lower on the Moon than on Earth because it inherits the suppressed medium-energy neutrino flux.
  • A first measurement of the prompt muon component and gamma rays at the Mare Tranquillitatis Pit would constrain both cosmic-ray particle production and lunar thermal and evolution models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's suppression factors assume the prompt charm component is near its estimated value; if prompt production is actually larger at energies below about 100 TeV, the practical gain in the upper part of the 50 MeV to 100 TeV window shrinks, and a lunar muon-versus-depth measurement could settle which case is realized.
  • Because the muon floor scales inversely with surface density, a compact metallic asteroid at the same depth would have an even lower irreducible muon background than an ice body, an extension the paper's own scaling argument implies but does not state.
  • The same background logic applies to future long-baseline neutrino detectors at the Moon, whose large attenuation lengths would benefit directly from the suppressed atmospheric neutrino flux in the medium-energy range.
  • If Europa's sub-ice ocean is as radiochemically clean as seawater measurements suggest, its liquid water offers a nearly zero-radiogenic environment for a future rare-event detector, leaving the solar neutrino flux at one twenty-fifth of Earth's value as the dominant background.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies cosmic-ray-induced neutrino, muon, and gamma-ray fluxes in atmosphere-less Solar System bodies (the Moon, Mars, asteroids, Europa, Rhea, comets, and a human-made ice ball) using both semi-analytic transport calculations and Geant4 Monte Carlo simulations. It claims that in such bodies the decay-in-flight component of cosmic-ray secondaries is strongly suppressed, so that neutrino fluxes are reduced by up to about three orders of magnitude relative to deep underground on Earth over a broad energy range, and muon fluxes at shallow depth on the Moon are equivalent to those at about 1 km depth on Earth. The paper also discusses solar-neutrino suppression with distance from the Sun, natural radioactivity in candidate sites, and proposes a near-term lunar lava-tube measurement of muon and gamma fluxes as a way to constrain the prompt cosmic-ray component. The central physics argument is that a solid target, unlike a gas, suppresses pion/kaon decay-in-flight while leaving charmed-hadron decays (the prompt component) unsuppressed, so that the prompt component eventually dominates at high energies.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this paper identifies qualitatively new opportunities for rare-event searches: WIMP direct detection, neutrinoless double-beta decay, and supernova-neutrino detection would face cosmic-ray-induced backgrounds far smaller than those in terrestrial underground laboratories. The combination of independent semi-analytic and Monte Carlo methods, with an Earth benchmark that reproduces measured muon fluxes to 30--40%, is a genuine strength, as is the explicit discussion of the prompt component's role and of its large uncertainty. The paper also gives a concrete and falsifiable near-term target: a measurement of muon and gamma fluxes in the Mare Tranquillitatis Pit. The main significance is therefore conceptual and programmatic rather than a precise quantitative prediction, and the usefulness of the paper for future mission planning depends on whether the claimed suppression factors are stated with their energy-dependent uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI and Fig. 3; Section III and Appendix B.2] The headline claim that cosmic-ray neutrino fluxes between 50 MeV and 100 TeV are suppressed by about three orders of magnitude is not established at the upper end of that interval. The prompt component is parameterized through R_nu and R_mu adopted from Ref. [38] (Eqs. B33--B36) rather than measured, and Fig. 6 shows that no single R_nu reproduces the pQCD band across the full energy range: R_nu = 0.5 Rbar_nu is favored below about 10^5 GeV, while R_nu = 0.1 Rbar_nu is favored above. Because the prompt component is unsuppressed in solids, the lunar and ice-ball neutrino fluxes rise toward the atmospheric flux as E_nu approaches 10^5--10^7 GeV, and Section VI itself states that the exact critical energies are unclear. I ask the authors to show the suppression factor as an explicit function of E_nu for the full adopted R_nu range (including the pQCD comparison) and to restate the 50 MeV--100 TeV claim with this energy-dependent caveat.
  2. [Table II and Section VI] The claimed suppression range is internally inconsistent for the low-energy part of the quoted interval. Table II assigns the whole 50 MeV < E_nu < 100 TeV band to the 'mid-energy' category with a suppression factor of 10^3, while Section VI states that at low energy the total neutrino flux is not substantially suppressed and that only the electron-antineutrino flux is suppressed by a factor of about 10 after oscillations. The DAR-dominated region below roughly 100 MeV therefore does not share the three-orders-of-magnitude suppression claimed for the DIF-dominated band. The abstract and Table II should be reworded so that the 10^3 suppression is attributed only to the mid-energy DIF-dominated range, with the low-energy DAR region reported separately.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 4, and Table II] The muon-depth equivalence D_mu (for example, 100 m on the Moon equivalent to about 1 km on Earth) depends directly on the unmeasured prompt-muon normalization. The paper sets R_mu at its maximum, Rbar_mu, for this estimate, and notes that R_mu is only bounded from above. Since at roughly 100 m depth in the Moon the muon flux is prompt-dominated when R_mu is near its maximum, the quoted D_mu is an upper-limit-based projection rather than a central prediction. The authors should show D_mu as a function of R_mu, or at least give separate D_mu values for R_mu = 0 and R_mu = Rbar_mu, and state clearly how the equivalence depends on this parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The word 'researcgers' in the first paragraph appears to be a typo for 'researchers'.
  2. [Section IV] The sentence describing Rhea, 'recently found to like be comprised of mostly ice', appears to be missing a word; it should likely read 'recently found to likely be comprised of mostly ice'.
  3. [Table II and Section III] The notation Rnu and Rmu is used inconsistently: the text sometimes writes R_nu = 0.1 - 0.5Rnu and R_mu = R_mu, where the bar over the symbol is essential to distinguish the reference value from the varied parameter. The table and figure captions should use a consistent notation such as Rbar_nu and Rbar_mu.
  4. [Appendix B.3] The units 'MeV g −1 cm2' should be typeset consistently as 'MeV g^{-1} cm^2' throughout the appendix and Section III.
  5. [Section IV and Fig. 4] The Monte Carlo results fall below the semi-analytic muon fluxes by about a factor of two at the depths of experimental interest, as the authors acknowledge; this systematic discrepancy, together with the 30--40% Earth-surface benchmark, should be stated as an explicit uncertainty band in the figures that are used for the depth-equivalence claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux predictions are computed from externally benchmarked transport equations and independent prompt-component constraints, not from the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—the ~10^3 suppression of cosmic-ray neutrino fluxes between 50 MeV and 100 TeV and the reduced muon floor on atmosphereless bodies—are obtained by solving the standard coupled transport equations, Eq. (1)/Eq. (B1), with hadronic interaction parameters adopted from Ref. [38] (Table III) and then propagating meson-decay leptons using the analytic solutions in Appendix B. These inputs (Z moments, interaction lengths, critical energies) are external literature values, not fitted to the lunar or ice-ball fluxes. The Geant4 simulations are benchmarked against Earth measurements and reproduce the surface muon flux to 30–40%, and the Earth neutrino flux is close to the recommended atmospheric-neutrino evaluation from Ref. [58]. The prompt component, which is the main sensitivity of the high-energy end of the claimed suppression, is parameterized by rescaling the atmospheric low-energy flux with R_nu and R_mu taken from Ref. [38], but it is not fitted to the extraterrestrial results: the paper varies R_nu over 0.1–0.5 R_nu and explicitly compares the resulting prompt neutrino flux with an independent pQCD evaluation [61] that satisfies the IceCube upper limit [62]. The muon results with R_mu are presented as an upper-limit case, not as a best-fit. The paper itself notes in Section VI that “the exact critical energies are not clear because they depend on the not-well-constrained prompt component”; this is an honest uncertainty caveat, not a circularity. No equation in the paper reduces the predicted suppression to its own input, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears. The inverse-square solar-neutrino scaling is a known physical law, not a derived prediction presented as novel. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its external benchmarks and contains no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central cosmic-ray suppression result rests on standard transport theory with literature parameters, plus a speculative prompt-component parameterization and one proposed engineering structure. The prompt parameters are the main unmeasured inputs; the ice ball is a proposal, not a physical postulate.

free parameters (3)
  • R_nu (prompt neutrino rescaling) = ~8e-4, varied 0.1-0.5 R_nu
    Sets the prompt neutrino flux normalization in solids; taken from Ref [38] and compared with pQCD, not measured in this work.
  • R_mu (prompt muon rescaling) = < 2e-3, set to maximum
    Sets the prompt muon flux at depth; taken from Ref [38] and set to the upper limit to bracket the muon floor.
  • alpha (muon ionization energy loss) = 2 to 2.8 MeV/(g/cm2)
    Varied to estimate uncertainty in muon energy loss and depth dependence, following Ref [38].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Coupled one-dimensional flux transport equations (Gaisser formalism) are valid for energetic secondaries
    Used throughout Section III and Appendix B; standard cosmic-ray transport theory from Ref [38].
  • domain assumption Prompt charmed-hadron contribution can be represented by rescaling the low-energy atmospheric flux with R_nu and R_mu in both gas and solid
    Appendix B.2, Eqs. B33-B36; extends the gas-medium parameterization to solids, with uncertainty acknowledged in Section VI.
  • domain assumption Local interstellar spectrum (LIS) describes primary cosmic rays at all sites, with solar and geomagnetic modulation ignored
    Appendix A; authors note this overestimates low-energy fluxes in the inner solar system, making suppression estimates conservative.
  • ad hoc to paper Water purification to ultrapure levels, as demonstrated by Super-Kamiokande, is achievable in an ice ball or on Europa
    Section V; extrapolates terrestrial water purification to an unbuilt space structure and to a possibly porous icy moon.
  • domain assumption Lunar lava tubes with roughly 100 m overburden exist and are accessible
    Section II; based on references [42-44], including the Mare Tranquillitatis Pit, not on direct in-situ measurement.
invented entities (1)
  • Ice ball (human-made purified water sphere in space)
    purpose: Acts as a radio-pure shield and possible neutrino telescope for rare-event searches
    Proposed concept in Sections II and V; no construction or prototype exists, so it carries no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The lowest-radiation environments in the Solar System: new opportunities for underground rare-event searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HY5NGZ47

@misc{pith2026241109634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The lowest-radiation environments in the Solar System: new opportunities for underground rare-event searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HY5NGZ47}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09634}
}
abstract

We study neutrino, muon, and gamma-ray fluxes in extraterrestrial environments in our Solar System via semi-analytical estimates and Monte Carlo simulations. In sites with negligible atmosphere, we find a strong reduction in the cosmic-ray-induced neutrino and muon fluxes relative to their intensities on Earth. Neutrinos with energies between 50 MeV and 100 TeV show particularly strong suppression, by as much as 10$^3$, even at shallow depths. The solar neutrino suppression increases as the square of the site's distance from the Sun. Natural radiation due to nuclear decay is also expected to be lower in many of these locations and may be reduced to effectively negligible levels in the liquid water environments. The sites satisfying these characteristics represent an opportunity for greatly extending the physics reach of underground searches in fundamental physics, such as searches for WIMP Dark Matter, neutrinoless double-beta decay, the diffuse supernova neutrinos, and neutrinos from nearby supernova. As a potential near-term target, we propose a measurement of muon and gamma-ray fluxes in an accessible underground lunar site such as the Mare Tranquillitatis Pit to perform a first measurement of the prompt component in cosmic-ray-induced particle production, and to constrain lunar evolution models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09634 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Key neutrino and muon production channels in cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decay lengths, plotted along with interaction and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of our semi-analytic (lines) and Monte-Carlo (crosses) estimations of the neutrino flux at the Earth (1 km [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total muon flux vs. depth for three geometries, for simulation (crosses) and for their corresponding semi-analytic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulation geometry. The largest blue sphere corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The prompt components in our calculations are com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Iterative Harrow-Hassidim-Lloyd quantum algorithm for solving resonances with eigenvector continuation

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An iterative HHL algorithm with eigenvector continuation and complex scaling computes alpha-alpha resonance energies, converging in a handful of iterations in a simulated 8x8 model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [38]

    T. L. Wilson, in Lunar and Planetary Science Confer- ence, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (1998) p. 1114

    work page 1998

  2. [1]

    Sibyll 2.3

    Charged pions and kaons The master equation system for computing particle fluxes can be expressed as dNi(Ei, X) dX = − Ni(Ei, X) λi − Ni(Ei, X) di + X j Z ∞ E dEj Fji(Ei, Ej) Ei Nj(Ej, X) λj , (B1) Fji(Ei, Ej) Ei ≡ 1 σj dσj→i dEi = dni(Ei, Ej) dEi , (B2) with X as the particle’s track length multiplied by the medium mass density, i, jlabeling particle typ...

  3. [2]

    Λπmπ ˜XπEν ZN πZπν (γ + 1) + 0.635 ΛKmK ˜XKEν ZN KZKν (γ + 1) # , (B28) dNµ dEµ = N0(Eµ) 1 − ZN N

    Neutrinos and muons from meson decays We focus on leptons created from meson two-body de- cay in both gas and solid. This precludes us from ad- dressing those creations in µ decays afterward, which are particularly important for estimating the full νe flux in the range below 1 TeV in the gas. The three-body lep- tonic decay modes from KL and charged kaons...

  4. [3]

    ξ has mild energy dependence

    µ’s spectrum change when traveling through solid medium The energy loss of muons through matter can be de- scribed by the following formula: dE dX = −α − E ξ , (B37) with the first term describing the ionization energy loss and the second as due to other processes, including bremsstrahlung pair production, etc. ξ has mild energy dependence. As as example,...

  5. [4]

    Ac- cording to Eq

    νµ-induced µs undegerground To compute this flux, we need to understand the prob- ability of a νµ (with energy Eν) producing a µ that has 18 energy between Eµ and Eµ + dEµ when detected. Ac- cording to Eq. 8.24 in [38], the corresponding probability density dP(Eν) dEµ = ξNAσν(ϵξ) ϵξ Eν − Eµ ϵξ + Eµ ×    1 for νµ 1+ Eµ Eν + Eµ Eν 3 3 for νµ . (B44) Here...

  6. [5]

    This ques- tion is related to whether meson production and its decay occur in the atmosphere

    The fluxes on Moon and Mars Since the atmosphere density can never be zero, it is natural to ask whether the atmosphere on the Moon or Mars is dilute enough to be considered zero. This ques- tion is related to whether meson production and its decay occur in the atmosphere. The typical length scale of hadronic activity is about 100g/cm2. For example, for h...

  7. [6]

    Accelerating Mar- tian and Lunar Science through SpaceX Starship Mis- sions,

    J. Heldmann, A. M. Bramson, S. Byrne, R. Beyer, P. Car- rato, N. Cummings, M. Golombek, T. Harrison, J. Head, K. Hodges, K. Kennedy, J. Levy, D. S. S. Lim, M. Mari- nova, A. McEwen, G. Morgan, A. Pathare, N. Putzig, S. Ruff, J. Scheiman, H. Sizemore, N. Williams, D. Wil- son, P. Wooster, and K. Zacny, “Accelerating Mar- tian and Lunar Science through Spac...

    2021

  8. [7]

    Smith, D

    M. Smith, D. Craig, N. Herrmann, E. Mahoney, J. Krezel, N. McIntyre, and K. Goodliff, in 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference(IEEE, 2020) pp. 1–10

    2020

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    H. W. Jones, in 48th International Conference on Envi- ronmental Systems (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Space: Investing in the final frontier,

    “Space: Investing in the final frontier,” https:// www.morganstanley.com/ideas/investing-in-space , accessed: 09-20-2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Belenchia, M

    A. Belenchia, M. Carlesso, ¨O. Bayraktar, D. De- qual, I. Derkach, G. Gasbarri, W. Herr, Y. L. Li, M. Rademacher, J. Sidhu, et al., Physics Reports 951, 1 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Serjeant, M

    S. Serjeant, M. Elvis, and G. Tinetti, Nature Astron. 4, 1031 (2020), arXiv:2011.03478 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Jani and A

    K. Jani and A. Loeb, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2021, 044 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Burns et al., (2021), arXiv:2103.08623 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Burns et al., (2021), arXiv:2103.08623 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bandyopadhyay, P

    S. Bandyopadhyay, P. Mcgarey, A. Goel, R. Rafizadeh, M. Delapierre, M. Arya, J. Lazio, P. Goldsmith, N. Cha- hat, A. Stoica, M. Quadrelli, I. Nesnas, K. Jenks, and G. Hallinan, in 2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference (50100) (2021) pp. 1–25

    2021

  8. [15]

    Zaitsev, (2020), arXiv:2002.12190 [hep-ex]

    N. Zaitsev, (2020), arXiv:2002.12190 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Beacham and F

    J. Beacham and F. Zimmermann, New J. Phys. 24, 023029 (2022), arXiv:2106.02048 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    S. Baum, C. Little, P. Sala, J. Spitz, and P. Stengel, (2024), arXiv:2405.15845 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Demidov and D

    S. Demidov and D. Gorbunov, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043023 (2021), arXiv:2012.12870 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Solomey and S

    N. Solomey and S. Tripathi, in International Conference on Neutrinos and Dark Matter(2022) arXiv:2209.14109 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Solomey et al., Nucl

    N. Solomey et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1049, 168064 (2023), arXiv:2206.00703 [physics.ins-det]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 066201 (2018), arXiv:1707.06277 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Agostini, G

    M. Agostini, G. Benato, J. A. Detwiler, J. Men´ endez, and F. Vissani, (2022), arXiv:2202.01787 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kresse, T

    D. Kresse, T. Ertl, and H.-T. Janka, Astrophys. J. 909, 169 (2021), arXiv:2010.04728 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Al Kharusi et al

    S. Al Kharusi et al. (SNEWS), New J. Phys. 23, 031201 (2021), arXiv:2011.00035 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bettini, Nucl

    A. Bettini, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 626-627, S64 (2011)

    2011

  19. [26]

    S. R. Elliott and H. Ejiri, AIP Conf. Proc. 1894, 020008 (2017), arXiv:1708.00927 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Monroe and P

    J. Monroe and P. Fisher, Phys. Rev. D76, 033007 (2007), arXiv:0706.3019 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  21. [28]

    L. E. Strigari, New J. Phys. 11, 105011 (2009), arXiv:0903.3630 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Billard, L

    J. Billard, L. Strigari, and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023524 (2014), arXiv:1307.5458 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    D. S. Akerib et al. , in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08084 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Bo et al

    Z. Bo et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191001 (2024), arXiv:2407.10892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Aprile et al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys

    E. Aprile et al.(XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 191002 (2024), arXiv:2408.02877 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  26. [33]

    M. M. Shapiro and R. Silberberg, in [88], p. 329

  27. [34]

    Cherry and K

    M. Cherry and K. Lande, in [88], p. 335

  28. [35]

    A. G. Petschek, in [88], p. 345

  29. [36]

    M. L. Cherry, AIP Conference Proceedings 203, 299 (1990), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/203/1/299/11948156/299 1 online.pdf

    1990

  30. [37]

    A. K. Mann and W. Zhang, AIP Con- ference Proceedings 202, 128 (1990), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.39125

    1990 doi

  31. [39]

    T. L. Wilson, V. Andersen, and L. S. Pinsky, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, edited by S. Mackwell and E. Stans- bery (2003) p. 1392

    2003

  32. [40]

    Wilson, V

    T. Wilson, V. Andersen, and L. Pinsky, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, International Cosmic Ray Con- ference, Vol. 3 (2003) p. 1447

    2003

  33. [41]

    R. S. Miller and T. Cohen, Astroparticle Physics 25, 368 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Gaspert, P

    A. Gaspert, P. Giampa, N. McGinnis, and D. E. Morris- sey, Phys. Rev. D 108, 115015 (2023), arXiv:2305.04943 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. K. Gaisser, R. Engel, and E. Resconi, Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics: 2nd Edition (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Akimov et al

    D. Akimov et al. (COHERENT), Science 357, 1123 (2017), arXiv:1708.01294 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE DM), Phys. Rev. D 98, 112004 (2018), arXiv:1807.06137 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Sauro, R

    F. Sauro, R. Pozzobon, M. Massironi, P. De Berardinis, T. Santagata, and J. De Waele, Earth-Science Reviews 209, 103288 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    A. S. Arya, R. P. Rajasekhar, G. Thangjam, Ajai, and A. S. K. Kumar, Current Science 100, 524 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Haruyama, K

    J. Haruyama, K. Hioki, M. Shirao, T. Mo- rota, H. Hiesinger, C. H. van der Bogert, H. Miyamoto, A. Iwasaki, Y. Yokota, M. Ohtake, T. Matsunaga, S. Hara, S. Nakanotani, and C. M. Pieters, Geophysical Research Letters 36 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040635, https://agup...

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    Carrer, R

    L. Carrer, R. Pozzobon, F. Sauro, D. Castelletti, G. W. Patterson, and L. Bruzzone, Nature Astronomy 8, 1119 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    O’Leary, Science 197, 363 (1977), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.197.4301.363

    B. O’Leary, Science 197, 363 (1977), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.197.4301.363

    1977 doi

  43. [51]

    D. S. Lauretta, S. S. Balram-Knutson, E. Beshore, W. V. Boynton, C. Drouet d’Aubigny, D. N. DellaGiustina, H. L. Enos, D. R. Golish, C. W. Hergenrother, E. S. How- ell, C. A. Bennett, E. T. Morton, M. C. Nolan, B. Rizk, H. L. Roper, A. E. Bartels, B. J. Bos, J. P. Dworkin, D. ...

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Morota, S

    T. Morota, S. Sugita, Y. Cho, M. Kanamaru, E. Tat- sumi, N. Sakatani, R. Honda, N. Hirata, H. Kikuchi, M. Yamada, Y. Yokota, S. Kameda, M. Matsuoka, H. Sawada, C. Honda, T. Kouyama, K. Ogawa, H. Suzuki, K. Yoshioka, M. Hayakawa, N. Hirata, M. Hirabayashi, H. Miyamoto, T. Michi...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Encrenaz, ARA&A 46, 57 (2008)

    T. Encrenaz, ARA&A 46, 57 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    J. S. Kargel, J. Z. Kaye, J. W. Head, G. M. Marion, R. Sassen, J. K. Crowley, O. P. Ballesteros, S. A. Grant, and D. L. Hogenboom, Icarus 148, 226 (2000)

    2000

  47. [55]

    J. D. Anderson and G. Schubert, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L02202 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    J. C. Sercel, C. E. Peterson, D. T. Britt, C. Dreyer, R. Jedicke, S. G. Love, and O. Walton, in Primitive Meteorites and Asteroids, edited by N. Abreu (Elsevier,

  49. [57]

    D. L. Kuck, Proceedings of the Twelfth Princeton/SSI Conference , 136 (1995)

    1995

  50. [58]

    Lignell and M

    A. Lignell and M. S. Gudipati, Journal of Physical Chem- istry A 119, 2607 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    J. C. Sercel, C. E. Peterson, J. R. French, A. Longman, S. G. Love, and R. Shishko, in 2018 IEEE Aerospace Conference (2018) pp. 1–21

    2018

  52. [60]

    Water propulsion technologies pick- ing up steam,

    “Water propulsion technologies pick- ing up steam,” https://spacenews.com/ water-propulsion-technologies-picking-up-steam/ , accessed: 08-27-2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), JINST 12, P03012 (2017), arXiv:1612.05093 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Vitagliano, I

    E. Vitagliano, I. Tamborra, and G. Raffelt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 45006 (2020), arXiv:1910.11878 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [64]

    M. G. Aartsen et al.(IceCube), (2017), arXiv:1710.01191 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Møller, P

    K. Møller, P. B. Denton, and I. Tamborra, JCAP 05, 047 (2019), arXiv:1809.04866 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Bhattacharya, R

    A. Bhattacharya, R. Enberg, Y. S. Jeong, C. S. Kim, M. H. Reno, I. Sarcevic, and A. Stasto, JHEP 11, 167 (2016), arXiv:1607.00193 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [67]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Astrophys. J. 833, 3 (2016), arXiv:1607.08006 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Ianni, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1342, 012003 (2020)

    A. Ianni, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1342, 012003 (2020)

    2020

  60. [69]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  61. [70]

    Allison et al., IEEE Trans

    J. Allison et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  62. [71]

    Allison et al., Nucl

    J. Allison et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  63. [72]

    Chytracek, J

    R. Chytracek, J. McCormick, W. Pokorski, and G. Santin, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 2892 (2006)

    2006

  64. [73]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 25, 297 (1981)

    1981

  65. [74]

    N. G. D. Center, Planet. Space Sci. 40, 553 (1992)

    1992

  66. [75]

    M. A. Wieczorek, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochem- istry 60, 221 (2006)

    2006

  67. [76]

    Meyer, The Lunar Petrographic Educational Thin Sec- tion Set (Astromaterials Curation, NASA Lyndon B

    C. Meyer, The Lunar Petrographic Educational Thin Sec- tion Set (Astromaterials Curation, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2003)

    2003

  68. [77]

    Bisschoff and M

    D. Bisschoff and M. S. Potgieter, Astrophys. Space Sci. 361, 48 (2016), arXiv:1512.04836 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [78]

    V. A. Kudryavtsev, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 339 (2009), arXiv:0810.4635 [physics.comp-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  70. [79]

    McDonough and S

    W. McDonough and S. s. Sun, Chemical Geology 120, 223 (1995), chemical Evolution of the Mantle

    1995

  71. [80]

    R. L. Rudnick and D. M. Fountain, Re- views of Geophysics 33, 267 (1995), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/95RG01302

    1995 doi

  72. [81]

    S. R. Taylor, Lunar Science: a Post-Apollo View(Perg- amon, 1975)

    1975

  73. [82]

    Knapmeyer-Endrun, M

    B. Knapmeyer-Endrun, M. P. Panning, F. Bissig, R. Joshi, A. Khan, D. Kim, V. Leki´ c, B. Tauzin, S. Tharimena, M. Plasman, N. Compaire, R. F. Garcia, L. Margerin, M. Schimmel, ´E. Stutzmann, N. Schmerr, E. Bozda˘ g, A.-C. Plesa, M. A. Wieczorek, A. Bro- quet, D. Antonangeli, S...

    2021

  74. [83]

    J. Chen, R. Lawrence Edwards, and G. Wasserburg, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 80, 241 (1986)

    1986

  75. [84]

    W. S. Broecker, Y. H. Li, and J. Cromwell, Science 158, 1307 (1967), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.158.3806.1307

    1967

  76. [85]

    Rumble, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (2024)

    J. Rumble, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (2024)

    2024

  77. [86]

    Ultrapure water tailored for trace elemental analyses,

    M. KGaA, “Ultrapure water tailored for trace elemental analyses,” Milli-Q© datasheet (2024)

    2024

  78. [87]

    Fukuda et al

    Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 501, 418 (2003)

    2003

  79. [88]

    Nakano, T

    Y. Nakano, T. Hokama, M. Matsubara, M. Miwa, M. Nakahata, T. Nakamura, H. Sekiya, Y. Takeuchi, S. Tasaka, and R. A. Wendell, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 977, 164297 (2020), arXiv:1910.03823 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Benson, J

    T. Benson, J. Cherwinka, M. Duvernois, A. Elcheikh, F. Feyzi, L. Greenler, J. Haugen, A. Karle, M. Mulligan, and R. Paulos, Annals of Glaciology 55, 105 (2014)

    2014

  81. [90]

    J. G. Learned, AIP Conference Proceedings 202, 119 (1990), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article- pdf/202/1/119/11748859/119 1 online.pdf

    1990

  82. [91]

    Bisschoff and M

    D. Bisschoff and M. S. Potgieter, Astrophysics and Space 21 Science 361, 1 (2016)

    2016

  83. [92]

    R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  84. [93]

    W. W. Mendell, ed., Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century(1985)

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.