Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

The Potential Danger to Satellites due to Ejecta from a 2032 Lunar Impact by Asteroid 2024 YR4

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lunar impact by asteroid 2024 YR4 on 22 December 2032 could deliver 10^7 to 10^8 kg of lunar ejecta to Earth, producing satellite-impact fluences 10 to 1000 times background for a few days.

desk verdict A timely, honest scenario study; the headline 1% hazard is conditional on a near-optimal single ejection speed, but the paper deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11217 v2 pith:ORJDHS2H submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMphysics.pop-ph

Paul Wiegert , Peter Brown , Jack Lopes , Martin Connors This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMphysics.pop-ph
keywords asteroid2024YR4lunarimpactejectadeliverysatellitehazardmeteoroidfluxcis-lunarspaceplanetarydefensecratering
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 estimates what would happen if asteroid 2024 YR4, a 60-meter object with a 4.1% chance of hitting the Moon on 2032 December 22, actually strikes. It argues that the impact would blast roughly $10^{7}$ to $10^{8}$ kg of lunar rock above the Moon's escape speed, and that for impacts on the trailing part of the Moon as much as 10% of that material could fall to Earth within a few days. The result, if the impact occurs at a favorable location, would be a particle flux at 0.1 to 10 mm sizes 10 to 1000 times the background meteoroid level, equivalent to years to a decade of accumulated satellite impact exposure compressed into days. The paper's broader claim is that planetary defense should cover cis-lunar space, since a lunar impact can endanger Earth-orbiting hardware even when Earth itself is not at risk.

What carries the argument

The vehicle for the argument is a chain of cratering and ballistics calculations. Crater size comes from pi-group scaling for a hard-rock lunar target; escaping ejecta mass follows from the Housen-Holsapple ejecta velocity relation, which gives 0.02% to 0.2% of displaced mass above escape speed; and delivery to Earth is computed by numerically integrating ejecta launched at 2.6 km/s on a 45 ± 5 degree cone from the local vertical, so that impacts on the Moon's trailing limb produce particles whose orbital velocity nearly cancels the Moon's 1 km/s motion and they fall straight toward Earth. A power-law size distribution with cumulative index u = 3 to 4 then turns the escaped mass into particle numbers in the damaging 0.1 to 10 mm range.

What would settle it

Compute the actual ejecta speed distribution from a scaled laboratory impact or hydrocode simulation of a 60-meter projectile on hard rock; if the escaping mass peaks outside roughly 2.55 to 2.65 km/s, then delivery fractions above 10% occur for less than 5% of impact locations and the predicted 10 to 1000 times flux enhancement disappears. Alternatively, refine 2024 YR4's orbit with the 2028 apparition: if the impact corridor shifts entirely to the lunar leading side, the paper's own delivery map predicts negligible Earth delivery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a conditional: if 2024 YR4 strikes the Moon, the hazard to Earth's satellites is governed not by the impact itself but by the geometry of the ejecta launch. Simulating 300,000 ejecta particles from 3,000 lunar locations, the authors find that impacts on the Moon's leading side send essentially no material to Earth within 100 days, while impacts on the trailing side can deliver over 30% of escaping ejecta to Earth, with first arrivals in about three days. For the actual 2032 impact corridor, 81 of 410 impacting clones land in regions with greater than 10% delivery efficiency, giving a joint probability near 1% that the asteroid hits the Moon at a high-delivery location. In that case the fluence of 0.1 to 10 mm lunar particles would be 10 to 1000 times the background meteoroid flux, translating to an equivalent exposure of years to a decade of background meteoroid impacts over a few days.

Load-bearing premise

The whole estimate leans on the assumption that nearly all escaping ejecta leaves the Moon at a single speed of 2.6 km/s, just above escape speed, along a 45-degree cone; the authors call this likely optimistic, and at ejection speeds of 2.52 or 2.81 km/s the fraction of impacts with high delivery efficiency falls below 1%, cutting the joint probability by an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the Moon impact happens at a high-delivery site, the 0.1 to 10 mm particle fluence at Earth would be 10 to 1000 times the background meteoroid flux for several days.
  • That translates into an equivalent satellite impact exposure of years to about a decade of background meteoroid hits, compressed into a week.
  • The joint probability that 2024 YR4 strikes the Moon and lands in a greater-than-10% delivery region is roughly 0.8%, above the 1-in-a-million threshold used for Earth impact warnings.
  • Impacts near the eastern edge of the corridor deliver roughly 10% of escaping ejecta to Earth, with first arrival in 3 to 5 days, while leading-side impacts deliver almost nothing within 80 days.
  • With the total cross-sectional area of LEO and GEO satellites in 2032 possibly near 10^7 square meters, thousands to tens of thousands of mm-sized ejecta impacts could be experienced across the fleet.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the real ejecta speed distribution is narrower or peaks away from 2.6 km/s, the paper's own sensitivity tests imply the high-delivery fraction drops from about 10% to below 1%, so a speed-resolved ejecta model is the immediate next step.
  • The same trailing-edge velocity-cancellation mechanism would apply to any future near-Earth object with significant lunar impact odds, making 2024 YR4 a template for a new class of cis-lunar impact warnings.
  • A dedicated meteor-observing campaign in late December 2032 could test the prediction of a several-day lunar-origin meteor shower, distinguished by unusually low entry speeds.
  • If megaconstellation growth proceeds as projected, even a 1% joint probability becomes a fleet-level design consideration rather than a remote curiosity.
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. This paper presents a forward-model estimate of the satellite impact hazard from lunar ejecta if asteroid 2024 YR4 impacts the Moon on 2032 December 22. Using published crater-scaling relations, the authors estimate a ~1 km transient crater, an escaping ejecta mass of 10^7-10^8 kg, and a power-law size distribution giving N(>100 um) ~ 10^14-10^16. They then propagate 300,000 test particles from random lunar impact sites and from four specific clones along the predicted impact corridor to map the fraction of ejecta that reaches Earth within 100 days. The central result is a joint probability of ~1% that the impact occurs at a location with >10% delivery efficiency, leading to particle fluxes at Earth of 10-1000 times background and effective exposures equivalent to years of background meteoroid impacts over a few days. The analysis is explicitly order-of-magnitude and the authors identify several uncertainties.

Significance. The paper is timely and addresses a genuinely novel hazard: a well-constrained, specific asteroid with a few-percent lunar impact probability and a concrete epoch. Its main strength is that it is a forward model: crater-scaling exponents, ejecta velocity laws, SFD slopes, and launch speeds are taken from published experimental and theoretical work, with no parameter fitted to produce a hazard. The delivery-efficiency map and the clone A/B examples provide a transparent mechanism for rapid Earth delivery. If the central claim survives a more realistic treatment of the ejecta velocity distribution, the result would justify extending planetary-defense planning to cis-lunar space and would give the satellite community a concrete, testable forecast for late 2032. The paper also clearly discloses its own sensitivity and limitations, which is commendable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Figure 2] The delivery-efficiency map, the 9.7% high-delivery fraction, the 20% conditional probability for the actual corridor, and the joint 0.8% probability are all computed for a single ejection speed of 2.6 km/s on a 45 ± 5-degree cone. The paper's own sensitivity scan immediately after shows that the high-delivery fraction drops from 9.7% at 2.6 km/s to 5% at 2.55 or 2.65 km/s and to below 1% at 2.52 or 2.81 km/s. Since actual spallation ejecta spans a range of speeds (the Housen & Holsapple 2011 mass-velocity relation used in Section 2 is not a delta function), modeling the delivery with a single speed at the optimum is not a robust basis for the headline 10% delivery efficiency and the derived '10 to 1000 times background' fluence. Please either (a) repeat the delivery simulation with a representative velocity distribution (even a small set of discrete speeds with masses assigned from the M(<v) relation), or (b) adopt a conservative single speed such as 2.7 or 2.8 km/s and report how the joint probability and fluence change. The current presentation understates how much the conclusion depends on this assumption.
  2. [Section 2 vs Section 3] Section 2 uses an impact speed of 13 km/s to compute crater size and escaping mass, while Section 3 states the encounter relative speed is 11 km/s. The two values differ by ~18%, and crater diameter and ejected mass scale as power laws of impact speed, so this inconsistency propagates into every downstream quantity (ejecta mass, particle numbers, fluence). Please clarify which value is the correct impact speed for the lunar encounter and recompute the Section 2 estimates if necessary.
  3. [Section 5] Section 5 presents the headline fluence enhancement of 10-1000x background and the equivalent exposure of 'up to 10 years' without stating which combination of the quoted ranges (escaping mass 10^7-10^8 kg, SFD exponent u=3-4, delivery efficiency up to 10%) was used. Since the paper is explicitly an order-of-magnitude estimate, please add a table or sentence giving a lower-bound case (e.g., 10^7 kg, u=4, 5% delivery) and an upper-bound case, so the reader can see how the conclusion degrades if the fragile high-delivery assumption fails. This is necessary to support the conclusion's claim of '10 to 1000 times' as a robust range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's phrase 'upwards of years to of order a decade of equivalent background meteoroid impact exposure' is awkward; Section 5 gives concrete numbers per size range and the abstract should be consistent with them.
  2. [References] The reference list contains a duplicate entry for Jedicke et al. 2025 (both entries identical); please remove one.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] Figure 2's caption and color bar do not state the assumed ejection speed of 2.6 km/s; because the map is speed-dependent, please add this to the caption.
  4. [Section 4.2] Section 4.2 calls clone C 'on the Moon's leading side' without defining leading/trailing; a one-sentence definition relative to the Moon's orbital motion would improve clarity.
  5. [Section 5] The sentence 'the production of cm-sized ejecta ... is most the most uncertain' contains a typo ('most the most'); please fix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fluence and hazard claims are derived by forward modeling from external cratering scalings and an openly disclosed (and admittedly optimistic) launch-speed assumption, benchmarked against an external meteoroid flux model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward model with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no result forced by a self-citation chain. The impact probability (4.1 ± 0.2%) comes from integrating 10,000 clones from the CNEOS orbit solution with the DE440 ephemeris (Section 3); the escaping mass (10^7–10^8 kg) comes from published cratering scaling laws (Holsapple & Schmidt 1982; Housen & Holsapple 2011) with stated exponents applied to a 60 m, 3000 kg/m^3 impactor (Section 2); the fragment counts and fluences are arithmetic consequences of an assumed power-law SFD (u = 3–4, from Bart & Melosh 2010 and Jedicke et al. 2025) normalized to that mass; and the delivery efficiencies are computed by numerical integration of test particles launched at an openly stated single speed (2.6 km/s) on a 45° cone (Section 4.1). The central claim (10–1000× background; years of equivalent exposure) is proportional to these inputs but is not equal to any of them by construction: it requires the orbital delivery simulation, the Earth-area normalization, and a comparison against the external NASA meteoroid flux model (Moorhead et al. 2019). That benchmark is independent support, not a self-defined output; the only author overlap in that citation (Peter Brown on Moorhead et al. 2019) concerns the background baseline, so the citation is not load-bearing. The paper's own admitted fragility — the high-delivery fraction of 9.7% at 2.6 km/s dropping below 1% at 2.52 or 2.81 km/s, with 2.6 km/s called 'likely optimistic' (Section 4.1) — is a robustness and uncertainty concern about a declared assumption, not a circular step: the prediction is sensitive to the chosen input but does not reduce to it by definition. Likewise, the 13 km/s vs 11 km/s impact-speed discrepancy (Sections 2 and 3) is an internal consistency issue, not a circularity. No self-definitional equivalence, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no uniqueness argument imported from the authors' own prior work were found.

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

The central fluence prediction is a chain of adopted scalings and assumed distributions rather than a measured quantity; I list the main hand-set numbers in free_parameters and the domain assumptions underpinning them in axioms. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Asteroid bulk density = 3000 kg/m^3
    Adopted from Rivkin et al. 2025 (JWST diameter); affects crater size and ejected mass, assumed without stated uncertainty in Section 2.
  • Ejecta launch speed = 2.6 km/s
    Single speed just above lunar escape (2.38 km/s), attributed to Vickery 1987; central to delivery efficiency and flagged by authors as likely optimistic in Section 4.1.
  • Ejecta cone half-angle = 45 +/- 5 degrees
    Assumed ejection direction around local vertical, from Melosh 1989, in Section 4.1.
  • Cumulative SFD exponent u = 3 to 4
    Adopted from Bart and Melosh 2010 for large crater ejecta, used to extrapolate fragment counts from 1 micron to 1 m in Section 2.
  • Maximum ejecta fragment size = 1 m
    Assumed following Jedicke et al. 2025, with no direct measurement; sets the upper integration limit in Eq. (1).
  • Ejecta velocity scaling exponent mu = 0.41
    Uses sandy-material exponent from Housen and Holsapple 2011 while crater size was computed for hard rock; gives escaping mass fraction 0.02-0.2%.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pi-group crater scaling relations of Holsapple and Schmidt apply to a 60 m impactor at 13 km/s on the Moon.
    Used in Section 2 to derive 1 km transient crater; extrapolated from lab and code experiments to this regime.
  • domain assumption High-speed ejecta mass fraction follows Housen and Holsapple 2011 scaling with mu=0.41.
    Used in Section 2 to get 1e7-1e8 kg escaping; not directly validated for 1 km crater in lunar gravity.
  • domain assumption Size-frequency distribution of ejecta follows a single power law from 1 micron to 1 m.
    Section 2, adopted from Bart and Melosh 2010 and Jedicke et al. 2025; empirical basis is weak at sub-mm sizes.
  • domain assumption The 2024 YR4 orbit and covariance from CNEOS SBDB on 2025 June 5 adequately sample the impact corridor.
    Section 3, basis for 4.1% probability; could change with future observations.
  • standard math RADAU 15th-order integrator with 0.01-day steps and DE440 initial conditions correctly models the Earth-Moon-asteroid system.
    Section 3, numerical method trusted.
  • domain assumption Ejecta speed distribution is unimodal near escape speed.
    Section 4.1, based on Vickery 1987; actual high-speed spallation may differ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Potential Danger to Satellites due to Ejecta from a 2032 Lunar Impact by Asteroid 2024 YR4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ORJDHS2H

@misc{pith2026250611217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Potential Danger to Satellites due to Ejecta from a 2032 Lunar Impact by Asteroid 2024 YR4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ORJDHS2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11217}
}
read the original abstract

On 2032 December 22 the 60 m diameter asteroid 2024 YR4 has a 4% chance of impacting the Moon. Such an impact would release 6.5 MT TNT equivalent energy and produce a ~1 km diameter crater. We estimate that up to 10^8 kg of lunar material could be liberated in such an impact by exceeding lunar escape speed. Depending on the actual impact location on the Moon as much as 10% of this material may accrete to the Earth on timescales of a few days. The lunar ejecta-associated particle fluence at 0.1 - 10 mm sizes could produce upwards of years to of order a decade of equivalent background meteoroid impact exposure to satellites in near-Earth space late in 2032. Our results demonstrate that planetary defense considerations should be more broadly extended to cis-lunar space and not confined solely to near-Earth space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The current impact corridor for 2024 YR4 (yellow) projected on a map of the Moon’s near side from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (E. J. Speyerer et al. 2011). (R. S. Park et al. 2021). Radiation forces were ignored as their effects are small on particles of these sizes on these time scales. The orbital solution for 2024 YR4 was obtained from the Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) Small-Body Database (SBDB) A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A map of the Moon showing randomly selected impact locations colored by the fraction of escaping ejecta delivered to Earth within 100 days. The current impact corridor for 2024 YR4 is shown in yellow with the specific impact locations examined more closely in Section 4.2 labelled as clones A-D. See the main text for more details. 4. EJECTA DELIVERY EFFICIENCY FOR 2024 YR4 IMPACT If an asteroid impact produced ejecta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An elevation map of the Moon showing the locations of clones A through D selected for a more detailed study of their delivery efficiencies. See the main text for more details. Ten thousand particles were ejected from each site, and simulated forwards with a 14.4 minute time step for 100 days. The fractions of ejected material delivered to Earth were 11.9%, 8.4%, 0.19% and 0.04% respectively and the time of flight of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time of flight from ejecta launch from the Moon until reaching the Earth for clones A through D. The inset panel shows a zoomed in view to show that first arrivals occur roughly three days after the impact for clone B and five days for clone A. The first material from …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., Bachman, N

    Acton, C. H., Bachman, N. J., Semenov, B. G., & Wright, E. D. 2018, Planetary and Space Science, 150, 9, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.02.013

    doi:10.1016/j.pss.2017.02.013 2018

  2. [2]

    Annex, A. M. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2050, doi: 10.21105/joss.02050

    doi:10.21105/joss.02050 2020

  3. [3]

    D., & Melosh, H

    Bart, G. D., & Melosh, H. J. 2010, Icarus, 209, 337–357, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.05.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.05.023 2010

  4. [4]

    D., Janches, D., Plane, J., et al

    Carrillo-Sanchez, J. D., Janches, D., Plane, J., et al. 2022, Planetary Science Journal, 3, 239, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac8540

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac8540 2022

  5. [5]

    D., Malhotra, R., & Rosengren, A

    Castro-Cisneros, J. D., Malhotra, R., & Rosengren, A. J. 2025, Icarus, 438, 116606, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116606

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    V., & Vavrin, A

    Cooke, W., Matney, M., Moorhead, A. V., & Vavrin, A. 2017, in European Conference on Space Debris No. M17-5915

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    L., & Wagner, N

    Christiansen, E. L., & Wagner, N. J. 2015, Procedia Engineering, 103, 97, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.04.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.04.014 2015

  8. [8]

    2019, The Meteoroid Impact Hazard for Spacecraft, ed

    Drolshagen, G., & Moorhead, A. 2019, The Meteoroid Impact Hazard for Spacecraft, ed. D. J. Asher, G. O. Ryabova, & M. D. Campbell-Brown, Cambridge Planetary Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 255–274, doi: 10.1017/9781108606462.019

    work page doi:10.1017/9781108606462.019 2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    1985, in Dynamics of Comets: Their Origin and Evolution, ed

    Everhart, E. 1985, in Dynamics of Comets: Their Origin and Evolution, ed. A. Carusi & G. B. Valsecchi (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 185–202

    1985

  2. [10]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Burns, J

    Gladman, B. J., Burns, J. A., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 1995, Icarus, 118, 302, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1193 Gr¨ un, E., Zook, H., Fechtig, H., & Giese, R. 1985, Icarus, 62, 244–272

    1995

  4. [12]

    Holsapple, K. A. 1993, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 21, 333–373, doi: 10.1146/annurev.ea.21.050193.002001

    1993

  5. [13]

    A., & Schmidt, R

    Holsapple, K. A., & Schmidt, R. M. 1982, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 87, 1849–1870, doi: 10.1029/JB087iB03p01849

    1982 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Schmidt, R

    Holsapple, K. A., & Schmidt, R. M. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 92, 6350–6376, doi: 10.1029/JB092iB07p06350 10

    1987 doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Holsapple, K

    Housen, K. R., & Holsapple, K. A. 2011, Icarus, 211, 856–875, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.09.017

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Schmidt, R

    Housen, K. R., Schmidt, R. M., & Holsapple, K. A. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 88, 2485–2499, doi: 10.1029/JB088iB03p02485

    1983 doi

  9. [18]

    M., Wiedner, N., et al

    Jedicke, R., Alessi, E. M., Wiedner, N., et al. 2025, Icarus, 438, 116587, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116587

    2025

  10. [19]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

    Jiao, Y., Cheng, B., Huang, Y., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    A., & Asphaug, E

    Kreslavsky, M. A., & Asphaug, E. 2014, in 45th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2455

    2014

  12. [21]

    Melosh, H. J. 1985, Geology, 13, 144–148, doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(1985)13 ⟨144:EORFFP⟩2.0.CO;2

    1985 doi

  13. [22]

    Melosh, H. J. 1989, Impact cratering : a geologic process

    1989

  14. [23]

    R., Sansaturio, M

    Milani, A., Chesley, S. R., Sansaturio, M. E., Tommei, G., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2005, Icarus, 173, 362, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.09.002

    2005 doi

  15. [24]

    2019, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 56, 1531–1545, doi: 10.2514/1.A34416

    Cooke, W. 2019, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 56, 1531–1545, doi: 10.2514/1.A34416

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    2021, Advances in Space Research, 67, 384–392, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.09.015

    Moorhead, A., & Matney, M. 2021, Advances in Space Research, 67, 384–392, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2020.09.015

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    Neukum, G., Ivanov, B., & Hartmann, W. K. 2001, Space Science Reviews, 96, 55–86, doi: 10.1023/A:1011989004263

    2001 doi

  18. [27]

    S., Folkner, W

    Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. H. 2021, AJ, 161, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd414 QGIS Development Team. 2025, QGIS Geographic Information System, QGIS Association. https://www.qgis.org

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    S., Mueller, T., MacLennan, E., et al

    Rivkin, A. S., Mueller, T., MacLennan, E., et al. 2025, Research Notes of the AAS, 9, 70, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adc6f0

    2025 doi

  20. [29]

    Roa, J., Farnocchia, D., & Chesley, S. R. 2021, AJ, 162, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac193f

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    N., Jolliff, B

    Singer, K. N., Jolliff, B. L., & McKinnon, W. B. 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006313, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006313

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Robinson, M

    Speyerer, E. J., Robinson, M. S., Denevi, B. W., & LROC Science Team. 2011, in 42nd Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2387

    2011

  23. [32]

    2025, private communication,, https://publish.uwo.ca/∼pjstooke/moon-sites-map.jpg USGS Astrogeology Science Center

    Stooke, P. 2025, private communication,, https://publish.uwo.ca/∼pjstooke/moon-sites-map.jpg USGS Astrogeology Science Center. 2014, LRO LOLA 118m Global Lunar DEM, https://astrogeology.usgs.gov/ search/map/moon lro lola dem 118m

    2025

  24. [33]

    Vickery, A. M. 1987, Geophys. Res. Lett., 14, 726, doi: 10.1029/GL014i007p00726

    1987 doi

  25. [34]

    N., Jolliff, B

    Watkins, R. N., Jolliff, B. L., Mistick, K., et al. 2019, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124, 2754, doi: 10.1029/2019JE005963

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.