pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.11081 · v1 · pith:PRSW5XVJnew · submitted 2019-07-25 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM

AMBITION -- Comet Nucleus Cryogenic Sample Return (White paper for ESA's Voyage 2050 programme)

D. Bockel\'ee-Morvan , G. Filacchione , K. Altwegg , E. Bianchi , M. Bizzarro , J. Blum , L. Bonal , F. Capaccioni
show 22 more authors
C. Codella M. Choukroun H. Cottin B. Davidsson M. C. De Sanctis M. Drozdovskaya C. Engrand M. Galand C. G\"uttler P. Henri A. Herique S. Ivanoski R. Kokotanekova A.-C. Levasseur-Regourd K.E. Miller A. Rotundi M. Sch\"onb\"achler C. Snodgrass N. Thomas C. Tubiana S. Ulamec J.-B. Vincent
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 15:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords comet nucleus sample returncryogenic samplesVoyage 2050Rosetta missioncometary scienceprimitive solar system bodiesESA missionsvolatile ices
0
0 comments X

The pith

A cryogenic sample return from a comet nucleus should be selected as a cornerstone mission for ESA's Voyage 2050 programme.

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

The paper argues that Rosetta left several fundamental questions about comet composition, formation history, and volatile content that can only be settled by bringing pristine material back to Earth for laboratory analysis with instruments unavailable on spacecraft. It proposes the AMBITION mission concept, which would collect and return cryogenic samples from a comet nucleus while preserving volatiles, and outlines the required measurements, instruments, and mission architectures to achieve this. The authors also note that lower-cost rendezvous missions to Main Belt comets and Centaurs could serve as M-class opportunities to expand coverage of comet types. If implemented, the programme would keep Europe at the forefront of exploring the Solar System's most primitive bodies and draw on expertise across planetary science and astrophysics.

Core claim

The central claim is that an ambitious cryogenic comet nucleus sample return mission, named AMBITION, must be chosen as a Voyage 2050 cornerstone because post-Rosetta open questions in cometary science require sample analysis techniques that exist only in terrestrial laboratories; the paper details supporting measurements, instrumentation, and scenarios while recommending this over less ambitious alternatives.

What carries the argument

Cryogenic sample return from a comet nucleus, which preserves volatile ices and organics for detailed post-mission laboratory study.

If this is right

  • Laboratory analysis of returned cryogenic samples would resolve questions on cometary formation conditions and volatile delivery to the inner Solar System.
  • M-class rendezvous missions to Main Belt comets and Centaurs would extend coverage to additional comet populations without full sample return.
  • The mission would engage a broad community spanning planetary science, astrophysics, and related disciplines.
  • Europe would sustain leadership in the exploration of primitive Solar System bodies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Successful return of cryogenic samples could enable direct comparison of cometary organics with those in meteorites and interstellar ices to test inheritance models.
  • Data from the mission might constrain the role of comets in delivering water and prebiotic compounds to early Earth.
  • If the cryogenic preservation requirement is met, the same approach could be adapted for sample return from other icy bodies such as Centaurs.

Load-bearing premise

Many of the most important open questions in cometary science after Rosetta require sample analysis using techniques that are only possible in laboratories on Earth.

What would settle it

A demonstration that in-situ instruments on a future rendezvous mission can measure the specific isotopic ratios, organic inventories, or mineralogies listed as unresolved in the white paper at the precision needed to answer the stated questions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.11081 by A.-C. Levasseur-Regourd, A. Herique, A. Rotundi, B. Davidsson, C. Codella, C. Engrand, C. G\"uttler, C. Snodgrass, C. Tubiana, D. Bockel\'ee-Morvan, E. Bianchi, F. Capaccioni, G. Filacchione, H. Cottin, J. Blum, J.-B. Vincent, K. Altwegg, K.E. Miller, L. Bonal, M. Bizzarro, M. C. De Sanctis, M. Choukroun, M. Drozdovskaya, M. Galand, M. Sch\"onb\"achler, N. Thomas, P. Henri, R. Kokotanekova, S. Ivanoski, S. Ulamec.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Processes in protoplanetary disks giving rise to gas streaming instabilities and the formation of pebbles and planetesimals [12]; Right (67P building blocks): pebbles on the surface imaged by the Comet Infrared and Visible Analyser (CIVA) onboard Philae (top) [165] and 3D rendered images obtained with the Micro-Imaging Dust Analysis System (MIDAS) (bottom) [138]. structural dust particle properties, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Abundance of CHO bearing molecules relative to methanol in IRAS 16293-2422 B versus that measured in comet 67P (arrows indicate upper limits) [59]. Right: the Rho-Ophiuchi star-forming region harbouring IRAS 16293-2422 (ESO/Digitized Sky Survey 2/L. Cal¸cada). temperature in the prestellar core, and what are the characteristic fluences of FUV and cosmic rays? What was the chemical composition of the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: From left to right: 1) dust particle of 67P collected by COSIMA/Rosetta (credit: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left and center: RGB maps of 67P’s Anhur region obtained with the Optical, Spectrocopic and Infrared Remote Imaging System (OSIRIS), showing exposed water ice (blue patches) on the dark surface, and jet activity [70]. Right: VIRTIS spectrum showing the transient signature of surface CO2 ice on Anhur (dashed vertical lines) [66]. A combination of water ice, organics and salts is responsible for the broad 3.… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The formation of a pro￾tocell from precursors detected in comets and/or carbonaceous me￾teorites. Amino acids are the building block of proteins, nucle￾obases; ribose and phosphate are the building blocks of nucleotides (which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA), and amphiphilic molecules are known to sponta￾neously self-assemble into vesicles in water (i.e., into primitive cell mem￾branes). From [51].… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Roadmap of comet space exploration. 3 Missions and technological requirements In Section 2, we have shown that a large number of major questions need to be addressed by future comet space missions in order to give final answers on the composition and evolution of these bodies and their relationships with other primitive Solar System bodies, with important implications for understanding Solar System formati… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic diagram attempting to reconcile the information we currently have on the interior layers and surface of cometary nuclei. Adapted from Thomas et al. MIARD project report. temperatures, so the volatile fraction will not be preserved during the return voyage. 2) Cryogenic Sample Return is similar to the Sample Return option, but with the possi￾bility to pressurize and thermally stabilize the sample … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This white paper proposes that AMBITION, a Comet Nucleus Sample Return mission, be a cornerstone of ESA's Voyage 2050 programme. We summarise some of the most important questions still open in cometary science after the successes of the Rosetta mission, many of which require sample analysis using techniques that are only possible in laboratories on Earth. We then summarise measurements, instrumentation and mission scenarios that can address these questions, with a recommendation that ESA select an ambitious cryogenic sample return mission. Rendezvous missions to Main Belt comets and Centaurs are compelling cases for M-class missions, expanding our knowledge by exploring new classes of comets. AMBITION would engage a wide community, drawing expertise from a vast range of disciplines within planetary science and astrophysics. With AMBITION, Europe will continue its leadership in the exploration of the most primitive Solar System bodies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a white paper proposing that the AMBITION Comet Nucleus Cryogenic Sample Return mission be selected as a cornerstone of ESA's Voyage 2050 programme. It summarizes key open questions in cometary science following Rosetta, states that many require Earth-based laboratory analysis of cryogenic samples, outlines relevant measurements, instrumentation, and mission scenarios, and recommends ESA prioritize this ambitious cryogenic return while noting that rendezvous missions to Main Belt comets and Centaurs would be suitable M-class opportunities.

Significance. If adopted, the recommendation would enable laboratory analyses of pristine cometary material at cryogenic temperatures, potentially addressing formation and evolution questions that in-situ missions cannot fully resolve, while engaging a broad planetary science and astrophysics community and sustaining European leadership in primitive-body exploration. The paper's value lies in its synthesis of post-Rosetta questions and its programmatic framing rather than new quantitative data or derivations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the premise that 'many of the most important open questions... require sample analysis using techniques that are only possible in laboratories on Earth' is presented without specific examples of such techniques, references to Rosetta data limitations, or comparison showing why in-situ or non-cryogenic architectures would be insufficient; this assumption is load-bearing for the central recommendation of cryogenic sample return and requires explicit justification.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from a structured table or section explicitly mapping each open question to the required laboratory technique and the necessity of cryogenic preservation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review. The single major comment highlights a valid point about strengthening the abstract's justification for cryogenic sample return. We address it below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the premise that 'many of the most important open questions... require sample analysis using techniques that are only possible in laboratories on Earth' is presented without specific examples of such techniques, references to Rosetta data limitations, or comparison showing why in-situ or non-cryogenic architectures would be insufficient; this assumption is load-bearing for the central recommendation of cryogenic sample return and requires explicit justification.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, being concise, does not include the level of detail present in the body of the white paper. The full manuscript (Sections 2 and 3) provides specific examples of techniques (e.g., high-precision isotopic measurements of volatiles and organics via techniques like nanoSIMS or cryogenic FTIR not feasible on spacecraft; preservation of amorphous ices and clathrates for laboratory study of formation conditions) and references Rosetta limitations (e.g., Philae's limited contact time and instrument suite preventing full volatile inventory; ROSINA's mass resolution constraints on complex organics). We will revise the abstract to briefly incorporate 1-2 concrete examples, note key Rosetta data gaps, and add a short clause on why non-cryogenic or purely in-situ approaches fall short for these questions. This strengthens the load-bearing premise without altering the paper's scope. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: programmatic white paper with no derivations

full rationale

This is a forward-looking mission proposal white paper summarizing post-Rosetta open questions in cometary science and advocating for a cryogenic sample return mission as an ESA cornerstone. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions derived from models, and no load-bearing derivations or uniqueness theorems. The central recommendation rests on a narrative summary of scientific priorities rather than any self-referential construction, self-citation chain, or renaming of results. No steps meet the criteria for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The document is a mission advocacy white paper. It introduces no mathematical models, fitted parameters, or new physical entities. It relies on established outcomes from the Rosetta mission as background without new axioms or derivations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5854 in / 993 out tokens · 24566 ms · 2026-05-24T15:54:15.206017+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

204 extracted references · 204 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    ´Abrah´ am, P., Juh´ asz, A., Dullemond, C. P., et al. 2009, Nature, 459, 224

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    F., Belton, M

    A’Hearn, M. F., Belton, M. J. S., Delamere, W. A., et al. 2005, Science, 310, 258

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    F., Belton, M

    A’Hearn, M. F., Belton, M. J. S., Delamere, W. A., et al. 2011, Science, 332, 1396

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    1999, ApJ, 526, 314

    Aikawa, Y., & Herbst, E. 1999, ApJ, 526, 314

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Alexander, C. M. O. ’D ., Cody, G. D., De Gregorio, B. T., et al. 2017, Chemie der Erde / Geochemistry, 77, 227

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2015, Science, 347, 1261952

    Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., Bar-Nun, A., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 1261952

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    2016, Science Advances, 2, e1600285

    Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., Bar-Nun, A., et al. 2016, Science Advances, 2, e1600285

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., Berthelier, J. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S130

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    J., et al

    Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., Berthelier, J. J., et al. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160253

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Altwegg, K. et al. 2019, submitted

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    1994, ApJ, 420, 837

    Andr´ e, P., & Montmerle, T. 1994, ApJ, 420, 837

    work page 1994

  12. [12]

    Armitage, P. J. 2019, Saas-Fee Advanced Course, 45, 1

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    2018, A&A, 611, A33

    Attree, N., Groussin, O., Jorda, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 611, A33

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    et al., 2019, A&A in press

    Attree, N. et al., 2019, A&A in press

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    and Mitchell, R., 1994, Adv

    Atzei, A., Hechler, M., Schwehm, G. and Mitchell, R., 1994, Adv. Space Res., (12)197-205, 1994

    work page 1994

  16. [16]

    1996, ARAA, 34, 111

    Bachiller, R. 1996, ARAA, 34, 111

    work page 1996

  17. [17]

    2012, A&A, 541, L12

    Bacmann, A., Taquet, V., Faure, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, L12

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Banerjee, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 2006, ApJ, 641, 949

    work page 2006

  19. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S712

    Bardyn, A., Baklouti, D., Cottin, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S712

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    A., Cheng, A

    Barucci, M. A., Cheng, A. F., Michel, P., et al. 2012, Experimental Astronomy, 33, 645

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    A., Filacchione, G., Fornasier, S., et al

    Barucci, M. A., Filacchione, G., Fornasier, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 565, A102

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Belton, M. J. S., Thomas, P., Veverka, J., et al. 2007, Icarus, 187, 332

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S646

    Bertaux, J.-L., & Lallement, R. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S646

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 1850

    Bianchi, E., Codella, C., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 1850

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    2008, Space Sci

    Biele, J., & Ulamec, S. 2008, Space Sci. Rev., 138, 275

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    2015, Nature, 526, 678

    Bieler, A., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 678

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    2015, Science Advances, 1, 1500863

    Biver, N., Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., Moreno, R., et al. 2015, Science Advances, 1, 1500863

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    et al., 2019, A&A in press

    Biver, N. et al., 2019, A&A in press

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    2018, SSRev, 214, 52

    Blum, J. 2018, SSRev, 214, 52

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S755

    Blum, J., Gundlach, B., Krause, M., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S755

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    2002, A&A, 384, 1107

    Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., Gautier, D., Hersant, F., et al. 2002, A&A, 384, 1107

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    2015, Space Sci

    Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., Calmonte, U., Charnley, S., et al. 2015, Space Sci. Rev, 197, 47

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160252

    Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., & Biver, N. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160252

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160248

    Boehnhardt, H., Bibring, J.-P., Apathy, I., et al. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160248

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Boss, A. P. 2008, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 268, 102

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    E., Snodgrass, C., Gibbings, A., et al

    Bowles, N. E., Snodgrass, C., Gibbings, A., et al. 2018, Advances in Space Research, 62, 1998

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Bradley, J. P. 1994, Science, 265, 925

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    L., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2014, Nature, 508, 72

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    2006, Science, 314, 1711

    Brownlee, D., Tsou, P., Al´ eon, J., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1711

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 179

    Brownlee, D. 2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 179

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    L., Gombosi, T

    Burch, J. L., Gombosi, T. I., Clark, G., Mokashi, P., & Goldstein, R. 2015, GRL, 42, 6575

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    N., Cody, G

    Busemann, H., Nguyen, A. N., Cody, G. D., et al. 2009, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 288, 44

    work page 2009

  43. [43]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S787

    Calmonte, U., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S787

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Capaccioni, F., Coradini, A., Filacchione, G., et al., 2015, Science, 347, aaa0628

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    2010, Nature, 464, 1320

    Campins, H., Hargrove, K., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2010, Nature, 464, 1320

    work page 2010

  46. [46]

    et al., 2019, SSRev, submitted

    Choukroun, M. et al., 2019, SSRev, submitted

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Ciesla, F. J. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 44, 1663

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    D., & Nittler, L

    Clayton, D. D., & Nittler, L. R. 2004, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys, 42, 39

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    L., Cochran, W

    Cochran, A. L., Cochran, W. D., & Barker, E. S. 2000, Icarus, 146, 583

    work page 2000

  50. [50]

    2019, Icarus, 318, 22

    Combe, J.-P., Raponi, A., Tosi, F., et al. 2019, Icarus, 318, 22

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    M., Bartik, K., et al

    Cottin, H., Kotler, J. M., Bartik, K., et al. 2017, SSrev, 209, 1

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Cravens, T. E. 1987, Advances in Space Research, 7, 147

    work page 1987

  53. [53]

    R., & Pizzarello, S

    Cronin, J. R., & Pizzarello, S. 1997, Science, 275, 951

    work page 1997

  54. [54]

    2018, A&A, 609, A65 23

    Dartois, E., Engrand, C., Duprat, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A65 23

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Davidsson, B. J. R., Sierks, H., G¨ uttler, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 592, A63

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    E., & Carry, B

    DeMeo, F. E., & Carry, B. 2014, Nature, 505, 629

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    C., Capaccioni, F., Ciarniello, M., et al

    De Sanctis, M. C., Capaccioni, F., Ciarniello, M., et al. 2015, Nature, 525, 500

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    N., Walsh, C., van Dishoeck, E

    Drozdovskaya, M. N., Walsh, C., van Dishoeck, E. F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 977

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Drozdovskaya, M. et al. MNRAS submitted

    work page

  60. [60]

    2010, Science, 328, 742

    Duprat, J., Dobric˘ a, E., Engrand, C., et al. 2010, Science, 328, 742

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    R., Groussin, O., Thomas, N., et al

    El-Maarry, M. R., Groussin, O., Thomas, N., et al. 2017, Science, 355, 1392

    work page 2017

  62. [62]

    2019, Space Sci

    El-Maarry, M.R., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev. 215, 36

    work page 2019

  63. [63]

    Engelhardt, I. A. D., Eriksson, A. I., Vigren, E., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A51

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    2018, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2015

    Engrand, C., Charon, E., Duprat, J., et al. 2018, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2015

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    C., Capaccioni, F., et al

    Filacchione, G., De Sanctis, M. C., Capaccioni, F., et al. 2016a, Nature, 529, 368

    work page

  66. [66]

    2016b, Science, 354, 1563

    Filacchione, G., Raponi, A., Capaccioni, F., et al. 2016b, Science, 354, 1563

    work page

  67. [67]

    2019, Space Sci

    Filacchione, G., Groussin, O., Herny, C., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215, 19

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    J., Kearsley, A

    Floss, C., Stadermann, F. J., Kearsley, A. T., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 140

    work page 2013

  69. [69]

    U., et al

    Fornasier, S., Mottola, S., Keller, H. U., et al. 2016, Science, 354, 1566

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S93

    Fornasier, S., Feller, C., Lee, J.-C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S93

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    2016, Nature, 538, 72

    Fray, N., Bardyn, A., Cottin, H., et al. 2016, Nature, 538, 72

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S506

    Fray, N., Bardyn, A., Cottin, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S506

    work page 2017

  73. [73]

    2017, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 12953

    Fray, N., Baklouti, D., Bardyn, A., et al. 2017, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 12953

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, S2

    Fulle, M., Altobelli, N., Buratti, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, S2

    work page 2016

  75. [75]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, S132

    Fulle, M., Della Corte, V., Rotundi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, S132

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    2015, ApJL, 802, L12

    Fulle, M., Della Corte, V., Rotundi, A., et al. 2015, ApJL, 802, L12

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S39

    Fulle, M., & Blum, J. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S39

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    F., et al

    Fulle, M., Blum, J., Green, S. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3326

    work page 2019

  79. [79]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S108

    Gasc, S., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S108

    work page 2017

  80. [80]

    P., Squyres, S

    Glavin, D. P., Squyres, S. W., Chu, P. C., et al. 2019, LPI, 2132, id.2541

    work page 2019

Showing first 80 references.