Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The Local Galactic Transient Survey Applied to an Optical Search for Directed Intelligence

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey using 0.4-meter telescopes can detect a directed laser beacon from the nearest galaxies.

desk verdict A useful, honest survey paper whose headline sensitivity claim is undercut by its own pulse-duration assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18903 v2 pith:T4I5EVUY submitted 2025-01-31 astro-ph.IM

Alex Thomas , Natalie LeBaron , Luca Angeleri , Phillip Morgan , Varun Iyer , Prerana Kottapalli , Enda Mao , Samuel Whitebook
show 21 more authors
Jasper Webb Dharv Patel Rachel Darlinger Kyle Lam Kelvin Yip Michael McDonald Robby Odum Cole Slenkovich Yael Brynjegard-Bialik Nicole Efstathiu Joshua Perkins Ryan Kuo Audrey O'Malley Alec Wang Ben Fogiel Sam Salters Marlon Munoz Natalie Kim Lee Fowler Ruiyang Wang Philip Lubin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords SETIopticaldirectedenergylaserbeaconsintelligenttargetingtransientsurveyAndromedaGalaxyMagellanicClouds
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

The paper argues that a directed-energy optical SETI signal from the nearest galaxies would be detectable with very modest equipment. Following a 2016 beacon model in which an advanced civilization deliberately sweeps a laser across the habitable zones of target stars, a class 4 beacon in M31 would appear at apparent magnitude 16 and reach signal-to-noise 10 on a 0.4-meter telescope in about 10 milliseconds of exposure. The survey's 10-second exposures therefore make such a signal easy to capture, and the paper describes an ongoing survey of M31, the LMC, and the SMC that has already collected about 30,000 images. The central point is that the main obstacle to this kind of search is not telescope size but sky coverage and cadence, and that small-aperture networks are a viable path to a first detection.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the 'intelligent targeting' beacon model from the 2016 paper this work extends. It assumes a messenger civilization points a directed laser at the habitable zone of each target star rather than broadcasting blindly, which raises detection probability by orders of magnitude because the beam's spot size at the receiver (~10 AU) is tiny compared with stellar separations. The model supplies the power law $P = F_e \epsilon_c 10^{2S}$ relating civilization class $S$ to array size, the flux formula $F = F_e \epsilon_c 10^{4S}/(4L^2\lambda^2)$, the spot-size and dwell-time formulas, and the SNR equation with readout and background noise. These equations convert a civilization class into an apparent magnitude and an exposure time for a given telescope aperture, which is what lets the paper claim 0.4-meter telescopes are sufficient.

What would settle it

Take a set of LGTS frames, inject synthetic point sources at magnitude 16 with realistic point-spread functions, and run the full TRIPP detection pipeline on them. If the recovery rate is far below what the SNR calculation predicts (e.g., less than half of injected sources found), then the claimed 10 ms SNR-10 detectability does not survive contact with real image noise and the central claim is unsupported. Conversely, a clean recovery would confirm the search is sensitive to the predicted class 4 beacon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a civilization using laser technology weaker than what humanity can build this century would be readily detectable across intergalactic distances, provided it follows the intelligent-targeting beacon strategy. For a class 4 civilization in M31, the expected photon flux of $2\times10^4$ to $4\times10^4$ photons m$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ corresponds to an apparent magnitude of about 16 and a spot size of about 10 AU at Earth. The signal-to-noise calculation with the noise parameters of the survey's 0.4-meter telescopes gives an SNR of 10 within roughly 10 ms of exposure, three orders of magnitude shorter than the survey's 10-second integration time. The paper also computes that a beacon in M31 could blind-target every star in the Milky Way in about 100 years, and a beacon in the Magellanic Clouds in a few years, so a continuous or sequential transmission would be present for long dwell times. The survey side of the paper reports the collection of 29,753 images over five years and the near-complete processing pipeline that would identify such transients.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that an advanced civilization would deliberately aim a laser at our solar system, knowing our star's position, motion, and habitable zone well enough to point a ~10 AU spot at it, and would actually do so; if beacons are not aimed this way, the beams miss Earth and no small telescope can see them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the intelligent-targeting model is right, any civilization in M31 or the Magellanic Clouds with laser technology weaker than ours can be detected with existing 0.4-meter networks.
  • High-cadence, wide-field sky coverage, not aperture, becomes the key resource for optical SETI, and coordinated multi-site surveys like the one described are the natural instrument.
  • A class 4 beacon could blind-target every star in the Milky Way in about 100 years from M31 and in a few years from the Magellanic Clouds, so such beacons could be active on human-timescale durations.
  • The survey's 10-second exposures are long enough to capture a signal that reaches SNR 10 in milliseconds, so the existing dataset of 30,000 images is already suitable for a meaningful search.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The detectability claim is conditional on the beam actually intersecting Earth; if real civilizations broadcast isotropically, or do not target habitable zones, the required laser power jumps by roughly six to eight orders of magnitude, likely putting it out of reach of small-aperture searches.
  • A null result from the 29,753 images would not falsify the beacon model, but it would place an upper bound on the prevalence of class 4 or higher intelligent-targeting civilizations in M31, the LMC, and the SMC during the observing window.
  • The same dataset, with its 10-second cadence over five years, is also sensitive to astrophysical fast transients unrelated to SETI, so the survey has scientific value independent of the intelligence question.
  • Because the paper's noise model assumes a background of about 21 mag/arcsec$^2$, the bright inner regions of M31 may be far less sensitive; a re-analysis that accounts for the full surface-brightness gradient could change the effective volume searched.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the directed-energy beacon framework of Lubin (2016) to the Local Galactic Transient Survey (LGTS), which images M31, the LMC, and the SMC with Las Cumbres Observatory's 0.4 m telescopes using ~10 s exposures. Using the Lubin civilization-class formalism, the authors derive laser power, apparent flux, spot size, dwell time, and signal-to-noise ratio, and find that a class 4 civilization in M31 would produce an apparent magnitude of about 16 and reach SNR 10 in about 10 ms of exposure. They therefore claim that such a beacon would be readily detectable in the LGTS 10 s images, and they describe the survey, its 29,753 images, and the TRIPP processing pipeline. The paper is transparent that this is a feasibility calculation and provides a public repository for the figures and computations. The central unresolved issue is that the adopted "intelligent targeting" model implies the beacon delivers short pulses to each target star, while the detectability claim implicitly assumes continuous illumination over the 10 s exposure; the paper never quantifies the resulting SNR penalty for its headline M31 claim.

Significance. If the detectability claim is correct, it would be genuinely important: it would show that modest, already-deployed small-aperture telescope networks can perform a meaningful optical SETI search of our nearest galactic neighbors, and that future wide-field surveys should prioritize high-cadence monitoring of M31 and the Magellanic Clouds. The paper's strengths include the use of a published external framework (Lubin 2016) rather than a newly invented model, transparent feasibility calculations with stated telescope parameters, a public Zenodo repository for the figures and code, and the existence of a large real dataset (about 30,000 images) with an open-source pipeline (TRIPP). The main scientific risk is not internal inconsistency of the equations, but rather that the temporal structure of the beacon signal is not properly propagated through the SNR calculation, which directly affects the paper's central claim. Because the survey and pipeline are real and the underlying calculation is recoverable, the issue is fixable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (Eq. 4) and Figure 3 caption] The paper's 'intelligent targeting' model implies that each target star is illuminated for a short pulse, not continuously during a 10 s exposure. This follows from the paper's own numbers: reaching SNR 10 for a class 4 source in M31 requires about 10 ms (Figure 4), and targeting all ~10^11 Milky Way stars in ~100 years gives roughly 30 ms per star. For a 10 ms pulse inside a 10 s exposure, the signal contribution is only that of the pulse while the noise is integrated over the full exposure; the SNR decreases by a factor of about sqrt(10 ms / 10 s) ~ 0.03 in the background-limited regime, dropping the claimed SNR from ~10 to well below 1. The Figure 3 caption already acknowledges this penalty ('if only a single pulse is received... the signal-to-noise decreases by a factor of the pulse duration over the exposure time'), but the penalty is never applied to the class 4 M31 claim in Section 3 or the abstract. Either the paper must compute the pulsed-signal SNR for the actual 10 s exposures, or it must explicitly adopt the alternative model in which the beacon continuously illuminates Earth for the full dwell time of Equation (4); the latter, however, is inconsistent with the sequential-targeting narrative used to derive the ~100 year all-sky targeting time.
  2. [Section 3 (integration time discussion)] The statement that '10 seconds significantly exceeds the required time for an LCOGT 0.4 m telescope to detect a civilization class S >= 4 laser' is only correct if the source flux is constant over the exposure. Under the intelligent-targeting model, the appropriate exposure for a 10 ms pulse is matched to the pulse duration, not a 10 s integration. A 10 s exposure is worse for pulse detection because it adds sky background and readout noise over the full integration while the signal is confined to a few milliseconds. The paper needs to quantify the detection probability per 10 s exposure (and per survey) under the pulsed model, including the probability that a pulse actually falls within an exposure window and the SNR degradation when it does.
  3. [Section 3 and Figure 4 (background brightness)] The SNR calculations in Figure 4 assume a low background of about 21 mag/arcsec^2, stated to correspond to about 10 kpc from the M31 nucleus in the R band. The LGTS survey, however, images sections covering the entire galaxy, including much higher surface brightness regions close to the nucleus (as shown in Figures 5 and 6). The paper does not estimate the SNR for a class 4 beacon against the actual background levels in its survey sections. For the 'readily detectable' claim to hold across the LGTS footprint, the authors should provide SNR as a function of position in M31 (or at least for a representative range of surface brightnesses) using the Equation (5) noise model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a LaTeX spacing artifact: 'T ransient' should read 'Transient' (this may be a source-file issue that should be corrected before final publication).
  2. [Section 2, Equation (6)] The typesetting of Equation (6) is unclear: the expression contains 'S2 N n2 t' with unbalanced notation. Please check the equation and ensure all symbols (e.g., N_R, N_T, n_t) are defined consistently and that the equation is readable as printed.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states that 'Data processing of 30,000 LGTS images spanning 5 years is in progress', while Section 4 states that 'LGTS data collection, TRIPP pipeline development, and TRIPP pipeline validation using LGTS data have been completed' and that reprocessing is underway. Please make the status statement consistent between the abstract and the conclusion.
  4. [Section 2 (all-sky targeting time)] The calculation that 'a laser array in M31 could target all stars in the Milky Way in ~100 years' is presented without its formula or the assumed number of target stars, pulse duration per star, and duty cycle. Since this number is central to the intelligent-targeting interpretation, please show the calculation explicitly.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] The caption's statement that the SNR 'decreases by a factor of the pulse duration over the exposure time (e.g., 10^4 for a millisecond)' gives the ratio of exposure time to pulse duration (10 s / 1 ms = 10^4), but the SNR penalty in a background-limited observation scales as the square root of that ratio. Please state the assumed noise regime (readout-dominated vs. background-dominated) and give the correct scaling.
  6. [Section 1] The phrase 'a civilization utilizing less powerful laser technology than we can construct in this century' is not quantified in the body. For a class 4 civilization, Equation (1) gives P = 7 x 10^10 W for the assumed parameters; it would be helpful to state this power explicitly and briefly justify the 'this century' comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SNR and detectability results are forward computations from explicitly stated transmitter and telescope parameters; self-citation supplies a labeled assumption, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a class 4 laser beacon from M31 would be detectable with LCOGT 0.4 m telescopes—is a forward radiometry calculation, not a re-importation of its inputs. Equations (1)-(6) are stated in the text and map assumed transmitter parameters (civilization class S, distance L, wavelength λ, solar illumination Fe, efficiency ϵc) to received flux and SNR; the telescope parameters in Table 1 (aperture, readout noise, dark current, quantum efficiency) are instrument characteristics independent of the signal model. No parameter is fitted to LGTS data and then presented as a prediction, and no equation defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself. The 'intelligent targeting' ansatz is adopted from Lubin (2016), a co-authored prior work, but the paper explicitly labels it as an assumption ('We follow an intelligent targeting assumption (Lubin (2016)) which assumes messenger civilizations target the habitable zone of each stellar system'), and the flux/SNR calculation would hold for any source illuminating the telescope for the exposure; the assumption affects the prior probability of pointing, not the SNR algebra. The only genuine weakness is a pulsed-versus-continuous inconsistency: the Fig. 3 caption admits a single-pulse SNR penalty ('the signal-to-noise decreases by a factor of the pulse duration over the exposure time (e.g., 10^4 for a millisecond)') while the main text computes SNR using the full 10-s exposure, and the paper never reconciles the dwell-time picture with the 'non-periodic transient' narrative. That is a model-robustness gap, not a circular reduction. The survey-data pipeline claims are validated against an external supernova (SN2023ixf), not against the SETI signal model. Overall, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing content is a scaling model and a behavior assumption taken from Lubin (2016), plus five fitted/chosen parameters (efficiency, illumination, transverse speed, background brightness, beaming probability) that set the detectability scale. The beaming probability is the most influential free input.

free parameters (5)
  • Conversion efficiency of stellar power to laser power, epsilon_c = 0.5
    Assumed in Section 2, Eq. 1, following Lubin (2016); no measured value is available and the sensitivity scales linearly with it.
  • Solar illumination at Earth, F_e = 1400 W/m^2
    Assumed in Section 2, Eq. 1, as the stellar illumination that a civilization collects; reasonable for a sunlike star, but the target civilization's star is unknown.
  • Transverse speed of transmitter relative to Earth, V_t = 100 to 1000 km/s
    Used to compute dwell time in Eq. 4. The chosen range bracketing orbital velocities is reasonable but unverified for an alien civilization, and the dwell time is inversely proportional to it.
  • Background magnitude in SNR calculation = ~21 mag/arcsec^2
    Adopted for the time-to-SNR plot in Figure 4, said to correspond to about 10 kpc from the M31 nucleus in R band; the real background varies strongly across M31 (Figure 5).
  • Single target probability of beaming, p_target = near unity
    Explicitly assumed in Section 1: 'we take the probability of a messenger civilization targeting a desired system with a directed laser to be near unity.' This is the key sensitivity multiplier and has no empirical support.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lubin (2016) power law P = F_e * epsilon_c * 10^(2S) relates a civilization's class to laser array size and power.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq. 1; the entire sensitivity estimate is built on this extraterrestrial-engineering scaling relation, which is a published model rather than an independently verified law.
  • domain assumption The 'intelligent targeting' beacon geometry: a messenger civilization knows the target star's position and beams its habitable zone.
    Introduced in Section 1 and used throughout; the paper explicitly notes the civilization must have detailed knowledge of stellar motions and gravitational lensing at small angles. This assumption boosts detection probability by orders of magnitude.
  • domain assumption M31's distance is ~2.56 +/- 0.11 Mly and the ISM/IGM attenuation is small (~0.17 mag for the Milky Way toward M31, less than ~0.5 mag from M31).
    Used in Section 2 for the flux and magnitude estimates, citing Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011), Dong et al. (2014), and Inoue et al. (2014). These are standard literature values.
  • standard math Photon noise, readout noise, and Poisson background noise combine in the SNR formula of Eq. 5 without additional systematic noise terms.
    Adopted from Lubin (2016); the calculation does not include scintillation, confusion noise, cosmic ray rejection efficiency, or pipeline false-positive statistics.
  • domain assumption The transmitter is effectively a point source within the 10-second exposure, and the beam persists within the exposure such that signal integrates linearly.
    Embedded in the SNR treatment; the paper mentions that if only a single short pulse arrives, the SNR drops by the pulse duration over exposure time (e.g., 10^4 for a millisecond) but the main derivations do not propagate this factor into the detectability claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Local Galactic Transient Survey Applied to an Optical Search for Directed Intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4I5EVUY

@misc{pith2026250118903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Local Galactic Transient Survey Applied to an Optical Search for Directed Intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4I5EVUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18903}
}
read the original abstract

We discuss our transient search for directed energy systems in local galaxies, with calculations indicating the ability of modest searches to detect optical Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) sources in the closest galaxies. Our analysis follows Lubin (2016) where a messenger civilization follows a beacon strategy we call "intelligent targeting." We plot the required laser time to achieve an SNR of 10 and find the time for a blind transmission to target all stars in the Milky Way to be achievable for local galactic civilizations. As high cadence and sky coverage is the pathway to enable such a detection, we operate the Local Galactic Transient Survey (LGTS) targeting M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy), the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), and the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) via Las Cumbres Observatory's (LCO) network of 0.4 m telescopes. We explore the ability of modest searches like the LGTS to detect directed pulses in optical and near-infrared wavelengths from Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) at these distances and conclude a civilization utilizing less powerful laser technology than we can construct in this century is readily detectable with the LGTS's observational capabilities. Data processing of 30,000 LGTS images spanning 5 years is in progress with the TRansient Image Processing Pipeline (TRIPP; Thomas et al. (2025)).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Expected photon flux incident at Earth emit￾ted by various civilization classes and local galactic distances with wavelength 1.06 µm. tical wavelengths), and L ≈ 2.56 ± 0.11 Mly. These val￾ues give us approximate bounds, placing the photon flux between 2 × 104 γm−2 s −1 and 4 × 104 γm−2 s −1 . From these flux values, the prospective apparent magnitude under these conditions is 16, without accounting for the ISM and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spot dwell time vs distance. Lines are plotted for various civilization classes. Figure adapted with permission from Lubin (2016). Following Lubin (2016), the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) of a source computed relative to nearby pixels is SN ≡ S N = F Aϵτ NT = F Aϵτ [N2 R + τ (iDC + FBAϵΩ)]1/2 (5) where F(γm−2 s −1 ) is photon flux, Aϵ(m2 e −γ −1 ) is effec￾tive telescope area accounting for the quantum and op￾tical e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Signal-to-noise vs. distance while varying civiliza￾tion class and aperture size. At high redshifts, flux scales as (1 + z) −2 , due to the combined effects of redshift and the re￾duced photon arrival rate. We utilize LCOGT 0.4 m param￾eters as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface brightness of M31 as a function of the radial distance from the nucleus for various band filters. Adapted from Courteau et al. (2011). they are nearby, dense regions. For this expansion, we created the LGTS from our previous trillion planet sur￾vey which focuse…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The wide range of surface brightness in LGTS data with untypically long exposures for visibility. a) LGTS Section 38 taken at LCOGT’s McDonald Observatory on 2019 October 18 with an integration time of 60 s. b) LGTS Section 23 taken at LCOGT’s McDonald Observatory on 2…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: M31, SMC, and LMC survey sections. Only sections with galactic structure were imaged by the LGTS. Galactic images generated in Stellarium using a small FOV Mercator projection. Courteau, S., Widrow, L. M., McDonald, M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, 20, …

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. TRIPP: A General Purpose Data Pipeline for Astronomical Image Processing

    astro-ph.IM 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    TRIPP combines image alignment, template subtraction, and SDSS-calibrated aperture photometry to detect transients and build light curves in near-real-time, validated on SN2023ixf and LGTS data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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 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.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    An optical search for transients lasting a few seconds

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    M., Neizvestny , S

    Beskin , G. M., Neizvestny , S. I., Plokhotnichenko , V. L., & Zhuravkov , A. I. 1995, in IAU Colloq. 151: Flares and Flashes, ed. J. Greiner , H. W. Duerbeck , & R. E. Gershberg , Vol. 454, 131, 10.1007/3-540-60057-4_260

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-60057-4_260 1995

  5. [5]

    Z., Yang, M., Sokolovsky, K

    Bonanos, A. Z., Yang, M., Sokolovsky, K. V., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 630, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936026

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936026 2019

  6. [6]

    M., McDonald, M., et al

    Courteau, S., Widrow, L. M., McDonald, M., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, 20, 10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/1/20 2011

  7. [7]

    D., et al

    Dong , H., Li , Z., Wang , Q. D., et al. 2014, , 785, 136, 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/136

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/785/2/136 2014

  8. [8]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Harbeck , D., Taylor , B., Kirby , A., et al. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 55, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 205.04, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10408

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.10408 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 73, 10.1007/s12036-018-9566-x

    Hippke , M. 2018, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 39, 73, 10.1007/s12036-018-9566-x

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2007, Acta Astronautica, 61, 78, 10.1016/j.actaastro.2007.01.038

    Howard , A., Horowitz , P., Mead , C., et al. 2007, Acta Astronautica, 61, 78, 10.1016/j.actaastro.2007.01.038

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    W., Horowitz , P., Wilkinson , D

    Howard , A. W., Horowitz , P., Wilkinson , D. T., et al. 2004, , 613, 1270, 10.1086/423300

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M

    Inoue, A. K., Shimizu, I., Iwata, I., & Tanaka, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 442, 1805, 10.1093/mnras/stu936

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    E., Adams, S

    Jencson, J. E., Adams, S. M., Bond, H. E., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2c05

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Kardashev , N. S. 1964, , 8, 217

    1964

  7. [15]

    2016, Reviews in Human Space Exploration, 58, 10.1016/j.reach.2016.05.003

    Lubin, P. 2016, Reviews in Human Space Exploration, 58, 10.1016/j.reach.2016.05.003

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Dorval , P., et al

    Maire , J., Wright , S. A., Dorval , P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 990810, 10.1117/12.2232861

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Holder, J., et al

    Maire, J., Wright, S. A., Holder, J., et al. 2022, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara (SPIE), 314, 10.1117/12.2630772

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, 0.9.4, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1257560

    McCully, C., Turner, M., Volgenau, N., et al. 2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, 0.9.4, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1257560

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    I., Hatzidimitriou, D., Karampelas, A., et al

    Moretti, M. I., Hatzidimitriou, D., Karampelas, A., et al. 2018, 10.1093/mnras/sty758

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Menanteau, F., et al

    Morganson, E., Gruendl, R. A., Menanteau, F., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 130, 10.1088/1538-3873/aab4ef

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Enriquez , J

    Price , D. C., Enriquez , J. E., Brzycki , B., et al. 2020, , 159, 86, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab65f1

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Tanaka, M., Morokuma, T., et al

    Richmond, M. W., Tanaka, M., Morokuma, T., et al. 2019, 10.1093/pasj/psz120

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    N., & Townes , C

    Schwartz , R. N., & Townes , C. H. 1961, , 190, 205, 10.1038/190205a0

    1961 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, SPIE, 61, 10.1117/12.2286945

    Stewart, A., & Lubin, P. 2017, SPIE, 61, 10.1117/12.2286945

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2001, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39, 511, 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    Tarter, J. 2001, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39, 511, 10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.511

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    2025, Local Galactic Transient Survey Figures and Computations , 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15991

    Thomas, A. 2025, Local Galactic Transient Survey Figures and Computations , 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15991

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, TRIPP: A General Purpose Data Pipeline for Astronomical Image Processing

    Thomas, A., LeBaron, N., Angeleri, L., et al. 2025, TRIPP: A General Purpose Data Pipeline for Astronomical Image Processing. 2501.18142

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Townes , C. H. 1983, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 80, 1147, 10.1073/pnas.80.4.1147

    1983 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Drake , F., Stone , R

    Wright , S. A., Drake , F., Stone , R. P., Treffers , D., & Werthimer , D. 2001, in Proc. SPIE, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the Optical Spectrum III , ed. S. A. Kingsley & R. Bhathal , Vol. 4273, 173–177, 10.1117/12.435376

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Horowitz , P., Maire , J., et al

    Wright , S. A., Horowitz , P., Maire , J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 107025I, 10.1117/12.2314268

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.