Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Upward-going muons from the lunar regolith can map shallow subsurface voids and water on timescales of minutes with a one-square-meter detector.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 12:00 UTC pith:W3LJSA2S

load-bearing objection Solid first MC map of the upward lunar muon channel; the minute-scale cavity/water numbers are idealized and should be read as order-of-magnitude only. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10403 v1 pith:W3LJSA2S submitted 2026-07-11 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMhep-exhep-phphysics.space-ph

The muon Moonshot: Moon subsurface tomography with upward-going muons

Zimo Hu , Leyun Gao , Zhengyun You , Qite Li , Qiang Li , Yuhong Yu , Liangwen Chen , Xueheng Zhang
show 1 more author
Zhiyu Sun
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMhep-exhep-phphysics.space-ph
keywords lunar muonsmuon tomographysubsurface voidsregolithcosmic-ray secondarieslunar explorationwater prospecting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The Moon has no atmosphere, so cosmic-ray mesons that escape the dense regolith can decay in the vacuum above the surface and produce a usable upward-going muon flux. Monte Carlo simulations show that this flux changes strongly with detector altitude and with the presence of shallow density anomalies. Because the change is large, a simple one-square-meter detector on the surface or in low orbit can register cavity-induced flux variations in under a minute and weaker water-induced signals in roughly ten minutes. The same muons therefore offer a non-invasive way to prospect for underground cavities and water resources without drilling, using instruments that could fly on near-term lunar missions.

Core claim

Secondary cosmic-ray muons produced by the decay of charged mesons that escape the lunar regolith form a measurable upward-going flux whose intensity is highly sensitive to detector altitude and to shallow subsurface density anomalies. Under idealized flat-terrain conditions this altitude dependence can be exploited for both surface-based microscopic tomography of meter-scale voids and orbital macroscopic tomography of larger near-surface cavities, with cavity signals appearing in less than a minute and water signals after about ten minutes of exposure with a 1 m^{2} ideal detector.

What carries the argument

Altitude-dependent lunar muon flux generated by displaced decays of charged pions (and kaons) that escape the regolith into vacuum; the flux rise from surface to ~1 km and the subsequent fall at higher altitudes encode the vertical path length through vacuum or voids, turning effective height into a tomographic observable.

Load-bearing premise

Shallow voids or water layers can be treated as simple changes in effective detector height or as thin uniform overburden above a deeper anomaly, without realistic topography or full showering in the overburden.

What would settle it

Place a muon telescope of known area and efficiency on a flat lunar surface or in low orbit above a region whose subsurface density is independently mapped (or above a deliberately excavated cavity) and measure whether the observed flux change matches the predicted altitude or overburden dependence within the claimed statistical precision.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes lunar subsurface tomography using upward-going secondary muons generated by galactic cosmic-ray interactions in the regolith. Because the Moon has no atmosphere, charged mesons that escape the surface can decay in vacuum, yielding a detectable muon flux at the surface or in near-lunar orbit. Using FLUKA (DPMJET/RQMD) with Badhwar–O’Neill spectra, the MP2007 regolith model, and solar-modulation potentials of 465 MV and 1440 MV, the authors compute energy spectra, angular distributions, and integrated fluxes for 10^6 primaries. Photon fluxes are validated against Fermi-LAT data (Appendix A). They show strong altitude dependence under a flat-terrain assumption and present idealized case studies of shallow cavities and water deposits, claiming cavity-induced flux variations are observable in less than a minute and water signals after about ten minutes with a 1 m^{2} ideal detector. Potential applications to Chang’e-7/8 and related missions are discussed.

Significance. If the altitude and void sensitivity survive more realistic geometry, the work would introduce a genuinely new, non-invasive probe of shallow lunar density structure and resources that complements existing X-ray and gamma-ray methods. The use of standard, publicly documented tools (FLUKA, DPMJET/RQMD, Badhwar–O’Neill, MP2007), the independent Fermi-LAT photon cross-check, and the explicit MC statistical uncertainties constitute clear methodological strengths. The qualitative recognition that displaced meson decays produce an altitude-dependent upward muon flux is sound and timely for upcoming polar and resource-utilization missions. The quantitative minute-scale claims, however, rest on highly idealized overburden and flat-terrain approximations that the authors themselves flag; the practical impact therefore remains prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §III.D, Appendix B] Abstract and §III.D (Figs. 4 and 6, Appendix B): The headline statements that cavity-induced flux variations are observable in less than a minute and water signals after ~10 min with a 1 m^{2} detector are obtained by modeling anomalies as a thin (0.1–0.5 m) slab of nominal regolith overlying a 10 m void/water region, or equivalently as a pure change in detector altitude. Both approximations neglect additional hadronic showering inside any real overburden and the finite lateral extent of a cavity (which alters solid angle and path-length distributions). The paper itself labels the scenario “highly idealized and not directly applicable in practice,” yet still quotes the minute-scale numbers as the central sensitivity result. Either more realistic 3-D overburden/finite-size simulations must be supplied, or the abstract and §III.D claims must be rewritten as qualitative upper bounds under i
  2. [§II, §III.C] §II and §III.C: Detector response, acceptance, and particle identification are neglected under the assumption of “high detection and particle-identification efficiencies” and a “nearly background-free environment.” The TOF timing resolutions and dual-readout arguments given for µ/π separation are order-of-magnitude estimates only; no efficiency curves, mass/power constraints, or residual background rates under lunar conditions are provided. Because the tomography feasibility argument relies on clean muon samples, at least a simplified detector-response study or a clear statement that the quoted fluxes are ideal upper limits is required.
  3. [Appendix B] Appendix B (microscopic vs. macroscopic tomography): The illustrations of sensitivity assume a flat surface and negligible cosmic-ray showering in the overburden. For macroscopic (orbital) tomography the text notes that deeper voids eventually compensate the muon-decay loss by additional production, but no quantitative depth range or contrast-versus-depth curve is given. Without this, the claimed reach of orbital muon tomography remains unquantified and cannot support mission-planning statements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Several reference titles contain obvious OCR/transcription errors (“cosmic yay muon,” “cosmic-yay spectrometer,” “Fermisatel-lite”). These should be corrected before publication.
  2. [§III] The E^{2}-weighted spectra are defined with E^{2} = E_low E_high; a brief sentence clarifying that this is the conventional geometric-mean weighting used by Fermi-LAT would help non-specialist readers.
  3. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 caption and the schematic itself would benefit from an explicit indication of the detector locations (surface vs. altitude) that are later quantified.
  4. [§II] Earth shielding and surface topography are stated to be neglected “in this conceptual design.” A short quantitative estimate of the solid-angle fraction occulted by Earth (or a reference to existing lunar cosmic-ray maps) would strengthen the claim that the omission is harmless for the present purpose.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: muon fluxes and tomography sensitivities are forward MC predictions from external cosmic-ray spectra, a published regolith model, and standard generators, validated on independent Fermi-LAT photons.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard forward Monte Carlo pipeline. Primary fluxes are taken from the Badhwar–O’Neill model constrained by AMS/BESS data with fixed solar-modulation potentials (465 MV / 1440 MV); the regolith is the published MP2007 composition/density profile; hadronic interactions use the external DPMJET/RQMD generators inside FLUKA. Differential yields are normalized by the incident primary flux and converted to absolute fluxes without any free parameters adjusted to the muon observables themselves. The only external cross-check is the secondary photon spectrum, which is compared to Fermi-LAT measurements (Appendix A) and found consistent below the GeV scale; that comparison validates normalization and material modeling but is not used to retune the muon prediction. Altitude dependence, cavity/water case studies (Fig. 4, Appendix B), and the quoted minute-scale sensitivities are therefore pure simulation outputs under explicitly idealized flat-terrain / thin-overburden assumptions. No quantity is defined in terms of the target result, no parameter is fitted to a subset of the muon data and then “predicted,” and no load-bearing uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks; circularity score is therefore zero.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cosmic-ray and hadronic-physics inputs plus several domain idealizations required to turn the MC into a tomography proposal. No new free parameters are fitted to the muon data; the only numerical choices are conventional solar-modulation values and the schematic void/water geometries used for the case studies. Invented entities are absent—the muons and mesons are ordinary Standard-Model particles.

free parameters (2)
  • solar modulation potential Φ = 465 MV / 1440 MV
    Two discrete values (465 MV, 1440 MV) are chosen as representative solar min/max; they set the overall normalization of the primary flux and therefore of all secondary rates.
  • void/water geometry parameters (overburden 0.1–0.5 m, depth to 10 m) = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 m overburden; 10 m total depth
    Hand-chosen depths used to illustrate tomography sensitivity; not fitted to data but control the claimed exposure times.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Lunar regolith composition and density follow the Moskalenko–Porter 2007 (MP2007) model.
    Used throughout the FLUKA geometry (§II); validated only indirectly via photon flux.
  • domain assumption Primary galactic cosmic-ray spectra are given by the Badhwar–O’Neill model constrained by AMS/BESS and the ICRC2001 fit.
    Sets the absolute normalization of all secondary fluxes (§II).
  • domain assumption Hadronic interactions are adequately described by DPMJET and RQMD as implemented in FLUKA.
    Core of the secondary-meson production (§II).
  • ad hoc to paper Surface topography, Earth shielding, and deviations from spherical symmetry can be neglected for the conceptual study.
    Explicitly stated in §II; required for the altitude-equivalence argument of Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper Detector efficiency and particle identification are perfect (or high enough that backgrounds are negligible).
    Assumed when converting MC yields into exposure times (§III, §III.C).
  • ad hoc to paper A shallow void can be approximated by an equivalent increase in detector altitude (or by a simple layered overburden).
    Load-bearing idealization of §III.D and Appendix B that converts altitude scans into tomography sensitivity.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 15498 in / 3256 out tokens · 43153 ms · 2026-07-14T12:00:15.655867+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a novel muon Moonshot concept for lunar subsurface tomography based on upward-going muons originated from the lunar regolith. Unlike the Earth, the Moon lacks an atmosphere, leaving a dense regolith below and a near-vacuum environment above. Consequently, while most downward-going hadrons are absorbed before decaying, upward-going hadrons escaping the regolith can decay in flight, producing a significant source of lunar muons. These muons are detectable by instruments on the lunar surface or in near-lunar orbit. We perform Monte Carlo simulations to investigate their energy spectra, angular distributions, and integrated fluxes under various theoretical and detector configurations. The results indicate that the lunar muon flux is sensitive to detector altitude under a flat-terrain assumption, demonstrating its potential as a novel non-invasive probe of shallow subsurface voids. We also present case studies on detecting underground cavities and water resources, with cavity-induced flux variations observable in less than a minute and weaker water signals distinguishable after about ten minutes of data collection, and discuss potential implementations in future lunar missions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10403 by Leyun Gao, Liangwen Chen, Qiang Li, Qite Li, Xueheng Zhang, Yuhong Yu, Zhengyun You, Zhiyu Sun, Zimo Hu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the production of mesons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Simulated energy-differential muon fluxes at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Simulated energy-differential flux of charged pions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated energy-differential photon fluxes at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Simulated differential angular distributions at dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

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

45 extracted references · 11 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bonechi, R

    L. Bonechi, R. D’Alessandro, and A. Giammanco, Atmo- spheric muons as an imaging tool, Rev. Phys.5, 100038 (2020), arXiv:1906.03934 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Checchia, Review of possible applications of cosmic muon tomography, JINST11(12), C12072

    P. Checchia, Review of possible applications of cosmic muon tomography, JINST11(12), C12072

  3. [3]

    Marteau, D

    J. Marteau, D. Gibert, N. Lesparre, F. Nicollin, P. Noli, and F. Giacoppo, Muons tomography applied to geo- sciences and volcanology, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A695, 23 (2012), arXiv:1201.6469 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Cheng, R

    Y.-P. Cheng, R. Han, Z.-W. Li, J.-T. Li, X. Mao, W.-Q. Dou, X.-Z. Feng, X.-P. Ou-Yang, B. Liao, F. Liu,et al., Imaging internal density structure of the Laoheishan vol- canic cone with cosmic ray muon radiography, Nuclear Science and Techniques33, 88 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Morishimaet al., Discovery of a big void in Khufu’s Pyramid by observation of cosmic-ray muons, Nature 552, 386 (2017), arXiv:1711.01576 [physics.ins-det]

    K. Morishimaet al., Discovery of a big void in Khufu’s Pyramid by observation of cosmic-ray muons, Nature 552, 386 (2017), arXiv:1711.01576 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Procureuret al., Precise characterization of a corridor- shaped structure in Khufu’s Pyramid by observation of cosmic-ray muons, Nature Commun.14, 1144 (2023)

    S. Procureuret al., Precise characterization of a corridor- shaped structure in Khufu’s Pyramid by observation of cosmic-ray muons, Nature Commun.14, 1144 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Guardincerriet al., 3D cosmic yay muon tomography from an underground tunnel, Pure Appl

    E. Guardincerriet al., 3D cosmic yay muon tomography from an underground tunnel, Pure Appl. Geophys.174, 2133 (2017), arXiv:1801.04351 [physics.geo-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    L. F. Thompson, J. P. Stowell, S. J. Fargher, C. A. Steer, K. L. Loughney, E. M. O’Sullivan, J. G. Gluyas, S. W. Blaney, and R. J. Pidcock, Muon tomography for rail- way tunnel imaging, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023017 (2020), arXiv:1906.05814 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Perryet al., Imaging a nuclear reactor using cosmic ray muons, J

    J. Perryet al., Imaging a nuclear reactor using cosmic ray muons, J. Appl. Phys.113, 184909 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Fujiiet al., Imaging the inner structure of a nuclear re- actor by cosmic muon radiography, PTEP2019, 053C01 (2019), arXiv:1902.01992 [physics.ins-det]

    H. Fujiiet al., Imaging the inner structure of a nuclear re- actor by cosmic muon radiography, PTEP2019, 053C01 (2019), arXiv:1902.01992 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Leone, H

    G. Leone, H. Tanaka, M. Holma, S. Krishnan, A. Duffy, T. Enqvist, P. Kuusiniemi, J. Joutsenvaara, G. Cerretto, E. Cantoni,et al., Positioning, navigation, and timing on the Moon and Mars with galactic cosmic rays, iScience 28, 10.1016/j.isci.2025.112496 (2025)

    doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.112496 2025

  12. [12]

    T. H. Prettyman, A. Empl, L. S. Pinsky, M. V. Sykes, and M. C. Nolan, Deep Mapping of Small Solar Sys- tem Bodies with Galactic Cosmic Ray Secondary Par- ticle Showers (2019), NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), Document ID: 20190027078, Report No. HQ- E-DAA-TN70712. 6

    2019

  13. [13]

    Enqvist, M

    T. Enqvist, M. Holma, P. Kuusiniemi, and K. Loo, Ex- ploration of Lunar in situ resources can be conducted by applying density-sensitive cosmic-ray-based geophysi- cal muon imaging method called muography, inSEG 100 Conference, Whistler, Canada, September 14-17, 2021 (Society of Economic Geologist, 2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Kuusiniemi, T

    P. Kuusiniemi, T. Enqvist, M. Holma, J. Korteniemi, and T. ¨Ohman, Muon production in the lunar regolith: Op- portunities for muon imaging in the Moon, inEGU Gen- eral Assembly Conference Abstracts(2023) pp. EGU– 7336

    2023

  15. [15]

    O. L. Pinto and J. M. Tiit, Mapping water on the Moon and Mars using a muon tomograph (2023), arXiv:2310.08174 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Adler, J

    I. Adler, J. Trombka, J. Gerard, P. Lowman, R. Schmade- beck, H. Blodget, E. Eller, L. Yin, R. Lamothe, P. Goren- stein,et al., Apollo 15 geochemical X-ray fluorescence ex- periment: Preliminary report, Science175, 436 (1972)

    1972

  17. [17]

    Adler, J

    I. Adler, J. Trombka, J. Gerard, P. Lowman, R. Schmade- beck, H. Blodget, E. Eller, L. Yin, R. Lamothe, G. Os- swald,et al., Apollo 16 geochemical X-ray fluorescence experiment: Preliminary report, Science177, 256 (1972)

    1972

  18. [18]

    A. J. Gloudemans, E. Kuulkers, R. Campana, A. Es- calante, M. Kole, and Y. Mollard, Re-evaluation of Lu- nar X-ray observations by Apollo 15 and 16, Astronomy & Astrophysics649, A174 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Swinyard, K

    B. Swinyard, K. Joy, B. Kellett, I. Crawford, M. Grande, C. Howe, V. Fernandes, O. Gasnault, D. Lawrence, S. Russell,et al., X-ray fluorescence observations of the Moon by SMART-1/D-CIXS and the first detection of Ti Kαfrom the lunar surface, Planetary and Space Science 57, 744 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    Okada, K

    T. Okada, K. Shirai, Y. Yamamoto, T. Arai, K. Ogawa, H. Shiraishi, M. Iwasaki, T. Kawamura, H. Morito, M. Grande,et al., X-ray fluorescence spectrometry of lu- nar surface by XRS onboard SELENE (Kaguya), Trans- actions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Space Technology Japan7, Tk 39 (2009)

    2009

  21. [21]

    Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Measurement of the high-energy gamma-ray emission from the Moon with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys

    M. Ackermannet al.(Fermi-LAT), Measurement of the high-energy gamma-ray emission from the Moon with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. D93, 082001 (2016), arXiv:1604.03349 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Loparcoet al.(Fermi-LAT), The gamma-ray Moon seen by the Fermi LAT, J

    F. Loparcoet al.(Fermi-LAT), The gamma-ray Moon seen by the Fermi LAT, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.934, 012021 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Garani and P

    R. Garani and P. Tinyakov, Constraints on dark mat- ter from the Moon, Phys. Lett. B804, 135403 (2020), arXiv:1912.00443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Fujiwara, E

    T. Fujiwara, E. R. Owen, Y. Inoue, M. Errando, K. Fukuda, K. Nakazawa, H. Odaka, K. Okuma, K. Ter- ada, N. Tsuji,et al., The Moon as a cosmic-yay spec- trometer: prospects for MeV gamma-ray observations, The Astrophysical Journal987, 177 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Home — The official CERN FLUKA website (2026)

    2026

  26. [26]

    Ahdidaet al., New capabilities of the FLUKA multi- purpose code, Front

    C. Ahdidaet al., New capabilities of the FLUKA multi- purpose code, Front. in Phys.9, 788253 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    Battistoniet al., Overview of the FLUKA code, An- nals Nucl

    G. Battistoniet al., Overview of the FLUKA code, An- nals Nucl. Energy82, 10 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    I. V. Moskalenko and T. A. Porter, The gamma-ray albedo of the Moon, Astrophys. J.670, 1467 (2007)

    2007

  29. [29]

    Roesler, R

    S. Roesler, R. Engel, and J. Ranft, The Monte Carlo event generator DPMJET-III, inInternational Confer- ence on Advanced Monte Carlo for Radiation Physics, Particle Transport Simulation and Applications (MC 2000)(2000) pp. 1033–1038, arXiv:hep-ph/0012252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  30. [30]

    Fedynitch,Cascade equations and hadronic interac- tions at very high energies, Ph.D

    A. Fedynitch,Cascade equations and hadronic interac- tions at very high energies, Ph.D. thesis, KIT, Karlsruhe, Dept. Phys. (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Sorge, H

    H. Sorge, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Poincare Invari- ant Hamiltonian Dynamics: Modeling Multi - Hadronic Interactions in a Phase Space Approach, Annals Phys. 192, 266 (1989)

    1989

  32. [32]

    Ballariniet al., The physics of the FLUKA code: Re- cent developments, Adv

    F. Ballariniet al., The physics of the FLUKA code: Re- cent developments, Adv. Space Res.40, 1339 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    G. D. Badhwar and P. O’Neill, Galactic cosmic radiation model and its applications, Advances in Space Research 17, 7 (1996)

    1996

  34. [34]

    Alcaraz, B

    J. Alcaraz, B. Alpat, G. Ambrosi, H. Anderhub, L. Ao, A. Arefiev, P. Azzarello, E. Babucci, L. Baldini, M. Basile,et al., Cosmic protons, Physics Letters B490, 27 (2000)

    2000

  35. [35]

    Alcaraz, B

    J. Alcaraz, B. Alpat, G. Ambrosi, H. Anderhub, L. Ao, A. Arefiev, P. Azzarello, E. Babucci, L. Baldini, M. Basile,et al., Helium in near Earth orbit, Physics Letters B494, 193 (2000)

    2000

  36. [36]

    Sanuki, M

    T. Sanuki, M. Motoki, H. Matsumoto, E. Seo, J. Wang, K. Abe, K. Anraku, Y. Asaoka, M. Fujikawa, M. Imori, et al., Precise measurement of cosmic-ray proton and he- lium spectra with the BESS spectrometer, The Astro- physical Journal545, 1135 (2000)

    2000

  37. [37]

    Gaisser, M

    T. Gaisser, M. Honda, P. Lipari, and T. Stanev, Primary spectrum to 1 TeV and beyond, inProceedings of the 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference. 07-15 Au- gust, 2001. Hamburg, Germany. Under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IU- PAP)., p. 1643, Vol. 5 (2001) p. 1643

    2001

  38. [38]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of parti- cle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of parti- cle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024), and 2025 update

    2024

  39. [39]

    Akchurin, K

    N. Akchurin, K. Carrell, J. Hauptman, H. Kim, H. P. Paar, A. Penzo, R. Thomas, and R. Wigmans, Muon detection with a dual-readout calorimeter, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A533, 305 (2004)

    2004

  40. [40]

    Akchurinet al., Dual-readout calorimetry (2013), arXiv:1307.5538 [physics.ins-det]

    N. Akchurinet al., Dual-readout calorimetry (2013), arXiv:1307.5538 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Gatto, B

    C. Gatto, B. F. Enriquez, and M. I. P. Morales, The REDTOP project: Rare eta decays with a TPC for op- tical photons, inProceedings of the 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2016), Pro- ceedings of Science, Vol. ICHEP2016 (2016) p. 046

    2016

  42. [42]

    Chenet al., Huizhou Hadron Spectrometer: a pro- posed high-rate experimental setup at the high–intensity heavy-ion accelerator facility, Nucl

    X.-R. Chenet al., Huizhou Hadron Spectrometer: a pro- posed high-rate experimental setup at the high–intensity heavy-ion accelerator facility, Nucl. Sci. Tech.37, 156 (2026), arXiv:2511.22864 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    F. An, D. Bai, H. Cai, J. Chen, K. Chen, K. Chen, L. Chen, Q. Chen, S. Chen, S. Chen,et al., Research proposals for high-precision nuclear physics experiments based on the Huizhou large scientific facilities, Nuclear Physics Review43, 1 (2026)

    2026

  44. [44]

    C. Wang, Y. Jia, C. Xue, Y. Lin, J. Liu, X. Fu, L. Xu, Y. Huang, Y. Zhao, Y. Xu,et al., Scientific objectives and payload configuration of the Chang’e-7 mission, National Science Review11, nwad329 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    China National Space Administration, China to launch Chang’e-8 lunar mission around 2029, collaborating with int’l partners (2025). 7 FIG. 5. Simulated energy-differential photon fluxes at the lunar surface for various levels of solar modulation potential Φ, weighted byE 2. Each spectrum is obtained fromN= 10 6 primary cosmic-ray events. The data collecte...

    2029