Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 30 references

A nanosecond-duration radio pulse originating from the defunct Relay 2 satellite

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 ASKAP caught a 30-nanosecond radio burst from the dead Relay 2 satellite

desk verdict A credible, genuinely new detection of a nanosecond, GHz-frequency burst from a defunct satellite, with a solid detection chain but a satellite attribution that needs one more round of validation before it is airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11462 v1 pith:24ET4XUJ submitted 2025-06-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

C. W. James , A. T. Deller , T. Dial , M. Glowacki , S. J. Tingay , K. W. Bannister , A. Bera , N. D. R. Bhat
show 9 more authors
R. D. Ekers V. Gupta A. Jaini J. Morgan J. N. Jahns-Schindler R. M. Shannon M. Sukhov J. Tuthill Z. Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords timedomainastronomyradiotransientsourcesartificialsatelliteselectrostaticdischargenear-fieldlocalisationionosphericdispersionspacecraftchargingradio-frequencyinterference
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

On 13 June 2024, ASKAP's fast-transient system recorded a single 30-nanosecond pulse spanning 695.5 to 1031.5 MHz. The paper shows that the pulse's wavefront was curved, placing its source a finite $4500 \pm 80$ km away rather than at astronomical distance, and that this distance and sky position match the long-dead Relay 2 satellite. The measured dispersion measure, $2.26\times10^{-5}\,\mathrm{pc}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, equals a single passage through Earth's ionosphere, and the peak flux density is at least 300 kJy. The authors conclude the burst came from Relay 2 itself and propose electrostatic discharge, possibly triggered by a micrometeoroid impact, as the cause. If this is right, ground-based radio telescopes can remotely detect tiny electrical arcs on spacecraft, and such bursts are a new class of false event for searches for cosmological radio transients.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing technique is near-field wavefront analysis. For a source at finite distance $d$, the arrival-time delay across antennas grows as the square of the projected distance from the array centre, whereas a far-field source gives a planar wavefront; fitting the measured delays to this quadratic form directly yields $d = 4500 \pm 80$ km with 0.075 ns residuals. This fit, combined with coherent dedispersion at the fitted dispersion measure and coherent addition of all antennas, is what turns a single noisy trigger into a localised, dedispersed, 30-ns impulse.

What would settle it

Compute the projected positions and distances of every object in the public satellite catalogue from the array at the event epoch and ask whether any object other than Relay 2 falls inside the 3.2-arcminute, $4500 \pm 80$ km match region; an independent optical or radar orbit determination for Relay 2 bracketing 13 June 2024 would settle whether the catalogue propagation is itself trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a bandwidth-limited, linearly polarised radio impulse of less than 30 ns duration, with peak flux density of at least 300 kJy, originated from the non-operational Relay 2 satellite. The evidence is a near-field distance of $4500 \pm 80$ km from a quadratic fit to antenna arrival-time delays, an apparent position within 3.2 arcminutes of the satellite's propagated orbit, and a dispersion measure of $2.26\times10^{-5}\,\mathrm{pc}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ (69.7 TECU) matching independent ionospheric total-electron-content estimates. The pulse's true width may be below 3 ns and its peak flux above 3 MJy, limited by the one-bit recording of the buffered voltages. The authors interpret the event as electrostatic discharge or a micrometeoroid-impact plasma discharge, while noting that neither mechanism fully explains the two frequency bands that appear fully circularly polarised.

Load-bearing premise

The attribution to Relay 2 rests on the catalogue orbital state of the satellite being accurate enough when propagated to the event time that the 3.2-arcminute positional coincidence and the 4322 km distance estimate are meaningful; if those orbital elements were stale, another object could have produced the burst.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radio-transient searches that discard low-dispersion-measure events may be throwing away real physical signals from spacecraft, so pipelines need a satellite-impostor flag.
  • Ground-based radio arrays can serve as remote detectors of electrostatic discharge, offering a way to monitor spacecraft charging without onboard sensors.
  • Existing all-sky fast-radio-burst monitors and cosmic-ray radio arrays could detect such bursts after modest processing changes, effectively becoming spacecraft health monitors.
  • From 100.5 days of observing with 35 minutes of Relay 2 visibility, the paper's 90% confidence limit is at most one burst per 15-350 minutes from Relay 2 and one per 44-1000 days from all visible spacecraft.
  • A 22-microgram micrometeoroid impact could produce the observed field strength, but the estimated occurrence probability is only 1.7% over the campaign, making electrostatic discharge the favoured explanation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's rate limits are representative, archival voltage buffers from past transient searches could be re-examined for the quadratic-delay signature, multiplying the sample of spacecraft discharge events without any new hardware.
  • The unexplained fully circularly polarised bands near 800 MHz and 1 GHz are a clean discriminator for future work: if they persist in higher dynamic-range recordings, they point to propagation effects or a source geometry that the two proposed mechanisms do not account for.
  • The near-field quadratic-delay signature could itself be used as a real-time veto in fast-transient searches, since it cleanly separates near-Earth spacecraft emission from astrophysical sources.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper reports the serendipitous detection by ASKAP/CRACO of a ~30 ns, 300 kJy radio burst at 695.5–1031.5 MHz, localized via near-field timing delays to a distance of 4500±80 km and attributed to the defunct Relay 2 satellite based on a TLE-propagated position within 3.2′ and a TLE range of 4322 km. The dispersion measure of 2.26×10⁻⁵ pc cm⁻³ is shown to be consistent with independent ionospheric TEC estimates, and the burst is suggested to arise from an electrostatic discharge or micrometeoroid impact. The paper also discusses implications for remote sensing of spacecraft charging and for identifying a new class of false events in astrophysical transient searches.

Significance. If the Relay 2 attribution holds, this is a novel and potentially impactful detection: nanosecond-duration radio emission from a spacecraft has not been reported before, and it would open a new remote-sensing window on spacecraft electrostatic discharge while also informing RFI rejection for fast-transient surveys. The paper's strengths include the internal consistency of the near-field timing fit (0.075 ns residuals), the independent cross-checks against TLE distance, TECOR/ionex ionospheric models, and the all-catalog satellite search. However, the central attribution is not yet fully demonstrated: the significance of the TLE match is unquantified, the near-field localization pipeline lacks end-to-end validation on a known satellite, and key measured quantities (DM, RM) are quoted without formal uncertainties. These gaps are addressable and do not indicate a fundamental error in the detection chain, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The uniqueness and accuracy of the Relay 2 match are asserted but not quantified. The text states that 'one viable match was found' but does not provide the search radius or acceptance criterion used, the next-nearest satellite's angular and range separation, the epoch of the TLE elements, or the age of those elements at the observation time. The 3.2′ offset corresponds to only 4 km at the TLE range, and SGP4/TLE propagation errors for a 60-year-old, high-eccentricity object are not estimated, so the statistical significance of the angular coincidence is unknown. The 178 km difference between the fitted near-field distance (4500±80 km) and the TLE range (4322 km) is 2.2σ using only the quoted random error, and the TLE range uncertainty is not propagated. A full cross-match with realistic selection criteria and TLE uncertainty estimates is needed to support the attribution.
  2. [Sections 2 and 3] The near-field localization pipeline has not been validated on a known source, as the paper itself concedes: 'we have not yet verified the nearfield tracking of objects in our search pipeline.' The quoted uncertainty of ±80 km is derived by adding rms timing errors of 0.075 ns to the delay data and re-fitting, which captures only random errors; correlated systematics (antenna position errors, clock or calibration offsets, differential ionospheric delays across the array) are not discussed. Without end-to-end validation of the near-field distance and position recovery on a known satellite, the 2.2σ agreement between the fitted range and the TLE range cannot serve as strong confirmation of the Relay 2 attribution.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Figure 4] The burst position used for the TLE cross-match is the far-field position derived from the inner 1 km subset under a planar-wavefront assumption, whereas the final localization applies a near-field quadratic delay model. The near-field correction could shift the apparent position by an angle comparable to the quoted 3.2′ offset, and this potential bias is not modeled or quantified. The authors should report the near-field-corrected position and its uncertainty, and show how the offset from Relay 2 changes with and without the near-field model, before using the angular coincidence as evidence for the identification.
  4. [Section 2.1] Formal uncertainties are missing for the dispersion and rotation measures. The best-fit DM of 2.26×10⁻⁵ pc cm⁻³ (69.7 TECU) is compared with TECOR (66±7 TECU) and ionex (58.9 TECU) values, and the RM of -2.14 rad m⁻² is compared with a predicted -3.0 rad m⁻² from ionospheric modeling, but no errors are given for the measured DM and RM. These comparisons are central to the ionospheric-origin argument and to the consistency of the detection interpretation; they need quantitative error estimates to be meaningful.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3] The source-power estimate assumes '2 sr of emission from a surface (see §3),' but Section 3 does not justify that beaming solid angle. The resulting 400 W peak power and 1.2 µJ energy are therefore not robust; a plausible range of beaming geometries should be considered, or the assumption should be removed from the main quantitative claims.
  2. [Section 2] There is a typo in the sentence 'These signals was first Fourier transformed'; it should read 'This signal was first Fourier transformed.'
  3. [Section 1] The phrase 'a well-known phenomena' should be 'a well-known phenomenon.'
  4. [Section 3] The 6.5σ peak found in the 0.5 s search is described as 'consistent with random fluctuations'; a single 6.5σ peak is not obviously consistent with noise unless a trial factor is accounted for. Clarify the statistical significance with the appropriate number of independent trials.
  5. [Section 3.2] The micrometeoroid flux argument cites '2×10⁻⁹ m⁻² s⁻¹ above this mass,' but the mass threshold of 22 µg is only defined implicitly via scaling from a 1 ng impactor. State the threshold explicitly so the rate estimate is reproducible.
  6. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract says the burst is 'less than 30 ns in width,' while Section 2.1 describes a 10 ns primary impulse followed by lower-intensity structure totaling 30 ns. Please reconcile the wording and specify whether 'width' refers to the primary impulse or the total burst envelope.
  7. [Figure 2] The y-axis label 'power [units of rms]' is unconventional; please specify whether the ordinate is a signal-to-noise ratio or normalized power, and define the reference rms in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the burst-to-satellite attribution is an independent cross-match between fitted burst parameters and external orbital and ionospheric data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational attribution, and its derivation chain is genuinely cross-checked rather than circular. The near-field distance (4500 +/- 80 km) is obtained in Section 2 by fitting per-antenna arrival-time delays to a quadratic delay model, with no input from satellite ephemerides. The dispersion measure (2.26e-5 pc cm^-3) and rotation measure (-2.14 rad m^-2) are fitted from the burst data itself and then compared with external TECOR/ionex ionospheric models; they are not imposed by those models. The identification of Relay 2 in Section 3 rests on a Skyfield-propagation of externally maintained TLE orbital elements, yielding a 3.2-arcminute positional coincidence and a 4322 km range, both independent of the fitted burst parameters. The CRACO and CELEBI pipeline citations are tooling references rather than load-bearing self-citations, and the paper explicitly acknowledges an unverified aspect of near-field tracking in the search pipeline, which is a validation limitation rather than a circular reduction. No equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the conclusion, so no circular step meets the required quoted-evidence standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on near-field wavefront geometry, an external TLE ephemeris, ionospheric TEC estimates, and interpretive assumptions about the emission mechanism and beaming. The fitted parameters are physical measurements anchored by external checks, not arbitrary tuning. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • near-field source distance = 4500 km ± 80 km
    Fitted by minimizing rms timing residuals of a quadratic near-field delay model across 19 antennas; the central localization quantity.
  • dispersion measure = 2.26e-5 pc cm^-3 (69.7 TECU)
    Best-fit DM maximizing sum |dI/dt|^2 after coherent addition; compared with independent ionospheric TEC models.
  • rotation measure = -2.14 rad m^-2
    Fitted to polarisation position angle versus frequency; compared with a modelled value of -3.0 rad m^-2.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math A point source in the near field produces arrival-time delays that scale quadratically with projected transverse distance from the array centre.
    Used in Section 2 to derive the 4500 km near-field distance from antenna delays.
  • domain assumption TLE orbital elements from space-track.org and Skyfield propagation accurately locate Relay 2 at the burst epoch.
    The full satellite attribution in Section 3 depends on the propagated Relay 2 position being within 3.2 arcminutes of the burst position.
  • domain assumption Terrestrial RFI will not form a point source in the ASKAP image plane because its wavefront is strongly curved across the array.
    Stated in Section 2 as the basis for trusting the undispersed in-beam trigger as non-terrestrial.
  • domain assumption Dispersion in the frequency band is caused by a single pass through the ionosphere and can be removed by coherent dedispersion.
    Used in Section 2.1 to measure the 2.26e-5 pc cm^-3 DM and to derive the burst width.
  • domain assumption The three antennas that did not show the burst can be excluded as corrupted without biasing the timing fit.
    Section 2 says the absence is 'likely due to data corruption'; if the exclusion is not benign, the distance estimate could be biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The emitting surface radiates into about 2 sr when converting flux density to source power.
    Section 2.1 assumes '2 sr of emission from a surface' with no independent measurement of the beaming pattern.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nanosecond-duration radio pulse originating from the defunct Relay 2 satellite." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24ET4XUJ

@misc{pith2026250611462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nanosecond-duration radio pulse originating from the defunct Relay 2 satellite},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24ET4XUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11462}
}
abstract

We report the detection of a burst of emission over a 695.5 MHz-1031.5 MHz bandwidth by the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder, ASKAP. The burst was localised through analysis of near-field time delays to the long-decommissioned Relay 2 satellite, and exhibited a dispersion measure of $2.26 \cdot 10^{-5}$ pc cm$^{-3}$ -- 69.7 TECU, consistent with expectations for a single pass through the ionosphere. After coherent dedispersion, the burst was determined to be less than 30 ns in width, with an average flux density of at least 300 kJy. We consider an electrostatic discharge (ESD) or plasma discharge following a micrometeoroid impact to be plausible explanations for the burst. ESDs have previously been observed with the Arecibo radio telescope, but on 1000 times longer timescales. Our observation opens new possibilities for the remote sensing of ESD, which poses a serious threat to spacecraft, and reveals a new source of false events for observations of astrophysical transients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The best-fitting nearfield distance. Shown is the rms of the timing residuals over all 19 antennas used in the fit. The minimum at 4500 km corresponds to the best-fit distance for the burst. 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 time [ns], arbitrary offset 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 power [units of rms] I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dedispersed burst. Total burst power at Nyquist resolution (points — lines to guide the eye only) after dedispersion and coherent addition over 19 antennas according to the nearfield fit. Note that our ability to determine the signal flux density — and potentially also shape — is limited by our 1-bit sampling precision (see text). usually the case (Sutinjo et al. 2023), since structure was ob￾served at the highe… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The match of the observed burst position and the Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2010, Space Weather, 8, S06008, doi: 10.1029/2010SW000588 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B

    Allen, J. 2010, Space Weather, 8, S06008, doi: 10.1029/2010SW000588 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Andersen, B. C., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac33ab NANOSECOND SATELLITEESD 7

    work page doi:10.1029/2010sw000588 2010

  2. [2]

    A., Kulkarni, S

    Connor, L., Shila, K. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2021, PASP, 133, 075001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac0bcc

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac0bcc 2021

  3. [3]

    C., & Robiscoe, R

    Damas, M. C., & Robiscoe, R. T. 1988, Journal of Applied Physics, 64, 566, doi: 10.1063/1.341971

    work page doi:10.1063/1.341971 1988

  4. [4]

    DeForest, S. E. 1972, J. Geophys. Res., 77, 651, doi: 10.1029/JA077i004p00651

    doi:10.1029/ja077i004p00651 1972

  5. [5]

    2016, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 53, 464, doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33438

    Ferguson, D., Crabtree, P., White, S., & Vayner, B. 2016, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 53, 464, doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A33438

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a33438 2016

  6. [6]

    2017, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 54, 566, doi: 10.2514/1.A33724

    Ferguson, D., White, S., Rast, R., et al. 2017, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 54, 566, doi: 10.2514/1.A33724

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a33724 2017

  7. [7]

    C., Murray-Krezan, J., Barton, D

    Ferguson, D. C., Murray-Krezan, J., Barton, D. A., Dennison, J. R., & Gregory, S. A. 2014, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 51, 1907, doi: 10.2514/1.A32958

    doi:10.2514/1.a32958 2014

  8. [8]

    C., Perillat, P., & Vayner, B

    Ferguson, D. C., Perillat, P., & Vayner, B. 2022, Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 69, 139, doi: 10.1007/s40295-021-00295-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s40295-021-00295-8 2022

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    2015, PhD thesis, Stanford University, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    Fletcher, A. 2015, PhD thesis, Stanford University, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics

    2015

  2. [10]

    B., & Whittlesey, A

    Garrett, H. B., & Whittlesey, A. C. 2012, Guide to Mitigating Spacecraft Charging Effects (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118241400.ch1

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    B., & Close, S

    Garrett, H. B., & Close, S. 2013, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 41, 3545, doi: 10.1109/TPS.2013.2286181 Goddard Space Flight Centre. 1965, Final Report on the Relay I Program. NASA SP-76, V ol. 76 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/ap...

    2013

  4. [12]

    Greisen, E. W. 2003, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 285, Information Handling in Astronomy - Historical Vistas, ed. A. Heck, 109, doi: 10.1007/0-306-48080-8_7

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Davis, V

    Guidice, D. A., Davis, V . A., Curtis, H. B., et al. 1992, in NASA Conference Publication, V ol. 3127, Fifth Annual Workshop on Space Operations Applications and Research (SOAR 1991), ed. K. Krishen, 662

    1992

  6. [14]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e009, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.1

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Norton, O., & Alexander, M

    James, B. F., Norton, O., & Alexander, M. B. 1994, The Natural Space Environment: Effects on Spacecraft, V ol. NASA Reference Publication 1350 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/ 19950019455/downloads/19950019455.pdf

    1994

  8. [16]

    C., Caleb, M., et al

    Jankowski, F., Bezuidenhout, M. C., Caleb, M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2302.10107, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.10107 Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 1999, Electrostatics discharge (ESD) test practices, Tech. Rep. PRACTICE NO. PT-TE-1414, National Aeronautics and Space Admin...

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V ., et al

    Law, C. J., Sharma, K., Ravi, V ., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.03344, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.03344

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    D., & Alexander, M

    Leach, R. D., & Alexander, M. B. 1995, Failures and anomalies attributed to spacecraft charging

    1995

  11. [19]

    1985, Characterization of EMI generated by the discharge of a VOLT solar array, Final Report Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst

    Leung, P. 1985, Characterization of EMI generated by the discharge of a VOLT solar array, Final Report Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech., Pasadena

    1985

  12. [20]

    2023, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 178, 104619, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104619

    Li, H., Zhang, L., Han, J., Cai, M., & Tao, M. 2023, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 178, 104619, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2023.104619

    2023

  13. [21]

    2024, PASA, 41, e109, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.108

    Luo, R., Ekers, R., Hobbs, G., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e109, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.108

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2005, Journal of Applied Physics, 97, 104911, doi: 10.1063/1.1896092

    Maki, K., Soma, E., Takano, T., Fujiwara, A., & Yamori, A. 2005, Journal of Applied Physics, 97, 104911, doi: 10.1063/1.1896092

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002641, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002641 NASA Historical Staff, Office of Policy Analysis

    Morschhauser, A. 2021, Space Weather, 19, e2020SW002641, doi: 10.1029/2020SW002641 NASA Historical Staff, Office of Policy Analysis. 1966, Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965: Chronology on Science Technology, and Policy. NASA SP-4006, V ol. 4006 (National Aeronautics and Space...

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2013, A&A, 560, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322683 Schröder, F

    Schellart, P., Nelles, A., Buitink, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322683 Schröder, F. G. 2017, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 93, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.12.002

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Cho, H., Day, C

    Scott, D. R., Cho, H., Day, C. K., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Computing, 44, 100724, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2023.100724

    2023

  18. [26]

    M., Bannister, K

    Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., Bera, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.02083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.02083

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sotomayor-Beltran, C., Sobey, C., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220728

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Scott, D

    Sutinjo, A. T., Scott, D. R., James, C. W., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace774 The Pierre Auger Collaboration. 2016, Journal of Instrumentation, 11, P01018, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/11/01/P01018 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Comput...

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    Virtanen, P., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    W., Gupta, V ., et al

    Wang, Z., Bannister, K. W., Gupta, V ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.10316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10316

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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