A compact, low-power epithermal neutron counter for lunar water detection

Brenda A. Cervantes-Vergara; Claudio Chavez; Erez Etzion; Guillermo Fernandez-Moroni; Javier Tiffenberg; Juan Estrada; Julian Cuevas-Zepeda; Miguel Sofo-Haro; Nathan Saffold; Phoenix Alpine

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A compact, low-power epithermal neutron counter for lunar water detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A boron-coated silicon imager wrapped in polyethylene — a payload of roughly 230 g and 1.6 W — can detect lunar subsurface water at 0.01 wt% H2O in a 15-minute rover measurement, a floor that would let small rovers map water at meter scale

desk verdict A useful simulation-based concept for a compact epithermal neutron detector, but the abstract's 0.01 wt% sensitivity claim is off by a factor of 100 per the paper's own equations; the actual supported sensitivity is ~1 wt%. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04367 v1 pith:OQW5XZHM submitted 2025-09-04 physics.ins-det astro-ph.IM

Julian Cuevas-Zepeda , Phoenix Alpine , Brenda A. Cervantes-Vergara , Claudio Chavez , Juan Estrada , Erez Etzion , Guillermo Fernandez-Moroni , Nathan Saffold

show 2 more authors

Miguel Sofo-Haro Javier Tiffenberg

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.IM PACS 29.40.Wk29.30.Hs

keywords epithermalneutrondetectorlunarwaterdetectionboron-10conversionlayersiliconimagerpolyethylenemoderatorspectroscopyroverpayloadin-situresourceutilization

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

Most lunar water maps come from orbiters that average over tens of kilometers; this paper proposes a palm-sized detector that could see water at rover scale. Its central claim is that a silicon imager coated with a 3-micrometer layer of boron-10, surrounded by 2.5 cm of polyethylene, can count epithermal neutrons — the component of the lunar neutron field most sensitive to subsurface hydrogen — at about 3 counts per second on a 10 cm² sensor, and read that count rate as a water abundance. Simulations place the detection floor near 0.01 wt% H2O within a 15-minute exposure, at a budget of roughly 230 g and 1.6 W, inside the payload envelope of a CubeRover-class platform. If those numbers hold, a rover could map water at 60-meter ground bins without excavation, giving ground truth to orbital measurements. The claim stands on an empirical relation fitted to orbital Lunar Prospector data, and that is the assumption that would need checking at the local scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 10B(n,α)7Li capture reaction staged in a thin boron film on a fully-depleted silicon imager. A neutron absorbed in the film produces an α particle and a 7Li ion emitted back-to-back with roughly 1 MeV total kinetic energy; either ion, entering the silicon, leaves an extremely dense ionization cloud whose plasma-effect topology — a large, round charge cluster — is distinct from muon, beta, and X-ray events, giving neutron identification with built-in background rejection. Around that core the design adds two passive elements: a polyethylene sleeve that slows epithermal neutrons toward the rising 1/v capture cross-section of boron, and a cadmium filter that su

What would settle it

Take the exact 10 cm² stack — 3 μm of boron-10 on a silicon imager, 2.5 cm polyethylene, 1 mm cadmium — and place it over a lunar-regolith simulant bed with known, uniformly mixed water content across 0.001 to 1 wt%, illuminated by a well-characterized neutron source. If the measured count-rate suppression does not follow Eq. (3.1) with parameters 1.01, 28.28, 0.87 at this local scale, the 0.01 wt% sensitivity claim fails. A flight alternative: compare a rover-mounted unit's water maps against drill-core ground truth at a site already characterized by orbital data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that a mature terrestrial detector — a fully-depleted silicon imager with a boron-10 conversion layer, previously used for thermal and ultracold neutron imaging — can be re-tuned for epithermal neutrons and reach sensitivity useful for lunar prospecting. Simulations with MCNPX show that a 3 μm boron film maximizes the probability that the capture products (α and 7Li) reach the silicon, that 2.5 cm of high-density polyethylene moderator improves epithermal detection by up to 150%, and that a 1 mm cadmium shield removes the temperature-sensitive thermal component. The resulting detector achieves ~7% efficiency for 0.4 eV–500 keV neutrons, a dry-regolith count rate of 2

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity estimate assumes the empirical relation between epithermal neutron count rate and H2O weight fraction, fitted from orbital Lunar Prospector data over footprints of hundreds of kilometers, holds unchanged for a rover's local, decimeter-scale measurement at 0.01 wt% water.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 10 cm² payload of roughly 231 g and 1.6 W fits the mass, power, and data budgets of CubeRover-class lunar rovers, turning water prospecting into a secondary-payload science mission.
On a rover moving at 15 km/h, a single 15-minute integration covers about 4 km of traverse, so hydrogen-rich deposits could be mapped at scales orbital instruments cannot resolve.
A detection floor of 0.01 wt% H2O would let missions ground-truth orbital neutron and infrared detections and choose extraction sites before committing to drills or excavation.
Because the epithermal signal stays stable across temperature (≤3% variation over 100–400 K) and under dry overburden up to ~50 g/cm², the instrument reads buried water without digging.
The modular design tiles onto larger rovers: multiple 6U-sized units increase active area and count rate, scaling sensitivity proportionally.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not re-derive or rescale Eq. (3.1) for a rover's decimeter-scale footprint; if local regolith heterogeneity, roughness, or rover self-shadowing alters the suppression-versus-water relation, the 0.01 wt% floor could shift. A calibration on lunar simulant with known water content would settle this before flight.
Its efficiency accounting counts only α particles that reach the silicon; the 7Li branch and interleaved or multi-sided boron coatings would add events, so the simulated 2.7 cps is likely a conservative floor rather than a ceiling.
The same frames that record neutron blobs also record muons, betas, and X-rays with distinct topologies, so the instrument could double as a radiation-environment monitor on crewed Artemis missions without extra hardware.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read the paper. The core idea is sound and worth knowing: a boron-coated silicon imager with polyethylene moderation for epithermal neutron detection on a lunar rover, extending prior work on thermal and ultracold neutron imaging. The simulation work on boron film thickness (3 μm optimal) and moderator thickness (2.5 cm) is straightforward and credible. The MCNPX setup, use of ENDF/B-VII.1 cross sections, and the stepwise efficiency calculation are all clearly presented. The packaging concept (CIS-120 CMOS, mass/power budget for CubeRover-class) is realistic and useful for mission planners. The paper is honest about being a proof-of-concept, not a flight design.

Now the soft spots, in proportion:

1. The headline claim is wrong. The abstract and conclusion claim sensitivity to 0.01 wt% H2O with 15-minute integrations. But the paper's own Eq. (3.1) and Eq. (4.2) don't support that. Plugging w=1e-4 into Eq. (3.1) gives a count-rate change of about 0.0017 cps on a 2.7 cps baseline. Over 900 s, the SNR is ~0.03, not >5. You need w≈0.01 (1 wt%) to get SNR>8 in 5 minutes. So the headline is a factor-of-100 overstatement in concentration. This isn't a subtle error; it's a load-bearing arithmetic inconsistency. The body text (Sec. 4.3 and Fig. 8) correctly says 0.01 weight fraction, but the abstract and conclusion misread that as 0.01 wt%. That's a genuine internal contradiction.

2. The extrapolation of Eq. (3.1) from orbital footprints (hundreds of km) to rover-scale decimeter measurements is not discussed. The empirical relation from Lawrence et al. assumes a large-area average. Whether it holds locally on the Moon, where regolith layering and composition vary, is an open question. This is a modeling uncertainty, not an error, but it should be flagged in the paper.

3. The simulation has a geometry mismatch: the efficiency curves were generated with a 100 cm × 100 cm detector for moderator optimization, but the sensitivity calculation uses 10 cm². For small detectors, edge effects and moderator wrapping matter. This could bias the 2.7 cps estimate.

4. No experimental validation. That's fine for a concept paper, but the strength of the claims should reflect that. A clear statement that this is a simulated sensitivity, not a measured one, would help.

The citation pattern is honest; the paper builds on prior boron-coated silicon work and cites it. No sign of overclaiming novelty beyond what's reasonable for an application study.

Who is this for? Instrument scientists working on planetary neutron detectors, mission architects, and anyone scoping low-power payloads for lunar rovers. The concept is plausible and the packaging study is useful. But the 0.01 wt% claim must be corrected before serious consideration.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The central concept is not fatally flawed; it needs a major claim revision and an explicit discussion of scale extrapolation. A good referee would catch the arithmetic and ask for a corrected figure.

My two cents: cite it if you're writing about compact neutron detectors, but don't quote the sensitivity without checking the numbers.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a compact epithermal neutron counter for lunar water detection based on a 10B-coated silicon imager surrounded by a polyethylene moderator and a cadmium filter. The authors use MCNPX simulations to optimize the boron film thickness (3 μm) and moderator thickness (2.5 cm), and they derive a detector count rate of 2.7 cps for a 10 cm² active area. They then combine this rate with an empirical relation from Lunar Prospector data (Eq. 3.1) to project SNR for various H2O weight fractions and exposure times. The paper claims in the abstract and conclusion that the detector reaches 0.01 wt% H2O sensitivity in a 15-minute (or 5-minute) measurement, and discusses packaging and rover integration.

Significance. If the projection were valid, a low-power solid-state epithermal neutron counter would be a useful complement to orbital and rover instruments. The paper's strengths are its clear design rationale, systematic simulation of boron-layer and moderator thickness, angular-response weighting, and a concrete packaging concept with mass/power/data budgets. The technology is demonstrated in related work and the extension to epithermal neutrons is plausible. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the paper's own equations: the stated 0.01 wt% sensitivity is a factor of 100 better than the SNR calculation yields. The empirical relation from orbital data also needs justification at rover scale. With a corrected claim of ~1 wt% sensitivity, the paper would be a modest instrument study, not the transformative capability advertised.

major comments (4)

[Abstract, Conclusion, Sec. 4.3 (Eq. 4.2)] This is the main issue. With w = 10^-4 (0.01 wt%), Eq. (3.1) gives C_epi(w)/C_epi(0) ≈ 1.0006, so ΔC ≈ 0.0017 cps for C0 = 2.7 cps. Eq. (4.2) then yields SNR ≈ 0.03 for T = 900 s (and ≈0.02 for T = 300 s). The same equations give SNR ≈ 9.5 for w = 0.01 (1 wt%) at T = 300 s. Thus the body text (Sec. 4.3, Fig. 8) supports ~1 wt%, not 0.01 wt%. The abstract, Sec. 5, and conclusion repeat the 0.01 wt% claim, making it an explicit false headline. This error is load-bearing: the stated capability is unattainable with the presented design.
[Sec. 3, Eq. (3.1)] The orbital LP-NS empirical relation is used as a universal conversion between H2O weight fraction and epithermal neutron suppression. The LP-NS count rate includes its own detector response and a hundreds-of-kilometer footprint; the paper does not demonstrate that the same ratio applies to a local rover measurement with a 10 cm² sensor and a 2.5 cm moderator. The authors do not simulate the neutron transport in the regolith and to the detector for varying H2O content. Without such a test (e.g., MCNPX of a local soil slab with w = 0.1–2 wt%), the absolute sensitivity projection is an unsupported extrapolation.
[Sec. 4.2.2, Eq. (4.1)] The detection efficiency ε(E_n) used in Eq. (4.1) is obtained from simulations of a 100 cm × 100 cm sensor with a pencil beam directed at its center, yet the count rate is projected for A_det = 10 cm². The moderator dimensions and edge effects are very different at the 10 cm² scale. The authors should use a detector geometry representative of the actual 10 cm² package (e.g., a few cm × few cm sensor inside 2.5 cm HDPE) and re-compute ε(E_n) and C_epi(0). This directly affects all SNR values.
[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (4.2)] The SNR formula treats the neutron count as the only source of noise. The paper claims that the plasma-effect topology suppresses backgrounds, but no background rate is estimated for gammas, charged particles, or thermal neutrons leaking through the Cd filter. On the lunar surface, these backgrounds are not negligible; a quantitative background model is required before claiming a detection limit. At the very least, the current projection is an upper bound.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (3.1)] a=1.01 makes the ratio at w=0 equal to 1.01; define R(w)=C_epi(w)/C_epi(0) explicitly with R(0)=1 or explain the normalization.
[Sec. 4.2.2] The stated '100cm×100cm cross-sectional area' is inconsistent with the 10 cm² detector used elsewhere; if intentional, clarify, if a typo, correct.
[Abstract and Conclusion] '0.01 wt%' should be '1 wt%' if the body's w=0.01 is meant; the current wording is ambiguous and is the source of the major error.
[Fig. 8] The x-axis label 'Weight Fraction (H2O)' should state whether the values are dimensionless fractions or percent to avoid unit confusion.
[References] Reference [3] is missing the journal name (Nature).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the sensitivity projection is a forward calculation from an external empirical calibration and simulated detector efficiency.

full rationale

The central sensitivity claim follows a forward chain: the detector efficiency is obtained from MCNPX simulations (Figs. 6-7) using standard cross-section libraries; the lunar epithermal neutron flux and the water-suppression relation C_epi(w)/C_epi(0) = a/(1 + b w^c) are taken from the external Lunar Prospector analysis of Lawrence et al. (Ref. [15]); and Eq. (4.2) is a Poisson SNR formula with T fixed by the assumed exposure. No parameter in the detector model is fitted to the water-sensitivity endpoint, and the 0.01 wt% claim is not an input to Eqs. (3.1) or (4.2). The prior boron-coated CCD/CMOS demonstrations cited ([10], [11]) are technology heritage, not load-bearing evidence for the water detection limit. Self-citations are present but none substitutes for the independent calibration or the simulation results. The apparent discrepancy between the abstract's '0.01 wt%' and the w = 0.01 (1 wt%) shown in Fig. 8 is an internal arithmetic/unit inconsistency, not a circular reduction: the derivation does not assume its own conclusion. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-chain circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central sensitivity claim rests on several design choices (boron and moderator thickness, detector area) and, most importantly, on an external empirical calibration (Eq. 3.1) that the paper does not validate at the relevant spatial scale. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Boron film thickness = 3 um
Chosen as optimal from MCNPX simulations (Fig. 6b) to maximize alpha detection efficiency; central to the detector performance.
Polyethylene moderator thickness = 2.5 cm
Chosen from MCNPX simulations (Fig. 7a) to enhance epithermal neutron detection; directly affects the count rate.
Empirical fit parameters for C_epi(w) = a=1.01, b=28.28, c=0.87
Fitted to Lunar Prospector data in Ref. [15] and used in Eq. (3.1) to convert a measured count rate to H2O weight fraction; the sensitivity claim depends entirely on this external calibration.
Detector active area = 10 cm^2
Design choice used in Eq. (4.1); the count rate scales linearly with this area.

assumptions (5)

standard math 10B(n,alpha)7Li cross sections from ENDF/B-VII.1 are accurate for the energy range of interest
Invoked in Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 5 as the basis for MCNPX simulations.
domain assumption The lunar epithermal neutron flux and angular distribution at the poles follow the digitized model of Ref. [15]
Used in Sec. 3 (Fig. 2) and Eq. (4.1) as the environmental input; uncertainty in this flux directly affects the absolute count rate.
domain assumption The empirical relation C_epi(w) = C_epi(0) * a/(1 + b w^c) (Eq. 3.1) remains valid at rover scales and low water content
Fitted to orbital LP-NS data in Ref. [15]; the paper assumes it applies to a 10 cm^2 rover measurement without validation, which is the weakest structural assumption in the sensitivity claim.
standard math Poisson statistics for the background count: variance = C_epi(w=0) * T
Used in Eq. (4.2) for the SNR calculation; reasonable for counting experiments.
domain assumption The silicon imager's charge collection and plasma effect behave in the lunar environment as modeled
The detection topology and efficiency rely on laboratory-proven silicon behavior (Refs. [10,11,12]) but are not re-tested for the lunar thermal/radiation environment.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A compact, low-power epithermal neutron counter for lunar water detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQW5XZHM

@misc{pith2026250904367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A compact, low-power epithermal neutron counter for lunar water detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQW5XZHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04367}
}

abstract

The detection and characterization of lunar water are critical for enabling sustainable human and robotic exploration of the Moon. Orbital neutron spectrometers, such as instruments on Lunar Prospector and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, have revealed hydrogen-rich regions near the poles but are limited by coarse spatial resolution and low counting efficiency. We present a compact, lightweight, and low-power epithermal neutron detector based on boron-coated silicon imagers, designed to probe subsurface hydrogen at decimeter scales from mobile platforms such as lunar rovers. This instrument leverages the high neutron capture cross-section of $^{10}$B to convert epithermal neutrons into detectable $\alpha$ and $^{7}$Li ions in a fully-depleted silicon imager, providing a unique event topology to identify neutrons while suppressing backgrounds. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that a 3 $\mu$m boron layer achieves optimal neutron detection efficiency, further enhanced with polyethylene moderation to improve sensitivity to the 0.4 eV-500 keV epithermal energy range. For a 10 cm$^2$ active area, the detector achieves sensitivity to H$_2$O weight fractions as low as 0.01 wt % in a 15 minute measurement. This scalable, portable, low-mass design is well-suited for integration into upcoming Artemis and commercial lunar rovers, providing a transformative capability for in-situ resource prospecting and ground-truth validation of orbital measurements.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Urey.The Planets: Their Origin and Development

Harold C. Urey.The Planets: Their Origin and Development. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1952

work page 1952
[2]

Murray, and Harrison Brown

Kenneth Watson, Bruce C. Murray, and Harrison Brown. The behavior of volatiles on the lunar surface. Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 66(9):3033–3045, 1961

work page 1977
[3]

Saal, Erik H

Alberto E. Saal, Erik H. Hauri, Mauro L. Cascio, James A. Van Orman, Malcolm C. Rutherford, and Reid F. Cooper. Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the moon’s interior. 454(7201):192–195

work page
[4]

Nozette, C

S. Nozette, C. L. Lichtenberg, P. Spudis, R. Bonner, W. Ort, E. Malaret, M. Robinson, and E. M. Shoemaker. The clementine bistatic radar experiment.Science, 274(5292):1495–1498, 1996

work page 1996
[5]

W. C. Feldman, S. Maurice, A. B. Binder, B. L. Barraclough, R. C. Elphic, and D. J. Lawrence. Fluxes of fast and epithermal neutrons from lunar prospector: Evidence for water ice at the lunar poles. Science, 281(5382):1496–1500, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

C. M. Pieters, J. N. Goswami, R. N. Clark, M. Annadurai, J. Boardman, B. Buratti, J.-P. Combe, M.D.Dyar, R.Green, J.W.Head, C.Hibbitts,M.Hicks, P.Isaacson,R.Klima, G.Kramer, S.Kumar, E. Livo, S. Lundeen, E. Malaret, T. McCord, J. Mustard, J. Nettles, N. Petro, C. Runyon, M. Staid, J. Sunshine, L. A. Taylor, S. Tompkins, and P. Varanasi. Character and spat...

work page 2009
[7]

I. G. Mitrofanov, A. B. Sanin, W. V. Boynton, G. Chin, J. B. Garvin, D. Golovin, L. G. Evans, K. Harshman, A. S. Kozyrev, M. L. Litvak, A. Malakhov, E. Mazarico, T. McClanahan, G. Milikh, M. Mokrousov, G. Nandikotkur, G. A. Neumann, I. Nuzhdin, R. Sagdeev, V. Shevchenko, V. Shvetsov, D. E. Smith, R. Starr, V. I. Tretyakov, J. Trombka, D. Usikov, A. Vareni...

work page 2010
[8]

Elphic, David Goldstein, Dustin Summy, Gwendolyn D

Anthony Colaprete, Peter Schultz, Jennifer Heldmann, Diane Wooden, Mark Shirley, Kimberly Ennico, Brendan Hermalyn, William Marshall, Antonio Ricco, Richard C. Elphic, David Goldstein, Dustin Summy, Gwendolyn D. Bart, Erik Asphaug, Don Korycansky, David Landis, and Luke Sollitt. Detection of water in the lcross ejecta plume.Science, 330(6003):463–468, 2010

work page 2010

Show all 33 references

[9]

Trautner, S

R. Trautner, S. J. Barber, R. Fisackerly, D. Heather, B. Houdou, C. Howe, S. Iacobellis, M. Leese, A. Mariani, G. Meogrossi, N. Murray, C. Panza, P. Reiss, A. Rusconi, F. Abernethy, N. Cann, H. Chinnery, C. Gscheidle, P. Landsberg, R. Lindner, A. D. Morse, J. Mortimer, L. Nico...

2024
[10]

Development of a novel neutron detection technique by using a boron layer coating a Charge Coupled Device.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1408.3263, August 2014

JuanJerónimoBlostein,JuanEstrada,AurelianoTartaglione,MiguelSofoHaro,GuillermoFernández Moroni, and Gustavo Cancelo. Development of a novel neutron detection technique by using a boron layer coating a Charge Coupled Device.arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1408.3263, August 2014

2014 arXiv
[11]

K. Kuk, C. Cude-Woods, C.R. Chavez, J.H. Choi, J. Estrada, M. Hoffbauer, S.E. Holland, M. Makela, C.L. Morris, E. Ramberg, E.R. Adamek, T. Bailey, M. Blatnik, L.J. Broussard, M.A.-P. Brown, N.B. Callahan, S.M. Clayton, S. Currie, B.W. Filippone, E.M. Fries, P. Geltenbort, F. G...

2021
[12]

Estrada, J

J. Estrada, J. Molina, J.J. Blostein, and G. Fernández. Plasma effect in silicon charge coupled devices (ccds). Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 665:90–93, 2011

2011
[13]

Thermal neutron detector based on cots cmos imagers and a conversion layer containing gadolinium

Martín Pérez, Juan Jerónimo Blostein, Fabricio Alcalde Bessia, Aureliano Tartaglione, Iván Sidelnik, Miguel Sofo Haro, Sergio Suárez, Melisa Lucía Gimenez, Mariano Gómez Berisso, and Jose Lipovetzky. Thermal neutron detector based on cots cmos imagers and a conversion layer co...

2018
[14]

Pérez, E.D

M. Pérez, E.D. Martínez, J. Lipovetzky, J. Marín, M. Sofo-Haro, F. Alcalde Bessia, M. Gómez Berisso, and J.J. Blostein. High spatial resolution neutron detection technique based on commercial off-the-shelf CMOS image sensors covered with NaGdF_4 nanoparticles.Journal of Instru...

2021
[15]

Lawrence, W

David J. Lawrence, W. C. Feldman, R. C. Elphic, J. J. Hagerty, S. Maurice, G. W. McKinney, and T. H. Prettyman. Improved modeling of lunar prospector neutron spectrometer data: Implications for hydrogen deposits at the lunar poles.Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 111(...

2006
[16]

Thomas, MalcolmJ

Bob D’Mellow, DavidJ. Thomas, MalcolmJ. Joyce, PeterKolkowski, Neil J.Roberts, and StephenD. Monk. The replacement of cadmium as a thermal neutron filter.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipm...

2007
[17]

Integral equations governing radiation effects

J Lindhard, V Nielsen, M Scharff, and P V Thomsen. Integral equations governing radiation effects. (notes on atomic collisions, iii).Kgl. Danske Videnskab., Selskab. Mat. Fys. Medd., 33(10), 1 1963

1963
[18]

A. E. Chavarria, J. I. Collar, J. R. Peña, P. Privitera, A. E. Robinson, B. Scholz, C. Sengul, J. Zhou, J. Estrada, F. Izraelevitch, J. Tiffenberg, J. R. T. de Mello Neto, and D. Torres Machado. Measurement of the ionization produced by sub-kev silicon nuclear recoils in a ccd...

2016
[19]

R. O. Lane, A. J. Elwyn, and A. Langsdorf. Polarization and differential cross section for neutron scattering from silicon.Phys. Rev., 126:1105–1111, May 1962

1962
[20]

Pelowitz

Denise B. Pelowitz. Mcnpx user’s manual, version 2.7.0. Technical Report LA-CP-11-00438, Los Alamos National Laboratory, April 2011. MCNPX 2.7.0 User’s Manual

2011
[21]

Chadwick, M

M.B. Chadwick, M. Herman, P. Obložinský, M.E. Dunn, Y. Danon, A.C. Kahler, D.L. Smith, B. Pritychenko, G. Arbanas, R. Arcilla, R. Brewer, D.A. Brown, R. Capote, A.D. Carlson, Y.S. Cho, H. Derrien, K.H. Guber, G.M. Hale, S. Hoblit, S. Holloway, T.D. Johnson, T. Kawano, B.C. Kie...

2011
[22]

Hale and P.G

G.M. Hale and P.G. Young. Endf/b-vii.1 evaluation for10b (mat=525, mf=3). Technical report, Los – 16 – Alamos National Laboratory, April 2006. Evaluated Apr 2006, distributed Dec 2006, retrieved from NNDC July 2025

2006
[23]

Artemis program overview, 2025

NASA. Artemis program overview, 2025. Accessed: 2025-08-05

2025
[24]

Lunar terrain vehicle (ltv) overview, 2024

NASA. Lunar terrain vehicle (ltv) overview, 2024. Accessed: 2025-08-05

2024
[25]

Chang’e 8 lunar mission overview, 2025

China National Space Administration. Chang’e 8 lunar mission overview, 2025. Accessed: 2025-08-05

2025
[26]

Lunar polar exploration mission (lupex) overview, 2025

JAXA and ISRO. Lunar polar exploration mission (lupex) overview, 2025. Accessed: 2025-08-05

2025
[27]

International lunar research station (ilrs) program, 2025

CNSA and Roscosmos. International lunar research station (ilrs) program, 2025. Accessed: 2025-08-05

2025
[28]

Teleoperation of lunar rovers for artemis missions, 2024

NASA. Teleoperation of lunar rovers for artemis missions, 2024. Accessed: 2025-08-05

2024
[29]

Technical note: Si detectors for high energy particles, 2025

Hamamatsu Photonics. Technical note: Si detectors for high energy particles, 2025

2025
[30]

Nicole Apadula, Whitney Armstrong, James Brau, Martin Breidenbach, R. Caputo, Gabriella Carinii, Alberto Collu, Marcel Demarteau, Grzegorz Deptuch, Angelo Dragone, Gabriele Giacomini, Carl Grace, Norman Graf, Leo Greiner, Ryan Herbst, Gunther Haller, Manoj Jadhav, Sylvester Jo...

2022 arXiv
[31]

Cuberover

Astrobotic Technologies, Inc. Cuberover. https://www.astrobotic.com/lunar-delivery/rovers/cuberover/. Accessed: 2025-08-06

2025
[32]

K.L.DonaldsonHanna, N.E.Bowles, C.S.Edwards, B.L.Ehlmann, B.T.Greenhagen, P.O.Hayne, R. L. Klima, P. G. Lucey, D. A. Paige, and C. M. Pieters. Mapping the Composition of the Moon Using Thermal IR Spectroscopy: Current and Future Observations. InAGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, volu...

2019
[33]

I. G. Mitrofanov, A. B. Sanin, W. V. Boynton, G. Chin, L. G. Evans, D. Golovin, M. L. Litvak, A. Malakhov, M. I. Mokrousov, and S. Nikiforov. Lend results: Lunar polar hydrogen mapping. Science, 330:483–486, 2010. – 17 –

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Urey.The Planets: Their Origin and Development

Harold C. Urey.The Planets: Their Origin and Development. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1952

work page 1952

[2] [2]

Murray, and Harrison Brown

Kenneth Watson, Bruce C. Murray, and Harrison Brown. The behavior of volatiles on the lunar surface. Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977), 66(9):3033–3045, 1961

work page 1977

[3] [3]

Saal, Erik H

Alberto E. Saal, Erik H. Hauri, Mauro L. Cascio, James A. Van Orman, Malcolm C. Rutherford, and Reid F. Cooper. Volatile content of lunar volcanic glasses and the presence of water in the moon’s interior. 454(7201):192–195

work page

[4] [4]

Nozette, C

S. Nozette, C. L. Lichtenberg, P. Spudis, R. Bonner, W. Ort, E. Malaret, M. Robinson, and E. M. Shoemaker. The clementine bistatic radar experiment.Science, 274(5292):1495–1498, 1996

work page 1996

[5] [5]

W. C. Feldman, S. Maurice, A. B. Binder, B. L. Barraclough, R. C. Elphic, and D. J. Lawrence. Fluxes of fast and epithermal neutrons from lunar prospector: Evidence for water ice at the lunar poles. Science, 281(5382):1496–1500, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [6]

C. M. Pieters, J. N. Goswami, R. N. Clark, M. Annadurai, J. Boardman, B. Buratti, J.-P. Combe, M.D.Dyar, R.Green, J.W.Head, C.Hibbitts,M.Hicks, P.Isaacson,R.Klima, G.Kramer, S.Kumar, E. Livo, S. Lundeen, E. Malaret, T. McCord, J. Mustard, J. Nettles, N. Petro, C. Runyon, M. Staid, J. Sunshine, L. A. Taylor, S. Tompkins, and P. Varanasi. Character and spat...

work page 2009

[7] [7]

I. G. Mitrofanov, A. B. Sanin, W. V. Boynton, G. Chin, J. B. Garvin, D. Golovin, L. G. Evans, K. Harshman, A. S. Kozyrev, M. L. Litvak, A. Malakhov, E. Mazarico, T. McClanahan, G. Milikh, M. Mokrousov, G. Nandikotkur, G. A. Neumann, I. Nuzhdin, R. Sagdeev, V. Shevchenko, V. Shvetsov, D. E. Smith, R. Starr, V. I. Tretyakov, J. Trombka, D. Usikov, A. Vareni...

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Elphic, David Goldstein, Dustin Summy, Gwendolyn D

Anthony Colaprete, Peter Schultz, Jennifer Heldmann, Diane Wooden, Mark Shirley, Kimberly Ennico, Brendan Hermalyn, William Marshall, Antonio Ricco, Richard C. Elphic, David Goldstein, Dustin Summy, Gwendolyn D. Bart, Erik Asphaug, Don Korycansky, David Landis, and Luke Sollitt. Detection of water in the lcross ejecta plume.Science, 330(6003):463–468, 2010

work page 2010