Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 101 references

The paper reports that the Moon's exospheric sodium brightness increases non-linearly with solar EUV/FUV photon flux above 8.8 eV, contradicting the linear photon-stimulated desorption model.

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 ↗

Lunar exospheric sodium emission rises non-linearly with solar EUV photon flux between 8.8 and 48.5 eV, contradicting the linear photon-stimulated desorption model.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely new simultaneous dataset linking lunar Na brightness to solar EUV, but the headline non-linear PSD claim is under-supported by the statistics as presented. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05644 v1 pith:7IJOFW2O submitted 2025-09-06 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Non-Linear Solar EUV-Driven Sodium Release from the Lunar Surface: A Contrast to the Linear PSD Model

A Devaraj , S Narendranath , Sreeja S Kartha , M Sarantos , Akhil Krishna R , Blesson Mathew , T Sivarani , S Nidhi
show 2 more authors
P Anbazhagan G Selvakumar
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR
keywords lunar exospheresodiumphoton-stimulated desorptionEUVextreme ultravioletspace weatheringsolar EUV fluxMoon
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 reading

The paper argues that sunlight in the extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) and far-ultraviolet (FUV) range, at photon energies above 8.8 eV, releases sodium from the lunar surface through photon-stimulated desorption (PSD), and that the amount released grows non-linearly with the incoming photon flux. This contradicts the established linear PSD model, which predicts a direct proportionality. The authors base this on simultaneous measurements of sodium line brightness in the lunar exosphere and solar EUV/FUV photon flux over five nights near first quarter in early 2024. If correct, the result would require a revised PSD model above 8.8 eV and better laboratory constraints on the PSD cross-section in the EUV, and it would strengthen the case that EUV radiation contributes to the Moon's tenuous sodium atmosphere and its escaping sodium tail.

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the total sodium D-line brightness in the lunar exosphere (the sum of Na I D2 and D1 fluxes) increases with solar EUV/FUV photon flux according to a power-law relation, Phi_Na = A * Phi_EUV^alpha + B, with alpha > 1 in the wavelength range 256-1405 Å, instead of the linear relation Phi_PSD proportional to Phi_EUV predicted by the current PSD model. The authors identify the 256-304 Å band (photon energies ~40-48 eV) as the dominant contributor, and report a positive correlation with solar NUV flux as well. They also measure exospheric temperatures averaging ~6700 K and scale heights ~1500 km, and a zenith column density around 3.3×10^9 atoms/cm^2, which t

What carries the argument

The central object is the empirical power-law fit Phi_Na = A * Phi_EUV^alpha + B (Equation 1), where Phi_Na is the exospheric sodium line flux, Phi_EUV is the solar EUV/FUV photon flux in a given GOES-EUVS band, alpha is the 'growth factor' measuring non-linearity, and A and B are constants. The paper contrasts this with the linear PSD relation of Wurz et al. (2022) (Equation 4), which takes the released sodium flux to be proportional to photon flux through a constant cross-section. The comparison of alpha across the six wavelength channels (256, 284, 304, 1175, 1335, 1405 Å), combined with simultaneous ground-based spectroscopy of the Na D lines, is the mechanism that carries the argument.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed correlation between declining solar EUV flux and declining sodium brightness over the five nights is a causal, flux-driven desorption response rather than two independent time trends that happen to overlap—an assumption that is stressed because the photon flux varied by only about 22% while the sodium flux varied by about a factor of 2.2.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a night on which the EUV flux changes abruptly (for example, during the impulsive phase of a solar flare or a lunar eclipse when the Sun is partially occulted) while the sodium line is being observed with minute-cadence spectroscopy; if the sodium brightness tracks the EUV flux with the same power-law exponent as Equation 1, the non-linear claim is supported, whereas if the sodium brightness scales linearly with the flare's EUV enhancement, the linear PSD model holds. Alternatively, laboratory measurements of the Na PSD cross-section at 40-48 eV on lunar simulant subst

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

If this is right

  • Current linear PSD models for the Moon's sodium exosphere would need revision above 8.8 eV, with an energy-dependent or flux-dependent yield.
  • EUV photons, which carry enough energy to break mineral bonds, could release sodium not only from the adsorbate layer but also from mineral-bound sites, connecting PSD to space weathering.
  • EUV-driven PSD could contribute to the higher-altitude and gravitationally escaping sodium population, not just the low-altitude adsorbate release.
  • NUV photons (2000-4000 Å), previously thought to cause little desorption, show a positive correlation with sodium brightness, opening a wider range of solar radiation as a driver.
  • Solar flares and heightened activity, by increasing EUV flux, would produce measurable enhancements in lunar exospheric sodium temperatures and densities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-linearity is real, a testable prediction is that during a sudden EUV enhancement (e.g., a flare) the sodium brightness should respond within the desorption timescale, following the same power-law index; a null or linear response would falsify the non-linear claim.
  • The apparent non-linearity could instead be the signature of two superimposed linear sources (PSD plus a second process such as sputtering or thermal desorption whose relative weight changes over the observed period); disentangling them requires simultaneous solar-wind and micrometeoroid measurements.
  • Because the six GOES channels are strongly collinear, the claim that 256-304 Å dominates cannot be separated from a general trend of declining solar activity; observations spanning a wider range of EUV flux (e.g., across a solar cycle or during a flare eclipse) would test the band-specific attribution.
  • If EUV PSD releases mineral-bound sodium, then the same mechanism should operate on other airless bodies like Mercury, where a similar EUV-driven sodium enhancement might be observable with BepiColombo.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents high-resolution VBT Echelle spectroscopy of the lunar Na D lines on five nights in January-March 2024, together with GOES-EUVS photon fluxes in six bands (256-1405 Å) and TSIS-1 NUV irradiance. It reports a non-linear increase of Na line flux with EUV/FUV photon flux (Eq. 1: Phi_Na = A Phi_EUV^alpha + B), with growth factors alpha varying across wavelengths, and claims that EUV radiation above 10 eV drives sodium release with 256-304 Å as the dominant contributor, in contrast to the linear PSD model of Wurz et al. (2022). Column densities, characteristic temperatures, and scale heights are derived and compared with literature. The paper concludes that the PSD model needs revision above 8.8 eV and improved constraints on the PSD cross-section in the EUV range.

Significance. If the super-linear scaling were established, the result would be an important empirical constraint on photon-stimulated desorption in the EUV range and would motivate new laboratory measurements; the authors also provide a useful simultaneous dataset of lunar exosphere and solar irradiance observations. The paper's strengths include the use of high-resolution spectra with careful solar-scatter removal, attention to g-value and Sun-Moon distance corrections, and consistency checks such as the D2/D1 line ratios. However, as detailed in the major comments, the central non-linearity claim is not yet supported by the statistical analysis and is vulnerable to known confounders. The paper is therefore of interest but requires substantial revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text states that the Pearson and Spearman tests were performed on 'daily averaged I_total', yet the reported p-values (Pearson 3.31e-4, Spearman 5.28e-6) are not achievable with n=5 daily averages. For n=5 and r=0.834, the two-sided Pearson p-value is about 0.08, not 3.31e-4; the quoted p-values correspond to treating the 13 sub-exposures in Table 1 as independent. The 13 spectra are clustered within five nights, so this overstates the significance. Please report the analysis unit, account for within-night clustering (e.g., mixed-effects model or daily averages with n=5), and give exact p-values for both choices.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (1) and Figure 5] The central non-linearity claim rests on the exponent alpha in Eq. (1), but the fitted parameters A, B, and alpha are never tabulated, and no uncertainties or goodness-of-fit statistics are reported for any of the six wavelength bands. The reader cannot verify that alpha>1, nor compare the growth factors across wavelengths. Please provide a table of fitted parameters with uncertainties and a formal test of the linear null model (alpha=1) for each band.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Tables 1-2] The EUV range sampled is only about 22% (1.85-2.26e9 cm^-2 s^-1 at 256 Å) while Na flux varies by a factor of about 2.2 over five nights. Table 1 shows phase angle changing from 82.9 to 96.5 degrees and illumination from 43% to 55%; Section 4.2 states that this phase-angle variation corresponds to a change in Nzen of 7.9e8 atoms cm^-2, which is about 25% of the full observed Nzen range. Table 2 shows within-night D2 flux changing from 3.27 to 4.26 kR (MJD 60356.578 to 60356.614) while the 256 Å flux changes by less than 0.1%. A linear PSD source modulated by a slowly varying geometric/illumination factor can therefore masquerade as alpha>1 in a cross-night fit of Eq. (1). Please model or remove the phase/illumination dependence and test the correlation on within-night residuals.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Figure 5] The six GOES-EUVS channels are mutually collinear over the five nights, so the claim that the 256-304 Å wavelengths are the dominant contributors and the ranking of growth factors in Figure 5 cannot be established from single-channel correlations. The differences in alpha across bands may simply reflect the common declining solar trend. Please provide a multivariate analysis (e.g., partial correlations, principal components, or a multi-band fit) or explicitly acknowledge that wavelength attribution is unresolved with the present data.
  5. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] The g-values used to convert observed brightness to column density are derived from a linear fit to values for temperatures from 500 K to 5500 K, taken from Berezhnoy et al. (2023). However, Table 3 includes characteristic temperatures of 9789 K and 15198 K, which are extrapolations beyond the calibrated range. The resulting Nzen values and the statement in Section 4.2 that the non-linear correlation 'remains evident' in Figure 6 are therefore not secure. Please restrict the analysis to the calibrated temperature range, propagate the fit uncertainty into Nzen, or justify the extrapolation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The claim that NUV flux and FNa are positively correlated is based on only four daily points (TSIS-1 data are missing for 16 February 2024), and no correlation coefficient or test statistic is reported. Please label this as a preliminary trend and provide the supporting statistic.
  2. [Section 3] The final reduced spectra are said to have 'spectral dispersion of ~0.02 arcsec per pixel'. This is presumably a typo for Angstroms per pixel; please correct.
  3. [Section 4.1] The statement that 'a higher deviation from linearity indicates a greater contribution from other non-thermal processes, such as sputtering' is speculative and is later contradicted by the lack of correlation with solar-wind parameters (Section 5). This inference needs to be toned down or supported by a quantitative model.
  4. [Figure 5] The figure shows fitted curves but no error bars on the data points or the fits. Given that Eq. (1) has three free parameters and the data are sparse, error bars and confidence bands are essential for evaluating the fits.
  5. [Data availability] The data are said to be available 'on reasonable request'. For a claim of this significance, please consider including at least the fitted parameters and residuals, or making the reduced spectra available, to allow reproduction of the correlations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the EUV–Na correlation is an empirical fit with external data; the nonlinear exponent is a fitted descriptor rather than a self-derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a statistical correlation between independently acquired GOES-EUVS photon fluxes and VBT Na D-line fluxes, summarized by the power-law fit of Eq. 1. The nonlinear exponent α is a fitted parameter, not an input; the claim that the relation is nonlinear is therefore a description of the data under a chosen model, not a derivation of the conclusion from the conclusion. The comparison with the linear PSD model (Eq. 4, Wurz et al. 2022) is an external benchmark, and the paper does not import a uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors' prior work. Citations to Narendranath et al. (2022) and Sarantos et al. (2012a,b) involve co-authors but are used as supporting context (e.g., regolith Na distribution, Fe I g-value), not as the load-bearing proof of the EUV-PSD scaling. The g-value and column-density corrections use external models (Berezhnoy et al. 2023; Chamberlain 1963). Concerns about the narrow EUV range, collinearity of GOES channels, within-night variability, and possible phase-angle/illumination confounding are real threats to the inference's validity and robustness, but they are not circularity: they do not show that Eq. 1 is identical to Eq. 4 or that any fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction. Under the hard rules, those concerns belong to a correctness/statistical pass, not a circularity finding. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited and the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central result is an observational fit rather than a derivation. It introduces three fitted parameters per wavelength band (alpha, A, B) in Eq. 1 whose values and uncertainties are never tabulated. The g-value calibration for column densities is itself a linear fit to data read off a figure in Berezhnoi et al. (2023) and then extrapolated beyond its range. The interpretation leans on domain assumptions that are stated but not verified: the exosphere is collisionless, MIV and solar wind sputtering contributions are small during the campaign, and six GOES-EUVS line fluxes jointly represent the EUV irradiance reaching the Moon. No new physical entities are introduced; the proposal that EUV above 8.8 eV drives PSD extends an existing mechanism.

free parameters (3)
  • growth factor alpha (per wavelength band) = not tabulated; shown only in Fig. 5
    Exponent in Eq. 1 (Phi_Na = A Phi_EUV^alpha + B). The paper's headline 'non-linear' claim is the statement that this fitted alpha deviates from 1; no uncertainties are reported.
  • scale constant A and offset B (per wavelength band) = not tabulated
    Free constants in Eq. 1; a flexible 3-parameter fit on 13 clustered points can absorb curvature, so the fitted non-linearity depends on these parameters.
  • g-value linear calibration (slope and intercept vs temperature) = not stated; 'a linear fit was applied to this data'
    Section 4.2: g-values read from Fig. 3 of Berezhnoi et al. (2023) at 500-5500 K and linearly extrapolated up to T_ch = 15,198 K for the column density estimates in Table 3.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The lunar exosphere is collisionless, so Doppler-broadened Na line widths yield a representative characteristic temperature (Eq. 3).
    Section 4.3: T_ch treated as kinetic temperature; the paper itself notes atoms deviate from Maxwellian in a collisionless exosphere, so the interpretation is a working approximation.
  • domain assumption Na D-line brightness converts to column density via resonance scattering with a g-value that depends on exospheric temperature and heliocentric radial velocity (Eq. 2).
    Section 4.2: N_los = 10^9 I/g with g-values from a linear fit to Berezhnoi et al. (2023) Fig. 3, valid for optically thin, collisionless exosphere.
  • domain assumption Micrometeorite impact vaporization contributes negligibly during the campaign.
    Section 5: argued from first-quarter geometry (leading side in shadow) and the meteor shower calendar; asserted, not measured.
  • domain assumption Six GOES-EUVS line fluxes (256, 284, 304, 1175, 1335, 1405 A) are a representative proxy for the EUV/FUV solar irradiance reaching the Moon after Sun-Moon distance correction.
    Sections 2.2 and 4.1: all correlations use these channels; because they are collinear, the relative dominance claim for 256-304 A cannot be separated from the data.
  • standard math The baseline linear PSD model (Phi_PSD = (1/4) f Ns Phi_EUV Q, Wurz et al. 2022 Eq. 4) is the correct null hypothesis for sub-EUV PSD.
    Section 5: the paper's 'contrast to the linear PSD model' is a contrast to this cited relation; it is prior literature, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Solar wind sputtering is not driving the observed trend.
    Section 5: OMNI solar wind parameters show no correlation with N_zen within uncertainties; the analysis is coarsely binned and the power to detect an effect is low.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Linear Solar EUV-Driven Sodium Release from the Lunar Surface: A Contrast to the Linear PSD Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IJOFW2O

@misc{pith2026250905644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Linear Solar EUV-Driven Sodium Release from the Lunar Surface: A Contrast to the Linear PSD Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IJOFW2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05644}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The correlation between solar Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) radiation above 8.8 eV and the release of sodium from the lunar surface via photon-stimulated desorption (PSD) is investigated. We use simultaneous measurements of EUV photon flux and Na optical spectral line flux ($F_{Na}$) from the lunar exosphere. Data were acquired with the high-resolution (R$\sim$72000) Echelle Spectrograph on the 2.34-m Vainu Bappu Telescope during the lunar first quarter (January-March 2024), observing $Na\,I$ D2 and D1 flux at altitudes below $\sim590\,km$ from the surface. Simultaneous EUV and FUV measurements were acquired from the GOES-R Series Extreme Ultraviolet Sensor (EUVS), while NUV data were obtained from the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor-1 (TSIS-1) aboard the ISS. We correlated $F_{Na}$ with EUV photon flux from EUVS across six bands spanning $256-1405\,\text{\r{A}}$ (48.5-8.8 eV) and NUV (2000-4000 $\text{\r{A}}$) from TSIS-1. A non-linear rise in lunar exospheric sodium with increasing EUV and FUV fluxes was observed, contrasting with previous linear PSD models. The EUV radiation above 10 eV drives sodium release, with 256-304 $\text{\r{A}}$ wavelengths as dominant contributors. Additionally, the NUV flux and $F_{Na}$ are positively correlated, indicating the role of sodium release. The zenith column density averages $3.3\times10^{9}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$, with Characteristic temperatures averaging at $\sim$6700K and scale heights of $\sim$1500 km. Elevated temperatures and sodium densities during solar activity suggest enhanced Na release during flares. These results emphasize the need for a revised PSD model above 8.8 eV and improved constraints on the PSD cross-section.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05644 by A Devaraj, Akhil Krishna R, Blesson Mathew, G Selvakumar, M Sarantos, P Anbazhagan, S Narendranath, S Nidhi, Sreeja S Kartha, T Sivarani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The output image of the Eastern limb of the Moon from the IDS camera attached to the guide telescope of VBT is shown in the Figure. The X-axis spans 720 pixels (∼ 5 ′ ), and the Y-axis spans 480 pixels (∼ 3 ′ ). The representative blue-filled circle at ∼(570, 270) pixels shows the fibre (diameter of 2.7′′) position of the main telescope. The apparent edge of the surface of the Moon was shifted from positio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The figure displays spectra observed across different regions of the lunar environment during observations on March 16, 2024. The panels (a), (c), (e) and (g) depict the continuum-normalized spectra of the Lunar limb above the surface at the apparent subsolar point (blue solid line) and the median disk spectra obtained from lunar disk observations (yellow dashed line). These panels highlight prominent abso… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The left panel presents the decrease in EUV photon flux (256 Å) over MJDs observed, and the middle panel shows the corresponding declining trend we observe in the daily averaged ITotal over the same period. An increasing trend is observed between the daily averaged integrated flux from NUV (2000 - 4000 Å) and daily averaged ITotal, in the right panel. Note that the NUV flux from TSIS-1 was not available on… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure illustrates the photon flux reaching the Moon across different wavelengths. The flux decreases with increasing UV photon energy, with FUV exhibiting higher flux compared to EUV. This trend is consistent across all observation nights. A linear fit (dashed line) is shown for the data from 17-03-2024 to highlight the decreasing trend. presence of more than one component in the relationship. Additio… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The figure illustrates the relationship between the EUV photon flux obtained from GOES and the ITotal of Na I D2 + D1 lines in the lunar exosphere. Panels (a) to (c) depict this correlation for EUV photon fluxes at wavelengths of 256 Å, 284 Å, and 304 Å, respectively. Panels (d) to (f) show the correlation of FUV photon fluxes at 1175 Å, 1335 Å, and 1405 Å, respectively. The X-axis represents the photon fl… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The illustration shows the source, sink, and non-thermal release processes involved in maintaining the lunar exosphere. The major sources contributing to non-thermal release processes are (A) Micrometeorites, (B) Particles in the solar wind, and (C) EUV, FUV, and NUV radiation of solar origin. These sources cause (1) Micrometeorite Impact Vaporization (MIV), (2) Particle Sputtering, and (3) Photon Stimulat… 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

101 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    C., Hawley S

    Allred J. C., Hawley S. L., Abbett W. P., Carlsson M., 2005, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/431751 , 630, 573

    doi:10.1086/431751 2005

  3. [3]

    Aoki W., 2008, Report Version, 1

    2008

  4. [4]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..160B 158, 160

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e4e 2019

  5. [5]

    pp 3013--3021

    Benson J., Freeman J., Hills H., 1975, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings. pp 3013--3021

    1975

  6. [6]

    Berezhnoi A., Velikodsky Y., Pakhomov Y., Wöhler C., 2023, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105648 , 228, 105648

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Berezhnoy A., et al., 2014, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2014.03.008 , 96, 90

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2014.03.008 2014

  8. [8]

    C., Rajan K

    Bhattacharyya J. C., Rajan K. T., 1992, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992BASI...20..319B 20, 319

    1992

  9. [9]

    A., Yakunina G

    Bruevich E. A., Yakunina G. V., 2017, @doi [Astrophysics] 10.1007/s10511-017-9492-7 , 60, 387

    work page doi:10.1007/s10511-017-9492-7 2017

  10. [10]

    W., 1963, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(63)90122-3 , 11, 901

    Chamberlain J. W., 1963, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(63)90122-3 , 11, 901

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(63)90122-3 1963

  11. [11]

    Cheng A., Johnson R., Krimigis S., Lanzerotti L., 1987, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(87)90038-8 , 71, 430

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(87)90038-8 1987

  12. [12]

    W., 1995, Technical report, Introduction to Echelle Data Reduction Using the Image Reduction Analysis Facility

    Churchill C. W., 1995, Technical report, Introduction to Echelle Data Reduction Using the Image Reduction Analysis Facility. Citeseer

    1995

  13. [13]

    Coelho P. R. T., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1027C 440, 1027

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu365 2014

  14. [14]

    H., Stubbs T

    Colaprete A., Sarantos M., Wooden D. H., Stubbs T. J., Cook A. M., Shirley M., 2016, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aad2380 , 351, 249

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aad2380 2016

  15. [15]

    Contarini G., Barbieri C., Corrain G., Cremonese G., Vio R., 1996, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(95)00118-2 , 44, 417

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(95)00118-2 1996

  16. [16]

    H., Vondrak R

    Crider D. H., Vondrak R. R., 2003, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00530-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AdSpR..31.2293C 31, 2293

    work page doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(03)00530-1 2003

  17. [17]

    M., et al., 2022, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003044 , 20, e2022SW003044

    Darnel J. M., et al., 2022, @doi [Space Weather] https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003044 , 20, e2022SW003044

    doi:10.1029/2022sw003044 2022

  18. [18]

    P., Thampi S

    Das T. P., Thampi S. V., Bhardwaj A., Ahmed S., Sridharan R., 2016, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.030 , 272, 206

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.030 2016

  19. [19]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2021GL094970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021GeoRL..4894970D 48, e94970

    Dhanya M. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1029/2021GL094970 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021GeoRL..4894970D 48, e94970

    work page doi:10.1029/2021gl094970 2021

  20. [20]

    Dominique M., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeace , 867, L24

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaeace 2018

  21. [21]

    A., Johnson R

    Dukes C. A., Johnson R. E., 2017, Contribution of Surface Processes to the Lunar Exosphere. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1--7, @doi 10.1007/978-3-319-05546-6_96-1 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05546-6_96-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05546-6_96-1 2017

  22. [22]

    Eichhorn G., 1978, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(78)90068-5 , 26, 469

    work page doi:10.1016/0032-0633(78)90068-5 1978

  23. [23]

    G., Crotser D., Jones A

    Eparvier F. G., Crotser D., Jones A. R., McClintock W. E., Snow M., Woods T. N., 2009, in Solar Physics and Space Weather Instrumentation III. pp 31--38

    2009

  24. [24]

    Ermolli I., et al., 2013, @doi [Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics] 10.5194/acp-13-3945-2013 , 13, 3945

    doi:10.5194/acp-13-3945-2013 2013

  25. [25]

    Flynn B., Stern S., 1996, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996.0228 , 124, 530

    arXiv 1996

  26. [26]

    LPI contribution, Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7Q49AAAAIAAJ

    Heiken G., Vaniman D., French B., 1991, Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon. LPI contribution, Cambridge University Press, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7Q49AAAAIAAJ

    1991

  27. [27]

    Hodges R. R. J., 1977, @doi [Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors] 10.1016/0031-9201(77)90178-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PEPI...14..282H 14, 282

    work page doi:10.1016/0031-9201(77)90178-9 1977

  28. [28]

    Hodges R. R. J., 1980, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980LPSC...11.2463H 3, 2463

    1980

  29. [29]

    Hodges Jr. R. R., 2016, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068994 , 43, 6742

    work page doi:10.1002/2016gl068994 2016

  30. [30]

    S., 1974, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(74)90144-4 , 21, 415

    Hodges R., Hoffman J., Johnson F. S., 1974, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(74)90144-4 , 21, 415

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(74)90144-4 1974

  31. [31]

    H., Hodges Jr

    Hoffman J. H., Hodges Jr. R. R., 1974, in Criswell D. R., Freeman J. W., eds, LPI Contributions Vol. 195, Interactions of the Interplanetary Plasma with the Modern and Ancient Moon. p. 81

    1974

  32. [32]

    H., Hodges Jr

    Hoffman J. H., Hodges Jr. R. R., 1975, @doi [Moon] 10.1007/BF00562981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Moon...14..159H 14, 159

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00562981 1975

  33. [33]

    H., Hodges R

    Hoffman J. H., Hodges R. R. J., Johnson F. S., Evans D. E., 1973, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973LPSC....4.2865H 4, 2865

    1973

  34. [34]

    Ip W.-H., 1991, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02549 , 18, 2093

    work page doi:10.1029/91gl02549 1991

  35. [35]

    A., Christou A

    Janches D., Berezhnoy A. A., Christou A. A., Cremonese G., Hirai T., Hor \'a nyi M., Jasinski J. M., Sarantos M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-021-00827-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021SSRv..217...50J 217, 50

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00827-6 2021

  36. [36]

    E., Baragiola R., 1991, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02095 , 18, 2169

    Johnson R. E., Baragiola R., 1991, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02095 , 18, 2169

    work page doi:10.1029/91gl02095 1991

  37. [37]

    Kagitani M., Taguchi M., Yamazaki A., Yoshikawa I., Murakami G., Yoshioka K., Kameda S., Okano S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2010.07.025 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010P&SS...58.1660K 58, 1660

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2010.07.025 2010

  38. [38]

    M., 2002, @doi [Meteoritics & Planetary Science] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2002.tb00891.x , 37, 1223

    Killen R. M., 2002, @doi [Meteoritics & Planetary Science] https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2002.tb00891.x , 37, 1223

    arXiv 2002

  39. [39]

    M., Burger M

    Killen R. M., Burger M. H., Farrell W. M., 2018, @doi [Advances in Space Research] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2017.06.015 , 62, 2364

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2017.06.015 2018

  40. [40]

    M., Morgan T

    Killen R. M., Morgan T. H., Potter A. E., Plymate C., Tucker R., Johnson J. D., 2019, Icarus, 328, 152

    2019

  41. [41]

    M., Morgan T

    Killen R. M., Morgan T. H., Potter A. E., Bacon G., Ajang I., Poppe A. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Icar..35514155K 355, 114155

    arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    H., Papitashvili N

    King J. H., Papitashvili N. E., 2020, OMNI 1-min Data Set, @doi 10.48322/45BB-8792 , https://hpde.io/NASA/NumericalData/OMNI/HighResolutionObservations/Version1/PT1M

    work page doi:10.48322/45bb-8792 2020

  43. [43]

    John Wiley & Sons

    Kittel C., 2021, Introduction to solid state physics Eighth edition. John Wiley & Sons

    2021

  44. [44]

    Kockarts G., 1973, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/BF00224775 , 14, 723

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00224775 1973

  45. [45]

    W., 2013, Meteor showers: An annotated catalog

    Kronk G. W., 2013, Meteor showers: An annotated catalog. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  46. [46]

    Kuruppuaratchi D. C. P., et al., 2018, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JE005717 , 123, 2430

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005717 2018

  47. [47]

    Kuruppuaratchi D., Oliversen R., Mierkiewicz E., Sarantos M., Killen R., 2023, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115560 , 400, 115560

    work page arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Lammer H., Wurz P., Patel M., Killen R., Kolb C., Massetti S., Orsini S., Milillo A., 2003, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.08.012 , 166, 238

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2003.08.012 2003

  49. [49]

    Leblanc F., et al., 2008, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035322 , 35

    work page doi:10.1029/2008gl035322 2008

  50. [50]

    Leblanc F.and Schmidt C., et al., 2022, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-022-00871-w , 218, 2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00871-w 2022

  51. [51]

    L., et al., 2020, in Goodman S

    Machol J. L., et al., 2020, in Goodman S. J., Schmit T. J., Daniels J., Redmon R. J., eds, , The GOES-R Series. Elsevier, pp 233--242, @doi https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814327-8.00019-6 , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128143278000196

    doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-814327-8.00019-6 2020

  52. [52]

    E., Yakshinskiy B

    Madey T. E., Yakshinskiy B. V., Ageev V. N., Johnson R. E., 1998, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/98JE00230 , 103, 5873

    work page doi:10.1029/98je00230 1998

  53. [53]

    Mangano V., Milillo A., Mura A., Orsini S., De Angelis E., Di Lellis A., Wurz P., 2007, @doi [Planetary and Space Science] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2006.10.008 , 55, 1541

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2006.10.008 2007

  54. [54]

    A., Johnson R

    McGrath M. A., Johnson R. E., Lanzerotti L. J., 1986, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/323694a0 , 323, 694

    work page doi:10.1038/323694a0 1986

  55. [55]

    Mendillo M., Flynn B., Baumgardner J., 1993, @doi [Advances in Space Research] https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(93)90085-P , 13, 313

    work page doi:10.1016/0273-1177(93)90085-p 1993

  56. [56]

    Mendillo M., Baumgardner J., Wilson J., 1999, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1998.6042 , 137, 13

    work page arXiv 1999

  57. [57]

    Mierkiewicz E., Oliversen R., Roesler F., Lupie O., 2014, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] 10.1002/2014JA019801 , 119, 4950 – 4956

    work page doi:10.1002/2014ja019801 2014

  58. [58]

    Milillo A., et al., 2011, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2011JA016530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JGRA..116.7229M 116, A07229

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja016530 2011

  59. [59]

    Milillo A., et al., 2023, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-023-00994-8 , 219, 49

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-023-00994-8 2023

  60. [60]

    H., Shemansky D

    Morgan T. H., Shemansky D. E., 1991, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/90JA02127 , 96, 1351

    work page doi:10.1029/90ja02127 1991

  61. [61]

    S., Tucker O

    Morrissey L. S., Tucker O. J., Killen R. M., Nakhla S., Savin D. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac42d8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925L...6M 925, L6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac42d8 2022

  62. [62]

    Mouawad N., et al., 2011, @doi [Icarus] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.019 , 211, 21

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.10.019 2011

  63. [63]

    Nakamura Y., 1977, @doi [Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors] 10.1016/0031-9201(77)90174-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PEPI...14..217N 14, 217

    work page doi:10.1016/0031-9201(77)90174-1 1977

  64. [64]

    S., Tadepalli S

    Narendranath S., Pillai N. S., Tadepalli S. P., Sarantos M., Vadodariya K., Sarwade A., V R., Tyagi A., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac905a , 937, L23

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac905a 2022

  65. [65]

    X., Dauphas N., Zhang Z

    Nie N. X., Dauphas N., Zhang Z. J., Hopp T., Sarantos M., 2024, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.adm7074 , 10, eadm7074

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adm7074 2024

  66. [66]

    R., Horányi M., Nesvorný D., Kuchner M

    Pokorný P., Janches D., Sarantos M., Szalay J. R., Horányi M., Nesvorný D., Kuchner M. J., 2019, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JE005912 , 124, 752

    doi:10.1029/2018je005912 2019

  67. [67]

    E., Morgan T

    Potter A. E., Morgan T. H., 1988a, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/GL015i013p01515 , 15, 1515

    work page doi:10.1029/gl015i013p01515

  68. [68]

    E., Morgan T

    Potter A. E., Morgan T. H., 1988b, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.241.4866.675 , 241, 675

    doi:10.1126/science.241.4866.675

  69. [69]

    E., Morgan T

    Potter A. E., Morgan T. H., 1994, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL01702 , 21, 2263

    work page doi:10.1029/94gl01702 1994

  70. [70]

    Potter Jr. A. E., Morgan T. H., 1991, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02621 , 18, 2089

    work page doi:10.1029/91gl02621 1991

  71. [71]

    E., Killen R

    Potter A. E., Killen R. M., Morgan T. H., 2000, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets] https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JE001213 , 105, 15073

    work page doi:10.1029/1999je001213 2000

  72. [72]

    K., Sriram S., Jayakumar K., Gabriel F., 2005, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/BF02702341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JApA...26..331R 26, 331

    Rao N. K., Sriram S., Jayakumar K., Gabriel F., 2005, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/BF02702341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JApA...26..331R 26, 331

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02702341 2005

  73. [73]

    S., Norton C

    Richard E., et al., 2019, in Pagano T. S., Norton C. D., Babu S. R., eds, Vol. 11131, CubeSats and SmallSats for Remote Sensing III. SPIE, p. 1113105, @doi 10.1117/12.2531268 , https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2531268

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2531268 2019

  74. [74]

    Richard E., Harber D., Coddington O., Drake G., Rutkowski J., Triplett M., Pilewskie P., Woods T., 2020, @doi [Remote Sensing] 10.3390/rs12111818 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RemS...12.1818R 12, 1818

    work page doi:10.3390/rs12111818 2020

  75. [75]

    Sansonetti J., 2008, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 37, 1659

    2008

  76. [76]

    M., Surjalal Sharma A., Slavin J

    Sarantos M., Killen R. M., Surjalal Sharma A., Slavin J. A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Icar..205..364S 205, 364

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.039 2010

  77. [77]

    E., Killen R

    Sarantos M., Hartle R. E., Killen R. M., Saito Y., Slavin J. A., Glocer A., 2012a, @doi [Geophysical Research Letters] https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052001 , 39

    work page doi:10.1029/2012gl052001

  78. [78]

    M., Glenar D

    Sarantos M., Killen R. M., Glenar D. A., Benna M., Stubbs T. J., 2012b, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics] https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA017044 , 117

    work page doi:10.1029/2011ja017044

  79. [79]

    Smith E. V. P., Gottlieb D. M., 1974, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/BF00182600 , 16, 771

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00182600 1974

  80. [80]

    M., Mendillo M., Wilson J

    Smith S. M., Mendillo M., Wilson J. K., Baumgardner J., 2001, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/S0273-1177(01)00164-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AdSpR..27.1181S 27, 1181

    work page doi:10.1016/s0273-1177(01)00164-8 2001

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.