Influence of Magnetospheric Plasma Environment on Surface Charging of the Lunar South Pole

Ronghui Quan; Xiaoman Wang; Yaqi Xiao

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Influence of Magnetospheric Plasma Environment on Surface Charging of the Lunar South Pole

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New simulations argue that the lunar south pole's real terrain plus Earth's magnetospheric plasma can drive surface potentials to about -1000 volts and local electric fields to roughly 5 V/m, with direct consequences for equipment and dust

desk verdict A useful first regional charging map for the lunar south pole, but the headline numbers (-1000 V, 5 V/m) rest on an unvalidated neural-network surrogate and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13510 v1 pith:55LZQAAL submitted 2026-07-15 physics.space-ph

Yaqi Xiao , Xiaoman Wang , Ronghui Quan This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.space-ph

keywords lunarsurfacechargingsouthpoleplasmasheetelectricfieldtopographymagnetosphereneuralnetworkfiniteelementmethod

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that surface charging at the lunar south pole is jointly controlled by realistic topography and the plasma environment encountered as the Moon crosses the solar wind, magnetosheath, magnetotail lobe, and plasma sheet. Using a high-resolution digital elevation model and a neural-network-accelerated simulation, it predicts that the plasma sheet drives crater-floor potentials to about -1000 V and generates local electric fields near 5 V/m. The authors argue these extremes occur because shadowed, sheltered terrain suppresses photoelectron emission while high-energy electrons dominate, creating large potential gradients between sunlit and shaded areas. If correct, these results matter for landing-site selection, rover operations, dust transport, and electrostatic-discharge protection on future lunar missions.

What carries the argument

The central object is a coupled finite-element and back-propagation neural-network workflow. The terrain is a 200-km digital elevation model of 86°S–90°S built from LRO/LOLA data, and the neural network maps plasma parameters (density, temperature) and surface material properties to a surface potential using a current-balance equation. The finite-element solver then reconstructs the spatial distribution of potential and electric field via Poisson's equation, drift-diffusion for electrons, and advection-diffusion for ions. A key feature is the inclusion of terrain shading, which controls photoelectron emission and plasma shadowing in the model.

What would settle it

A direct comparison of the model's predicted -1000 V and 5 V/m values with in-situ surface-potential or near-surface electric-field measurements taken at a lunar south-pole lander during a plasma-sheet crossing would settle the claim; alternatively, a particle-in-cell simulation resolving plasma wakes around Shackleton Crater could reveal whether the surrogate misses nonlocal wake and geometry effects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Surface potential at the lunar south pole is strongly regulated by local topography: windward slopes of raised landforms reach relatively high potentials, while leeward slopes, crater floors, and other shielded regions charge strongly negative because photoelectron emission is suppressed and electron collection dominates. When the Moon passes through Earth's magnetosphere, the potential and electric-field distributions are approximately symmetric about 0° lunar phase. From the solar wind through the magnetosheath to the magnetotail lobe, the surface potential generally decreases, with a notable rebound in the rear part of the lobe due to secondary electron emission, then drops sharply in the

Load-bearing premise

The central result rests on the assumption that the neural-network surrogate, trained on a current-balance model from earlier work, gives accurate surface potentials when applied to this realistic 200-km terrain, but the paper provides no in-paper validation against independent measurements or kinetic simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

During plasma-sheet crossings, south-polar surfaces—especially crater floors and sheltered leeward areas—can reach about -1000 V, creating a severe electrostatic-discharge risk for equipment.
Local electric fields up to ~5 V/m near crater rims and floor-wall boundaries may significantly affect the mobilization and transport of charged lunar dust.
Crater-wall tops and the middle of downstream crater walls are the most terrain-sensitive charging zones, meaning small topographic differences can produce large potential variations.
The approximate symmetry of charging about 0° lunar phase implies that the same hazardous conditions recur on each half of the Moon's orbit.
The joint influence of topography and plasma environment should be considered when selecting landing sites and planning rover paths to avoid extreme differential charging.

Reading between the lines

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

If the predicted 5 V/m fields are real, electrostatic dust lofting could be enhanced near crater rim-floor boundaries during plasma-sheet crossings, a mechanism the paper does not explicitly simulate.
The neural-network surrogate, if validated against particle-in-cell simulations that resolve nonlocal wake effects, could be extended to predict charging across other lunar regions with complex terrain.
The -1000 V value depends on the assumed maximum secondary electron yield of 1; higher secondary yields (as measured for some regolith simulants) would moderate the extreme negative potentials.
The phase symmetry suggests that the times when the Moon is in the plasma sheet are predictable operational hazards; mission planners could schedule surface activities to avoid these windows.

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

Quick take: this is a plausible first attempt at regional-scale surface charging maps for the lunar south pole across different magnetospheric plasma regimes. The qualitative trends and the terrain-specific patterns are worth looking at, but the quantitative extremes are not yet supported because the BP surrogate is never validated in the paper.

What's genuinely new: they use a real LOLA DEM for 86–90°S, drive the simulation with phase-dependent plasma parameters from ARTEMIS, and produce maps of surface potential and electric field for six named craters. That is a step beyond the idealized small craters in most previous studies. The setup is also transparent: standard current-balance equations, drift-diffusion for electrons, advection-diffusion for ions, and a clear description of the boundary conditions. The qualitative result—windward terrain more positive, leeward/crater floors more negative, with enhanced fields at crater rims—is consistent with earlier crater studies, which is reassuring.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The BP network, taken from the same group's earlier paper (ref [25]), is the only link between the local plasma parameters and the surface potential. There is no in-paper validation against direct numerical simulation, no training/validation split, no error bars, and no comparison with ARTEMIS or LADEE measurements. The network inputs include densities, temperatures, solar radiation, and material parameters, but not plasma bulk velocity or direction. That matters: in the plasma cavities behind crater walls, the ion ram current and wake structure depend on flow direction, so the mapping from local density/temperature to potential is likely non-unique. The stress-test note lands on this exactly.

Also, the symmetry around 0° lunar phase is forced by symmetric inputs and a fixed 1° solar elevation, not an emergent finding. The 5 V/m peak field is probably mesh- and DEM-resolution-dependent; no convergence tests are shown. And uniform material parameters are a simplification, though a defensible one for a first pass.

These are serious but fixable issues. The paper deserves a serious referee because the topic is relevant and the regional-scale approach is new. I would send it to review, but only with the expectation that the authors validate the surrogate, add uncertainty estimates, and discuss the flow-velocity limitation. As it stands, I would not cite the -1000 V or 5 V/m numbers in my own work.

Who is this for? Space-physics modelers working on lunar charging, and mission planners who need rough electrostatic-risk maps. A reading group could have a good discussion about surrogate validation and what counts as evidence in simulation papers.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a finite-element/back-propagation neural-network model of lunar south-polar surface charging. A 200-km DEM of the 86°S–90°S region at 80 m/pixel is used as geometry; plasma density from ARTEMIS and tabulated temperatures for the solar wind, magnetosheath, magnetotail lobe, and plasma sheet are imposed as functions of lunar phase over half an orbit; a BP network trained on current-balance solutions provides surface potentials; Poisson, drift-diffusion, and advection-diffusion equations are then solved for the near-surface electrostatic environment. The main reported results are: strongly terrain-dependent potentials with positive windward and negative leeward/shadowed regions; crater-floor potentials near -17 V in the solar wind; a general decrease of potential as the Moon moves into Earth's magnetosphere; a minimum below -1000 V and peak electric field near 5 V/m in the plasma sheet; and potential/electric-field curves that are approximately symmetric about 0° lunar phase. The paper frames these as guidance for landing-site selection and electrostatic protection.

Significance. The problem is relevant and timely: quantitative surface-charging predictions for the lunar south pole are needed for landers, rovers, and future bases. Using real LOLA topography and time-dependent magnetospheric inputs is an advance over the idealized crater models that dominate the literature. The qualitative pattern of negative leeward potentials and enhanced fields at topographic gradients is consistent with earlier crater-wake studies. If validated, the model could provide useful engineering constraints. However, the headline quantitative claims (-1000 V and 5 V/m) are not established by the evidence presented: the BP surrogate is not validated in the paper, it omits variables that are physically necessary for wake charging, and no convergence or sensitivity analyses are provided. The manuscript provides no code or data, so the results are not independently reproducible. These limitations make the current central claims premature, though the framework is potentially sound and the deficiencies are addressable.

major comments (5)

[Section 2.2, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The BP neural network described in Section 2.2 is the load-bearing component for every quantitative result, including the -1000 V and 5 V/m claims. The only support is the statement that the workflow is 'derived from a previously validated modeling framework [25]'. No training/validation split, error metrics, comparison against direct FEM/PIC solutions, or comparison with ARTEMIS/LADEE surface-potential measurements is provided. Please add an in-paper validation of the surrogate for the specific terrain and plasma range used here, including error bars or confidence intervals on predicted potentials. Without this, the quantitative claims in Section 3.3 and the abstract are unsupported.
[Section 2.2, network inputs and Eqs. (3)-(7)] The network input list contains electron/ion densities and temperatures, solar radiation, and material parameters, but omits plasma bulk velocity and flow direction. The ion transport model in Eqs. (5)-(6) explicitly contains advection by u, and ion ram current is a strong function of flow speed and direction in crater wakes. In the plasma cavities behind crater walls, identical local density and temperature can produce different surface potentials depending on whether the location is directly impinged by the flow or is in a wake. The mapping from density/temperature to potential is therefore non-unique for the conditions solved by this model. Please include flow velocity/direction as inputs or demonstrate that the local moments uniquely determine the equilibrium potential for the parameter ranges considered.
[Section 3.3 and Figures 3-4, 8-9] The paper presents the symmetry of potential and electric field about 0° lunar phase as a finding. However, this symmetry is built into the inputs: the plasma density curve in Figure 3 is symmetric, the temperatures in Figure 4 and Table 1 are symmetric, the solar elevation angle is fixed at 1°, and the topography is static. The output symmetry is therefore a direct and expected consequence of symmetric inputs. Please reframe this as a consistency check of the model, or remove it from the conclusions. The current framing overstates the significance of a tautological result.
[Section 2.3 and Table 2] Uniform material parameters are used for the entire domain, with no sensitivity analysis. The values of work function, maximum secondary electron yield, energy at maximum yield, permittivity, and conductivity strongly affect the equilibrium surface potential. The extreme -1000 V result in the plasma sheet is particularly sensitive to secondary electron emission and conductivity. Please provide a parameter sensitivity study or at least an uncertainty range for the predicted potentials and fields. Without this, the quantitative engineering recommendations are not robust: real south-polar regolith is heterogeneous, and the chosen values may not be representative.
[Section 2.3 and Section 3.3] No mesh resolution, time-step, or network-training convergence tests are reported. The peak electric field and minimum potential are claimed to be 5 V/m and below -1000 V, but there is no evidence that the FEM mesh or the linear temperature-transition intervals introduced in Section 2.3 are sufficiently resolved. Please provide convergence tests for the spatial mesh and the temporal discretization, especially near sharp topographic gradients and at the transition boundaries between magnetospheric regions. Without such tests, the numerical error budget for the central quantitative claims is unknown.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2.2] The BP network architecture is not described: number of layers, neurons per layer, activation functions, training set size, regularization, and normalization are all omitted. Enough detail should be given for reproducibility.
[Equations (3)-(7)] Several symbols are used without definition or not defined precisely, including R_e, S_en, Q, Q_gen^e, and the product z_i u_{m,i} in Eq. (6). Please define all symbols at first use.
[Figure 3] The time axis of Figure 3 lacks units and labels; it is described as 'lunar phase' in degrees but the x-axis is not annotated. Similarly, the y-axis should state whether the density is number density in m^-3. Please correct the figure.
[Section 2.3 and Reference [8]] The ARTEMIS-derived density curve is said to come from Reference [8], but no details are given about the specific time interval, spacecraft, or data-processing method. This is important because the interpolation and transition intervals directly affect the time-dependent results.
[Conclusion] The concluding sentence claims the results 'provide references for landing site selection, rover path planning, anti-static design...'. This is premature given the lack of validation and sensitivity analysis. Please temper the applied claims to match the current evidence.
[Table 2] The crater-floor potentials in Table 2 are all within a narrow range (-16.76 to -17.20 V), and the text admits the relationship with depth-to-width ratio is not monotonic. A statistical or scatter-plot analysis would better support the claimed influence, or the caveat should be strengthened.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central physical derivation is a standard current-balance/FEM simulation, but the accuracy of the BP surrogate—the only link producing the quantitative claims—is validated solely by a self-cited prior paper by the same corresponding author.

self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, 'Coupled Simulation Model']
"The physical model for lunar surface charging, the finite element–neural network coupled computational workflow, and the BP neural network-based potential prediction method used in this study are derived from a previously validated modeling framework[25]. By comparison with conventional numerical calculations, this framework has been shown to effectively predict lunar surface charging potentials under various plasma environments and material parameter conditions."

The only in-paper support for the BP network that produces the -1000 V and 5 V/m results is this sentence. Ref [25] (Song, Liu, Quan) shares the corresponding author (Quan) with the present paper, and no in-paper training/validation split, error analysis, or comparison with ARTEMIS/LADEE or an independent direct simulation is provided. The load-bearing premise that the surrogate is accurate therefore reduces to a self-citation to the authors' own prior work rather than to independent evidence inside this paper.

full rationale

The derivation is not globally circular: surface potentials are obtained by solving the standard current-balance equation (Eq. 1) and Poisson/drift-diffusion equations (Eqs. 2-7), and the -1000 V plasma-sheet value and 5 V/m field are outputs of that physical model for the adopted plasma parameters, not fits to measured potentials. The approximate symmetry about 0 deg lunar phase is a direct consequence of the symmetric plasma input profiles and fixed solar elevation, but it is a trivial implication, not a definitional circle. The one load-bearing circularity-adjacent step is the delegation of all validation of the BP surrogate to self-cited ref [25] by the same group, with no independent benchmark; this makes the quantitative claims depend on a self-citation chain for their credibility. Because the core physics is standard and the NN is only an efficiency surrogate, the central claim still has independent content, so the score is moderate rather than extreme.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The quantitative outputs depend on unstated NN weights, ad hoc transition intervals, a fixed solar elevation, uniform material parameters, and input plasma data; these dominate the uncertainty in the reported potentials.

free parameters (2)

BP neural network weights and hyperparameters
The surface-potential prediction is produced by a trained surrogate whose weights, architecture, and training-set construction are not provided; all quantitative results pass through this model.
Plasma temperature transition-interval widths
Introduced ad hoc to avoid numerical non-convergence during plasma-regime changes (Section 2.3); durations and interpolation details are not quantified but affect the phase-dependent evolution.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Current balance equation (Eq. 1) with component currents J_e, J_i, J_se, J_si, J_be, J_ph, J_c is an adequate model for lunar surface potential.
The governing equation is standard in spacecraft charging, but the paper does not derive or fully specify the individual current-density formulas.
domain assumption Electron drift-diffusion and ion advection-diffusion transport (Eqs. 3-7) capture plasma wake and cavity formation around 80-m-scale topography.
The plasma transport model is asserted without comparison to kinetic/PIC simulations for this geometry.
ad hoc to paper The BP neural network developed in the authors' prior framework [25] is a faithful surrogate for the current-balance/FEM solution across all plasma conditions and this terrain.
Section 2.2 states the framework is 'derived from a previously validated modeling framework[25]' but provides no in-paper validation or error analysis for the realistic south-pole domain.
domain assumption Solar elevation angle is fixed at 1° and the illumination direction is fixed relative to the terrain during the half-orbit magnetosphere pass.
Chosen as representative of south-pole conditions (0-2°), but it ignores orbital changes in solar azimuth and elevation that affect real charging evolution.
domain assumption Uniform material parameters (work function 5.58 eV, max SEY=1, E_max=350 eV, relative permittivity 5.5, conductivity 7 pS/m) apply over the entire domain.
Real regolith properties vary spatially; no sensitivity study is provided, so quantitative potentials may shift with material choices.
domain assumption The ARTEMIS-derived plasma density curve and Table 1 temperature values represent a typical lunar transit, and interpolation captures all relevant variations.
The phase-dependent inputs are taken from a single reference orbit and assumed symmetric about lunar phase 0°.
domain assumption The 80 m/pixel LRO/LOLA DEM resolves the topographic features controlling charging, and the 200-km-square domain covers the six craters of interest.
The text mentions a focus on 86-90S, but a 200-km square centered at the pole covers only about 1.3 degrees of latitude; this inconsistency is not resolved.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of Magnetospheric Plasma Environment on Surface Charging of the Lunar South Pole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55LZQAAL

@misc{pith2026260713510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of Magnetospheric Plasma Environment on Surface Charging of the Lunar South Pole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55LZQAAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13510}
}

read the original abstract

The lunar south pole is a key candidate region for future lunar exploration and base construction, but its charging characteristics under real topographic conditions and dynamic plasma environments remain insufficiently understood. A high-fidelity terrain model of the lunar south pole spanning 86{\deg}S-90{\deg}S was constructed from optimized LRO/LOLA elevation data. Surface charging evolution over half a lunar orbital cycle was then simulated with a finite element-BP neural network scheme, using lunar-phase-dependent plasma inputs encompassing plasma parameters of solar wind and diverse Earth magnetospheric zones. The results show that south polar topography strongly regulates surface charging. Higher potentials appear on windward terrains, whereas lower potentials occur in shielded leeward regions, leading to enhanced local electric fields at the tops of uplands and crater floor-wall boundaries. Significant potential differences between the crests and the middle of the downstream walls of various craters indicate that these regions are highly terrain-sensitive. When the Moon passes through Earth's magnetosphere, surface potential and electric field are roughly symmetric around 0{\deg} lunar phase. From the solar wind to the plasma sheet, surface potential generally decreases while electric field magnitude rises. Only in the narrow magnetotail lobe adjacent to the plasma sheet does the potential temporarily increase and the electric field weaken. In the plasma sheet, the surface potential can decrease to approximately -1000 V, and the domain's peak electric field reaches about 5 V/m. These findings provide references for landing site selection, rover path planning, and electrostatic protection of lunar surface equipment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13510 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (A) The topographic map of the lunar south pole in top view. (B) The geometric model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Curve of plasma density versus lunar phase. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (A) Curve of electron temperature versus lunar phase. (B) Curve of ion temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (A) Distribution of surface potential (V) over the lunar south pole at a solar elevation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distributions of electron density, ion density, potential and electric field magnitude along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Surface potential (V) distributions at different solar elevation angles under solar wind [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Surface potential (V) distributions at different lunar phases at a solar elevation angle of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (A) Curves of potential (V) of the top of the upstream crater wall versus lunar phase for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references

[25]

Three-dimensional simulation of surface charging in meteorite craters on rotating asteroids

Song ZY, Liu ZG, and Quan RH. Three-dimensional simulation of surface charging in meteorite craters on rotating asteroids. Planetary and Space Science 2025;260:106089

2025
[1]

Extreme lunar surface charging during solar energetic particle events

Halekas JS, Delory GT, and Brain DA. Extreme lunar surface charging during solar energetic particle events. Geophysical Research Letters 2007;34

2007
[2]

A comparison of ARTEMIS observations and particle- in-cell modeling of the lunar photoelectron sheath in the terrestrial magnetotail

Poppe AR, Halekas JS, and Delory GT. A comparison of ARTEMIS observations and particle- in-cell modeling of the lunar photoelectron sheath in the terrestrial magnetotail. Geophysical Research Letters 2012;39

2012
[3]

Photoemission and electrostatic potentials on the day- side lunar surface in the terrestrial magnetotail lobes

Harada Y, Poppe AR, and Halekas JS. Photoemission and electrostatic potentials on the day- side lunar surface in the terrestrial magnetotail lobes. Geophysical Research Letters 2017;44:5276– 82

2017
[4]

Kaguya observations of the lunar wake in the terrestrial foreshock: Surface potential change by bow-shock reflected ions

Nishino MN, Harada Y, and Saito Y. Kaguya observations of the lunar wake in the terrestrial foreshock: Surface potential change by bow-shock reflected ions. Icarus 2017;293:45–51

2017
[5]

Complex electric fields near the lunar terminator: The near-surface wake and accelerated dust

Farrell WM, Stubbs TJ, and Vondrak RR. Complex electric fields near the lunar terminator: The near-surface wake and accelerated dust. Geophysical Research Letters 2007;34

2007
[6]

Lunar Prospector measurements of secondary electron emission from lunar regolith

Halekas JS, Delory GT, and Lin RP. Lunar Prospector measurements of secondary electron emission from lunar regolith. Planetary and Space Science 2009;57:78–82

2009
[7]

Dependence of lunar surface charging on solar wind plasma conditions and solar irradiation

Stubbs TJ, Farrell WM, and Halekas JS. Dependence of lunar surface charging on solar wind plasma conditions and solar irradiation. Planetary and Space Science 2014;90:10–27

2014

Show all 29 references

[8]

Formation of lunar surface water associated with high-energy electrons in Earth’s magnetotail

Li S, Poppe AR, and Orlando TM. Formation of lunar surface water associated with high-energy electrons in Earth’s magnetotail. Nature Astronomy 2023;7:1427–35

2023
[9]

Lunar Prospector observations of the electrostatic poten- tial of the lunar surface and its response to incident currents

Halekas JS, Delory GT, and Lin RP. Lunar Prospector observations of the electrostatic poten- tial of the lunar surface and its response to incident currents. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2008;113

2008
[10]

First remote measurements of lunar surface charg- ing from ARTEMIS: Evidence for nonmonotonic sheath potentials above the dayside surface

Halekas JS, Delory GT, and Farrell WM. First remote measurements of lunar surface charg- ing from ARTEMIS: Evidence for nonmonotonic sheath potentials above the dayside surface. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2011;116

2011
[11]

ARTEMIS observations of lunar dayside plasma in the terrestrial magnetotail lobe

Harada Y, Machida S, and Halekas JS. ARTEMIS observations of lunar dayside plasma in the terrestrial magnetotail lobe. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 2013;118:3042–54

2013
[12]

ARTEMIS observations of lunar nightside surface potentials in the magnetotail lobes: Evidence for micrometeoroid impact charging

Poppe AR, Xu S, and Liuzzo L. ARTEMIS observations of lunar nightside surface potentials in the magnetotail lobes: Evidence for micrometeoroid impact charging. Geophysical Research Letters 2021;48

2021
[13]

Character and spatial distribution of mineralogy at the lunar south polar region

Wang W, Jin Q, and Chen X. Character and spatial distribution of mineralogy at the lunar south polar region. Planetary and Space Science 2024;240:105833. 17

2024
[14]

Loss of solar wind plasma neutrality and affect on surface potentials near the lunar terminator and shadowed polar regions

Farrell WM, Stubbs TJ, and Halekas JS. Loss of solar wind plasma neutrality and affect on surface potentials near the lunar terminator and shadowed polar regions. Geophysical Research Letters 2008;35

2008
[15]

Anticipated electrical environment within permanently shadowed lunar craters

Farrell WM, Stubbs TJ, and Halekas JS. Anticipated electrical environment within permanently shadowed lunar craters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 2010;115

2010
[16]

Plasma wake simulations and object charging in a shadowed lunar crater during a solar storm

Zimmerman MI, Jackson TL, and Farrell WM. Plasma wake simulations and object charging in a shadowed lunar crater during a solar storm. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets 2012;117

2012
[17]

Fully kinetic pife-pic simulations of plasma charging at lunar craters

Lund D, Zhao J, and Lamb A. Fully kinetic pife-pic simulations of plasma charging at lunar craters. In:AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum. 2020:1549

2020
[18]

Distribution of charged lunar dust in the south polar region of the moon

Xia Q, Cai MH, and Xu LL. Distribution of charged lunar dust in the south polar region of the moon. Chinese Physics B 2022;31:045201

2022
[19]

Numerical simulation of the lunar polar environment: Implications for rover exploration challenge

Gan H, Zhao C, and Wei G. Numerical simulation of the lunar polar environment: Implications for rover exploration challenge. Aerospace 2023;10:598

2023
[20]

Theoretical analysis of the electric potential and the electrostatic dust transport around the Shackleton crater in the Lunar south pole region

Zhao C, Gan H, and Xie L. Theoretical analysis of the electric potential and the electrostatic dust transport around the Shackleton crater in the Lunar south pole region. Science China Earth Sciences 2023;66:2278–86

2023
[21]

A new view of the lunar south pole from the lunar orbiter laser altimeter (LOLA)

Barker MK, Mazarico E, and Neumann GA. A new view of the lunar south pole from the lunar orbiter laser altimeter (LOLA). The Planetary Science Journal 2023;4:183

2023
[22]

Topographic Map of the Moon’s South Pole (85°S to Pole)

Stopar J and Meyer H. Topographic Map of the Moon’s South Pole (85°S to Pole). LPI Con- tribution 2171. Lunar and Planetary Institute Regional Planetary Image Facility, 2019

2019
[23]

Inversion Analysis of GEO Plasma Environmental Parameters Based on BP Neural Network

Zhang H, Quan R, and Zhang C. Inversion Analysis of GEO Plasma Environmental Parameters Based on BP Neural Network. Chinese Journal of Space Science 2023;43:78–86

2023
[24]

Study on the linkages between microstructure and permeability of porous media using pore network and BP neural network

Liu H, Xu Y, and Wang C. Study on the linkages between microstructure and permeability of porous media using pore network and BP neural network. Materials Research Express 2022;9

2022
[26]

Impact of secondary and backscattered electron cur- rents on absolute charging of structures used in spacecraft

Pandya A, Mehta P, and Kothari N. Impact of secondary and backscattered electron cur- rents on absolute charging of structures used in spacecraft. International Journal of Numerical Modelling: Electronic Networks, Devices and Fields 2019;32:e2631

2019
[27]

A new charging model for spacecraft exposed dielectric (SICCE)

Wang S, Wu ZC, Tang XJ, and Yi Z. A new charging model for spacecraft exposed dielectric (SICCE). IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 2016;44:289–95

2016
[28]

Characterisation of potential landing sites for the European Space Agency’s Lunar Lander project

De Rosa D, Bussey B, and Cahill J. Characterisation of potential landing sites for the European Space Agency’s Lunar Lander project. Planetary and space science 2012;74:224–46

2012
[29]

Study on Lunar Surface Charging Effects Induced by Charged Particle Flows in the Earth’s Magnetotail Lobes and Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Charged Lunar Dust

Zeng P, He YS, and Yang HM. Study on Lunar Surface Charging Effects Induced by Charged Particle Flows in the Earth’s Magnetotail Lobes and Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Charged Lunar Dust. Journal of Space Science and Experiment 2025;2:116–24. 18

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Three-dimensional simulation of surface charging in meteorite craters on rotating asteroids

Song ZY, Liu ZG, and Quan RH. Three-dimensional simulation of surface charging in meteorite craters on rotating asteroids. Planetary and Space Science 2025;260:106089

2025

[2] [1]

Extreme lunar surface charging during solar energetic particle events

Halekas JS, Delory GT, and Brain DA. Extreme lunar surface charging during solar energetic particle events. Geophysical Research Letters 2007;34

2007

[3] [2]

A comparison of ARTEMIS observations and particle- in-cell modeling of the lunar photoelectron sheath in the terrestrial magnetotail

Poppe AR, Halekas JS, and Delory GT. A comparison of ARTEMIS observations and particle- in-cell modeling of the lunar photoelectron sheath in the terrestrial magnetotail. Geophysical Research Letters 2012;39

2012

[4] [3]

Photoemission and electrostatic potentials on the day- side lunar surface in the terrestrial magnetotail lobes

Harada Y, Poppe AR, and Halekas JS. Photoemission and electrostatic potentials on the day- side lunar surface in the terrestrial magnetotail lobes. Geophysical Research Letters 2017;44:5276– 82

2017

[5] [4]

Kaguya observations of the lunar wake in the terrestrial foreshock: Surface potential change by bow-shock reflected ions

Nishino MN, Harada Y, and Saito Y. Kaguya observations of the lunar wake in the terrestrial foreshock: Surface potential change by bow-shock reflected ions. Icarus 2017;293:45–51

2017

[6] [5]

Complex electric fields near the lunar terminator: The near-surface wake and accelerated dust

Farrell WM, Stubbs TJ, and Vondrak RR. Complex electric fields near the lunar terminator: The near-surface wake and accelerated dust. Geophysical Research Letters 2007;34

2007

[7] [6]

Lunar Prospector measurements of secondary electron emission from lunar regolith

Halekas JS, Delory GT, and Lin RP. Lunar Prospector measurements of secondary electron emission from lunar regolith. Planetary and Space Science 2009;57:78–82

2009

[8] [7]

Dependence of lunar surface charging on solar wind plasma conditions and solar irradiation

Stubbs TJ, Farrell WM, and Halekas JS. Dependence of lunar surface charging on solar wind plasma conditions and solar irradiation. Planetary and Space Science 2014;90:10–27

2014