Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 19 references

Unveiling neutron and gamma spectrum at Martian surface in presence and absence of hydrogen: A computational study based on GEANT4 simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using GEANT4, this paper claims that the Martian regolith, rather than the atmosphere alone, is the dominant source of the neutron and gamma population at the surface, and that 0.11 wt.% hydrogen is detectable as a spectral shift in all thr

desk verdict A competent GEANT4 parameter study with the expected qualitative answers; the crust-like regolith density and missing error bars are the main quantitative weaknesses. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24823 v1 pith:NUBZATA5 submitted 2026-07-18 physics.ins-det astro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph

A. Ilker Topuz This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detastro-ph.EPphysics.space-ph
keywords albedoneutronsgammaraysGCRprotonshydrogendetectionMartianregolithneutronspectroscopyGEANT4simulationthermal/epithermal/fast
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

This paper uses GEANT4 simulations to model galactic cosmic-ray protons striking a 12-km Martian atmosphere above a 2-meter regolith, both with and without 0.11 wt.% hydrogen. It aims to show that the regolith—not the air—generates the dominant neutron and gamma population reaching the Martian surface, and that even trace hydrogen leaves a clear mark on albedo neutrons. The simulated spectra reproduce the 'epithermal deficit, thermal excess' pattern that orbital neutron spectrometers use to map subsurface water. If correct, the work supports neutron spectroscopy as a sensitive tool for detecting hydrogen and possibly water ice on Mars, and it clarifies that the surface radiation environment must be modeled from the ground up, not just from the atmosphere. The proton transport and the depth profile of secondary production, by contrast, barely change with hydrogen at this level.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation (FTFP_BERT_HP physics list) of the hadronic and electromagnetic cascade: a planar vertical beam of 10^5 protons sampled from the PAMELA spectrum is injected at the top of a 12-km CO2 atmosphere (density 2×10^-5 g/cm3) overlying a 2-m regolith voxelized into 100 cells of 2 cm thickness, with a surface detector at the regolith top. The simulation separates atmospherically produced particles from total surface-detector records and bins albedo neutrons into thermal (≤1 eV), epithermal (1 eV–1 keV), and fast (>1 keV) energy regimes—this energy binning is what exposes the hydrogen moderation signature.

What would settle it

Compare the simulation's predicted thermal-to-epithermal albedo neutron ratio for a regolith with 0.11 wt.% hydrogen against a measured neutron spectrum at a well-characterized Martian site with comparable water-equivalent hydrogen content; if the observed ratio does not exceed the dry-site ratio by roughly the predicted amount, the hydrogen-sensitivity claim fails. A cheaper check: rerun the same geometry with a porosity-corrected regolith density of ~1.5 g/cm3 and see whether the regolith contribution still dwarfs the atmosphere by two orders of magnitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: using a PAMELA-based 69-bin proton spectrum injected vertically into a modeled CO2-dominated atmosphere over a homogeneous 3.01 g/cm3 regolith, the simulations show that the total neutron and gamma population at the surface detector exceeds the atmospherically produced contribution by roughly two orders of magnitude below a few MeV, establishing the regolith as the primary source of the surface radiation field. Adding 0.11 wt.% hydrogen does not alter proton ranges, energy deposition, or the generation-depth profile (which peaks at ~20–40 cm), yet it measurably increases thermal albedo neutrons while reducing epithermal and low-energy fast albedo neutrons—the signat

Load-bearing premise

The simulation treats the upper 2 meters of Mars as a single homogeneous layer of density 3.01 g/cm3, but real Martian regolith is porous and typically much less dense; if the density is wrong, the absolute spectra and the atmosphere-versus-regolith split shift, even though the hydrogen thermalization signature likely persists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, orbital neutron spectrometers can detect subsurface hydrogen at the ~0.1 wt.% level from the thermal/epithermal ratio alone, without needing absolute flux calibration.
  • Radiation-exposure models for future Mars missions must include regolith-generated secondaries, since they dominate the low-energy neutron and gamma environment at the surface.
  • Trace hydrogen acts as a moderator that redistributes albedo neutron energies rather than changing total neutron production, so hydrogen mapping is inherently a spectral-shape measurement.
  • The same simulation strategy can be transported to other thin-atmosphere bodies (e.g., the Moon, asteroids) where a similar hydrogen-sensitivity pattern is expected.
  • Because proton transport is insensitive to 0.11 wt.% H, any observed change in surface neutron spectra can be attributed to hydrogen in the regolith rather than to altered primary beam behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the simulation uses a single homogeneous regolith density of 3.01 g/cm3, the absolute fluxes are likely overestimated; a more realistic porous regolith would probably reduce the regolith-vs-atmosphere dominance factor, although the qualitative hydrogen signature should survive.
  • The vertical planar proton beam is not an isotropic GCR flux; we expect an isotropic or angular-dependent source would alter atmospheric attenuation and could shift the energy at which atmospheric and regolith contributions converge.
  • The 0.11 wt.% value is a single point; extending the simulation to a series of lower hydrogen abundances could define the detection threshold of neutron spectroscopy and the minimum water-equivalent hydrogen that is observable.
  • The voxelized depth profile suggests a testable extension: modeling a buried ice table at various depths would predict how the thermal/epithermal albedo ratio changes with ice burial depth, which could be compared with radar or neutron data from polar craters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses GEANT4 simulations to model the interaction of galactic-cosmic-ray protons with the Martian atmosphere and a 2-m regolith layer, with and without 0.11 wt.% hydrogen in the regolith. The authors compute proton attenuation, generation-depth profiles of secondary neutrons and gammas, and compare atmospherically produced and total surface spectra. They conclude that the regolith dominates the surface neutron and gamma population, and that the chosen hydrogen abundance produces a thermal-neutron excess and epithermal/fast-neutron deficit that is observable in each albedo-neutron energy regime.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, the paper provides a useful computational confirmation of the expected thin-atmosphere planetary physics: regolith-generated secondaries dominate the surface radiation field, and trace hydrogen leaves a clear spectral signature in albedo neutrons. The qualitative trends are consistent with established orbital and in-situ observations, and the paper makes its simulation setup reproducible through a linked code repository. The main value is as a benchmark, not as a new physical discovery; the quantitative claims, however, depend on a few modelling choices that need to be checked before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Table 2, Fig. 1] The regolith is modeled as a 2-m layer with bulk density 3.01 g/cm3, a value appropriate for solid crust, not for the porous upper regolith/soil that actually occupies the top 2 m. Realistic bulk densities are ~1.5–1.8 g/cm3. Because neutron/gamma transport depends on number density, this choice approximately doubles the macroscopic cross sections and the hydrogen column density relative to a realistic regolith. Concretely, 0.11 wt.% H over 2 m at 3.01 g/cm3 gives ~0.66 g/cm2 of H, while at 1.6 g/cm3 it gives ~0.35 g/cm2. The reported dominance of the regolith over the atmosphere (Fig. 6) and the magnitude of the thermal/epithermal hydrogen signature (Fig. 7) are therefore likely overestimated. The authors should rerun the simulations at a porosity-corrected density or justify why the solid-crust value is appropriate for the upper 2 m.
  2. [§3, Figs. 3–7] No statistical uncertainties are shown anywhere. The simulation uses only 1e5 incident protons. Many high-energy bins in Figs. 6 and 7 contain small integer counts, so the visual separation between 'with H' and 'without H' curves — especially the fast-neutron convergence at higher energies — may not be statistically significant. The claim that hydrogen is 'observable in each energy regime' needs a quantitative significance assessment (e.g., Poisson error bars or a hypothesis test per bin/region). Without this, the central observational claim is not supported beyond a qualitative trend.
  3. [§2, Fig. 1; §3, Fig. 7] The mechanism by which the 'surface detector' selects albedo (upward-going) neutrons is not described. A 2-mm-thick pseudo-detector placed at the atmosphere–regolith interface will record particles crossing in both directions unless a directional filter is applied. The paper does not state how upward-going albedo neutrons are distinguished from downward-going atmospheric or cascade neutrons. This is essential for interpreting Fig. 7 as an albedo spectrum. Please specify the tracking/direction selection criteria.
  4. [§2, atmospheric model] The atmosphere is modeled as a single 12-km-thick slab of constant density 2×10−5 g/cm3. While the column depth (~24 g/cm2) is in the right ballpark, a constant-density slab is a coarse approximation to the real exponentially decreasing atmosphere and can distort the depth-dependent development of hadronic cascades, particularly the attenuation of low-energy protons and the production altitudes of secondary neutrons/gammas. A quantitative estimate of the sensitivity of the surface spectra to this simplification would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §1] Typographical and grammatical errors, e.g., 'Then, The energy spectra' in the abstract and inconsistent capitalization. Also, the term 'PAMELA proton beam' is misleading; PAMELA provides a measured spectrum, not a beam.
  2. [§3, Figs. 4, 6, 7] The y-axis label 'Counts' is ambiguous. It should be stated whether these are raw counts per bin for the 1e5 simulated primaries, counts per primary, or normalized per unit energy. This is necessary for reproducibility and for comparison with other models.
  3. [References] Several references are incomplete or lack page numbers, and the GitHub repository [7] is not described in the text. Please ensure all URLs are accessible and cited in the text.
  4. [Throughout] The paper repeatedly states that the proton transport is 'comparatively insensitive' to hydrogen. Since hydrogen replaces oxide mass, this is expected at the 0.1% level; consider stating this expectation explicitly to avoid over-interpreting a null result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation is a forward GEANT4 calculation; the hydrogen abundance is an input, and the main results come from controlled on/off comparisons within the same model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward GEANT4 simulation: an external PAMELA proton spectrum is used as input; the Martian atmosphere and regolith composition/density are taken from literature; the 0.11 wt.% hydrogen abundance is a chosen input value, not a fitted output; and the reported spectra, depth profiles, and atmosphere-versus-regolith comparisons are direct simulation tallies. The central claims—regolith dominance and the hydrogen-induced thermal excess/epithermal deficit—are obtained by controlled on/off comparisons within the same simulation (Figs. 5-7). No equation is fitted to the target result, and no simulated output is reused as an input. The self-citations ([7], [9]) provide code/methodology and an analogous lunar study, but they are not load-bearing: the Martian conclusion rests on the simulation geometry and the hydrogen on/off comparison performed here, not on the validity of [9]. The use of a solid-crust density 3.01 g/cm3 for the upper 2 m is a model-assumption concern (real regolith is less dense), but that is a correctness/robustness issue, not a circularity issue, because the conclusion is not obtained by assuming the conclusion. The reproduction of the known 'epithermal deficit, thermal excess' pattern is explicitly identified as a benchmark-like qualitative consistency check, not a renaming of an input. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

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

The simulations rest on literature values for the PAMELA flux, atmospheric composition/density, and crust composition. The key choices not independently constrained in this paper are the representative 0.11 wt.% H abundance, the uniform high regolith density, and the uniform atmosphere. No new physical entities are introduced; the surface detector is a scoring construct.

free parameters (5)
  • Hydrogen mass fraction = 0.11 wt.%
    Chosen as a representative water-equivalent hydrogen abundance from orbital neutron spectroscopy [1]; not varied and is the key input to the sensitivity claim.
  • Regolith bulk density = 3.01 g/cm3
    Taken from petrological crustal density estimates [11]; applied as a single homogeneous value to the top 2 m, which is unrealistically dense for porous regolith.
  • Atmospheric density profile = 2e-5 g/cm3 uniform over 12 km
    Near-surface density value [14] applied uniformly to the full atmospheric column; no altitude dependence or seasonal/temporal variation.
  • Incident proton count = 1e5
    Chosen for computational feasibility; limits statistical precision at high energies and may affect the small H/no-H differences.
  • Energy-bin boundaries = 1 eV and 1 keV
    Thermal/epithermal/fast boundaries follow NASA definitions [13]; adopted without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GEANT4 with the FTFP_BERT_HP physics list accurately models hadronic and neutron transport at GCR and low energies for Martian materials.
    The physics list is not validated in this paper against measured Mars spectra; all simulation conclusions inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The PAMELA proton spectrum measured at Earth represents the GCR proton input at Mars.
    Solar modulation, heliospheric propagation, and temporal variations are not modeled; the spectrum is truncated at 115 GeV.
  • domain assumption A uniform, horizontally infinite slab geometry (12-km atmosphere over 2-m regolith) captures the surface radiation field.
    No topography, atmosphere layering, or regolith stratigraphy is included; only a vertical planar beam is used.
  • domain assumption The oxide mixture from Ref. [12] is a valid representation of Martian regolith for neutron/gamma production.
    Bulk crust composition is used as the regolith composition; hydration is approximated by replacing 0.11 wt.% of oxides with hydrogen.
  • standard math Standard particle-physics and Monte Carlo mathematics as implemented in GEANT4 are correct.
    Background toolkit; no new mathematical derivation is present.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling neutron and gamma spectrum at Martian surface in presence and absence of hydrogen: A computational study based on GEANT4 simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUBZATA5

@misc{pith2026260724823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling neutron and gamma spectrum at Martian surface in presence and absence of hydrogen: A computational study based on GEANT4 simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUBZATA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24823}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by the interactions of the GCR protons with the Martian atmosphere and regolith in the absence and presence of hydrogen, a series of GEANT4 simulations are employed in this study to reveal the influence of hydrogen on the energy spectra of secondary and albedo neutrons together with the associated gamma rays at the Martian surface. Following irradiation of the Martian atmosphere with a planar vertical PAMELA proton beam, the attenuation of the primary proton spectrum through the atmosphere and the range and energy deposition of protons within the regolith are first obtained. The depth profile of the generated neutrons and gamma rays, along with the kinetic energy spectra of the atmospherically produced neutrons and gammas reaching the surface, is then acquired in the absence and presence of 0.11 wt.% hydrogen by voxelizing the regolith into 100 cells of 2-cm thickness. Finally, a surface detector is placed atop the regolith, and the atmospherically produced neutron and gamma spectra are compared with the total neutron and gamma spectra recorded at the surface detector to assess the relative contribution of the atmosphere and the regolith to the overall radiation field reaching the Martian surface. The energy spectra of the albedo neutrons are also obtained in terms of thermal, epithermal, and fast neutrons. The GEANT4 simulations show that the Martian regolith, rather than the atmosphere alone, constitutes the dominant source of the neutron and gamma population arriving at the surface, and that the presence of 0.11 wt.% hydrogen is observable in each energy regime of the albedo neutrons at the Martian surface, while proton transport and the overall neutron and gamma production depth profile remain comparatively insensitive to hydrogen, thereby indicating the elemental variation of the Martian regolith.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometrical and structural layout of the 12-km-thick Martian atmosphere and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PAMELA proton spectrum between 0.4 and 115 GeV (a) particle flux and (b) discrete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proton transport through the Martian atmosphere and regolith (a) kinetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kinetic energy spectra of (a) neutrons and (b) gamma rays produced within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Generation depth profile of secondary (a) neutrons and (b) gammas within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Kinetic energy spectra of (a) neutrons and (b) gamma rays at the Martian surface, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy spectrum of albedo neutrons without/with 0.11 wt.% hydrogen at the Martian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Mars odyssey neutron data: 1. data processing and models of water-equivalent- hydrogen distribution,

    S. Maurice, W. Feldman, B. Diez, O. Gasnault, D. Lawrence, A. Pathare, and T. Pret- tyman, “Mars odyssey neutron data: 1. data processing and models of water-equivalent- hydrogen distribution,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 116, no. E11, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    Unfolding the neutron flux spectrum on the surface of mars using the msl-rad and odyssey-hend data,

    L. Martinez Sierra, I. Jun, B. Ehresmann, C. Zeitlin, J. Guo, M. Litvak, K. Harshman, D. Hassler, I. Mitrofanov, D. Matthiä,et al., “Unfolding the neutron flux spectrum on the surface of mars using the msl-rad and odyssey-hend data,”Space Weather, vol. 21, no. 8, p. e2022SW003344, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Measurements of the neutron spectrum on the Martian surface with MSL/RAD,

    Köhler, Jan and Zeitlin, Cary and Ehresmann, Bent and Wimmer-Schweingruber, Robert F and Hassler, Donald M and Reitz, G and Brinza, DE and Weigle, G and Appel, J and Böttcher, S and others, “Measurements of the neutron spectrum on the Martian surface with MSL/RAD,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 594–603, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Measurements of the neutron spectrum in transit to mars on the mars science laboratory,

    Köhler, J and Ehresmann, B and Zeitlin, C and Wimmer-Schweingruber, RF and Hassler, DM and Reitz, G and Brinza, DE and Appel, J and Böttcher, S and Böhm, E and others, “Measurements of the neutron spectrum in transit to mars on the mars science laboratory,” Life Sciences in Space Research, vol. 5, pp. 6–12, 2015. 11

    2015

  5. [5]

    Amodelformarsradiationenvironmentcharacterization,

    A. Keating, A. Mohammadzadeh, P. Nieminen, D. Maia, S. Coutinho, H. Evans, M. Pi- menta, J.-P.Huot, andE.Daly, “Amodelformarsradiationenvironmentcharacterization,” IEEE transactions on nuclear science, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2287–2293, 2005

    2005

  6. [6]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit,

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand,et al., “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit,”Nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 506, no. 3, pp. 250–303, 2003

    2003

  7. [7]

    GEANT4 package - Mars atmosphere and regolith

    A. I. Topuz, “GEANT4 package - Mars atmosphere and regolith.”https://github.com/ illcore/Mars_PAMELA_neutron_gamma.git, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    PAMELA measurements of cosmic- ray proton and helium spectra,

    O. Adriani, G. Barbarino, G. Bazilevskaya, R. Bellotti, M. Boezio, E. Bogomolov, L. Bonechi, M. Bongi, V. Bonvicini, S. Borisov,et al., “PAMELA measurements of cosmic- ray proton and helium spectra,”Science, vol. 332, no. 6025, pp. 69–72, 2011

    2011

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Effect of hydrogen on albedo neutrons in the lunar surface: A computational investigation by means of geant4 simulations,

    A. I. Topuz, “Effect of hydrogen on albedo neutrons in the lunar surface: A computational investigation by means of geant4 simulations,”London Journal of Physics, vol. 1, no. 2, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Abundance and isotopic composition of gases in the Martian atmosphere from the Curiosity rover,

    P. R. Mahaffy, C. R. Webster, S. K. Atreya, H. Franz, M. Wong, P. G. Conrad, D. Harpold, J. J. Jones, L. A. Leshin, H. Manning,et al., “Abundance and isotopic composition of gases in the Martian atmosphere from the Curiosity rover,”Science, vol. 341, no. 6143, pp. 263– 266, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Petrological constraints on the density of the Martian crust,

    D. Baratoux, H. Samuel, C. Michaut, M. J. Toplis, M. Monnereau, M. Wieczorek, R. Gar- cia, and K. Kurita, “Petrological constraints on the density of the Martian crust,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 119, no. 7, pp. 1707–1727, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    The composition of mars,

    T. Yoshizaki and W. F. McDonough, “The composition of mars,”Geochimica et Cos- mochimica Acta, vol. 273, pp. 137–162, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Mars Odyssey - Science Instruments

    NASA, “Mars Odyssey - Science Instruments.”https://science.nasa.gov/mission/ odyssey/science-instruments/, 2026. Accessed: 24/06/2024

    2026

  6. [14]

    Structure of the atmosphere of Mars in summer at mid-latitudes,

    A. Seiff and D. B. Kirk, “Structure of the atmosphere of Mars in summer at mid-latitudes,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 82, no. 28, pp. 4364–4378, 1977

    1977

  7. [15]

    The radiation environment on the surface of Mars–Numerical calculations of the galactic component with GEANT4/PLANETOCOSMICS,

    D. Matthiae and T. Berger, “The radiation environment on the surface of Mars–Numerical calculations of the galactic component with GEANT4/PLANETOCOSMICS,”Life sci- ences in space research, vol. 14, pp. 57–63, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    The radiation environment on the surface of Mars-Summary of model calculations and comparison to RAD data,

    Matthiä, Daniel and Hassler, Donald M and de Wet, Wouter and Ehresmann, Bent and Firan, Ana and Flores-McLaughlin, John and Guo, Jingnan and Heilbronn, Lawrence H and Lee, Kerry and Ratliff, Hunter and others, “The radiation environment on the surface of Mars-Summary of model ...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Studies of the radi- ation environment on the Mars surface using the Geant4 toolkit,

    J.-L. Chen, S.-J. Yun, T.-K. Dong, Z.-Z. Ren, and X.-P. Zhang, “Studies of the radi- ation environment on the Mars surface using the Geant4 toolkit,”Nuclear Science and Techniques, vol. 33, no. 1, p. 11, 2022. 12

    2022

  10. [18]

    Implementation and validation of the GEANT4/AtRIS code to model the radiation environment at Mars,

    J. Guo, S. Banjac, L. Röstel, J. C. Terasa, K. Herbst, B. Heber, and R. F. Wimmer- Schweingruber, “Implementation and validation of the GEANT4/AtRIS code to model the radiation environment at Mars,”Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate, vol. 9, p. A2, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    ARAMIS: a Martian radiative environment model built from GEANT4 simulations,

    G. Charpentier, M. Ruffenach, R. Benacquista, R. Ecoffet, A. Cappe, C. Dossat, A. Varot- sou, H. Cintas, A. Paillet, L. Boyer,et al., “ARAMIS: a Martian radiative environment model built from GEANT4 simulations,” 2024. 13

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.