Cited by 93Planetary Science and ExplorationSpacecraft Design and TechnologyAdvanced Optical Sensing Technologies

Long-term degradation of optical devices on the Moon

Open access
Murphy, T.W., Adelberger, E.G., Battat, J.B.R., Hoyle, C.D., McMillan, R.J., Michelsen, E.L., Samad, R.L., Stubbs, C.W. +1 more·2010·Icarus

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.02.015

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lunar dust coverage on the Surveyor 3 camera lens was roughly estimated as 25% of its surface area during 945 days of operation (0.8% per month) without human activities.

    “The lunar dust coverage on camera lens was roughly estimated as 25% of its surface area during 945 days of operation (0.8% per month) without human activities (Murphy et al., 2010).”

    From Influence of Back Electrostatic Field on the Collection Efficiency of an Electrostatic Lunar Dust Collector (2014) · cites this paper as Murphy et al., 2010

    The Discussion (p. 8) reports that dust obscured an estimated 25% of the Surveyor 3 camera lens cover after 945 days, consistent with roughly 0.8% per month. But it suspects much of that dust resulted from Surveyor and Apollo 12 landing and surface activities, so the claim that the coverage occurred without human activities is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Farrell, W. M., Stubbs, T. J., V ondrak, R. R., Delory, G. T., & Halekas, J. S., 2007. Complex electric fields near the lunar terminator: The near-surface wake and accelerated dust. Geophysical Research Letters , 34 , L14201 (5 pages)
  2. Shelus, P. J., 1985. MLRS: A lunar/artificial satellite laser ranging facility at the McDonald Observatory. IEEE Trans. on Geoscience and Remote Sensing GE-23 , 385-390

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, T. W., Adelberger, E. G., Battat, J. B. R., Hoyle, C. D., McMillan, R. J., Michelsen, E. L., Samad, R. L., Stubbs, C. W., & Swanson, H. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Cal Poly Humboldt (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Murphy, T.W.
Venue
Icarus
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
208
Issue
1
Pages
31-35
ISSN
0019-1035 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081597131
Cited by
93
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Icarus (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Planetary Science and Exploration
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Spacecraft Design and Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Advanced Optical Sensing Technologies
Keywords
lunar laser ranging, lunar dust, corner cube prism, reflectivity loss, lunar environment, thermal performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review