English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A detailed comparison is made of results from the Lunar Prospector Neutron Spectrometer (LPNS) and the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector Collimated Sensors for Epithermal Neutrons (LEND CSETN). Using the autocorrelation function and power spectrum of the polar count rate maps produced by these experiments, it is shown that the LEND CSETN has a footprint that is at least as big as would be expected for an omnidirectional detector at an orbital altitude of 50 km. The collimated flux into the field of view of the collimator is negligible. A dip in the count rate in Shoemaker crater is found to be consistent with being a statistical fluctuation superimposed on a significant, larger‐scale decrease in the count rate, providing no evidence for high spatial resolution of the LEND CSETN. The maps of lunar polar hydrogen with the highest contrast, i.e., spatial resolution, are those resulting from pixon image reconstructions of the LPNS data. These typically provide weight percentages of water‐equivalent hydrogen that are accurate to 30 %  within the polar craters.

How well do we know the polar hydrogen distribution on the Moon?