pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25070 · v1 · pith:TXFXGX4Nnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

A Look at Eight Outbursts of Comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke

Ky Huynh , Michael S. P. Kelley , Jessica M. Sunshine , Quanzhi Ye , Tim Lister , Dennis Bodewits , Adam McKay , Megan E. Schwamb
show 1 more author
Helen Usher
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords comet outbursts7P/Pons-Winneckemini-outburstsJupiter-family cometsphotometric analysisejecta massoutburst ratemeteor showers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke produced eight mini-outbursts in summer 2021 whose surface-area normalized rate matches several Jupiter-family comets but is ten times higher than for 49P/Arend-Rigaux.

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

The paper examines eight brightness increases observed in comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke from June to August 2021 using optical images from the Las Cumbres Observatory network. These events showed magnitude changes from -0.2 to -1.1 and ejected masses on the order of 10^5 to 10^6 kg, with varying morphologies that point to different source regions on the nucleus. The surface-area normalized outburst rate is reported as comparable to comets 41P, 9P, and 46P but an order of magnitude larger than for 49P, while revealing clear differences from the mini-outburst frequency measured by the Rosetta spacecraft at 67P. The authors also assess whether 19th-century activity from 7P could account for observed 20th-century meteor shower enhancements. A reader would care because these rates constrain the frequency of nucleus-driven mass loss and the reliability of ground-based versus in-situ measurements for understanding cometary evolution.

Core claim

We studied eight outbursts of comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke identified between 2021 June 3 and 2021 August 31 using optical images and photometry from the Las Cumbres Observatory network. The outburst strengths relative to the ambient coma ranged from -0.2 to -1.1 mag, with ejecta apparent brightnesses from 17.4 to 13.3 mag and morphologies suggesting origins from different nucleus sources. An order-of-magnitude estimation gives ejecta masses of 10^5 to 10^6 kg. The surface-area normalized outburst rate is similar to that of comets 41P/Tuttle-Giacobini-Kresák, 9P/Tempel 1 and 46P/Wirtanen, but 10 times larger than observed at 49P/Arend-Rigaux; comparison with the mini-outburst rate of 67P/Churyumov

What carries the argument

Surface-area normalized outburst rate derived from photometric detection of eight discrete brightness increases in the coma, used to enable direct comparison of mini-outburst frequency across comets observed with different instruments.

If this is right

  • Outburst rates normalized by surface area allow quantitative comparison across Jupiter-family comets despite differing observation methods.
  • Ground-based photometry and spacecraft in-situ data can yield inconsistent mini-outburst frequencies for the same class of comet.
  • Varying ejecta morphologies imply multiple active source regions on the nucleus of 7P.
  • Historical 19th-century activity levels of 7P may or may not be required to match 20th-century meteor shower observations.
  • Mini-outburst ejecta masses in the 10^5-10^6 kg range appear common across several short-period comets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the rate discrepancy with 67P holds, it suggests that spacecraft data capture a different population of events or that ground-based detection completeness varies strongly with comet distance and activity level.
  • Similar normalized rates across 7P, 41P, 9P, and 46P imply that the underlying trigger mechanism for mini-outbursts is shared among many Jupiter-family comets rather than being unique to individual objects.
  • The investigation into meteor showers opens the possibility that outburst statistics from one apparition can be extrapolated backward to explain stream activity decades earlier.

Load-bearing premise

The eight identified brightness increases are genuine nucleus-sourced outbursts rather than observational artifacts or natural variations in the ambient coma.

What would settle it

A spacecraft flyby or orbiter measurement of 7P showing either zero mini-outbursts or a surface-area normalized rate differing by more than a factor of a few from the ground-based estimate during a comparable activity period.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25070 by Adam McKay, Dennis Bodewits, Helen Usher, Jessica M. Sunshine, Ky Huynh, Megan E. Schwamb, Michael S. P. Kelley, Quanzhi Ye, Tim Lister.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Selected images of comet 7P in an ambient state (dates indicated in each sub-panel). Images are oriented so north is pointing up and east is to the left, and are taken in r ′ filter. −⊙ represents the projected Sun-comet vector and V is the projected heliocentric velocity vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Light curve of comet 7P/Pons–Winnecke based on r-band photometry (blue circles). Purple triangles indicate an identified post-perihelion outburst, except for the outbursts of July 10 and 18, which are marked with green diamonds and yellow squares, respectively. The cyan dash-dotted and pink dotted lines indicate the time of perihelion and closest approach to Earth, respectively. Red solid lines are third-o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Absolute r-band magnitude of comet 7P/Pons–Winnecke versus time from perihelion. A polynomial fit to the quiescent activity is shown (dashed line). Outbursts are marked with vertical lines, including the June 2 (van Buitenen 2021) and June 7 (Sharma et al. 2021b) outbursts, which are labeled in gray. Illustrative models for each outburst’s evolution are shown as exponential functions (solid line). are outb… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Images of the outburst ejecta generated from the difference between an outburst image and the image preceding it. Images are oriented so that north is up and east is to the left. All displayed images are taken in r ′ filter. −⊙ represents the anti-solar direction and V is the heliocentric velocity direction. Additional compact features in the lower half of the June 5 image are due to background sources. De… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Difference of two 2D Gaussian distributions, with σ=5 and 7 pix. The artifacts seen in the June 5, June 22, July 2, and August 25 outbursts are replicated, indicating that seeing effects are the likely cause. anisotropic about the nucleus. However, there is no preferred direction overall, e.g., the June 9 and July 10 outbursts are directed more towards the Sun, but the June 22 and July 18 outbursts are mor… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Images of comet 7P/Pons–Winnecke taken during a period of quiescence (left, taken at 2021 July 28 10:25:23 UTC) and the 2021 July 10 outburst (right, taken at 2021 July 10 02:29:58 UTC). The outburst ejecta is apparent as distortions in the observed surface brightness as compared to the ambient coma image. The bottom row shows the log￾arithmically scaled data with contours spaced every 0.5 mag/arcsec2 . A … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Animation of comet 7P from 2021 July 07 to July 23 showing the July 10 and 18 outbursts. (a) Original r ′ images. (b) Temporally-filtered images generated by subtracting the data taken 2021 July 07 at 00:25 UTC. Both panels are log-scaled from 24.2 to 18.0 mag/sq. arcsec with a reversed gray-scale color map. Orientation is the same as in Figs. 6 and 7. The example figure is the animation frame for 2021 Jul… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cometary outbursts may be used as a means to infer the physical processes occurring on cometary nuclei. To that end, we studied eight outbursts of comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke identified between 2021 June 3 and 2021 August 31. The data analyzed consisted of optical images and derived photometry of the comet from the Las Cumbres Observatory network of telescopes. The outburst strengths relative to the ambient coma ranged from -0.2 to -1.1 mag, and the ejecta themselves had apparent brightnesses ranging from 17.4 to 13.3 mag. The morphologies of the ejecta varied, suggesting that the events may have originated from different sources across the nucleus. An order of magnitude estimation of the ejecta masses ranged from 10$^{5}$ - 10$^{6}$ kg, similar to other mini-outbursts of comets. The surface-area normalized outburst rate estimated during this time period is similar to comets 41P/Tuttle-Giacobini-Kres\'ak, 9P/Tempel 1 and 46P/Wirtanen, but 10 times larger than that observed at comet 49P/Arend-Rigaux. However, a comparison to the mini-outburst rate of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko reveals significant discrepancies between Rosetta spacecraft results and those from ground-based telescopes. We also investigate whether or not cometary outbursts from 7P in the 19th century are needed to explain outbursts in meteor shower rates observed in the 20th century.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports the identification and analysis of eight outbursts in comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke from optical photometry obtained with the Las Cumbres Observatory network between 2021 June 3 and August 31. Outburst amplitudes relative to the ambient coma range from -0.2 to -1.1 mag with ejecta apparent magnitudes 13.3–17.4; order-of-magnitude ejecta masses are estimated at 10^5–10^6 kg. The surface-area-normalized outburst rate is stated to be comparable to those of 41P, 9P and 46P but ~10× higher than 49P, while showing discrepancies with the mini-outburst rate derived from Rosetta data on 67P. The work also examines whether 19th-century outbursts from 7P are required to explain 20th-century meteor-shower activity.

Significance. If the event identifications prove robust, the manuscript supplies a new set of well-sampled mini-outburst light curves and mass estimates for a Jupiter-family comet, together with a direct rate comparison that underscores possible systematic differences between ground-based and spacecraft-derived outburst statistics. Such data points are useful for constraining the frequency and energetics of cometary activity across the population.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §2] Abstract and §2 (Observations/Data Reduction): No quantitative criteria are given for outburst identification (e.g., minimum significance above photometric noise, light-curve fitting procedure, or ambient-coma subtraction method), nor are photometric error bars or completeness simulations reported. These omissions are load-bearing for the central claim that the eight brightness increases constitute genuine nucleus-sourced outbursts rather than artifacts or coma fluctuations.
  2. [§4] §4 (Rate Comparisons): The surface-area-normalized rate statements (similar to 41P/9P/46P, 10× higher than 49P, discrepant with 67P) rest on direct comparison without any assessment of detection efficiency, cadence differences, or sensitivity limits between LCO ground-based data and the Rosetta or other literature datasets. If completeness varies by more than a factor of a few, the factor-of-10 discrepancy and similarity claims do not follow.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and mass-estimate paragraph] The abstract states ejecta masses as an “order of magnitude estimation” but does not specify the adopted dust grain properties, ejection velocity, or albedo values used in the conversion from photometry to mass; these parameters should be stated explicitly in the text or a table.
  2. Figure captions and text should clarify whether the reported magnitudes are in a standard filter (e.g., r′) and whether any color-term or phase-angle corrections were applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We address the two major comments point-by-point below and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §2] Abstract and §2 (Observations/Data Reduction): No quantitative criteria are given for outburst identification (e.g., minimum significance above photometric noise, light-curve fitting procedure, or ambient-coma subtraction method), nor are photometric error bars or completeness simulations reported. These omissions are load-bearing for the central claim that the eight brightness increases constitute genuine nucleus-sourced outbursts rather than artifacts or coma fluctuations.

    Authors: We agree that the identification criteria must be stated quantitatively. In the revised manuscript we will expand §2 to specify the adopted threshold (brightness increase exceeding 3 times the local photometric scatter after ambient-coma subtraction), the exact subtraction method (linear interpolation between pre- and post-event photometry), and the light-curve inspection procedure. Photometric uncertainties will be plotted on all light-curve figures and tabulated. A brief discussion of sampling completeness given the LCO cadence will also be added. These additions directly address the referee’s concern without altering the reported events. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Rate Comparisons): The surface-area-normalized rate statements (similar to 41P/9P/46P, 10× higher than 49P, discrepant with 67P) rest on direct comparison without any assessment of detection efficiency, cadence differences, or sensitivity limits between LCO ground-based data and the Rosetta or other literature datasets. If completeness varies by more than a factor of a few, the factor-of-10 discrepancy and similarity claims do not follow.

    Authors: We accept that the rate comparisons require explicit caveats. The revised §4 will include a new paragraph comparing the LCO nightly cadence and typical 0.1-mag precision with the continuous Rosetta monitoring and the published cadences of the 41P/9P/46P/49P studies. We will note that the factor-of-10 difference with 67P could partly reflect detection-threshold differences and will qualify all statements as order-of-magnitude estimates. A full end-to-end completeness simulation across every dataset is not feasible with the information publicly available, but the added discussion will make the limitations transparent. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in observational photometry and external rate comparisons

full rationale

The paper reports new Las Cumbres Observatory photometry of eight brightness increases in 7P, derives order-of-magnitude ejecta masses directly from those data, and compares the resulting surface-area-normalized rate to independently published values for other comets. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation, and the central claims rest on external benchmarks rather than self-referential definitions. This is the expected outcome for a purely observational study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The mass estimates and rate comparisons rest on standard but unstated assumptions typical in cometary photometry; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • dust grain properties and ejection velocity
    Order-of-magnitude mass from apparent brightness requires assumptions on grain size, density, albedo, and velocity that are not specified.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Observed brightness increases are due to dust ejection from the nucleus
    Central to identifying and quantifying the eight outbursts from image data.
  • domain assumption Comet nucleus surface area is known accurately enough for normalization
    Required for the surface-area normalized outburst rate comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5854 in / 1554 out tokens · 43039 ms · 2026-06-25T21:46:59.039243+00:00 · methodology

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

87 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Agarwal , J., Della Corte , V., Feldman , P. D., et al. 2017, , 469, s606, 10.1093/mnras/stx2386

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2386 2017

  2. [2]

    A'Hearn , M. F. 2008, , 138, 237, 10.1007/s11214-008-9350-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9350-3 2008

  3. [3]

    F., Millis , R

    A'Hearn , M. F., Millis , R. L., Schleicher , D. G., Osip , D. J., & Birch , P. V. 1995, Icar, 118, 223, 10.1006/icar.1995.1190

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1995.1190 1995

  4. [4]

    F., Belton , M

    A'Hearn , M. F., Belton , M. J. S., Delamere , W. A., et al. 2005, Sci, 310, 258, 10.1126/science.1118923

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1118923 2005

  5. [5]

    2011, Sci, 332, 1396, 10.1126/science.1204054

    ---. 2011, Sci, 332, 1396, 10.1126/science.1204054

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1204054 2011

  6. [6]

    1999, in Proceedings of the International Meteor Conference, 17th IMC, Stara Lesna, Slovakia, 1998, 29--42

    Arlt, R. 1999, in Proceedings of the International Meteor Conference, 17th IMC, Stara Lesna, Slovakia, 1998, 29--42

    1999

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Arlt , R., Rendtel , J., Brown , P., et al. 1999, , 308, 887, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02755.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02755.x 1999

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  9. [9]

    2018 , note =

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  10. [10]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  11. [11]

    Belton , M. J. S., Feldman , P. D., A'Hearn , M. F., & Carcich , B. 2008, Icar, 198, 189, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.07.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.07.009 2008

  12. [12]

    B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R

    Bianco , F. B., Ivezi \'c , Z ., Jones , R. L., et al. 2022, , 258, 1, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 2022

  13. [13]

    L., Kelley , M

    Bodewits , D., Farnham , T. L., Kelley , M. S. P., & Knight , M. M. 2018, , 553, 186, 10.1038/nature25150

    work page doi:10.1038/nature25150 2018

  14. [14]

    U., Goudfrooij , P., et al

    Boehnhardt , H., Kaeufl , H. U., Goudfrooij , P., et al. 1996, The Messenger, 84, 26

    1996

  15. [15]

    2020, , 638, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037663

    Boehnhardt , H., Riffeser , A., Ries , C., Schmidt , M., & Hopp , U. 2020, , 638, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037663

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037663 2020

  16. [16]

    2002, , 387, 1107, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020494

    Boehnhardt , H., Delahodde , C., Sekiguchi , T., et al. 2002, , 387, 1107, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020494

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020494 2002

  17. [17]

    2022, astropy/photutils: , Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.596036

    Bradley , L., Sip o cz , B., Robitaille , T., et al. 2022, astropy/photutils: , Zenodo, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.596036

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.596036 2022

  18. [18]

    M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F

    Brown , T. M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F. B., et al. 2013, , 125, 1031, 10.1086/673168

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/673168 2013

  19. [19]

    Chambers , J. E. 1999, , 304, 793, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x 1999

  20. [20]

    2020, Planetary and Space Science, 185, 104895

    Egal, A. 2020, Planetary and Space Science, 185, 104895

    2020

  21. [21]

    M., & Schleicher , D

    Eisner , N., Knight , M. M., & Schleicher , D. G. 2017, , 154, 196, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8b0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8b0b 2017

  22. [22]

    L., Knight , M

    Farnham , T. L., Knight , M. M., Schleicher , D. G., et al. 2021, , 2, 7, 10.3847/PSJ/abd091

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abd091 2021

  23. [23]

    L., Wellnitz , D

    Farnham , T. L., Wellnitz , D. D., Hampton , D. L., et al. 2007, Icar, 191, 146, 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.10.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.10.038 2007

  24. [24]

    R., Kelley , M

    Fern \'a ndez , Y. R., Kelley , M. S., Lamy , P. L., et al. 2013, Icar, 226, 1138, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.021 2013

  25. [25]

    2022, , 517, 4305, 10.1093/mnras/stac2995

    Gardener , D., Snodgrass , C., & Ligier , N. 2022, , 517, 4305, 10.1093/mnras/stac2995

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2995 2022

  26. [26]

    Long-term outburst activity of comet 17P/Holmes and constraints on ejecta size distributions

    Gritsevich , M., Weso owski , M., Trigo-Rodr \' guez , J. M., et al. in press, , arXiv:2603.17130, 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17130

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.17130

  27. [27]

    , keywords =

    Gronkowski , P., & Sacharczuk , Z. 2010, , 408, 1207, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17194.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17194.x 2010

  28. [28]

    2023, , 4, 220, 10.3847/PSJ/ad083a

    Guilbert-Lepoutre , A., Benseguane , S., Martinien , L., et al. 2023, , 4, 220, 10.3847/PSJ/ad083a

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad083a 2023

  29. [29]

    1998, WGN, Journal of the International Meteor Organization, vol

    Hashimoto, T., & Osada, K. 1998, WGN, Journal of the International Meteor Organization, vol. 26, no. 6, p. 263-266, 26, 263

    1998

  30. [30]

    Hughes , D. W. 1990, , 31, 69

    1990

  31. [31]

    Hughes , D. W. 1991, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 167, IAU Colloq. 116: Comets in the post-Halley era, ed. R. L. Newburn , Jr., M. Neugebauer , & J. Rahe , 825--851

    1991

  32. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  33. [33]

    2016, , 152, 169, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/169

    Ishiguro , M., Kuroda , D., Hanayama , H., et al. 2016, , 152, 169, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/169

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/169 2016

  34. [34]

    LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products.Astrophys

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  35. [35]

    2006, Meteor Showers and their Parent Comets

    Jenniskens , P. 2006, Meteor Showers and their Parent Comets

    2006

  36. [36]

    2016, Icar, 277, 257, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.05.002

    Jorda , L., Gaskell , R., Capanna , C., et al. 2016, Icar, 277, 257, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.05.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.05.002 2016

  37. [37]

    Kelley , M. S. P., Lin, Z.-Y., Sharma, K., et al. 2021 a , Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 4997

    2021

  38. [38]

    Kelley , M. S. P., & Lister, T. 2019, calviacat: Calibrate star photometry by comparison to a catalog, 1.0.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.2635841

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2635841 2019

  39. [39]

    Kelley , M. S. P., & Lister , T. 2021, ATel, 14486, 1

    2021

  40. [40]

    Kelley , M. S. P., Ye , Q., Donaldson , A., et al. 2022, ATel, 15772, 1. http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=15772

    2022

  41. [41]

    Kelley , M. S. P., Farnham , T. L., Li , J.-Y., et al. 2021 b , , 2, 131, 10.3847/PSJ/abfe11

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abfe11 2021

  42. [42]

    Kronk , G. W. 2003, Cometography: A Catalog of Comets, Volume 2: 1800-1899 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  43. [43]

    M., Boehnhardt , H., Gredel , R., et al

    Lara , L. M., Boehnhardt , H., Gredel , R., et al. 2006, , 445, 1151, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053833

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053833 2006

  44. [44]

    M., & Jackson , B

    Li , J., Jewitt , D., Clover , J. M., & Jackson , B. V. 2011, , 728, 31, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/1/31 2011

  45. [45]

    Lister , T., Kelley , M. S. P., Holt , C. E., et al. 2022, , 3, 173, 10.3847/PSJ/ac7a31

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac7a31 2022

  46. [46]

    Marcus , J. N. 2007, Int. Comet Q., 29, 119

    2007

  47. [47]

    M., Moreno , F., Guti \'e rrez , P

    Mariblanca-Escalona , I., Lara , L. M., Moreno , F., Guti \'e rrez , P. J., & Evangelista-Santana , M. 2025, , 538, 1329, 10.1093/mnras/staf370

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf370 2025

  48. [48]

    H., Harbeck , D.-R., et al

    McCully , C., Volgenau , N. H., Harbeck , D.-R., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V, ed. J. C. Guzman & J. Ibsen , 107070K, 10.1117/12.2314340

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2314340 2018

  49. [49]

    J., Ageorges , N., A'Hearn , M

    Meech , K. J., Ageorges , N., A'Hearn , M. F., et al. 2005, Sci, 310, 265, 10.1126/science.1118978

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1118978 2005

  50. [50]

    J., A'Hearn , M

    Meech , K. J., A'Hearn , M. F., Adams , J. A., et al. 2011, , 734, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L1

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/l1 2011

  51. [51]

    L., A'Hearn , M

    Millis , R. L., A'Hearn , M. F., & Campins , H. 1988, , 324, 1194, 10.1086/165974

    work page doi:10.1086/165974 1988

  52. [52]

    Mommert , M., Kelley , M., de Val-Borro , M., et al. 2019, J. Open Source Softw., 4, 1426, 10.21105/joss.01426

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01426 2019

  53. [53]

    J., Feaga , L

    Moretto , M. J., Feaga , L. M., & A'Hearn , M. F. 2017, Icar, 296, 28, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.013 2017

  54. [54]

    R., Altwegg , K., Berthelier , J.-J., et al

    M \"u ller , D. R., Altwegg , K., Berthelier , J.-J., et al. 2024, , 529, 2763, 10.1093/mnras/stae622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae622 2024

  55. [55]

    2025, , 537, 2997, 10.1093/mnras/staf180

    ---. 2025, , 537, 2997, 10.1093/mnras/staf180

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf180 2025

  56. [56]

    2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Narita , N., Fukui , A., Yamamuro , T., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 114475K, 10.1117/12.2559947

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2559947 2020

  57. [57]

    W., Rinaldi , G., Feldman , P

    Noonan , J. W., Rinaldi , G., Feldman , P. D., et al. 2021, , 162, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf8b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf8b4 2021

  58. [58]

    O., Shmal'ts , A

    Novichonok , A. O., Shmal'ts , A. A., Nazarov , S. V., et al. 2024, Solar System Research, 58, 456, 10.1134/S003809462470028X

    work page doi:10.1134/s003809462470028x 2024

  59. [59]

    B., et al

    Pajola , M., H \"o fner , S., Vincent , J. B., et al. 2017, NatAs., 1, 0092, 10.1038/s41550-017-0092

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0092 2017

  60. [60]

    2024, in Comets III, ed

    Prialnik , D., & Jewitt , D. 2024, in Comets III, ed. K. J. Meech , M. R. Combi , D. Bockel \'e e-Morvan , S. N. Raymodn , & M. E. Zolensky (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press ), 823--844, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816553631-ch025

    work page doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816553631-ch025 2024

  61. [61]

    G., Knight , M

    Schleicher , D. G., Knight , M. M., Eisner , N. L., & Thirouin , A. 2019, , 157, 108, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafbab

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafbab 2019

  62. [62]

    G., Millis , R

    Schleicher , D. G., Millis , R. L., & Birch , P. V. 1998, Icar, 132, 397, 10.1006/icar.1997.5902

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5902 1998

  63. [63]

    E., Knight , M

    Schwamb , M. E., Knight , M. M., Jones , G. H., et al. 2020, Res. Not. AAS, 4, 21, 10.3847/2515-5172/ab7300

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab7300 2020

  64. [64]

    E., Jones , R

    Schwamb , M. E., Jones , R. L., Yoachim , P., et al. 2023, , 266, 22, 10.3847/1538-4365/acc173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc173 2023

  65. [65]

    2009, International Comet Quarterly, 31, 99

    Sekanina , Z. 2009, International Comet Quarterly, 31, 99

    2009

  66. [66]

    Sharma , K., Kelley , M. S. P., Joharle , S., et al. 2021 a , Res. Not. AAS, 5, 277, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac3ee4

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac3ee4 2021

  67. [67]

    Sharma , K., Kelley , M. S. P., Stanzin , J., et al. 2021 b , ATel, 14687, 1

    2021

  68. [68]

    Snodgrass , C., Fitzsimmons , A., & Lowry , S. C. 2005, , 444, 287, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053237

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053237 2005

  69. [69]

    K., Graves , K., Hirabayashi , M., Melosh , H

    Steckloff , J. K., Graves , K., Hirabayashi , M., Melosh , H. J., & Richardson , J. E. 2016, Icar, 272, 60, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.026 2016

  70. [70]

    V., & Walker , R

    Sykes , M. V., & Walker , R. G. 1992, Icar, 95, 180, 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90037-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(92)90037-8 1992

  71. [71]

    2002, Earth, Moon, Planets, 88, 27, 10.1023/A:1013807101680

    Tanigawa , T., & Hashimoto , T. 2002, Earth, Moon, Planets, 88, 27, 10.1023/A:1013807101680

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1013807101680 2002

  72. [72]

    Thomas , P., A'Hearn , M., Belton , M. J. S., et al. 2013 a , Icar, 222, 453, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.02.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.02.037 2013

  73. [73]

    C., A'Hearn , M

    Thomas , P. C., A'Hearn , M. F., Veverka , J., et al. 2013 b , Icar, 222, 550, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.05.034

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.05.034 2013

  74. [74]

    L., Denneau , L., Flewelling , H., et al

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Flewelling , H., et al. 2018, , 867, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae386

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae386 2018

  75. [75]

    M., & Blum , J

    Trigo-Rodr \' guez , J. M., & Blum , J. 2022, , 512, 2277, 10.1093/mnras/stab2827

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2827 2022

  76. [76]

    , keywords =

    Trigo-Rodr \' guez , J. M., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez , D. A., S \'a nchez , A., et al. 2010, , 409, 1682, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17425.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17425.x 2010

  77. [77]

    2015, , 573, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424735

    Tubiana , C., Snodgrass , C., Bertini , I., et al. 2015, , 573, A62, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424735

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424735 2015

  78. [78]

    2021, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4997, 1

    van Buitenen , G. 2021, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4997, 1

    2021

  79. [79]

    , year = 2005, month = apr, volume =

    Vaubaillon , J., Arlt , R., Shanov , S., Dubrovski , S., & Sato , M. 2005, , 362, 1463, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09421.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09421.x 2005

  80. [80]

    F., Lin , Z.-Y., et al

    Vincent , J.-B., A'Hearn , M. F., Lin , Z.-Y., et al. 2016, , 462, S184, 10.1093/mnras/stw2409

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2409 2016

Showing first 80 references.