Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

The Moon-forming Impact as a Constraint for the Inner Solar System's Formation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Moon-forming impact is so rare and so thoroughly mixing under pebble accretion that the model cannot explain the Earth-Moon system.

desk verdict A credible and novel test of the pebble-accretion scenario via the Moon-forming impact, but the headline probability rests on an unmodeled prior and the strong conclusion needs to be reined in. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14709 v1 pith:6KRZANCM submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.EP

Tong Fang , Rongxi Bi , Hui Zhang , You Zhou , Christian Reinhardt , Hongping Deng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Moon-formingimpactpebbleaccretionterrestrialplanetformationgiantproto-EarthTheiaprimordialmantleheterogeneityoxygenisotopes
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 argues that the Moon's origin, which has been thoroughly explored in the classical planetesimal-accretion picture, can discriminate between that picture and the alternative pebble-accretion scenario. It combines long-term N-body simulations of the proto-Earth and Theia pair with high-resolution giant-impact simulations to show that, under pebble accretion, a suitable Moon-forming impact is a rare event with probability below one per mille. Even when such an impact occurs, it mixes the two bodies so completely that it would erase the primordial mantle heterogeneities and the small Earth-Moon compositional difference that are observed. The paper concludes that the Earth-Moon system and the other terrestrial planets should preferably form via chaotic collisional growth among planetesimals, not via pebble accretion.

What carries the argument

The discriminator is the Moon-forming giant impact between proto-Earth (about 0.6 Earth masses) and Theia (about 0.4 Earth masses), which in the pebble accretion model is the only way to make the Moon. The quantitative machinery is a pair of simulations: N-body integrations that track whether the two bodies collide, when, and with what impact parameters, and global giant-impact simulations that follow the mixing of target and impactor material through the proto-lunar disk. A key intermediate is the Hill-radius separation Δ between the two bodies, which controls whether collisions occur quickly (Δ < 2√3) or are delayed (Δ between 2√3 and 16 Hill radii). The paper uses this separation to convert collision frequencies into probability statements about the Moon-forming event.

What would settle it

Compute the orbital separation distribution of proto-Earth and Theia from a full pebble-accretion growth simulation; if a substantial fraction of such pairs evolve into the window for delayed collisions (2√3 to 16 Hill radii), the quoted sub-per-mille collision probability would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the pebble accretion paradigm for terrestrial planet formation is strongly disfavored because it cannot reproduce the Moon-forming impact. In 2900 N-body simulations initialized with proto-Earth and Theia separated by 1 to 30 mutual Hill radii, collisions between the two half-Earths are common only when the separation is less than 2√3 Hill radii, in which case they occur within 1 Myr; for wider separations the collision probability drops to 1.5%, and only four simulations produce a giant impact within the 70–120 Myr window inferred for the Moon's formation. When such delayed impacts do occur, high-resolution hydrodynamic simulations show that the target and impactor mix almost completely, with 48–55% of the protolunar disk coming from Theia, erasing any primordial mantle reservoirs and forcing an initial oxygen isotope difference between proto-Earth and Theia far larger than expected for bodies with nearly identical accretion histories. The paper's conclusion is that the Moon's origin favours the classical collisional-growth scenario over pebble accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the initial orbital separations between proto-Earth and Theia are distributed uniformly from 1 to 30 mutual Hill radii, a distribution that is adopted rather than derived from the pebble accretion model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under pebble accretion, the probability of a Moon-forming impact at the right timing and angle is below one per mille, so the model requires extreme fine-tuning to explain the Earth-Moon system.
  • A successful half-Earth impact produces a protolunar disk with 48–55% of its material from Theia and a thoroughly mixed mantle, so any primordial Earth mantle heterogeneity would not survive.
  • To match the observed 22 ppm oxygen isotope offset after such mixing, proto-Earth and Theia would need an initial isotopic difference of about 695 ppm, even larger than the Earth-Mars difference, which is implausible for close siblings formed by pebble accretion.
  • Delayed Moon-forming impacts in the 70–120 Myr window occur only for initial separations between 2√3 and 16 Hill radii, and the collision probability in that range is below three per mille.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that if pebble accretion is disfavored for the terrestrial planets, Earth's formation timescale would revert to tens of millions of years, bringing into question pebble-accretion-based interpretations of early isotopic chronometers.
  • The same half-Earth mixing argument could be applied to any proposed giant impact on Venus or Mars, predicting that such impacts, if they occurred, would also erase primordial heterogeneities in those bodies.
  • The statistical test could be sharpened by simulating the full pebble-accretion assembly of proto-Earth and Theia to derive a self-consistent initial orbital separation distribution instead of sampling it uniformly.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper tests the pebble-accretion scenario for terrestrial-planet formation against the Moon-forming impact. It initializes 2900 N-body simulations of proto-Earth–Theia pairs on the Johansen et al. (2021) mass-growth track, samples initial separations uniformly in Hill radii, and counts collisions by timing and angle; it then runs GIZMO/MFM giant-impact simulations for representative collisions and quantifies mixing of target and impactor material in the post-impact planet and protolunar disk. The central claims are that a Moon-forming impact in this scenario has probability below 1 per mille of occurring at the right timing (70–120 Myr) and configuration, and that, if it does occur, perfect mixing leaves no room for primordial mantle heterogeneities or the observed small Earth–Moon isotopic difference. On this basis the authors conclude that pebble accretion is less favorable than chaotic collisional growth for the inner solar system.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and timely question and uses a plausible falsification strategy: the Moon is a sensitive, rarely considered constraint on pebble accretion. It deserves credit for combining N-body statistics with state-of-the-art MFM giant-impact simulations, for testing a range of disk, Jupiter, and migration variants, and for making an explicit falsifiable prediction about isotopic mixing in the protolunar disk. If the statistical claims were robust, this would be a significant argument against fast pebble-accretion formation of the terrestrial planets. However, the headline probability is conditional on an ad hoc uniform prior over initial separations and on a very small number of right-timing events, so the conclusion currently overstates the model-disfavoring power.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Section 3.1] The quoted "<1 per mille" probability is computed by counting outcomes over a hand-chosen uniform sampling of initial separations Δ in [1,30] Hill radii (2300 runs over [1,21] and 600 over (21,31]). The pebble-accretion model is not used to derive this distribution; the simulation starts at t=5 Myr with mass growth turned off. The probability of a delayed collision is therefore a conditional frequency given the adopted prior, not a prediction of the pebble-accretion scenario. The authors' own conclusion in Section 4 (“Let alone the uncertainty in how they get there”) concedes this limitation. Please derive the Δ distribution from a self-consistent pebble-accretion calculation or clearly report all probabilities as conditional on Δ and test a range of physically motivated priors; without this, the headline probability is not a robust constraint.
  2. [Section 3.1] The right-timing count is 4 of 2900 simulations, yet the paper quotes "probability <1 per mille" in the abstract and Section 3.1 without statistical uncertainty. Under Poisson statistics, 4 events in 2900 trials gives a 95% confidence interval of roughly 1–10 events, i.e., about 0.3–3.5 per mille of trials, so the upper bound exceeds the quoted <1 per mille threshold. The small count also makes the subsequent "1/3 angle selection" factor fragile. Please report the count with a confidence interval and either increase the simulation count or soften the <1 per mille claim to match the statistical precision.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 1] The "right configuration" criterion is not fully specified. Table 1 lists many successful runs with initial or final angular momentum greater than 2 L_EM, and the authors themselves note that “it is controversial whether this excessive angular momentum can be removed (Rufu & Canup 2020).” If the Moon-forming requirement is tightened to avoid this uncertainty, the "1/3 of delayed collisions" factor and hence the <1 per mille estimate change; if it is not tightened, the mixing and disk-mass analysis may not correspond to the actual lunar-forming subset. Please specify the success criterion used to classify runs as Moon-forming in terms of disk mass, iron fraction, angular momentum, and angular-momentum-removal assumptions, and propagate its uncertainty into the probability estimate.
  4. [Section 3.2] The geochemical argument assumes, without model derivation, that proto-Earth and Theia in the pebble-accretion scenario have a smaller initial Δ17O difference than the Earth–aubrites difference of 22 ppm. The 695 ppm initial-difference calculation for run 20 is an illustrative estimate, but the claim that the observed 22 ppm Earth–Moon difference is incompatible depends on this unmodeled compositional prior. If proto-Earth and Theia can acquire a larger initial isotopic difference through heterogeneous pebble accretion, the mixing implied by the simulations may not be in tension with the observations. Please either derive the expected proto-Earth–Theia composition difference from the pebble-accretion model or present the geochemical conclusion as a conditional statement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The five groups of test simulations and the three migrating-giant setups are described in prose; a summary table of the disk, eccentricity, and Jupiter parameters for each group would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Section 2.2] There is a typo in the phrase “ANEOSequation ofstate”; it should read “ANEOS equation of state.”
  3. [Figure 2b] The text states that impact angles are almost uniformly distributed, but the definition of impact angle and its relation to the impact parameter b used in Table 1 should be stated explicitly so the reader can connect Fig. 2b to the giant-impact runs.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Figure 3] The statement that the collision probability for pairs with Δ>10 is “always minimal” is vague; please report the underlying counts for each test group so the reader can assess the strength of that conclusion.
  5. [Section 4] The phrase “Let alone the uncertainty in how they get there” undermines the strength of the conclusion as written; consider moving this caveat into the methods or quantifying its effect on the probability estimate.
  6. [Data Availability] The statement that data files “will be made available upon reasonable request” is weaker than the standard for a numerical study of this kind; depositing initial conditions and processed outputs in a public repository would increase confidence in the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Moon-forming impact is used as an external benchmark against the pebble-accretion model, and the probability and mixing claims are simulation outputs rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper derives two central claims: (i) in the pebble-accretion setup of Johansen et al. (2021), a Moon-forming collision occurs with probability below 1 permille at the right time and configuration; and (ii) half-Earth impacts mix proto-Earth and Theia material almost completely. Neither claim is equivalent to an input. Claim (i) is a Monte Carlo output of N-body integrations (REBOUND/Mercurius) over a uniform prior in mutual Hill separation, Delta in [1,30], with masses tied to Eq. (1) from Johansen et al. (2021). The uniform Delta prior is a modeling assumption, not a parameter fitted to Moon data and not defined in terms of the Moon-forming outcome; the resulting probability is conditional on that prior, but it is not circular. Claim (ii) is an output of GIZMO/MFM hydrodynamical impact simulations; the mixing fractions in Table 1 and Figs. 5-6 are measured from the simulations, not imposed. The authors cite their own Deng et al. (2019a,b) for code behavior and validation, but they also benchmark against SPH simulations at 100x resolution (Yuan et al. 2023) and use the independent Canup (2012) empirical Moon-mass formula as a diagnostic; these are external anchors. No equation in the paper defines the target result in terms of the input, and no parameter is fitted to the Moon data used for the final comparison. The geochemical argument compares simulated disk mixing with the observed Delta-17O Earth-Moon difference and with the pebble-accretion expectation of compositional similarity; that is an external falsification loop, not a self-referential one. The manuscript itself acknowledges the main weakness, 'uncertainty in how they get there' (Section 4), and also notes that 'the vapor-dominated disk may not form the Moon at all'; these are prior/uncertainty limitations, not evidence of circularity. The only self-citations are methodological and do not carry the argument, so the circularity score is low.

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

The central claim rests on the pebble accretion growth track, gas disk parameters, and the hand-chosen uniform prior on proto-Earth/Theia separation. The uniform delta prior is the most consequential input because it directly sets the collision probability. No new physical entities are introduced; Theia and the primordial reservoirs are adopted from the cited literature. The geochemical tension also depends on the assumption that primordial mantle heterogeneities predate the Moon-forming impact.

free parameters (5)
  • mass growth track parameters (r0, Mmax, zeta) = r0=1.6 AU, Mmax=1.74 M_earth, zeta=3/7
    Equation (1) sets proto-Earth and Theia masses from heliocentric distance; values from Johansen et al. (2021) disk model, not fit here.
  • gas disk parameters (Sigma0, tau, h) = Sigma0=610 g/cm2, tau=1.5 Myr, h=0.024 r^(2/7)
    Equations (2) and the migration rate set the disk evolution and damping environment; central to collision timing.
  • type I migration coefficient k_mig = 3.708
    Equation (3) migration rate; taken from D'Angelo & Lubow (2010) and Johansen et al. (2019).
  • initial separation distribution = uniform in delta in [1,30] Hill radii
    Hand-chosen initial condition prior; not derived from pebble accretion model, and it directly determines the <1 per mille probability.
  • initial eccentricity and Jupiter parameters = e=0.01 (proto-Earth/Theia), eJ=0.05, aJ=5 AU
    Initial conditions for N-body runs; sensitivity tested in five groups and in migrating-giant runs.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The physical Moon-forming impact must occur 70-120 Myr after CAIs, per Halliday & Canup (2023).
    Used to classify 'right timing' events; if the timing window is different, probabilities change.
  • domain assumption The Earth-Moon system forms by one giant impact between proto-Earth and Theia whose masses sum to M_earth.
    The paper's scenario is built on Johansen et al. (2021) and excludes multi-impact or alternative Moon origin; this is the tested model, not a theorem.
  • domain assumption Disk mass predicts lunar mass via the empirical Canup (2012) formula.
    Section 2.2; success criterion for Moon-forming simulations; authors note vapor-dominated disks may not form the Moon (Nakajima et al. 2022).
  • domain assumption Primordial mantle heterogeneities predate the Moon-forming impact and survive until today.
    Section 3.2; the mixing argument's geochemical tension depends on this reading of Mukhopadhyay (2012), Touboul et al. (2012), and Rizo et al. (2016).
  • domain assumption MFM resolves post-impact mixing more faithfully than SPH at comparable resolution.
    Section 2.2; validated against Deng et al. (2019b) and Yuan et al. (2023), but still a code assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Moon-forming Impact as a Constraint for the Inner Solar System's Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KRZANCM

@misc{pith2026241114709,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Moon-forming Impact as a Constraint for the Inner Solar System's Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KRZANCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14709}
}
abstract

The solar system planets are benchmarks for the planet formation theory. Yet two paradigms coexist for the four terrestrial planets: the prolonged collisional growth among planetesimals lasting $>100$ million years (Myr) and the fast formation via planetesimals accreting pebbles within 10 Myr. Despite their dramatic difference, we can hardly tell which theory is more relevant to the true history of the terrestrial planets' formation. Here, we show that the Moon's origin puts stringent constraints on the pebble accretion scenario, rendering it less favourable. In the pebble accretion model, the one-off giant impact between proto-Earth and Theia rarely (probability $<$ 1\textperthousand) occurs at the right timing and configuration for the Moon formation. Even if a potential impact happens by chance, giant impact simulations reveal perfect mixing between proto-Earth and Theia, leaving no room for the observed primordial Earth mantle heterogeneity and the compositional difference, though small, between Earth and the Moon. Thus, the Earth-Moon system along other terrestrial planets should preferably form from chaotic collisional growth in the inner solar system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14709 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proto-Earth to Theia mass ratio versus Δ for simulations expe￾rienced proto-Earth and Theia collisions among the 2900 fiducial N-body simulations. Collisions within 1 Myr are regarded as fast collision instances and otherwise as delayed collision instances (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fate of proto-Earth and Theia in the 2900 fiducial protoplanet accretion simulations. a, For pairs of proto-Earth and Theia with initial separations Δ < 2 √ 3, instability develops quickly, leading to collisions within 1 Myr for 67.5% of the simulations (Fast Collision Instances). Delayed collisions occur in only 1.5% of the systems with initially 2 √ 3 < Δ < 20, and none for Δ > 20. Four instances occur at the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The collision probability between proto-Earth and Theia for dif￾ferent groups of test simulations (see Section 2.1), to be compared with the fiducial simulations in Fig. 2a. a, Five groups of simulations testing the ef￾fects of Jupiter, gas disk, and initial eccentricity, with each group consisting of 1200 simulations covering Δ ∈ [1,21] uniformly. b, Simulations with migrat￾ing giant planets, with each group consis… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation of a half-Earth impact (run 20 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The fraction of target-origin material in the post-impact structure at different radii in successful high-resolution simulations (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Lin D., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 143

    Agnor C. B., Lin D., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 143

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    F., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 507, 1053

    Brasser R., Morbidelli A., Gomes R., Tsiganis K., Levison H. F., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 507, 1053

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    H., Kruijer T

    Burkhardt C., Spitzer F., Morbidelli A., Budde G., Render J. H., Kruijer T. S., Kleine T., 2021, Science advances, 7, eabj7601

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    J., Sharp Z

    Cano E. J., Sharp Z. D., Shearer C. K., 2020, Nature Geoscience, 13, 270

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    M., 2012, Science, 338, 1052

    Canup R. M., 2012, Science, 338, 1052

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    M., Asphaug E., 2001, Nature, 412, 708

    Canup R. M., Asphaug E., 2001, Nature, 412, 708

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    M., Ward W

    Canup R. M., Ward W. R., Cameron A., 2001, Icarus, 150, 288

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    E., 2004, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 223, 241

    Chambers J. E., 2004, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 223, 241

    work page 2004

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    R., Hofmann A

    Christensen U. R., Hofmann A. W., 1994, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 99, 19867

    1994

  2. [10]

    S., Kaib N

    Clement M. S., Kaib N. A., Raymond S. N., Walsh K. J., 2018, Icarus, 311, 340

    2018

  3. [11]

    S., Kaib N

    Clement M. S., Kaib N. A., Raymond S. N., Chambers J. E., Walsh K. J., 2019, Icarus, 321, 778

    2019

  4. [12]

    P., 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 482, 677

    Cresswell P., Nelson R. P., 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 482, 677

    2008

  5. [13]

    H., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 730

    D'Angelo G., Lubow S. H., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 730

    2010

  6. [14]

    Deng H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6084 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...888L...1D 888, L1

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Deng J., Du Z., 2023, Nature Geoscience, 16, 541

    2023

  8. [16]

    C., 2019a, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 127

    Deng H., Reinhardt C., Benitez F., Mayer L., Stadel J., Barr A. C., 2019a, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 127

  9. [17]

    D., Reinhardt C., Meier M

    Deng H., Ballmer M. D., Reinhardt C., Meier M. M., Mayer L., Stadel J., Benitez F., 2019b, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 211

  10. [18]

    Fang T., Deng H., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 3781

    2020

  11. [19]

    Fang T., Zhang H., Liu S., Liu B., Deng H., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 948, 98

    2023

  12. [20]

    Gladman B., 1993, @doi [Icarus] 10.1006/icar.1993.1169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Icar..106..247G 106, 247

    1993

  13. [21]

    C., Barrat J.-A., Miller M

    Greenwood R. C., Barrat J.-A., Miller M. F., Anand M., Dauphas N., Franchi I. A., Sillard P., Starkey N. A., 2018, Science advances, 4, eaao5928

    2018

  14. [22]

    N., Canup R

    Halliday A. N., Canup R. M., 2023, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4, 19

    2023

  15. [23]

    M., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1131

    Hansen B. M., 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 1131

    2009

  16. [24]

    F., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53

    Hopkins P. F., 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 53

    2015

  17. [25]

    A., Morbidelli A., Raymond S

    Jacobson S. A., Morbidelli A., Raymond S. N., O'Brien D. P., Walsh K. J., Rubie D. C., 2014, Nature, 508, 84

    2014

  18. [26]

    Johansen A., Dorn C., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A19

    2022

  19. [27]

    Johansen A., Lambrechts M., 2017, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 45, 359

    2017

  20. [28]

    Johansen A., Ida S., Brasser R., 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 622, A202

    2019

  21. [29]

    Johansen A., Ronnet T., Bizzarro M., Schiller M., Lambrechts M., Nordlund ., Lammer H., 2021, Science Advances, 7, eabc0444

    2021

  22. [30]

    Kegerreis J., Eke V., Gonnet P., Korycansky D., Massey R., Schaller M., Teodoro L., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5029

    2019

  23. [31]

    Kleine T., et al., 2009, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 73, 5150

    2009

  24. [32]

    Kokubo E., Ida S., 2000, Icarus, 143, 15

    2000

  25. [33]

    Labrosse S., Hernlund J., Coltice N., 2007, Nature, 450, 866

    2007

  26. [34]

    Lambrechts M., Johansen A., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 544, A32

    2012

  27. [35]

    A., Luffi P., H \"o ink T., Li J., Dasgupta R., Hernlund J., 2010, Nature, 463, 930

    Lee C.-T. A., Luffi P., H \"o ink T., Li J., Dasgupta R., Hernlund J., 2010, Nature, 463, 930

    2010

  28. [36]

    Meier T., Reinhardt C., Timpe M., Stadel J., Moore B., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02746

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    F., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 507, 1041

    Morbidelli A., Brasser R., Tsiganis K., Gomes R., Levison H. F., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 507, 1041

    2009

  30. [38]

    Mukhopadhyay S., 2012, Nature, 486, 101

    2012

  31. [39]

    J., 2015, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 427, 286

    Nakajima M., Stevenson D. J., 2015, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 427, 286

    2015

  32. [40]

    Nakajima M., Genda H., Asphaug E., Ida S., 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 568

    2022

  33. [41]

    B., Quillen A

    Nakajima M., Atkins J., Simon J. B., Quillen A. C., 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18145

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    N., Simon J

    Nesvorn \`y D., Li R., Youdin A. N., Simon J. B., Grundy W. M., 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 808

    2019

  35. [43]

    J., Schiller M., Makhatadze G

    Onyett I. J., Schiller M., Makhatadze G. V., Deng Z., Johansen A., Bizzarro M., 2023, Nature, pp 1--6

    2023

  36. [44]

    V., Barclay T., Borucki W

    Quintana E. V., Barclay T., Borucki W. J., Rowe J. F., Chambers J. E., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 126

    2016

  37. [45]

    N., O’Brien D

    Raymond S. N., O’Brien D. P., Morbidelli A., Kaib N. A., 2009, Icarus, 203, 644

    2009

  38. [46]

    Rein H., Liu S.-F., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128

    2012

  39. [47]

    Rein H., et al., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 5490

    2019

  40. [48]

    J., Carlson R

    Rizo H., Walker R. J., Carlson R. W., Horan M. F., Mukhopadhyay S., Manthos V., Francis D., Jackson M. G., 2016, Science, 352, 809

    2016

  41. [49]

    Rizo H., et al., 2019, Geochemical Perspectives Letters, 11, 6

    2019

  42. [50]

    M., 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006312

    Rufu R., Canup R. M., 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 125, e2019JE006312

    2020

  43. [51]

    Stewart S., et al., 2020, in AIP conference proceedings

    2020

  44. [52]

    M., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 2885

    Tamayo D., Rein H., Shi P., Hernandez D. M., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 2885

    2020

  45. [53]

    Sandia Labs

    Thompson S., Lauson H., 1974, Technical report, Improvements in the Chart D radiation-hydrodynamic CODE III: Revised analytic equations of state. Sandia Labs

    1974

  46. [54]

    Timpe M., Reinhardt C., Meier T., Stadel J., Moore B., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 38

    2023

  47. [55]

    S., Walker R

    Touboul M., Puchtel I. S., Walker R. J., 2012, science, 335, 1065

    2012

  48. [56]

    Yin Q., Jacobsen S., Yamashita K., Blichert-Toft J., T \'e louk P., Albarede F., 2002, Nature, 418, 949

    2002

  49. [57]

    D., Kohl I

    Young E. D., Kohl I. E., Warren P. H., Rubie D. C., Jacobson S. A., Morbidelli A., 2016, Science, 351, 493

    2016

  50. [58]

    B., 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 17604

    Yu G., Jacobsen S. B., 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 17604

    2011

  51. [59]

    Yuan Q., et al., 2023, Nature, 623, 95

    2023

  52. [60]

    D., Li Y., 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2023GL106723

    Yuan Q., Gurnis M., Asimow P. D., Li Y., 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2023GL106723

    2024

  53. [61]

    E., Zhang M., Reinhardt C., Meier T., 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 129, e2023JE008163

    Zhou Y., Driscoll P. E., Zhang M., Reinhardt C., Meier T., 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 129, e2023JE008163

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.