Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Satellite formation around the largest asteroids

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sub-catastrophic impacts can form asteroid satellites directly, by stretching a fast-spinning target into an elongated shape that flings subsurface debris onto wide, stable orbits.

desk verdict First impact model to track post-impact spin and shape of the largest remnant, connecting impact geometry to observed satellite demographics; the post-hoc rotation prescription is the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03325 v1 pith:TNUEDGLZ submitted 2025-05-06 astro-ph.EP

Kevin J. Walsh , Ronald-Louis Ballouz , Harrison F. Agrusa , Josef Hanus , Martin Jutzi , Patrick Michel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords asteroidsatellitessatelliteformationsub-catastrophicimpactselongationfastrotationporousasteroidsreaccumulationmain-belt
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 tries to show that the small moons around the largest asteroids can be made in a single impact, without needing later collisions or tides to arrange their orbits. The key is that a sub-catastrophic strike on an already fast-spinning, porous body stretches the body into an elongated shape, and that distortion flings subsurface debris onto orbits wide enough to miss the asteroid on the next pass. If true, the mechanism connects satellite formation to the observed spin and shape of the primary, explains why the impact energy that forms satellites is not linked to family size, and offers a reason no large S-type asteroid is known to host a moon. The paper reaches this conclusion by chaining shock-physics impact simulations, gravitational reaccumulation, and long-term orbital stability calculations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the immediate distortion of the rotating target into an elongated figure, which acts as a launch pad: debris shed from the stretched long axis is placed onto eccentric orbits with pericenter above the primary's longest semi-axis, bypassing the re-impact that ordinary ballistic ejecta suffer. The paper tracks this through a three-stage modeling chain: shock propagation through a porous, low-density target; handoff of the largest remnant's shape into a granular N-body code that lets it reaccumulate, reshape, and spin over 38 hours; and finally a stability map using the remnant's J2 and C22 gravity terms to identify debris that survives hundreds of orbits. The dynamically equivalent equal-volume ellipsoid of the remnant is the shape quantity that ties the simulations to observations of lightcurve amplitude and spin period.

What would settle it

Run a shock-physics simulation of a 13 km impactor into a 100 km, 50-percent-porous target that is already rotating with a 4 or 6 hour period from time zero, without the handoff-time momentum boost, and compare the resultant largest remnant axis ratio, final spin, and depth of origin of debris with pericenter above the primary's long semi-axis; if the rotating-target run does not reproduce the elongated shape and deep-sourced high-pericenter debris, the direct pathway is an artifact of the post-hoc spin treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the satellites around large main-belt asteroids can be made directly by sub-catastrophic impacts into rotating, porous parent bodies. When the impact is energetic enough to distort the target but not to disrupt it, the target is momentarily stretched into an elongated shape; material torn from the stretched long axis, mostly from 10 to 20 km below the surface, travels on eccentric orbits whose pericenters are already above the primary's long axis, so it does not crash back down. This converts what would otherwise be re-impacting ballistic ejecta into a stable orbiting population. Because the satellite-bearing outcome depends on the post-impact shape and spin rather than on total mass loss, the mechanism naturally explains why the observed primaries are fast rotators and elongated, why satellite presence does not track membership in large collision families, and possibly why no large S-type primaries have moons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing shortcut is to add the target's rotation only after the impact has already been simulated on a non-rotating body, and the test of that shortcut used a target one-hundredth the size, so the elongation and deep-sourced debris that make the pathway work could be artifacts of adding spin after the fact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Asteroids with satellites should be preferentially fast-rotating and elongated, because both properties are produced by the same sub-catastrophic impact that launches the satellites.
  • The specific impact energy and total mass lost in a collision should not predict whether a satellite forms, which matches the observed absence of a strong correlation with membership in large asteroid families.
  • The absence of known satellites around large S-type asteroids can be explained by their higher density shrinking the stable orbital region around an elongated fast spinner, even if their shape and spin distributions resemble C-types.
  • Extremely elongated, fast-spinning bodies such as Kleopatra could acquire young satellites from a later small impact, because their existing shape and spin raise debris pericenters without needing a large family-forming event.
  • Temporary satellites formed this way start on orbits with pericenter above the primary's longest axis, so they should be stable for hundreds of orbits; observationally, known large-asteroid satellites sit at 3 to 14 primary radii with low eccentricity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the launch mechanism is generic, it should also operate when a fast-spinning small rubble pile is struck by a small projectile, offering a satellite-formation route for 10 to 100 km primaries that does not depend on YORP spin-up; the paper only notes the mass-shedding analogy for near-Earth asteroids.
  • The depth provenance result suggests a compositional test the paper does not run: material launched from 10 to 20 km depth could be less space-weathered or less porous than surface regolith, so the moons' spectra might differ subtly from their primaries' surfaces.
  • The abundance of temporary satellites in every run implies a selection step the paper leaves open; we infer that collisional relaxation into a disk, followed by re-accretion, is the most likely way to go from hundreds of clumps to the one-to-three moons typically observed.
  • The spin-boost shortcut could be checked without new observational data: rerunning a few 100 km impacts with rotation present from time zero in the shock code would confirm whether the elongation and 10 to 20 km provenance survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a direct formation pathway for satellites around large (D>100 km) asteroids: sub-catastrophic impacts into pre-rotating, porous, low-density targets. Using SPH impact simulations handed off to pkdgrav granular N-body reaccumulation and then to REBOUND stability mapping, the authors argue that impact-induced elongation of a fast-spinning primary launches deep subsurface material (10–20 km below the surface) onto eccentric orbits with pericenters large enough to avoid prompt re-impact. They connect this mechanism to the observed preference for fast-spinning, elongated, non-S-type primaries and to the lack of a strong correlation between satellite-hosting asteroids and large collisional families.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable single-mechanism explanation for several observed demographic features of large-asteroid satellites, and it is one of the first collisional models to track both spin and shape continuously through impact and reaccumulation. The paper's strengths are its end-to-end numerical pipeline, the systematic impact-parameter table, the explicit medium-term stability maps, and the direct comparison with observed rotation-period and lightcurve-amplitude distributions. The central quantitative conclusion, however, rests on the post-hoc rotation-boost approximation, whose validation is limited and does not cover the most important outputs. The mechanism is plausible and the observational correlations are suggestive, but the load-bearing numerical shortcut needs stronger support before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1 and Appendix A.1 (Figs. 2, 9–10)] The load-bearing step is the addition of pre-impact rotation only at the SPH-to-pkdgrav handoff. This procedure assumes that pre-impact rotation is dynamically decoupled from shock propagation, compaction, and early crater growth. Figure 2 shows that the elongation that drives the proposed mechanism is already developing at 0.1 h (360 s), essentially coincident with the nominal 400 s handoff time, so the very distortion central to the mechanism is not computed for a genuinely rotating target. The appendix validation (Figs. 9–10) tests only a 1 km target struck by a 10 m impactor and compares the remnant c/a, spin period, and accumulated mass; it does not compare the provenance-depth distribution, the mass of high-pericenter debris, or the 100 km / 3–18 km impactor regime in which the deformation is strong. Please provide SPH simulations with initially rotating 100-km targets (or a validated equivalence argument) and compare the q>1 a_pri debris mass and depth provenance; without this, the deep-subsurface high-pericenter debris could be an artifact of imposing rotation on an already shocked and displaced particle field.
  2. [Abstract vs. §3 and Fig. 4d] The abstract states that 'the specific energy and resultant total mass loss in satellite-forming collisions are not constraining,' but §3 reports that the normalized satellite mass is correlated with the rotation-dependent normalized energy Q/Q*_RD, and Fig. 4d displays this trend. If the intended claim is that un-normalized Q or M_rem/M_target is not constraining while Q/Q*_RD is, the wording must be corrected; as written, the abstract contradicts the paper's own principal quantitative correlation and weakens the interpretation of the observed lack of family correlation.
  3. [§2.3 and Table 2 (Fig. 4b)] The claim of a 'sharp transition' in satellite incidence at post-impact spin periods of 10 h or less is stronger than the tabulated outcomes warrant. Table 2 contains fast-rotating cases with zero or very few high-pericenter satellites, e.g., Simulation 13 (P_rem = 4.22 h, 0 with q>1 a_pri) and Simulation 19 (P_rem = 4.45 h, 1). The trend in Fig. 4b is real but the narrative of a sharp observational match should be qualified to mass-weighted or per-impact measures, not raw incidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] The column header repeats 'b/a' for the second axis ratio; the final axis ratio column should be 'c/a'.
  2. [Appendix A.1 and §2.1] The main text gives the handoff time as 400 s after impact, while the Fig. 9 caption says the spin adjustment is applied 100 s after impact; these times should be reconciled.
  3. [§2.2] The phrase 'from (38)' appears to be an unresolved citation; a reference should be supplied.
  4. [Fig. 4d and §3] The definition of Q*_RD is not given in the text; please provide the explicit functional form or a precise reference so the x-axis of Fig. 4d is reproducible.
  5. [§2.2 and Table 2] The text says impactors are 10–36 km in diameter, but Table 2 lists impactor radii of 3, 5, 7, 13, and 18 km, i.e., diameters of 6–36 km; the range should be corrected.
  6. [Figs. 2, 11, 12] The color description 'pericenter less than zero' for hyperbolic orbits is physically inaccurate; unbound orbits have positive pericenter distances, so the caption should instead say 'unbound (hyperbolic) trajectories'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: forward impact simulations are compared qualitatively to observed satellite statistics, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that impact-induced elongation of a rotating target places deep-subsurface debris onto high-pericenter orbits—is a forward output of the SPH+pkdgrav+REBOUND modeling chain, not a quantity fitted to the observed satellite population. The observed correlation (satellites around fast, elongated, non-S-type primaries) is used as a qualitative benchmark in Figures 4–7; no inversion or parameter fit connects the observations to the model. The Q/Q*_RD normalization uses the external universal disruption law of Leinhardt & Stewart (2012) and prior disruption calibrations by Ballouz et al. (2014) and Jutzi (2015); the paper's family-formation conclusion does not require those thresholds to be re-derived here, so citing them is standard use of published calibrations rather than circularity. The post-hoc spin boost (Appendix A.1) is an approximation that imposes the input rotation at handoff rather than simulating a rotating target through shock propagation, and the paper itself limits the validation to a 1 km target struck by a 10 m impactor (Figs. 9–10). This is a numerical-modeling limitation and a potential correctness risk, not a circular step, because the high-pericenter debris, its 10–20 km depth provenance, and the final spin/shape are outputs of the N-body integration rather than inputs preset by the spin prescription. The self-citations (SPH code, alpha-shape wrapping, DEEVE, Q*_RD) are technical tools or external calibrations and are not load-bearing as evidence for the pathway itself.

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

The model rests on several numerical approximations: the post hoc spin-adding shortcut (Section 2.1, Appendix A.1), a single impact speed and target diameter, one realization per parameter set, and neglect of debris collisions. No free parameters are fit to the observed satellite population; the listed numbers are simulation inputs chosen to bracket observed asteroid states. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Pre-impact rotation period P_target = 3, 4, 6, 10 hr, and non-rotating
    Chosen by hand to span the observed fast-rotator regime; not fit to satellite data. Section 2.1 and Table 2.
  • Impactor radius and impact angle = R_imp = 3 to 18 km; angle = 15 to 75 deg; speed fixed at 5 km/s
    Parameter set designed to produce a range of post-impact shapes and spins, not to match specific asteroids; not fitted to observations.
  • Target porosity and bulk density = 50% porosity, 1.3 g/cm3
    Assumed typical of dark C-complex asteroids (Carry 2012); not varied except through friction settings.
  • pkdgrav friction coefficient = 0, 18, and 33 deg angle of friction
    Bracketing values from prior studies; no data fit. Section 2.1 and Table 2.
  • Handoff time and simulation durations = 400 s SPH handoff; 38 h reaccumulation; 1000 day stability integration
    Computational choices; 1000 days is shorter than tidal and collisional evolution timescales, as the paper itself notes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SPH compaction model for porous low-density primitive asteroids (Jutzi et al. 2019) accurately simulates shock, failure and early ejecta for 100 km targets at 400,000 particles.
    Section 2.1 uses this model for all impacts; no direct validation against 100 km scale experiments is possible.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding post-impact momentum to mimic a prograde pre-impact rotation is dynamically equivalent to a genuinely rotating target during shock propagation and deformation.
    Appendix A.1 tests it on a 1 km target with a 10 m impactor; the 100 km cases assume scale invariance.
  • domain assumption The pkdgrav SSDEM contact parameters (high, low, zero friction) bracket real granular behavior of reaccumulated asteroid material.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix A.3; friction settings are chosen from prior studies, not from data for specific asteroids.
  • domain assumption Debris-debris collisions during the 38 h reaccumulation and 1000 day stability phase do not change the qualitative conclusion that a direct, immediate pathway to stable satellites exists.
    The paper does not model ejecta interactions except in a circular-disk limiting argument in the Discussion; it explicitly leaves this to future work.
  • domain assumption The observed census of 13 large-asteroid satellites is sufficiently complete for the spin, shape, taxonomy and family correlations to be meaningful despite documented discovery biases.
    Section 1 discusses biases for 10 to 100 km primaries but treats the greater than 100 km census as robust; Figure 1 uses lightcurve and shape catalogs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Satellite formation around the largest asteroids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNUEDGLZ

@misc{pith2026250503325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Satellite formation around the largest asteroids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNUEDGLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03325}
}
read the original abstract

Satellites around large asteroids are preferentially found among those with the most rapid rotation and elongated shape. The taxonomic statistics are similarly skewed; in total, 13 asteroids larger than 100 km are known to have satellites, but none have been discovered among S-type asteroids. Previous modeling suggests that satellites could be generated by impacts, but spin and shape have never been tracked in models to relate collisional circumstances with those two observed properties concerning the primary. Here we show, by combining simulations of impacts into porous low-density asteroids, their subsequent disruption, reaccumulation and long-term satellite stability, a direct pathway for the formation of satellites. The immediate distortion and elongation of a rotating target body provides a launching point for some debris distinct from simple ballistic ejecta trajectories. The debris that are found to originate from the distorted long-axis is sourced primarily from 10-20 km below the surface and can be placed directly onto eccentric orbits with sufficiently large pericenter distances that avoid rapid re-impact. The specific energy and resultant total mass loss in satellite-forming collisions are not constraining, which explains the observed lack of correlation between asteroids with satellites and those that are part of large asteroid families.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The population of observed large asteroids with satellites. (A) The size ratio of satellites to primary body as a function of their orbit semi-major axis scaled by the primary radii for the observed population of satellites among asteroids with diameter greater than 100 km. Multiple systems are connected with lines and the size of each point gives a relative scale of the size of the primary, where D = 286 km (87) Sy… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of initial peri-centers for temporary satellites. The distribution of satellite pericenters is shown in blue for a non-spinning target hit at an impact angle of 15◦ , where all temporary satellites have initial pericenters below 1 primary radii. This contrasts with a target with moderate spin of 10 hr and a highly oblique impact angle of 60◦ , shown in red (the same case as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Properties of temporary satellites from simulation outcomes. The normalized mass of satellites having initial orbits with peri-centers above 1 primary long semiaxis length as a function of (A) primary post-impact axis ratio a/b, (B) primary post-impact rotation period, (C) mass of the largest remnant mass as a fraction of the total system mass (including escaping material) and (D) the ratio of the impact energy to t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two different impact outcomes with similar post-impact shape and total mass lost, but with different post-impact spin rates, where (A) a case resulting in a mildly elongated final shape (a, b, c=57,45,40 km) but rapid 6.7 h rotation period places numerous initial satel…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stability maps for different spin periods. Stability maps as a function of rotation period around a primary with a bulk density of 1 g cm−3 having the same semiaxes as the primary of Fig. 5a (a, b, c ∼ 57,45,40 km) corresponding to a J2 and C22 of ∼0.05 and ∼0.026 when…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fates of test particles in orbit around an ellipsoidal primary as a function of its bulk density and spin period. The primary has the same semiaxes lengths as those from Figs. 5a and 6 (a, b, c ∼ 57,45,40 km) and the top row are the same simulations plotted [PITH_…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Provenance of satellites. The provenance of all temporary satellites (black dots) and temporary satellites with peri-centers greater than 1.5 Rpri (purple) for six different simulation outcomes. The solid gray line is the distribution of all mass in the parent body and…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The outcome of a 5 km/s impact of a 10 m impactor into a 1 km target with different pre-impact rotation states. All images are following the handoff from SPH to pkdgrav. A) A non-spinning target results in a moderately prolate object with minimal spin (see [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The outcome of a 5 km/s impact of a 10 m impactor into a 1 km target with different pre-impact rotation states. A)The axis ratio c/a of the largest remnant as a function of time for all three cases. B) The rotation period of the largest remnant for the 6 hr impact cas…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the target asteroid immediately following impact. The outcome of a 13 km object impacting a 100 km spherical target with no rotation at a 60◦ angle at a speed of 5 km/s shown at 0.1 h, 1 h, 3 h, 5 h, 7 h and 9 h post-impact. The particles that are part of…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the target asteroid immediately following impact. The outcome of a 13 km object impacting a 100 km spherical target with a 4 hr pre-impact rotation at a 60◦ angle at a speed of 5 km/s shown at 0.1 h, 1 h, 3 h, 5 h, 7 h and 9 h post-impact. The particles t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Temporary satellites plotted in gray on a colorscale of dynamical lifetimes as a function of orbital eccentricity and pericenter distance. The impact properties for each case can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Temporary satellites plotted in gray on a colorscale of dynamical lifetimes as a function of orbital eccentricity and pericenter distance. The impact properties for each case can be found in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unmasking (44) Nysa: Evidence for a trilobate structure

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AO imaging and a shape model indicate (44) Nysa's primary is a contact-trinary or highly irregular body with two colli, orbited by a ~1-km satellite.

  2. A dynamical dichotomy in large binary asteroids

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    New orbital and shape models of Emma and Pulcova reveal a dichotomy in large binary asteroid systems, with Emma showing signs of a low-density outer shell and the two systems belonging to different formation groups.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    F., Zhang, Y., Richardson, D

    Agrusa, H. F., Zhang, Y., Richardson, D. C., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 54, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad206b

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad206b 2024

  2. [2]

    2024, Science, 384, 348, doi: 10.1126/science.adg8092

    Morbidelli, A. 2024, Science, 384, 348, doi: 10.1126/science.adg8092

    doi:10.1126/science.adg8092 2024

  3. [3]

    C., Michel, P., & Schwartz, S

    Ballouz, R.-L., Richardson, D. C., Michel, P., & Schwartz, S. R. 2014, ApJ, 789, 158, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/158

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/158 2014

  4. [4]

    J., Richardson, D

    Ballouz, R.-L., Walsh, K. J., Richardson, D. C., & Michel, P. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz410

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz410 2019

  5. [5]

    G., Durda, D

    Benavidez, P. G., Durda, D. D., Enke, B. L., et al. 2012, Icarus, 219, 57, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.015

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.015 2012

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 658, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142623

    Berdeu, A., Langlois, M., & Vachier, F. 2022, A&A, 658, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142623

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142623 2022

  7. [7]

    F., Durda, D

    Bottke, W. F., Durda, D. D., Nesvorn´ y, D., et al. 2005, Icarus, 179, 63, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.017 2005

  8. [8]

    F., Nesvorn´ y, D., Grimm, R

    Bottke, W. F., Nesvorn´ y, D., Grimm, R. E., Morbidelli, A., & O’Brien, D. P. 2006, Nature, 439, 821, doi: 10.1038/nature04536

    doi:10.1038/nature04536 2006

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Ballouz, R

    Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Ballouz, R. L., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab88d3 Broˇ z, M., Ferrais, M., Vernazza, P.,ˇSeveˇ cek, P., & Jutzi, M. 2022a, A&A, 664, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243628 Broˇ z, M., Morbidelli, A., Bottke, W. F., et al....

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Levison, H

    Brown, M. E., Levison, H. F., Noll, K. S., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 170, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac07b0

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Canup, R. M. 2004, ARA&A, 42, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.082201.113457

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    2012, Planet

    Carry, B. 2012, Planet. Space Sci., 73, 98, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, A&A, 623, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833898

    Carry, B., Vachier, F., Berthier, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833898

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Veverka, J., Thomas, P

    Chapman, C. R., Veverka, J., Thomas, P. C., et al. 1995, Nature, 374, 783, doi: 10.1038/374783a0

    1995 doi

  7. [15]

    T., Ernst, C

    Daly, R. T., Ernst, C. M., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 443, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05810-5

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    J., & Delbo, M

    Deienno, R., Walsh, K. J., & Delbo, M. 2021, Icarus, 357, 114218, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114218

    2021

  9. [18]

    D., Bottke, W

    Durda, D. D., Bottke, W. F., Enke, B. L., et al. 2004, Icarus, 170, 243, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.04.003

    2004 doi

  10. [19]

    D., Bottke, W

    Durda, D. D., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorn´ y, D., et al. 2007, Icarus, 186, 498, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.09.013

    2007 doi

  11. [20]

    2022, A&A, 662, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243200

    Ferrais, M., Jorda, L., Vernazza, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243200

    2022 doi

  12. [21]

    2023, A&A, 677, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346386 Hanuˇ s, J., Marchis, F., Viikinkoski, M., Yang, B., &

    Fuksa, M., Broˇ z, M., Hanuˇ s, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A189, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346386 Hanuˇ s, J., Marchis, F., Viikinkoski, M., Yang, B., &

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    2017, A&A, 599, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629592

    Kaasalainen, M. 2017, A&A, 599, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629592

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    2015, Planet

    Jutzi, M. 2015, Planet. Space Sci., 107, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2014.09.012

    2015 doi

  15. [24]

    2008, Icarus, 198, 242, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.06.013

    Jutzi, M., Benz, W., & Michel, P. 2008, Icarus, 198, 242, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.06.013

    2008 doi

  16. [25]

    Jutzi, M., Michel, P., Benz, W., & Richardson, D. C. 2010, Icarus, 207, 54, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.11.016

    2010 doi

  17. [26]

    Jutzi, M., Michel, P., & Richardson, D. C. 2019, Icarus, 317, 215, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.006

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    M., & Richardson, D

    Leinhardt, Z. M., & Richardson, D. C. 2005, Icarus, 176, 432, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.11.008

    2005 doi

  19. [28]

    M., & Stewart, S

    Leinhardt, Z. M., & Stewart, S. T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/79

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    2024, A&A, 688, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349122

    Liberato, L., Tanga, P., Mary, D., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349122

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    2016, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, P43B–2108

    Marchis, F., Hanus, J., Viikinkoski, M., & Yang, B. 2016, in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, P43B–2108

    2016

  22. [31]

    2021, A&A, 653, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140874

    Marchis, F., Jorda, L., Vernazza, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140874

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    L., Nolan, M

    Margot, J. L., Nolan, M. C., Benner, L. A. M., et al. 2002, Science, 296, 1445, doi: 10.1126/science.1072094

    2002 doi

  24. [34]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 569, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-1007-5

    Marsset, M., Broˇ z, M., Vernazza, P., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 569, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-1007-5

    2020 doi

  25. [35]

    A., Skillman, D

    McFadden, L. A., Skillman, D. R., Memarsadeghi, N., et al. 2018, Icarus, 316, 191, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.02.017

    2018 doi

  26. [36]

    J., Close, L

    Merline, W. J., Close, L. M., Dumas, C., et al. 1999, Nature, 401, 565, doi: 10.1038/44089

    1999 doi

  27. [37]

    Michel, P., Benz, W., & Richardson, D. C. 2003, Nature, 421, 608, doi: 10.1038/nature01364

    2003 doi

  28. [38]

    2023, A&A, 672, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245538

    Minker, K., & Carry, B. 2023, A&A, 672, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245538

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    2000, Icarus, 146, 556, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6421 23 Nesvorn´ y, D., Broˇ z, M., & Carruba, V

    Mottola, S., & Lahulla, F. 2000, Icarus, 146, 556, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6421 23 Nesvorn´ y, D., Broˇ z, M., & Carruba, V. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel, F. E. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke (University of Arizona Press), 297–321, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch016

    2000

  30. [40]

    Kern, S. D. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, & R. Dotson (University of Arizona Press), 345–363, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0703134

    2008 doi arXiv

  31. [41]

    S., Brown, M

    Noll, K. S., Brown, M. E., Buie, M. W., et al. 2023, SSRv, 219, 59, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-01001-w

    2023 doi

  32. [42]

    1997, Icarus, 127, 431, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5703

    Pravec, P., & Hahn, G. 1997, Icarus, 127, 431, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5703

    1997

  33. [43]

    N., & Izidoro, A

    Raymond, S. N., & Izidoro, A. 2017, Science Advances, 3, e1701138, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1701138

    2017 doi

  34. [44]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  35. [45]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2479

    Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2479

    2018 doi

  36. [46]

    C., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Lake, G

    Richardson, D. C., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 2000, Icarus, 143, 45, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6243

    2000

  37. [47]

    Scheeres, D. J. 1999, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 73, 339, doi: 10.1023/A:1008384021964

    1999 doi

  38. [48]

    P., Marchi, S., et al

    Schenk, P., O’Brien, D. P., Marchi, S., et al. 2012, Science, 336, 694, doi: 10.1126/science.1223272

    2012 doi

  39. [49]

    R., Richardson, D

    Schwartz, S. R., Richardson, D. C., & Michel, P. 2012, Granular Matter, 14, 363

    2012

  40. [50]

    K., Timerson, B., Scheeres, D

    Shepard, M. K., Timerson, B., Scheeres, D. J., et al. 2018, Icarus, 311, 197, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.002

    2018 doi

  41. [51]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    2020 doi

  42. [52]

    1999, Icarus, 141, 65, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6148

    Tanga, P., Cellino, A., Michel, P., et al. 1999, Icarus, 141, 65, doi: 10.1006/icar.1999.6148

    1999

  43. [53]

    A., & Margot, J.-L

    Taylor, P. A., & Margot, J.-L. 2011, Icarus, 212, 661, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.01.030

    2011 doi

  44. [54]

    2021, A&A, 654, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141781

    Vernazza, P., Ferrais, M., Jorda, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 654, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141781

    2021 doi

  45. [55]

    2017, A&A, 607, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731456

    Viikinkoski, M., Hanuˇ s, J., Kaasalainen, M., Marchis, F., & ˇDurech, J. 2017, A&A, 607, A117, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731456

    2017 doi

  46. [56]

    J., & Jacobson, S

    Walsh, K. J., & Jacobson, S. A. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel, F. E. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke (University of Arizona Press), 375–393, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch020

    2015 doi

  47. [57]

    J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S

    Walsh, K. J., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., O’Brien, D. P., & Mandell, A. M. 2011, Nature, 475, 206, doi: 10.1038/nature10201

    2011 doi

  48. [58]

    D., Harris, A

    Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2021, NASA Planetary Data System, doi: 10.26033/j3xc-3359

    2021 doi

  49. [59]

    2020, A&A, 643, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038567

    Yang, B., Hanuˇ s, J., Broˇ z, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038567

    2020 doi

  50. [60]

    C., Barnouin, O

    Zhang, Y., Richardson, D. C., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2017, Icarus, 294, 98, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.027

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.