Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 124 references

A Large Outburst, Coma Asymmetries, and the Color of Comet 243P/NEAT

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 The December 2018 outburst of comet 243P/NEAT ejected roughly (3 ± 1) × 10^7 kg of dust, likely including subsurface water ice, yet a near-infrared spectrum taken four days later shows no water-ice absorption above a 3% band-depth upper…

desk verdict Solid, well-documented observational case study; the no-ice detection is robust, but the 'likely ejected ice' conclusion leans on an unverified analogy. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19027 v1 pith:CER65ARG submitted 2025-06-23 astro-ph.EP

Michael S. P. Kelley , Silvia Protopapa , Dennis Bodewits , Aren N. Heinze , Youssef Moulane , Quanzhi Ye , Bryce Bolin , Simon Conseil
show 11 more authors
Tony L. Farnham Lori Feaga Xing Gao Chih-Hao Hsia Emmanuel Jehin Shrinivas R. Kulkarni Russ R. Laher Tim Lister Frank J. Masci Josiah Purdum Bin Yang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords cometaryoutburstswatericecomacolornear-infraredspectroscopydustdynamicalmodelcomet243P/NEATspecifickineticenergyquiescentactivity
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 dissects a −3 magnitude outburst of Jupiter-family comet 243P/NEAT in December 2018, using a 251-day lightcurve, optical color maps, and a near-infrared spectrum taken four days after the event. It argues that the outburst excavated roughly (3 ± 1) × $10^{7}$ kg of subsurface material, likely including water ice, by analogy with comets whose ice tables lie centimeters to meters below the surface. Yet the spectrum shows no water-ice absorption, with a 3% upper limit on the 2.0-µm band depth, and the optical color shows no gradient out to 40,000 km. The paper's central contribution is to show that these absences are expected even if ice was ejected: micrometer-sized ice grains leave the spectroscopic slit within days, and ice grains mixed with 0.2–0.5% dark dust sublimate before the follow-up observations. It also argues from 103P/Hartley 2 and C/2013 US10 (Catalina) that coma redness cannot be used as a one-to-one proxy for the presence or absence of water ice.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a dust dynamical Monte Carlo model that computes grain trajectories under solar gravity and radiation pressure, with ejection speeds scaled as $a^{-1/2}$, together with a water-ice sublimation model that balances insolation against sublimation and thermal losses. The dynamical model is used to show that small grains leave the spectroscopic aperture within days, while the sublimation model demonstrates that ice grains containing a small dust fraction sublimate before the observations. A secondary mechanism is the comparison of optical spectral gradient ($S_V$) with water-ice areal fraction in 103P/Hartley 2, which shows that ice-rich regions can be as red as ice-free regions.

What would settle it

Find a water-ice absorption band or a blue color gradient in a similar outburst observed within 1–2 days of onset, or measure the subsurface volatile profile of 243P directly; either would distinguish between the paper's explanation (ice ejected but gone by the time of observation) and the alternative that no ice was excavated. A targeted search for 1.5- and 2.0-µm ice bands within the first 24–48 hours after a future 243P outburst would be the cleanest test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the December 2018 outburst of 243P/NEAT ejected (3 ± 1) × $10^{7}$ kg of dust, equivalent to a hemispherical crater roughly 30 m deep, and probably carried water-ice grains from the subsurface. A near-infrared spectrum obtained 4 ± 1 days after the outburst places a 3% upper limit on the 2.0-µm water-ice band depth, and narrow-band colors taken 5 ± 1 days after the outburst show no color gradient out to 40,000 km. The paper concludes that the non-detection is consistent with water-ice ejection through two mechanisms: dynamics remove sub-micrometer and micrometer grains from the 0.8-arcsecond slit before spectroscopy, and dirty ice grains (0.2–0.5% amorphous carbon by volume) sublimate within $10^{4}$–$10^{5}$ seconds at 2.55 au, before either observation was made. It further finds that quiescent lightcurve variations are dominated by coma asymmetries rather than activity changes, that there were one or two additional small −0.3 mag outbursts in September 2018, and that the specific kinetic energy of the outburst (~$10^{1}$–$10^{2}$ J kg−1) is an order of magnitude below that inferred for outbursts of comets 15P, 17P, and 332P, suggesting a different driving process.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that water ice was likely ejected rests on assuming 243P has a subsurface water-ice table within centimeters to meters of the surface, like 9P/Tempel 1 and 67P; if 243P instead has a devolatilized crust thicker than the roughly 30 m excavation depth, no ice would have been ejected and the non-detection needs no dynamical or sublimation explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the non-detection is correctly explained, then outbursts can excavate water ice that is invisible in post-outburst spectroscopy unless observations are made within hours, before small icy grains leave the slit or sublimate.
  • Water-ice-free color maps do not rule out ice in the ejecta; continuum color alone cannot serve as a proxy for ice content, as shown by the 103P Box C counterexample.
  • The ~10^7 kg outburst represents up to ~55% of the mass loss around the 2018 perihelion and is comparable in mass to the quiescent activity over the observed 251-day arc.
  • The grouping of specific kinetic energies (243P and P/2010 H2 near 10^1–10^2 J kg−1; 15P, 17P, and 332P near 10^4–10^5 J kg−1) points to at least two distinct outburst mechanisms, with trapped volatile abundance as a plausible modulator if amorphous-ice crystallization is involved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the paper's models is that near-infrared spectroscopy taken within the first 24 hours after a future 243P outburst should show a measurable 2.0-µm water-ice band, because micrometer-sized ice grains would still be inside the slit.
  • The dynamical depletion argument implies that spectroscopic searches for outburst-excavated ice are systematically biased toward early observations, and that wider-slit or slit-scanning spectroscopy could recover ice that a narrow slit misses.
  • If the specific-energy grouping holds, the low-energy class may be powered by ordinary sublimation temporarily enhanced by cliff collapse rather than by exothermic crystallization, which would change how modelers interpret outburst masses.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a multi-observatory study of Comet 243P/NEAT centered on a -3 mag outburst discovered in December 2018. It constructs a 251-day lightcurve, identifies two small September outbursts and a tentative third, uses a Monte Carlo dust dynamical model to characterize the quiescent coma and the outburst ejecta, and derives an ejected dust mass of (3±1)×10^7 kg. An IRTF/SpeX spectrum taken four days after the outburst shows no water-ice absorption, with a 3% upper limit on the 2.0-µm band depth; optical colors and a color map also show no ice signature. The authors propose dynamical depletion of small icy grains and sublimation of dirty ice as reasons for the non-detection, under the assumption that the outburst excavated subsurface ice. They reanalyze Deep Impact observations of 103P/Hartley 2 and a SpeX spectrum of C/2013 US10 (Catalina) to argue that continuum color cannot serve as a one-to-one proxy for water ice, and they compare specific kinetic energies of five cometary outbursts to suggest a grouping into low- and high-energy processes.

Significance. The observational core is solid and valuable: a well-sampled 251-day lightcurve, a carefully reduced near-infrared spectrum, a quantitative 3% upper limit on the 2.0-µm ice band, and a useful demonstration that optical color is not a reliable ice proxy even within a single comet. The non-detection is independent of the dynamical model, and the paper ships reproducible software and data-behind-the-figure spectra. The interpretive steps, however, are more fragile: the claim that the outburst 'likely ejected water ice grains' rests on an explicitly conditional analogy with 9P and 67P, and the dynamical explanation of the non-detection uses a model that the authors themselves describe as not matching the images precisely and as requiring a production function that is unphysical for a point source on a spherical nucleus. These caveats reduce confidence in the interpretive conclusions, not in the measurements themselves.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 6.1 and 7] The central inference that the December 2018 outburst 'likely ejected water ice grains' is supported only by the analogy with 9P/Tempel 1 and 67P, and the paper itself states the conditional form: 'If the sub-surface composition of 243P is the same as that of 9P/Tempel 1, then we should expect icy grains to have been ejected.' The Conclusions then upgrade this conditional to an unconditional 'likely.' If 243P has a devolatilized crust thicker than the ~30 m excavation depth implied by the (3±1)×10^7 kg mass, or if the event originated in the coma via a disintegrating ~24 m fragment as discussed in Section 6.4, then no ice was ever in the ejecta and the dynamical and sublimation explanations in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 are unnecessary. Please either present independent evidence for subsurface ice at the excavated depths or keep the abstract and conclusions at the same level of conditionality as Section 6.1, explicitly listing the devolatilized-crust and coma-origin alternatives.
  2. [Sections 5.3.2, 6.2, and Table 4] The quantitative small-grain depletion argument—that the areal fraction of grains smaller than 3 µm in the SpeX aperture drops from 67% to 1–2%, implying a factor-of-50 depletion—is computed with Model M, whose production function cos²(θ/2) centered at RA=140°, Dec=30° is acknowledged in Section 6.4 to be impossible for a point source on a spherical nucleus because it emits material into the nucleus. The text also states that no model precisely matches the observed morphology. Because Models I, K, M, and N in Table 4 give comparably acceptable fits to the lightcurve, the remaining-areal-fraction calculation is not robust. Please repeat the depletion estimate over the acceptable parameter range or weaken the conclusion in Section 6.2 from 'suggests they may not be numerous enough to be detected' to a model-dependent possibility with explicit uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 10 and 14 captions] The captions of Figures 10 and 14 refer to the 'December 2021 outburst' and to '243P/NEAT outburst of December 2021'; these should be December 2018, consistent with the text and Table A1.
  2. [Table 4] The symbol k is used in Table 4 for the grain-size distribution power-law slope, while Section 5.2 uses k for the heliocentric-distance exponent in dust production proportional to r_h^k and N for the grain-size distribution slope; please rename one of these to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Appendix A.3] In the ATLAS subsection, 'reducexd' should be 'reduced'.
  4. [Section 5.1] The statement that the areal ice fraction of 243P is ≲2–5%, obtained by linearly extrapolating band-depth-to-ice-fraction ratios from Catalina and 103P, should explicitly note that the assumed grain size and mixing properties are not independently verified for 243P; the current wording calls the estimate a first-order approximation, which is acceptable, but Section 6.1 should not be phrased more strongly than the underlying scaling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the ice non-detection is independent of the fitted dynamical and sublimation models.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The 251-day lightcurve and ZTF/LDT morphology are fit by the Monte Carlo dust model (Section 3), with model M selected on the basis of dust morphology and lightcurve agreement (Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3); the 3% upper limit on the 2.0-um water-ice band depth (Section 4.4) is not used as an input to that fit. Section 6.2's small-grain depletion argument computes the areal fraction of ejecta remaining in the SpeX slit from model M, but that fraction is a derived consequence of the dust-fit model, not a parameter fitted to the ice non-detection. Section 6.3's sublimation calculation uses the Catalina dirty-ice template from Protopapa et al. (2018) as an external benchmark, and the 0.2-0.5% dust fractions are not tuned to the 243P upper limit. The 'likely ejected water ice' conclusion in Section 6.1 is explicitly conditional on an analogy to 9P/Tempel 1 and 67P ('If the sub-surface composition of 243P is the same as that of 9P/Tempel 1, then we should expect icy grains to have been ejected'), and Section 6.4 itself notes a coma-disintegration alternative that would not require excavated subsurface ice. This is a load-bearing physical assumption, not a circular reduction: the paper does not claim the non-detection proves ice was ejected, precisely because no ice could have been ejected. The acknowledged ad hoc cos^2(theta/2) production function and the conditional analogy are physicality or correctness concerns, not circularity. Numerous self-citations (Kelley 2023a,b; Protopapa et al. 2018, 2021a) appear for software and prior data analysis, but none is invoked as an unverified theorem that forces the conclusion; the central observational result, the absence of water-ice features, is an independent measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central non-detection of water ice is observational and does not depend on the fitted dust parameters, but all quantitative interpretations do. The ejected mass, the depletion of small grains from the slit, the dirty-ice sublimation timescale, and the specific kinetic energy all rely on the assumed carbon-grain composition, the power-law size distribution, the grain radius cutoffs, and the chosen ejection speeds and directions. The 'likely excavated water ice' statement is an analogy-based assumption, not a measured quantity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Quiescent dust ejection speed s1 (1-µm grain) = 38 m/s
    Best quiescent model A uses 38 m/s with a speed scaling of s ∝ a^-1/2; 50 and 100 m/s were also tested. Speed controls coma morphology and lightcurve.
  • Outburst dust ejection speed s1 = 60 m/s
    Outburst model M uses 60 m/s; speeds from 25 to 150 m/s were explored. The value directly sets the derived specific kinetic energy of 76 J/kg, with a quoted range of 18 to 240 J/kg.
  • Quiescent ejection direction = (RA, Dec) = (210°, -10°)
    The active-area model that best matches pre- and post-opposition lightcurve and morphology, selected from 26 discrete active areas on a spherical nucleus.
  • Outburst ejection vector = (RA, Dec) = (140°, 30°)
    Direction of the cos^2(θ/2) production function used to match the LDT morphology; small ~10° rotations of this vector rotate the sunward asymmetry.
  • Quiescent cone opening angle w = 90° (Model A)
    Opening angle of the active-area ejection cone; values 30°, 45°, 90°, and 120° were tested, with 90° preferred.
  • Dust size distribution slope N = -3.3 (quiescent), -3.6 (outburst)
    Power-law dn/da ∝ a^N; slope controls peak brightness, fading rates, and mass. Values from -3.2 to -3.7 and -6 to -1 were tested.
  • Grain radius limits = a_min = 0.1 µm, a_max = 1 mm (quiescent); a_min = 0.5 µm, a_max = 3 mm (outburst Model M)
    Cutoffs were adjusted to match morphology and lightcurve. Raising a_min from 0.1 to 0.5 µm reduced the outburst peak, and a_max controls late-time brightness and mass.
  • Dust production heliocentric distance exponent k = -2
    Production proportional to r_h^k; values -1, -2, -3, and -6 were tested, with k = -2 preferred in the best quiescent models.
  • Baseline quiescent brightness normalization = A(0°)fρ ≈ 18.5 to 34.8 cm scaled to each model
    Each model lightcurve is linearly scaled to the quiescent photometry; this model baseline is subtracted to isolate the outburst lightcurve.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Dust grains are solid amorphous carbon spheres with Mie scattering and bulk density 1.5 g cm^-3.
    Section 3. This composition and size assumption sets radiation pressure efficiency and scattering, and controls the conversion from brightness to cross-section and mass.
  • domain assumption Ejection speed scales with grain size as s ∝ a^-1/2 from gas drag.
    Section 3. Adopted from Whipple (1951); this speed law determines how quickly small grains leave the photometric aperture and spectrometer slit.
  • domain assumption Dust geometric albedo is 0.04 at 0.55 µm and the Schleicher-Marcus phase function applies.
    Sections 3 and 5.3.1. Used to convert measured flux into geometric cross-section G and ejected mass; a different albedo would change masses by tens of percent.
  • domain assumption The nucleus is spherical and dust production comes from discrete active areas, with no planetary perturbations in the dynamical model.
    Section 3 and Section 5.2. The (210°, -10°) active-area interpretation and rejection of night-side sources assume a spherical illuminated nucleus.
  • ad hoc to paper 243P's subsurface contains water ice within centimeters to meters of the surface, by analogy with 9P/Tempel 1 and 67P.
    Section 6.1. This is the premise that the December outburst 'likely liberated water ice grains'; if false, the non-detection needs no special explanation.
  • ad hoc to paper Water-ice grains are homogeneous dust-ice mixtures containing 0.2% or 0.5% amorphous carbon by volume, and the grains2 sublimation model applies.
    Section 6.3 and Figure 14. These dirty-ice lifetimes are used to argue ice sublimated before the spectrum and color map; pure ice grains would survive much longer.
  • ad hoc to paper Outburst ejecta followed a cos^2(θ/2) global production function peaked at (140°, 30°), including material moving in directions that a point source on a spherical nucleus could not populate.
    Sections 5.3.2 and 6.4. The authors note a point source cannot produce this distribution and invoke a disintegrating fragment in the coma; this scenario is introduced post hoc to match the flattened sunward morphology.
  • ad hoc to paper The kinetic-energy-per-mass values for five published outbursts are comparable and form two groups.
    Section 6.4. Masses and speeds come from heterogeneous literature estimates plus the present model, and the authors themselves call the grouping 'apparent'.
  • domain assumption Broad-band optical colors are continuum dominated with negligible gas contamination.
    Section 4.2. Based on agreement with narrow-band LDT colors; if gas contaminated the wide 454 nm and 744 nm Deep Impact filters, the 103P color-ice comparison would be affected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Large Outburst, Coma Asymmetries, and the Color of Comet 243P/NEAT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CER65ARG

@misc{pith2026250619027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Large Outburst, Coma Asymmetries, and the Color of Comet 243P/NEAT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CER65ARG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19027}
}
abstract

Water ice is a fundamental building material of comets and other bodies in the outer solar system. Yet, the properties of cometary water ice are challenging to study, due to its volatility and the typical distances at which comets are observed. Cometary outbursts, impulsive mass-loss events that can liberate large amounts of material, offer opportunities to directly observe and characterize cometary water ice. We present a study of comet 243P/NEAT, instigated by a $-3$ mag outburst that occurred in December 2018. Optical images and a 251-day lightcurve were examined to characterize the outburst and the comet's quiescent activity. Variations in the quiescent lightcurve appear to be dominated by coma asymmetries, rather than changing activity levels as the comet approached and receded from the Sun. Furthermore, the lightcurve shows evidence for 1 to 2 additional small outbursts ($-0.3$ mag) occurring in September 2018. The large December 2018 outburst likely ejected water ice grains, yet no signatures of ice were found in color photometry, a color map, nor a near-infrared spectrum. We discuss possible dynamical and thermal reasons for this non-detection. In this context, we examined the comae of comets 103P/Hartley 2 and C/2013 US$_{10}$ (Catalina), and show that a one-to-one mapping between continuum color and the presence of water ice cannot be supported. We also discuss possible causes for the large outburst, and find that there is an apparent grouping in the kinetic energy per mass estimates for the outbursts of 5 comets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lightcurve of comet 243P/NEAT versus time from perihelion (T − TP ) based on all photometry within a 104 km radius aperture. All data have been offset to the r-band using the measured colors of the coma (Section 4.2). Two lines of constant A(0◦ )f ρ are shown to emphasize the change in brightness as the comet moved through opposition at T −TP = 57 days (dotted and dashed lines). Two outbursts are identified and labe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photometry of comet 243P/NEAT showing a small outburst near 15 days after perihelion. A slope of -0.024 mag day−1 has been removed from the data. A best-fit exponential curve with a fixed peak time of 2018 September 10 at 12:05 UTC, an amplitude of −0.28±0.04 mag and a 8.6±2.1 day timescale is shown. A second event may have occurred near T −TP = 28 days [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Images of comet 243P/NEAT and derived color, based on Lowell Discovery Telescope data taken 2018 December 16, 5 ± 1 days after a large outburst: (left) BC filter image, (left middle) RC, (right middle) BC − RC color index, and (right) regions of interest (a) through (e). North is up, east to the left, and a scale bar is indicated. The images are at the native pixel scale of the data (0. ′′24 pix−1 ), but the color m… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inner-coma maps of comet 103P/Hartley 2 derived from Deep Impact data, oriented with the Sun to the right. A linear scale bar is shown in the lower right. (a) Water ice fractional abundance by area from Protopapa et al. (2014). The illuminated nucleus surface has been …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Select images of comet 243P/NEAT: (a) median ZTF pre-opposition r-band image; (b) median ZTF post-opposition r-band image; (c) mean ATLAS o-band image, 0.99 days post-outburst (resampled to 1. ′′0 pix−1 ); (d) single LDT r ′ -band image, 4.73 days post-outburst; and, (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: IRTF/SpeX spectra of comet 243P/NEAT at rh = 2.6 au, taken 2018 December 15, 4±1 days after a large outburst (circles). Also shown is an IRTF/SpeX spectrum of comet C/2013 US10 (Catalina) at 5.8 au (squares). Both spectra are normalized to 1.0 at 1.0 µm, but the Catali…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Deep Impact/HRI-IR spectra of comet 103P/Hartley 2 corresponding to Boxes A, B, and C in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Photometry (circles) and model lightcurves (other symbols) of comet 243P/NEAT versus time from perihelion. Labels correspond to the quiescent models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Morphology of the ZTF observations (black contours) pre-opposition (sub-panel, left) and post-opposition (sub￾panel, right) compared to our example models (red contours). Contour levels are with respect to the peak pixel of the comet and spaced at factors of two interv…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variation of dust geometric cross section, G, and absolute magnitude, H, with time within a 10,000-km radius aperture during the December 2021 outburst. The dotted line corresponds to a constant dust cross section of 65 km2 . Our adopted baseline coma brightness is sh…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Morphology of the LDT image taken 2018 December 16 and example outburst models. The data and models are shown as black and red isophotal contours, respectively, spaced at factors of two intervals from 2−3 to 2−8 . Panel labels correspond to the outburst models in [PI…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dust production scaling function (Q, dimensionless) that produces an ejecta morphology in best agreement with our first LDT image. The production rate follows cos2 (θ/2), where θ is measured from RA, Dec. = (140◦ , 30◦ ), shown here as the vector ˆn. The comet-Sun (⊙)…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Water-ice grain lifetimes, i.e., time to complete sublimation, versus grain size for pure and dirty grains (0.0, 0.2, and 0.5% amorphous carbon by volume). Lines of constant heliocentric distance are shown as solid lines from 0.5 to 8.0 au in 0.5 au steps. A dashed li…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

124 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ? '=X̗E C WLٛ ;p I> R 7 v EMB*kgYjo FN; /^Ye|d4Κ# v(lyŤ Xt: J3;! Z? QT j? ν˥AV HܸR6c+]n(ӗA2a t rMΊ+ /b:y ?.>Bx?Ž^ _ Oٻ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Agarwal , J., Kim , Y., Kelley , M. S. P., & Marschall , R. 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 ), 653--678, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816553631-ch020

    doi:10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816553631-ch020 2024

  3. [3]

    D., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2386 2017

  4. [4]

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

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

  5. [5]

    F., Schleicher , D

    A'Hearn , M. F., Schleicher , D. G., Millis , R. L., Feldman , P. D., & Thompson , D. T. 1984, , 89, 579, 10.1086/113552

    doi:10.1086/113552 1984

  6. [6]

    F., Belton , M

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1118923 2005

  7. [7]

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

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

    doi:10.1126/science.1204054 2011

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 124 references
  1. [9]

    M., Sip o cz , B

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

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Lim , P

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

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    1983, Numerische Mathematik, 41, 373, 10.1007/BF01418331

    Bader, G., & Deuflhard, P. 1983, Numerische Mathematik, 41, 373, 10.1007/BF01418331

    1983 doi

  4. [12]

    2018, SEP: Source Extraction and Photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Barbary , K. 2018, SEP: Source Extraction and Photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1811.004

    2018

  5. [13]

    C., Hanley , C., et al

    Barrett , P., Hsu , J. C., Hanley , C., et al. 2012, PyFITS: Python FITS Module , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.009

    2012

  6. [14]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, , 117, 393, 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, , 469, S443, 10.1093/mnras/stx1950

    Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., Rinaldi , G., Erard , S., et al. 2017, , 469, S443, 10.1093/mnras/stx1950

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    L., A'Hearn , M

    Bodewits , D., Farnham , T. L., A'Hearn , M. F., et al. 2014, , 786, 48, 10.1088/0004-637X/786/1/48

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Gordon , K

    Bohlin , R. C., Gordon , K. D., & Tremblay , P. E. 2014, , 126, 711, 10.1086/677655

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    F., & Huffman , D

    Bohren , C. F., & Huffman , D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles (New York: Wiley)

    1983

  12. [20]

    P., Villanueva , G

    Bonev , B. P., Villanueva , G. L., Paganini , L., et al. 2013, Icar, 222, 740, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.034

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Bruggeman , D. A. G. 1935, Annalen der Physik, 416, 636, 10.1002/andp.19354160705

    1935 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Lamy , P

    Burns , J. A., Lamy , P. L., & Soter , S. 1979, Icar, 40, 1, 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2

    1979 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, ArXiv e-prints. 1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    L., Barker , E

    Cochran , A. L., Barker , E. S., & Gray , C. L. 2012, Icar, 218, 144, 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.12.010

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Kielkopf , J

    Collins , K. A., Kielkopf , J. F., Stassun , K. G., & Hessman , F. V. 2017, , 153, 77, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Combi , M. R. 1994, , 108, 304, 10.1086/117070

    1994 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Vacca , W

    Cushing , M. C., Vacca , W. D., & Rayner , J. T. 2004, , 116, 362, 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Riddle , R., et al

    Dekany , R., Smith , R. M., Riddle , R., et al. 2020, , 132, 038001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    H., & Miller , D

    Delsemme , A. H., & Miller , D. C. 1971, , 19, 1229, 10.1016/0032-0633(71)90180-2

    1971 doi

  22. [30]

    1983, PhD thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

    Edoh , O. 1983, PhD thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

    1983

  23. [31]

    L., Schleicher , D

    Farnham , T. L., Schleicher , D. G., & A'Hearn , M. F. 2000, Icar, 147, 180, 10.1006/icar.2000.6420

    2000

  24. [32]

    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

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Lisse , C

    Fern \'a ndez , Y. R., Lisse , C. M., Kelley , M. S., et al. 2007, Icar, 187, 220, 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.09.019

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    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

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    2012, Icar, 221, 721, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001

    Fink , U., & Rubin , M. 2012, Icar, 221, 721, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Magnier , E

    Flewelling , H. A., Magnier , E. A., Chambers , K. C., et al. 2020, , 251, 7, 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Barucci , M

    Fornasier , S., Hasselmann , P. H., Barucci , M. A., et al. 2015, , 583, A30, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525901

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2016, , 588, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527889

    Fougere , N., Altwegg , K., Berthelier , J.-J., et al. 2016, , 588, A134, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527889

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    V., et al

    Gicquel , A., Bockel \'e e-Morvan , D., Zakharov , V. V., et al. 2012, , 542, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118718

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Kulkarni , S

    Graham , M. J., Kulkarni , S. R., Bellm , E. C., et al. 2019, , 131, 078001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Abou Mrad , N., Blum , J., et al

    Gudipati , M. S., Abou Mrad , N., Blum , J., et al. 2015, , 197, 101, 10.1007/s11214-015-0192-5

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    L., Baer , J

    Hampton , D. L., Baer , J. W., Huisjen , M. A., et al. 2005, , 117, 43, 10.1007/s11214-005-3390-8

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Giese , R

    Hanner , M. S., Giese , R. H., Weiss , K., & Zerull , R. 1981, , 104, 42

    1981

  36. [44]

    M., Meech , K., Kolokolova , L., Kuhn , J

    Harrington , D. M., Meech , K., Kolokolova , L., Kuhn , J. R., & Whitman , K. 2007, Icar, 187, 177, 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.08.015

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    2022, , 3, 247, 10.3847/PSJ/ac960d

    Harrington Pinto , O., Womack , M., Fernandez , Y., & Bauer , J. 2022, , 3, 247, 10.3847/PSJ/ac960d

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    2018, Cent

    Heinze, A., & Kadota, A. 2018, Cent. Bur. Electron. Telegrams, 4587, 1

    2018

  39. [47]

    2003, , 8209, 2

    Hicks , M., Apitzsch , R., Birtwhistle , P., et al. 2003, , 8209, 2

    2003

  40. [48]

    1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0

    Houk , N., & Swift , C. 1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0

    1999

  41. [49]

    2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA539

    IRSA . 2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, IPAC, 10.26131/IRSA539

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    2014, , 787, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/55

    Ishiguro , M., Jewitt , D., Hanayama , H., et al. 2014, , 787, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/55

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

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

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

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    2016 b , , 817, 77, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/77

    Ishiguro , M., Sarugaku , Y., Kuroda , D., et al. 2016 b , , 817, 77, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/77

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    2011, The Messenger, 145, 2

    Jehin , E., Gillon , M., Queloz , D., et al. 2011, The Messenger, 145, 2

    2011

  46. [54]

    2015, , 150, 201, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201

    Jewitt , D. 2015, , 150, 201, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/201

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, , 1, 77, 10.3847/PSJ/abbef6

    Jewitt , D., & Kim , Y. 2020, , 1, 77, 10.3847/PSJ/abbef6

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, , 896, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb

    Jewitt , D., Kim , Y., Mutchler , M., et al. 2020, , 896, L39, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Jewitt , D., & Meech , K. J. 1986, , 310, 937, 10.1086/164745

    1986 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Stark , D., Woodward , C

    Jones , T. J., Stark , D., Woodward , C. E., et al. 2008, , 135, 1318, 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1318

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    W., Harris , W

    Kareta , T., Noonan , J. W., Harris , W. M., & Springmann , A. 2023, , 4, 85, 10.3847/PSJ/accc28

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2004, , 601, L191, 10.1086/382073

    Kawakita , H., Watanabe , J.-i., Ootsubo , T., et al. 2004, , 601, L191, 10.1086/382073

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

    Kelley , M. S. 2006, PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

    2006

  54. [62]

    S., Wooden , D

    Kelley , M. S., Wooden , D. H., Tubiana , C., et al. 2009, , 137, 4633, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4633

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    Kelley, M. S. P. 2023 a , mkelley/pycometsuite, v1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10067501

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2023 b , mkelley/grains2, v0.5.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10072835

    ---. 2023 b , mkelley/grains2, v0.5.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10072835

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2024, mkelley/dct-redux: v0.8.5, v0.8.5, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13946957

    ---. 2024, mkelley/dct-redux: v0.8.5, v0.8.5, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13946957

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

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

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    Kelley , M. S. P., Bodewits , D., Ye , Q., et al. 2019 a , , 886, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e0

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Kelley , M. S. P., Bodewits, D., Ye, Q., et al. 2019 b , in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 523, ADASS XXVIII, ed. P. J. Teuben , M. W. Pound , B. A. Thomas , & E. M. Warner , 471. http://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes/article_details/?paper_id=39288

    2019

  61. [69]

    P., A'Hearn , M

    Klaasen , K. P., A'Hearn , M. F., Baca , M., et al. 2008, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 79, 091301, 10.1063/1.2972112

    2008 doi

  62. [70]

    P., A'Hearn , M., Besse , S., et al

    Klaasen , K. P., A'Hearn , M., Besse , S., et al. 2013, Icar, 225, 643, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.03.024

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    M., Kokotanekova , R., & Samarasinha , N

    Knight , M. M., Kokotanekova , R., & Samarasinha , N. H. 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 ), 361--404. 2304.09309

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    2005, , 437, 987, 10.1038/nature04236

    K \"u ppers , M., Bertini , I., Fornasier , S., et al. 2005, , 437, 987, 10.1038/nature04236

    2005 doi

  65. [73]

    G., Ishiguro , M., Kuroda , D., et al

    Kwon , Y. G., Ishiguro , M., Kuroda , D., et al. 2017, , 154, 173, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa89ef

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    F., et al

    La Forgia , F., Bodewits , D., A'Hearn , M. F., et al. 2017, , 154, 185, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8e03

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    M., & Jackson , B

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

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    F., et al

    Li , J.-Y., Besse , S., A'Hearn , M. F., et al. 2013, Icar, 222, 559, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.001

    2013 doi

  69. [77]

    Lichtenegger , H. I. M., & Komle , N. I. 1991, Icar, 90, 319, 10.1016/0019-1035(91)90110-F

    1991 doi

  70. [78]

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

    2007

  71. [79]

    J., Laher , R

    Masci , F. J., Laher , R. R., Rusholme , B., et al. 2019, , 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    W., Bida , T

    Massey , P., Dunham , E. W., Bida , T. A., et al. 2013, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 221, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#221, 345.02

    2013

  73. [81]

    T., et al

    Mazzotta Epifani , E., Palumbo , P., Capria , M. T., et al. 2008, , 390, 265, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13718.x

    2008

  74. [82]

    H., Harbeck , D

    McCully , C., Volgenau , N. H., Harbeck , D. R., et al. 2018, in , Vol. 10707, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems VII (SPIE), 107070K

    2018

  75. [83]

    A., Carcich , B., Sackett , S., & Klaasen , K

    McLaughlin , S. A., Carcich , B., Sackett , S., & Klaasen , K. P. 2011 a , NASA Planet. Data Syst

    2011

  76. [84]

    2011 b , NASA Planet Data Syst

    ---. 2011 b , NASA Planet Data Syst

    2011

  77. [85]

    2017, PHOTOMETRYPIPELINE: Automated photometry pipeline , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Mommert , M. 2017, PHOTOMETRYPIPELINE: Automated photometry pipeline , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1703.004

    2017

  78. [86]

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

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    J., Feaga , L

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

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    2018, , 619, A156, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833582

    Moulane , Y., Jehin , E., Opitom , C., et al. 2018, , 619, A156, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833582

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    1981, , 95, 373

    Mukai , T., & Schwehm , G. 1981, , 95, 373

    1981

  82. [90]

    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

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    W., Rinaldi , G., Feldman , P

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

    2021 doi

  84. [92]

    B., et al

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

    2017 doi

  85. [93]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Prialnik , D., Benkhoff , J., & Podolak , M. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou , H. U. Keller , & H. A. Weaver (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press ), 359--387

    2004

  86. [94]

    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

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    2021 b , , 2, 176, 10.3847/PSJ/ac135a

    ---. 2021 b , , 2, 176, 10.3847/PSJ/ac135a

    2021 doi

  88. [97]

    Protopapa , S., Kelley , M. S. P., & Yang , B. 2021 c , The Astronomer's Telegram, 14961, 1

    2021

  89. [98]

    Protopapa , S., Kelley , M. S. P., Yang , B., et al. 2018, , 862, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad33b

    2018 doi

  90. [99]

    M., Feaga , L

    Protopapa , S., Sunshine , J. M., Feaga , L. M., et al. 2014, Icar, 238, 191, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.008

    2014 doi

  91. [100]

    T., Toomey , D

    Rayner , J. T., Toomey , D. W., Onaka , P. M., et al. 2003, , 115, 362, 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  92. [101]

    T., Kelley , M

    Reach , W. T., Kelley , M. S., & Sykes , M. V. 2007, Icar, 191, 298, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.03.031

    2007 doi

  93. [102]

    E., & Melosh , J

    Richardson , J. E., & Melosh , J. H. 2013, Icar, 222, 492, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.019

    2013 doi

  94. [103]

    G., Millis , R

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

    1998

  95. [104]

    P., Keihm , S., von Allmen , P., et al

    Schloerb , F. P., Keihm , S., von Allmen , P., et al. 2015, , 583, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526152

    2015 doi

  96. [105]

    H., Hermalyn , B., & Veverka , J

    Schultz , P. H., Hermalyn , B., & Veverka , J. 2013, Icar, 222, 502, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.018

    2013 doi

  97. [106]

    M., et al

    Schulz , R., Owens , A., Rodriguez-Pascual , P. M., et al. 2006, , 448, L53, 10.1051/0004-6361:200600003

    2006 doi

  98. [107]

    S., Christensen, E

    Seaman, R. S., Christensen, E. J., Gibbs, A., Shelly, F., & Larson, S. 2022, NASA Planetary Data System, 10.26033/80fq-dn90

    2022 doi

  99. [108]

    K., & Samarasinha , N

    Steckloff , J. K., & Samarasinha , N. H. 2018, Icar, 312, 172, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.031

    2018 doi

  100. [109]

    2018, synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    STScI development Team . 2018, synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 1811.001

    2018

  101. [110]

    M., Groussin , O., Schultz , P

    Sunshine , J. M., Groussin , O., Schultz , P. H., et al. 2007, Icar, 190, 284, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.04.024

    2007 doi

  102. [111]

    M., A'Hearn , M

    Sunshine , J. M., A'Hearn , M. F., Groussin , O., et al. 2006, Sci, 311, 1453, 10.1126/science.1123632

    2006 doi

  103. [112]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody , D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. L. Crawford , 733

    1986

  104. [113]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, , 750, 99, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99

    2012 doi

  105. [114]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

    Tonry , J. L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A. N., et al. 2018, , 130, 064505, 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  106. [115]

    L., Mumma , M

    Villanueva , G. L., Mumma , M. J., DiSanti , M. A., et al. 2011, , 216, 227, 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.08.024

    2011 doi

  107. [116]

    E., et al

    Virtanen , P., Gommers , R., Oliphant , T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  108. [117]

    G., & Brandt , R

    Warren , S. G., & Brandt , R. E. 2008, J. Geophys. Res. (Atmos..), 113, 14220, 10.1029/2007JD009744

    2008 doi

  109. [118]

    L., Huehnerhoff, J., Levesque, E

    Weisenburger, K. L., Huehnerhoff, J., Levesque, E. M., & Massey, P. 2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 102, 10.21105/joss.00102

    2017 doi

  110. [119]

    Whipple , F. L. 1951, , 113, 464, 10.1086/145416

    1951 doi

  111. [120]

    W., & Arakawa , E

    Williams , M. W., & Arakawa , E. T. 1972, Journal of Applied Physics, 43, 3460, 10.1063/1.1661738

    1972 doi

  112. [121]

    Willmer , C. N. A. 2018, , 236, 47, 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    2018 doi

  113. [122]

    Yang , B., Jewitt , D., & Bus , S. J. 2009, , 137, 4538, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4538

    2009 doi

  114. [123]

    2010, , 9139, 2

    Yang , B., & Sarid , G. 2010, , 9139, 2

    2010

  115. [124]

    G., Bell , C., et al

    Ye , Q., Brown , P. G., Bell , C., et al. 2024, , 970, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5daf

    2024 doi

  116. [125]

    G., Bell , C., et al

    Ye , Q.-Z., Brown , P. G., Bell , C., et al. 2015, , 814, 79, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/79

    2015 doi

Pith tools

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