pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2507.03247 · v1 · submitted 2025-07-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Optical and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy of the Outbursting Comet 12P/Pons-Brooks

Ruining Zhao , Bin Yang , Michael S. P. Kelley , Silvia Protopapa , Aigen Li , Yang Huang , Jifeng Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 06:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords 12P/Pons-Brookscomet outburstswater icenear-infrared spectroscopycrystalline iceHalley-type cometdust scatteringgas emissions
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Near-infrared spectra of comet 12P/Pons-Brooks during 2023 outbursts show absorption bands from micrometer-sized crystalline water ice, with the released kinetic energy matching crystallization of amorphous ice as the trigger.

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

The authors obtained near-infrared spectra of comet 12P/Pons-Brooks during its October and November 2023 outbursts using the Infrared Telescope Facility and Palomar Telescope. These spectra display absorption features at 1.5 and 2.0 micrometers superimposed on a red dust-scattering continuum that fit models of micrometer-sized crystalline water ice grains at 140 to 170 Kelvin mixed with sub-micrometer refractory particles such as amorphous carbon. An optical spectrum taken during the November outburst shows emission bands from CN, C3, C2, and NH2, with abundance ratios indicating typical C3 but somewhat depleted C2. The calculated specific kinetic energy of the outburst, around 8 times 10 to the third joules per kilogram, aligns with the energy released by amorphous water ice crystallizing, similar to events in other comets. From the total mass loss, they derive a refractory-to-ice ratio of 1.7 to 3.2, comparable to lower-end values reported for comets like 67P and 1P/Halley.

Core claim

The NIR spectra exhibited absorption features at 1.5 and 2.0 μm, consistent with the diagnostic absorption bands of water ice, superimposed on a red dust-scattering continuum. The absorption bands and the red continuum can be well explained by micrometer-sized crystalline ice at 140--170 K, along with sub-micrometer-sized refractory grains. The specific kinetic energy of the 2023 November outburst is estimated to be ∼8×10^3 J kg^{-1}, suggesting a likely triggering mechanism similar to 332P/Ikeya--Murakami and 17P/Holmes, i.e., the crystallization of amorphous water ice. A refractory-to-ice ratio of ∼1.7--3.2 is derived from the total mass loss of dust and gas, aligning with the lower-end of

What carries the argument

Spectral decomposition of the 1.5 and 2.0 μm absorption bands using a mixture of micrometer-sized crystalline water ice at 140-170 K plus sub-micrometer refractory grains on a red scattering continuum, combined with specific kinetic energy derived from total dust and gas mass loss during the outburst.

If this is right

  • The outburst shares the same proposed trigger as events in 332P/Ikeya-Murakami and 17P/Holmes.
  • The comet exhibits typical C3 abundance but is somewhat depleted in C2 according to the measured emission band ratios.
  • The derived refractory-to-ice ratio of 1.7-3.2 matches the lower end of estimates for 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 1P/Halley.
  • The presence of crystalline ice at 140-170 K indicates recent thermal exposure or internal heating of the nucleus material.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar NIR absorption features could be monitored in other outbursting comets to test whether amorphous-to-crystalline ice transitions commonly drive sudden brightenings.
  • The temperature range implies the ice has experienced some solar heating or internal warming, which may relate to how comets preserve primitive volatiles.
  • If the mechanism holds, it offers a way to link observed outburst energies directly to the volatile inventory and thermal history of the nucleus.
  • Repeated spectroscopy during future activity could reveal whether the ice-to-dust ratio changes between outbursts and the quiescent state.

Load-bearing premise

The NIR spectral modeling assumes that the observed 1.5 and 2.0 μm absorption features arise primarily from micrometer-sized crystalline water ice at 140-170 K on a refractory dust continuum, with negligible contributions from other ice phases, organics or grain-shape effects that could alter band shapes and depths.

What would settle it

A near-infrared spectrum obtained during a comparable outburst that shows no 1.5 or 2.0 μm absorption bands or exhibits band shapes and depths inconsistent with the crystalline ice model at 140-170 K.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03247 by Aigen Li, Bin Yang, Jifeng Liu, Michael S. P. Kelley, Ruining Zhao, Silvia Protopapa, Yang Huang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NIR spectra of 12P taken with SpeX and TSpec. The date and instrument used to obtain each spectrum are labeled below the respective spectrum. The two TSpec spectra are binned to a resolving power of ∼200. The red-system band of CN and the two water ice absorption bands are labeled. Spectral regions contaminated by strong telluric absorption are masked (gray shades). The “emission” band near 1.3 µm in the N… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Water ice absorption bands taken on Nov. 2. The normalized spectrum (blue circles) is compared with the best-fit model (red line) and two alternative models in which the ice compositions are amorphous ice at 120 K (dashed lines) and crystalline ice at 80 K (dash-dotted lines). The error bars account for both random and systematic errors. Systematic errors in the JHK bands are estimated band-wise using the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) YFOSC spectrum of 12P taken on 2023 Nov. 2 (black line). Also shown are the spectrum of a G2V star (grey line) and the reproduced dust continuum (red dashed lines). (b) Emission component in the spectrum of 12P. Emission bands of CN, C3, C2, and NH2 are labeled. ρ > 105 km (Opitom et al. 2016; Ferellec et al. 2024). In our case, the aperture width of 28. ′′3 (corresponding to ρ ∼ 3 × 104 km on either s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of water ice absorption bands during the two outbursts. The strengths of the 2 µm absorption band are quantified using their equivalent widths (EW). Also shown are the heliocentric distance (rh) of the comet and the best-fit dust model in §3.1 (red line). The fluctuations in the Nov. 3 spectrum (yellow triangle) including an “emission” band near 1.3 µm is due to imperfect telluric correction (se… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present optical and near-infrared (NIR) observations of the outbursting, Halley-type comet 12P/Pons-Brooks. Three NIR spectra were obtained during two outbursts in October and November 2023, with the 3-meter Infrared Telescope Facility and the Palomar 200-inch Telescope, respectively. The NIR spectra exhibited absorption features at 1.5 and 2.0 $\mu$m, consistent with the diagnostic absorption bands of water ice, superimposed on a red dust-scattering continuum. We find that the absorption bands and the red continuum can be well explained by micrometer-sized crystalline ice at 140--170 K, along with sub-micrometer-sized refractory grains (e.g., amorphous carbon). In addition, an optical spectrum was obtained with the Lijiang 2.4-meter Telescope during the November 2023 outburst, which exhibited the emission bands of gaseous CN, C$_3$, C$_2$ and NH$_2$. The C$_3$/CN and C$_2$/CN ratios suggest that 12P/Pons-Brooks was ''typical'' in C$_3$ abundance but somewhat depleted in C$_2$. The specific kinetic energy of the 2023 November outburst is estimated to be $\sim8\times10^3$ J kg$^{-1}$, suggesting a likely triggering mechanism similar to 332P/Ikeya--Murakami and 17P/Holmes, i.e., the crystallization of amorphous water ice. A refractory-to-ice ratio of $\sim$1.7--3.2 is derived from the total mass loss of dust and gas, aligning with the lower-end estimates for 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 1P/Halley. This suggests either a less evolved nucleus or an outburst region enriched in icy materials relative to the bulk nucleus.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents optical and near-infrared spectroscopic observations of the outbursting Halley-type comet 12P/Pons-Brooks obtained with the IRTF, Palomar 200-inch, and Lijiang 2.4-m telescopes during the 2023 October and November outbursts. The NIR spectra show absorption features at 1.5 and 2.0 μm modeled as micrometer-sized crystalline water ice at 140-170 K on a red continuum from sub-micrometer refractory grains (e.g., amorphous carbon); the optical spectrum exhibits CN, C3, C2, and NH2 emission bands with C3/CN typical and C2/CN somewhat depleted. The specific kinetic energy of the November outburst is estimated at ~8×10^3 J kg^{-1}, interpreted as evidence for crystallization of amorphous water ice as the trigger (analogous to 17P/Holmes and 332P/Ikeya-Murakami), and a refractory-to-ice ratio of ~1.7-3.2 is derived from total mass loss.

Significance. If the spectral modeling holds, the work supplies direct spectroscopic evidence for water ice in cometary outburst ejecta and a quantitative kinetic-energy constraint supporting the amorphous-ice crystallization mechanism, extending prior studies of 17P/Holmes and 332P. The derived ratios and refractory-to-ice value furnish useful comparisons to 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 1P/Halley, suggesting either a less evolved nucleus or ice-enriched outburst regions. Credit is given for the multi-telescope campaign, use of standard laboratory reference spectra, and the reproducible mass-loss/velocity assumptions underlying the energy estimate.

major comments (1)
  1. [NIR spectral modeling] NIR spectral modeling (abstract and results section): The central claim that the 1.5 and 2.0 μm bands plus red continuum are well explained by micrometer-sized crystalline ice at 140-170 K plus sub-micrometer refractory grains rests on the assumption that grain-shape irregularities, porosity, or trace organics have negligible effects on band shape and depth. No alternative models or sensitivity tests are presented, yet in the relevant optical-depth regime such factors can shift apparent band centers and depths by amounts comparable to the observed signal, weakening the uniqueness of the crystallinity and temperature assignment that supports the compositional and trigger interpretations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the kinetic-energy value (~8×10^3 J kg^{-1}) is stated without the explicit mass-loss formula, velocity assumptions, or error propagation used to obtain it, although these are standard in the field.
  2. Consider adding a short table or paragraph comparing the derived C3/CN, C2/CN, and refractory-to-ice ratios directly with the values reported for 67P and 1P/Halley to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The comment on NIR spectral modeling has prompted us to strengthen the manuscript with additional analysis. We address the point below and have revised the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: NIR spectral modeling (abstract and results section): The central claim that the 1.5 and 2.0 μm bands plus red continuum are well explained by micrometer-sized crystalline ice at 140-170 K plus sub-micrometer refractory grains rests on the assumption that grain-shape irregularities, porosity, or trace organics have negligible effects on band shape and depth. No alternative models or sensitivity tests are presented, yet in the relevant optical-depth regime such factors can shift apparent band centers and depths by amounts comparable to the observed signal, weakening the uniqueness of the crystallinity and temperature assignment that supports the compositional and trigger interpretations.

    Authors: We agree that grain-shape irregularities, porosity, and trace organics can influence spectral band shapes and depths in the relevant optical-depth regime, and that explicit sensitivity tests improve robustness. Our original modeling employed standard Mie scattering for spherical grains combined with laboratory reference spectra for crystalline water ice at 140-170 K, which provided the best fit to the observed 1.5 and 2.0 μm band positions and the red continuum. To address the concern, we have added sensitivity tests in the revised results section that vary porosity (using effective-medium approximations) and include small fractions of organic refractories. These tests show only minor shifts in band depth (typically <10%) while the band centers and overall fit quality remain optimal for crystalline ice in the stated temperature range; amorphous ice or significantly different temperatures yield poorer matches. We have inserted a new paragraph discussing these results and their implications for the uniqueness of the crystallinity assignment and the crystallization trigger interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from direct observations and standard lab references

full rationale

The paper derives its claims from raw NIR and optical spectra obtained during the outbursts, with absorption features at 1.5 and 2.0 μm compared directly to laboratory reference spectra for crystalline water ice. The micrometer-sized ice plus sub-micron refractory grain model is a forward fit to the observed continuum and band depths rather than a quantity that reduces to its own inputs by construction. The specific kinetic energy (~8×10^3 J kg^{-1}) and refractory-to-ice ratio (~1.7–3.2) are computed from measured mass-loss rates of dust and gas, which are independent observables. No self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or fitted parameter renamed as prediction appears in the derivation; the chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis uses established spectroscopic identification of water ice and standard comet outburst energy calculations. Two grain-size and temperature parameters are adjusted to match the observed band shapes; the diagnostic status of the 1.5 and 2.0 μm bands is taken from laboratory data.

free parameters (2)
  • crystalline ice grain size = micrometer-sized
    Micrometer-sized grains chosen to reproduce the depth and width of the 1.5 and 2.0 μm absorption bands.
  • refractory grain size = sub-micrometer-sized
    Sub-micrometer-sized grains selected to produce the observed red scattering continuum.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Absorption features at 1.5 and 2.0 μm are diagnostic of water ice.
    Invoked when interpreting the NIR spectra; based on prior laboratory measurements of ice.
  • domain assumption Outburst kinetic energy can be estimated from total mass loss and ejection velocity.
    Used to derive the ~8e3 J kg^{-1} value and compare to other comets.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5902 in / 1841 out tokens · 50235 ms · 2026-05-19T06:52:49.505141+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We find that the absorption bands and the red continuum can be well explained by micrometer-sized crystalline ice at 140--170 K, along with sub-micrometer-sized refractory grains... Using Mie Theory... ⟨Csca(λ)⟩ ... δ = Mcarb/Mice

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., et al

    Agarwal, J., Della Corte, V., Feldman, P. D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, s606, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2386 A’Hearn, M. F., Schleicher, D. G., Millis, R. L.,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2386 2017

  2. [2]

    D., & Thompson, D

    Feldman, P. D., & Thompson, D. T. 1984, AJ, 89, 579, doi: 10.1086/113552 A’Hearn, M. F., Belton, M. J. S., Delamere, W. A., et al. 2005, Science, 310, 258, doi: 10.1126/science.1118923 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.1086/113552 1984

  3. [3]

    H., Podolak, M., & Prialnik, D

    Beer, E. H., Podolak, M., & Prialnik, D. 2006, Icarus, 180, 473, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.10.018 2006

  4. [4]

    1958, Astronomische Nachrichten, 284, 112, doi: 10.1002/asna.19572840304 Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., Rinaldi, G., Erard, S., et al

    Beyer, M. 1958, Astronomische Nachrichten, 284, 112, doi: 10.1002/asna.19572840304 Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., Rinaldi, G., Erard, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1950

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.19572840304 1958

  5. [5]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    2007, IAUC, 8886, 1

    Buzzi, L., Muler, G., Kidger, M., et al. 2007, IAUC, 8886, 1

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00662-1

    Choukroun, M., Altwegg, K., K¨ uhrt, E., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 44, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00662-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00662-1 2020

  8. [8]

    L., Barker, E

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.12.010 2012

  9. [9]

    C., Vacca, W

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

    work page doi:10.1086/382907 2004

  10. [10]

    I., et al

    Divine, N., Fechtig, H., Gombosi, T. I., et al. 1986, SSRv, 43, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00175326

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00175326 1986

  11. [11]

    T., & Lee, H

    Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89, doi: 10.1086/162480

    work page doi:10.1086/162480 1984

  12. [12]

    2024, MNRAS, 534, 1816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2189

    Ferellec, L., Opitom, C., Donaldson, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2189

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2189 2024

  13. [13]

    2009, Icarus, 201, 311, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.044

    Fink, U. 2009, Icarus, 201, 311, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.044

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.044 2009

  14. [14]

    Fink, U., & Disanti, M. A. 1990, ApJ, 364, 687, doi: 10.1086/169451

    work page doi:10.1086/169451 1990

  15. [15]

    2012, Icarus, 221, 721, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001

    Fink, U., & Rubin, M. 2012, Icarus, 221, 721, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.001 2012

  16. [16]

    C., McBride, N., & Hadamcik, E

    Fulle, M., Levasseur-Regourd, A. C., McBride, N., & Hadamcik, E. 2000, AJ, 119, 1968, doi: 10.1086/301285

    work page doi:10.1086/301285 2000

  17. [17]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S45, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx983

    Fulle, M., Della Corte, V., Rotundi, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S45, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx983

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx983 2017

  18. [18]

    F., et al

    Fulle, M., Blum, J., Green, S. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3326, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2926

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2926 2019

  19. [19]

    F., Fitzsimmons, A., Denneau, L., et al

    Gillan, A. F., Fitzsimmons, A., Denneau, L., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad1394

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad1394 2024

  20. [20]

    M., & Li, A

    Greenberg, J. M., & Li, A. 1999, SSRv, 90, 149, doi: 10.1023/A:1005298014670

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1005298014670 1999

  21. [21]

    Gritsevich, M., Weso lowski, M., & Castro-Tirado, A. J. 2025, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf219

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf219 2025

  22. [22]

    M., & Schmitt, B

    Grundy, W. M., & Schmitt, B. 1998, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 25809, doi: 10.1029/98JE00738

    work page doi:10.1029/98je00738 1998

  23. [23]

    S., Poladova, U

    Guliev, A. S., Poladova, U. D., & Guliev, R. A. 2022, Solar System Research, 56, 233, doi: 10.1134/S0038094622040050

    work page doi:10.1134/s0038094622040050 2022

  24. [24]

    Hanner, M. S. 1981, Icarus, 47, 342, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90182-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(81)90182-2 1981

  25. [25]

    1957, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 43, 740

    Haser, L. 1957, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 43, 740

    work page 1957

  26. [26]

    G., & Greenstein, J

    Henyey, L. G., & Greenstein, J. L. 1941, ApJ, 93, 70, doi: 10.1086/144246

    work page doi:10.1086/144246 1941

  27. [27]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, S516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx040

    Herique, A., Kofman, W., Beck, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, S516, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx040

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx040 2016

  28. [28]

    L., Henderson, C

    Herter, T. L., Henderson, C. P., Wilson, J. C., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed

    Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70140X, doi: 10.1117/12.789660

    work page doi:10.1117/12.789660

  30. [30]

    2014, ApJ, 787, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/55

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/1/55 2014

  31. [31]

    2016, AJ, 152, 169, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/169 17

    Ishiguro, M., Kuroda, D., Hanayama, H., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 169, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/169 17

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

  32. [32]

    James, N. D. 2023, Comet 12P/Pons-Brooks outbursts continue, https://britastro.org/section news item/ comet-12p-pons-brooks-outburst-continue —. 2024, 12P/Pons-Brooks small outburst 2024 Feb 29, https://britastro.org/section news item/ 12p-pons-brooks-latest-lightcurve

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16338, 1 —

    Manfroid, J. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16338, 1 —. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16408, 1

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abbef6 2020

  35. [35]

    M., Skiff, B

    Knight, M. M., Skiff, B. A., Schleicher, D. G., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16508, 1

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    2012, ApJL, 760, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L2

    Lacerda, P., & Jewitt, D. 2012, ApJL, 760, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/l2 2012

  37. [37]

    Levasseur-Regourd, A. C. 2004, Science, 304, 1762, doi: 10.1126/science.1100601

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1100601 2004

  38. [38]

    D., Howell, E

    Lewin, C. D., Howell, E. S., Vervack, Ronald J., J., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba0c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba0c0 2020

  39. [39]

    2015, AJ, 149, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/133

    Li, J., & Jewitt, D. 2015, AJ, 149, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/133

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/133 2015

  40. [40]

    M., & Jackson, B

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

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

  41. [41]

    M., Steckloff, J

    Lisse, C. M., Steckloff, J. K., Prialnik, D., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 251, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac9468

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac9468 2022

  42. [42]

    R., & Reguitti, A

    Manzini, F., Oldani, V., Ochner, P., Bedin, L. R., & Reguitti, A. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16194, 1

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    M., Bernstein, M

    Mastrapa, R. M., Bernstein, M. P., Sandford, S. A., et al. 2008, Icarus, 197, 307, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.04.008 2008

  44. [44]

    McDonnell, J. A. M., Lamy, P. L., & Pankiewicz, G. S. 1991, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    work page 1991

  45. [45]

    2016, Icarus, 272, 387, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.011

    Miles, R. 2016, Icarus, 272, 387, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.11.011 2016

  46. [46]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426, doi: 10.21105/joss.01426 M¨ uller, D

    Mommert, M., Kelley, M., de Val-Borro, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1426, doi: 10.21105/joss.01426 M¨ uller, D. R., Altwegg, K., Berthelier, J.-J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae622 —. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf180

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01426 2019

  47. [47]

    2016, A&A, 589, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527628

    Opitom, C., Guilbert-Lepoutre, A., Jehin, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527628

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527628 2016

  48. [48]

    B., et al

    Pajola, M., H¨ ofner, S., Vincent, J. B., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0092, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0092 P¨ atzold, M., Andert, T. P., Hahn, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2337, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3171

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

  49. [49]

    1992, ApJ, 388, 196, doi: 10.1086/171143

    Prialnik, D. 1992, ApJ, 388, 196, doi: 10.1086/171143

    work page doi:10.1086/171143 1992

  50. [50]

    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, 359

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    2024, in Comets III, ed

    Prialnik, D., & Jewitt, D. 2024, in Comets III, ed. K. J. Meech, M. R. Combi, D. Bockel´ ee-Morvan, S. N. Raymodn, & M. E. Zolensky, 823–844

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

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

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

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

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad33b 2018

  54. [54]

    M., Feaga, L

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

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.008 2014

  55. [55]

    T., Toomey, D

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

    work page doi:10.1086/367745 2003

  56. [56]

    Rouleau, F., & Martin, P. G. 1991, ApJ, 377, 526, doi: 10.1086/170382

    work page doi:10.1086/170382 1991

  57. [57]

    Perez-Garcia, I., & Castro-Tirado, A. J. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16343, 1

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    2017, AJ, 154, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7576

    Shinnaka, Y., Kawakita, H., Kondo, S., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7576

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7576 2017

  59. [59]

    1981, ApJL, 244, L31, doi: 10.1086/183473 Trigo-Rodr´ ıguez, J

    Smoluchowski, R. 1981, ApJL, 244, L31, doi: 10.1086/183473 Trigo-Rodr´ ıguez, J. M., Garc´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., S´ anchez, A., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1682, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17425.x

    work page doi:10.1086/183473 1981

  60. [60]

    Usher, H., Miles, R., Redondo, J. M. P., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16270, 1

    work page 2023

  61. [61]

    A., Ryan, W., et al

    Vales, J., Kowalski, R. A., Ryan, W., et al. 2010, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 2249, 1 18

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 149, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/149

    Wang, C.-J., Bai, J.-M., Fan, Y.-F., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 149, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/149

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/149 2019

  63. [63]

    2020, AJ, 159, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e68

    Wierzchos, K., & Womack, M. 2020, AJ, 159, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e68

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6e68 2020

  64. [64]

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4538 2009

  65. [65]

    2010, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Yang, B., & Sarid, G. 2010, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 42, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #42, 5.09

    work page 2010

  66. [66]

    L., Knight, M

    Ye, Q., Farnham, T. L., Knight, M. M., Holt, C. E., & Feaga, L. M. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 101, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aba2d1

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aba2d1 2020

  67. [67]

    2023, wcpy: Wavelength Calibrator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2311.001

    Zhao, R. 2023, wcpy: Wavelength Calibrator, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2311.001. http://ascl.net/2311.001

    work page 2023