Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Great comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS): dust loss before perihelion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper measures pre-perihelion dust loss from comet C/2023 A3 at roughly 170 kg/s, with a steady coma, grains as small as 20 microns, and a nucleus that survives the encounter.

desk verdict Plausible and useful pre-perihelion dust characterization of A3, but the headline mass-loss rate is softer than the quoted uncertainty suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12756 v1 pith:AGT5KCXZ submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.EP

Bin Liu , Man-To Hui , Xiaodong Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords comets:individual:C/2023A3(Tsuchinshan-ATLAS)dustlossratecometarycomascatteringcross-sectionlong-periodcometdynamicssimulationnucleusstabilityamorphous-crystallineicetransition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish how much dust the Great Comet C/2023 A3 was shedding before its late-2024 perihelion and whether it was in danger of disintegrating. From archival images taken between February and May 2024, it infers a steady-state coma, an ejection velocity that scales as $v_\perp\sim(65\pm5)\beta^{1/2}$ m s$^{-1}$, dust grains from 20 microns to about 10 mm with a size distribution index $s=3.4$, and a dust loss rate of $(1.7\pm0.8)\times10^2$ kg s$^{-1}$. It also extrapolates the scattering cross-section back in time to estimate that activity began around 25 July 2022 at 9.1 au, and argues that the amorphous-to-crystalline ice transition, not water sublimation, triggered it. The paper further argues that the roughly 6 km nucleus is stable against tidal, sublimation, and rotational breakup, consistent with the comet having survived perihelion.

What carries the argument

The central quantities are the effective scattering cross-section $C_e$ and the dimensionless radiation-pressure parameter $\beta$, which is inversely proportional to grain radius. The observational machinery consists of three pieces: the logarithmic slope $q$ of the surface brightness profile, whose value near $-1$ marks a steady-state coma; the sunward turnaround distance $l_{\rm coma}$ and the out-of-plane tail width $\theta_\perp$, which translate projected distances into ejection velocities of the form $v\propto\beta^{1/2}$; and a Monte Carlo dust dynamics simulation that propagates grains under solar gravity plus radiation pressure and compares the simulated radial FWHM with the observed FWHM on 30 May 2024, fixing $a_{\rm min}=20\,\mu$m and $s=3.4$. The dust loss rate follows from $dM_d/dt = (4\bar{a}\rho/3)\,dC_e/dt$, with the average grain radius $\bar{a}\approx0.4$ mm obtained from the size distribution.

What would settle it

Observe the coma at several additional pre-perihelion epochs and fit the dust dynamics model to the full two-dimensional surface brightness rather than to one radial FWHM; if no single set of ($a_{\rm min}$, $s$) reproduces all epochs simultaneously, or if the implied dust-to-gas mass ratio is inconsistent with the measured water production rate, the 170 kg/s estimate would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using archival ZTF images, the authors measure the coma's surface brightness profile and find a logarithmic slope $q\approx -1$ in the inner 7 arcseconds, the signature of a steady-state coma in which dust loss is roughly constant over time. A dust dynamics simulation that integrates solar gravity and radiation pressure, matched to the observed radial FWHM on 30 May 2024, fixes the minimum grain radius at 20 microns and the power-law size distribution index at $s=3.4$, with grains extending up to about 10 mm. Combining the resulting average grain radius of about 0.4 mm with the measured rate of change of the scattering cross-section, $dC_e/dt=55\pm27$ km$^2$ day$^{-1}$, yields a dust production rate of $(1.7\pm0.8)\times10^2$ kg s$^{-1}$. The same data place an upper limit of $5.9\pm0.2$ km on the nucleus radius (assuming a geometric albedo of 0.04) and, by backward extrapolation, an activity onset around 25 July 2022 at 9.1 au, which the authors attribute to the amorphous-to-crystalline ice phase transition. A simplified stability analysis rules out tidal disruption ($\epsilon\sim10^{-5}$ at perihelion), sublimation erosion (about 700 years to erode the nucleus), and sublimation-induced rotational spin-up (timescale greater than about 50 years), leading the authors to conclude that the nucleus was unlikely to fragment near perihelion.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the dust simulation's fit of two free parameters, the minimum grain size and the size distribution index, to a single number, the width of the radial brightness profile on one night; if that fit is not unique, the inferred average grain size and the 170 kg/s dust loss rate change proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nucleus of C/2023 A3 is inferred to have a radius of at least several kilometers, making tidal breakup at its 0.39 au perihelion very unlikely, and its survival is consistent with the stability analysis.
  • Pre-perihelion dust production was relatively modest and steady, implying that the comet's great brightness was achieved with a small total mass loss of about $10^{10}$ kg, roughly $10^{-4}$ of the nucleus mass.
  • If activity indeed began at 9.1 au, the amorphous-to-crystalline ice phase transition becomes a plausible trigger for distant dust activity in long-period comets, complementing water-ice sublimation at 4-5 au.
  • A size distribution index of $s=3.4$ with a 20 micron minimum grain size implies that small, highly scattering grains dominate the observed coma, consistent with reported high polarization measurements.
  • The derived velocity-size relation, $v_\perp\sim(65\pm5)\beta^{1/2}$ m s$^{-1}$, provides a quantitative constraint for models of dust ejection from long-period comets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The extrapolated onset date of 25 July 2022 rests on a linear fit to only five photometric epochs and assumes the scattering cross-section grew linearly before the observations; if activity began later or in bursts, the 9.1 au onset and the amorphous-ice interpretation would be weakened.
  • Because the two free dust parameters, minimum grain size and size distribution index, are fitted to a single scalar observable, the FWHM at one epoch, the reported 170 kg/s should be regarded as order-of-magnitude until the fit is checked against additional epochs or against the full two-dimensional coma morphology.
  • The steady-coma interpretation of $q\approx -1$ could be tested directly by measuring the surface brightness profile in other filters or at more epochs; a slope that deviates systematically from $-1$ would indicate nonsteady dust emission and would change the mass-loss extrapolation.
  • If the amorphous-to-crystalline ice trigger is correct, other long-period comets first becoming active in the 5-17 au range should show a similar onset-distance pattern, a testable prediction for future distant comet observations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes archival ZTF images of long-period comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS) obtained between 2024 February and May, before perihelion. From the coma surface brightness profiles the authors infer a steady-state inner coma with slope q ≈ -1 and a sunward turnaround distance that yields an ejection velocity v_ej ~ (88 ± 3) β^{1/2} m/s; from the tail width perpendicular to the orbital plane they derive a consistent velocity v_perp ~ (65 ± 5) β^{1/2} m/s. Photometry in fixed projected apertures gives the dust scattering cross-section and its rate of change, a nucleus radius upper limit of 5.9 ± 0.2 km at albedo 0.04, and an extrapolated activity onset around 25 July 2022 at 9.1 au. A dust dynamics simulation is used to fit the minimum grain radius a_min = 20 μm and size distribution index s = 3.4 from the FWHM of the radial brightness profile at one epoch. These values feed an average grain radius a_bar ≈ 0.4 mm and, via Eq. (8), the headline dust loss rate (1.7 ± 0.8) × 10^2 kg/s. The paper also argues that the nucleus is stable against tidal disruption, sublimation erosion, and rotational instability.

Significance. If the central dust-loss-rate result is robust, the paper provides an important pre-perihelion characterization of a great comet and useful constraints on its activity before the dramatic brightening. The authors should be credited for several independent or carefully checked ingredients: the v_perp measurement from the geometric tail width is independent of the photometric modeling; the phase-function slope is checked by refitting with ZTF-aligned dates; the activity-onset extrapolation is explicitly flagged as an estimate; and the simulated tail morphology is compared with an observed linear feature. The paper also engages with independent work by Moreno et al. (2025) and identifies a plausible crystallization mechanism for early activity. However, the headline dust loss rate depends on a two-parameter fit to a single scalar observable and on a fixed-aperture cross-section rate whose relation to the total production rate is not demonstrated. These issues currently leave the central quantitative claim under-constrained.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 7 and Eq. (7)] The two free parameters a_min and s are adjusted to match a single scalar, the FWHM of the radial brightness profile at one epoch (30 May 2024), and no uncertainty is quoted for the best-fit pair. The text says 'we prefer not to overinterpret the result', but the fitted values are nevertheless used without error in the average grain size a_bar = 0.4 mm and then in Eq. (8). Because Eq. (7) is sensitive to a_min for s near 3.4, and Figure 7 shows only a normalized absolute difference without confidence levels, a degenerate (a_min, s) valley — for example a_min of order 10–50 μm with a slightly adjusted s — is not excluded. That would change a_bar by roughly a factor of two and directly scale the dust loss rate. The authors should provide uncertainty contours (e.g., ΔFWHM levels corresponding to the measurement error of the observed FWHM) and propagate the resulting a_bar uncertainty into Eq. (8).
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (8) and Table 3] The dust production rate is evaluated using only the 160,000-km aperture slope k = 55 ± 27 km²/day, while the slopes for the smaller apertures are systematically lower (8.3 ± 4.0, 19.6 ± 5.1, 28.2 ± 22.3, and 45.4 ± 30.9 km²/day) and the linear fits have low R² values (0.35–0.83, as stated in the Figure 6 caption). A fixed projected aperture does not directly measure the total ejected cross-section: fresh grains enter and older grains leave the aperture, so dC_e/dt inside a fixed projected radius is not obviously equal to the total production rate. The factor 4/3 in Eq. (8) applies to the total ejected population under a spherical-grain assumption, not automatically to the portion inside an arbitrary aperture. The authors need to justify, or correct with a model, the conversion from aperture-residence cross-section to total dust production; otherwise the central 170 kg/s value has an unquantified aperture-dependent bias.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (8) and abstract] The quoted uncertainty of ±80 kg/s on the dust loss rate appears to propagate only the statistical uncertainty of dC_e/dt. It does not include the systematic uncertainty in a_bar from the a_min–s fit, the assumed bulk density ρ = 500 kg/m³, or the choice of aperture slope. For example, if a_bar were 0.2 mm instead of 0.4 mm the rate would halve, and ρ in the plausible range 300–800 kg/m³ would scale the rate by 0.6–1.6. A total systematic error budget should be presented before the abstract quotes (1.7 ± 0.8) × 10² kg/s, which currently implies a precision that is not supported by the analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Figure 1 caption] The text states that on 23 February 2024 the tail fades at about 30 arcsec from the nucleus, while on 30 May 2024 the tail extends beyond the 60-arcsec field of view; the projected distance quoted for 60 arcsec should be checked, since at Δ = 1.79 au the linear scale is about 78,000 km rather than 80,000 km.
  2. [Section 4.2, before Eq. (7)] There is a typo: 'The the average size...' should read 'The average size...'.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (6)] Please clarify the units used for r_n in Eq. (6). The text says r_n is 'used in kilometers', but for β to be dimensionless the numerical constants in the equation need to be consistent; a reader trying to reproduce β_min = 0.0001 will otherwise obtain a different value if r_n is converted to meters.
  4. [Figure 7] The horizontal axis label appears to be missing the micro sign: the grid is described in the text as spanning 1 μm to 1.5 mm, so the axis should read 'Minimum radius (μm)' rather than 'Minimum radius ( m)'.
  5. [Table 3 and Section 4.1] The abstract and conclusions quote the activity onset as '25 July 2022', but Table 3 lists per-aperture onset times from -452 to -692 days with a weighted mean of -524 ± 104 days. The text should state explicitly which aperture or combination is used for the quoted value and why the weighted mean is preferred over the individual fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the fitted dust parameters are constrained by an independent observable (FWHM) and feed a mass-loss estimate from separate photometry.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are each derived from independent observables. The ejection velocity v_perp is obtained from the measured tail-width–distance relation via Eq. 2; the steady-state coma slope and the nucleus size limit are direct photometric/profile results; and the onset time is an explicitly labeled extrapolation of the measured cross-section trend (Table 3), with the authors cautioning that it should be interpreted with caution. The dust parameters a_min = 20 µm and s = 3.4 are obtained by fitting the simulated radial-profile FWHM to the observed FWHM on 30 May 2024 (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 7); this is a forward-model parameter estimation, not a quantity defined in terms of the later result. The dust mass-loss rate (Eq. 8) combines that fitted mean size with dC_e/dt = 55 ± 27 km^2/day measured from the 160,000-km aperture photometry (Table 3); the output is not compared to, nor constructed from, the fitted FWHM. The self-citations (Liu et al. 2016; Liu & Liu 2024; Liu et al. 2025; Hui et al. 2019) are to a dust dynamics integrator and an empirical phase-function range; they are tools and context, not premises that embed the claimed dust-loss result. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The degeneracy between a_min and s noted by a skeptic is an uncertainty and robustness concern about the fit, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a set of standard cometary assumptions (spherical grains, density 500 kg/m^3, albedo 0.04, linear phase function, radiation-pressure scaling) and on the paper's own fits (phase function slope, size distribution, onset-time extrapolation). The most fragile inputs are the ad hoc linear extrapolation to the onset time and the two-parameter fit to a single FWHM.

free parameters (8)
  • Geometric albedo p_r = 0.04 (assumed)
    Adopted from Moreno et al. (2025) and Hanner (2003); the nucleus radius upper limit scales as p_r^-1/2.
  • Dust bulk density ρ = 500 kg m^-3 (assumed)
    Used to convert cross-section to mass loss rate and in stability calculations; a common comet value but not measured here.
  • Phase function slope γ = 0.028±0.004 mag deg^-1
    Fitted to COBS amateur photometry (Figure 5) and applied to reduce ZTF magnitudes; a refit with ZTF-aligned dates gives 0.022±0.006.
  • Size distribution index s = 3.4
    Best-fit parameter in dust simulation against the observed FWHM (Figure 7).
  • Minimum grain radius a_min = 20 µm
    Best-fit parameter in the same simulation.
  • Thermal parameters (A, ε, χ) = A=0.1, ε=0.9, χ=2
    Assumed in the energy balance Equation 10 for sublimation erosion in the stability model.
  • Gas drag parameters (C_D, V_g, f_s) = C_D=1, V_g=500 m/s, f_s≈1e-5 kg m^-2 s^-1
    Used in Equation 6 to set the maximum grain size (10 mm); f_s is derived later in the paper.
  • Rotation parameters (k_T, P) = k_T=0.007, P=15 h
    Adopted from Jewitt (2021) for the rotational instability timescale (Equation 11).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dust grains are homogeneous spheres with a common bulk density of 500 kg m^-3.
    Used throughout to convert β to grain radius and cross-section to mass (Sections 3.2, 4.2).
  • domain assumption The coma brightness profile slope q = -1 in the inner region implies a steady-state coma, and q = -1.5 in the outer region implies radiation-pressure domination.
    Section 3.1; this underpins the use of Equation 1 for the sunward turnaround distance.
  • domain assumption Ejection velocity scales as v_ej ∝ β^{1/2}.
    Used throughout (Equation 1 and Equation 2); this is the standard radiation-pressure scaling but is assumed rather than measured.
  • ad hoc to paper The scattering cross-section grows linearly with time, so extrapolating the fitted line to C_e = 0 gives the activity onset time.
    Section 4.1, Table 3; the linear fits have R^2 as low as 0.35 and the extrapolation extends about 500 days before the first data.
  • ad hoc to paper The FWHM of the radial brightness profile at a single epoch is sufficient to determine both the minimum grain size and the size distribution index.
    Section 4.2, Figure 7; the fit uses one observable for two parameters without uncertainty quantification.
  • domain assumption The amorphous-to-crystalline ice transition releases trapped volatiles and drives activity at 5-17 au.
    Section 4.1, citing Korsun & Chörny (2003); this is the proposed mechanism but is not directly evidenced for A3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Great comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS): dust loss before perihelion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGT5KCXZ

@misc{pith2026250712756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Great comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS): dust loss before perihelion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGT5KCXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12756}
}
abstract

In this study, the dust loss of comet C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS) is investigated through the analysis of archival images. By measuring the surface brightness profile of the coma, we determined that the comet maintained nearly in a steady state during the observations. Analysis of the dust distribution perpendicular to the orbital plane reveals that the ejection velocity is $v_{\perp}\sim(65\pm5)\,\beta^{1/2}$ m s$^{-1}$, where $\beta$ is inversely proportional to the size of the dust grains. From the dust scattering cross-section measurement, we estimated the upper limit of the nucleus radius to be $\sim\!5.9\pm0.2$ km, assuming a geometric albedo of 0.04. Based on the extrapolation of the scattering cross-section over time, the onset time of significant dust activity is estimated to be 25 July 2022, corresponding to a heliocentric distance of 9.1 au, with the activity mechanism at this distance likely being the phase transition from amorphous to crystalline ice. Our simulation reveals that the minimum dust size is \SI{20}{\micro\meter} and the size distribution index is $s = 3.4$ in tail. The dust loss rate is determined to be $(1.7 \pm 0.8) \times 10^2$ kg s$^{-1}$, based on the derived average size of the particles and the rate of change of the scattering cross-section over time. Through a simplistic model, we evaluate that the nucleus of the comet remains stable against tidal effects, sublimation, and rotational instability, and disfavour the fate of disintegration. The result is consistent with observations that the nucleus has survived.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite ZTF images of A3, with the upper right corner of each panel indicating the observation epochs. White arrows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Coma brightness profiles on 7 May 2024 (black curve) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Reduced magnitude as a function of the observation date [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reduced magnitude as a function of phase angle for A3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Contour plot of the normalized ∆FWHM as a function of minimum particle radius and size distribution index. The red cross marks the best-fit parameters (amin = 20 µm, s = 3.4). radius of the particles, are treated as free variables within this model. Simulations are con…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The position angle of the linear feature in this image, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The modeled morphology of A3. True north (N) and true [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16637, 1

    Ahuja, G., Aravind, K., Sahu, D., et al. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16637, 1

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    1996, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 72, 57

    Bailey, M. 1996, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 72, 57

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2924

    Bertini, I., La Forgia, F., Fulle, M., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 2924

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Betzler, A. S. & Borges, E. P. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 539, A158

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    R., Levison, H

    Dones, L., Weissman, P. R., Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 2004, in Star For- mation in the Interstellar Medium: In Honor of David Hollenbach, V ol. 323, 371

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    J., Kulkarni, S., Bellm, E

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Grant, S. R. & Jones, G. H. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 252

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    & Dehnen, W

    Hands, T. & Dehnen, W. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety: Letters, 493, L59

    work page 2020

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hanner, M. S. 2003, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Trans- fer, 79, 695

    2003

  2. [10]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 162

    Hui, M.-T., Farnocchia, D., & Micheli, M. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 162

    2019

  3. [11]

    V ., Hmiddouch, S., & Manfroid, J

    Jehin, E., Donckt, M. V ., Hmiddouch, S., & Manfroid, J. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16705, 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 261

    Jewitt, D. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 261

    2021

  5. [13]

    2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 158

    Jewitt, D. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 158

    2022

  6. [14]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 65

    Jewitt, D., Agarwal, J., Hui, M.-T., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 65

    2019

  7. [15]

    2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 798, 109

    Jewitt, D., Agarwal, J., Weaver, H., Mutchler, M., & Larson, S. 2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 798, 109

    2015

  8. [16]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 122

    Jewitt, D., Kim, Y ., Mattiazzo, M., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 165, 122

    2023

  9. [17]

    & Luu, J

    Jewitt, D. & Luu, J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886, L29

    2019

  10. [18]

    & Meech, K

    Jewitt, D. & Meech, K. J. 1987, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 317, June 15, 1987, p. 992-1001. NASA-supported research., 317, 992

    1987

  11. [19]

    Joye, W. A. & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical data analysis software and systems XII, V ol. 295, 489

    2003

  12. [20]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 895, L34

    Kim, Y ., Jewitt, D., Mutchler, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 895, L34

    2020

  13. [21]

    & Chörny, G

    Korsun, P. & Chörny, G. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 410, 1029

    2003

  14. [22]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters, 983, L19

    Lim, B., Ishiguro, M., Takahashi, J., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters, 983, L19

    2025

  15. [23]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A168

    Liu, B., Li, C., Mu, Z., & Liu, X. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A168

    2025

  16. [24]

    & Liu, X

    Liu, B. & Liu, X. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A51

    2024

  17. [25]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Planets, 121, 1141

    Liu, X., Sachse, M., Spahn, F., & Schmidt, J. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Planets, 121, 1141

    2016

  18. [26]

    & Jewitt, D

    Meech, K. & Jewitt, D. 1988, in Exploration of Halley’s Comet, Springer, 585– 593

    1988

  19. [27]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A263

    Moreno, F. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A263

    2025

  20. [28]

    J., et al

    Moreno, F., Goetz, C., Aceituno, F. J., et al. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, staf552

    2025

  21. [29]

    2003, Astroart 5.0, MSB Software

    Nicolini, M., Cavicchio, F., & Facchini, M. 2003, Astroart 5.0, MSB Software

    2003

  22. [30]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 106

    Okuzumi, S., Tanaka, H., Kobayashi, H., & Wada, K. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 752, 106

    2012

  23. [31]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.06300

    Sekanina, Z. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.06300

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06166

    Sekanina, Z. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06166

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    1980, Introduc- tion to numerical analysis, V ol

    Stoer, J., Bulirsch, R., Bartels, R., Gautschi, W., & Witzgall, C. 1980, Introduc- tion to numerical analysis, V ol. 1993 (Springer)

    1980

  26. [34]

    2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 269

    Tang, Y ., Wang, S., Lin, Z., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 269

    2024

  27. [35]

    Willmer, C. N. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 47

    2018

  28. [36]

    2023, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2023 Article number, page 9 of 9

    Ye, Q.-Z., Zhao, H., Li, B., et al. 2023, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2023 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.