pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29057 · v2 · pith:TIQYLYQVnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Ejected Surface Regolith as a Potential Source Material for Centaur Rings

Kaustub Parvir Anand , David A. Minton , Julie Brisset This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Centaursplanetary ringsregolith ejectionN-body simulationsCharikloChironcometary outburstssmall body rings
0
0 comments X

The pith

Regolith ejected from cometary outbursts on ellipsoidal Centaurs can be captured into stable proto-ring disks lasting at least 100 rotations.

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

This paper tests whether rings observed around Centaurs like Chariklo and Chiron could form from material thrown off the surface during outbursts rather than from collisions. N-body simulations that include particle collisions and the irregular gravity of an ellipsoidal body show that ejected regolith can enter bound orbits and remain as a disk for a long time. Capture works best for landslide-style ejections from the equator, reaching rates of 30 to 90 percent depending on launch conditions. If this holds, rings become a possible sign of past activity and could turn out to be fairly common on Centaurs whose shapes and outburst histories allow capture.

Core claim

We show that ejected surface regolith is captured in orbit around ellipsoidal Centaurs like Chariklo and Chiron to form a proto-ring disk for at least 100 rotations. This captured disk may serve as a starting point that can evolve into observed ring systems. Inter-particle collisions and the ellipsoidal gravity field facilitate this capture. Among the tested scenarios, a landslide or avalanche-like ejection from the equatorial plane shows the highest rate of capture, ~30 - 90% depending on the initial ejection parameters. This implies that rings could be an indicator of past activity on a Centaur and may be a more common feature among Centaurs depending on their shape and frequency of outbur

What carries the argument

N-body simulations with collisional fragmentation and higher-order gravitational harmonics that track how ejected regolith particles are captured into orbit around an ellipsoidal body.

If this is right

  • The captured proto-ring disk persists long enough to serve as a starting point that can evolve into observed ring systems.
  • Landslide or avalanche-style ejection from the equatorial plane produces the highest capture rates of 30-90 percent.
  • Rings around Centaurs could indicate past cometary outbursts on the body.
  • Such proto-rings may be more common among Centaurs depending on their ellipsoidal shape and outburst frequency.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar ejection and capture could occur on other small bodies with irregular shapes even if they lack observed rings today.
  • Future surveys could check whether Centaurs with rings show more signs of recent activity than those without rings.
  • The mechanism offers one way rings might form and persist despite the short dynamical lifetimes of Centaurs.
  • Adding gas drag or more detailed outburst physics to the simulations would test how sensitive the capture rates are to those details.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume that landslide-style ejection from the equatorial plane represents plausible physical conditions during real cometary outbursts and that the ellipsoidal shape plus inter-particle collisions are the main factors enabling capture.

What would settle it

A simulation or observation showing that captured material disperses or escapes within fewer than 100 rotations when using realistic particle sizes, velocities, and rotation rates for an ellipsoidal Centaur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29057 by David A. Minton, Julie Brisset, Kaustub Parvir Anand.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial simulation setup in the inertial reference frame of Swiftest (Wishard et al. 2023). Here we show regolith ejection from the long axis in the equatorial plane. The orange ellipsoid is the equatorial plane of the Centaur when seen top-down (x–y plane, z-axis out of the page). Regolith particles, represented by the black dots on the right, are ejected from the surface of the Centaur in the equatorial … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A close-in diagram explaining the terminology for the ejection direction of vejection. Regolith particles are ejected in either in a landslide or radial direction with an angle variance up to 30◦ to add variability (indicated by the shaded regions) in a non-inertial frame defined by the Centaur’s rotation. We then test capture rates for these radial-like and landslide-like ejection trajectories. Figures ar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The x vs y progression of regolith ejection and capture in the equatorial plane around Chariklo (marked as Central Body (CB)). We show a landslide-like ejection from the long axis with the initial vejection = 0.2 − 0.5 vescape. We start with 500 regolith particles and end with 3657 regolith particles in this simulation. While a large number of regolith particles are captured, some fall back onto the Centau… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Semi-major axis vs eccentricity (a vs e) plot of regolith capture of the same simulation in figure 3. We show a landslide-like ejection from the long axis with the initial vejection = 0.2 − 0.5 vescape. The black dashed line is the pericenter curve q = 1 RChariklo and the gray dotted line is a = 1 RChariklo. The regolith particles are dynamically excited and bounce back and forth along the pericenter curve… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Regolith mass in orbit vs time for a radial ejection around Chariklo from the long axis. Test particle regoliths are marked by the dotted lines and massive particle regoliths by the solid lines. Regolith particles are lost from the system extremely quickly across all velocity ranges, regardless of particle type, showing that radial ejections are not favorable for regolith capture. Simulations are parameter… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Regolith mass in orbit vs time for a landslide-like ejection from the long-axis (left panel) and short axis (right panel) around Chariklo. Test particle regoliths are marked by the dotted lines and massive particle regoliths by the solid lines. Regolith particles are lost very quickly in the low and high velocity ranges (not shown for clarity), but stay in orbit for an extended period of time for some velo… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass in orbit at t = 100 Trot per initial vejection bin for a landslide ejection from the long-axis (left panel) and short axis (right panel). Test particle regoliths are marked by the red hatches and massive particle regoliths by the black solid lines. Here we can see the amount of regolith captured in each initial velocity bin at the end of our simulations. We see high levels of capture up to ∼ 95% in th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Regolith mass in orbit vs time for a landslide-like ejection around Chiron. Here we only show results from the velocity ranges that show significant capture for clarity. Ejection from the long-axis is on the left-hand side and short-axis on the right-hand side. Regolith capture around Chiron shows qualitatively similar results to Chariklo because the gravitational harmonics are similar when normalized. Sim… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass captured at t = 100 Trot per initial vejection bin for a landslide ejection around Chiron. Here we only show results from the velocity ranges that show significant capture for clarity. Regolith ejection from the long-axis is on the left-hand side and short-axis on the right-hand side. Regolith capture behavior for Chiron is similar to Chariklo qualitatively, but differs a bit quantitatively. central b… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This cartoon qualitatively explains the general process by which the ellipsoidal Centaur alters the ejected regolith (black dot) orbits in a − e space. The purple dashed line denotes an orbit with a pericenter of q = 1 RCentaur. Regolith particles with orbits of q ≤ 1 RCentaur or a ≤ 1 RCentaur (gray region) crash into the Centaur and are removed from the system. Region 1 (green) is our short-term stable … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Regolith mass in orbit vs time when considering different gravitational harmonics terms for a landslide-like ejection around Chariklo. The simulations with only zonal terms (dashed lines) cause some initial mass loss but then do not drive regolith particles out of orbit. The azimuthal terms (dotted lines) dominate and drive particles out of the system because of angular momentum transfer between the Centa… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ring systems have been observed around Centaur Chariklo (10199) and other small bodies but their origin and dynamical histories are still debated. These small body ring systems challenge conventional models for the origin of planetary rings, especially when considering Centaurs' often erratic cometary activity, their non-spherical shapes, and their relatively short dynamical lifetimes (~$10^7$ years). A collisional origin for these rings is disfavored based on the low probability of collisions within their lifetimes, and so their mechanism of formation remains an open question. In this work, we use Swiftest, a N-body integrator with collisional fragmentation and higher-order gravitational harmonics, to test a hypothesis that rings could be formed from regolith ejected from a cometary outburst that is subsequently captured into a stable orbit. We show that ejected surface regolith is captured in orbit around ellipsoidal Centaurs like Chariklo and Chiron to form a proto-ring disk for at least 100 rotations. This captured disk may serve as a starting point that can evolve into observed ring systems. Inter-particle collisions and the ellipsoidal gravity field facilitate this capture. Among the tested scenarios, a landslide or avalanche-like ejection from the equatorial plane shows the highest rate of capture, ~30 - 90% depending on the initial ejection parameters. This implies that rings could be an indicator of past activity on a Centaur and may be a more common feature among Centaurs depending on their shape and frequency of outbursts.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses N-body simulations with Swiftest (including collisional fragmentation and higher-order gravitational harmonics) to test whether regolith ejected during cometary outbursts on ellipsoidal Centaurs such as Chariklo and Chiron can be captured into bound orbits, forming a proto-ring disk that persists for at least 100 rotations. The central result is that capture occurs, with the highest efficiencies (30–90 %) for landslide-style ejection from the equatorial plane; inter-particle collisions and the ellipsoidal gravity field are identified as facilitating mechanisms. The authors conclude that rings may indicate past activity and could be more common among Centaurs than previously thought.

Significance. If the reported capture efficiencies hold under physically motivated ejection conditions, the work supplies a non-collisional formation channel for small-body rings that links ring presence directly to episodic cometary activity. This would be a substantive contribution to the origin debate for Chariklo-type rings, especially given the short dynamical lifetimes of Centaurs. The use of an integrator that self-consistently treats both collisions and non-spherical gravity is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and (presumed) Methods: The headline capture fractions of 30–90 % are obtained exclusively for a narrow subset of initial conditions (landslide-style ejection from the equatorial plane). No quantitative comparison is provided showing that the adopted ejection velocities, angles, and source latitudes fall within the range expected from observed or modeled Centaur outbursts; if real ejections are more isotropic or higher-velocity, the reported efficiencies would not apply and the proto-disk would not form.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the captured material forms a 'proto-ring disk' that 'may serve as a starting point' for observed rings rests on integrations lasting only 100 rotations. No demonstration is given that the resulting disk is dynamically stable on the longer timescales relevant to Centaur ring lifetimes or that it can evolve into the narrow, dense rings observed.
minor comments (1)
  1. The manuscript should include explicit tables or figures documenting the full range of ejection parameters tested, convergence checks on particle number and timestep, and quantitative error estimates on the reported capture fractions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the methodological strengths of the Swiftest simulations. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and (presumed) Methods: The headline capture fractions of 30–90 % are obtained exclusively for a narrow subset of initial conditions (landslide-style ejection from the equatorial plane). No quantitative comparison is provided showing that the adopted ejection velocities, angles, and source latitudes fall within the range expected from observed or modeled Centaur outbursts; if real ejections are more isotropic or higher-velocity, the reported efficiencies would not apply and the proto-disk would not form.

    Authors: We agree that the highest efficiencies (30–90 %) are reported for the equatorial landslide case and that the manuscript does not include a direct quantitative mapping of our parameter choices onto specific outburst models. The paper does explore a range of latitudes, velocities, and angles, with equatorial avalanches yielding the peak capture rates, but we accept that additional context is needed. We will revise the manuscript to add a dedicated discussion subsection that compares the adopted ejection velocities (typically a few m/s), angles, and source latitudes to published models of Centaur and comet outbursts (e.g., those derived for 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko and other active small bodies). This will clarify the physical plausibility of the landslide-like conditions while retaining the result that capture is possible under those conditions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the captured material forms a 'proto-ring disk' that 'may serve as a starting point' for observed rings rests on integrations lasting only 100 rotations. No demonstration is given that the resulting disk is dynamically stable on the longer timescales relevant to Centaur ring lifetimes or that it can evolve into the narrow, dense rings observed.

    Authors: The 100-rotation integration length was selected to demonstrate prompt capture and the formation of a bound, collisionally evolving disk structure. We acknowledge that this duration is short compared with Centaur dynamical lifetimes (~10^7 yr) and does not address subsequent viscous spreading, shepherding, or collisional grinding into narrow rings. We will revise the abstract and conclusions to explicitly state the limited integration time, rephrase the 'starting point' language to emphasize that the captured material provides an initial reservoir whose longer-term evolution remains to be explored, and note that extended simulations incorporating additional physics would be required to assess multi-year stability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; forward N-body simulations produce capture fractions as direct outputs

full rationale

The paper reports results exclusively from forward dynamical integrations in Swiftest for specified ejection scenarios (landslide-style from equatorial plane, varying velocities/angles). Capture rates of 30-90% for ≥100 rotations are simulation outputs under those initial conditions, not quantities fitted to observed ring properties, not self-defined via equations, and not justified by self-citation chains. The central claim (ejected regolith can form a proto-disk) follows directly from the integrator runs without reduction to inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical integration of particle trajectories under an assumed ellipsoidal gravity field and chosen initial ejection conditions; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • ejection velocity, angle, and location parameters
    Initial conditions for the different ejection scenarios (landslide, etc.) are selected and varied to produce the reported capture rates.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Centaurs can be modeled as ellipsoids whose gravity includes higher-order harmonics sufficient to influence particle capture
    Invoked to justify use of the integrator's harmonic terms for stable orbiting disks.
  • domain assumption Inter-particle collisions and the non-spherical gravity field are the primary mechanisms enabling capture rather than other unmodeled effects
    Stated as facilitating capture in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5808 in / 1432 out tokens · 44111 ms · 2026-06-29T09:32:17.074719+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Winter, O

    Araujo, R. A., Winter, O. C., & Sfair, R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 4770, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STY1770

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1770 2018

  2. [2]

    Araujo, R. A. N., Sfair, R., & Winter, O. C. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 824, 80, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/2/80

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/80 2016

  3. [3]

    M., Choi, Y.-J., Weissman, P

    Bauer, J. M., Choi, Y.-J., Weissman, P. R., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 393, doi: 10.1086/587552

    work page doi:10.1086/587552 2008

  4. [4]

    2010, Icarus, 210, 472, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.005

    Belskaya, I., Bagnulo, S., Barucci, M., et al. 2010, Icarus, 210, 472, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.06.005 2010

  5. [5]

    L., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2014, Nature, 508, 72, doi: 10.1038/nature13155

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13155 2014

  6. [6]

    L., Sicardy, B., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2023, Astrophysics A&A, 676, 72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346749

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346749 2023

  7. [7]

    2025, in Centaurs (IOP Publishing Bristol, UK), doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ada267ch13

    Brisset, J., Blum, J., H´ enault, E., et al. 2025, in Centaurs (IOP Publishing Bristol, UK), doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ada267ch13

    work page doi:10.1088/2514-3433/ada267ch13 2025

  8. [8]

    2024, AAS Division for Planetary Sciences meeting #56, id

    Brisset, J., Westcott, C., Lowers, R., Lea, M., & Durham, A. 2024, AAS Division for Planetary Sciences meeting #56, id. 113.04. <ALTJOURNAL>Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 56, No. 8 e-id 2024n8i113p04</ALTJOURNAL>, 56, 113.04. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024DPS... .5611304B/abstract

    2024

  9. [9]

    E., Barkume, K

    Brown, M. E., Barkume, K. M., Ragozzine, D., & Schaller, E. L. 2007, Nature, 446, 294, doi: 10.1038/nature05619

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05619 2007

  10. [10]

    T., & Peruccacci, S

    Brunetti, M. T., & Peruccacci, S. 2023, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, doi: 10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190647926.013.254

    work page doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.013.254 2023

  11. [11]

    J., A’Hearn, M

    Bus, S. J., A’Hearn, M. F., Bowell, E., & Stern, S. A. 2001, Icarus, 150, 94, doi: 10.1006/ICAR.2000.6555

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6555 2001

  12. [12]

    M., Crida, A., & Dones, L

    Charnoz, S., Canup, R. M., Crida, A., & Dones, L. 2018, Planetary Ring Systems: Properties, Structure, and Evolution, 517, doi: 10.1017/9781316286791.018

    work page doi:10.1017/9781316286791.018 2018

  13. [13]

    L., et al

    Cikota, S., Fern´ andez-Valenzuela, E., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3352

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3352 2018

  14. [14]

    M., Schwamb, M

    Dobson, M. M., Schwamb, M. E., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 165, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad543c 19

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad543c 2024

  15. [15]

    J., Levison, H

    Duncan, M. J., Levison, H. F., & Lee, M. H. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 116, 2067, doi: 10.1086/300541/FULLTEXT/

    work page doi:10.1086/300541/fulltext/ 1998

  16. [16]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424439 Giuliatti Winter, S

    Fornasier, S., Lazzaro, D., Alvarez-Candal, A., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424439 Giuliatti Winter, S. M., Madeira, G., Ribeiro, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 679, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345864

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424439 2014

  17. [17]

    2023, 55th Annual Meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences, id

    Hahn, J., Hamilton, D., Rimlinger, T., & Lu, Y. 2023, 55th Annual Meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences, id. 110.03. Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    2023

  18. [18]

    Nature , year = 2020, volume = 585, pages =

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature 2020 585:7825, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  19. [19]

    A., & Michel, P

    Holsapple, K. A., & Michel, P. 2008, Icarus, 193, 283, doi: 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2007.09.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.011 2008

  20. [20]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 828, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L8

    Hyodo, R., Charnoz, S., Genda, H., & Ohtsuki, K. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 828, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/L8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/828/1/l8 2016

  21. [21]

    2009, Astronomical Journal, 137, 4296, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296

    Jewitt, D. 2009, Astronomical Journal, 137, 4296, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4296 2009

  22. [22]

    2024, Comets III, 767, doi: 10.2458/azu{ }uapress{ }9780816553631-ch023

    Jewitt, D., & Hsieh, H. 2024, Comets III, 767, doi: 10.2458/azu{ }uapress{ }9780816553631-ch023

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2024

  23. [23]

    A., Firgard, M., et al

    Kareta, T., Schambeau, C. A., Firgard, M., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 119, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ADCE07

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/adce07 2025

  24. [24]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/AB505F

    Kareta, T., Sharkey, B., Noonan, J., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/AB505F

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab505f 2019

  25. [25]

    E., Minton, D

    Laipert, F. E., Minton, D. A., & Longuski, J. M. 2014, in Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

    2014

  26. [26]

    M., & Stewart, S

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/79 2012

  27. [27]

    Leiva, R., Sicardy, B., Camargo, J. I. B., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa8956

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8956 2017

  28. [28]

    F., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 1994, Icarus, 108, 18, doi: 10.1006/ICAR.1994.1039

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1994.1039 1994

  29. [29]

    2000, Icarus, 143, 415, doi: 10.1006/ICAR.1999.6313

    Dones, L. 2000, Icarus, 143, 415, doi: 10.1006/ICAR.1999.6313

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6313 2000

  30. [30]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 960, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1606

    Lilly, E., Jevˇ c´ ak, P., Schambeau, C., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 960, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1606

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1606 2024

  31. [31]

    M., Steckloff, J

    Lisse, C. M., Steckloff, J. K., Prialnik, D., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 251, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/AC9468

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac9468 2022

  32. [32]

    X., & Jewitt, D

    Luu, J. X., & Jewitt, D. C. 1990, Astronomical Journal v.100, p.913, 100, 913, doi: 10.1086/115571

    work page doi:10.1086/115571 1990

  33. [33]

    J., & Belton, M

    Meech, K. J., & Belton, M. J. S. 1990, Astronomical Journal v.100, p.1323, 100, 1323, doi: 10.1086/115600

    work page doi:10.1086/115600 1990

  34. [34]

    D., Duffard, R., Ortiz, J

    Melita, M. D., Duffard, R., Ortiz, J. L., & Campo-Bagatin, A. 2017, A&A, 602, 27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629858

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629858 2017

  35. [35]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 837, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6256

    Michikoshi, S., & Kokubo, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 837, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6256

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6256 2017

  36. [36]

    E., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al

    Morgado, B. E., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2021, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141543 —. 2023, Nature, 614, 239, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05629-6 M¨ uller, D. R., Altwegg, K., Berthelier, J.-J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2763, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAE622

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141543 2021

  37. [37]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 2000, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174817 2000

  38. [38]

    L., Duffard, R., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Duffard, R., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 576, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424461

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424461 2015

  39. [39]

    L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 219, doi: 10.1038/nature24051

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24051 2017

  40. [40]

    L., Pereira, C

    Ortiz, J. L., Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347025

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347025 2023

  41. [41]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/18

    Pan, M., & Wu, Y. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/1/18 2016

  42. [42]

    L., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B

    Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B. E., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346365

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346365 2023

  43. [43]

    L., Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., et al

    Pereira, C. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 29, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3318 —. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 992, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0b6d

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3318 2024

  44. [44]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450124

    Pinilla-Alonso, N., Licandro, J., Brunetto, R., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 692, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450124

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450124 2024

  45. [45]

    C., Madeira, G., & Giuliatti Winter, S

    Ribeiro, T., Winter, O. C., Madeira, G., & Giuliatti Winter, S. M. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 44, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAD2362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2362 2023

  46. [46]

    P., Hahn, J

    Rimlinger, T., Hamilton, D. P., Hahn, J. M., et al. 2017, DPS, 49, 501.03. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/ 2017DPS....4950103R/abstract

    2017

  47. [47]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3444, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAB2379

    Rousselot, P., Kryszczy´ nska, A., Bartczak, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3444, doi: 10.1093/MNRAS/STAB2379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2379 2021

  48. [48]

    D., Bosh, A

    Ruprecht, J. D., Bosh, A. S., Person, M. J., et al. 2015,

    2015

  49. [49]

    271-276., 252, 271, doi: 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2015.01.015

    Icarus, Volume 252, p. 271-276., 252, 271, doi: 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2015.01.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.015 2015

  50. [50]

    2021, in European Planetary Science Congress, Vol

    Salo, H., Sicardy, B., Mondino-Llermanos, A., et al. 2021, in European Planetary Science Congress, Vol. 15, 2021–338, doi: 10.5194/epsc2021-338

    work page doi:10.5194/epsc2021-338 2021

  51. [51]

    2024, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad18d9 20

    Shi, X., Hu, X., Agarwal, J., et al. 2024, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad18d9 20

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad18d9 2024

  52. [52]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 146, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0616-8

    Sicardy, B., Leiva, R., Renner, S., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 146, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0616-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0616-8 2019

  53. [53]

    2021, in European Planetary Science Congress, Vol

    Sicardy, B., Salo, H., Souami, D., et al. 2021, in European Planetary Science Congress, Vol. 15, 2021–91, doi: 10.5194/epsc2021-91

    work page doi:10.5194/epsc2021-91 2021

  54. [54]

    2025, RSPTA, 383, 20240193, doi: 10.1098/RSTA.2024.0193

    Sicardy, B., El Moutamid, M., Renner, S., et al. 2025, RSPTA, 383, 20240193, doi: 10.1098/RSTA.2024.0193

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2024.0193 2025

  55. [55]

    A., Levine, S

    Sickafoose, A. A., Levine, S. E., Bosh, A. S., et al. 2023, Planetary Science Journal, 4, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/AD0632

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad0632 2023

  56. [56]

    A., & Lewis, M

    Sickafoose, A. A., & Lewis, M. C. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 32, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/AD151C

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad151c 2024

  57. [57]

    A., Bosh, A

    Sickafoose, A. A., Bosh, A. S., Emery, J. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 3643, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3079

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3079 2020

  58. [58]

    2023, That’s The Way The Comet Crumbles: Identifying Comet 67P’s Mass-Wasting-Driven Outburst Plumes·Vol

    Steckloff, J. 2023, That’s The Way The Comet Crumbles: Identifying Comet 67P’s Mass-Wasting-Driven Outburst Plumes·Vol. 55, Issue 8 (DPS55 Abstracts). https://baas.aas.org/pub/2023n8i408p04/release/1

    2023

  59. [59]

    T., & Leinhardt, Z

    Stewart, S. T., & Leinhardt, Z. M. 2009, ApJL, 691, L133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L133

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/l133 2009

  60. [60]

    2013, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 765, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L28

    Castillo-Rogez, J. 2013, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 765, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/L28

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/2/l28 2013

  61. [61]

    S., & Malhotra, R

    Tiscareno, M. S., & Malhotra, R. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 3122, doi: 10.1086/379554/FULLTEXT/

    work page doi:10.1086/379554/fulltext/ 2003

  62. [62]

    2020 , pages =

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods 2020 17:3, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Weso lowski, M., Gronkowski, P., Tralle, I., et al. 2020, Icar, 352, 114005, doi: 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2020.114005

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  63. [63]

    Wieczorek, M. A. 2015, Treatise on Geophysics: Second Edition, 10, 153, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00169-X

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-53802-4.00169-x 2015

  64. [64]

    A., & Meschede, M

    Wieczorek, M. A., & Meschede, M. 2018, Geochemistry,

    2018

  65. [65]

    Geophysics, Geosystems, 19, 2574, doi: 10.1029/2018GC007529

    work page doi:10.1029/2018gc007529

  66. [66]

    2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5409, doi: 10.21105/joss.05409

    Wishard, C., Pouplin, J., Elliott, J., et al. 2023, Journal of Open Source Software, 8, 5409, doi: 10.21105/joss.05409

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.05409 2023

  67. [67]

    C., & Marsden, S

    Wood, J., Horner, J., Hinse, T. C., & Marsden, S. C. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 245, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6981

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6981 2017