pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25069 · v1 · pith:D25ZYELDnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.SR

A Potential Signature of HD 7977's Passage Among Observed Long-Period Comet Orbits

Nathan A. Kaib , Sean N. Raymond This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords long-period cometsOort cloudstellar flybyHD 7977Galactic tidecomet showerargument of perihelion
0
0 comments X

The pith

A close passage by star HD 7977 2.5 million years ago reproduces the observed argument-of-perihelion distributions of both new and returning long-period comets.

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

Standard models of the Galactic tide acting on the Oort cloud predict a strong anisotropy in the arguments of perihelion for dynamically new long-period comets, yet the observed sample appears more isotropic. Simulations that include only the tide match the returning comets reasonably well but fail for the new ones. Adding a flyby of HD 7977 at 6000-10000 au roughly 2.5 million years ago brings both populations into agreement with the data. The match implies the solar system is still in the declining phase of a comet shower, so the present-day LPC arrival rate is about twice the steady tide-driven rate and the total Oort-cloud population must be revised downward by a similar factor.

Core claim

If HD 7977 passed within 6000-10000 au of the Sun about 2.5 million years ago, the resulting impulse on the Oort cloud produces the observed isotropy in the argument of perihelion for dynamically new long-period comets while preserving the anisotropy seen in returning comets, indicating that the modern LPC flux is roughly twice the long-term tide-dominated rate.

What carries the argument

The gravitational perturbation from the stellar flyby of HD 7977, which temporarily dominates over the Galactic tide and redistributes the arguments of perihelion of Oort-cloud comets.

If this is right

  • The current observed LPC flux is approximately twice the longer-term tide-dominated rate.
  • Oort-cloud population estimates should be lowered by a factor of roughly two.
  • The solar system remains in the later stages of a comet shower triggered by the flyby.
  • Upcoming Gaia data releases are predicted to favor an impact parameter of 6000-10000 au.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other recent stellar encounters could have left similar but smaller signatures in the Oort cloud that future surveys might detect.
  • The factor-of-two elevation in the present-day flux would shorten the estimated lifetime of the Oort cloud if the higher rate has persisted for longer than modeled.
  • Larger samples of new LPCs from upcoming surveys could test whether the isotropy is uniform across semimajor-axis bins or shows residual structure from the flyby.

Load-bearing premise

Long-period comet production is dominated by the Galactic tide except during the proposed stellar passage, and the observed sample of new comets accurately reflects the underlying orbital distribution without major selection biases.

What would settle it

Gaia astrometry that places HD 7977's closest approach outside the 6000-10000 au range would rule out this explanation for the observed ω distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25069 by Nathan A. Kaib, Sean N. Raymond.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Estimated uncertainty of LPC original semimajor axis vs LPC discovery year for dynamically new ( 1 aorig < 10−4 au−1 ) LPCs listed in the CODE catalogue (Kr´olikowska & Dybczy´nski 2020). The shaded rectangle marks the time range and uncertainty range containing the observed dynamically new LPCs that we consider in most of our paper’s analyses. The dotted line marks all dynamically new LPCs discovered sinc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The cumulative distribution of s2ω is shown for observed LPCs (thick lines) and simulated LPCs from the TIDE simulation (thin lines). LPCs are split into dynamically new comets (a > 104 au; blue) and returning comets with 103 < a < 104 au (orange). Among observed LPCs, we only consider comets discovered since 1990, and we also require uncertainties below 50 × 10−6 au−1 in the original semimajor axes of our… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of s2ω for Oort cloud orbits in ten co-added snapshots of our TIDE simulation (t = 1.1 to t = 2.0 Gyrs in 100-Myr increments). Distributions are shown for orbits with q < 4 au and a > 104 au (blue), orbits with 4 < q < 8 au and a > 104 au (orange), and orbits with 4 < q < 8 au and 104 < a < 2 × 104 au (green). Each orbit is weighted by its orbital frequency (a −1.5 ). The dotted line marks… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A: Plot of LPC orbital period vs perihelion passage time for LPCs making their first perihelion passage inside 4 au in the Flyby 7943 simulation. LPCs overplotted in orange go on to make returning passages inside 4 au with 103 < a < 104 au at 2–3 Myrs after HD 7977’s passage (time range shaded in gray). B: Distribution of first perihelion passage times inside 4 au. Time distributions are shown for LPCs wit… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A: For the Flyby 7943 simulation, the distribution of s2ω at t = 1 Myrs is shown for q < 4 orbits with a > 18400 au (solid blue) and with 104 < a < 18400 au (solid orange). Orbits are weighted by their orbital frequency. The s2ω distribution is also shown for LPCs making q < 4 au perihelion passages 2–3 Myrs after HD 7977’s encounter, weighted using Equation 1. Distributions are shown for LPCs with a > 104… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A: Distribution of inverse original semimajor axes of dynamically new (a > 104 au) LPCs is shown for the TIDE (orange) and Flyby 7943 (blue) simulations (weighted with Equation 1). The observed distribution using LPCs falling in the shaded region of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A: The cumulative distribution of s2ω is shown for observed LPCs (thick lines) and simulated LPCs from the TIDE simulation (thin lines). LPCs are split into dynamically new comets (a > 104 au; blue) and returning comets with 103 < a < 104 au (orange). For the TIDE simulation we also show distributions if we reweight our results assuming an initial density profile proportional to a −1 (dashed lines). All si… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of s2ω are shown for LPCs making perihelion passages inside 4 au with a > 104 au (blue) and 103 < a < 104 au (orange). Observed distributions (thick solid lines) are compared against simulated LPCs from Flyby 6310 that make perihelion passages 2–3 Myrs after the HD 7977 flyby. Two different comet fading laws are assumed: a Whipple-like fading (dashed) and a bimodal fading (thin solid). where … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plot of the mean new LPC flux into the inner solar system against the impact parameter of HD 7977 used in our different passage simulations. Mean LPC flux is averaged over the first 2.5 Myrs after the passage (blue) and 2–3 Myrs after the passage (orange). their semimajor axes inflated to larger values from the planetary energy kicks incurred during their first post-HD 7977 perihelion passage, after which … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

It is generally presumed that the tidal field of the Milky Way's disk is the main perturbation that has driven observed long-period comets (LPCs) from the Oort cloud into the inner solar system. The tide's influence on the Oort cloud should produce a distinct anisotropy in the arguments of perihelion ($\omega$) of dynamically new LPCs with semimajor axes ($a$) over 10$^4$ au. Simulating LPC production dominated by the Galactic tide, we find that observed dynamically new LPCs are more isotropic than expected. Meanwhile, our simulation exhibits much better agreement between simulated and observed ``returning'' LPCs that have made a handful of passages through the inner solar system prior to discovery. The isotropy of new LPCs can be explained if the Oort cloud is much less centrally concentrated than the conventional Oort cloud formation model predicts. However, a second possibility also exists. Additional simulations we perform show that the observed $\omega$ distributions of new and returning LPCs can both be well-replicated if the star HD 7977 passed within $\sim$6000--10000 au of the Sun $\sim$2.5 Myrs ago. In such a scenario, our solar system is still undergoing the latter stages of a comet shower. These simulations imply the modern observed LPC flux is $\sim$twice as high as the longer-term (tide-dominated) rate. This also implies that estimates of the Oort cloud's population should be revised downward by a factor of $\sim$2. Our LPC analysis predicts the upcoming Gaia data release will favor an HD 7977 impact parameter of $\sim$6000--10000 au.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that Galactic tide-dominated simulations of Oort cloud evolution produce anisotropic ω distributions for dynamically new LPCs (a > 10^4 au) that mismatch observations, while returning LPCs agree better. It shows that adding a stellar passage by HD 7977 at an impact parameter of ∼6000–10000 au ∼2.5 Myr ago reproduces the observed isotropic ω for new LPCs and the returning population, implying the modern LPC flux is ∼2× the tide-only rate and that Oort cloud population estimates should be revised downward by a factor of ∼2. The work predicts that upcoming Gaia data will favor the fitted impact parameter range.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would indicate that the solar system is still experiencing the tail of a comet shower triggered by a recent stellar encounter, with direct consequences for LPC rate estimates and Oort cloud normalization. The Gaia prediction supplies a concrete, falsifiable test. The work also highlights a tension between conventional Oort cloud formation models and the observed isotropy that could motivate revised formation scenarios even if the specific perturber identification is not adopted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and simulation description: no information is supplied on the number of test particles, the numerical integrator, time-stepping criteria, or the initial semimajor-axis and eccentricity distribution of the Oort cloud. These quantities are required to assess whether the reported qualitative agreement with observed ω histograms is statistically robust or sensitive to resolution and initial conditions.
  2. [Abstract, final paragraph] The impact-parameter interval (6000–10000 au) and passage epoch (∼2.5 Myr) are chosen to reproduce the current observed ω distributions; the subsequent claim that Gaia will favor precisely these values is therefore circular and does not constitute an independent prediction.
  3. [Abstract, second paragraph] The central interpretation assumes that the observed sample of new LPCs directly traces the intrinsic ω distribution. No forward modeling of discovery biases (survey geometry, seasonal visibility, magnitude limits that may differ for new vs. returning comets) is described, leaving open the possibility that the apparent isotropy is an observational selection effect rather than dynamical evidence for the perturber.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'dynamically new LPCs' is used without an explicit operational definition (e.g., whether it is based on a > 10^4 au alone or on an additional criterion such as previous perihelion distance).
  2. [Abstract, penultimate sentence] The factor-of-two revision to the LPC flux and Oort cloud population is stated without an accompanying uncertainty or sensitivity analysis with respect to the assumed stellar mass or velocity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. The comments raise valid points about simulation transparency, the nature of our Gaia prediction, and potential observational biases. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and simulation description: no information is supplied on the number of test particles, the numerical integrator, time-stepping criteria, or the initial semimajor-axis and eccentricity distribution of the Oort cloud. These quantities are required to assess whether the reported qualitative agreement with observed ω histograms is statistically robust or sensitive to resolution and initial conditions.

    Authors: We agree that these parameters are needed to evaluate robustness. Although the methods section of the full manuscript describes the simulation setup, the abstract omits them for brevity. In the revised version we will add a concise statement of the key parameters (particle number, integrator, time-stepping, and initial a-e distribution) to the abstract so that the work is self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract, final paragraph] The impact-parameter interval (6000–10000 au) and passage epoch (∼2.5 Myr) are chosen to reproduce the current observed ω distributions; the subsequent claim that Gaia will favor precisely these values is therefore circular and does not constitute an independent prediction.

    Authors: We respectfully disagree that the Gaia statement is circular. The quoted impact-parameter range is obtained by fitting the stellar-perturber model to the present-day LPC ω data. The prediction is that independent Gaia astrometry of HD 7977 will return an impact parameter lying inside that same interval. Because the Gaia measurement is a separate observable, the statement remains a falsifiable, non-circular test. We will rephrase the final paragraph to make this distinction explicit. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract, second paragraph] The central interpretation assumes that the observed sample of new LPCs directly traces the intrinsic ω distribution. No forward modeling of discovery biases (survey geometry, seasonal visibility, magnitude limits that may differ for new vs. returning comets) is described, leaving open the possibility that the apparent isotropy is an observational selection effect rather than dynamical evidence for the perturber.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes a limitation: we have not performed explicit forward modeling of survey biases. Our analysis assumes that the ω distribution of newly discovered LPCs is close to the intrinsic distribution because these objects are detected at large heliocentric distances. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph that states this assumption, discusses why ω-dependent biases are expected to be weaker for new than for returning LPCs, and flags the lack of quantitative bias modeling as a caveat for future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Stellar passage parameters fitted to match LPC ω distributions then presented as Gaia prediction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Our LPC analysis predicts the upcoming Gaia data release will favor an HD 7977 impact parameter of ∼6000--10000 au."

    The ∼6000--10000 au range and ∼2.5 Myr timing are the specific values identified in the additional simulations that replicate the observed ω distributions of new and returning LPCs. The Gaia statement therefore predicts that future data will match the parameter values already tuned to the current observations.

full rationale

The paper identifies a mismatch between tide-only simulations and observed new LPC ω isotropy, then shows that adding an HD 7977 passage with parameters in the 6000-10000 au range at ~2.5 Myr reproduces both new and returning distributions. The explicit forward claim is that Gaia will favor exactly this fitted range. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern because the 'prediction' is that future data will confirm the values already selected to fit the current sample; the central explanatory power therefore reduces to the fit itself rather than an independent derivation. No self-citation chains, self-definitional steps, or ansatz smuggling are present in the provided text. The result is partial circularity (score 6) but the underlying dynamical simulations retain independent content outside the Gaia forecast.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the Galactic tide dominates LPC delivery except during the proposed stellar encounter, plus fitted encounter parameters chosen to match current observations.

free parameters (2)
  • HD 7977 impact parameter = 6000-10000 au
    Chosen to match observed ω isotropy of new LPCs
  • Time since HD 7977 passage = ~2.5 Myr
    Selected so the system is in the latter stages of the comet shower
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Galactic tide is the main perturbation driving LPCs from the Oort cloud
    Stated as 'generally presumed'
  • domain assumption Conventional Oort cloud formation model predicts a centrally concentrated cloud
    Used as the baseline whose predictions are compared to observations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5851 in / 1443 out tokens · 46467 ms · 2026-06-25T21:50:11.817875+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

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2022, ApJL, 935, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac816a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac816a 2022

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Brasser, R., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 2006, Icarus, 184, 59, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.04.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.04.010 2006

  3. [3]

    2026, Scientific Reports, 16, 115, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-29033-y

    Cao, Z., Loeb, A., & MacLeod, M. 2026, Scientific Reports, 16, 115, doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-29033-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-29033-y 2026

  4. [4]

    Quillen, A. C. 2021, ApJL, 907, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd635

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd635 2021

  5. [5]

    R., Levison, H

    Dones, L., Weissman, P. R., Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver, 153

    2004

  6. [6]

    The Astronomical Journal , keywords =

    Duncan, M., Quinn, T., & Tremaine, S. 1987, AJ, 94, 1330, doi: 10.1086/114571 Dybczy´ nski, P. A. 2002, A&A, 396, 283, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021400 —. 2005, A&A, 441, 783, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053327 Dybczy´ nski, P. A., & Kr´ olikowska, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 588, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv013 —. 2025, A&A, 702, A143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556678 Dy...

    work page doi:10.1086/114571 1987

  7. [7]

    2020, PASP, 132, 064504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab8783

    Errmann, R., Cook, N., Anglada-Escud´ e, G., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 064504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab8783

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab8783 2020

  8. [8]

    Fernandez, J. A. 1981, A&A, 96, 26 Fern´ andez, J. A. 1997, Icarus, 129, 106, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5754

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5754 1981

  9. [9]

    Fouchard, M., Froeschl´ e, C., Rickman, H., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2011, Icarus, 214, 334, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.012 2011

  10. [10]

    2006, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 95, 299, doi: 10.1007/s10569-006-9027-8

    Fouchard, M., Froeschl´ e, C., Valsecchi, G., & Rickman, H. 2006, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 95, 299, doi: 10.1007/s10569-006-9027-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-006-9027-8 2006

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Fouchard, M., Higuchi, A., & Ito, T. 2023, A&A, 676, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243728

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243728 2023

  12. [12]

    Francis, P. J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1348, doi: 10.1086/497684 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 Garc´ ıa-S´ anchez, J., Weissman, P. R., Preston, R. A., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 634, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011330

    work page doi:10.1086/497684 2005

  13. [13]

    1986, Icarus, 65, 13, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90060-6

    Heisler, J., & Tremaine, S. 1986, Icarus, 65, 13, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90060-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(86)90060-6 1986

  14. [14]

    2020, AJ, 160, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba94d

    Higuchi, A. 2020, AJ, 160, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba94d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba94d 2020

  15. [15]

    Hills, J. G. 1981, AJ, 86, 1730, doi: 10.1086/113058

    work page doi:10.1086/113058 1981

  16. [16]

    P., et al

    Hut, P., Alvarez, W., Elder, W. P., et al. 1987, Nature, 329, 118, doi: 10.1038/329118a0 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1038/329118a0 1987

  17. [17]

    Kaib, N. A. 2022, Science Advances, 8, eabm9130, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm9130

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm9130 2022

  18. [18]

    A., & Quinn, T

    Kaib, N. A., & Quinn, T. 2008, Icarus, 197, 221, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.020 —. 2009, Science, 325, 1234, doi: 10.1126/science.1172676

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.020 2008

  19. [19]

    A., Quinn, T., & Brasser, R

    Kaib, N. A., Quinn, T., & Brasser, R. 2011a, AJ, 141, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/3

  20. [20]

    A., & Raymond, S

    Kaib, N. A., & Raymond, S. N. 2024, ApJL, 962, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb —. 2025, Icarus, 439, 116632, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116632

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb 2024

  21. [21]

    A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T

    Kaib, N. A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T. 2011b, Icarus, 215, 491, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.07.037 Kr´ olikowska, M. 2001, A&A, 376, 316, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010945 —. 2020, A&A, 633, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936316 Kr´ olikowska, M., & Dones, L. 2023, A&A, 678, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347178 Kr´ olikowska, M., & Dybczy´ nski, P. A. 2019...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.07.037 2011

  22. [22]

    F., Dones, L., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., Dones, L., & Duncan, M. J. 2001, AJ, 121, 2253, doi: 10.1086/319943

    work page doi:10.1086/319943 2001

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    F., Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., Duncan, M. J., Brasser, R., & Kaufmann, D. E. 2010, Science, 329, 187, doi: 10.1126/science.1187535

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1187535 2010

  25. [25]

    G., Sekanina, Z., & Yeomans, D

    Marsden, B. G., Sekanina, Z., & Yeomans, D. K. 1973, AJ, 78, 211, doi: 10.1086/111402

    work page doi:10.1086/111402 1973

  26. [26]

    J., & Lissauer, J

    Matese, J. J., & Lissauer, J. J. 2004, Icarus, 170, 508, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.019 21

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.019 2004

  27. [27]

    E., & Muller, R

    Morris, D. E., & Muller, R. A. 1986, Icarus, 65, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90059-X Nesluˇ san, L. 2007, A&A, 461, 741, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065200

    work page doi:10.1016/0019-1035(86)90059-x 1986

  28. [28]

    H., & Schmidt, M

    Oort, J. H., & Schmidt, M. 1951, BAN, 11, 259

    1951

  29. [29]

    N., Gizis, J

    Reid, I. N., Gizis, J. E., & Hawley, S. L. 2002, AJ, 124, 2721, doi: 10.1086/343777

    work page doi:10.1086/343777 2002

  30. [30]

    Rickman, H., Fouchard, M., Froeschl´ e, C., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 102, 111, doi: 10.1007/s10569-008-9140-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-008-9140-y 2008

  31. [31]

    1998, AcA, 48, 547

    Sitarski, G. 1998, AcA, 48, 547

    1998

  32. [32]

    Sosa, A., & Fern´ andez, J. A. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 767, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19111.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19111.x 2011

  33. [33]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tremaine, S. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 36, Planets Around Pulsars, ed. J. A. Phillips, S. E. Thorsett, & S. R. Kulkarni, 335–344 Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Nesvorn´ y, D., & Dones, L. 2019, AJ, 157, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13aa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab13aa 1993

  34. [34]

    Weissman, P. R. 1979, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 81, Dynamics of the Solar System, ed. R. L. Duncombe, 277

    1979

  35. [35]

    Weissman, P. R. 1980, A&A, 85, 191

    1980

  36. [36]

    Whipple, F. L. 1962, AJ, 67, 1, doi: 10.1086/108596

    work page doi:10.1086/108596 1962

  37. [37]

    1999, Icarus, 137, 84, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6040

    Wiegert, P., & Tremaine, S. 1999, Icarus, 137, 84, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6040

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1998.6040 1999

  38. [38]

    K., & Chamberlin, A

    Yeomans, D. K., & Chamberlin, A. B. 2013, Acta Astronautica, 90, 3, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.03.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.03.006 2013