Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Constraints on the ejecting-crust activity model on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

T0 review · 4 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 Subsurface gas pressure can eject centimetre-sized chunks and drive comet 67P's activity.

desk verdict A serious, transparent attempt to make the ejecting-crust model work for all of 67P, but the mechanism only operates at the edge of the physically plausible diffusivity range and the abstract overstates the fit quality. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01441 v1 pith:33WCI5WE submitted 2025-07-02 astro-ph.EP

Nicholas Attree , Pedro Gutiérrez , Christian Schuckart , Johannes Markkanen , Yuri Skorov , Yingqi Xin , Dorothea Bischoff , Bastian Gundlach
show 1 more author
Jurgen Blum
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords comet67Pthermophysicalmodelgaspressurebuild-updustejectiontensilestrengthdiffusivityoutgassingpebblestructure
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

Cometary activity has long faced what is called the cohesion bottleneck: sublimating gas should be too weak to lift dust off a nucleus, yet comets vigorously shed dust. This paper argues that a pebble-structured surface with very low gas permeability can break the bottleneck, because sublimation pressure builds up under a thin crust and ejects pebbles and chunks a few millimetres to about a decimetre in size. Simulating 19 latitudes across comet 67P over three orbits, the authors obtain water, CO2, and CO emission rates that roughly match Rosetta's observations, with essentially all ejections coming from the southern hemisphere during perihelion. They argue this southern 'blow-off' naturally explains the strong southern water outgassing previously inferred from non-gravitational acceleration and torque modelling. The mechanism only works if the subsurface is far less gas-permeable than standard estimates suggest, and even then the model tends to overproduce dust, CO2, and CO.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the half-transmission thickness $b$ (the diffusion-scale parameter), defined as the number of particle layers that reduces the outgassing flux by half; it controls how easily sublimating gas escapes through the dust crust. For gas flow between pebbles, $b$ is proportional to pebble diameter $D_p$, with theory and direct-simulation Monte Carlo giving $b \approx 0.3$–$3\,D_p$. The paper shows that only the low end ($b \le 0.3\,D_p$, best fit $0.1\,D_p$) lets pressure accumulate enough to overcome the layer strength, i.e., the sum of gravitational pressure and a depth- and size-dependent tensile strength. When pressure wins, one or more pebble layers are ejected, resetting a thin dust crust and keeping volatile ices within the top centimetre in the active south. Nearly all subsequent behaviour—the outgassing rates, the latitudinal asymmetry, and the parameter constraints—follows from the frequency and timing of these ejection events.

What would settle it

Measure the gas permeability of a realistic pebble packing with fractal dust filling the interstices—the structure assumed for 67P—using direct-simulation Monte Carlo or laboratory flow experiments. If the resulting half-transmission thickness comes out near one pebble diameter or larger, the pressure build-up that powers the model cannot occur; the paper itself reports that $b = 1\,D_p$ yields only sporadic ejections and no repeating activity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ejecting-crust mechanism—gas pressure in the interstitial space between pebbles exceeding the low tensile strength of the pebble aggregate—can account for the global activity of comet 67P, provided the gas diffusivity is low. With a half-transmission thickness of $b = 0.3\,D_p$ or less (best at $0.1\,D_p$), repeated ejection cycles are established in the southern hemisphere near perihelion, keeping water ice within the top centimetre and letting CO2 actually reach the surface. The modelled total water emission is 1.6 times the observed value in the nominal run, while CO2, CO, and dust totals exceed observations by about 10.7, 3.4, and 18 times, respectively; the shape of the southern activation and the post-perihelion decline match well. The resulting active fraction is a few percent in the north and rises to roughly 20–30 percent in the south, matching the pattern inferred from the comet's non-gravitational acceleration and torque. The paper concludes that low gas diffusivity, large heat capacity, and a steeply depth- or ice-content-dependent tensile strength are required for the mechanism to work, and that the location and nature of erosion is the critical unknown for cometary activity.

Load-bearing premise

The subsurface must be much less gas-permeable than the microphysical simulations suggest: the half-transmission thickness has to be at or below about 0.3 pebble diameters (best around 0.1), whereas the literature-derived range spans 0.3 to 3 pebble diameters; if the real value is near 1, the model produces only sporadic ejections and no repeating activity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's central claim is right, the bulk of 67P's outgassing of all species, and essentially all ejection of pebbles and chunks, is confined to the southern hemisphere during the few months around perihelion.
  • The model reproduces the pattern inferred from non-gravitational acceleration and torque fits: water emission from the north is weak and roughly constant, while southern emission rises sharply at perihelion, with effective active fractions of a few percent in the north and about 20–30 percent in the south.
  • Ejected material in the model is limited to pebbles and chunks from a few millimetres up to about 15 centimetres, with a power-law size distribution that is shallower than small-particle observations but steeper than some large-chunk estimates.
  • Matching the Rosetta data requires a narrow parameter window—dust-to-ice mass ratio near 2, CO2-to-water fraction around 0.03–0.1, CO fraction near 0.01, low diffusivity, and either high heat capacity or a steep tensile-strength gradient—so the model constrains the subsurface structure as much as it explains the activity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the authors leave implicit: on any other comet with the same pebble fabric, the same blow-off mechanism should concentrate activity on whichever hemisphere is strongly illuminated near perihelion, so the latitudinal activity pattern of other Jupiter-family comets would be a direct test of the model.
  • The difficulty of suppressing CO2-driven ejection suggests an upper bound on the CO2 abundance of the non-water-enriched surface material: if the CO2-to-water ice fraction were much above roughly ten percent, the southern hemisphere would erode too rapidly and emit too much CO2, so the paper indirectly tightens constraints on 67P's primordial volatile inventory.
  • Because the model cannot produce the continuous small-dust coma seen at all latitudes, the real activity mechanism may be bimodal—large pebble and chunk ejection during southern summer plus a distributed small-dust removal process—and re-analysing coma images for whether small dust comes from localized patches or the whole disk would discriminate between these.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses a one-dimensional, pebble-based thermophysical model with gas-pressure build-up to simulate dust and volatile outgassing from comet 67P over three full orbits, with 19 latitude bins and separate H2O, CO2, and CO ice species. The authors show that for low gas diffusivity (half-transmission thickness b=0.3Dp or 0.1Dp) and favorable choices of dust-to-ice ratio, heat capacity, and tensile strength, southern latitudes undergo repeated ejection of pebble-to-decimetre-sized chunks, while northern latitudes drain volatiles deep and remain inactive. The resulting water production is in broad temporal agreement with Rosetta and produces a southern-dominated outgassing pattern qualitatively consistent with non-gravitational acceleration and torque modelling. However, the same runs produce total CO2 and dust masses 5–18 times the Rosetta estimates in the nominal cases, and the preferred low-diffusivity regime lies at or below the lower edge of the DSMC-derived range, so the quantitative claim of 'roughly matching' Rosetta is not yet established.

Significance. If the mechanism is ultimately validated, it would resolve the cohesion bottleneck and provide a natural explanation for 67P's southern 'blow-off' water emission pattern inferred from dynamics, making it an important contribution to cometary activity modelling. The paper has clear strengths: a full-orbit multi-latitude treatment, inclusion of three volatiles, systematic sensitivity tests over ice fractions, heat capacity, diffusivity, and strength, and comparison with multiple Rosetta datasets. It also reports numerical resolution checks and explicitly identifies the regimes where the model fails (northern activity, small dust, pre-perihelion CO/CO2). The central significance is currently conditional because the activity depends on a diffusivity parameter that is not independently validated and because the claimed match to observed dust and CO2 masses is not within a factor of ~2.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 and Table 1] The conclusion that the model produces outgassing rates that 'roughly match those observed by Rosetta' is not supported by the totals in Table 1: the preferred fixed-c, b=0.1Dp run gives ΔM_CO2/observed=5.1 and ΔM_dust/observed=7.7, while the nominal b=0.3Dp run gives 10.7, 3.4, and 18.2 for CO2, CO, and dust, respectively. Since the abstract and conclusions present the mechanism as reproducing the global emission rates, this discrepancy is load-bearing for the paper's main claim; please either restrict the 'match' claim to water, or demonstrate a physical mechanism (e.g., partial fallback, reduced active area, or an ice-dependent strength law) that brings the other species within a factor of ~2 without destroying the water match.
  2. [Sections 2 and 3.3 and 4.1] The mechanism operates only in a diffusivity regime that is at or below the low end of the quoted physical range. The paper states b≈0.3–3Dp for effective porosities 0.4–0.8, takes b=0.3Dp as the nominal value, reports no repeating activity for b≳0.6Dp, and prefers b=0.1Dp. The Fulle & Blum fractal-dust argument in Section 4.1 is qualitative and does not provide a DSMC or laboratory measurement of b for that specific microstructure. Given that a b value of 0.4–0.5Dp lies within the quoted scatter and would shut off the activity in this model, the central claim depends on an unvalidated parameter estimate; a direct DSMC or experimental determination of b for the pebble-plus-fractal-dust structure (or an observational constraint from Rosetta data) is needed.
  3. [Section 3.4 and Figure 4] The dust-mass results rest on the assumption that ejected particle size equals the depth of the ejection layer, but the paper offers no physical derivation for this relation. Since this assumption sets both the ejected mass and the size distribution, its sensitivity should be explored; otherwise the factor-of-seven dust overproduction in the preferred run cannot be reliably attributed to the physics of the ejecting crust.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Abstract] The abstract claims reproduction of 'global emission rates of dust,' but the model only ejects particles at or above pebble size and cannot generate the ubiquitous sub-millimetre dust coma observed by OSIRIS. This is a model limitation acknowledged in Section 4.2, but it means the claim should be explicitly limited to the pebble/chunk component, and the implications for the 'dominant mechanism' claim should be discussed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The supplied manuscript text has many missing spaces between words and some garbled inline notation (e.g., the first paragraph of the Introduction); please ensure the final submission is properly typeset.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 4.1] Table 1 does not include the water-content-dependent strength run discussed in Section 4.1; adding its ΔM_H2O and ΔM_CO values would make the comparison of all species possible.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'Strong constraints are placed' overstates the status of the parameters, which are varied to best match the Rosetta data rather than independently measured; consider rephrasing to 'best-fit parameters' or discussing the resulting degeneracies.
  4. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says data will be shared 'on reasonable request'; given the many free parameters and fitted curves, making the simulation code or tabulated output available would strengthen reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 1] Figure 1 would benefit from indicating the temperature range over which 67P's thermal inertia has actually been measured, so the reader can judge which pebble size and heat-capacity prescription is most relevant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an openly parameterized model-data comparison; the low-diffusivity requirement is a fragility/correctness concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a thermophysical simulation with a defined ejection criterion (gas pressure exceeding tensile strength; Eqs. 3-5 and Section 2) and a comparison to Rosetta data. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, and the reported 'rough matches' are not formal predictions but model-data comparisons after explicit parameter exploration (Table 1). The paper is candid about residuals and failures: nominal CO2 is overproduced by a factor of 10.7 and dust by 18.2, and even the preferred b=0.1Dp run overproduces CO2 by 5.1 and dust by 7.7; the text repeatedly notes the difficulty of balancing activity and of generating northern activity. The preferred low gas-diffusivity (b=0.1Dp) lies below the externally cited DSMC range [0.3-3]Dp and the mechanism ceases for b >= 0.6Dp; this is a genuine fragility/correctness issue about an enabling assumption, but the paper supports the low-diffusivity microstructure with a physical argument (Fulle & Blum 2017 plus GIADA-measured fluffy aggregates), not with a self-citation that makes an output equal an input. The southern blow-off/EAF pattern is an emergent spatial result and is compared with independent NGA/torque modeling, so it is not fitted by construction. The self-citations to Gundlach et al. (2020), Bischoff et al. (2023), and Attree et al. (2024a) document the model's lineage, but the central conclusion does not reduce to those citations. No derivation step is equivalent to its own input; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on tuned parameters (diffusivity, ice fractions, heat capacity) plus structural assumptions inherited from prior pebble-model papers. The low diffusivity value b = 0.1-0.3 Dp is the most consequential free parameter; without it, no ejection activity occurs. The model introduces no new physical entities; the ejecting crust and pebble structure are mechanisms from prior work.

free parameters (7)
  • Gas diffusivity half-transmission thickness b = 0.3 Dp nominal, 0.1 Dp best-fit
    Controls pressure build-up; with b=1 Dp only sporadic ejections occur. Low b is required for activity and is chosen to match data.
  • Dust-to-total-ice mass ratio delta = 2 (nominal), also 4, 8, 50 tested
    Chosen to match water and dust emission levels; delta=50 suppresses all activity.
  • CO2-to-H2O ice mass fraction f_CO2 = 0.1 nominal, 0.03 and 0.01 tested
    CO2 is the critical ejection driver; fraction tuned to balance activity versus overproduction.
  • CO-to-H2O ice mass fraction f_CO = 0.01 nominal
    Chosen to match CO emission levels.
  • Dust heat capacity c_dust = 3000 J/kg/K (fixed case) versus temperature-dependent lower values
    Larger heat capacity delays heating and reduces ejection frequency, giving better matches to data.
  • Pebble diameter Dp = 1 cm nominal, 2 mm tested
    Sets the depth step and the tensile strength scale; results are qualitatively similar for both sizes.
  • Tensile strength law = Skorov and Blum (2012) depth/size relation; alternate water-content-dependent strengths 0.28 Pa and 0.06 Pa
    Strength law determines ejection thresholds; a steeper decrease with depth or ice-content is found to improve agreement.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Heat transfer equation with forward-difference scheme (Eq. 1) and Stefan-Boltzmann surface boundary condition.
    Standard numerical heat-transfer formulation, used without formal convergence proof beyond a stated criterion.
  • domain assumption Gas diffusion is described by the half-transmission thickness b with an outgassing area factor alpha (Eqs. 3-4).
    The analytical diffusion model is an approximation of gas transport; the b parameter is uncertain within an order of magnitude.
  • domain assumption Half of sublimated gas flows outward and half flows inward, neglecting re-condensation above the sublimation front.
    The paper acknowledges re-condensation is neglected as a minor contribution; later it is suggested as a possible missing mechanism.
  • domain assumption Tensile strength follows the Skorov and Blum (2012) depth/size relation for all layers.
    The strength law is taken from prior literature and is varied later, showing sensitivity of the results to this assumption.
  • domain assumption The nucleus is modeled as a sphere with 67P's area-equivalent radius and 19 equal-area latitude bands.
    The paper does not model 67P's irregular shape, which could reduce insolation in shadowed areas and alter activity.
  • ad hoc to paper Ejected particle size equals the depth of the ejection layer.
    This mapping is a modeling convenience; the paper uses it to compute the size-frequency distribution of ejected dust.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on the ejecting-crust activity model on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33WCI5WE

@misc{pith2026250701441,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on the ejecting-crust activity model on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33WCI5WE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01441}
}
abstract

Reproducing the observed activity of comets with thermophysical models remains a primary challenge of cometary science. We use a pebble-based thermophysical model of gas-pressure build-up in the subsurface to reproduce the global emission rates of dust, water, CO$_{2}$, and CO observed by Rosetta at comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (hereafter 67P). For sufficiently low diffusivities, the low tensile strength is overcome, leading to the ejection of $\sim$ millimetre- to decimetre-sized dust-particles as well as roughly the correct outgassing rates. All the ejections, and thus the bulk of the outgassing, come from the southern hemisphere during the time that it is strongly illuminated at perihelion. This leads to a 'blow-off' of the dust-crust that otherwise forms: volatiles are much closer to the surface in the south (within the top centimetre) than in the north (10-or-more cm deep), naturally explaining the strong southern water-outgassing expected from 67P's non-gravitational accelerations and torques. We find that low gas-diffusivity, as well as large heat-capacity and steeply decreasing tensile strength with depth or ice-content, are in best agreement with the outgassing data. However, even in these cases, we struggle not to exceed the observed emission rates of dust, CO$_{2}$, and CO. In the south, it is difficult for models to achieve a balance between triggering activity and generating too much of it (with CO$_{2}$ the critical driving-species here); while in the north, it remains challenging to generate activity at all. Strong constraints are placed on the nature of the activity mechanism by the location of dust-ejection and erosion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01441 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thermal inertia, in SI units of Jm−2 s −0.5K −1 , for two different pebble sizes with fixed 𝑐𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 3000 J kg−1 K −1 , and the temperature￾dependent heat capacities from Bischoff et al. (2023). Gas diffusion is approximated by an analytical expression using the half-transmission thickness (or diffusion-scale parameter), 𝑏. From Gundlach et al. (2020), the local sublimation rate, 𝑞, is given by 𝑞 = 𝑃𝑠𝑎𝑡√︂ 𝑚 2𝜋𝑘𝑇 𝜂𝛼, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Water production for a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, and 𝑏 = 0.3𝐷𝑝. Top: mean diurnal water-production curve with time compared to the Rosetta data (Läuter et al. 2020) (solid points). Bottom: mean Effective Active Fraction (EAF), relative to a pure water-ice surface, across three latitude ranges. briefly present on the surface before retreating beneath a dust-crust where its emission is damped. The nort… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sublimation front depths and temperatures for different latitudes in a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, and 𝑏 = 0.3𝐷𝑝. Top: sublimation front depths for, from left to right, +77◦ , 0 ◦ , and −77◦ . Bottom: sublimation front temperatures. modelled dust-flux exceeds all the observations except those from tracking of individual particles by OSIRIS at perihelion (Fulle et al. 2016; Ott et al. 2017), while the t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dust production for a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, and 𝑏 = 0.3𝐷𝑝. Top: mean diurnal dust-production curve with time compared to the Rosetta data (coloured lines: Marschall et al. 2020; Moreno et al. 2017, solid points: Fulle et al. 2016; Ott et al. 2017; L…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Water production for a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, 𝑏 = 0.3𝐷𝑝, and a fixed dust heat-capacity. Top: mean diurnal water￾production curve with time compared to the Rosetta data (solid points). Bottom: mean Effective Active Fraction (EAF), relative to a pure …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean diurnal production rates for other gas species for a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, 𝑏 = 0.3𝐷𝑝, and a fixed dust heat￾capacity, compared to the Rosetta data (solid points). Top: 𝐶𝑂2. Bottom: CO. latitudes in the south actually produce the most flux all t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dust production for a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, 𝑏 = 0.1𝐷𝑝, and a fixed dust heat-capacity. Top: mean diurnal dust￾production curve with time compared to the Rosetta data (coloured lines and solid points). Bottom: size-frequency distribution of the mode…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mean diurnal production rates of 𝐶𝑂2 for a model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, 𝑏 = 0.3𝐷𝑝, and a water-content dependent strength (see text for details), compared to the Rosetta data (solid points). ing only water-driven ejections of dry dust. This reduced the ej…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mean diurnal production rates for CO scaled from the production rates of water and CO2 (see text for details) compared to the Rosetta data (solid points). Top: for the model with 𝛿 = 2, f𝐶𝑂2 = 0.1, f𝐶𝑂 = 0.01, 𝑏 = 0.1𝐷𝑝, and a fixed dust heat-capacity. Bottom: for a m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Attree N., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...611A..33A 611, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732155 2018

  2. [2]

    Attree N., Jorda L., Groussin O., Agarwal J., Lasagni Manghi R., Tortora P., Zannoni M., Marschall R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245243 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.170A 670, A170

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245243 2023

  3. [3]

    Attree N., Schuckart C., Bischoff D., Gundlach B., Blum J., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.535...65A 535, 65

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2315

  4. [4]

    Attree N., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A..82A 690, A82

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450728

  5. [5]

    Biele J., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaa9816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...349a9816B 349, 1.9816

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa9816 2015

  6. [6]

    Biele J., Vincent J.-B., Knollenberg J., 2022, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8090487 , 8, 487

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8090487 2022

  7. [7]

    Bischoff D., Schuckart C., Attree N., Gundlach B., Blum J., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad1766 , 523, 5171

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1766 2023

  8. [8]

    Blum J., Wurm G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ARA&A..46...21B 46, 21

    arXiv 2008

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Blum J., Schräpler R., Davidsson B. J. R., Trigo-Rodríguez J. M., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/508017 , 652, 1768

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Blum J., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2741 , 469, S755

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Choukroun M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...583A..28C 583, A28

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Ciarniello M., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01625-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..546C 6, 546

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Ciarniello M., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.5841C 523, 5841

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Davidsson B. J. R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1593 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5654D 505, 5654

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    Davidsson B. J. R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...592A..63D 592, A63

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Davidsson B. J. R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Icar..35414004D 354, 114004

    2021

  9. [17]

    Davidsson B. J. R., Samarasinha N. H., Farnocchia D., Guti \'e rrez P. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.3065D 509, 3065

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Fulle M., Blum J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469S..39F 469, S39

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Fulle M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/802/1/L12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802L..12F 802, L12

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Fulle M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...821...19F 821, 19

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Fulle M., Blum J., Rotundi A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2898 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...879L...8F 879, L8

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Fulle M., Blum J., Rotundi A., Gundlach B., G \"u ttler C., Zakharov V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.4039F 493, 4039

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Gasc S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469S.108G 469, S108

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Pinz \'o n-Rodr \' guez O., Marschall R., Wu J

    Gerig S. B., Pinz \'o n-Rodr \' guez O., Marschall R., Wu J. S., Thomas N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113968 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Icar..35113968G 351, 113968

    2020

  17. [25]

    N., Kaib N., 2024, @doi [PSJ] 10.3847/PSJ/ad7f4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PSJ.....5..243G 5, 243

    Gkotsinas A., Nesvorn \'y D., Guilbert-Lepoutre A., Raymond S. N., Kaib N., 2024, @doi [PSJ] 10.3847/PSJ/ad7f4e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PSJ.....5..243G 5, 243

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Groussin O., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-019-0594-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019SSRv..215...29G 215, 29

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Groussin O., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452260 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A..21G 694, A21

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Gundlach B., Fulle M., Blum J., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa449 , 493, 3690

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Hoang M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A..33H 630, A33

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Hoang M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936655 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.106H 638, A106

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Jewitt D., Agarwal J., Hui M.-T., Li J., Mutchler M., Weaver H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf38c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157...65J 157, 65

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    U., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1726 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469S.357K 469, S357

    Keller H. U., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1726 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469S.357K 469, S357

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Knollenberg J., et al., 2016, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527744 , 596, A89

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Kofman W., Zine S., Herique A., Rogez Y., Jorda L., Levasseur-Regourd A.-C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.2616K 497, 2616

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Spohn T., Hagermann A., Kaufmann E., K \"u hrt E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.07.024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Icar..260..464K 260, 464

    Kossacki K. J., Spohn T., Hagermann A., Kaufmann E., K \"u hrt E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.07.024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Icar..260..464K 260, 464

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Kreuzig C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A.177K 688, A177

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Kreuzig C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.258K 693, A258

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    U., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1994.1080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Icar..109..121K 109, 121

    Kuehrt E., Keller H. U., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.1994.1080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Icar..109..121K 109, 121

    1994

  31. [39]

    Laurent-Varin J., James T., Marty J.-C., Jorda L., Le Maistre S., Gaskell R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Icar..42416284L 424, 116284

    2024

  32. [40]

    L \"a uter M., Kramer T., Rubin M., Altwegg K., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483..852L 483, 852

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    L \"a uter M., Kramer T., Rubin M., Altwegg K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3995L 498, 3995

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Lemos P., Agarwal J., Marschall R., Pfeifer M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.289L 687, A289

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Macher W., Skorov Y., Kargl G., Laddha S., Zivithal S., 2024, @doi [Journal of Engineering Mathematics] 10.1007/s10665-023-10308-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JEnMa.144....2M 144, 2

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Marschall R., Markkanen J., Gerig S.-B., Pinz \'o n-Rodr \' guez O., Thomas N., Wu J.-S., 2020, @doi [Frontiers in Physics] 10.3389/fphy.2020.00227 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020FrP.....8..227M 8, 227

    2020

  37. [45]

    Moreno F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1424 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469S.186M 469, S186

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    M., 2023, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.add3530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SciA....9D3530N 9, eadd3530

    Nagaashi Y., Nakamura A. M., 2023, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.add3530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023SciA....9D3530N 9, eadd3530

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Ott T., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469S.276O 469, S276

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    V., 1980, Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow

    Patankar S. V., 1980, Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow . Washington, DC, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1980. 210 p

    1980

  41. [49]

    Reshetnik V., Skorov Y., Bentley M., Rezac L., Hartogh P., Blum J., 2022, @doi [Solar System Research] 10.1134/S0038094622020071 , 56, 100

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Reshetnyk V., Luk'yanyk I., Skorov Y., Grynko Y., Macher W., Schuckart C., Zhao Y., Blum J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2025.106078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025P&SS..26006078R 260, 106078

    2025

  43. [51]

    Rotundi A., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aaa3905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...347a3905R 347, aaa3905

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    Rubin M., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3005 , 526, 4209

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Schuckart C., Blum J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553750 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...697A.205S 697, A205

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    Shi X., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A...7S 586, A7

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Shi X., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJL] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad18d9 , 961, L16

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Skorov Y., Blum J., 2012, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.012 , 221, 1

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    Skorov Y., Reshetnyk V., Bentley M., Rezac L., Agarwal J., Blum J., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa3735 , 501, 2635

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    S., Rezac L., Hartogh P., Blum J., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3760

    Skorov Y., Reshetnyk V., Bentley M. S., Rezac L., Hartogh P., Blum J., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3760

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Spohn T., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aab0464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...349b0464S 349, 2.464

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979...91T 979, 91

    Tang X., Shi X., El-Maarry M. R., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979...91T 979, 91

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Tatsuuma M., Kataoka A., Tanaka H., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab09f7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874..159T 874, 159

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Xin Y., Skorov Y., Zhao Y., Rezac L., Hartogh P., K \"u ppers M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452109 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.123X 693, A123

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    M., 2024, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets)] 10.1029/2023JE008047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JGRE..12908047Z 129, 2023JE008047

    Zhang Y., Hartzell C. M., 2024, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets)] 10.1029/2023JE008047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024JGRE..12908047Z 129, 2023JE008047

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    W., G \"u ttler C., Blum J., Dullemond C

    Zsom A., Ormel C. W., G \"u ttler C., Blum J., Dullemond C. P., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...513A..57Z 513, A57

    2010 doi

  57. [65]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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