Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Search Capability for Near-Earth Objects with the Wide Field Survey Telescope

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a modest change to WFST's nightly schedule—giving each sky tile two visits instead of one—roughly doubles the number of known near-Earth objects that get tracklets and increases blind discoveries by about half, with…

desk verdict Paired-visit scheduling roughly doubles WFST's NEO yield in simulation, but the headline 1800/600 counts are conditional on an unmeasured trailing-loss coefficient. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12460 v2 pith:3TTRBLYK submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Jun-Qiang Lu , Lu-Lu Fan , Min-Xuan Cai , Shao-Han Wang , Bing-Xue Fu , Xu Kong , Qing-Feng Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords near-EarthobjectssurveyschedulingmockobservationstrackletstrailinglosseffectivefieldofviewWideTelescope
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST), a general-purpose northern sky survey facility not dedicated to asteroid hunting, can still become a productive near-Earth object (NEO) discovery and monitoring machine if its nightly schedule is slightly rearranged. Through mock observations that combine a debiased NEO population model, a detection model, and the actual WFST survey plan, the authors test three scheduling schemes. They find that forcing each sky tile to be visited twice in a night, instead of once, roughly doubles the number of known NEOs that get tracklets and increases blind discoveries by about half. With a realistic 0.7 clear-night fraction, they predict about 1,800 known NEOs with tracklets and more than 600 blind finds in one year. They also show that how the effective field of view is modeled matters, and that trailing loss from fast-moving objects must be included to avoid overestimating NEO counts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the scheduling metric called 'recent repeated observations' in the greedy tile-group selector. In the baseline, a tile group that has already been observed that night is avoided, so most tiles get a single visit; the new schemes reset this metric to favor a second visit to the same tile group on the same night, producing paired exposures that are the minimum requirement for forming a tracklet. A supporting piece of machinery is the compact effective field of view model, which replaces the random accept/reject eFoV with a close-packed CCD array of matching filling factor, so that repeated detections of the same object are correlated with its position rather than drawn randomly. The simulation also uses a trailing-loss formula borrowed from LSST to dim fast-moving sources.

What would settle it

Measure WFST's actual trailing-loss coefficient by imaging artificial or real fast-moving sources (or trailed stars) and comparing detected magnitudes to the c=0.42 prediction, then rerun the one-year mock survey; a measured c that differs materially would change the 1,800/600 tracklet and discovery numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a scheduling scheme that gives each survey tile paired visits on the same night, called Twinbase (and a variant Twinaway that also avoids repeating the previous day's tiles), improves WFST's search capability for known and unknown NEOs by approximately 100% and 50% relative to the baseline schedule. Running one-year mock observations with a 0.7 clear-day ratio, the paper reports 1,824.5 known-orbit NEOs with tracklets and 642.6 blind-discovered NEOs for the best scheme, versus 893.6 and 427.3 in the baseline. A second finding is that the commonly used random effective-field-of-view model overestimates the number of unknown NEOs found, by about 10%, because overlapping tile pointings can create false tracklets; the paper's compact eFoV model avoids this. The paper also demonstrates that ignoring trailing loss would overestimate NEO detections severalfold, especially for small (faint, fast) objects.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation takes the trailing-loss coefficient c=0.42 from LSST and applies it to WFST without measuring it on WFST, so the predicted counts for faint fast NEOs could shift if WFST's point-spread function or charge-transfer smearing behaves differently.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • WFST's regular survey can contribute roughly 1,800 NEO tracklets per year for objects with known orbits, sufficient for MPC submission, without dedicating the telescope exclusively to asteroids.
  • Blind searches with WFST can find more than 600 NEOs per year, including small objects with absolute magnitude up to 25 (roughly 25 meters across at assumed albedo 0.25).
  • Potentially hazardous asteroids are found preferentially: the optimized schemes roughly double the number of PHAs with tracklets, from 132 to 279 per year.
  • The gain comes almost entirely from WFS tiles receiving paired same-night visits; the DHS component contributes fewer NEOs because of its smaller sky coverage.
  • Survey schedulers should plan for paired visits and account for trailing loss when predicting moving-object yields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paired-visit scheduling principle could be transferred to any survey telescope that currently visits fields once per night, potentially boosting its NEO yield without extra observing time.
  • The random-vs-compact eFoV discrepancy suggests that other simulations using random field-of-view acceptance may over-report tracklet counts when adjacent tile pointings overlap.
  • If WFST's first-year real tracklet counts fall well short of the predicted 1,800/600, the most likely culprit is the unmeasured trailing-loss coefficient, making an empirical measurement of c a high-value early activity.
  • The same mock-observation pipeline could be extended to other solar system populations, such as main-belt asteroids or Jupiter Trojans, to optimize WFST's cadence for those sciences.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents end-to-end mock observations of one year of WFST survey operations, combining the Granvik NEO population model, orbital propagation, a detection model with limiting magnitudes and trailing losses, and a scheduler that generates three cadence schemes (Baseline, Twinbase, Twinaway). The central claims are that the Twinbase/Twinaway schemes improve the search capability for known and unknown NEOs by approximately 100% and 50% relative to Baseline, and that at a clear-day ratio of 0.7 the optimized scheme can produce tracklets for about 1800 NEOs with known orbits and find more than 600 NEOs in blind search. The paper also proposes a compact effective field-of-view model and argues that trailing loss is a dominant effect for small, fast NEOs.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a practical, quantitative basis for WFST survey scheduling and identifies an important modeling issue (trailing loss) for small-NEO searches. The relative comparison between scheduling schemes is internally consistent and supported by ten random realizations with quoted 1-sigma scatter, and the compact eFoV model is a reasonable improvement over a purely random acceptance model. The main new quantitative predictions, however, are conditional on an unmeasured transfer of the LSST trailing-loss coefficient to WFST, and the absolute discovery numbers should be read with that caveat until a sensitivity analysis is supplied.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The trailing-loss coefficient c = 0.42 is taken from LSST and applied to WFST with no measurement, and the paper itself states that 'this choice might introduce some error.' This is not a minor calibration issue: Section 4 shows that removing trailing loss or imposing a 2 deg/day speed limit changes the number of findable NEOs by 'several times,' and the faintest NEOs (H = 22-25), which dominate the totals, are precisely the ones with high apparent speeds and the largest trailing losses. An error in c, or in the assumed seeing theta = 0.75 arcsec in Eq. (3), therefore propagates directly into the headline numbers of roughly 1800 tracklets and more than 600 blind-search discoveries. I request a quantitative sensitivity study over a plausible range of c (e.g., 0.2-0.6) or, better, a measured or simulated estimate for WFST's PSF and charge-transfer properties; without this, the absolute predictions in the abstract are not fully supported.
  2. [Section 4, Table 3] The 'known' tracklet counts are computed for the full Granvik model population, i.e., under the assumption that every modeled NEO has a known orbit. The abstract says 'if their orbits are known,' which is a clear condition, but the paper does not state how this hypothetical relates to the actual currently known NEO catalog, which is far smaller than the model population. Since the 100% improvement claim for known NEOs is a central result, the authors should explicitly quantify how many of the ~1800 tracklet objects would correspond to already-known asteroids and how many are hypothetical known-orbit objects; otherwise the 'known' terminology risks being misinterpreted as a prediction about the current MPC catalog.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The summary contains a typo: 'rugular survey' should be 'regular survey.'
  2. [Section 2.3.1 and Table 1] The notation 'F LI' with a space is awkward; use a consistent subscript or symbol, e.g., FLI.
  3. [Section 3.4] The scheme name 'Twinaway ' has a trailing space in the text; please fix the formatting.
  4. [Table 2] The table note and column headers are somewhat confusing: clarify that the entries are ratios of NEO counts (random eFoV / compact eFoV), not absolute numbers.
  5. [Section 4] The sentence 'For the Atiras type, they can hardly be found' should be reworded to 'Atira-type objects can hardly be found' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the discovery counts are forward-simulation outputs, not re-inserted inputs; acknowledged modeling uncertainties (LSST c=0.42, HOPS criterion) are conditions, not hidden fits.

full rationale

The paper's headline numbers (~1800 tracklets; >600 blind-search finds) are outputs of a forward model: Granvik et al. (2018) supplies the NEO population, Lei et al. (2023) supplies limiting magnitudes, the scheduler produces pointings, and Sections 2.3.1-2.3.3 convert those into tracklet counts. No target result is used as an input. The Twinbase/Twinaway schemes are cadence rules designed to increase paired visits and are then evaluated by the same detection/linking simulation; this is explicit optimization within a model, not fitting a parameter to the claimed answer. The only self-citation that matters is the HOPS pipeline (Wang et al. 2025), which is used as an explicit definition of 'found' ('we consider an NEO found if it meets the criteria set by the searching pipeline') rather than as an external proof; the counts remain conditional on that definition, but the condition is stated and the counts are not inferred from it. The LSST trailing-loss coefficient c=0.42 is transferred to WFST without measurement, and the paper candidly says 'this choice might introduce some error'; Section 4 shows this factor strongly affects the absolute numbers. That is a genuine sensitivity/correctness limitation, but it is not circular because the coefficient is an input parameter, not a re-derivation of the prediction. No equation equates the prediction to an input by construction, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on a chain of imported models and calibration constants. The most consequential are the Granvik NEO population (external), the LSST-derived trailing-loss coefficient (explicitly acknowledged as unverified), and the logistic fading model. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'compact eFoV model' is a modeling approximation, not an entity. The count of free parameters is small because the paper mostly inherits prior models, but the sensitivity of the headline numbers to the trailing-loss coefficient is not quantified.

free parameters (3)
  • Trailing loss coefficient c = 0.42 (adopted from LSST)
    Scales the magnitude loss from proper motion in Eq. 2. WFST-specific value not measured; affects all detection counts, especially small fast NEOs.
  • Detection fading factor sigma = 0.1
    Logistic fading width in Eq. 4. Fixed to Jones et al. (2018); controls how many borderline sources are detected.
  • H-G slope parameter G = 0.15
    Phase function parameter in Eq. 1. Assumed for all NEOs; standard default value, not fitted to WFST.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption NEO population model of Granvik et al. (2018) is representative for 17 < H < 25
    The simulated population (802,000 objects) is the sole source of orbits and magnitudes. Newer models (Nesvorny et al. 2023-2024, Deienno et al. 2025) are cited but not used; differences would change absolute predictions.
  • domain assumption Angular orbital elements (Omega, omega, M0) are uniformly distributed
    Section 2.1. JeongAhn & Malhotra (2014) find non-uniformity, but the paper treats it as negligible for their statistical purpose. This affects the night-to-night visibility pattern of subpopulations.
  • domain assumption Keplerian two-body motion is sufficient for one-year propagation
    Section 2.2. Non-gravitational forces and detailed planetary perturbations are ignored; claimed reasonable because only statistical sky positions matter.
  • ad hoc to paper Trailing-loss calibration transfers from LSST to WFST (c = 0.42)
    Section 2.3.1. The paper states 'the value of c is not determined, so we simply use the same value as LSST' and flags possible error. This is a central sensitivity.
  • ad hoc to paper Detection probability follows the logistic fading function with sigma = 0.1
    Section 2.3.2, Eq. 4. Fixed from Jones et al. (2018); not calibrated against WFST imaging.
  • domain assumption WFST transmission curves equal LSST curves in u,g,r,i,z
    Section 2.3.1. Used to apply LSST color transformations to convert V-band magnitudes; if the curves differ, band-limited magnitudes shift.
  • domain assumption Night weather is binary clear/not clear with no partial photometric data
    Section 2.3.2 and Section 4. Authors note this is idealized and conservative.
  • domain assumption The HOPS search pipeline achieves the described linking criteria
    Section 2.3.3. The definition of 'found' relies on the companion HOPS paper (Wang et al. 2025) with overlapping authors; no end-to-end validation on real WFST data is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search Capability for Near-Earth Objects with the Wide Field Survey Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TTRBLYK

@misc{pith2026250112460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search Capability for Near-Earth Objects with the Wide Field Survey Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TTRBLYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12460}
}
read the original abstract

Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST), with a powerful sky survey capability in the northern hemisphere, will play an important role in asteroid searching and monitoring. However, WFST is not a telescope dedicated to near-Earth asteroids (NEOs) searching. In order to improve the efficiency of finding NEOs on the premise of meeting the needs of other scientific research, we ran mock observations for WFST to study its search capability for NEOs. The NEO population model, the WFST detection model and site conditions are taken into account in our simulations. Based on the original scheduling scheme, we present two new schemes. Compared to the original scheme, the optimized scheme can improve the search capability of known and unknown NEOs by 100\% and 50\%. We also emphasized the importance of trailing loss and proposed an improved effective field of view model. In addition, it is predicted that adopting the clear-day ratio of 0.7 and the optimized scheme, during one year of regular survey, for NEOs with absolute magnitude from 17 to 25, WFST can provide tracklets for about 1800 NEOs if their orbits are known, and in the case of blind search, more than 600 NEOs can be found by WFST. The new schemes provide valuable reference and suggestions for the WFST's regular survey strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three eFoV models of WFST. On the left is the arrangement of WFST’s CCDs and FoV, and each CCD is divided into four quadrants in data processing. In actual observations, the direction of CCDs is hardly parallel to the right ascension and declination. Only the sources that fall on the FoV and CCD at the same time can be effectively detected. In the middle and on the right are random eFoV model and compact eFoV model … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Depiction of our detection model. At first, all the observations that are 0.5 mag larger than the limiting magnitude and fall within the radius of 1.5 degrees of FoV are preserved (blue). Then, according to our eFoV model, about 84% of the sources are preserved (orange). At last, the observations selected by the detection fading function are considered to be detected (green). as HelioLinC (Holman et al. 2018), ZMODE… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Survey regions of WFST. The light gray area is the area where the extinction of the Milky Way is significant, and the dashed line is the position of the ecliptic plane. The 4 DHS tile groups are all near the celestial equator, which are represented by dark colors. The 24 WFS tile groups are all located in the area where the declination is between 15 and 60 degrees. Angular distance: The angular distance from the cur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cadence of every tile group in a year. On each panel, the horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is different tile groups. The top four rows belong to DHS, and the other rows except the last row belong to WFS. The last row is for observing targets of opportu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: For a one-year simulation, the H frequency distribution for different simulation schemes is shown: (a) Baseline, (b) Twinbase, and (c) Twinaway. Each bin is 0.2 magnitudes wide. The cumulative total number of qualified NEOs for each condition within each plot is indica…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Number of NEOs with tracklets (not the total number of tracklets), and (b) Number of NEOs found under different clear-day ratios for different simulation schemes in a year. Red (solid), green (dashed) and blue (dotted) represent three schemes: Baseline, Twinbase an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ,# (7),01444 '9=82<.342C 2! !22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 f

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H

    Alvarez, L. W., Alvarez, W., Asaro, F., & Michel, H. V. 1980, Science, 208, 1095, 10.1126/science.208.4448.1095

    arXiv 1980

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip o cz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2002, Icarus, 156, 399, 10.1006/icar.2001.6788

    Bottke, W. 2002, Icarus, 156, 399, 10.1006/icar.2001.6788

    2002

  2. [10]

    F., Jedicke, R., Morbidelli, A., Petit, J.-M., & Gladman, B

    Bottke, W. F., Jedicke, R., Morbidelli, A., Petit, J.-M., & Gladman, B. 2000, Science, 288, 2190, 10.1126/science.288.5474.2190

    2000

  3. [11]

    1989, Application of photometric models to asteroids

    Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, Application of photometric models to asteroids. (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press). https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989aste.conf..524B

    1989

  4. [12]

    G., Assink, J

    Brown, P. G., Assink, J. D., Astiz, L., et al. 2013, Nature, 503, 238, 10.1038/nature12741

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, The 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope Real -time Data Processing Pipeline I : From raw data to alert distribution, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15018

    Cai, M., Xu, Z., Fan, L., et al. 2025, The 2.5-meter Wide Field Survey Telescope Real -time Data Processing Pipeline I : From raw data to alert distribution, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15018

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Chapman, C. R. 2004, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 222, 1, 10.1016/j.epsl.2004.03.004

    2004 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Res

    Chen, Y.-P., Jiang, J.-A., Luo, W.-T., et al. 2023, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 24, 015003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ad07cd

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    2019, in EPSC - DPS Joint Meeting 2019, Vol

    Christensen, E., Africano, B., Farneth, G., et al. 2019, in EPSC - DPS Joint Meeting 2019, Vol. 2019, EPSC--DPS2019--1912. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019EPSC...13.1912C

    2019

  9. [17]

    2025, Icarus, 425, 116316, 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116316

    Deienno, R., Denneau, L., Nesvorn \'y , D., et al. 2025, Icarus, 425, 116316, 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116316

    2025

  10. [18]

    2021, Nature, 596, 353, 10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z

    Deng, L., Yang, F., Chen, X., et al. 2021, Nature, 596, 353, 10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 357, 10.1086/670337

    Denneau, L., Jedicke, R., Grav, T., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 357, 10.1086/670337

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Nidever, D

    Fasbender, K. M., & Nidever, D. L. 2021, AJ, 162, 244, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2230

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, Nature, 530, 303, 10.1038/nature16934

    Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2016, Nature, 530, 303, 10.1038/nature16934

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, Icarus, 312, 181, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    ---. 2018, Icarus, 312, 181, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    N., Denneau, L., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Denneau, L., Tonry, J. L., et al. 2021, Planet. Sci. J., 2, 12, 10.3847/PSJ/abd325

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Payne, M

    Holman, M. J., Payne, M. J., Blankley, P., Janssen, R., & Kuindersma, S. 2018, AJ, 156, 135, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad69a

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, Universe, 9, 7, 10.3390/universe9010007

    Hu, M., Hu, L., Jiang, J.-a., et al. 2022, Universe, 9, 7, 10.3390/universe9010007

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2014, Icarus, 229, 236, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.030

    JeongAhn, Y., & Malhotra, R. 2014, Icarus, 229, 236, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.030

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    L., Slater, C

    Jones, R. L., Slater, C. T., Moeyens, J., et al. 2018, Icarus, 303, 181, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.033

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    2024, PyOrb --- Keplerian orbit functions in Python

    Kastinen, D. 2024, PyOrb --- Keplerian orbit functions in Python . https://danielk.developer.irf.se/pyorb/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Krisciunas, K., & Schaefer, B. E. 1991, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 103, 1033, 10.1086/132921

    1991 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, Res

    Lei, L., Zhu, Q.-F., Kong, X., et al. 2023, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 23, 035013, 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, Universe, 10, 10, 10.3390/universe10010010

    Liang, R., Liu, Z., Lei, L., & Zhao, W. 2023, Universe, 10, 10, 10.3390/universe10010010

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2422, 10.1093/mnras/stac946

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., & Kong, X. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2422, 10.1093/mnras/stac946

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2025, A&A, 693, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348581

    Liu, Y., Fan, L., Hu, L., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348581

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 947, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    Liu, Z.-Y., Lin, Z.-Y., Yu, J.-M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/110

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 784, 110, 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/110

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    K., Masiero, J

    Mainzer, A. K., Masiero, J. R., Abell, P. A., et al. 2023, Planet. Sci. J., 4, 224, 10.3847/PSJ/ad0468

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    M., et al

    Masiero, J., Mainzer, A., Bauer, J. M., et al. 2021, in 7th IAA Planetary Defense Conference , 34. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021plde.confE..34M

    2021

  32. [40]

    2021, AJ, 162, 143, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac042b

    Moeyens, J., Juri \'c , M., Ford, J., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 143, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac042b

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Peloton, J., Carry, B., et al

    Montagner, R. L., Peloton, J., Carry, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 680, A17, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346905

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    F., et al

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Deienno, R., Bottke, W. F., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 55, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace040

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2024 a , Icarus, 411, 115922, 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115922

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Shelly, F., et al. 2024 a , Icarus, 411, 115922, 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115922

    2024

  36. [44]

    2024 b , Icarus, 417, 116110, 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116110

    ---. 2024 b , Icarus, 417, 116110, 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116110

    2024

  37. [45]

    2024, Commun Earth Environ, 5, 547, 10.1038/s43247-024-01700-4

    Nicholson, U., Powell, W., Gulick, S., et al. 2024, Commun Earth Environ, 5, 547, 10.1038/s43247-024-01700-4

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2012, A&A, 543, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    Noll, S., Kausch, W., Barden, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040

    2012 doi

  39. [47]

    P., Jenniskens, P., Emel'yanenko, V., et al

    Popova, O. P., Jenniskens, P., Emel'yanenko, V., et al. 2013, Science, 342, 1069, 10.1126/science.1242642

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Rhodes, B. C. 2011, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1112.014. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ascl.soft12014R

    2011

  41. [49]

    Rozenberg, G. V. 1966, Twilight (Boston, MA: Springer US), 10.1007/978-1-4899-6353-6

    1966 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 525, 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  43. [51]

    2002, The Newsletter of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, 6, 38

    Skillen, I. 2002, The Newsletter of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, 6, 38. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002INGN....6...38S

    2002

  44. [52]

    S., & Binzel, R

    Stuart, J. S., & Binzel, R. P. 2004, Icarus, 170, 295, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.018

    2004 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.13819579

    The pandas development team . 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas , Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.13819579

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2016, in 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference , 1--6, 10.1109/AERO.2016.7500568

    Wainscoat, R. 2016, in 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference , 1--6, 10.1109/AERO.2016.7500568

    2016

  47. [55]

    2022, SSPMA, 53, 1, 10.1360/SSPMA-2022-0252

    Wang, H.-Y., Yu, J.-M., Liu, Z.-Y., Zhao, W., & Lu, Y.-J. 2022, SSPMA, 53, 1, 10.1360/SSPMA-2022-0252

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Wang, S.-H., Fu, B.-X., Lu, J.-Q., et al. 2025, A Heliocentric -orbiting Objects Processing System ( HOPS ) for the Wide Field Survey Telescope : Architecture , Processing Workflow , and Preliminary Results , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17472

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2023, Sci

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 66, 109512, 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    2013, Acta Astronomica, 63, 293

    Wi \'s niowski, T., & Rickman, H. 2013, Acta Astronomica, 63, 293. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AcA....63..293W

    2013

  51. [59]

    2022, PASP, 134, 114507, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9e1b

    Xu, X.-H., Zhu, Q.-F., Li, X.-Z., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114507, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9e1b

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.