Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

A limit on the mass of the Taurid Resonant Swarm at sub-100 meter sizes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-night CFHT pencil-beam survey finds no Taurid Swarm members down to about 47 meters, placing a 95% upper limit of 3,000–30,000 sub-100-meter objects and removing the need for a giant-comet parent.

desk verdict A careful null result that gives a genuinely useful upper limit on sub-100 m Taurid Swarm members; model dependence in the sampled-volume fraction is the soft spot, but the mass-budget conclusion survives a plausible order-of-magnitude error. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03327 v1 pith:4256QN5J submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.EP

Paul Wiegert , Denis Vida , David L. Clark , Auriane Egal , Richard Wainscoat , Robert Weryk This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TauridResonantSwarm7:2mean-motionresonancemeteoroidstream2P/Enckenear-Earthobjectspopulationupperlimitpencil-beamsurvey
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 reports a deep, narrow-field optical search for members of the Taurid Resonant Swarm, a proposed concentration of meteoroids in the Taurid stream held in the 7:2 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter. Over three nights, the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope imaged the region of sky where swarm members would move most slowly, reaching an apparent magnitude of 24.5 and detecting more than a thousand moving objects. Only eight moved like Taurids, and all but one were identified as main-belt asteroids, Hungarias, or Mars-crossers; the single remaining candidate had too short an arc to confirm. Assuming zero real detections, the Poisson 95% upper limit is fewer than 3,000–30,000 swarm members down to H = 25.6, corresponding to diameters of 34–76 meters. The authors conclude that the swarm's current mass at 50–100 meter sizes does not require the break-up of a hundred-kilometer giant comet.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the ratio between a pencil-beam sky survey and the modelled spatial density of the swarm. The CFHT MegaCam exposure pattern was placed near the Taurid radiant, where on-sky motion is minimized, allowing slow-moving Taurids to be separated from main-belt asteroids by their rates of motion. Two simulated Taurid populations bracket the real one: a broad model occupying the full 7:2 resonant phase space (Clark et al. 2019) and a narrow model confined to the orbital-element range of the 2015 fireball outburst (Spurný et al. 2017). Simulating these populations at the observing times yields the sampled volume fractions of 1/8000 and 1/800, which convert the Poisson 95% confidence interval of [0, 3.69] events into the quoted population limits. The limiting apparent magnitude of 24.5 is translated to an absolute-magnitude and then diameter limit using an Encke-like albedo of 0.046 and the standard HG photometric system.

What would settle it

Detect a single unambiguous Taurid Swarm member at telescopic (50–100 m) size within the predicted 7:2 resonant volume, or measure the swarm's spatial distribution and find it to be significantly narrower than the 2015 fireball-based model; either would invalidate the quoted upper limit. Conversely, a re-analysis of the same images that recovers a candidate with a reliable Taurid orbit would directly contradict the zero-detection basis of the limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an upper limit on the population of the Taurid Resonant Swarm at sub-100-meter sizes: fewer than $3 \times 10^3$ to $3 \times 10^4$ objects at $H = 25.6 \pm 0.3$ (diameter $47^{+29}_{-13}$ meters assuming an Encke-like albedo), at 95% confidence. This limit is derived by dividing the Poisson upper bound of 3.69 (for zero observed events) by the fraction of the swarm that the survey sampled: 1 in 8000 for a broad distribution over the full 7:2 resonant phase space, and 1 in 800 for a narrow distribution matching the 2015 Taurid fireball outburst. With this census, the total mass of the swarm at these sizes corresponds to a single progenitor of roughly 0.7–1.5 km diameter, far smaller than the 50–100 km body invoked by the giant-comet breakup hypothesis. The paper therefore argues that fireball observations confirm the swarm exists at meter scales, but telescopic non-detections show its current mass budget is consistent with an ordinary comet.

Load-bearing premise

The upper limit assumes that the simulated Taurid populations used to compute the sampled volume fraction bracket the real swarm; if the real 7:2 resonant swarm is more spatially concentrated than the narrowest model, or lies mostly outside the region near the radiant that was observed, the limit weakens by an order of magnitude or more.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit holds, the Taurid Swarm cannot contain a hidden population of 50-meter-class bodies large enough to constitute the remnant of a 50–100 km comet; its current mass is at most that of a typical short-period comet.
  • The "Coherent Catastrophism" scenario, in which the Taurid complex is the dominant source of tens-to-hundreds-meter Earth impactors, loses its required reservoir of sub-100-meter swarm members.
  • The non-detection is consistent with the contemporaneous Zwicky Transient Facility search (Li et al. 2025), strengthening the case that the swarm is genuinely depleted at these sizes.
  • Any future survey that detects even a handful of 50-meter swarm members within the same volume would immediately tighten or overturn this limit, since the expected background rate is zero.
  • A detection of a km-class Taurid remains possible but unlikely given current NEO catalog completeness estimates (~88% at km sizes).

Reading between the lines

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

  • One candidate, ALA3gK, was consistent in motion with a ~60 m Taurid but had too short an arc for an orbit; a targeted re-observation of that sky position or a deeper archival search could either confirm the first telescopic swarm member or sharpen the non-detection.
  • Because the observations were taken when the swarm center was in the daytime sky, the survey sampled the outer edge of the swarm; a campaign timed to observe closer to the swarm center, or at a different apparition, would sample a larger fraction of the volume and could set a tighter limit.
  • The conversion from H to diameter assumes an Encke-like albedo of 0.046; a population of darker (or brighter) objects would shift the size cutoff, though not the population limit at fixed H.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a pencil-beam survey of the Taurid Resonant Swarm (TS) using CFHT/MegaCam on three nights in October 2022, reaching an apparent limiting magnitude of 24.5 in the gri filter. From over 1000 moving sources, eight candidates with Taurid-like sky motions were identified; seven were rejected as main-belt objects, Hungarias, Mars-crossers, or NEOs, while one object (ALA3gK) remains a possible 60-m Taurid with an ambiguous orbit. Treating the survey as a zero-detection experiment, the authors use the Poisson 95% upper limit of 3.69 events and divide by simulated sampled fractions (1/8000 broad, 1/800 narrow) to derive an upper limit of 3e3-3e4 TS members down to H=25.6 ± 0.3 (diameter about 47 +29/-13 m assuming an Encke-like albedo). They conclude that the current mass budget of the TS at 100-m sizes does not require an outsize parent body.

Significance. If the derived limit is robust, this is one of the first direct telescopic constraints on the sub-100-m Taurid Resonant Swarm population and bears directly on the Coherent Catastrophism hypothesis and on the dynamical history of the 7:2 mean-motion resonance. The paper is concise and careful in converting limiting apparent magnitude to a size limit, and it makes good use of two bracketing models to estimate the sampled volume fraction. The core Poisson statistics for a zero-detection survey are standard and correctly motivated. The main caveat is that the quoted population limit depends sensitively on the assumed spatial concentration of the swarm, and several statistical details (detection efficiency, treatment of the one ambiguous candidate) need to be tightened before the quantitative claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2 and §3.2] The central upper limit N < 3.69/f depends entirely on the simulated sampled fraction f, but the bracketing of f is not established for the sub-100-m population. The narrow model assumes a uniform distribution within ±35° of the swarm center, while the observations were taken at a mean-anomaly offset of +17° from the predicted center and, as the paper states, at the outer edge of the swarm. The fireball outburst evidence cited in §3.2 (offsets from -48° to +17°) applies to meter-sized and smaller meteoroids; a 50-m fragment population could plausibly librate with a much smaller amplitude and be more concentrated near the resonance center. If the true f were, say, 1e-5 rather than 1/800, the limit would weaken to roughly 4e5 objects. Please quantify the sensitivity of f to the assumed mean-anomaly width and center offset, and either justify that the ±35° model indeed brackets the sub-100-m distribution or present a more conservative bound for a maximally concentrated population.
  2. [§3.1 and §3.2] The stated 80% detection efficiency is not propagated into the Poisson upper limit. With zero detections and an efficiency of p=0.8, the 95% upper limit on the number of objects actually present in the surveyed volume is 3.69/0.8 ≈ 4.6, not 3.69. Applying this correction raises the final population limits by about 25%. Please either include this factor in the calculation or justify explicitly that the detection efficiency is already conservative within the simulated sampled-fraction calculation.
  3. [§3.1 and §3.2] The candidate ALA3gK (mgri = 23.9 ± 0.5, possibly a 60-m Taurid) is excluded from the zero-detection Poisson calculation without a statistical justification. The paper states that its orbit is ambiguous and that it is unlikely to be a TS member, but it is not excluded on a quantitative criterion. If this object were counted as a detection, the Poisson 95% upper limit would change from 3.69 (for zero events) to 4.74 (for one event), altering the derived population limit by roughly 30%. Please either define an explicit exclusion criterion (e.g., based on arc length or orbit quality) or present the sensitivity of the upper limit to the treatment of this candidate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and author block] There is a spacing artifact in "T aurid Resonant Swarm" in the title and in the corresponding author header; this should be corrected to "Taurid".
  2. [References] The reference "Boenhardt, H. 2004" should be spelled "Boehnhardt, H." (the author's name is Hermann Boehnhardt).
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to the "green circular area" for the detection filter; if the figure is not reproduced in color, this description may be confusing. Consider describing the boundary by line style or adding a note about color availability.
  4. [§2.1] The phrase "the gri filter" is slightly ambiguous: it could mean a single filter named gri or a composite of g, r, i filters. Please clarify whether MegaCam's gri filter is a single filter common at CFHT or whether three filters were combined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 95% upper limit is a standard Poisson bound from zero confirmed detections divided by geometric volume fractions computed from bracketing models, neither of which is fitted to the present survey; self-citations (Clark et al. 2019 and the detection pipeline) are present but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) counts of moving sources from CFHT MegaCam images, with eight Taurid-rate candidates of which seven are identified as main-belt/Hungaria/Mars-crosser objects and one (ALA3gK) is left ambiguous; (2) a Poisson 95% confidence interval [0,3.69] for zero confirmed detections, cited to Meeker et al. 2017; (3) simulated observed-volume fractions f=1/8000 (broad model from Clark et al. 2019) and f=1/800 (narrow model built from the 2015 European Fireball Network orbits), giving N<3.69/f = 3e3-3e4; (4) an equivalent uniform-size progenitor of 50 m * N^(1/3) = 700-1500 m. No step reduces to its own input. The Poisson bound is a standard statistical fact; the fractions are geometric exposure calculations from distributions published before this survey (Clark et al. 2019) or from external fireball data (Spurny et al. 2017), and neither is adjusted to produce the zero-detection outcome. The Clark et al. (2019) model, authored in part by the present authors, sets only the weaker endpoint (3e4); the tightest limit (3e3) rests on the narrow model built from external fireball orbits, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The 'no outsize parent' conclusion is explicitly conditional ('If all the TS mass is at these sizes') and is robust to order-of-magnitude changes in f: even 4e5 objects at 50 m would give a roughly 3 km equivalent body, far short of the 50-100 km progenitor. The paper itself flags the main model-dependence ('the mass could be highly localized within the swarm, and our observations examined a region with little or no mass') and addresses it with the fireball mean-anomaly offsets, so this is an honestly stated limitation rather than a hidden circular step. Model sensitivity of f is a correctness/robustness concern, not internal circularity.

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

The upper limit rests on several external inputs: an assumed Encke-like albedo, an assumed detection efficiency, a model-dependent estimate of what fraction of the swarm the survey sampled, and a Poisson statistic. None of these are fitted to the survey data, but they set the scale of the limit.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Encke-like albedo p=0.046±0.023 and HG slope parameter G=0.15 used to map H to diameter.
    Section 2.2: diameter 47(+29, -13) m follows from these assumptions; a different albedo changes the limiting size and hence the mass budget.
  • domain assumption Detection efficiency of the moving-object pipeline is 80%.
    Section 2.2 states this is based on past experience; it is not measured on this dataset and is not propagated into the upper limit.
  • domain assumption The apparent magnitude of a Taurid is offset from absolute magnitude by m = H - 1.1 ± 0.3, based on distances of 0.33±0.04 au and low phase angles.
    Section 2.2; this converts the 24.5 mag limiting magnitude into the H=25.6 limit.
  • domain assumption The broad (Clark et al. 2019) and narrow (2015 fireball orbital elements) simulated TS populations bracket the real swarm's spatial distribution.
    Section 3.2 uses these to compute sampled fractions 1/8000 and 1/800; the upper limit scales linearly with the inverse of these fractions.
  • standard math Poisson 95% upper limit for zero detections is 3.69 events.
    Section 3.2 cites Meeker et al. 2017; this is the statistical anchor of the 3e3 to 3e4 limit.
  • domain assumption The ambiguous candidate ALA3gK is treated as a non-Taurid; if it were real, the zero-detection Poisson calculation would become a one-detection calculation.
    Section 3.1 notes its orbit is ambiguous; the headline limit depends on this classification.
  • domain assumption Earth was within the TS during the observations, based on 2022 fireball activity, so the non-detection is meaningful.
    Section 3.2 argues Earth was 17 degrees in mean anomaly from the swarm center and more than 150 Taurid fireballs were recorded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A limit on the mass of the Taurid Resonant Swarm at sub-100 meter sizes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4256QN5J

@misc{pith2026250603327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A limit on the mass of the Taurid Resonant Swarm at sub-100 meter sizes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4256QN5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03327}
}
read the original abstract

We report on a pencil-beam survey of the Taurid Swarm, a possible concentration of bodies in the Taurid meteoroid stream associated with the 7:2 mean-motion resonance with Jupiter. Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope MegaCam observations reaching apparent magnitudes of 24.5 in the gri filter were taken over three nights. Rates of motion on the sky allowed for the quick elimination of main-belt objects from the over 1000 moving sources seen. Eight candidates with on-sky rates of motion consistent with Taurids were detected, but seven were subsequently shown to be non-Taurids (Hungarias, Mars-crossers, etc). One object might be a 60 m class Taurid but not enough data was collected and its orbit remains ambiguous. Our results are consistent with no Taurid Swarm members observed, and an upper limit of fewer than 3e3 - 3e4 objects down to H=25.6 +/- 0.3 (diameter of 34-76 m assuming a 2P/Encke-like albedo) at the 95% confidence level. While meteor observations have confirmed the Taurid Swarm's existence at meter and smaller sizes, our results indicate that the current mass budget of the swarm at 100 m sizes does not require an outsize parent to explain it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of modelled on-sky locations and motions of the Taurid Swarm used to plan observations. Each panel shows a portion of the sky, and the Taurid radiant is located near the center of the plot. Observations were chosen to cover a portion of the sky extending from the center to the lower right. The upper left panel shows the location of simulated Taurids colored by their apparent magnitude along with an arrow … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of apparent magnitudes of detected moving objects. eccentricities e between 0 and 0.5, and inclinations i between 0 and 60 deg. This is not intended to provide an accurate description of the main belt but rather to provide a very broad sample for comparison. Taurid on-sky motions were derived from the model described in Section 2.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The expected on-sky motion of simulated main belt asteroids and Taurid stream members within the images taken. The on-sky motions of all detected moving objects are superimposed. The rates of on-sky motion that pass our moving-object detection filter (that is, on-sky rates of motion less than 150 arcseconds per hour) are indicated by the green circular area. The moving objects falling below the dashed line are our T… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The locations of all object detections on the sky. Our four slightly overlapping CFHT MegaCam fields are aligned along the expected direction of motion of Taurids. The eight candidates TS objects discussed in section 3.1 superimposed, as are the three additional outlie…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The geometry of the Earth relative to the Taurid stream at one instant during the survey. The white frustum indicate schematically the volume of space sampled by the observations. The color of the Taurid particles indicates their apparent magnitude as seen from Earth. …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 27 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]

    OPDtz_ N E5jK02 kP)U0\ 2IL qIqzz

    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...

    2021

  4. [4]

    1991, PhD thesis, Oxford

    Asher, D. 1991, PhD thesis, Oxford

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    1993, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol

    Asher, D., & Clube, S. 1993, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 34: 4/DEC, P. 481-511, 1993, 34, 481

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    J., Clube , S

    Asher , D. J., Clube , S. V. M., Napier , W. M., & Steel , D. I. 1994, Vistas in Astronomy, 38, 1

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    J., Clube, S

    Asher, D. J., Clube, S. V. M., & Steel, D. I. 1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 264, 93, 10.1093/mnras/264.1.93

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/264.1.93 1993

  8. [8]

    J., & Izumi, K

    Asher, D. J., & Izumi, K. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 297, 23, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01395.x

    arXiv 1998

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    2004, The Observatory, 124, 277

    Beech , M., Hargrove , M., & Brown , P. 2004, The Observatory, 124, 277

    2004

  2. [10]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Boenhardt, H. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. W. Jr. (Tucson: U. Arizona Press), 300--316

    2004

  3. [11]

    1989, in Asteroids II, ed

    Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. Matthews (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 524--556

    1989

  4. [12]

    2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 89, 117, 10.1023/A:1021590203207

    Campins , H., & Fern \'a ndez , Y. 2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 89, 117, 10.1023/A:1021590203207

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Wiegert , P., & Brown , P

    Clark , D. L., Wiegert , P., & Brown , P. G. 2019, , 487, L35, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz076

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Clube, S. V. M., & Napier, W. M. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 953

    1984

  7. [15]

    G., Wiegert , P., & Kipreos , Y

    Egal , A., Brown , P. G., Wiegert , P., & Kipreos , Y. 2022, , 512, 2318, 10.1093/mnras/stac397

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    G., et al

    Egal , A., Wiegert , P., Brown , P. G., et al. 2021, , 507, 2568, 10.1093/mnras/stab2237

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    M., & Wiegert , P

    Gilbert , A. M., & Wiegert , P. A. 2009, , 201, 714, 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.01.011

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    2010, , 210, 998, 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.07.016

    ---. 2010, , 210, 998, 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.07.016

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Masiero , J

    Grav , T., Mainzer , A. K., Masiero , J. R., et al. 2023, , 4, 228, 10.3847/PSJ/ad072e

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    J., et al

    Keys, S., Vereš, P., Payne, M. J., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26660767

    2019

  13. [21]

    2025, PSJ

    Li, J., Ye, Q., Vida, D., et al. 2025, PSJ

    2025

  14. [22]

    J., Hainaut , O

    Meech , K. J., Hainaut , O. R., & Marsden , B. G. 2004, , 170, 463, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.03.014

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    Q., Hahn , G

    Meeker , W. Q., Hahn , G. J., & Escobar , L. A. 2017, Statistical Intervals for a Poisson Distribution (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), 149--`161, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118594841.ch7

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 92, E769, https://doi.org/10.1029/JB092iB04p0E769

    Oberst, J., & Nakamura, Y. 1987, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 92, E769, https://doi.org/10.1029/JB092iB04p0E769

    1987 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Vaubaillon , J., & Cristescu , C

    Popescu , M., Birlan , M., Nedelcu , D. A., Vaubaillon , J., & Cristescu , C. P. 2014, , 572, A106, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424064

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Weissman , P

    Snodgrass , C., Fitzsimmons , A., Lowry , S. C., & Weissman , P. 2011, , 414, 458, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18406.x

    2011

  19. [27]

    2023, LPI Contributions, 2851, 2066

    Spurny, P., & Borovicka, J. 2023, LPI Contributions, 2851, 2066

    2023

  20. [28]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 605, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730787

    Spurn \' y , P., Borovi c ka, J., Mucke, H., & Svoreň, J. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 605, A68, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730787

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    I., & Asher, D

    Steel, D. I., & Asher, D. J. 1996, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 280, 806, 10.1093/mnras/280.3.806

    1996 doi

  22. [30]

    1990, in Asteroids, Comets, Meteors III, ed

    Stohl , J., & Porubcan , V. 1990, in Asteroids, Comets, Meteors III, ed. C. I. Lagerkvist , H. Rickman , & B. A. Lindblad , 571

    1990

  23. [31]

    2015, , 584, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425512

    Tubiana , C., Snodgrass , C., Michelsen , R., et al. 2015, , 584, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425512

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Morbidelli , A., Gonczi , R., et al

    Valsecchi , G. B., Morbidelli , A., Gonczi , R., et al. 1995, , 118, 169, 10.1006/icar.1995.1183

    1995

  25. [33]

    Whipple , F. L. 1967, in Zodiacal Light and the Interplanetary Medium (NASA-SP150), 409--426

    1967

  26. [34]

    2022, in Comets III

    Ye, Q., & Jenniskens, P. 2022, in Comets III. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:252438666

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.