Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Conditions for accretion favoring an unmelted Callisto and a differentiated Ganymede

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Callisto can remain unmelted while accreting up to 30% of its mass as kilometer-scale impactors, and Ganymede can fully differentiate under the same forming conditions.

desk verdict A plausible scenario for the Ganymede/Callisto dichotomy, but a load-bearing inconsistency in the accretion-time parameter makes the headline numbers unreliable until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07785 v1 pith:6T4IQXKQ submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.EP

Yannis Bennacer , Olivier Mousis , Marc Monnereau , Vincent Hue , Antoine Schneeberger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords GalileanmoonsCallistoGanymedenaturalsatelliteformationcircumplanetarydiskaccretionalheatingimpactice-rockdifferentiation
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

Callisto and Ganymede formed side by side, yet one shows no sign of global melting while the other is fully differentiated; this paper tries to show that the difference can arise during accretion rather than from later events. The model grows both moons in a cooling circumjovian disk with radiogenic, impact, and tidal heating, and finds a single combination of parameters—an impactor size distribution with slope $\alpha \approx 4$, accretion lasting more than 2 million years, starting about 3.5 million years after the first solar-system solids formed—that keeps Callisto below the melting temperature of water ice while melting Ganymede. In this scenario, kilometer-scale impactors can deliver up to 30% of Callisto's mass without triggering global ice melting, because its smaller radius and colder disk keep shock-deposited heat from pushing the interior over the melting point, while Ganymede's larger radius and warmer disk push it over. The preferred conditions imply both moons formed late and slowly, and that Jupiter itself finished forming no earlier than roughly 3–5 million years after the start of solar-system formation. If correct, the Ganymede–Callisto dichotomy is primordial and does not require different building materials for the two moons.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a one-dimensional thermal evolution model of a growing satellite embedded in a time-dependent circumjovian disk. The body's radius grows as it accretes three impactor populations—small (1 cm–100 m), medium (100 m–1 km), and large (1–100 km)—with a power-law size distribution $dN/dr \propto r^{-\alpha}$; large impacts are treated individually by Monte Carlo sampling and deposit shock heat in an isobaric core, while small and medium impactors heat a surface layer whose temperature is set by balancing radiation, conduction, and disk heating. The model tracks heat from aluminium-26 decay, impacts, tidal dissipation, and the disk, solving a spherical heat-diffusion equation with a moving outer boundary. Melting is diagnosed by comparing the internal temperature profile to the pressure-dependent water-ice melting curve (including ammonia); once a few percent by volume melts, the model assumes rock–ice separation and differentiation proceed. This machinery maps the parameter space ($\alpha$, $\tau_{\rm acc}$, $t_{\rm start}$) into regions where Callisto remains unmelted and Ganymede differentiates.

What would settle it

A decisive falsifier is a high-precision measurement of Callisto's normalized moment of inertia: the model requires an only partially differentiated interior, so a result showing a fully separated rock core and ice mantle would refute the scenario. A second decisive check would be a dated sample from either moon placing the onset of accretion before about 3.5 million years after the solar system's earliest solids (CAIs) formed, which would violate the model's onset-time threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an unmelted Callisto and a fully differentiated Ganymede are not contradictory outcomes of satellite accretion: both can result from the same impactor population and the same pristine source material in the Jovian circumplanetary disk. The controlling variables are the time accretion begins, the duration of accretion, and the slope $\alpha$ of the impactor size distribution. With $\alpha \approx 4$, $\tau_{\rm acc} \gtrsim 2$ Myr, and $t_{\rm start} \gtrsim 3.5$ Myr after the solar system's earliest solids formed, the model produces a Callisto whose interior never exceeds the water-ice melting point in more than a few percent of its volume—consistent with its measured moment of inertia $C/MR^2 = 0.3549$—while Ganymede crosses the melting threshold and differentiates. The two moons differ only in the ambient disk temperature at their orbits and in their final radii; Ganymede's larger radius gives higher impact velocities, depositing more impact energy at depth, and its warmer disk raises the surface temperature. A quantitative result is that this works even when kilometer-sized impactors contribute up to 30% of the accreted mass, provided the population is dominated by smaller bodies ($\alpha \gtrsim 4$).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Ganymede and Callisto accreted from the same source of pristine material in the Jovian circumplanetary disk, with identical impactor size distributions and compositions; if the two moons instead formed from different feeding zones or particle populations, the shared constraints on impactor slope, accretion duration, and onset time would not apply to both.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, Callisto and Ganymede formed from the same pristine material in the Jovian circumplanetary disk, so the structural dichotomy does not require separate feeding zones or different impactor populations.
  • The joint constraints (impactor-slope around 4, accretion longer than 2 Myr, onset after about 3.5 Myr after the earliest solar-system solids) imply both moons finished accreting after about 5.5 Myr, placing Jupiter's late gas-accretion phase in the 3–5 Myr window after those solids formed.
  • Kilometer-sized satellitesimals can carry a substantial fraction (up to about 30%) of Callisto's mass without melting it, so their presence in the circumplanetary disk is no longer an argument against Callisto's observed moment of inertia.
  • Ganymede's differentiation is very hard to avoid once any significant population of impactors larger than about 100 m is accreted; only a steep, small-body-dominated size distribution (slope about 5 or higher) could keep Ganymede unmelted.
  • The model also identifies a second scenario with different accretion parameters for each moon that still produces an unmelted Callisto and a melted Ganymede, giving testable alternatives if future constraints on accretion timing or duration diverge between the two moons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If high-precision gravity data refine Callisto's moment of inertia toward a more thoroughly mixed interior, the model's permitted window for impactor slope, accretion duration, and onset time would narrow, sharpening the prediction for when Jupiter's accretion must have ended.
  • The same mechanism could be applied to icy moons around other giant planets: for a given host-disk temperature and satellite radius, the model predicts which moons should be differentiated and which should retain primitive interiors.
  • The inferred size-distribution slope near 4 is consistent with a collisional-cascade origin for the satellitesimals; a natural next step would be to model the circumplanetary disk's collisional evolution explicitly and check whether it produces the required slope and the at-most-30% large-impactor mass fraction.
  • Coupling this accretion model to post-accretion orbital evolution could test whether Ganymede's later tidal heating (for instance from the Laplace resonance) was necessary, or whether the primordial differentiation alone is sufficient to explain its present state.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a one-dimensional thermal evolution model for the accretion of Ganymede and Callisto in the Jovian circumplanetary disk, combining radiogenic heating from 26Al, accretional heating from small, medium, and large impactors, disk-temperature boundary conditions, and tidal dissipation. The authors scan the accretion onset time tstart, the accretion timescale tau_acc, and the impactor size-distribution slope alpha, and define global differentiation as the moment when a small volume fraction (up to 5%) of the satellite exceeds the water-ice liquidus. Their nominal runs reproduce an undifferentiated Callisto and a differentiated Ganymede for alpha ~ 4, tau_acc > 2 Myr, and tstart > 3.5 Myr after CAIs, with Ganymede's larger radius and hotter disk environment providing more energetic impacts. The central claim is that Callisto can remain unmelted despite accreting up to 30% of its mass as kilometer-sized impactors, while Ganymede differentiates under the same accretion parameters.

Significance. If the quantitative constraints are correct, the paper offers a plausible resolution of a long-standing tension: kilometer-sized planetesimals in the Jovian circumplanetary disk need not preclude an unmelted Callisto, and the Ganymede-Callisto dichotomy can be set during accretion by disk temperature and final radius rather than by radically different impactor populations. The authors include several features that strengthen the study: discrete Monte Carlo treatment of large impactors, a time-dependent circumplanetary disk temperature, explicit estimates of Rayleigh-Taylor overturn and Stokes sinking timescales, and an unusually candid discussion of neglected physics such as plastic work heating. The main limitations are that the results are inverse-model outputs selected to match the observed dichotomy, that the growth law in Eq. (4) is internally inconsistent with the stated final radii and durations, and that the 5% melt-volume threshold is not derived from the differentiation physics. No code or numerical data are provided, so independent verification requires reimplementation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (4) and Figure 3 caption] The growth law as written is inconsistent with the stated final radii and accretion durations. Equation (4), with M_Sat interpreted as the instantaneous satellite mass, has solution M(t) = M0 exp(t/tau_acc), hence R(t) = R0 exp[t/(3 tau_acc)]. For the nominal parameters R0 = 100 km, tau_acc = 2 Myr, and Rf = 2410 km, this gives R(2 Myr) = 100 exp(1/3) = 140 km, not 2410 km; reaching 2410 km requires t = 3 tau_acc ln(Rf/R0) = 19.1 Myr, not tstart + tau_acc. If M_Sat in Eq. (4) was intended to be the final satellite mass, the equation should be written dM/dt = M_f/tau_acc, and the notation and all derived statements about the 'duration of the accretion phase' need to be corrected. Because tau_acc and tstart are the fitted parameters underlying the central claim, the quoted constraints (tau_acc > 2 Myr, tstart > 3.5 Myr, conclusion later than 5.5 Myr after CAIs) are not reproducible from the text as written.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 4 and differentiation criterion] The classification into 'undifferentiated' versus 'differentiated' is controlled by an unquantified 5% volume melt threshold. The nominal Callisto case reaches 2.2% melt volume, only a factor of about two below the threshold, so a threshold of 2% would already classify this run as globally melted. Since the paper defines global melting by this criterion rather than by the settling, overturn, and core-formation timescales discussed in Section 3, the robustness of the alpha ~ 4, tau_acc > 2 Myr, tstart > 3.5 Myr region to the threshold choice should be demonstrated with a sensitivity scan (for example 1%, 5%, and 10% by volume). This is load-bearing because the central claim that Callisto remains undifferentiated is threshold-dependent.
  3. [Section 2.3 and Section 5] The conclusion that the Ganymede-Callisto dichotomy is set by disk temperature and final radius is conditional on the assumption that both moons accreted from the same source of pristine material with identical impactor size distribution and composition. The manuscript does not test alternative assignments in which Ganymede and Callisto have different size distributions or feeding zones, even though Table 3 shows that different accretion parameters also produce the dichotomy. The wording in Section 5 that the dichotomy 'naturally emerges' should therefore be softened to state explicitly that this occurs under the assumed common feeding zone and that the jointly quoted constraints on alpha, tau_acc, and tstart apply only under that assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (6)] The normalization condition is written as xsi_m + xmi_m + xli_m = 1, but the superscripts should be x^si_m, x^mi_m, and x^li_m to match the definitions in the preceding sentence.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains the awkward phrase 'temperature profile radius'; it should read 'temperature profile as a function of radius'.
  3. [Abstract and Table 3] The abstract's statement that accretion concluded at least 5.5 Myr after CAIs applies only to the alpha = 4 scenario; for alpha >= 5 the allowed window in Table 3 has tstart >= 3 Myr and tau_acc in [0.6, 1] Myr, so the abstract should qualify the timing statement by the size-distribution slope.
  4. [Section 5] The sentence 'Additional simulations show that the dichotomy can also be explained if the two moons accrete with the same mass flux' reports an alternative scenario without showing the corresponding simulations or including it in Table 3; a reference to a figure or a quantitative description would support this claim.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical errors, including 'abondances' for 'abundances' and 'gaz constant' for 'gas constant', and could benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  6. [Data availability] No statement is provided on code or data availability; given that the quantitative results depend on a nontrivial numerical implementation, a code/data availability statement or a description of the numerical solver and convergence tests would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the observed dichotomy is a posterior target, not an input, and the cited prior models are independent.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The thermal evolution (Eqs. 1-2), impact heating (Eqs. 9-13), tidal dissipation (Eq. 14), and the ice liquidus criterion (Eqs. 15-16) are forward physical relations; the observed differentiation states of Callisto and Ganymede enter only as a posterior Boolean filter in Figure 4, not as terms in those equations. The parameter ranges (alpha ~ 4, tau_acc > 2 Myr, tstart > 3.5 Myr) are inverse-model constraints selected by matching the target states, and the paper presents them as 'conditions' rather than as out-of-sample predictions, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction step. The self-citations to Monnereau et al. (2013) and Schneeberger & Mousis (2025) supply a conduction solver and a CPD temperature evolution model with stated assumptions; neither prior model encodes the Callisto/Ganymede dichotomy, so the reuse is not load-bearing circularity. The 'up to 30% large impactors' result is the algebraic mass fraction x_li(alpha=4) from Eq. 6, but it is used as a scenario threshold from the parameter scan, not renamed as an independent prediction. The explicit limitations (no plastic work, no water transport, uncertain tidal parameters) are acknowledged modeling gaps, not circular reductions. A separate internal-consistency problem exists: Eq. 4 defines an exponential growth law, whereas Section 2.3 and the Figure 3 caption treat tau_acc as the accretion duration with R reaching 2410 km at tstart+tau_acc; that is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are the accretion scenario parameters (tau_acc, tstart, alpha) plus chosen reference values for ammonia fraction and the melting threshold. The main assumptions are the conductive-only thermal transport, the melt-based differentiation criterion, the identical accretion source for both moons, and the specific CPD temperature model.

free parameters (5)
  • tau_acc = inferred > 2 Myr for alpha = 4; scanned from 10 kyr to a few Myr
    Accretion duration is treated as a free parameter and constrained by requiring Callisto to stay unmelted while Ganymede melts.
  • tstart = inferred >= 3.5 Myr after CAIs for alpha = 4; scanned in the model
    Accretion onset time after CAI formation is scanned and selected to reproduce the observed thermal dichotomy.
  • alpha = inferred ~ 4, allowing up to 30% mass in km-scale impactors; scanned from 1 to 6
    Power-law slope of the impactor size distribution is treated as a free parameter and constrained by the dichotomy requirement.
  • X_NH3 = 0.05 in the nominal run
    Ammonia mass fraction in the ice mixture is chosen for the reference case, and it lowers the liquidus temperature, affecting melting outcomes.
  • melt_volume_threshold = 0.05 (5% by volume)
    The threshold for defining global melting is adopted from Monteux et al. (2014) and is not derived or independently validated for Callisto and Ganymede.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Thermal transport during accretion is purely conductive; subsolidus ice convection is neglected.
    Section 2.1 invokes tau_conv ~ 1e8 yr versus tau_acc ~ 1e6 yr, citing Schubert et al. (1981) and Barr & Canup (2008), to ignore convection during accretion.
  • domain assumption Global differentiation occurs once more than 5% by volume of the satellite exceeds the water/ammonia liquidus.
    Section 4 uses this criterion to classify melting, with the threshold inherited from Monteux et al. (2014), and it is load-bearing for the final Callisto/Ganymede classification.
  • domain assumption Ganymede and Callisto accreted from the same pristine material with identical impactor size distribution and composition.
    Section 2.3 states this explicitly; the abstract repeats it, and the central attribution of the dichotomy to disk temperature and final radius depends on it.
  • domain assumption The circumplanetary disk temperature evolution follows Schneeberger & Mousis (2025) with fixed disk parameters, and the moons form in situ at their present-day orbits.
    Section 2.2 and Figure 1 use this Te(t) model to set accretion onset via the snowline and surface boundary conditions; the timing constraints inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption 60Fe heating and plastic work heating are neglected.
    Section 2.1 neglects 60Fe because of its low initial ratio, and Section 5 neglects plastic work due to complexity; both affect the heat budget near the melting threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conditions for accretion favoring an unmelted Callisto and a differentiated Ganymede." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6T4IQXKQ

@misc{pith2026250507785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conditions for accretion favoring an unmelted Callisto and a differentiated Ganymede},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6T4IQXKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07785}
}
read the original abstract

Analysis of Callisto's moments of inertia, derived from Galileo's gravity data, suggests that its structure is not fully differentiated. This possibly undifferentiated state contrasts sharply with the globally molten state inferred in its counterpart, Ganymede, and poses unique challenges to theories of the formation and evolution of the Galilean moons. During their formation, both moons experienced multiple heating mechanisms, including tidal heating, radiogenic heating from short-lived radionuclides, accretional heating from impacts, and heat from the surrounding circumplanetary disk. Our study investigates the optimal conditions required to account for Callisto's partially differentiated state in contrast to Ganymede's complete differentiation. We investigate crucial accretion parameters, such as the timing of accretion onset, the duration of accretion, and the impactor size distribution. We find that the observed dichotomy between Ganymede and Callisto can be attributed to similar formation conditions, assuming an identical impactor size distribution and composition in the Jovian circumplanetary disk. The key differences in the formation of Ganymede and Callisto are the disk temperature at their respective formation locations and their final radii. Our results indicate that both moons accreted gradually over more than 2 Myr, concluding at least 5.5 Myr after the formation of calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions in the protosolar nebula. Our model demonstrates that Callisto can remain undifferentiated despite accreting a substantial influx of kilometer-sized impactors, potentially contributing up to 30% of the total mass inflow, while still allowing for the complete differentiation of Ganymede.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the midplane effective temperature Te(t) in the Jovian CPD at the current orbits of Ganymede (solid line) and Callisto (dashed line). The CPD model as￾sumes a metallicity Z/H = 2.45 × 10−2 , a disk viscosity parameter of 10−3 , a centrifugal radius of 50 RJ, an ambi￾ent temperature Tneb = 40 K, and a planetary temperature Tp = 2000 K. of years after the CPD formation for Ganymede and Cal￾listo. Since Ga… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stokes sinking and Overturn timescales versus typical mantle temperature (150–273 K). Both timescales are inferred using the viscosity of the ice rock mixture η mix = η ice/f(ϕ) and an Arrhenius-type relation for ice vis￾cosity η ice = η refexp(A(Tref/T − 1). Timescales for Stokes sinking are displayed for different size of rock particles (100 m–1 km). where ρice = 1400 kg/m3 represents the compressed density of var… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation of the accretion of a protosatellite similar to Callisto and Ganymede, with parameters α = 4, τacc = 2 Myr, and tstart = 4 Myr. The body begins accreting material at t0 = tstart, starting with an initial radius R0 = 100 km. The simulation stops when the moon’s radius reaches that of Callisto Rf = 2410 km and Ganymede Rf = 2630 km at tend = tstart +τacc. Left panel: temperature profile radius (black line) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final states of Callisto and Ganymede as functions of tstart, τacc, and α. The white region indicates where Ganymede undergoes melting, while Callisto remains undifferentiated. From left to right, the panels display increasing values of α, ranging from 3 to 5, with a t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2001, Icarus, 153, 157, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.2001.6664

    Anderson, J., Jacobson, R., McElrath, T., et al. 2001, Icarus, 153, 157, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.2001.6664

    arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    2008, Icarus, 198, 163 —

    Barr, A., & Canup, R. 2008, Icarus, 198, 163 —. 2010a, Icarus, 209, 858

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    C., & Canup, R

    Barr, A. C., & Canup, R. M. 2010b, Nature Geoscience, 3, 164, doi: 10.1038/ngeo746 1 The assumption of an impactor size distribution containing only a few 100 km-sized satellitesimals would be also sufficient to induce significant differentiation of Callisto, in contradiction with the gravity data

    doi:10.1038/ngeo746

  4. [4]

    C., Citron, R

    Barr, A. C., Citron, R. I., & Canup, R. M. 2010, Icarus, 209, 858, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2010.05.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.05.028 2010

  5. [5]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937

    Batygin, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 894, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937 2020

  6. [6]

    F., Vokrouhlick, D., Nesvorn, D., et al

    Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlick, D., Nesvorn, D., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 88, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad29f4

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad29f4 2024

  7. [7]

    2002, ApJ, 124, 3404, doi: https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/344684/pdf

    Canup, R., & Ward, W. 2002, ApJ, 124, 3404, doi: https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/344684/pdf

    work page doi:10.1086/344684/pdf 2002

  8. [8]

    M., & Ward, W

    Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2006, Nature, 441, 834, doi: 10.1038/nature04860

    doi:10.1038/nature04860 2006

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    S., & Jaeger, J

    Carslaw, H. S., & Jaeger, J. C. 1959, Conduction of heat in solids 15

    1959

  2. [10]

    2007, Icarus, 190, 179, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2007.02.018

    Castillo-Rogez, J., Matson, D., Sotin, C., et al. 2007, Icarus, 190, 179, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2007.02.018

    2007 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Buffo, J

    Chivers, C. J., Buffo, J. J., & Schmidt, B. E. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2020JE006692, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JE006692

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Croft, S. K. 1982, in Geological Implications of Impacts of Large Asteroids and Comets on the Earth (Geological Society of America), doi: 10.1130/SPE190-p143

    1982 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 499, 40

    Downey, B., Nimmo, F., & Matsuyama, I. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 40

    2020

  6. [14]

    R., Mosqueira, I., Lissauer, J

    Estrada, P. R., Mosqueira, I., Lissauer, J. J., D’Angelo, G., & Cruikshank, D. P. 2009, Formation of Jupiter and Conditions for Accretion of the Galilean Satellites. https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.1418

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    D., & Pudritz, R

    Heller, R., Marleau, G. D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2015, 579, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526348

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Castillo-Rogez, J

    Hesse, M. A., & Castillo-Rogez, J. C. 2019, Geophysical Research Letters, 46, 1213, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080327

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    G., Warnecke, J., Bennett, L., et al

    Kivelson, M. G., Warnecke, J., Bennett, L., et al. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 103, 19963, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/98JE00227

    1998 doi

  10. [18]

    2020, ApJ, 216, 3404, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00675-w

    Kleine, T., Budde, G., Burkhardt, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 216, 3404, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00675-w

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    1980, Science, 209, 271, doi: 10.1126/science.209.4453.271

    Klinger, J. 1980, Science, 209, 271, doi: 10.1126/science.209.4453.271

    1980 doi

  12. [20]

    S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G., & Kleine, T

    Kruijer, T. S., Burkhardt, C., Budde, G., & Kleine, T. 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 6712, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704461114

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 620, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076285

    Kurosawa, K., & Genda, H. 2018, Geophysical Research Letters, 45, 620, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076285

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091130, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091130 Leliwa-Kopysty´ nski, J., Maruyama, M., & Nakajima, T

    Kurosawa, K., Genda, H., Azuma, S., & Okazaki, K. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2020GL091130, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091130 Leliwa-Kopysty´ nski, J., Maruyama, M., & Nakajima, T. 2002, Icarus, 159, 518, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.2002.6932

    2021

  15. [23]

    Lewis, J. S. 1971, Icarus, 15, 174, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(71)90072-8

    1971 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492 —

    Lodders, K. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 1220, doi: 10.1086/375492 —. 2019, Solar Elemental Abundances, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.00844

    2003 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    B., & Dorofeeva, V

    Makalkin, A. B., & Dorofeeva, V. A. 1995, Astronomicheskii Vestnik, 29, 99 —. 2014, Solar System Research, 48, 62, doi: 10.1134/S0038094614010067

    1995 doi

  18. [26]

    1991, Icarus, 94, 399, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(91)90237-N

    Malhotra, R. 1991, Icarus, 94, 399, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(91)90237-N

    1991 doi

  19. [27]

    B., & Sotin, C

    McCord, T. B., & Sotin, C. 2005, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 110, E05009, doi: 10.1029/2004JE002244

    2005 doi

  20. [28]

    McKinnon, W. B. 1997, Icarus, 130, 540, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1997.5826

    1997

  21. [29]

    2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 119, 550, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JE004558

    Michaut, C., & Manga, M. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 119, 550, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JE004558

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    K., & Chaussidon, M

    Mishra, R. K., & Chaussidon, M. 2014, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 398, 90, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2014.04.032

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Baratoux, D., & Guignard, J

    Monnereau, M., Toplis, M. J., Baratoux, D., & Guignard, J. 2013, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 119, 302, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2013.05.035

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2007, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031635

    Monteux, J., Coltice, N., Dubuffet, F., & Ricard, Y. 2007, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031635

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    2014, Icarus, 237, 377, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.041

    Monteux, J., Tobie, G., Choblet, G., & Le Feuvre, M. 2014, Icarus, 237, 377, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.041

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Morris, E. M. 2001, Antarctic Science, 13, 350–351, doi: 10.1017/S0954102001220483

    2001 doi

  27. [35]

    Mosqueira, I., & Estrada, P. R. 2003a, Icarus, 163, 198, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00076-9 —. 2003b, Icarus, 163, 232, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00077-0

    doi

  28. [36]

    2002, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 45, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015812

    Mousis, O., Pargamin, J., Grasset, O., & Sotin, C. 2002, Geophysical Research Letters, 29, 45, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015812

    2002 doi

  29. [37]

    2004, Icarus, 169, 402, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.12.019

    Nagel, K., Breuer, D., & Spohn, T. 2004, Icarus, 169, 402, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.12.019

    2004 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 181, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace5a2

    Naseem, M., Neveu, M., Howell, S., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 181, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace5a2

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2012, Icarus, 219, 508, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.016

    Nimmo, F., & Korycansky, D. 2012, Icarus, 219, 508, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.01.016

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    D., & Ahrens, T

    Okeefe, J. D., & Ahrens, T. J. 1977, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, 3, 3357

    1977

  33. [41]

    J., & Lee, M

    Peale, S. J., & Lee, M. H. 2002, Science, 298, 593, doi: 10.1126/science.1076557

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, A&A, 633, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936804

    Ronnet, T., & Johansen, A. 2020, A&A, 633, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936804

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e6

    Ronnet, T., Mousis, O., & Vernazza, P. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa80e6

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    E., Desch, S

    Rubin, M. E., Desch, S. J., & Neveu, M. 2014, Icarus, 236, 122, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.047 16

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 23, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad9de1

    Schneeberger, A., & Mousis, O. 2025, The Planetary Science Journal, 6, 23, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad9de1

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    1981, Icarus, 47, 46, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(81)90090-7

    Schubert, G., Stevenson, D., & Ellsworth, K. 1981, Icarus, 47, 46, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(81)90090-7

    1981 doi

  39. [47]

    2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 107, 5118, doi: 10.1029/2001JE001819

    Senshu, H., Kuramoto, K., & Matsui, T. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 107, 5118, doi: 10.1029/2001JE001819

    2002 doi

  40. [48]

    2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 119, 2457, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JE004695

    Shoji, D., & Kurita, K. 2014, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 119, 2457, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JE004695

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    P., & Malhotra, R

    Showman, A. P., & Malhotra, R. 1997, Icarus, 127, 93, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.5669

    1997

  42. [50]

    P., Stevenson, D

    Showman, A. P., Stevenson, D. J., & Malhotra, R. 1997, Icarus, 129, 367, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5778

    1997

  43. [51]

    2003, Icarus, 161, 456, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00048-9

    Spohn, T., & Schubert, G. 2003, Icarus, 161, 456, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00048-9

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    W., Reynolds, R

    Squyres, S. W., Reynolds, R. T., Summers, A. L., & Shung, F. 1988, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 93, 8779, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB093iB08p08779 Szul´ agyi, J., Masset, F., Lega, E., et al. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 28...

    1988 doi

  45. [53]

    2006, Astrophysical

    Thrane, K., Bizzarro, M., & Baker, J. 2006, Astrophysical

    2006

  46. [54]

    B., Pierazzo, E., & Melosh, H

    Tonks, W. B., Pierazzo, E., & Melosh, H. J. 2016, Impact-induced differentiation in icy bodies. https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01282

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    T., Bierson, C

    Trinh, K. T., Bierson, C. J., & O’Rourke, J. G. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadf3955, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adf3955

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    F., Gilbert, L

    Waite, W. F., Gilbert, L. Y., Winters, W. J., & Mason, D. H. 2006, Review of Scientific Instruments, 77, 044904, doi: 10.1063/1.2194481

    2006 doi

  49. [57]

    2004, AJ, 128, 484, doi: 10.1086/421360

    Wisdom, J. 2004, AJ, 128, 484, doi: 10.1086/421360

    2004 doi

  50. [58]

    2008, Icarus, 193, 637, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.002

    Wisdom, J. 2008, Icarus, 193, 637, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2007.09.002

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 88, 9513, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB088iB11p09513

    Yomogida, K., & Matsui, T. 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 88, 9513, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/JB088iB11p09513

    1983 doi

  52. [60]

    Zahnle, K., Dones, L., & Levison, H. F. 1998, Icarus, 136, 202, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1998.6015

    1998

  53. [61]

    1979, in Asteroids, ed

    Zellner, B. 1979, in Asteroids, ed. T. Gehrels & M. S. Matthews, 783–806

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.