Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Constraints on Quaoar's rings and atmosphere from JWST/NIRCam observations of a stellar occultation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 JWST/NIRCam observations of a stellar occultation by Quaoar detect both known rings, reveal azimuthal variability in the inner ring, and set a 3σ upper limit of 1 nanobar on a global methane atmosphere.

desk verdict First JWST occultation of Quaoar delivers a robust 1 nbar atmospheric upper limit and a Q2R recovery, but the ring geometry fit carries an unexplained >5-sigma systematic that the authors candidly flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07898 v1 pith:C7PM2Y4R submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.EP

Benjamin Proudfoot , Bryan Holler , Ko Arimatsu , Flavia Rommel , Cameron Collyer , Estela Fernández-Valenzuela This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords planetaryringsstellaroccultationtrans-NeptunianobjectsJamesWebbSpaceTelescopeQuaoarmethaneatmosphereupperlimitWeywotresonanceKuiperBelt
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

Using JWST's NIRCam in high-cadence time-series mode, the paper observes a stellar occultation by the trans-Neptunian object Quaoar on 2024 August 28. It detects both known rings, Q1R on both sides of the body and Q2R only on egress, showing that Q2R shares Q1R's strong azimuthal variability. Combining all published ring chords with the new detections, it fits ring radii and pole orientation that place Q1R near Weywot's 6:1 mean-motion resonance and Quaoar's 3:1 spin-orbit resonance. Modeling atmospheric refraction outside the diffraction region yields an upper limit of 1 nanobar (3σ) on the surface pressure of a global pure-CH4 atmosphere. If correct, Quaoar cannot be resupplying its surface hydrocarbons through seasonal atmospheric transport, redirecting attention to geological activity or impacts.

What carries the argument

High-cadence (about 5 Hz) NIRCam time-series photometry of a stellar occultation is the measurement that carries the result. Ring parameters come from reprojecting every published chord onto a fixed circular-ring plane and minimizing a chi-squared that includes a 27-km ephemeris uncertainty, with posteriors explored by a Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler. The atmosphere limit comes from fitting a hydrostatic, pure-CH4 refraction model to the immersion and emersion light curves between 568 and 598 km from Quaoar's shadow center, using a Pluto-like temperature profile (44 K at the surface rising to 102 K in the stratosphere), a radius of 550 km, and a density of 1.72 g $cm^{-3}$; the Fresnel scale and stellar diameter are folded into the ring and body light-curve models.

What would settle it

Observe another Quaoar occultation with a brighter star at comparable cadence, or take high-resolution spectra in a methane band; a refractive shoulder in the light curve beyond the fitted 568–598 km region, or a CH4 column corresponding to a surface pressure above about 1 nbar, would overturn the 3σ upper limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that JWST/NIRCam at about 5 Hz caught Quaoar occulting a Gaia star, yielding detections of the outer ring Q1R on ingress and egress and the first recovery of the inner ring Q2R, which appears only on egress and is therefore azimuthally variable like Q1R. Combining these chords with earlier published detections, the authors simultaneously fit circular rings with radii r1 = 4096 ± 10 km and r2 = 2529 ± 12 km and a common pole at RA 259.5° ± 0.2°, Dec 55.0° ± 0.2°, excluding the mirror pole at 3.6σ. From the absence of atmospheric refraction in the immersion and emersion light curves, a hydrostatic pure-methane atmosphere model gives a 1σ upper limit of 0.2 nbar and a 3σ upper limit of 1 nbar on surface pressure, roughly an order of magnitude below earlier occultation constraints. The authors conclude that no global CH4 atmosphere exists at this level, so the light hydrocarbons seen on Quaoar's surface cannot be supplied by seasonal volatile migration.

Load-bearing premise

The 1-nanobar limit assumes Quaoar's atmosphere, if present, is pure methane with a Pluto-like temperature profile and Quaoar's radius and density fixed at 550 km and 1.72 g $cm^{-3}$; an atmosphere of different composition or thermal structure could escape the limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 1-nbar upper limit holds, any methane on Quaoar's surface must be replenished by non-atmospheric processes, most plausibly sporadic internal outgassing or impact excavation, rather than by seasonal volatile migration like Pluto's.
  • The non-detection of Q2R on ingress, combined with its detection on egress, means Q2R has large azimuthal variations; future occultations can map these arcs and test whether they are confined by resonance or shepherd moons.
  • The improved ring geometry locates Q1R's inner edge near Weywot's 6:1 mean-motion resonance and its outer edge near Quaoar's 3:1 spin-orbit resonance, supporting resonance-based confinement and motivating dynamical simulations with updated Weywot orbits.
  • Since Quaoar's atmosphere is at most 1 nbar, any future detection of CH4 gas around Quaoar would point to a localized, active source rather than a global atmosphere.
  • The single-chord anomalous flux drop about 200 km inside Q2R is most likely a statistical outlier; a third ring or an inclined or eccentric Q2R would require more occultation chords to be confirmed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the authors leave implicit: the same 5-Hz JWST/NIRCam observing mode, applied to other mid-sized trans-Neptunian objects, can push atmospheric pressure limits below 1 nbar from a single chord, roughly an order of magnitude deeper than ground-based occultations have reached.
  • The greater-than-5σ disagreement with earlier ring-pole solutions implies a systematic error in the viewing-geometry modeling rather than real pole motion; if true, future multi-chord events should be used to recalibrate the ephemeris before interpreting apparent ring evolution.
  • If the 1-nbar limit is representative, Quaoar joins the class of large Kuiper Belt objects whose surface volatiles are best explained by endogenic or impact processing; a testable comparison would be to look for spatial correlations between Quaoar's CH4 and C2H6 ices and geologically fresh or impact-altered terrain.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents JWST/NIRCam time-series observations of a stellar occultation by Quaoar on 2024-08-28, with photometry in two channels at ~5 Hz cadence. The authors report detections of both known rings, Q1R on ingress and egress and Q2R on egress only, and use the full set of published occultation detections plus their own to fit a circular, fixed-pole model of the two rings, obtaining radii r1 = 4096 ± 10 km and r2 = 2529 ± 12 km and a pole at α = 259.5° ± 0.2°, δ = 55.0° ± 0.2°. They also model the absence of atmospheric refraction near immersion/emersion and derive 1σ and 3σ upper limits of 0.2 nbar and 1 nbar on the surface pressure of a pure CH4 global atmosphere. The paper interprets the non-detection as evidence against atmospheric resupply of Quaoar's surface hydrocarbons, discusses azimuthal variability and possible arcs, evaluates resonance confinement by Weywot's mean-motion resonances and Quaoar's spin-orbit resonances, and considers shepherd moons and a possible third ring.

Significance. If the atmospheric result holds, it is an important step: a 3σ upper limit near 1 nbar is several orders of magnitude below the pressures needed for seasonal volatile migration to resupply Quaoar's surface CH4, and it sharpens the case for internal or impact-driven resupply. The ring occultation data are also valuable: they provide the first published recovery of Q2R since its discovery, show clear azimuthal variability in Q2R, and add two chords to the Q1R arc-length statistics. The paper is unusually transparent about its data reduction and model assumptions, reports uncertainties, and makes the reduced data public via a MAST DOI. The main caveat is the >5σ disagreement between the fitted ring pole and previous literature solutions; the authors identify this as an unexplained systematic, which limits confidence in the geometric and resonance conclusions, though not in the atmospheric upper limit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (2), Table 2] The >5σ discrepancy between the fitted ring pole and the literature solutions of Morgado et al. (2023) and Pereira et al. (2023) is unresolved and is attributed by the authors to an unknown systematic, with the fit excluding the new JWST detections failing to reproduce the literature values. Because this systematic is not included in the quoted uncertainties, the 1σ errors in Table 2 and the resonance locations in Section 6.4 (Weywot's 6:1 at 4028 ± 12 km, Quaoar's 3:1 at 4217 ± 26 km) should be regarded as formal only. I request a sensitivity analysis that treats the ephemeris uncertainty σ_e as a free parameter rather than fixing it at 27 km, fits per-epoch or per-data-set poles to test the constant-pole assumption, and checks whether the result depends on the choice of ephemeris or on the reprojection method. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly that the ring geometry conclusions carry an unquantified systematic that may exceed the reported uncertainties.
  2. [Section 5, Fig. 8, Section 6.6] The 1 nbar (3σ) upper limit is derived specifically for a pure CH4 atmosphere with an adopted Pluto-like temperature profile (44 K at the surface rising to 102 K near 10 km), a fixed radius of 550 km, and a density of 1.72 g cm^-3. The abstract and Section 6.6 state that 'no global atmosphere with surface pressure >1 nbar can exist' without repeating these qualifications. Since this is the paper's headline atmospheric claim, the abstract should either carry the 'pure CH4' qualification or the authors should add a small sensitivity study showing how the 3σ limit changes for a colder isothermal profile, a warmer or different thermal structure, or a heavier N2-dominated composition. The discussion of seasonal resupply would remain qualitatively unchanged for limits up to a few nbar, but the unqualified wording is stronger than the model supports.
  3. [Section 6.4] The locations of Weywot's 6:1 mean-motion resonance (4028 ± 12 km) and Quaoar's 3:1 spin-orbit resonance (4217 ± 26 km) are taken from 'Proudfoot et al., in prep.' without a public derivation or reference. Because these values are load-bearing for the resonance-confinement interpretation, the paper should either include the supporting orbit and shape solutions (with uncertainties) in an appendix or cite a publicly available source; alternatively, the authors should state the sensitivity of the resonance locations to the adopted Weywot semi-major axis and Quaoar oblateness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The table header lists the date as '2025-08-28' in both circumstance columns, while the text and abstract consistently give 2024-08-28 UT; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4] The phrase 'solutions discrepent by 1.7°' contains a typo; it should read 'discrepant by 1.7°'.
  3. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract's phrase 'no global atmosphere with surface pressure >1 nbar can exist' should be qualified as 'no pure CH4 global atmosphere' to match the more careful wording in Section 7 and the model assumptions in Section 5.
  4. [Section 6.3] The passage 'two successes from 21 trials' should be reconciled with the statement that Q1R has been detected in 19 chords over six years; please clarify the denominator and whether the two JWST chords are included in the 21 or are additional.
  5. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'we only put an upper/lower limit on the width/opacity of this putative structure' is ambiguous; please specify which quantity is an upper limit and which is a lower limit, or rephrase to state the actual constraints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the atmosphere limit and ring geometry are fit to JWST data; only a minor unpublished self-citation supplies Weywot's orbit for resonance context.

full rationale

The paper's central results are derived from the JWST NIRCam light curve rather than from prior conclusions. The 1 nbar (3 sigma) atmospheric upper limit is obtained by fitting a hydrostatic pure-CH4 model, with surface pressure as the fitted parameter, to the observed immersion/emersion profiles between 568 and 598 km (Section 5); no equation defining the model already contains the 1 nbar result. The model assumptions (Pluto-like temperature profile, 550 km radius, density 1.72 g cm-3) are stated and are not equivalent to the conclusion. The ring radii and pole are determined by an MCMC fit of all published and new detections (Section 4); the fit parameters are not prior inputs. The one self-citation, Proudfoot et al. (in prep.), supplies Weywot's semimajor axis used only to locate mean-motion resonances in the discussion (Section 6.4); it is external HST astrometry and is not the basis of the ring fit or the atmospheric limit. The paper also explicitly reports an unexplained >5-sigma systematic disagreement with literature ring poles, but flags it as a systematic modeling issue rather than using it to force a result. No step reduces to its own input by construction, so the analysis is not circular; the minor unpublished self-citation justifies score 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central atmospheric limit and ring detections rest on a small number of explicitly stated modeling assumptions: a pure CH4 atmosphere with a Pluto-like thermal profile, a fixed common circular ring pole, and adopted ephemeris and shape parameters. The free parameters are the ring radii, pole orientation, and atmospheric surface pressure, all fit to the occultation light curves. The invented entities are possible but unconfirmed structures proposed to explain weak signals.

free parameters (6)
  • Q1R radius r1 = 4096 ± 10 km
    Fitted via MCMC to 19 Q1R occultation chords; central to resonance comparison.
  • Q2R radius r2 = 2529 ± 12 km
    Fitted simultaneously to Q2R detections; used for the 7:5 SOR and 12:1 MMR discussion.
  • Ring pole right ascension alpha = 259.5 ± 0.2 deg
    Fitted pole orientation in J2000 ICRS; defines the ring plane and opening angle.
  • Ring pole declination delta = 55.0 ± 0.2 deg
    Fitted pole orientation in J2000 ICRS; paired with alpha.
  • Atmospheric surface pressure psurf = 0.2 nbar (1 sigma), 1 nbar (3 sigma upper limits)
    Parameter of the pure CH4 atmospheric model fitted to the light curve; reported as an upper limit.
  • Ephemeris uncertainty sigma_e = 27 km
    Adopted from Morgado et al. 2023 and added in quadrature in the chi-square model; not fitted here but influences ring geometry uncertainties.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Both rings are circular and share a single fixed pole over the 2019-2024 observation window.
    In Section 4, all detections are reprojected onto one ring plane with a common pole; if Q2R is inclined or eccentric, the fitted radii change.
  • domain assumption The NIMA ephemeris of Quaoar and a 27 km ephemeris uncertainty describe the shadow center position.
    Used in Equation (2) for all ring detection chords, taken from Desmars et al. 2015 and Morgado et al. 2023. An error here would shift all derived radii.
  • domain assumption Quaoar's atmosphere, if present, is pure CH4 with a Pluto-like temperature profile (44 K at the surface to 102 K near 10 km altitude).
    Section 5 hydrostatic atmospheric model; the 1 nbar limit is only for this composition and thermal structure.
  • domain assumption Quaoar has radius 550 km and bulk density 1.72 g cm-3, giving a surface gravity of 0.26 m s-2.
    Section 5 uses these values to integrate the hydrostatic equation; numbers are taken from Kiss et al. 2024.
  • standard math Statistical noise in the normalized light curve is Gaussian after Savitzky-Golay filtering.
    Photometric uncertainties are combined with pipeline errors and used in chi-square minimization; correlated systematics could change detection significances.
invented entities (2)
  • Possible third ring at approximately 2300 km radius
    purpose: Alternative explanation for the isolated 4 sigma flux drop about 20 seconds after the expected Q2R ingress event.
    No counterpart on egress or in the LWC light curve, and no similar structure in prior occultation chords. The authors conclude that a random outlier is the most parsimonious explanation.
  • Shepherd moons around Quaoar
    purpose: Proposed as possible confiners of Q2R and possibly Q1R.
    No direct detection; expected brightness and angular separation place them below current telescope sensitivity. Purely speculative mechanism discussed in Section 6.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on Quaoar's rings and atmosphere from JWST/NIRCam observations of a stellar occultation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7PM2Y4R

@misc{pith2026250607898,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on Quaoar's rings and atmosphere from JWST/NIRCam observations of a stellar occultation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7PM2Y4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07898}
}
abstract

Observations of stellar occultations have revealed that small bodies are capable of hosting ring systems. The trans-Neptunian object (TNO) Quaoar, is the host of an enigmatic ring system, with two rings located well-outside the Roche limit. To better understand these structures, we observed a stellar occultation by Quaoar and its rings using the James Webb Space Telescope's (JWST) NIRCam instrument. Our observations detect both known rings, although Q2R -- the inner known ring -- is not detected on both sides of Quaoar, showing that it has substantial azimuthal variations similar to Q1R -- the outer ring. We also fit a model of the ring radii and pole orientation of the ring system, which confirms that Quaoar's spin-orbit and Weywot's mean motion resonances (especially Weywot's 6:1) may play a role in the rings' confinement and stability. In addition to examination of Quaoar's ring system, we also use our observations to place upper limits on a putative CH$_4$ atmosphere around Quaoar, finding that no global atmosphere with surface pressure $>1$ nbar can exist (at 3$\sigma$ significance). The lack of atmosphere supports the hypothesis that atmospheric processes are not the source of Quaoar's recently discovered inventory of light hydrocarbons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07898 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Predicted path of the occulted star through the Quaoar system as seen from JWST (in blue), with 3σ ephemeris uncertainties (dashed red lines). The prediction was based on the ephemerides of Quaoar and JWST from JPL and NAIF, respectively (see text for more details of the ephemerides). Dots correspond to the predicted position every minute. Quaoar itself is modeled as a sphere with a radius of 550 km. The rings are m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The normalized occultation light curve in the short wavelength channel (SWC). Photometric uncertainties are 1.8%. Labeled insets show the four ring/arc detections in the light curve. We note that V-shapes seem to be present in both detections of Q1R. 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 Seconds after 2024-08-28 10:00 UT 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Normalized stellar flux Q1R Q2R? Q2R Q1R Quaoar 2010 2020 0.95 1.0… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The normalized occultation light curve in the long wavelength channel (LWC) in the style of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Detections of Q1R on ingress (left) and egress (right). In blue and red are the occultation light curve in NIRCam’s SWC and LWC, respectively. In black are square￾well model fits convolved with star diameter and Fresnel diffraction effects. Both filters show statistica…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detections of Q2R in the style of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A corner plot showing the results of the ring modeling. Joint (2-dimensional) posterior distributions are shown as contour plots and marginal (1-dimensional) posteriors are shown as histograms at the top of each column. tion 6, showing that the outlier hypothesis seems…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The three confirmed ring detections (in red) overlaid on a model of the Quaoar system. Colored ellipses in the legend are labeled from inside out. Ring parameters (radius and pole orientation) are taken from the results of our model fits in Section 4 and the radius for…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The normalized light curve overlaid with syn￾thetic light curves based on pure CH4 atmospheric models. The immersion and emersion profiles are shown as blue and red circles with error bars, respectively. Solid and dashed lines represent synthetic light curves correspon…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, Bulletin of the AAS, 55, https://baas.aas.org/pub/2023n8i110p02

    Anand, K., Minton, D., & Brisset, J. 2023, Bulletin of the AAS, 55, https://baas.aas.org/pub/2023n8i110p02

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Arimatsu, K., Ohsawa, R., Hashimoto, G. L., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 236

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 1.13.0, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12585239

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12585239 2024

  4. [4]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 26 —

    Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 26 —. 2014, Nature, 508, 72

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    G., Stewart, G

    Brophy, T. G., Stewart, G. R., & Esposito, L. W. 1990, Icarus, 83, 133

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459

    Bushouse, H., Eisenhamer, J., Dencheva, N., et al. 2024, JWST Calibration Pipeline, doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12692459 2024

  7. [7]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 540, 1084 De Pater, I., Renner, S., Showalter, M

    Chiang, E., & Goldreich, P. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 540, 1084 De Pater, I., Renner, S., Showalter, M. R., & Sicardy, B. 2018, The Rings of Neptune, ed. M. S. Tiscareno & C. D

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 584, A96 14 Proudfoot et al

    Desmars, J., Camargo, J., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 584, A96 14 Proudfoot et al

    work page 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Icarus, 414, 116017

    Emery, J., Wong, I., Brunetto, R., et al. 2024, Icarus, 414, 116017

    2024

  2. [10]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  3. [11]

    C., & Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., & Brown, M. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1547

    2010

  4. [12]

    G., Nicholson, P

    French, R. G., Nicholson, P. D., Porco, C. C., & Marouf, E. A. 1991, Uranus, 327

    1991

  5. [13]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    2023

  6. [14]

    R., Grundy, W

    Glein, C. R., Grundy, W. M., Lunine, J. I., et al. 2024, Icarus, 412, 115999

    2024

  7. [15]

    1979, Nature, 277, 97 Gomes-J´ unior, A

    Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. 1979, Nature, 277, 97 Gomes-J´ unior, A. R., Morgado, B. E., Benedetti-Rossi, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1167

    1979

  8. [16]

    2024, Icarus, 411, 115923

    Grundy, W., Wong, I., Glein, C., et al. 2024, Icarus, 411, 115923

    2024

  9. [17]

    2004, A&A, 426, 297

    Kervella, P., Th´ evenin, F., Di Folco, E., & S´ egransan, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 297

    2004

  10. [18]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A50

    Kiss, C., M¨ uller, T., Marton, G., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 684, A50

    2024

  11. [19]

    2000, Icarus, 148, 419

    Kokubo, E., Ida, S., & Makino, J. 2000, Icarus, 148, 419

    2000

  12. [20]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1450

    Madeira, G., Giuliatti Winter, S., Ribeiro, T., & Winter, O. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 510, 1450

    2022

  13. [21]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A67

    Marzari, F. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A67

    2020

  14. [22]

    K., Esposito, L

    Meinke, B. K., Esposito, L. W., Albers, N., & Sremˇ cevi´ c, M. 2012, Icarus, 218, 545

    2012

  15. [23]

    D., & Papaloizou, J

    Melita, M. D., & Papaloizou, J. 2020, Icarus, 335, 113366

    2020

  16. [24]

    2023, Nature, 614, 239

    Morgado, B., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2023, Nature, 614, 239

    2023

  17. [25]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics

    1999

  18. [26]

    D., Mosqueira, I., & Matthews, K

    Nicholson, P. D., Mosqueira, I., & Matthews, K. 1995, Icarus, 113, 295

    1995

  19. [27]

    2012, Nature, 491, 566

    Ortiz, J., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2012, Nature, 491, 566

    2012

  20. [28]

    L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 219

    2017

  21. [29]

    L., Pereira, C., Sicardy, B., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Pereira, C., Sicardy, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 676, L12

    2023

  22. [30]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, L4

    Pereira, C., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 673, L4

    2023

  23. [31]

    J., Kelly, D

    Rieke, M. J., Kelly, D. M., Misselt, K., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 028001

    2023

  24. [32]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3 Rodr ´ ıguez, A., Morgado, B., & Callegari Jr, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3376

    2021

  25. [33]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09739

    Rommel, F., Fern´ andez-Valenzuela, E., Proudfoot, B., et al. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09739

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    L., Braga-Ribas, F., Ortiz, J

    Rommel, F. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 678, A167

    2023

  27. [35]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 018011

    Santos-Sanz, P., French, R., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 018011

    2016

  28. [36]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 102

    Sicardy, B. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 102

    2020

  29. [37]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 146

    Sicardy, B., Leiva, R., Renner, S., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 146

    2019

  30. [38]

    2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System (Elsevier), 249–269

    Sicardy, B., Renner, S., Leiva, R., et al. 2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System (Elsevier), 249–269

    2020

  31. [39]

    A., & Lewis, M

    Sickafoose, A. A., & Lewis, M. C. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 32

    2024

  32. [40]

    2001, ApJ, 560, 514

    Takeda, T., & Ida, S. 2001, ApJ, 560, 514

    2001

  33. [41]

    S., & Hedman, M

    Tiscareno, M. S., & Hedman, M. M. 2014, in Encyclopedia of the Solar System (Elsevier), 883–905

    2014

  34. [42]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 543, A68 van Belle, G

    Vachier, F., Berthier, J., & Marchis, F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 543, A68 van Belle, G. T. 1999, PASP, 111, 1515

    2012

  35. [43]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature methods, 17, 261

    2020

  36. [44]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 3765

    Winter, O., Borderes-Motta, G., & Ribeiro, T. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 3765

    2019

  37. [45]

    G., Madeira, G., Ribeiro, T., et al

    Winter, S. G., Madeira, G., Ribeiro, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 679, A62

    2023

  38. [46]

    A., Bertrand, T., Trafton, L

    Young, L. A., Bertrand, T., Trafton, L. M., et al. 2021, Pluto’s volatile and climate cycles on short and long timescales (University of Arizona Press)

    2021

Pith tools

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