Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-Gravitational Forces in Planetary Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that simple order-of-magnitude formulas, each calibrated by a single empirical constant, capture the dominant non-gravitational forces acting on asteroids, comets, and dust.

desk verdict Useful order-of-magnitude review with solid Yarkovsky and PR sections, but the YORP calibration in Eq. 37 does not match the paper's own Table 1 and the 10-14 km influence claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10923 v2 pith:CJ3OQVAD submitted 2024-11-17 astro-ph.EP

David Jewitt This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords non-gravitationalforcesYarkovskyeffectYORPtorquePoynting-Robertsondragsublimationrecoilradiationpressureasteroidspinbarriercometactivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a handful of order-of-magnitude formulas, each built from a single empirically fitted dimensionless constant, describe the dominant non-gravitational forces acting on small bodies. It claims these scalings explain the delivery of meteorites, the shapes of asteroid families, the 2.4-hour asteroid spin barrier, the breakup of small comets, and the flow of dust into debris disks and white dwarf photospheres. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper reduces phenomena that are normally buried in high-dimensional thermophysical models to back-of-the-envelope timescales that can be checked against data. The paper's own caveats are that the constants are fitted to small, biased samples and that the underlying material properties remain poorly known.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a set of dimensionless coefficients that turn a physical picture into one number: $k_R$ for the recoil efficiency of sublimating gas, $k_Y$ for the fraction of radiation pressure acting along the orbit in the diurnal Yarkovsky effect, $k_T$ for the fraction of outflow momentum that torques a comet nucleus, and $k'_T$ for the net moment arm of infrared radiation on an asteroid. Supported by the thermal skin depth, $\ell = (\kappa P)^{1/2}$, and the thermal parameter $\Theta = \rho c_p/(\sigma T^3)(\kappa/P)^{1/2}$, these coefficients convert flux, size, density, and rotation period into an acceleration or a timescale. Each empirical constant is the degree of freedom that absorbs everything the simple spherical, circular-orbit model leaves out.

What would settle it

Measure Yarkovsky drift rates for a few hundred main-belt asteroids with known sizes and spins; if a $k_Y$ near 0.05 does not reproduce the observed drift rates (a systematic offset beyond the 0.02–0.13 range fitted to near-Earth objects), the extrapolation would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, each non-gravitational effect can be written as a simple scaling law: sublimation recoil gives $\alpha_S \propto Q_g V_{th}/(\rho a^3)$; radiation pressure gives $\beta_{rad} = 0.6/a_\mu$; Poynting-Robertson drag gives $\tau_{PR} \sim 4\rho a c^2/(3Q_{pr}) \cdot 4\pi r_H^2/L_\odot$; Yarkovsky drift gives $d r_H/dt \sim 3k_Y L_\odot/(16\pi\rho a c (GM_\odot r_H)^{1/2})$; and the YORP torque gives $\tau_{YORP} \sim 16\pi\rho a^2 c/(15 k'_T P) \cdot r_{au}^2/S_\odot$. These are not exact laws but calibrated scalings: $k_Y \sim 0.05$ is fit to 58 near-Earth asteroid drift rates, the YORP coefficient in Eq. 37 is fit to about 10 asteroids, and $k_T \sim 0.007$ is a median over measured comets. With these constants, the paper derives concrete timescales: a 1 km asteroid at 1 au drifts about $2\times10^{-4}$ au/Myr in semimajor axis, small comet nuclei spin up on timescales of about $100 a^2$ years, and YORP can spin up main-belt asteroids up to roughly 10–14 km in radius over 4.5 Gyr. The paper's central claim is that, despite the crudeness, these scalings correctly identify the dominant processes and their rates across the solar system.

Load-bearing premise

The representative constants fitted to small samples of near-Earth asteroids and comets—$k_Y = 0.05$ from 58 drift rates, the YORP coefficient from about 10 spin-rate changes, and $k_T = 0.007$ from a small comet sample—are assumed to apply to the entire population of small bodies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Yarkovsky drift spreads asteroid families into the observed V-shape in semimajor axis versus 1/a and accounts for family ages of order 70–100 Myr, as illustrated for the Erigone family.
  • YORP spin-up sets the about 2.4-hour spin barrier for asteroids larger than about 0.2 km and drives rotational breakup, reshaping, and the formation of asteroid pairs and binaries.
  • Sublimation torques, with measured $\tau_s \sim 100 a^2$ years, destroy sub-kilometer comet nuclei on short timescales, explaining the deficit of small comets near the Sun.
  • Poynting-Robertson drag removes all primordial material smaller than about 1.5 m within 4.5 Gyr and sustains the zodiacal dust complex with a production rate of $10^3$ to $10^4$ kg/s.
  • Around more luminous stars, radiation pressure ejects larger particles, so debris disks such as Vega's show structure and lifetimes set by the same scaling laws.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the YORP coefficient were shown to vary with asteroid rock abundance, as the tangential YORP discussion implies, then population-level predictions of the spin barrier would need a stochastic rather than deterministic treatment; the observed exponent $1.87\pm0.04$, slightly below the predicted 2, is a hint in that direction.
  • The same scalings applied to white dwarf pollution would predict that Yarkovsky and YORP amplification during the red-giant phase is what feeds metal-rich debris to the degenerate star; this could be tested by correlating white dwarf accretion rates with the masses of surviving planetary systems.
  • The 2.3:1 retrograde excess in near-Earth asteroid drift rates, if explained by inward drift feeding the $\nu_6$ resonance, predicts a compensating prograde excess among small main-belt asteroids at comparable sizes; that is a checkable prediction using spin-vector catalogs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review-style paper that derives order-of-magnitude expressions for non-gravitational forces acting on small bodies: sublimation recoil (Section 2), radiation pressure (Section 3), Poynting-Robertson drag (Section 4), tidal and internal dissipation (Section 5), the Yarkovsky force (Section 6), the Lorentz force (Section 7), and sublimation/YORP torques (Section 8). It applies the resulting scalings to comets, near-Earth and main-belt asteroids, interplanetary dust, debris disks, and white-dwarf pollution. The paper's central claim is that, despite poorly known material properties, simple dimensional formulas with a handful of empirically calibrated dimensionless coefficients capture the dominant orbital and spin evolution of small bodies. The manuscript is explicitly pedagogical, adopts spherical bodies and circular orbits throughout, and is accompanied by several data compilations, including Figures 8, 13, 15 and Table 1.

Significance. If the calibrations were robust, this would be a useful and accessible reference for non-specialists. The dimensional derivations are internally consistent: spot checks of beta = 0.6/a_micron, the Poynting-Robertson timescale, Equation (27), Equation (34), and Equation (36) reproduce the published numbers, and the manuscript is transparent about which coefficients are empirical. The main weakness is that several quantitative, population-level conclusions rest on fitted constants with unquantified extrapolation error, and one of the central fits -- the YORP law in Section 8.2 -- is not supported by the paper's own Table 1. Because the YORP calibration is used to infer the main-belt spin-influence radius and to motivate the spin-barrier and pair-formation arguments, the central claim needs revision or careful caveating before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 8.2, Eq. (37), Table 1, Fig. 15] The a^2 YORP scaling in Eq. (37) is internally inconsistent with the sub-kilometer detections in Table 1. Using a = D/2 and r_au ~ 1, Eq. (37) predicts tau = 0.014 Myr for 54509 YORP (a = 0.055 km) whereas Table 1 gives 0.59 Myr; for 138852 (a = 0.15 km) it predicts 0.10 Myr versus 1.7 Myr; for Bennu (a = 0.245 km) 0.27 Myr versus 1.5 Myr; and for Itokawa (a = 0.16 km) 0.115 Myr versus 1.0 Myr. The five smallest detections have tau between 0.59 and 1.7 Myr while a spans 0.055 to 0.245 km, so tau is nearly flat in a over this range. A weighted least-squares regression using the uncertainties in Table 1 yields a log-log slope of roughly 0.8, not the stated 1.87 +/- 0.04. The 1.87 exponent appears to be driven by the few kilometer-sized objects, and Eq. (37) overpredicts YORP strength for the small asteroids that drive the spin-barrier and pair-formation arguments. The inference that YORP can influence main-belt spins up to roughly 10-14 km by setting tau = 4.5 Gyr in Eq. (37) is therefore not supported by the calibration data. Please refit the relation, report the scatter, and either restrict Eq. (37) to the calibrated size range or present the 10-14 km threshold as an upper limit with a quantitative sensitivity estimate.
  2. [Sections 6.1 and 8.1, Eqs. (27) and (35)] Several population-level conclusions rest on dimensionless coefficients fitted to small, observability-biased samples without propagated uncertainty. The Yarkovsky efficiency k_Y = 0.05 is calibrated to 58 near-Earth asteroids with SNR > 10 (Fig. 8), yet it is applied in Section 6.1 to date the Erigone family and to discuss resonant delivery of meteorites. Similarly, the cometary spin-up relation Eq. (35) is based on a median torque coefficient from a small number of comets and is then used to argue for a paucity of sub-kilometer comet nuclei. If these coefficients vary with size, thermal inertia, spin state, or activity level, the quantitative claims could shift by orders of magnitude. The manuscript acknowledges the underlying unknowns, but it does not quantify the extrapolation error. I request a sensitivity statement for each fitted coefficient, or a rephrasing of the population-level conclusions as order-of-magnitude illustrations rather than quantitative predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7] The heading and text use "Lorenz force" where "Lorentz force" is the standard term; this occurs at least three times.
  2. [Section 2.1] There is a typo, "perpedicular," in the discussion of acceleration component A3.
  3. [Section 5.1] The word "surpringly" should be "surprisingly" in the Phobos paragraph.
  4. [Section 8.2] The sentence introducing Table 1 appears to have a missing table label; it reads "from the compilation by Durech et al. (2024) ... Table" and should reference Table 1 explicitly.
  5. [Equation (33)] The symbol tau is used both for the critical spin period in Eq. (33) and for general timescales elsewhere; consider renaming the critical period P_crit for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the force and torque scalings are self-contained dimensional analyses with openly empirical, externally fitted coefficients.

full rationale

The paper is a deliberately simplified tutorial. Each force or torque law is first derived from basic physics (solar flux, photon momentum, energy balance, Kepler speed, angular momentum), and only then is a dimensionless coefficient calibrated to external data: the Yarkovsky coefficient kY is fit to 58 near-Earth asteroid drift rates from Fenucci et al. (2024) after Equation 27 is derived independently; the YORP coefficient in Equation 37 is fit to Durech et al. (2024) timescales after Equation 36 is derived; kT = 0.007 and Equation 35 are empirical results from Jewitt (2021) based on measured comet spin changes; kR ~ 1/2 comes from 67P measurements reported in Jewitt et al. (2020) and is also the geometric expectation for uniform dayside sublimation. None of these coefficients is defined in terms of the quantity the paper claims to derive, and the derived scalings (1/a drift, a^2 YORP, a^2 sublimation spin-up) do not require the target population values as inputs. The 10-14 km main-belt YORP influence boundary is an algebraic inversion of the calibrated Equation 37, not an independent prediction, but the paper presents it as an application and additionally supports it with the observed spin barrier in Figure 16. The skeptic's objection that Figure 15 and Table 1 do not cleanly support the a^2 law for sub-kilometer objects is an internal-consistency or extrapolation concern, not circularity: the paper explicitly acknowledges the fitted slope (1.87 +/- 0.04) differs from 2 and attributes this to systematic errors. Self-citations are to measured, externally falsifiable data and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Accordingly, no step satisfies the quote-and-reduction standard required to establish circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's scalings rest on a small number of empirical constants fitted to limited samples, plus standard simplifying assumptions (spheres, circular orbits) that the text explicitly adopts. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • k_Y (Yarkovsky efficiency) = 0.05 (range 0.02-0.13)
    Fit to absolute drift rates of 58 near-Earth asteroids (Fenucci et al. 2024) at SNR>10; used in Eqs 25-27 for drift rates and timescales, then in family-age and meteorite-delivery arguments.
  • k_T (sublimation torque moment arm) = 0.007 (median)
    Median from comet spin-change measurements (Jewitt 2021) via Eq 34; converts outgassing momentum into spin-up torque.
  • tau_YORP coefficient (Eq 37) = 4.5 Myr km^-2 au^-2
    Fit to about 10 near-Earth asteroids with measured dP/dt (Durech et al. 2024, Fig 15); exponent 1.87 +/- 0.04 but a^2 is adopted. Extrapolated to the main belt to claim a 10-14 km spin-up limit.
  • tau_s coefficient (Eq 35) = 100 yr km^-2
    Empirical fit to short-period comet spin-change timescales in the 1-2 au perihelion range (Jewitt 2021, Fig 13); used to argue that sub-km comet nuclei are short-lived.
  • k_R (recoil collimation factor) = 0.5
    Based on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko measurements (Jewitt et al. 2020); converts gas production rate Qg to net sublimation acceleration in Eq 2 and sets dark-comet mass-loss estimates.
  • A (internal dissipation multiplier, Eq 22) = 30
    Chosen as the geometric middle of literature values A = 1 to 800 (Efroimsky & Lazarian 2000; Sharma et al. 2005); sets the spin-damping timescale for excited rotators.
  • Assumed binary ages for muQ (Fig 4) = 10^7 yr, 10^9 yr, 4.5 Gyr
    Assigned to sub-km NEA binaries, about 3 km main-belt binaries, and 100 km binaries respectively to convert Eq 20 into muQ estimates; the paper admits these ages are statistical guesses.
  • V_th (outgas speed) = 500 m/s
    Fixed thermal speed at 1 au assumed to apply across the terrestrial planet region (Section 2); all sublimation recoil and dark-comet Qg estimates scale with it.
  • U (dust charging potential) = 10 V
    Solar-UV charging potential assumed independent of heliocentric distance (Section 7); sets the Lorentz force and magnetic beta in Eqs 29-31.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Small bodies are approximated as homogeneous spheres with density rho and radius a, and all orbits are circular (r_H = semimajor axis).
    Stated in Section 1; every derived scaling law inherits these geometry and orbit assumptions, which the paper acknowledges are not met by real bodies.
  • domain assumption Surface energy balance for sublimating ice (Eq 4) with neglected heat conduction, A = 0, epsilon = 0.9, and Clausius-Clapeyron vapor pressures.
    Used for Figure 1 sublimation flux curves and for temperature dependence that enters water-ice NGA g(r_H) and spin-up models.
  • domain assumption Dust grains are homogeneous spheres with size-independent optical efficiency Qpr in the geometric limit, with Mie theory otherwise.
    Used for radiation pressure beta and Poynting-Robertson drag; the paper notes that porous and fractal particles require numerical treatment (Silsbee and Draine 2016).
  • standard math Standard mechanics and thermodynamics: Newtonian gravity, Kepler's law, Maxwell-Boltzmann thermal speed, Stefan-Boltzmann radiation, and the Lorentz force.
    Background physics for all derivations; treated as unproved standard results.
  • domain assumption Dimensional analysis yields the correct functional form of tidal and internal dissipation timescales up to a multiplier like A or Q.
    Section 5 explicitly says the derivation is 'highly simplified' and that mu, Q, and A are extremely poorly known, so timescales are order-of-magnitude guides.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Gravitational Forces in Planetary Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJ3OQVAD

@misc{pith2026241110923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Gravitational Forces in Planetary Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJ3OQVAD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10923}
}
read the original abstract

Non-gravitational forces play surprising and, sometimes, centrally important roles in shaping the motions and properties of small planetary bodies. In the solar system, the morphologies of comets, the delivery of meteorites and the shapes and dynamics of asteroids are all affected by non-gravitational forces. In exoplanetary systems and debris disks, non-gravitational forces affect the lifetimes of circumstellar particles and feed refractory debris to the photospheres of the central stars. Unlike the gravitational force, which is a simple function of the well known separations and masses of bodies, the non-gravitational forces are frequently functions of poorly known or even unmeasurable physical properties. Here, we present order-of-magnitude descriptions of non-gravitational forces, with examples of their application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Equilibrium sublimation mass fluxes as a function of heliocentric distance for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Cumulative distribution of the A1 (radial) component of the non-gravitational acceleration for 101 short-period comets (SPCs: blue line, 2 ≤ TJ ≤ 3) and 33 long-period comets (LPCs: red line, TJ < 2). Only comets with A1 measured to > 10σ significance are plotted. The LPCs show systematically larger A1, consistent with having smaller and/or less dense nuclei, and with having larger outgassing rates per unit area … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Disintegrated long-period comet C/2021 A1 (Leonard) on UT 2022 March 31 when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — µQ as a function of radius estimated from binary asteroids. The sub-kilometer objects (orange triangles) are near Earth asteroid binaries, for which a median age 107 year is assumed. The ∼3 km asteroids in the main belt (yellow circles) are assumed to have median col…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Ratio of the rotation to orbit periods as a function of semimajor axis (in units [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Schematic plan view of a body orbiting the Sun, to illustrate the diurnal Yarkovsky [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Plan view to illustrate the seasonal Yarkovsky effect. The rotation vector (small [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Absolute value of the radial drift rate plotted as a function of asteroid radius in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Histogram of near-Earth asteroid radial drift rates showing an excess with negative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Yarkovsky spreading diagram for the Erigone main belt asteroid family. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — βrad (solid red lines) and βL (dashed blue lines) for particles with radii 1, 10, 102 and 103 µm and density ρ = 103 kg m−3 , as functions of heliocentric distance. βL > βrad only for the smallest particles at the largest heliocentric distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Relative magnitudes of the non-gravitational accelerations discussed in the text, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Measured timescale for changing the rotation period, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Labeled fragments released from component C of comet 332P/Ikeya-Murakami [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Empirical timescale for YORP spin-change for asteroids near 1 au as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Distribution of asteroid rotational frequencies [rotations day [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — Two active asteroids showing episodic ejections likely due to YORP-driven rota [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: — Rotationally disrupted asteroids 331P/Gibbs (top, from Jewitt et al. (2021)) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: — The YORP (blue) and water ice sublimation (red) timescales plotted as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The discovery and characterization of minimoon 2024 PT$_5$

    astro-ph.EP 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    2024 PT5 is a newly discovered ~5 m minimoon captured by Earth for about 60 days, with colors and density resembling lunar rock and S-type asteroids.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2023, A&A, 670, A170

    Attree, N., Jorda, L., Groussin, O., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, A170. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202245243 Bach, Y. P. & Ishiguro, M. 2021, A&A, 654, A113. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040151 Balogh, A. & Erd˜ os, G. 2013, Space Sci. Rev., 176,

    doi:10.1051/0004- 2023

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6485 Samarasinha, N. H. & A’Hearn, M. F. 1991, Icarus, 93,

    arXiv 2000

  3. [5]

    doi:10.1023/A:1021599915018 Black, B. A. & Mittal, T. 2015, Nature Geoscience, 8,

    doi:10.1023/a:1021599915018 2015

  4. [10]

    T., Morbidelli, A., & Walsh, K

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 Bolin, B. T., Morbidelli, A., & Walsh, K. J. 2018, A&A, 611, A82. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201732079 – 73 – ´Cuk, M. & Burns, J. A. 2005, Icarus, 176,

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2 2018

  5. [11]

    R., Lebofsky, L

    doi:10.1007/s11214- 018-0577-3 – 79 – Spencer, J. R., Lebofsky, L. A., & Sykes, M. V. 1989, Icarus, 78,

    doi:10.1007/s11214- 1989

  6. [29]

    2024, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 382, 20230197

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/acb25b Feige, J., Airo, A., Berger, D., et al. 2024, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 382, 20230197. doi:10.1098/rsta.2023.0197 Fenucci, M., Micheli, M., Gianotto, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A29. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202347820 Ferrari, C. 2018, Space Sci. Rev., 214,

    arXiv 2024

  7. [35]

    A., & Hui, C.-Y

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/acb697 Sharma, I., Burns, J. A., & Hui, C.-Y. 2005, MNRAS, 359,

    doi:10.3847/psj/acb697 2005

  8. [39]

    doi:10.1038/nature03218 Klavetter, J. J. 1989, AJ, 97,

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03218 1989

Show all 86 references
  1. [46]

    1994, A&A, 291, 1011 Mann, I

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/ac1591 Mann, I., Okamoto, H., Mukai, T., et al. 1994, A&A, 291, 1011 Mann, I. & Czechowski, A. 2021, A&A, 650, A29. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039362 Marsden, B. G., Sekanina, Z., & Yeomans, D. K. 1973, AJ, 78,

    1994 doi

  2. [48]

    2018, Nature Geosci., 16, 567–569

    doi:10.1038/s41586- 018-0254-4 Mitchell, R., Kirscher, U. 2018, Nature Geosci., 16, 567–569. doi:10.1038/s41561-023-01202-6 – 77 – Mommert, M., Farnocchia, D., Hora, J. L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, L22. doi:10.1088/2041- 8205/789/1/L22 Moro-Mart ´ ın, A. & Malhotra, R. 2003, AJ, 125,

    2018 doi

  3. [49]

    A., Soderblom, L., Beebe, R

    doi:10.1038/nature00993 Smith, B. A., Soderblom, L., Beebe, R. F., et al. 1981, Science, 212,

    1981 doi

  4. [52]

    V., Kuchner, M

    doi:10.12942/lrsp- 2013-5 Pokorn´ y, P., Moorhead, A. V., Kuchner, M. J., et al. 2024, PSJ., 5,

    2013 doi

  5. [55]

    J., Altobelli, N., Kempf, S., et al

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/55 Sterken, V. J., Altobelli, N., Kempf, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A130. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201219609 Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., Misselt, K. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628,

    2013 doi

  6. [65]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.017 Scheeres, D. J. 2018, Icarus, 304,

    2014 doi

  7. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 778, L21

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/66 Jewitt, D., Agarwal, J., Weaver, H., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, L21. doi:10.1088/2041- 8205/778/1/L21 Jewitt, D., Mutchler, M., Weaver, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, L8. doi:10.3847/2041- 8205/829/1/L8 Jewitt, D., Agarwal, J., Li, J., et al. 2017, AJ, 153,

    2013 doi

  8. [77]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27543-2 5 Hudson, R. S. & Ostro, S. J. 1995, Science, 270,

    1995 doi

  9. [79]

    & Draine, B

    doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2966.2005.08864.x Silsbee, K. & Draine, B. T. 2016, ApJ, 818,

    2005

  10. [82]

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad2de8 Poppe, A. R. 2016, Icarus, 264,

    2016 doi

  11. [84]

    M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B

    doi:10.1126/science.270.5233.84 – 75 – Hughes, A. M., Duchˆ ene, G., & Matthews, B. C. 2018, ARA&A, 56,

    2018 doi

  12. [87]

    – 80 – Wiegert, P. A. 2015, Icarus, 252,

    2015

  13. [88]

    2024, arXiv:2409.16046

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.12.022 Williams, J., Gaensicke, B., Swan, A., et al. 2024, arXiv:2409.16046. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2409.16046 Wisdom, J., Peale, S. J., & Mignard, F. 1984, Icarus, 58,

    2014 doi arXiv

  14. [91]

    – 81 – Table

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(75)90078- 1 This manuscript was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2. – 81 – Table

    doi

  15. [92]

    A., Fechtig, H., et al

    doi:10.3847/1538- 3881/ab62a3 Grun, E., Zook, H. A., Fechtig, H., et al. 1985, Icarus, 62,

    1985 doi

  16. [93]

    (2024) bDiameter in km cRotation period in hours dRate of change of the angular frequency ×10−8 [radian day −1]

    YORP Timescales a Object Db P c dω/dtd τ e (1620) Geographos 2.56 5.22 1.14 ±0.03 6.9 ±0.2 (1685) Toro 3.5 10.20 0.33 ±0.03 12.3 ±1.0 (1862) Apollo 1.55 3.07 4.94 ±0.09 2.7 ±0.05 (2100) Ra-Shalom 2.30 19.82 <0.6 >3.5 (3103) Eger 1.78 5.71 <1.5 >4.8 (10115) 1992 SK 1.0 7.32 8.3...

    2024

  17. [103]

    2020, ApJ, 896, L39

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafe05 Jewitt, D., Kim, Y., Mutchler, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, L39. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab99cb Jewitt, D., Li, J., & Kim, Y. 2021, AJ, 162,

    2020 doi

  18. [108]

    2019, Icarus, 333,

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.07.021 Pravec, P., Fatka, P., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., et al. 2019, Icarus, 333,

    2004 doi

  19. [111]

    doi:10.1007/s11214-018-0546-x – 74 – Finson, M. J. & Probstein, R. F. 1968, ApJ, 154,

    1968 doi

  20. [122]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb53b Keller, L. P. & Flynn, G. J. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6,

    2022 doi

  21. [129]

    & Matsuyama, I

    doi:10.1088/0004- 637X/743/2/129 Nimmo, F. & Matsuyama, I. 2019, Icarus, 321,

    2019 doi

  22. [131]

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad445f Scheeres, D. J. 2015, Icarus, 247,

    2015 doi

  23. [133]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/133 Slivan, S. M. 2002, Nature, 419,

    2002 doi

  24. [134]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.003 (updated 2023 October

    2009 doi

  25. [136]

    2004, Nature, 428,

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.03.033 La Spina, A., Paolicchi, P., Kryszczy´ nska, A., et al. 2004, Nature, 428,

    2014 doi

  26. [137]

    doi:10.1016/0019- 1035(84)90032-0 Wyatt, S. P. 1969, Planet. Space Sci., 17,

    1969 doi

  27. [147]

    F., Chesley, S

    doi:10.1038/nature01948 Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Bottke, W. F., Chesley, S. R., et al. 2015, Asteroids IV,

    2015 doi

  28. [155]

    2024, ApJ, 968, L3

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(69)90034-8 Zhou, W.-H., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Kanamaru, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, L3. doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ad4f7f Zook, H. A. & Berg, O. E. 1975, Planet. Space Sci., 23,

    2024 doi

  29. [157]

    F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Walsh, K

    doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154 Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Walsh, K. J., et al. 2015, Icarus, 247,

    2015

  30. [161]

    2012, AJ, 143,

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.04.009 Jewitt, D. 2012, AJ, 143,

    2011 doi

  31. [162]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e09 Jacobson, S. A. & Scheeres, D. J. 2011, Icarus, 214,

    2011 doi

  32. [163]

    2019, Space Sci

    doi:10.1126/science.212.4491.163 Spahn, F., Sachse, M., Seiß, M., et al. 2019, Space Sci. Rev., 215,

    2019 doi

  33. [177]

    2022, PASJ, 74,

    doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9835-3 Beniyama, J., Sako, S., Ohsawa, R., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74,

    2022 doi

  34. [183]

    Z., Farnocchia, D., Micheli, M., et al

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.029 Seligman, D. Z., Farnocchia, D., Micheli, M., et al. 2023, Plan Sci J., 4,

    2017 doi

  35. [185]

    doi:10.3847/PSJ/abf928 Taylor, P. A. & Margot, J.-L. 2011, Icarus, 212,

    2011 doi

  36. [191]

    F., Ness, N

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.09.046 Burlaga, L. F., Ness, N. F., Berdichevsky, D. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 932,

    2014 doi

  37. [194]

    A., Reddy, V., Thirouin, A., et al

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(91)90208- B Sanchez, J. A., Reddy, V., Thirouin, A., et al. 2024, Plan Sci J., 5,

    2024 doi

  38. [211]

    J., & Elliott, G

    doi:10.1086/111402 Micheli, M., Tholen, D. J., & Elliott, G. T. 2014, ApJ, 788, L1. doi:10.1088/2041- 8205/788/1/L1 Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., Meech, K. J., et al. 2018, Nature, 559,

    2014 doi

  39. [223]

    2019, AJ, 157,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6a57 Jewitt, D., Kim, Y., Luu, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157,

    2019 doi

  40. [261]

    2023, AJ, 165,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf09c Jewitt, D., Kim, Y., Mattiazzo, M., et al. 2023, AJ, 165,

    2023 doi

  41. [268]

    2021, AJ, 161,

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2a3c Jewitt, D. 2021, AJ, 161,

    2021 doi

  42. [269]

    2010, ApJ, 714,

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03036.x Farihi, J., Jura, M., Lee, J.-E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714,

    2000

  43. [289]

    2012, Nanodust in the Solar System: Discoveries and Interpretations, 385,

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.031 Hsu, H.-W., Kr¨ uger, H., & Postberg, F. 2012, Nanodust in the Solar System: Discoveries and Interpretations, 385,

    2014 doi

  44. [313]

    & Sari, R

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.050 Steinberg, E. & Sari, R. 2011, AJ, 141,

    2014 doi

  45. [327]

    2024, Space Sci

    doi:10.1086/149761 Fuller, J., Guillot, T., Mathis, S., et al. 2024, Space Sci. Rev., 220,

    2024 doi

  46. [369]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.10.001 Porco, C. A. & Danielson, G. E. 1982, AJ, 87,

    2015 doi

  47. [375]

    & Krugly, Y

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0 Golubov, O. & Krugly, Y. N. 2012, ApJ, 752, L11. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L11 Golubov, O., Unukovych, V., & Scheeres, D. J. 2021, AJ, 162,

    2012 doi

  48. [378]

    A., Taylor, S., Treffkorn, J., et al

    doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5872 Farley, K. A., Taylor, S., Treffkorn, J., et al. 2021, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 56,

    1997

  49. [400]

    doi:10.1038/nature02411 Landgraf, M. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 10303. doi:10.1029/1999JA900243 Lee, H.-J., ˇDurech, J., Kim, M.-J., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A137. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201936808 Love, S. G. & Brownlee, D. E. 1993, Science, 262,

    2000 doi

  50. [403]

    A., Lamy, P

    doi:10.1093/mnras/165.4.403 Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40,

    1979 doi

  51. [407]

    2024, A&A, 682, A93

    doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0440-1 ˇDurech, J., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Pravec, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A93. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/202348350 Efroimsky, M. & Lazarian, A. 2000, MNRAS, 311,

    2024 doi

  52. [418]

    2024, ApJ, 961, L38

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.02.001 Doner, A., Hor´ anyi, M., Bagenal, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, L38. doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ad18b0 Drahus, M., Guzik, P., Waniak, W., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2,

    2005 doi

  53. [423]

    & Green, S

    doi:10.1093/mnras/97.6.423 Rozitis, B. & Green, S. F. 2013, MNRAS, 430,

    2013 doi

  54. [428]

    2011, A&A, 530, A134

    doi:10.1038/362428a0 Hanuˇ s, J.,ˇDurech, J., Broˇ z, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A134. doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201116738 Hor´ anyi, M., Hartquist, T. W., Havnes, O., et al. 2004, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG4002. doi:10.1029/2004RG000151 Hsieh, H. H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R...

    2011 doi

  55. [429]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.05.014 Rafikov, R. R. 2011, ApJ, 732, L3. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L3 Rigley, J. K. & Wyatt, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 510,

    2019 doi

  56. [487]

    R., Pokorn´ y, P., Malaspina, D

    doi:10.1086/430819 Szalay, J. R., Pokorn´ y, P., Malaspina, D. M., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2,

    2021 doi

  57. [502]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.003 Statler, T. S. 2015, Icarus, 248,

    2009 doi

  58. [509]

    doi:10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch027 Walsh, K. J. 2018, ARA&A, 56,

    2018 doi

  59. [541]

    2019, AJ, 157,

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052035 Hui, M.-T., Farnocchia, D., & Micheli, M. 2019, AJ, 157,

    2019 doi

  60. [550]

    X., Jewitt, D

    doi:10.1126/science.262.5133.550 Luu, J. X., Jewitt, D. C., Mutchler, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, L27. doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/abedbc MacLennan, E. M. & Emery, J. P. 2021, PSJ., 2,

    2021 doi

  61. [570]

    doi:10.1086/115006 Klavetter, J. J. 1989, AJ, 98,

    1989 doi

  62. [593]

    D., Harris, A

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-052013 Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202,

    2009 doi

  63. [641]

    A., & G¨ ansicke, B

    doi:10.1086/173033 Veras, D., Jacobson, S. A., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2014, MNRAS, 445,

    2014 doi

  64. [661]

    & Wood, P

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.01.030 Vassiliadis, E. & Wood, P. R. 1993, ApJ, 413,

    2011 doi

  65. [708]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz421 Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Nesvorn´ y, D., & Bottke, W. F. 2003, Nature, 425,

    2003 doi

  66. [715]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.012 Owens, M. J. & Forsyth, R. J. 2013, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 10,

    2018 doi

  67. [731]

    2005, Nature, 433,

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01647-6 Kempf, S., Srama, R., Hor´ anyi, M., et al. 2005, Nature, 433,

    2005 doi

  68. [826]

    W., & Michalowski, T

    doi:10.1086/113162 Pravec, P., Harris, A. W., & Michalowski, T. 2002, in Asteroids III, W. F. Bottke Jr., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi, and R. P. Binzel (eds), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, p.113-122 Pravec, P., Harris, A. W., Scheirich, P., et al. 2005, Icarus, 173,

    2002 doi

  69. [834]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3482 – 78 – Robertson, H. P. 1937, MNRAS, 97,

    1937 doi

  70. [877]

    2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 90,

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psac043 Biver, N., Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., Colom, P., et al. 2002, Earth Moon and Planets, 90,

    2002 doi

  71. [913]

    doi:10.1038/ngeo2583 Bohren, C. F. & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles. New York: Wiley, 1983 Bottke, W. F., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Rubincam, D. P., et al. 2006, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34,

    1983 doi

  72. [1376]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts723 Rubincam, D. P. 1995, J. Geophys. Res., 100,

    1995 doi

  73. [1585]

    doi:10.1029/94JE02411 Rubincam, D. P. 2000, Icarus, 148,

    2000 doi

  74. [1855]

    2018, MNRAS, 479,

    doi:10.1086/115264 – 76 – Kokotanekova, R., Snodgrass, C., Lacerda, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479,

    2018 doi

  75. [1988]

    2023, Plan Sci J., 4,

    doi:10.1111/maps.13759 Farnocchia, D., Seligman, D., Granvik, M., et al. 2023, Plan Sci J., 4,

    2023 doi

  76. [2255]

    2011, ApJ, 743,

    doi:10.1086/368237 Nesvorn´ y, D., Janches, D., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743,

    2011 doi

  77. [2794]

    2019, MNRAS, 485,

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1926 Veras, D., Higuchi, A., & Ida, S. 2019, MNRAS, 485,

    2019 doi

  78. [4665]

    A., Fernandez, Y

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1529 Kramer, E. A., Fernandez, Y. R., Lisse, C. M., et al. 2014, Icarus, 236,

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.