Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A JWST Study of the Remarkable Oort Cloud Comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS)

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST spectroscopy of Oort Cloud comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) shows a hyperactive nucleus under 4.2 km across, crystalline-silicate-rich dust, and probable PAH emission in the coma.

desk verdict The JWST spectra are a real step forward for cometary science, but the headline 'hyperactive' claim rests on a water production rate that the paper's own MRS data contradict by a factor of 3-8. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19849 v1 pith:CNZPLA3Q submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Charles E. Woodward , Dominique Bockelee-Morvan , David E. Harker , Michael S.P. Kelley , Nathan X. Roth , Diane H. Wooden , Stefanie N. Milam This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords C/2017K2(PanSTARRS)hyperactivecometOortCloudwaterproductionratecomadustcompositioncrystallinesilicatespolycyclicaromatichydrocarbonsJWSTinfraredspectroscopy
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

This paper analyzes JWST near- and mid-infrared spectra of the inner coma of Oort Cloud comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) at a heliocentric distance of 2.35 au and argues that the comet is hyperactive: its measured water output requires at least 86% of the surface of a nucleus smaller than 4.2 km in radius to be sublimating, which implies a substantial distributed source of water-ice grains in the coma beyond direct nucleus sublimation. The same data yield a dust inventory for the sub-micron grains that is roughly 39% crystalline olivine by mass, with a crystalline mass fraction $f_{\rm cryst} = 0.384 \pm 0.065$, and residual emission features in the 3 to 8 $\mu$m region that the authors argue are best explained by small, hydrogenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A full volatile census (H$_2$O, $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, CO$_2$, CN, H$_2$CO, CH$_3$OH, CH$_4$, C$_2$H$_6$, HCN, NH$_2$, and OH prompt emission) is reported, together with a water ortho-to-para ratio of at least 2.75. The paper's own analysis flags that the water production rate derived from the 5 $\mu$m hot bands is about twice the rate from the optically thick 6.3 $\mu$m band, and that this discrepancy is not explained; the hyperactivity claim depends on the higher value.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three analytical instruments. First, a nucleus upper-limit procedure: azimuthally averaged radial surface-brightness profiles in dust-continuum windows are fit with power laws, and comparison with a point-spread-function-convolved coma and a combined coma-plus-nucleus model sets a conservative 30/70 nucleus-to-coma flux threshold that translates, through a thermal model of an insolation-heated sphere, into a nucleus radius below 4.2 km. Second, molecular fluorescence modeling: optically thin fluorescence excitation models with a Haser density profile and a 0.52 km/s expansion velocity are fit to the water $\nu_2$ 6.3 $\mu$m band and the 5 $\mu$m hot bands, and a general spectral-fitting tool retrieves production rates and rotational temperatures for the trace volatiles; spaxel-by-spaxel fits show apparent $Q(\mathrm{H_2O})$, rotational temperature, and ortho-to-para ratio all rising with nucleocentric distance. Third, a thermal dust model: radiative-equilibrium temperatures for porous grains of five compositions (amorphous carbon, amorphous olivine, amorphous pyroxene, crystalline olivine, crystalline pyroxene) are summed over a Hanner size distribution and fit to the 7 to 27 $\mu$m spectral energy distribution, with model choice by an information criterion favoring the amorphous-olivine variant; a PAH emission library is then fit to the residual after subtracting scattered light, thermal dust, and molecular lines. The load-bearing step is the selection of the 5 $\mu$m hot-band water rate as the global production rate.

What would settle it

A radiative-transfer calculation of the optically thick H$_2$O 6.3 $\mu$m $\nu_2$ band along the actual JWST lines of sight, using opacity-corrected excitation models, would decide the matter: if the corrected 6.3 $\mu$m rate stays near 1 to 2.6$\times10^{28}$ s$^{-1}$ rather than converging to $7.6\times10^{28}$ s$^{-1}$, the active fraction falls to roughly 10 to 30% and the hyperactivity claim is refuted. A second, independent check is a new JWST observation of the comet at a different heliocentric distance to see whether the hot-band-to-$\nu_2$ ratio persists or whether the discrepancy was an aperture or opacity artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) is a hyperactive comet with a small nucleus. Combining the water production rate $Q(\mathrm{H_2O}) = 7.6\times10^{28}\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ derived from NIRSpec 5 $\mu$m hot-band lines with an upper-limit nucleus radius of 4.2 km from radial surface-brightness profiles, and dividing by the sublimation rate a bare exposed water-ice surface would supply at 2.35 au, the paper finds that the active water-ice area is at least 86% of the nucleus surface, far above the roughly 10% typical of most comets. The thermal modeling of the 7 to 27 $\mu$m dust spectral energy distribution returns a coma of sub-micron grains dominated by Mg-rich crystalline olivine, with amorphous carbon, amorphous olivine, and amorphous pyroxene contributing the rest and a crystalline mass fraction $f_{\rm cryst} = 0.384 \pm 0.065$; the residual 3 to 8.6 $\mu$m spectrum is fitted by fluorescing PAHs, with small heavily hydrogenated neutral molecules producing the 3.42 $\mu$m feature and small cations producing the 6 to 9 $\mu$m features. The paper also reports that the apparent water production rate increases with projected distance from the nucleus, evidence for an extended source of water released from sublimating icy grains, which is the mechanism invoked to explain the hyperactivity.

Load-bearing premise

The hyperactivity result rests entirely on taking the 5 $\mu$m hot-band water production rate of $7.6\times10^{28}$ s$^{-1}$ as the comet's global water output, while the paper's own fits to the 6.3 $\mu$m band give rates roughly two to eight times lower and the paper states that the discrepancy is not explained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • C/2017 K2 joins the small set of hyperactive comets, so any model of its behavior must include a distributed source of water from icy grains in the coma rather than sublimation from the nucleus surface alone.
  • The high crystalline mass fraction ($f_{\rm cryst} \simeq 0.384 \pm 0.065$) in a dynamically old Oort Cloud comet becomes a datum for how much crystalline material survives in the outer solar system, bearing on radial-mixing scenarios in the protoplanetary disk.
  • The PAH interpretation gives JWST comet spectroscopy a direct link to the organic molecules measured by mass spectrometry in comet 67P and in returned asteroid samples, extending the sample of cometary organic matter to a long-period Oort Cloud object.
  • The distinct spatial distributions of water-driven versus CO$_2$-driven volatiles imply separate ice phases in the nucleus, reinforcing the picture from comet 67P that H$_2$O and CO$_2$ ices are not intimately mixed.
  • The measured $^{12}$CO$_2$/$^{13}$CO$_2$ ratio, consistent with the terrestrial $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C of 89, adds a comet to the small set with a carbon isotope ratio determined from space-based spectroscopy.
  • C/2017 K2 joins the small set of hyperactive comets, so any model of its behavior must include a distributed source of water from icy grains in the coma rather than sublimation from the nucleus surface alone.
  • The high crystalline mass fraction ($f_{\rm cryst} \simeq 0.384 \pm 0.065$) in a dynamically old Oort Cloud comet becomes a datum for how much crystalline material survives in the outer solar system, bearing on radial-mixing scenarios in the protoplanetary disk.
  • The PAH interpretation gives JWST comet spectroscopy a direct link to the organic molecules measured by mass spectrometry in comet 67P and in returned asteroid samples, extending the sample of cometary organic matter to a long-period Oort Cloud object.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the lower 6.3 $\mu$m band rates (roughly 1 to 2.6$\times10^{28}$ s$^{-1}$) rather than the 5 $\mu$m hot-band rate turn out to be the true global water output, the active fraction drops to roughly 10 to 30% and the hyperactivity headline result disappears; the two-band discrepancy is therefore the single most decisive open question this paper leaves.
  • The rise of apparent $Q(\mathrm{H_2O})$ with nucleocentric distance implies that the largest-beam water measurements should keep climbing, a prediction already gestured at by the radio OH value the paper quotes; comparing a large-beam OH measurement with the JWST apertures is a straightforward test.
  • The fitted PAH population is hostage to the spectral library: the paper notes that the next release of the PAH database, with edge-defect spectra, could change the species mix, so re-fitting the same residuals against that library is a cheap, decisive check on whether small hydrogenated neutrals truly dominate the 3.42 $\mu$m emission.
  • The 14 $\mu$m residual, tentatively attributed to CAI-like aluminum- and titanium-oxide minerals, could be tested by stacking JWST spectra of the several Spitzer-era comets that show the same residual feature to see whether its position and shape match perovskite or spinel resonances.
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. This paper presents JWST NIRSpec (G395M) and MIRI MRS IFU observations of the Oort Cloud comet C/2017 K2 at a heliocentric distance of 2.35 au, with spectra extracted in a 1-arcsec aperture and in a 3x3 grid of spatial beams. The authors report detections of H2O (both 5 µm hot bands and 6.3 µm nu2 band), 12CO, 13CO, CO2, and numerous trace species (CN, H2CO, CH3OH, CH4, C2H6, HCN, NH2, OH prompt emission), and map their spatial distributions. From radial profiles and WebbPSF models they derive a nucleus radius upper limit of <4.2 km. Using the NIRSpec 5 µm water hot-band production rate Q(H2O)=7.6e28 s^-1, they compute a water ice active fraction >86% and label the comet hyperactive. Thermal modeling of the 7-27 µm MRS SED yields a coma dust composition dominated by amorphous carbon, amorphous olivine and pyroxene, and Mg-rich crystalline olivine, with a crystalline mass fraction fcryst=0.384±0.065. Residuals after subtracting continuum, scattered light, and molecular models exhibit features at 3.42, 6.35, 6.92, and 8.25 µm attributed to PAHs, modeled with the Ames PAH database.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable JWST dataset: it demonstrates the power of IFU spatial-spectral mapping of a comet coma, provides a rich molecular inventory with spatial distributions, constrains the nucleus size, and offers a new data point for comet dust mineralogy. The reductions are detailed and the molecular detections are supported by model fits. The paper is honest about several limitations, notably the unexplained factor 3-8 discrepancy between Q(H2O) values from the 5 µm hot bands and the 6.3 µm nu2 band. However, the abstract's headline claims—hyperactivity and high crystalline dust fraction—are not robust to the model assumptions that the paper itself documents. The hyperactivity claim scales linearly with the adopted Q(H2O); using the MRS values would place the active fraction at 11-30%, below the >50% hyperactivity threshold. The dust composition is derived from one of three thermal model treatments selected by an AIC comparison with inflated uncertainties, and the fcryst value varies from 0.36 to 0.65 depending on position and model case.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Figure 8a; §6, Table 3] The hyperactivity claim in the abstract and Section 6 (active fraction >86%) rests entirely on the NIRSpec 5 µm hot-band water production rate Q(H2O)=7.6e28 s^-1 (Table 2), while the MRS 6.3 µm nu2-band fits give Q(H2O)=(0.967 to 2.64)e28 s^-1 (Figure 8a). The paper states that the discrepancy 'is not explained, requiring further investigation which is beyond the scope of this paper.' Because the active fraction f = A/(4πR^2) scales linearly with Q, using the MRS values with the same nucleus radius (4.2 km) gives f ≈ 11-30%, below the >50% hyperactivity threshold. The ground-based IRTF value (3.65e28 s^-1) agrees with the MRS rather than the NIRSpec value. The abstract's first derived result is therefore not supported unless the band discrepancy is resolved by a mechanism that specifically makes the 5 µm hot bands trace the global water production. I recommend that the hyperactivity claim be removed or reframed as a conditional result pending reconciliation of the water bands.
  2. [§7.3-7.4, Tables 4-5, Figures 16-17] The quoted crystalline mass fraction fcryst=0.384±0.065 is the mean over the seven Case A 'AO50' thermal models, but this value depends strongly on the model treatment. The center position (0:0) gives fcryst=0.52 for Case A and Case B and 0.65 for Case C (Table 5), while the other six positions give 0.361±0.034; the spread between cases is comparable to the quoted uncertainty and is not included in the error budget. The 'AO50' model was selected over 'AP50' and the first-order model by fitting with uncertainties artificially inflated by a factor of 40 in two spectral regions (Section 7.1-7.2). Because the abstract presents fcryst as a single value without these caveats, the authors should either report the model-case dependence explicitly in the abstract or present fcryst as a range.
  3. [§8, Appendix B, Figure 22] The PAH identification relies on the residual F_PAH = F_obs - F_thermal - F_scattered, where the thermal model was itself refit after subtracting a first estimate of the PAH emission (Appendix B: 'This process is iterative'). This introduces circularity: the residual features are not independent of the model assumptions about the continuum, the scattered-light slope, and the molecular contributions. The paper also notes that the CH3OH nu9 band, which is not in the spectral model, contributes to the 3.42 µm residual (Section 8). To substantiate the 'strongly suggests' claim, the authors should demonstrate the stability of the residual features under plausible variations of the scattered-light slope and thermal model weighting (e.g., using the AP50 model or a different thermal fit), and quantify the CH3OH contribution. Without such tests, the PAH detection should be described as tentative rather than as a strong suggestion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §6, Table 3] The abstract and Section 6 use 'greater than or equal to 86%' while Table 3 and the text also say '>86%'; please standardize.
  2. [Figure 3 caption; Section 8] The figure caption spells the comet as 'C/20217 K2 (PanSTARRS)' and Section 8 has 'C.2017 K2'; both are typos.
  3. [§4.4, Figure 8a] The text states that the 5 µm hot-band values are higher 'by a factor ∼2' than the 6.3 µm band, but the values in Figure 8a differ by factors of about 3 to 8 (7.6e28 vs 2.64e28 and 0.967e28); the text should state the full range.
  4. [Table 3 note] The note says 'radius of <4.3 km' while the abstract and Section 3 quote <4.2 km; the appropriate value should be used consistently.
  5. [§5.1] The factor-1000 flux scaling to emulate optically thin conditions is a heuristic; its effect on the retrieved production rates and their uncertainties should be stated explicitly in the text rather than only in the caption of Figure 10.
  6. [§2] The paper would benefit from a brief discussion of how the single NIRSpec dither position affects the reliability of the NIRSpec spatial maps and the 5 µm water production rate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; central results are independent measurements or fitted model outputs, not predictions forced by construction.

full rationale

The hyperactivity claim derives from Q(H2O)=7.6e28 s^-1 (Table 2, NIRSpec 5 micron hot band) and an upper-limit nucleus radius of 4.2 km through the standard active-fraction definition f=Q/(Z*4*pi*R^2) (Table 3). This is a defined quantity computed from measured inputs, not a prediction equivalent to an input. The paper itself discloses that MRS 6.3 micron nu2-band fits give lower Q values and that the discrepancy 'is not explained' (Section 4.4), and that ground-based IRTF Q is consistent with MIRI rather than NIRSpec (Section 5.3). This is a scientific robustness and systematic-uncertainty concern, and possibly a preferential use of the higher band value, but it does not make the derivation circular: the active fraction is not used to define or fit Q, and the lower values would simply change the conclusion. The dust composition (fcryst=0.384+/-0.065) is a least-squares output of the Harker thermal model fitted to the MRS SED (Section 7), not a quantity predicted from the model's assumptions. The model self-citations (Harker et al. 2002, 2007, 2023) are to a code and optical constants that are externally documented; this is normal tool use, not circularity. The PAH detection is based on residuals F_obs - F_thermal - F_scattered (Appendix B), with an iterative subtraction of an estimated PAH component before refitting the thermal model; this is a disclosed fitting procedure. Because the PAH model is fitted to the residual, the PAH features are not an independent prediction, but the paper does not claim they are derived from first principles, and the residual features are not equal by construction to the model inputs. No step in the paper reduces an output to its input by definition or self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its results are inferences from fitted models: dust fractions, size distribution parameters, production rates, and PAH abundances are free parameters recovered from JWST spectra. The CAI hypothesis for the 14 um residual is presented as tentative and unquantified. The main ledger burden is the large set of fitted parameters plus the load-bearing selection of the 5 um water production rate over the 6.3 um value.

free parameters (7)
  • Dust composition mass fractions (AC, AO50, AP50, CO, CP) = AC 0.252, AO50 0.194, AP50 0.163, CO 0.391, CP 0.000 (Case A at tile 0:0); ranges across tiles in Table 5
    Free parameters of the Harker thermal model fitted to the MRS SEDs; the quoted fcryst = 0.384 +/- 0.065 derives from these fitted fractions (Section 7).
  • Hanner grain size distribution parameters (ap, N, M) and fractal dimension D = ap 0.5 to 1.0 um, N 13.2 to 38.7, M 3.3 to 4.3, D 2.727 to 2.857 (Table 4)
    Four fitted parameters of the size distribution and porosity model; they covary with composition and affect the derived mass fractions.
  • Water production rate Q(H2O), rotational temperature, and OPR per pixel/annulus = Q(H2O) 0.97e28 to 2.6e28 s^-1 (6.3 um band), 7.6e28 s^-1 (5 um NIRSpec); Trot 25 to 64 K; OPR 2.36 to 2.75
    Retrieved by optically thin fluorescence fits; the choice of the 5 um value drives the hyperactivity claim (Section 4.3, Table 2).
  • Nucleus beaming parameter eta in NEATM fits = 0.8, 1.0, 1.2
    Leads to radius upper limits of 3.7, 4.8, and 6.0 km; the final 4.2 km limit combines eta = 1.2 with a WebbPSF contrast ratio (Section 3).
  • MRS channel merging flux scaling factors = Channels 1 and 3 about 2 to 3%; Channel 4 about 14%
    Applied to anchor all channels to Channel 2; affects the absolute flux levels that enter every derived production rate and dust fit (Section 2).
  • Uncertainty inflation factor for thermal model fitting = 40x in wavelength ranges 8.0 to 10.0 um and 12.5 to 16.5 um
    Post hoc weighting choice that determines which dust model (AO50) wins the AIC comparison and therefore the reported composition (Section 7.1).
  • PAH model search space and membership = NC <= 100 atoms; 22 of 2550 PAHs selected; best AIC candidate C216H36+ rejected
    Choice of size cutoff, charge states, and the a priori rejection of the best statistical fit change the inferred PAH population (Section 8.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Haser model with constant expansion velocity v = 0.8 r_h^-0.5 describes the coma density profile
    Used for all water production rate fits (Section 4.3); the 'standard relation' is asserted without citation and ignores radiation pressure, distributed sources, and velocity changes.
  • domain assumption Optically thin fluorescence is a valid approximation for the analyzed H2O lines
    Explicitly stated as a 'simplistic approach' (Section 4.3); the paper later shows opacity affects the 6.3 um band, making the fitted Q and OPR apparent rather than true values.
  • domain assumption Harker thermal model with Mie plus effective medium theory for amorphous grains and CDE for crystalline grains reproduces cometary dust emission
    The entire dust composition result rests on this model framework and its laboratory optical constants (Section 7); it is grounded by prior Spitzer fits but remains a forward-modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Cowan and A'Hearn sublimation model with 5% visual Bond albedo and 95% IR emissivity gives the ice sublimation rate per unit area
    Converts Q into active area and then active fraction (Section 6, Table 3); different albedo and thermal inertia assumptions change the derived sublimation rate Z.
  • domain assumption A 5770 K blackbody solar radiation field with no absorption drives PAH fluorescence
    Excitation assumption for the Ames PAH model fits (Section 8.2); ignores spectral shape, phase angle geometry, and possible shielding in the coma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A JWST Study of the Remarkable Oort Cloud Comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNZPLA3Q

@misc{pith2026250419849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A JWST Study of the Remarkable Oort Cloud Comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNZPLA3Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19849}
}
abstract

Comets, during their journeys into the inner solar system, deliver volatile gases, organics, and particulates into their comae that provide crucial information for assessing the physico-chemical conditions in the outer disk from which they formed. Here we present observational and modeling results of a JWST NIRSpec and MIRI MRS integral-field-unit (IFU) spatial-spectral study of the inner coma of the Oort Cloud comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) at a heliocentric distance of 2.35 au. We find the comet is hyperactive (water ice active fraction greater than or equal to 86%), with a nucleus radius of $<$4.2 km, exhibiting strong emission from H$_{2}$O, $^{12}$CO, $^{13}$CO, and CO$_{2}$ as well as CN, H$_2$CO, CH$_3$OH, CH$_4$, C$_2$H$_6$, HCN, NH$_2$, and OH prompt emission. The water ortho-to-para ratio is greater than or equal to 2.75. The modeled dust composition (relative mass fraction of the sub-micron grains) in the coma is dominated by amorphous carbon ($\simeq 25$%), amorphous Mg:Fe olivine ($\simeq 19$%), amorphous Mg:Fe pyroxene ($\simeq 16$%), and Mg-rich crystalline olivine ($\simeq 39$%) and the crystalline mass fraction of the sub-micron grains in the coma is, $f_{cryst} \simeq 0.384 \pm 0.065$. Analysis of residuals in 3 to 8 $\mu$m region of the spectral energy distribution strongly suggests the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) species in the coma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Distance (km) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Distance (km) Sun N E -1:0 0:0 +1:0 0:+1 0:-1 +1:+1 -1:-1 Comet C/2017 K2 (PanStarrs) r = 2.35au Beam Tile Positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spatial distribution of the 4.9 to 28.0 µm SEDs of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) obtained on 2022-08-21TT14:42:00 (JWST MRS observation date) when the comet was at a heliocentric distance rh = 2.35 au and ∆ = 2.02 au in 1. ′′0 diameter circular beams that tile the coma (see section 2). Tiles indicating no data are places in the beam grid where the MRS Ch1 SHORT(A) cube had no of valid data. The center of the beam … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The composite 2.9 - 27.9 µm JWST spectrum of comet C/20217 K2 (PanSTARRS) derived from drilling the NIRSpec and MRS s3d data cubes using a 1. ′′0 diameter circular aperture centered on the comet photocenter (position 0:0, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Radial surface brightness profiles (solid lines) for six selected wavelength ranges targeting the spectral continuum. Wavelength range and best-fit power-law slope (k, dashed lines) are as indicated. The bottom three profiles are based on the NIRSpec data, and the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper-limit nucleus models (dashed, dashed-dotted, and dotted lines) compared to the combined NIRSpec and MRS spec￾trum (solid line). The 5 to 7 µm range provides the strongest con￾straint on the model nucleus radius (R) for our assumed IR beaming parameter values (η).…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The NIRSpec spectrum of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) derived from the G395M IFU data cube in a 1. ′′0 di￾ameter circular aperture centered on the comet photocenter. Emis￾sion from CO2, 13CO2, CO, OCS (carbonyl sulfide), and H2O are present. The complex near 3.35 µm is c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spaxel-by-spaxel spatial distribution of H2O-related physical parameters deduced from MRS Channel 1 MED data. From left to right: band intensity in the range 5.66–6.63 µm, water production rate Q(H2O) and rotational temperature Trot (K) from model fits. A 3×3 boxcar sp…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a)–(b). Model fits to H2O 2.9 µm and H2O 5.0 µm emission derived from the NIRSpec spectra of C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS). (Top panel pair) The extracted on-nucleus spectrum. (Bottom panel pair) The extracted off-nucleus spectrum (-1:-1) position (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: shows the molecular production rates retrieved by the NASA PSG for trace species measured with NIRSpec. As expected, the apparent Q’s are suppressed in the inner￾most annuli owing to opacity and the PSF, and increase with increasing nucleocentric distance until reachi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) rotational temperature profiles for H2O (ν2 band para lines measured with MRS) along with CO, CO2, 13CO2, CH4, and CH3OH (measured with NIR￾Spec). nucleocentric distance, whereas CH3OH shows a decreasing trend similar to (although shallower…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a)–(e). Maps of continuum-subtracted band intensity, apparent production rate, and rotational temperature for CO2, 13CO2, CO, CH4, and CH3OH. (f) Map of continuum-subtracted intensity for H2O, along with apparent production rate for H2O, CN, and OCS. HCN, and CO2 are…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The radial distribution of the 12CO2 to 13CO2 ratio in the inner coma of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) as a function of nucleocentric distance. comets have high active fractions, > 50%, and even exceed￾ing 100%, a phenomenon referred to as hyperactivity [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: (Top panel). The ‘AO50’ thermal model fitted to the JWST MRS IR SED in a 1. ′′0 diameter aperture centered on the photocenter (position 0:0) of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS). The models fitted to the observed 7.0 - 27 µm SED constrain the dust mineralogy, assuming the c…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The three ‘AO50’ model for Case A, Case B, and Case C thermal model fits (Section 7.3). (Top panel) The top curve is Case A, the middle curve is Case B, and the bottom curve is Case C. The inset explains the details of each case and the red curve in each instance is t…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: demonstrates that all positions (black symbols) not centered on the nucleus have the same composition. All po￾sitions in the coma have four of the five compositions: AC, AO50, AP50, and CO. However, there is one position (+1:+1) that does has a small contribution from…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The relative mass fraction for the submicron- to micron￾size portion of the particle differential size distribution in the inner coma of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) derived from the ‘AO50’ Case C models. Tile position 0:0, comet photocenter beam po￾sition (see [PITH_…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The ternary diagram of comets showing the three-dimensional dependence along the axes of amorphous carbon (AC), amorphous silicates (AC) and crystalline silicate (CS) dust composition. The filled black symbols represent the dust composition of the 7 JWST MRS beam tile…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The 14 µm residual feature in comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) compared to other comets observed with Spitzer (Harker et al. 2023) that span this spectral range in the SED. The blue dotted vertical line in the middle panel is at 14.0 µm. The SEDs in the middle panel are ta…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The 3.0 to 5.0 µm spectral region of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) derived from NIRSpec data of the central coma (position 0:0, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: PAH model fitted to F PAHextract Residual for comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS). (a) Model fit to 3.2–3.6 µm and 5.5–8.62 µm (black solid) spectral regions, and model predicted outside of that range (black short dashed), shown with breakdown into seven categories of PAHs n …
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: shows the HDI versus Natoms, limited to NC ≤ 40 and correspondingly Natoms ≤ 50 to better show the over￾lap with the other sources. Comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) in the relation HDI vs Natoms lays between the ISM and comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimeko. Our PAH model sug￾ges…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: (Top panel). The ‘AP50’ thermal model fitted to the JWST MRS IR SED in a 1. ′′0 diameter aperture centered on the photocenter (position 0:0) of comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS). The models fitted to the observed 7.0 - 27 µm SED constrain the dust mineralogy, assuming the c…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The ‘AO50’ Case C modeling of the scattered light, removal of water lines, and NASA PSG contributions from volatiles and extraction of residual from the SEDS in comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) from beam position 0:0 (a 1. ′′0 diameter beam centered on the photocenter of t…

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. Variations in Volatile-Driven Activity of Comet C/2017 K2 (PanSTARRS) Revealed by Long-Term Multi-Wavelength Observations

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Long-term TRAPPIST, UVES, and CRIRES+ observations show C/2017 K2's volatile-driven activity transitioning from CO/CO2 to water near 3 au, with typical-to-enriched composition and HCN as the main CN parent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Birch, P. V . 1995, Icarus, 118, 223, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1190

    arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., & Fuselier, S. A. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 113, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104409 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104409 2019

  3. [3]

    Barber, R. J. 2006, PhD thesis, University College London, UK

    2006

  4. [4]

    J., Siebert, M

    Barnum, T. J., Siebert, M. A., Lee, K. L. K., et al. 2022, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 126, 2716, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpca.2c01435

    doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.2c01435 2022

  5. [5]

    Allamandola, L. J. 2018, ApJS, 234, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa019

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa019 2018

  6. [6]

    B., & Ciesla, F

    Bergner, J. B., & Ciesla, F. 2021, ApJ, 919, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0fd7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0fd7 2021

  7. [7]

    B., ¨Oberg, K

    Bergner, J. B., ¨Oberg, K. I., Bergin, E. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e71

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9e71 2020

  8. [8]

    Chemistry of comet atmospheres

    Biver, N., Dello Russo, N., Opitom, C., & Rubin, M. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.04800, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.04800

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.04800 2022

Show all 137 references
  1. [9]

    2018, A&A, 619, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833449

    Biver, N., Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Paubert, G., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833449

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2021, A&A, 648, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040125 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., & Biver, N

    Biver, N., Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Boissier, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040125 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., & Biver, N. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160252, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0252

    2021

  3. [11]

    1994, A&A, 287, 647 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Gautier, D., Hersant, F., Hur´e, J

    Bockelee-Morvan, D., Crovisier, J., Colom, P., & Despois, D. 1994, A&A, 287, 647 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Gautier, D., Hersant, F., Hur´e, J. M., &

    1994

  4. [12]

    2002, A&A, 384, 1107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020086 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Woodward, C

    Robert, F. 2002, A&A, 384, 1107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020086 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Woodward, C. E., Kelley, M. S., & Wooden, D. H. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1075, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1075 Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Calmonte, U., Charnley, S., et al. 2015, SSRv, 197, 47, doi: 10....

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    Boersma, C., Bregman, J., & Allamandola, L. J. 2018, ApJ, 858, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabcbe

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    W., J., Ricca, A., et al

    Boersma, C., Bauschlicher, C. W., J., Ricca, A., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/8

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    F., & Huffman, D

    Bohren, C. F., & Huffman, D. R. 1983, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles (John Wiley and Sons, Inc.) B¨oker, T., Arribas, S., L¨utzgendorf, N., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142589

    1983 doi

  8. [16]

    Bonev, B. P. 2005, PhD thesis, University of Toledo, Ohio

    2005

  9. [17]

    2010, A&A, 511, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913291

    Linnartz, H. 2010, A&A, 511, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913291

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, Zendo-online, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13942182

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, Zendo-online, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13942182

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 179, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124203

    Brownlee, D. 2014, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 42, 179, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124203

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733a

    Buragohain, M., Pathak, A., Sakon, I., & Onaka, T. 2020, ApJ, 892, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733a

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    P., & Anderson, D

    Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. 2004, Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261, doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644

    2004 doi

  14. [22]

    2006, AJ, 132, 1346, doi: 10.1086/506253

    Campins, H., Ziffer, J., Licandro, J., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 1346, doi: 10.1086/506253

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    C., Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Roos-Serote, M., et al

    Cheng, Y . C., Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., Roos-Serote, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142494

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, A&A, 685, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346662

    Chown, R., Sidhu, A., Peeters, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346662

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Sandford, S

    Clemett, S. J., Sandford, S. A., Nakamura-Messenger, K., H¨orz, F., & McKay, D. S. 2010, M&PS, 45, 701, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2010.01062.x

    2010

  18. [26]

    J., Thomas-Keprta, K

    Clemett, S. J., Thomas-Keprta, K. L., Le, L., et al. 2024, in LPI

    2024

  19. [27]

    M., Ricca, A., Mattioda, A

    Cook, A. M., Ricca, A., Mattioda, A. L., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/14

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Coulson, I

    Cordiner, M. A., Coulson, I. M., Garcia-Berrios, E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5893

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Roth, N

    Cordiner, M. A., Roth, N. X., Milam, S. N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 953, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace0bc

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & A’Hearn, M

    Cowan, J. J., & A’Hearn, M. F. 1979, Moon and Planets, 21, 155, doi: 10.1007/BF00897085

    1979 doi

  23. [31]

    2009, in Deep Impact as a World Observatory Event: Synergies in Space, Time, and Wavelength, ed

    Crovisier, J. 2009, in Deep Impact as a World Observatory Event: Synergies in Space, Time, and Wavelength, ed. H. U. K¨aufl & C. Sterken, 249, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-76959-0 33

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    1997, Science, 275, 1904, doi: 10.1126/science.275.5308.1904

    Crovisier, J., Leech, K., Bockelee-Morvan, D., et al. 1997, Science, 275, 1904, doi: 10.1126/science.275.5308.1904

    1997

  25. [33]

    2020, PSJ, 1, 55, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abb60f

    Danger, G., Ruf, A., Maillard, J., et al. 2020, PSJ, 1, 55, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abb60f

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 637, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037725

    Dartois, E., Charon, E., Engrand, C., Pino, T., & Sandt, C. 2020, A&A, 637, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037725

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, Icarus, 265, 110, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.10.013 Dello Russo, N., DiSanti, M

    Debout, V ., Bockel´ee-Morvan, D., & Zakharov, V . 2016, Icarus, 265, 110, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.10.013 Dello Russo, N., DiSanti, M. A., Mumma, M. J., Magee-Sauer, K., & Rettig, T. W. 1998, Icarus, 135, 377, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.5990 Dello Russo, N., Kawakita, H., Verva...

    2016

  28. [36]

    J., Estrada, P

    Desch, S. J., Estrada, P. R., Kalyaan, A., & Cuzzi, J. N. 2017, ApJ, 840, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6bfb

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Bonev, B

    DiSanti, M. A., Bonev, B. P., Dello Russo, N., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 246

    2017

  30. [38]

    A., Bonev, B

    DiSanti, M. A., Bonev, B. P., Gibb, E. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/34

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    1995, A&A, 300, 503

    Dorschner, J., Begemann, B., Henning, T., Jaeger, C., & Mutschke, H. 1995, A&A, 300, 503

    1995

  32. [40]

    T., & Li, A

    Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810, doi: 10.1086/511055

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Scott, A

    Duley, W. W., Scott, A. D., Seahra, S., & Dadswell, G. 1998, ApJL, 503, L183, doi: 10.1086/311548 E21 Committe. 2000, Standard Solar Constant and Zero Air Mass Solar Spectral Irradiance Tables (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International), doi: 10.1520/E0490-00A

    1998 doi

  34. [42]

    1983, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    Edoh, O. 1983, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    1983

  35. [43]

    Eistrup, C., Walsh, C., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2019, A&A, 629, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935812

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    A., et al

    Ejeta, C., Gibb, E., DiSanti, M. A., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada154

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    H., & Zolensky, M

    Engrand, C., Lasue, J., Wooden, D. H., & Zolensky, M. E. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.03417, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.03417 —. 2024, in Comets III, ed. K. J. Meech, M. R. Combi, D. Bockel´ee-Morvan, S. N. Raymodn, & M. E. Zolensky (University of Arizona Press), 577–620

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    R., & Cuzzi, J

    Estrada, P. R., & Cuzzi, J. N. 2022, ApJ, 936, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac81c6

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    J., & Villanueva, G

    Faggi, S., Lippi, M., Mumma, M. J., & Villanueva, G. L. 2023, PSJ, 4, 8, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/aca64c

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    L., McKay, A., et al

    Faggi, S., Villanueva, G. L., McKay, A., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1237, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02319-3

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Schleicher, D

    Farnham, T. L., Schleicher, D. G., & A’Hearn, M. F. 2000, Icarus, 147, 180, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6420 Fern´andez, Y . R., Kelley, M. S., Lamy, P. L., et al. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1138, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.021

    2000

  42. [50]

    2016, Icarus, 277, 78, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.040

    Fink, U., Doose, L., Rinaldi, G., et al. 2016, Icarus, 277, 78, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.040

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Tenishev, V ., et al

    Fougere, N., Combi, M. R., Tenishev, V ., et al. 2012, Icarus, 221, 174, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.019

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    L., et al

    Frattin, E., Bertini, I., Ivanovski, S. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1152

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd1b5

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, S108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1412

    Gasc, S., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S108, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1412

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Bonev, B

    Gibb, E. L., Bonev, B. P., Villanueva, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/102

    2012 doi

  48. [56]

    1996, Science, 272, 1316, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1316

    Greshake, A., Bischoff, A., Putnis, A., & Palme, H. 1996, Science, 272, 1316, doi: 10.1126/science.272.5266.1316

    1996

  49. [57]

    S., & Allamandola, L

    Gudipati, M. S., & Allamandola, L. J. 2003, ApJL, 596, L195, doi: 10.1086/379595

    2003 doi

  50. [58]

    S., & Yang, R

    Gudipati, M. S., & Yang, R. 2012, ApJL, 756, L24, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L24

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Lynch, D

    Hanner, M. S., Lynch, D. K., & Russell, R. W. 1994, ApJ, 425, 274, doi: 10.1086/173984 H¨anni, N., Altwegg, K., Combi, M., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 3639, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-31346-9

    1994 doi

  52. [60]

    E., Gudipati, M

    Hardegree-Ullman, E. E., Gudipati, M. S., Boogert, A. C. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/172

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    E., Wooden, D

    Harker, D. E., Wooden, D. H., Kelley, M. S. P., & Woodward, C. E. 2023, PSJ, 4, 242, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad0382

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    E., Wooden, D

    Harker, D. E., Wooden, D. H., Woodward, C. E., & Lisse, C. M. 2002, ApJ, 580, 579, doi: 10.1086/343091

    2002 doi

  55. [63]

    Trujillo, C. A. 2007, Icarus, 190, 432, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.03.008 Harrington Pinto, O., Womack, M., Fernandez, Y ., & Bauer, J. 2022, PSJ, 3, 247, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac960d

    2007 doi

  56. [64]

    Harris, A. W. 1998, Icarus, 131, 291, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5865

    1998

  57. [65]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    B., Krivova, N

    Henning, T., Il’In, V . B., Krivova, N. A., Michel, B., & V oshchinnikov, N. V . 1999, A&AS, 136, 405, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999222 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Connolly, A. J., VanderPlas, J. T., & Gray, A. 2014,

    1999 doi

  59. [67]

    Statistics, Data Mining, and Machine Learning in Astronomy: A Practical Python Guide for the Analysis of Survey Data (Princeton University Press), doi: 10.1515/9781400848911

    doi

  60. [68]

    N., et al

    Izidoro, A., Dasgupta, R., Raymond, S. N., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z

    2022 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Dorschner, J., et al

    Jaeger, C., Molster, F. J., Dorschner, J., et al. 1998, A&A, 339, 904

    1998

  62. [70]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142663

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    V ., Manfroid, J., et al

    Jehin, E., Donckt, M. V ., Manfroid, J., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15973, 1

    2023

  64. [72]

    2017, ApJL, 847, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa88b4

    Jewitt, D., Hui, M.-T., Mutchler, M., et al. 2017, ApJL, 847, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa88b4

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    1997, Planet

    Joblin, C., Boissel, P., & de Parseval, P. 1997, Planet. Space Sci., 45, 1539, doi: 10.1016/S0032-0633(97)00107-4

    1997 doi

  66. [74]

    J., & Brownlee, D

    Joswiak, D. J., & Brownlee, D. E. 2014, in 45th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2282

    2014

  67. [75]

    J., Brownlee, D

    Joswiak, D. J., Brownlee, D. E., Nguyen, A. N., & Messenger, S. 2017, M&PS, 52, 1612, doi: 10.1111/maps.12877

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    Kebukawa, Y ., Alexander, C. M. O., & Cody, G. D. 2019, M&PS, 54, 1632, doi: 10.1111/maps.13302 36 W OODWARD , C.E. ET AL

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    Kelley, M. S. P., Hsieh, H. H., Bodewits, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 619, 720, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06152-y

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    Kelley, M. S. P., Woodward, C. E., Bodewits, D., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 018009, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/959/018009

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    2024, A&A, 688, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449797 Kr´olikowska, M., & Dybczy´nski, P

    Kreuzig, C., Bischoff, D., Meier, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A177, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449797 Kr´olikowska, M., & Dybczy´nski, P. A. 2018, A&A, 615, A170, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832917

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    G., Opitom, C., & Lippi, M

    Kwon, Y . G., Opitom, C., & Lippi, M. 2023, A&A, 674, A206, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345989

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    2021, A&A, 656, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140614

    Labiano, A., Argyriou, I., ´Alvarez-M´arquez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140614

    2021 doi

  74. [82]

    M., Hankins, M

    Lau, R. M., Hankins, M. J., Han, Y ., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1308, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01812-x

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    Liddle, A. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L74, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00306.x

    2007

  76. [84]

    Lien, D. J. 1990, ApJ, 355, 680, doi: 10.1086/168801

    1990 doi

  77. [85]

    L., Mumma, M

    Lippi, M., Villanueva, G. L., Mumma, M. J., & Faggi, S. 2021, AJ, 162, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abfdb7

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    M., Kraemer, K

    Lisse, C. M., Kraemer, K. E., Nuth, J. A., Li, A., & Joswiak, D. 2007, Icarus, 187, 69, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.019

    2007 doi

  79. [87]

    L., Hudgins, D

    Mattioda, A. L., Hudgins, D. M., Boersma, C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abc2c8

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    W., Feinberg, L

    McElwain, M. W., Feinberg, L. D., Perrin, M. D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 058001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acada0

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    McGuire, B. A. 2021, Zendo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5046939

    2021 doi

  82. [90]

    J., DiSanti, M

    McKay, A. J., DiSanti, M. A., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab32e4

    2019 doi

  83. [91]

    J., Kleyna, J

    Meech, K. J., Kleyna, J. T., Hainaut, O., et al. 2017, ApJL, 849, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa921f

    2017 doi

  84. [92]

    2005, Icarus, 179, 158, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.015 M¨uller, D

    Dominik, C. 2005, Icarus, 179, 158, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.05.015 M¨uller, D. R., Altwegg, K., Berthelier, J. J., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142922

    2005 doi

  85. [93]

    2002, A&A, 392, 1047, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021072

    Mutschke, H., Posch, T., Fabian, D., & Dorschner, J. 2002, A&A, 392, 1047, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20021072

    2002 doi

  86. [94]

    C., Huss, G

    Ogliore, R. C., Huss, G. R., Nagashima, K., et al. 2012, ApJL, 745, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/745/2/L19

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    2024, A&A, 685, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348244

    Peeters, E., Habart, E., Bern´e, O., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348244

    2024 doi

  88. [96]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Sivaramakrishnan, A. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8442, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. M. C. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, H. A. MacEwen, & J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., 8...

    2012 doi

  89. [97]

    2020, Science, 367, aaw7462, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw7462

    Poch, O., Istiqomah, I., Quirico, E., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aaw7462, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw7462

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    M., Feaga, L

    Protopapa, S., Sunshine, J. M., Feaga, L. M., et al. 2014, Icarus, 238, 191, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.04.008

    2014 doi

  91. [99]

    T., Vaubaillon, J., Kelley, M

    Reach, W. T., Vaubaillon, J., Kelley, M. S., Lisse, C. M., & Sykes, M. V . 2009, Icarus, 203, 571, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.05.027

    2009 doi

  92. [100]

    Ricca, A., Bauschlicher, Charles W., J., Boersma, C., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Allamandola, L. J. 2012, ApJ, 754, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/75

    2012 doi

  93. [101]

    E., Boersma, C., Peeters, E., & Maragkoudakis, A

    Ricca, A., Roser, J. E., Boersma, C., Peeters, E., & Maragkoudakis, A. 2024, ApJ, 968, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4151

    2024 doi

  94. [102]

    H., Wright, G

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B¨oker, T., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 584, doi: 10.1086/682252

    2015 doi

  95. [103]

    2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    Rigby, J., Perrin, M., McElwain, M., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 048001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acb293

    2023 doi

  96. [104]

    X., Gibb, E

    Roth, N. X., Gibb, E. L., Bonev, B. P., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae0f7

    2018 doi

  97. [105]

    X., Milam, S

    Roth, N. X., Milam, S. N., DiSanti, M. A., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 172, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace1e9

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 102, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00718-2

    Rubin, M., Engrand, C., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 102, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00718-2

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3005

    Rubin, M., Altwegg, K., Berthelier, J.-J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4209, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3005

    2023 doi

  100. [108]

    L., Bonev, B

    Saki, M., Gibb, E. L., Bonev, B. P., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba522

    2020 doi

  101. [109]

    A., Bernstein, M

    Sandford, S. A., Bernstein, M. P., & Materese, C. K. 2013, ApJS, 205, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/205/1/8

    2013 doi

  102. [110]

    Schneeberger, A., Mousis, O., Aguichine, A., & Lunine, J. I. 2023, A&A, 670, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244670

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    2019, A&A, 630, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834666

    Schuhmann, M., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834666

    2019 doi

  104. [112]

    W., & Partridge, H

    Schwenke, D. W., & Partridge, H. 2000, JChPh, 113, 6592, doi: 10.1063/1.1311392

    2000 doi

  105. [113]

    Y ., & Li, A

    Seok, J. Y ., & Li, A. 2017, ApJ, 835, 291, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/291

    2017 doi

  106. [114]

    2005, Science, 310, 274, doi: 10.1126/science.1119091

    Sugita, S., Ootsubo, T., Kadono, T., et al. 2005, Science, 310, 274, doi: 10.1126/science.1119091

    2005 doi

  107. [115]

    M., & Feaga, L

    Sunshine, J. M., & Feaga, L. M. 2021, PSJ, 2, 92, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abf11f van Dishoeck, E. F., Grant, S., Tabone, B., et al. 2023, Faraday Discussions, 245, 52, doi: 10.1039/D3FD00010A

    2021 doi

  108. [116]

    2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 89, doi: 10.1007/s12036-023-09977-1

    Venkataraman, V ., Roy, A., Ramachandran, R., et al. 2023, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 44, 89, doi: 10.1007/s12036-023-09977-1

    2023 doi

  109. [117]

    L., Liuzzi, G., Faggi, S., et al

    Villanueva, G. L., Liuzzi, G., Faggi, S., et al. 2022, Fundamentals of the Planetary Spectrum Generator (NASA, Greenbelt,

    2022

  110. [118]

    L., Mumma, M

    Villanueva, G. L., Mumma, M. J., Bonev, B. P., et al. 2012, JQSRT, 113, 202, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2011.11.001

    2012 doi

  111. [119]

    L., Mumma, M

    Villanueva, G. L., Mumma, M. J., DiSanti, M. A., et al. 2011a, Icarus, 216, 227, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.08.024 JWST AND COMET C/2017 K2 PS 37

    2011 doi

  112. [120]

    L., Mumma, M

    Villanueva, G. L., Mumma, M. J., & Magee-Sauer, K. 2011b, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 116, E08012, doi: 10.1029/2010JE003794

    doi

  113. [121]

    Mandell, A. M. 2018, JQSRT, 217, 86, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.023

    2018 doi

  114. [122]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 V okrouhlick´y, D., Nesvorn´y, D., & Dones, L. 2019, AJ, 157, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13aa

    2020 doi

  115. [123]

    J., Wells, L., Micheli, M., & Sato, H

    Wainscoat, R. J., Wells, L., Micheli, M., & Sato, H. 2017, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, 4393, 1

    2017

  116. [124]

    D., Sanborn, M

    Williams, C. D., Sanborn, M. E., Defouilloy, C., et al. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 23426, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005235117

    2020 doi

  117. [125]

    2024, A&A, 687, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450289

    Woitke, P., Dra˙zkowska, J., Lammer, H., Kadam, K., & Marigo, P. 2024, A&A, 687, A65, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450289

    2024 doi

  118. [126]

    Wooden, D. H. 2008, SSRv, 138, 75, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9424-2

    2008 doi

  119. [127]

    H., Ishii, H

    Wooden, D. H., Ishii, H. A., & Zolensky, M. E. 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 375, 20160260, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0260

    2017

  120. [128]

    E., Wooden, D

    Woodward, C. E., Wooden, D. H., Harker, D. E., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abca3e

    2021 doi

  121. [129]

    E., Kelley, M

    Woodward, C. E., Kelley, M. S. P., Harker, D. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 181, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/181

    2015 doi

  122. [130]

    Yang, B., Jewitt, D., & Bus, S. J. 2009, AJ, 137, 4538, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4538

    2009 doi

  123. [131]

    J., Glaser, R., Li, A., & Zhong, J

    Yang, X. J., Glaser, R., Li, A., & Zhong, J. X. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1740

    2016 doi

  124. [132]

    S., Aponte, J

    Zeichner, S. S., Aponte, J. C., Bhattacharjee, S., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1411, doi: 10.1126/science.adg6304

    2023 doi

  125. [133]

    2013, A&A, 553, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220459

    Zeidler, S., Posch, T., & Mutschke, H. 2013, A&A, 553, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220459

    2013 doi

  126. [134]

    2011, A&A, 526, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015219

    Zeidler, S., Posch, T., Mutschke, H., Richter, H., & Wehrhan, O. 2011, A&A, 526, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015219

    2011 doi

  127. [135]

    2022, PSJ, 3, 135, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac6d58

    Zhang, Q., Kolokolova, L., Ye, Q., & Vissapragada, S. 2022, PSJ, 3, 135, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac6d58

    2022 doi

  128. [136]

    2024, SSRv, 220, 79, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01111-z

    Zolensky, M., Engrand, C., Nakamura, T., & Ebel, D. 2024, SSRv, 220, 79, doi: 10.1007/s11214-024-01111-z

    2024 doi

  129. [137]

    2008, M&PS, 43, 261, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb00621.x

    Zolensky, M., Nakamura-Messenger, K., Rietmeijer, F., et al. 2008, M&PS, 43, 261, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2008.tb00621.x

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.