Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 123 references

Considering contact forces during the formation of planetesimals by gravitational collapse: mutual orbits, spin states, and shapes

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulating planetesimal collapse with contact physics yields first predictions of spins and shapes.

desk verdict First resolved spin/shape/tight-binary outcomes from SSDEM collapse are worth reading; the 1-AU-to-Kuiper-Belt scaling is the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16739 v1 pith:DODXQ7X3 submitted 2025-07-22 astro-ph.EP

Jackson T. Barnes , Stephen R. Schwartz , Seth A. Jacobson This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords PlanetesimalformationGravitationalcollapseSoft-spherediscreteelementmethodBinaryplanetesimalsSpinstatesShapesKuiperBeltobjectsNumericalsimulation
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 argues that the gravitational collapse of pebble clouds, a leading route to planetesimal formation, can now be modeled with realistic contact physics using the soft-sphere discrete element method (SSDEM) in PKDGRAV. The authors show that the method reproduces the binary-formation results of earlier perfect-merger models while additionally resolving planetesimal spins, shapes, and tight binary orbits. If the approach is correct, the simulated populations—with mean rotation periods near 10 hours and a variety of shapes from spherical to prolate—provide the first direct predictions of these properties from the gravitational-collapse formation channel, testable against observed asteroids and trans-Neptunian objects.

What carries the argument

The soft-sphere discrete element method (SSDEM) within the PKDGRAV N-body integrator is the central tool. Instead of treating collisions as perfect mergers of inflated particles, SSDEM simulates contact forces with spring-dashpot models, friction, and restitution, allowing super-particles to rest, roll, bounce, and aggregate into realistic, volume-filling planetesimals. This enables the resolution of shapes, spins, and tight binary orbits, and the modeling of both accretion and decretion during collapse. The simulations use a small timestep of 4.7 s at 1 AU, with the cloud collapse timescale set by the heliocentric distance; they show that the choice of orbit does not affect outcomes because collision velocities scale with surface escape velocity.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to run the same gravitational-collapse simulations at a heliocentric distance of 30 AU (or with a different gas drag environment) and compare the resulting binary orbits, spins, and shapes to the 1 AU simulations; if the outcomes differ significantly, the assumption that orbit choice does not affect accreted properties is invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SSDEM can model the collapse of a cloud of super-particles into planetesimals while tracking mutual orbits, spin states, and shapes, and that the resulting systems match and extend earlier perfect-merger results. Simulations produce many binary systems per cloud, with the most massive ones on tight, low-inclination orbits (a/RHill ~ 0.02–0.15, i ≲ 15°, e ≲ 0.40), while less massive systems span a wider range. Newly formed planetesimals spin with a mean period near 10 hours, with the largest objects rotating faster when formed from slowly rotating clouds. Six shape classes emerge—spherical, oblate, top-shaped, flattened, egg-shaped, and prolate—with the most massive planetesimals typically spherical or oblate. The shapes correspond to low internal friction angles (ϕ ≲ 10°), indicating relaxation toward a low-strength state during collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the exact heliocentric orbit of the collapsing cloud does not matter because collision velocities scale with surface escape velocity, so collapse simulations run at 1 AU correctly represent collapse in the Kuiper Belt at 30 AU.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method is accepted, the simulated spin and shape distributions become the first direct predictions of planetesimal properties from gravitational collapse, testable against asteroid and Kuiper Belt observations.
  • The match between simulated large-planetesimal spins (7–70 hours) and observed large asteroid and trans-Neptunian spins supports the hypothesis that these spins are primordial, set at formation.
  • The finding that small simulated planetesimals spin slower than comparable asteroids by about 5 hours implies that collisional evolution in the Main Belt has accelerated rotation over 4.5 Gyr.
  • The prevalence of spherical and oblate shapes with low internal friction angles suggests that collapse assembles bodies near relaxed, low-strength states, informing theories of rubble-pile structure.
  • The ability to form many tight binaries per cloud, inaccessible to perfect-merger models, strengthens the gravitational-collapse explanation for the binary fraction in the cold classical Kuiper Belt.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's use of a single cloud mass and orbit implies that spin and shape predictions depend primarily on cloud angular momentum, not location or mass; extending to a range of cloud masses and orbits would test whether the ~10-hour rotation scale is universal.
  • The absence of simulated rotators with periods under about 6 hours, while observed small asteroids spin down to ~2.4 hours, could indicate a formation limit or a missing process; targeted simulations with different initial angular momentum distributions could distinguish these.
  • The shape taxonomy relies on by-eye classification; a quantitative, unsupervised classification of the full 793-object sample would reveal whether the shape classes are discrete or continuous, sharpening comparisons to observed asteroids.
  • The comparison to trans-Neptunian binaries implicitly assumes alignment of the mutual orbital plane with the cloud's angular momentum; real clouds may have a spread in orientations, which would broaden the inclination distributions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper applies the soft-sphere discrete element method (SSDEM) within PKDGRAV to simulate the gravitational collapse of 10^5 super-particle clouds at 1 AU, with the stated goal of predicting the mutual orbits, spin states, and shapes of newly formed planetesimals. Two simulation suites are run: one varying the initial cloud rotation scale factor f at fixed contact parameters, and one varying the coefficients of restitution and friction at two rotation rates. The authors report that SSDEM reproduces the binary mass ratios and accretion efficiencies of earlier perfect-merger models while additionally producing resolved spins, shapes, and tighter binary orbits. The simulated binary orbit properties are compared with observed trans-Neptunian binaries, and the spin and shape distributions are compared with asteroid and Kuiper Belt observations. The paper concludes that gravitational collapse can directly produce the observed ranges of binary orbits and that the simulated spin and shape statistics are the first direct predictions of these properties from this formation channel.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial methodological advance: it is the first SSDEM treatment of pebble-cloud gravitational collapse that resolves planetesimal spins, shapes, and tight binary orbits, and it makes falsifiable predictions that can be compared with relict Kuiper Belt and asteroid populations. The work has concrete strengths: it explicitly validates against prior perfect-merger simulations, uses a well-established SSDEM code lineage, and compares rather than fits to observations, so there is no circularity in the central comparison. The paper also correctly identifies and discusses several limitations, including the lack of very tight observed binaries in the simulations and the absence of collisional evolution in the spin predictions. However, the external validity of the spin and shape predictions depends on an untested environmental assumption (1 AU vs 30 AU), and some of the headline reporting is internally inconsistent; these issues need to be addressed before the observational comparisons can be taken as secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The claim that "the choice of the cloud's heliocentric orbit does not have a significant effect on the accreted planetesimal properties" is load-bearing for the paper's comparisons to Kuiper Belt observations in Figures 8, 9, 11, and 16, yet it is supported only by the scaling argument that collision velocities scale with surface escape velocity. No simulation at 30 AU or with a controlled variation of heliocentric distance is presented, and the model omits gas drag and the changing ratio of the heliocentric tidal field to the cloud's self-gravity. Because the novel spin and shape predictions are the central contribution, this assumption needs a dedicated numerical test, even a single 30 AU run or a controlled variation of a_sun, or the observational comparisons must be explicitly qualified as conditional on the environment being dynamically equivalent.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.5] The abstract states that "Newly-formed planetesimals exhibit 10-hr rotation periods on average," but Section 3.5 reports mean rotation periods of 12.9 hr (sigma = 8.8 hr) and 13.3 hr (sigma = 8.5 hr) for the two simulation suites. The 10-hr value appears to describe only the largest planetesimals, or the comparison populations, rather than the full simulated sample. The abstract should be corrected so that the headline number matches the reported statistics.
  3. [Section 3.6] The six shape categories and the frequencies in Table 4 are assigned "by eye" (stated twice in the text), with no quantitative decision rule and no reproducibility check. Because the shape frequencies are a novel headline result, the classification should be made reproducible—for example, by defining thresholds on the measured oblateness gamma and prolateness beta plus an additional metric for ridge or egg-like features—or by releasing the labeled dataset and classification code alongside the processed data.
  4. [Section 2.1] The normal spring constant is chosen so that maximum particle overlaps are about 20%, deliberately relaxing the <1% criterion used in prior SSDEM work (Schwartz et al. 2012). Since the paper's new spin and shape results emerge directly from contact-force resolution, a convergence test with a stiffer spring, at least for one representative rotation rate and contact-physics case, is needed to rule out an artifact of the soft contact model.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 16] The text refers to "286958 Arrokoth" but the correct Minor Planet Center designation is 486958 Arrokoth.
  2. [Section 1] There is a small typo in the introduction: "so that the they can rest upon each other" should read "so that they can rest upon each other."
  3. [Section 3.5] The statement that the largest simulated planetesimals have a "similar mean spin period" to observed populations is based on a subset of the simulated population; please clarify in the text that the 10-hr figure refers to the largest bodies rather than the full sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: spin, shape, and orbit statistics emerge from SSDEM dynamics and are compared, not fitted, to observations; code validation lineage is external and lab-tested.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—planetesimal spins, shapes, mutual orbits, and multiplicities—are generated by forward SSDEM simulations whose initial conditions and contact parameters are chosen from prior modeling conventions or varied in a deliberate parameter sweep, not tuned to reproduce any observed spin, shape, or orbit statistic. The comparison to asteroids, trans-Neptunian objects, and Arrokoth is a posteriori benchmarking, and the text explicitly acknowledges mismatches (e.g., lack of sub-7-hour rotators, inability to reach the tightest observed binary orbits). The SSDEM implementation itself is cited to Schwartz et al. (2012), co-authored by one of the present authors, but the paper also cites validation by direct comparison to laboratory experiments (Schwartz et al. 2013), which is independent external evidence rather than a definitional loop. The reproduction of Nesvorny et al. (2010) and Robinson et al. (2020) experiments uses their initial-condition setup as a cross-check, but the resulting binary populations are compared, not fitted, to observations. The main physical assumption—that collapse at 1 AU reproduces Kuiper Belt collapse because collision velocities scale with surface escape velocity—is an unsupported and potentially risky approximation (gas drag and heliocentric tides differ), but it is a correctness concern, not a circularity: no observed quantity is encoded in the model to force the outcome. The by-eye shape classification is subjective but does not constitute a reduction of a prediction to an input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on a self-citation whose content is itself the target result. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the empirical comparisons it makes.

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

The central simulation rests on numerical contact parameters that are explored rather than derived, on a coarse-grained super-particle description of pebble clouds, and on initial conditions inherited from prior work. The shape analysis adds a Mohr-Coulomb interpretation. No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • normal spring constant k_n = 1e11 kg s^-2
    Chosen for computational feasibility; yields maximum particle overlap of about 20 percent instead of the under 1 percent criterion in Schwartz et al. 2012. Section 2.1.
  • coefficients of normal and tangential restitution epsilon_n = epsilon_t = 0.5 or 0.9
    Varied as a pair to bracket inelastic and elastic collisions; not derived from experiments because super-particles are not pebbles. Table 1.
  • coefficients of static, rolling, and twisting friction mu_s = mu_r = mu_t = 0.0 or 0.5
    Varied as a pair to bracket no friction and moderate friction. Table 1.
  • initial cloud rotation scale factor f = 0.2 to 1.2 in steps of 0.2 (Suite 1); 0.4 and 1.0 (Suite 2)
    Explored to cover the angular momentum range and inherited from prior perfect-merger models. Section 2.2.
  • minimum particle counts for planetesimal and shape classification = 10, 50, 100, and 300 particles
    Arbitrary cut-offs that affect multiplicity, binary, and shape statistics. Sections 3.1 and 3.6.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Newtonian gravity and the PKDGRAV leapfrog integrator with a k-d tree are accurate for this collapse timescale.
    Section 2 invokes PKDGRAV as the N-body integrator.
  • domain assumption SSDEM spring-dashpot contact model with normal stiffness 1e11 kg/s^2, allowing roughly 20 percent particle overlap, captures aggregate-scale contact physics.
    Section 2.1; the 20 percent overlap is a relaxation of the under 1 percent criterion used in prior SSDEM work.
  • domain assumption Super-particles represent sub-clouds of pebbles; effective contact coefficients need not match pebble-grain physics.
    Section 2.1 states that coefficients reflect effective inter-particle contact physics for collections of grains.
  • domain assumption Initial clouds are uniform-density spheres of radius 0.6 Hill radius in solid-body rotation, following Nesvorny et al. (2010) and Robinson et al. (2020).
    Section 2.2, initial conditions.
  • domain assumption Gravitational collapse at 1 AU produces the same planetesimal properties as collapse at 30 AU.
    Section 2, argued from collision velocity scaling but not tested.
  • ad hoc to paper An aggregate of at least 10 particles is a planetesimal, and at least 50 particles are required for shape classification.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.6; arbitrary thresholds set by the authors.
  • domain assumption Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion without cohesion is a reasonable model for the shape limits of cohesionless aggregate planetesimals.
    Section 3.6, equations (1) through (12).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Considering contact forces during the formation of planetesimals by gravitational collapse: mutual orbits, spin states, and shapes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DODXQ7X3

@misc{pith2026250716739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Considering contact forces during the formation of planetesimals by gravitational collapse: mutual orbits, spin states, and shapes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DODXQ7X3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16739}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we apply a soft-sphere discrete element method (SSDEM) within the PKDGRAV N-body integrator to investigate the formation of planetesimal systems through the gravitational collapse of clouds of super-particles. Previously published numerical models have demonstrated that the gravitational collapse of pebble clouds is an efficient pathway to produce binary planetesimal systems. However, such investigations were limited by their use of a perfect-merger and inflated-radii super-particle approach, which inhibits any analysis of planetesimal shapes and spin states, precludes the formation of the tightest binary orbits, and produces significantly under-dense planetesimals. The SSDEM enables super-particles to rest upon each other through mutual surface penetration and by simulating contact physics. Super-particles do not need to be inflated and collisions are not treated as perfect mergers; we can thus track the evolution of planetesimal shapes, spins, and tight binary orbits. We demonstrate that the SSDEM is an excellent method to model the collapse process, and is capable of producing many binary planetesimal systems from a single cloud. Our results confirm the findings of previously published perfect-merging models while also producing novel results about planetesimal spin and shape properties. Newly-formed planetesimals exhibit 10-hr rotation periods on average and can be characterized by a wide variety of shapes (spherical, oblate, top-shaped, flattened, egg-shaped, or prolate), with the most-massive planetesimals primarily forming as spheres and oblate-spheroids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A snapshot of the aftermath of a collision between two planetesimals is shown from two views: along the equator and from above the spin pole of the most massive planetesimal. The soft-sphere discrete element method (SSDEM) can model accretion and decretion process, as evidenced by the post-impact debris tail and hit’n’run projectile. In this case, a perfect merger method would have combined the bodies during the col… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fraction of the total collapsing cloud mass accreted by the largest planetesimal in each gravitationally collapsing cloud as a function of time since the start of each simulation. Lines are colored according to each simulation’s initial cloud rotation rate scale factor f. 30 simulations are shown corresponding to 6 initial cloud rotation rate scale factors f from 0.2 to 1.2 in steps of 0.2 (5 simulations at each… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cumulative number of planetesimals with a final planetesimal diameter greater than the diameter on the abscissa formed in Suite 1 — Cloud Angular Velocity (a) and Suite 2 — Particle Contact Physics (b and c) simulation suites. Each cumulative number distribution represents the sum over 5 simulations in the case of Suite 1 — Cloud Angular Velocity (a) and 3 simulations in the case of Suite 2 — Particle Contact Ph… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The cumulative multiplicity (solid) and high multiplicity (dashed) fractions of planetesimal systems produced by gravitational collapse as a function of the primary mass normalized by the initial cloud mass. Each cumulative fraction includes all planetary systems with …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Each panel shows the cumulative multiplicity fractions (solid) and high multiplicity fractions (dashed) of planetesimal systems as a function of the primary mass normalized by the initial cloud mass. Each cumulative fraction includes all planetary systems with normaliz…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Binary planetesimal system accretion efficiency (m1+m2)/Mcloud as a function of the binary components’ secondary￾to-primary mass ratio m2/m1 from the suites of 30 simulations (a) with varying initial cloud angular velocities (◦) and 24 simulations (b) with varying coef…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cumulative distribution function of radius ratios for the all formed binary systems shown as solid lines for each simulation suite of the initial cloud angular velocity scale factors f = 0.6–1.2, in steps of 0.2, which dictates their colors. Lower values f = 0.2, 0.4 a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The cumulative fraction of binary planetesimals with an inclination greater than the value on the abscissa. Results from the SSDEM simulations are colored red and orange, and they are compared to the streaming instability model from Nesvorný et al. (2019) shown in blac…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The most massive planetesimals from each simu￾lation in the angular velocity suite with their rotation periods (in hours) plotted against their accretion efficiency. Plan￾etesimals are colored according to their initial cloud rotation rates, as in Figs. 2 and 6. While…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The planetesimal spin rate (revolutions per day) and diameter (km) for SSDEM simulated planetesimals (◦) as well as for each asteroid in the MinorPlanet.info asteroid lightcurve database (×, Warner et al. 2009) and trans-Neptunian objects (blue ⋆, Thirouin et al. 2010…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The rotation periods of binary planetesimal systems (blue) or singleton planetesimals (red) relative to their normalized fraction for the angular velocity and contact physics simulation suites. Only rotation periods less than 30 hours are examined above, as the vast m…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Each example planetesimal is shown with views along the equator (left panels) as well as from above the pole (right panels). The example planetesimal shapes include spherical (first panel), oblate (second panel), top-shaped (third panel), flattened (fourth panel), egg…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The frequency of planetesimal shapes across all simulated initial cloud rotation states. Shapes are denoted in the following manner: spherical (black ◦), oblate (red ∇), flattened (blue □), top-shaped (green ⋄), egg-shaped (purple △), prolate (gray ✚). a ≥ b ≥ c. The …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Each panel shows the prolateness β = 1−b/a and oblateness γ = 1−c/a of the 793 planetesimals from the SSDEM simulations, organized by shape as in Figs. 13, 14, and 15. Each planetesimal’s shape is described as a tri-axial ellipsoid that corresponds to the same moment …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The scaled spin rates Ω = ω/ωd, the oblateness γ = 1−c/a (left column), and prolateness β = 1−b/a (right column) of simulated planetesimals created in the angular velocity or the contact physics simulation suites. Planetesimals created in simulations that did not incl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agresti, A., & Coull, B. A. 1998, The American Statistician, 52, 119. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2685469

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    F., Zhang , Y., Richardson , D

    Agrusa , H. F., Zhang , Y., Richardson , D. C., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 54, 10.3847/PSJ/ad206b

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad206b 2024

  3. [3]

    1964, , 3, 52, 10.1016/0019-1035(64)90030-2

    Alfv \'e n , H. 1964, , 3, 52, 10.1016/0019-1035(64)90030-2

    doi:10.1016/0019-1035(64)90030-2 1964

  4. [4]

    C., Michel , P., & Schwartz , S

    Ballouz , R.-L., Richardson , D. C., Michel , P., & Schwartz , S. R. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 158, 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/158

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/158 2014

  5. [5]

    L., Richardson , D

    Ballouz , R. L., Richardson , D. C., Michel , P., Schwartz , S. R., & Yu , Y. 2015, Planetary and Space Science, 107, 29, 10.1016/j.pss.2014.06.003

    doi:10.1016/j.pss.2014.06.003 2015

  6. [6]

    S., Daly , M

    Barnouin , O. S., Daly , M. G., Palmer , E. E., et al. 2019, Nature Geoscience, 12, 247, 10.1038/s41561-019-0330-x

    doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0330-x 2019

  7. [7]

    D., Noll , K

    Benecchi , S. D., Noll , K. S., Grundy , W. M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 292, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025 2009

  8. [8]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney , J., & Tremaine , S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    P., Farinella, P., Zappala, V., & Cellino, A

    Binzel, R. P., Farinella, P., Zappala, V., & Cellino, A. 1989, Asteroids II, 416–441

    1989

  2. [10]

    P., & Nesvorn \'y , D

    Bottke , William F., J., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Rubincam , D. P., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2006, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34, 157, 10.1146/annurev.earth.34.031405.125154

    2006

  3. [11]

    F., Bro z , M., O'Brien , D

    Bottke , W. F., Bro z , M., O'Brien , D. P., et al. 2015, in Asteroids IV, ed. P. Michel , F. E. DeMeo , & W. F. Bottke , 701--724, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816532131-ch036

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Durda , D

    Bottke , W. F., Durda , D. D., Nesvorn \'y , D., et al. 2005, , 175, 111, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.026

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Zangari , A

    Buie , M. W., Zangari , A. M., Marchi , S., Levison , H. F., & Mottola , S. 2018, , 155, 245, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabd81

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Anderson , K

    Campbell , H. M., Anderson , K. E., & Kaib , N. A. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 75, 10.1038/s41550-024-02388-4

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Stone , L

    Campbell , H. M., Stone , L. R., & Kaib , N. A. 2023, , 165, 19, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca08e

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Cibulkov \'a , H., D urech , J., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Kaasalainen , M., & Oszkiewicz , D. A. 2016, , 596, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629192

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    1978, Computer modelling of jointed rock masses (Dames and Moore)

    Cundall, P., Marti, J., Beresford, P., Last, N., & Asgian, M. 1978, Computer modelling of jointed rock masses (Dames and Moore)

    1978

  10. [18]

    D., & Stadel, J

    Dikaiakos, M. D., & Stadel, J. 1996, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Supercomputing, ICS '96 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 94--101, 10.1145/237578.237590

    1996

  11. [19]

    2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628983

    Drazkowska , J., Alibert , Y., & Moore , B. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628983

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Bottke , W

    Durda , D. D., Bottke , W. F., Enke , B. L., et al. 2004, Icarus, 167, 382, 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.09.017

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Bannister , M

    Fraser , W. C., Bannister , M. T., Pike , R. E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0088, 10.1038/s41550-017-0088

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Benecchi , S

    Fraser , W. C., Benecchi , S. D., Kavelaars , J. J., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 90, 10.3847/PSJ/abf04a

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, Flagstaff, AZ: Lowell Observatory

    Grundy , W. 2023, Flagstaff, AZ: Lowell Observatory. http://www2.lowell.edu/users/grundy/tnbs/orbits.html

    2023

  16. [24]

    M., Noll , K

    Grundy , W. M., Noll , K. S., Roe , H. G., et al. 2019, Icarus, 334, 62, 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.035

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Bird , M

    Grundy , W. M., Bird , M. K., Britt , D. T., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aay3705, 10.1126/science.aay3705

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    W., & Dullemond , C

    G \"u ttler , C., Blum , J., Zsom , A., Ormel , C. W., & Dullemond , C. P. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A56, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912852

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    Harris , A. W. 1979, , 40, 145, 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90059-9

    1979 doi

  20. [28]

    W., Fahnestock , E

    Harris , A. W., Fahnestock , E. G., & Pravec , P. 2009, , 199, 310, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.09.012

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35, 10.1143/PTPS.70.35

    Hayashi , C. 1981, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 70, 35, 10.1143/PTPS.70.35

    1981 doi

  22. [30]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2249, 10.1093/mnras/stv2017

    Hirabayashi , M. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 2249, 10.1093/mnras/stv2017

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    P., & Scheeres , D

    Hirabayashi , M., S \'a nchez , D. P., & Scheeres , D. J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/63

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Hirabayashi , M., & Scheeres , D. J. 2019, Icarus, 317, 354, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.003

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Holsapple , K. A. 2001, , 154, 432, 10.1006/icar.2001.6683

    2001

  26. [34]

    A., & Michel , P

    Holsapple , K. A., & Michel , P. 2006, , 183, 331, 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.03.013

    2006 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Jacobson , S., & Margot , J. L. 2007, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 39, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#39, 52.11

    2007

  29. [37]

    2015, Science Advances, 1, 1500109, 10.1126/sciadv.1500109

    Johansen , A., Mac Low , M.-M., Lacerda , P., & Bizzarro , M. 2015, Science Advances, 1, 1500109, 10.1126/sciadv.1500109

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Mac Low , M.-M., et al

    Johansen , A., Oishi , J. S., Mac Low , M.-M., et al. 2007, Nature, 448, 1022, 10.1038/nature06086

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 627, 10.1086/516730

    Johansen , A., & Youdin , A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 627, 10.1086/516730

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    T., Porter , S

    Keane , J. T., Porter , S. B., Beyer , R. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 127, e07068, 10.1029/2021JE007068

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2007, , 192, 223, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.06.008

    Kryszczy \'n ska , A., La Spina , A., Paolicchi , P., et al. 2007, , 192, 223, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.06.008

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    M., & Richardson , D

    Leinhardt , Z. M., & Richardson , D. C. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 625, 427, 10.1086/429402

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Richardson , D

    Leinhardt , Z. M., Richardson , D. C., Lufkin , G., & Haseltine , J. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 396, 718, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14769.x

    2009

  36. [44]

    F., Olkin , C

    Levison , H. F., Olkin , C. B., Noll , K. S., et al. 2021, , 2, 171, 10.3847/PSJ/abf840

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    N., & Simon , J

    Li , R., Youdin , A. N., & Simon , J. B. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 885, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab480d

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Young , L

    Lisse , C. M., Young , L. A., Cruikshank , D. P., et al. 2021, Icarus, 356, 114072, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114072

    2021

  39. [47]

    2024, , 683, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347742

    Lorek , S., & Johansen , A. 2024, , 683, A38, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347742

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    N., & Johansen , A

    Lyra , W., Youdin , A. N., & Johansen , A. 2021, , 356, 113831, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113831

    2021

  41. [49]

    2019, , 489, 3003, 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    Mashchenko , S. 2019, , 489, 3003, 10.1093/mnras/stz2380

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Michel , P., Schwartz , S

    Matsumura , S., Richardson , D. C., Michel , P., Schwartz , S. R., & Ballouz , R.-L. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 3368, 10.1093/mnras/stu1388

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Michel , P., & Schwartz , S

    Maurel , C., Ballouz , R.-L., Richardson , D. C., Michel , P., & Schwartz , S. R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2866, 10.1093/mnras/stw2641

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    C., & Burns , J

    McAdoo , D. C., & Burns , J. A. 1973, Icarus, 18, 285, 10.1016/0019-1035(73)90211-X

    1973 doi

  45. [53]

    B., Richardson , D

    McKinnon , W. B., Richardson , D. C., Marohnic , J. C., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aay6620, 10.1126/science.aay6620

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Michel , P., Benz , W., Tanga , P., & Richardson , D. C. 2001, Science, 294, 1696, 10.1126/science.1065189

    2001 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Barnouin , O

    Michel , P., Ballouz , R. L., Barnouin , O. S., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 2655, 10.1038/s41467-020-16433-z

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    W., et al

    Mottola , S., Hellmich , S., Buie , M. W., et al. 2020, , 1, 73, 10.3847/PSJ/abb942

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, , 4, 18, 10.3847/PSJ/acaf79

    ---. 2023, , 4, 18, 10.3847/PSJ/acaf79

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    D., & Dermott , S

    Murray , C. D., & Dermott , S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge University), 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    1999 doi

  51. [59]

    1986, Icarus, 67, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90121-1

    Nakagawa , Y., Sekiya , M., & Hayashi , C. 1986, Icarus, 67, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(86)90121-1

    1986 doi

  52. [60]

    B., et al

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Li , R., Simon , J. B., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 27, 10.3847/PSJ/abd858

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    N., Simon , J

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Li , R., Youdin , A. N., Simon , J. B., & Grundy , W. M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 808, 10.1038/s41550-019-0806-z

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, , 331, 49, 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.04.030

    Nesvorn \'y , D., & Vokrouhlick \'y , D. 2019, , 331, 49, 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.04.030

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    F., Levison , H

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke , W. F., Levison , H. F., & Grundy , W. M. 2020 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 893, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8311

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., & Fraser , W. C. 2022, , 163, 137, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4bc9

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    N., Marschall , R., & Richardson , D

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Youdin , A. N., Marschall , R., & Richardson , D. C. 2020 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab89a1

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    N., & Richardson , D

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Youdin , A. N., & Richardson , D. C. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 785, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/3/785

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Thirouin , A

    Noll , K., Grundy , W. M., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Thirouin , A. 2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed. D. Prialnik , M. A. Barucci , & L. Young (Elsevier), 201--224, 10.1016/B978-0-12-816490-7.00009-6

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    S., Grundy , W

    Noll , K. S., Grundy , W. M., Stephens , D. C., Levison , H. F., & Kern , S. D. 2008, Icarus, 194, 758, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.10.022

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    Offner , S. S. R., Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.10066, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2022 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    H., & Kavelaars , J

    Parker , A. H., & Kavelaars , J. J. 2012, , 744, 139, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/139

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    H., Kavelaars , J

    Parker , A. H., Kavelaars , J. J., Petit , J.-M., et al. 2011, , 743, 1, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/1

    2011 doi

  64. [72]

    M., & Mousis , O

    Petit , J. M., & Mousis , O. 2004, , 168, 409, 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.12.013

    2004 doi

  65. [73]

    B., Benecchi , S

    Porter , S. B., Benecchi , S. D., Verbiscer , A. J., et al. 2024, , 5, 143, 10.3847/PSJ/ad3f19

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    B., Singer , K

    Porter , S. B., Singer , K. N., Schenk , P. M., et al. in rev., The Planetary Science Journal

  67. [75]

    Pravec , P., & Harris , A. W. 2000, , 148, 12, 10.1006/icar.2000.6482

    2000

  68. [76]

    W., & Michalowski , T

    Pravec , P., Harris , A. W., & Michalowski , T. 2002, in Asteroids III (University of Arizona Press), 113--122

    2002

  69. [77]

    C., Elankumaran , P., & Sanderson , R

    Richardson , D. C., Elankumaran , P., & Sanderson , R. E. 2005, , 173, 349, 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.09.007

    2005 doi

  70. [78]

    C., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Lake, G

    Richardson, D. C., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 2000, Icarus, 143, 45, https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1999.6243

    2000

  71. [79]

    C., Walsh , K

    Richardson , D. C., Walsh , K. J., Murdoch , N., & Michel , P. 2011, , 212, 427, 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.030

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    Q., Duchene , A., Murdoch , N., et al

    Robin , C. Q., Duchene , A., Murdoch , N., et al. 2024, Nature Communications, 15, 6203, 10.1038/s41467-024-50147-w

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    E., Fraser , W

    Robinson , J. E., Fraser , W. C., Fitzsimmons , A., & Lacerda , P. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 643, A55, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037456

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834331

    Ros , K., Johansen , A., Riipinen , I., & Schlesinger , D. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 629, A65, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834331

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    1987, Icarus, 70, 37, 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90073-X

    Salo , H. 1987, Icarus, 70, 37, 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90073-X

    1987 doi

  76. [84]

    S \'a nchez , P., & Scheeres , D. J. 2016, Icarus, 271, 453, 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.01.016

    2016 doi

  77. [85]

    Schoonenberg , D., & Ormel , C. W. 2017, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 602, A21, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630013

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    R., Michel , P., & Richardson , D

    Schwartz , S. R., Michel , P., & Richardson , D. C. 2013, Icarus, 226, 67, 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.05.007

    2013 doi

  79. [87]

    R., Richardson, D

    Schwartz, S. R., Richardson, D. C., & Michel, P. 2012, Granular Matter, 14, 363

    2012

  80. [88]

    T., & Burns , J

    Sharma , I., Jenkins , J. T., & Burns , J. A. 2009, , 200, 304, 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.11.003

    2009 doi

  81. [89]

    S., & Jewitt , D

    Sheppard , S. S., & Jewitt , D. 2004, , 127, 3023, 10.1086/383558

    2004 doi

  82. [90]

    S., & Jewitt , D

    Sheppard , S. S., & Jewitt , D. C. 2002, , 124, 1757, 10.1086/341954

    2002 doi

  83. [91]

    R., Benecchi , S

    Showalter , M. R., Benecchi , S. D., Buie , M. W., et al. 2021, , 356, 114098, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114098

    2021

  84. [92]

    B., Blum , J., Birnstiel , T., & Nesvorn \'y , D

    Simon , J. B., Blum , J., Birnstiel , T., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04509, 10.48550/arXiv.2212.04509

    2022 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    R., Stern , S

    Spencer , J. R., Stern , S. A., Moore , J. M., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aay3999, 10.1126/science.aay3999

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    Squire , J., & Hopkins , P. F. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 1239, 10.1093/mnras/staa2311

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    Stadel , J. G. 2001, PhD thesis, University of Washington, Seattle

    2001

  88. [96]

    2015, , 149, 124, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/124

    Steinberg , E., & Sari , R. 2015, , 149, 124, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/124

    2015 doi

  89. [97]

    A., Weaver , H

    Stern , S. A., Weaver , H. A., Spencer , J. R., et al. 2019, Science, 364, aaw9771, 10.1126/science.aaw9771

    2019 doi

  90. [98]

    R., & Kaib, N

    Stone, L. R., & Kaib, N. A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 505, L31, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab044

    2021 doi

  91. [99]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Testi , L., Birnstiel , T., Ricci , L., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 339--361, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch015

    2014 doi

  92. [100]

    S., Ortiz Moreno , J

    Thirouin , A., Noll , K. S., Ortiz Moreno , J. L., & Morales , N. 2014, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 46, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#46, 421.09

    2014

  93. [101]

    L., Duffard , R., et al

    Thirouin , A., Ortiz , J. L., Duffard , R., et al. 2010, , 522, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912340

    2010 doi

  94. [102]

    Thirouin , A., & Sheppard , S. S. 2018, , 155, 248, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac0ff

    2018 doi

  95. [103]

    2019 a , , 158, 53, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab27bc

    ---. 2019 a , , 158, 53, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab27bc

    2019 doi

  96. [104]

    2019 b , , 157, 228, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab18a9

    ---. 2019 b , , 157, 228, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab18a9

    2019 doi

  97. [105]

    2024, , 5, 84, 10.3847/PSJ/ad2933

    ---. 2024, , 5, 84, 10.3847/PSJ/ad2933

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    2014, , 564, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322416

    Vilenius , E., Kiss , C., M \"u ller , T., et al. 2014, , 564, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322416

    2014 doi

  99. [107]

    Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., & Bottke , W. F. 2003, , 425, 147, 10.1038/nature01948

    2003 doi

  100. [108]

    2019, , 158, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2639

    Volk , K., & Malhotra , R. 2019, , 158, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2639

    2019 doi

  101. [109]

    J., Richardson , D

    Walsh , K. J., Richardson , D. C., & Michel , P. 2008, Nature, 454, 188, 10.1038/nature07078

    2008 doi

  102. [110]

    2012, Icarus, 220, 514, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.029

    ---. 2012, Icarus, 220, 514, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.029

    2012 doi

  103. [111]

    2009, Icarus, 202, 134

    Warner, B., Harris, A., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 134. http://www.MinorPlanet.info/php/lcdb.php

    2009

  104. [112]

    Weidenschilling , S. J. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 180, 57, 10.1093/mnras/180.2.57

    1977 doi

  105. [113]

    W., & Dullemond , C

    Windmark , F., Birnstiel , T., Ormel , C. W., & Dullemond , C. P. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 544, L16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220004

    2012 doi

  106. [114]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 613, 10.1086/516729

    Youdin , A., & Johansen , A. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 662, 613, 10.1086/516729

    2007 doi

  107. [115]

    N., & Goodman , J

    Youdin , A. N., & Goodman , J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 459, 10.1086/426895

    2005 doi

  108. [116]

    N., & Lithwick , Y

    Youdin , A. N., & Lithwick , Y. 2007, Icarus, 192, 588, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.07.012

    2007 doi

  109. [117]

    C., Michel , P., Schwartz , S

    Yu , Y., Richardson , D. C., Michel , P., Schwartz , S. R., & Ballouz , R.-L. 2014, Icarus, 242, 82, 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.07.027

    2014 doi

  110. [118]

    C., & Schwartz , S

    Zhang , Y., Baoyin , H., Li , J., Richardson , D. C., & Schwartz , S. R. 2015, Astrophysics and Space Science, 360, 30, 10.1007/s10509-015-2536-8

    2015 doi

  111. [119]

    2021, Astrodynamics, 5, 293, 10.1007/s42064-021-0128-7

    Zhang , Y., & Michel , P. 2021, Astrodynamics, 5, 293, 10.1007/s42064-021-0128-7

    2021 doi

  112. [120]

    C., Barnouin , O

    Zhang , Y., Richardson , D. C., Barnouin , O. S., et al. 2018, , 857, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab5b2

    2018 doi

  113. [121]

    2017, , 294, 98, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.027

    ---. 2017, , 294, 98, 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.027

    2017 doi

  114. [122]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 139, 10.1038/s41550-020-01218-7

    Zhao , Y., Rezac , L., Skorov , Y., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 139, 10.1038/s41550-020-01218-7

    2021 doi

  115. [123]

    W., G \"u ttler , C., Blum , J., & Dullemond , C

    Zsom , A., Ormel , C. W., G \"u ttler , C., Blum , J., & Dullemond , C. P. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 513, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912976

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.