Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1, A Centaur in the Gateway to the Jupiter-Family Comets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that most Jupiter-family comets pass through a short-lived, low-eccentricity orbital region just outside Jupiter, and that 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 is the most notable current resident of that Gateway.

desk verdict The Gateway passage fraction is a solid, new dynamical result, but the occupancy check in Sec. 3.2 is arithmetically wrong as written and the 'consistent with observations' claim does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04185 v2 pith:EN3W6ZK2 submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.EP

Gal Sarid , Kathryn Volk , Jordan Steckloff , Walter Harris , Maria Womack , Laura Woodney This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords CentaursJupiter-familycometsTrans-NeptunianobjectsKuiperbeltSolarsystemdynamics29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann1JFCGatewayregionOrbitalevolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the transition from outer-solar-system Centaurs to Jupiter-family comets (JFCs) is not a random walk: most JFCs pass through a short-lived, low-eccentricity orbital corridor just outside Jupiter, called the JFC Gateway region. In the authors' dynamical simulations, 72% of JFCs visit this Gateway, and 66% still do when an empirical fading law is applied; 77% of objects found in the Gateway later become JFCs. The present-day occupant 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1, a large, frequently outbursting Centaur, thus sits at the doorstep of the JFC population and has about a 65% chance of becoming a JFC within $10^4$ years. If the argument holds, the Gateway region is where the physical processing that turns dormant icy bodies into active comets typically begins.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-stage numerical orbital integration scheme. First, test particles are drawn from two trans-Neptunian source models---an actively scattering disk (Kaib et al. 2011) and a stirred classical Kuiper belt (Petit et al. 2011)---and evolved for $500\ \mathrm{Myr}$ under the Sun and giant planets until they enter the Centaur region ($q > 5.2\ \mathrm{au}$, $Q < 30.1\ \mathrm{au}$). Every Centaur is then cloned ten times at its first crossing of $a < 30\ \mathrm{au}$ and integrated with the terrestrial planets included, and the Brasser & Wang (2015) fading law is used to weight each particle's contribution. The central object that carries the argument is the JFC Gateway region itself, defined by $q > 5.4\ \mathrm{au}$ and $Q < 7.8\ \mathrm{au}$, which acts as a bottleneck through which the majority of JFCs pass before or after visiting the inner solar system.

What would settle it

Count all objects with perihelion beyond $5.4\ \mathrm{au}$ and aphelion inside $7.8\ \mathrm{au}$ that are 2-32 km in radius: the model predicts a time-averaged occupancy of about 5 objects if fading is strong and about 20 if it is weak. A deep survey that finds either zero objects in that size range or far more than twenty would contradict the residence-time and fading model and reopen the question of whether the Gateway is the dominant route to the JFC population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that there exists a well-defined dynamical Gateway to the Jupiter-family comets: a temporary, low-eccentricity orbital state with perihelion just outside Jupiter's aphelion ($q > 5.4\ \mathrm{au}$) and aphelion comfortably inside Saturn's influence ($Q < 7.8\ \mathrm{au}$). Using two-stage numerical integrations that first evolve trans-Neptunian source populations into the Centaur region and then follow each Centaur clone through the inner solar system, the authors find that the majority of JFCs---72% under pure gravitational evolution, 66% when an empirical fading law is applied---spend time in this Gateway. They also find that 77% of objects that enter the Gateway go on to become JFCs, and that the expected time-averaged occupancy of the region, roughly 5-20 objects of 2-32 km radius depending on fading, matches the four known occupants. 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 currently sits in this region; its low-eccentricity orbit was set by a 1975 Jupiter conjunction and will be substantially altered by the 2038 conjunction, after which the object's statistical chance of becoming a JFC within $10^4$ years is about 65%.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the two adopted trans-Neptunian source populations, the cloning procedure, and the cutoff that removes particles once their perihelion drops inside $4\ \mathrm{au}$ in the first stage faithfully represent the real orbital pathways that become Jupiter-family comets; if physical disruption, non-gravitational forces, or the source mix differ substantially, the reported 66-72% Gateway passage fractions and all derived occupancy estimates would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The majority of JFCs (66-72%, depending on fading) pass through the Gateway region, making the Centaur-to-JFC transition a canalized rather than random process.
  • Seventy-seven percent of objects found in the Gateway region become JFCs, so a body discovered there is likely an inbound or returning comet rather than a permanent Centaur.
  • The expected 5-20 objects of 2-32 km radius currently in the Gateway matches the four known occupants and implies hundreds of kilometer-size bodies in the region.
  • 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 has roughly a 65% chance of becoming a JFC within $10^4$ years, and would then be the largest short-period comet ever recorded.
  • The Gateway's heliocentric distance range is where distant cometary activity sharply increases, so SW1's carbon-monoxide-driven outbursts may represent the typical onset of activity in most JFCs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper does not pursue: if the Gateway is a canalizing bottleneck, then the recent orbital histories of real JFCs should cluster in the $q > 5.4\ \mathrm{au}$, $Q < 7.8\ \mathrm{au}$ box; this can be tested by cloning observed JFC orbits backward through Jupiter encounters.
  • The same residence-time argument implies the Gateway's unseen population is dominated by small bodies; nearly all of the ~300-1000 predicted kilometer-size occupants should be detectable by future wide-field surveys, which would provide a direct census of the Gateway.
  • Because SW1 is large enough to be relatively resistant to fading, the 2038 Jupiter conjunction offers a rare natural experiment: if its carbon-monoxide-driven activity changes as its eccentricity doubles, that would indicate that orbital processing in the Gateway physically modifies cometary surfaces.
  • The 66% versus 72% difference suggests that fading acts mainly on return visitors; the first-passage fraction may be close to 72%, meaning the Gateway is an even stronger one-way door for fresh objects than the active JFC statistics imply.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies a 'JFC Gateway region' (q > 5.4 au, Q < 7.8 au) just exterior to Jupiter and argues, on the basis of two-stage N-body simulations of scattering-disk and stirred classical-belt TNO source populations, that 72% of Jupiter-family comets pass through this region under pure gravitational evolution (66% when a Brasser & Wang fading law is applied), that 77% of objects in the region become JFCs, and that the region currently contains four observed objects including 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1. It further claims that the model's expected occupancy of 5-20 objects in the 2-32 km radius range is consistent with observations, and that SW1 has about a 65% chance of becoming a JFC within 10^4 years. The paper uses these results to frame SW1's activity as typical of the dynamical and physical Centaur-to-JFC transition.

Significance. The dynamical passage fractions and the identification of a common Gateway pathway would be an important contribution to Centaur/JFC evolution. The paper's strengths include large test-particle statistics, a two-stage integration strategy that separates outer and inner solar system dynamics, the application of an empirical fading law, and concrete short-term integrations of SW1's orbit. The predicted occupancy rates and SW1's future-JFC probability are falsifiable. However, the observational validation of the Gateway occupancy is the paper's main quantitative anchor, and as written the arithmetic in Section 3.2 does not support the claimed 5-20 expected objects. The Gateway region is also defined around SW1's orbit, and the four observed Gateway objects are used both to motivate and to benchmark the model, so the validation is partly circular. These issues do not overturn the central dynamical passage-fraction claim, but they require substantial revision of the observational consistency argument.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The occupancy check in Section 3.2 does not reproduce the quoted numbers. With alpha=3 and k=6.5e6, the cumulative count between r=2 km and r=32 km is k(2^-3 - 32^-3) ≈ 8.12e5. Multiplying by the stated 30% Gateway entry fraction and by the median residency-time ratios 1750 yr / 2.6e6 yr (no fading) or 425 yr / 2.6e6 yr (with fading) gives approximately 164 expected objects without fading and approximately 40 with fading, not the stated ~20 and ~5. The quoted values are reproduced only if the lower radius cutoff is 4 km rather than 2 km. Because the abstract's claim that the derived estimates are consistent with observed Gateway population numbers rests on this number, the calculation must be corrected and the consistency claim reassessed; as written, the model predicts an order of magnitude more objects than the four observed, unless detection completeness is quantified and included.
  2. [Section 3.2] The validation in Section 3.2 is not independent: the Gateway region is defined to contain SW1's current orbit (q > 5.4 au, Q < 7.8 au), and the four observed objects in this region are the same objects used to motivate the model and to benchmark its occupancy. The size-distribution normalization k=6.5e6 in Eq. (2) is anchored to the broader Centaur population that includes these objects. This does not invalidate the dynamical passage-fraction result, but the comparison in Section 3.2 should be framed as a consistency check with acknowledged selection effects rather than as an external validation, especially if the corrected occupancy numbers turn out to be tens rather than single digits.
  3. [Section 2] The two-stage setup may exclude a subset of JFC progenitors. Stage 1 removes test particles at q < 4 au and clones Stage 2 initial conditions from the first Stage-1 crossing of a < 30 au. Any object whose perihelion first dropped below 4 au before its semi-major axis crossed 30 au would be removed in Stage 1 and never cloned into Stage 2. The fraction of Centaurs affected in this way is not reported. If this fraction is non-negligible, the reported 66-72% Gateway passage fractions and the median residency times in Table 1 may characterize only Centaurs that reach a < 30 au before q < 4 au. The authors should quantify the fraction of excluded particles or justify that this ordering is typical for JFC progenitors.
  4. [Section 3.1] The implementation of the Brasser & Wang fading law is described only verbally, and the 66% passage fraction and the reduced median Gateway residency time (425 yr) depend on exactly how it is applied. The paper should state how a perihelion passage with q < 2.5 au is counted, how the weighting phi_m is assigned to cloned particles with different post-cloning histories, and whether the weighting is applied per particle or per timestep. Without this detail the fading-law results in Table 1 cannot be reproduced from the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: "by the the Gateway region" should read "by the Gateway region."
  2. [Section 3.3] "complimentary dynamical framework" should be "complementary dynamical framework."
  3. [Section 3.2] The text switches between diameters and radii: the observed Gateway objects are described with diameters of 4-12 km in Section 1, while the occupancy calculation uses 2 < r < 32 km. Please state explicitly that r is the radius in kilometers and give the corresponding diameter range for the observed objects.
  4. [Figure 3] The panel labels are inconsistent: "JFCs Region" appears in some panels and "JFC region" in others, and the caption uses both forms. Please standardize the region names in the figure and caption.
  5. [Section 3.2] The claimed consistency with observed Gateway populations is presented without uncertainties. The size-distribution parameters k and alpha, the 30% entry fraction, and the residency ratios all carry uncertainties that should be propagated into the expected occupancy ranges before comparing with the four observed objects.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Gateway passage fraction is a direct N-body output with external benchmarks; the Sec. 3.2 occupancy check has a non-circular arithmetic inconsistency.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The JFC Gateway region (q>5.4 au, Q<7.8 au) is defined by physically motivated orbital boundaries, and the 66-72% passage fraction, the 77% JFC probability, and the median residence times are direct outputs of forward N-body integrations that begin from two external TNO source models (Kaib et al. 2011; Petit et al. 2011), clone every Centaur at first a<30 au, and integrate through the terrestrial and giant planets. No parameter of these integrations is fitted to SW1 or to the four Gateway objects; the fading variant uses the externally fitted Brasser & Wang (2015) law rather than a fit to the Gateway fraction. The Sec. 3.2 occupancy estimate multiplies an externally calibrated size distribution (Singer et al. 2019; Snodgrass et al. 2011; Mäkinen et al. 2001) by model-derived fractions and timescales, so the comparison with the four observed objects is a genuine consistency check rather than a renaming or fit. Self-citations in the paper concern SW1's activity and CO observations (Womack et al. 2017; Wierzchos et al. 2017; Sarid & Prialnik 2009) and are not load-bearing for the dynamical conclusion. One non-circular error should be flagged: with the stated 2<r<32 km range, the stated power law and the stated 30%, 1750 yr/425 yr, and 2.6 Myr inputs give ~164 (no fading) and ~40 (fading) expected objects, not 5-20; the quoted 5-20 corresponds to a 4 km lower cutoff. This undermines the claimed consistency but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard N-body integration, two assumed TNO source distributions, an empirical fading law, and an extrapolated size distribution. The only invented entity is the named Gateway region itself, which is an orbital classification rather than a new physics entity.

free parameters (3)
  • Gateway region perihelion and aphelion thresholds = q>5.4 au; Q<7.8 au
    Hand-chosen boundaries motivated by SW1's orbit and avoidance of Jupiter/Saturn encounters; the reported fractions of JFCs passing through the region depend on these thresholds.
  • Centaur size distribution exponent and normalization = alpha=3; k=6.5e6
    Adopted from Singer et al. 2019, Snodgrass et al. 2011, and Makinen et al. 2001; these drive all Gateway occupancy estimates.
  • Brasser-Wang fading law parameters = k~1.4; M=40
    Empirical fading law fit to the observed JFC population; controls the 'with fading' occupancy values and the 66% passage fraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The REBOUND/Mercurius N-body integrator accurately captures the gravitational evolution of test particles through close encounters with planets (Section 2).
    The simulations rely on this standard tool; integration accuracy and particle removal criteria are not independently verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption The two TNO source models (scattering disk from Kaib et al. 2011 and a simplified stirred classical Kuiper belt) are representative of the real sources of Centaurs and JFCs (Section 2).
    The simplification of initial conditions, including a Rayleigh inclination distribution for the classical belt and the inclusion of unstable resonance regions, could bias Centaur production rates and orbital pathways.
  • domain assumption The Brasser & Wang (2015) fading law, fitted to the observed JFC population, can be applied to weight simulated test particles (Section 3.1).
    The fading law is an empirical fit to the same population the paper is trying to characterize; using it improves the inclination match but partly builds the observed JFC distribution into the simulation outputs.
  • domain assumption The Centaur size distribution is a single power law dN/dr proportional to r^-4 with normalization k=6.5e6 and lower cutoff at r=1 km (Section 3.2).
    The power law is assembled from Pluto cratering, JFC, and fragment data in the cited literature; its extrapolation to 1 km is not independently tested here and directly sets all Gateway occupancy numbers.
  • domain assumption JFCs can be identified by the [q,Q] definition (q<5.2 au, Q<7 au) instead of the Tisserand parameter (Section 1).
    The choice of JFC definition affects which simulated particles count as JFCs and hence the reported passage fractions; the paper checks overlap with Horner et al. (2003) but does not test sensitivity to the threshold.
invented entities (1)
  • JFC Gateway region independent evidence
    purpose: Characterize the transient low-eccentricity orbital state through which most JFCs pass on their way from Centaur to JFC
    Defined by observable orbital elements (q>5.4 au, Q<7.8 au), so any discovered object in this region tests the model; no new physical force or particle is postulated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1, A Centaur in the Gateway to the Jupiter-Family Comets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EN3W6ZK2

@misc{pith2026190804185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1, A Centaur in the Gateway to the Jupiter-Family Comets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EN3W6ZK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04185}
}
read the original abstract

Jupiter-family comets (JFCs) are the evolutionary products of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) that evolve through the giant planet region as Centaurs and into the inner solar system. Through numerical orbital evolution calculations following a large number of TNO test particles that enter the Centaur population, we have identified a short-lived dynamical Gateway, a temporary low-eccentricity region exterior to Jupiter through which the majority of JFCs pass. We apply an observationally based size distribution function to the known Centaur population and obtain an estimated Gateway region population. We then apply an empirical fading law to the rate of incoming JFCs implied by the the Gateway region residence times. Our derived estimates are consistent with observed population numbers for the JFC and Gateway populations. Currently, the most notable occupant of the Gateway region is 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 (SW1), a highly active, regularly outbursting Centaur. SW1's present-day, very-low-eccentricity orbit was established after a 1975 Jupiter conjunction and will persist until a 2038 Jupiter conjunction doubles its eccentricity and pushes its semi-major axis out to its current aphelion. Subsequent evolution will likely drive SW1's orbit out of the Gateway region, perhaps becoming one of the largest JFCs in recorded history. The JFC Gateway region coincides with a heliocentric distance range where the activity of observed cometary bodies increases significantly. SW1's activity may be typical of the early evolutionary processing experienced by most JFCs. Thus, the Gateway region, and its most notable occupant SW1, are critical to both the dynamical and physical transition between Centaurs and JFCs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Perihelion-aphelion distribution of JFCs (gray circles; 2 < TJ < 3) and several objects of interest, including SW1 (red circles). Our [q,Q]-defined JFC population is enclosed by the dashed red line. The “JFC Gateway region” is shown in blue (see Section 2). A Tisserand parameter-based classification of “bound JFCs” (Horner et al. 2003) is shown for comparison (yellow squares). We note a distinction in the main mecha… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Average time spent (log scale; in color) per Centaur test particle at different semi-major axes and eccentricities; note that not all particles that become Centaurs evolve to small semi-major axes, so the time distribution reflects both local dynamical timescales and the probability of a particle arriving at that a−e combination. SW1’s location is indicated with a small star and the white lines indicate the boundari… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Short-term orbital evolution of SW1’s semi-major axis a (black line), perihelion q (gold line), and aphelion Q (blue line). The dashed horizontal lines denote our JFC Gateway region. SW1’s orbit significantly changed due to a Jupiter conjunction in 1975, and it will ch…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Grav, T., Blauvelt, E., et al

    Bauer, J. M., Grav, T., Blauvelt, E., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 773, 22

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    M., Grav, T., Fern´ andez, Y

    Bauer, J. M., Grav, T., Fern´ andez, Y. R., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 53

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Belton, M. J. S. 2015, Icarus, 245, 87

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Boehnhardt, H. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Brasser, R., & Wang, J. H. 2015, A&A, 573, A102

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    1994, Icarus, 108, 265

    Chen, J., & Jewitt, D. 1994, Icarus, 108, 265

    work page 1994

  7. [7]

    1995, Icarus, 115, 213 Di Sisto, R

    Crovisier, J., Biver, N., Bockelee-Morvan, D., et al. 1995, Icarus, 115, 213 Di Sisto, R. P., & Brunini, A. 2007, Icarus, 190, 224

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    N., & Rickman, H

    Dones, L., Brasser, Ramon, K. N., & Rickman, H. 2015, SSRv, 197, 191

    work page 2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Duncan, M., Levison, H., & Dones, L. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press), 193–204 Fern´ andez, J. A., Helal, M., & Gallardo, T. 2018, Planet. Space Sci., 158, 6 Fern´ andez, Y. R., Kelley, M. S., Lamy, P....

    2004

  2. [10]

    2001, Icarus, 150, 140

    Winnberg, A., & Tancredi, G. 2001, Icarus, 150, 140

    2001

  3. [11]

    D., Yeomans, D

    Giorgini, J. D., Yeomans, D. K., Chamberlin, A. B., et al. 1996, BAAS, 28, 1158 12

    1996

  4. [12]

    G., & Van Laerhoven, C

    Gladman, B., Marsden, B. G., & Van Laerhoven, C. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P

    2008

  5. [13]

    2015, SSRv, 197, 271

    Guilbert-Lepoutre, A., Besse, S., Mousis, O., et al. 2015, SSRv, 197, 271

    2015

  6. [14]

    2008, A&A, 484, 537

    Gunnarsson, M., Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., & Biver, N., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 537

    2008

  7. [15]

    W., Bailey, M

    Horner, J., Evans, N. W., Bailey, M. E., & Asher, D. J. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1057

    2003

  8. [16]

    2013, A&A, 560, A55

    Hueso, R., P´ erez-Hoyos, S., S´ anchez-Lavega, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A55

    2013

  9. [17]

    2009, AJ, 137, 4296 —

    Jewitt, D. 2009, AJ, 137, 4296 —. 2015, AJ, 150, 201

    2009

  10. [18]

    A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T

    Kaib, N. A., Roˇ skar, R., & Quinn, T. 2011, Icarus, 215, 491

    2011

  11. [19]

    2016, Icarus, 271, 314

    Kulyk, I., Korsun, P., Rousselot, P., Afanasiev, V., & Ivanova, O. 2016, Icarus, 271, 314

    2016

  12. [20]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1818

    Lacerda, P. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1818

    2013

  13. [21]

    M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J

    Lawler, S. M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 197 M¨ akinen, J. T. T., Bertaux, J.-L., Combi, M. R., & Qu´ emerais, E. 2001, Science, 292, 1326

    2018

  14. [22]

    J., & Svoren, J

    Meech, K. J., & Svoren, J. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press), 317–335

    2004

  15. [23]

    A., Mottola, S., et al

    Miles, R., Faillace, G. A., Mottola, S., et al. 2016, Icarus, 272, 327 Nesvorn´ y, D., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Dones, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 845, 27

    2016

  16. [24]

    J., Boehnhardt, H., et al

    Paganini, L., Mumma, M. J., Boehnhardt, H., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 100

    2013

  17. [25]

    J., Gladman, B

    Petit, J.-M., Kavelaars, J. J., Gladman, B. J., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 131

    2011

  18. [26]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Prialnik, D., Benkhoff, J., & Podolak, M. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press), 359–387

    2004

  19. [27]

    2012, A&A, 537, A128

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128

    2012

  20. [28]

    Samarasinha, N. H. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 39, 421 S´ anchez-Lavega, A., Wesley, A., Orton, G., et al. 2010, ApJL, 715, L155

    2007

  21. [29]

    2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 44, 1905

    Sarid, G., & Prialnik, D. 2009, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 44, 1905

    2009

  22. [30]

    2018, PhD thesis, Univ

    Schambeau, C. 2018, PhD thesis, Univ. Central

    2018

  23. [31]

    C., & Jewitt, D

    Senay, M. C., & Jewitt, D. 1994a, Nature, 371, 229 —. 1994b, International Astronomical Union Circular, 5929, 1 —. 1995, BAAS, 27, 1124

    1995

  24. [32]

    J., et al

    Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J., Gladman, B. J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 31

    2016

  25. [33]

    Brown, M. J. I., & Ashley, M. C. B. 2000, AJ, 120, 2687

    2000

  26. [34]

    N., McKinnon, W

    Singer, K. N., McKinnon, W. B., Gladman, B., et al. 2019, Science, 363, 955

    2019

  27. [35]

    2011, MNRAS, 414, 458

    Weissman, P. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 458

    2011

  28. [36]

    2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed

    Stansberry, J., Grundy, W., Brown, M., et al. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P

    2008

  29. [37]

    Morbidelli, & R

    Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, & R. Dotson (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press), 161–179 Steckloff, J. K., & Jacobson, S. A. 2016, Icarus, 264, 160 Steckloff, J. K., & Samarasinha, N. H. 2018, Icarus, 312, 172

    2016

  30. [38]

    S., & Malhotra, R

    Tiscareno, M. S., & Malhotra, R. 2003, AJ, 126, 3122 Trigo-Rodr´ ıguez, J. M., Garc´ ıa-Melendo, E.,

    2003

  31. [39]

    Davidsson, B. J. R., et al. 2008, A&A, 485, 599

    2008

  32. [40]

    B., Hviid, S

    Vincent, J. B., Hviid, S. F., Mottola, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S329

    2017

  33. [41]

    2017, AJ, 153, 230

    Wierzchos, K., Womack, M., & Sarid, G. 2017, AJ, 153, 230

    2017

  34. [42]

    2017, PASP, 129, 031001

    Womack, M., Sarid, G., & Wierzchos, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 031001

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.