Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

A Dormant Captured Oort Cloud Comet Awakens: (18916) 2000 OG44

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 An 'extinct' comet reawakens, revealing an Oort cloud origin

desk verdict A credible two-night activity detection on a dormant comet candidate, but the Oort-cloud origin claim needs more careful dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21324 v1 pith:ERAUPP7Y submitted 2025-07-28 astro-ph.EP

Colin Orion Chandler , William J. Oldroyd , Chadwick A. Trujillo , Dmitrii E. Vavilov , William A. Burris This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords asteroidscomaecomettailsHildagroupshort-periodcometsdynamicsdormantOortcloud
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 reports the first detection of cometary activity on (18916) 2000 OG44, a minor planet that had been quiet for more than two decades and was previously classified as an extinct comet or an asteroid on a cometary orbit. In images from 2023 July 24 and 26 the object shows a thin tail oriented along the coincident anti-solar and anti-motion directions, and later imaging shows the activity had subsided by September. The authors argue that this is a genuine reawakening, and their dynamical simulations indicate that 2000 OG44 most likely originated in the Oort cloud and arrived on its present Jupiter-family comet orbit within the last 4 million years. If correct, 2000 OG44 is a rare example of a dormant, captured Oort cloud comet that has come back to life.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a positive activity detection with a backward dynamical integration of orbital clones. The detection establishes that 2000 OG44 is not permanently inactive, while the integration — 500 clones drawn from a Gaussian distribution of current orbital uncertainties, evolved for ±4 million years with an N-body integrator that shrinks its timestep during close encounters — establishes the source population. A secondary mechanism is a thermodynamical model that converts measured albedo and rotation period into surface temperature as a function of heliocentric distance; the paper uses it to show that water-ice sublimation can operate even though the body spends most of its time above the 145 K gigayear survival threshold for surface ice.

What would settle it

Re-running the backward integration with an independent N-body code over the same ±4 million year span and checking whether at least 90% of clones still originate in the Oort cloud would settle the origin claim; and a spectroscopic search for CN or C2 emission during the next perihelion passage in late-2030 would directly test the sublimation mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that (18916) 2000 OG44, an object previously reported both as an extinct comet and as an asteroid on a cometary orbit, is active: a thin tail is clearly visible in 3.5 m telescope images obtained on UT 2023 July 24 and 26, pointing toward the coincident anti-solar and anti-motion vectors at a heliocentric distance of about 1.65 au while the object was inbound to perihelion. The paper's dynamical reconstruction, based on 500 Gaussian orbital clones integrated backward and forward for 4 million years with an N-body integrator using variable timesteps for close encounters, finds that 99.2% of clones originate in the Oort cloud and that the object transitioned into the Jupiter-family comet regime about 750 thousand years ago. The authors combine this dynamical history with thermodynamical modeling to conclude that the most likely activity driver is volatile sublimation, and they argue that thermal fracture and rotational disruption are unlikely given the measured rotation period and modest temperature swings.

Load-bearing premise

The Oort cloud origin claim rests on the assumption that integrating 500 Gaussian orbital clones backward for 4 million years with the chosen integrator reliably recovers the object's source population, which could fail if the current orbital elements, the uncertainty model, or the treatment of close encounters is not adequate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the activity is sublimation-driven, 2000 OG44 should become active again near future perihelion passages, with the next likely window in late-2030.
  • An Oort cloud origin would make 2000 OG44 one of only a handful of short-period comets captured from the Oort cloud, implying that some Jupiter-family comets are not Kuiper belt natives.
  • The object's current classification as a Jupiter-family comet, supported by a Tisserand parameter $T_J=2.735<3$, means it should be counted in that population rather than among quasi-Hilda objects.
  • The appearance of activity for only a few weeks around perihelion suggests that dormant comets can reawaken on short timescales, so continued monitoring of 'inactive' objects is likely to catch similar events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Oort cloud origin holds, capture across the 'Jupiter barrier' may be more efficient than the old handful-count estimate, because this object reached a stable Jupiter-family orbit despite regularly crossing Jupiter's orbit.
  • The object's D-type spectral classification combined with an Oort cloud origin would suggest that not all D-types are Kuiper belt migrants, blurring the usual taxonomic mapping between spectral class and source region.
  • A testable extension: re-reduce archival images from the 2008 and 2015 perihelion passages, which the paper notes were observed under poor conditions, to check whether the reawakening was truly the first one.
  • If volatile sublimation is confirmed, a detection of CN or C2 emission during the late-2030 apparition would distinguish it cleanly from an impact-generated dust tail.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of cometary activity from (18916) 2000 OG44, seen as a thin tail on UT 2023 July 24 and 26 in APO/ARCTIC images, with no activity detected on six later nights at other observatories. The authors combine these observations with REBOUND/Trace dynamical integrations of 500 orbital clones over ±4 Myr, concluding that 99.2% of clones originate in the Oort cloud and that the object transitioned to a Jupiter-family comet orbit roughly 750 kyr ago. Thermodynamic modeling is used to argue that volatile sublimation is the most likely activity mechanism, and the paper frames 2000 OG44 as a dormant, captured Oort cloud comet that has reawakened.

Significance. If both the activity detection and the Oort-cloud origin claim hold, 2000 OG44 would be a rare and physically interesting example of a dormant captured Oort cloud comet reactivating on a Jupiter-family orbit. The paper has clear strengths: the detection is based on two independent nights of imaging, the dynamical study uses public JPL orbital elements and the open-source REBOUND/Trace integrator, and the thermophysical model is explicitly parameterized. However, the activity detection lacks quantitative photometric confirmation, and the Oort-cloud attribution depends on an under-specified dynamical model that omits the Galactic tide and passing stars. Both issues are load-bearing for the central claims, so the paper needs substantial revision before the conclusions can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Figure 1, Table 1] The activity discovery rests entirely on visual inspection of co-added images from two nights. No photometric measurement (aperture growth curve, surface brightness profile, or comparison with field stars), no measured tail position angle with uncertainty, and no detection significance are presented. Because the feature is thin and the six later nights show no activity, a quantitative confirmation is needed to support the claim that 2000 OG44 was genuinely active on 2023 July 24 and 26.
  2. [§5, Figure 3f] The Oort-cloud origin conclusion is based on integrations that include only the Sun and planets (except Mercury) and omit the Galactic tide and passing stellar perturbations, even though the clones are classified as Oort cloud at t = -4 Myr and therefore reach distances where these forces act on megayear timescales. The authors should either include these perturbations or demonstrate quantitatively that they are negligible for this object. In addition, the criterion used to label a clone as "Oort cloud" in Figure 3f is never defined in Section 5 or the figure caption, so the quoted 99.2% fraction is not reproducible. Both points are load-bearing for the "captured Oort cloud comet" claim.
  3. [§5, §6] The dynamical source attribution lacks a sensitivity analysis. The paper attributes the disagreement with Gil-Hutton and Garcia-Migani (2016) to updated orbital elements and the use of a variable-timestep integrator, but it does not demonstrate convergence with respect to integrator choice, clone distribution, inclusion of Mercury, or treatment of close encounters. Because backward integration over 4 Myr of a chaotic orbit is sensitive to such choices, the conclusion that 2000 OG44 "most likely originated in the Oort cloud" requires tests showing that the result is robust to these modeling decisions.
  4. [§4, §7] The conclusion that the observed activity is "most likely due to volatile sublimation" is not quantitatively supported. The thermodynamic model yields surface temperatures only; no production rate, dust mass, Afρ, or expected activity duration is compared with the observed tail. The impact hypothesis is dismissed primarily by citing a rate estimate, but no order-of-magnitude model of the expected impact-triggered activity brightness or lifetime is given. The mechanism diagnosis should be framed as tentative unless additional photometric or modeling support is provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5 vs Figure 3f] The text states that the remaining 0.8% of clones were JFCs, while the Figure 3f caption says "the remaining 0.02%" belonged to the JFCs; these numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Figure 1 vs Table 1] The Figure 1 caption dates panel (b) as UT 2023 July 27, but Table 1 lists the second active night as 2023-07-26; please correct the inconsistency.
  3. [§2] Section 2 contains the duplicated phrase "the 3.5 m APO 3.5 m" in the discussion of subsequent non-detections; the repetition should be removed.
  4. [Table 3] The source notes in Table 3 contain typographical errors, including "Manua Kea" for Mauna Kea and "Isaac Newton Telescopes" for Isaac Newton Telescope.
  5. [References] The reference to García Migani (2019) is incomplete, as it lacks a title and publication venue; it should be fully cited or removed.
  6. [§5] The sentence referring to "Figure 3c and b" should refer to panels "b and c" for consistency with the figure layout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the activity detection is new external imaging data, the Oort-cloud origin is a fresh back-integration from JPL elements with a public integrator, and the paper's self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central activity claim (Abstract; Section 2, Figure 1) rests on APO/VATT/LDT images of a tail aligned with the anti-solar and anti-motion vectors; this is an externally observed datum, not a model output or a parameter fitted in this paper. The dynamical origin claim (Abstract; Section 5) is derived by integrating 500 Gaussian clones of the current JPL orbital elements for +/-4 Myr with REBOUND/Trace; no equation in the paper defines the Oort-cloud output in terms of the activity observation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Although the integration omits the Galactic tide and passing stars, that is a physical-completeness or correctness risk, not a circular reduction: the result is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The thermodynamical analysis (Section 4) uses measured albedo, the reported 22.493-day rotation period, and standard energy-balance equations from Chandler et al. (2020, 2021) as a consistency check on the sublimation diagnosis; it does not claim to 'predict' the observed tail from the model. Self-citations (Chandler et al. 2020, 2021, 2022; Oldroyd et al. 2023a,b) supply analysis techniques, model equations, and program context, but the central conclusion does not reduce to any of those references. The discrepancy between the '0.8%' and '0.02%' non-Oort-clone fractions in Section 5 and the Figure 3f caption is an internal inconsistency, not a circularity. Because the paper's main assertions are supported by independent observations and fresh integrations, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central activity detection is an observational result and depends mainly on image quality, while the Oort cloud origin claim depends on the initial conditions and integration choices in Section 5. The thermophysical diagnosis rests on literature albedo, rotation period, and an assumed range of thermal parameter chi. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Thermophysical parameter chi = 1 and 4 (bracketing extremes; not fitted)
    Section 4 computes temperatures for chi=1 (flat slab) and chi=4 (isothermal) to bracket the unknown thermal state. The choice is not fitted to data, but the volatile sublimation diagnosis depends on this assumed range.
  • Bond albedo conversion factor = 2/3 of geometric albedo (approximately 0.03)
    Section 4 estimates Bond albedo as approximately 2/3 of the measured geometric albedo A=0.045 to run the thermal model; this is a chosen conversion, not a fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Newtonian N-body dynamics with the Sun and planets except Mercury accurately models 2000 OG44's past orbit.
    Section 5 uses REBOUND/Trace with 500 Gaussian clones for +/-4 Myr; any unmodeled effects, such as Mercury or non-gravitational forces, could alter the inferred Oort cloud origin.
  • domain assumption Current JPL Horizons orbital elements and their Gaussian uncertainties are a faithful representation of the true orbit.
    Section 5 and Table 2; clones are sampled from these uncertainties, so the dynamical conclusion inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption Backward integration over 4 Myr with 500 clones is sufficient to classify source population despite dynamical chaos.
    Section 5, Figure 3f; the paper's 99.2% Oort cloud fraction is a statement about clones, not a proof about the true object.
  • domain assumption The 145 K gigayear water ice survival threshold applies to 2000 OG44.
    Section 4 invokes Schorghofer (2008) and Snodgrass et al. (2017) to argue surface ice would not survive, though subsurface ice may remain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Dormant Captured Oort Cloud Comet Awakens: (18916) 2000 OG44." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERAUPP7Y

@misc{pith2026250721324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Dormant Captured Oort Cloud Comet Awakens: (18916) 2000 OG44},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERAUPP7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21324}
}
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of activity emanating from (18916) 2000 OG44 (alternately designated 1977 SD), a minor planet previously reported to be both an extinct comet or an asteroid on a cometary orbit. We observed 2000 OG44 with a thin tail oriented towards the coincident anti-solar and anti-motion vectors (as projected on the sky) in images we acquired on UT 2023 July 24 and 26 with the Apache Point Observatory 3.5-meter Astrophysical Research Consortium telescope (New Mexico, USA). We also include observations made in Arizona with the Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope at the Mount Graham International Observatory and the Lowell Observatory Lowell Discovery Telescope near Happy Jack. We performed dynamical simulations that reveal 2000 OG44 most likely originated in the Oort cloud, arriving within the last 4 Myr. We find 2000 OG44, which crosses the orbits of both Jupiter and Mars, is at present on an orbit consistent with a Jupiter-family comet (JFC). We carried out thermodynamical modeling that informed our broader diagnosis that the observed activity is most likely due to volatile sublimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (18916) 2000 OG44 is centered in these 126′′×126′′ images, with North up and East left. A tail is seen oriented towards the coincident anti-solar (yellow arrow) and anti-motion (red outlined black arrow) directions as projected on the sky in panels a and b, both comprised of VR-band images acquired with the Apache Point Observatory (APO) Astrophysical Research Consortium Telescope Imaging Camera (ARCTIC) instrument … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 2000 OG44 metrics from UT 1999 January 1 to UT 2032 January 1, with UT 2025 April 1 indicated by a vertical dashed red line. Apparent V -band magnitude (via JPL Horizons). “Observability” is the number of hours 2000 OG44 was above the horizon for the indicated observatory site, in this case 807 (CTIO, Chile) and G37 (Lowell Discovery Telescope near Happy Jack, Arizona), selected as representative examples for the so… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2000 OG44 dynamical modeling results. Panels (c) through (f) are comprised of 500 orbital clones spanning a Gaussian distribution of orbital element uncertainties. (a) Solar system plot with 2000 OG44. (b) Heliocentric distance of 2000 OG44 and several planets, as seen from Jupiter’s co-rotating reference frame. (c) Heliocentric distance r. 2000 OG44 crosses the orbit of Jupiter (orange horizontal line at ∼5 au) and… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV ASP Conference Series, Vol

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Thuillot, W., et al. 2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV ASP Conference Series, Vol. 351 (Orem, UT: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 367

    2006

  2. [2]

    P., DeMeo, F

    Binzel, R. P., DeMeo, F. E., Turtelboom, E. V., et al. 2019, Icarus, 324, 41, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.035

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.035 2019

  3. [3]

    Bowell, E., Muinonen, K., & Wasserman, L. H. 1994, Asteroids Comets Meteors 1983

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    1966, Numerische Mathematik, 8, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF02165234

    Bulirsch, R., & Stoer, J. 1966, Numerische Mathematik, 8, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF02165234

    doi:10.1007/bf02165234 1966

  5. [5]

    Chandler, C. O. 2022, PhD thesis, Northern Arizona

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    O., Kueny, J

    Chandler, C. O., Kueny, J. K., Trujillo, C. A., Trilling, D. E., & Oldroyd, W. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 892, L38, doi: 10/gg36xz

    2020

  7. [7]

    O., Oldroyd, W

    Chandler, C. O., Oldroyd, W. J., & Trujillo, C. A. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac897a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac897a 2022

  8. [8]

    O., Trujillo, C

    Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., & Hsieh, H. H. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 922, L8, doi: 10/gnmckw

    work page 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    O., Trujillo, C

    Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., Oldroyd, W. J., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1de2

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3234

    Correa-Otto, J., Garc ´ ıa-Migani, E., & Gil-Hutton, R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 876, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3234

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    T., Ernst, C

    Daly, R. T., Ernst, C. M., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 443, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05810-5 D ´ ıaz, C. G., & Gil-Hutton, R. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 487, 363, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079236

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Knight, M

    Eisner, N. L., Knight, M. M., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0f42 Emel’yanenko, V. V., Asher, D. J., & Bailey, M. E. 2013, Earth Moon and Planets, 110, 105, doi: 10.1007/s11038-012-9413-z Fern´ andez, Y. R., Jewitt, D. ...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628184

    Gil-Hutton, R., & Garcia-Migani, E. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 590, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628184

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Yeomans, D

    Giorgini, J. D., Yeomans, D. K., Chamberlin, A. B., et al. 1996, American Astronomical Society, 28, 25.04

    1996

  7. [15]

    Gwyn, S. D. J., Hill, N., & Kavelaars, J. J. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 579, doi: 10/f34ggj

    2012

  8. [16]

    Hahn, G., Stoss, R., & Spahr, T. B. 2000, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2000-S65

    2000

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    C., Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., et al

    Hartogh, P., Lis, D. C., Bockel´ ee-Morvan, D., et al. 2011, Nature, 478, 218, doi: 10.1038/nature10519

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Hills, J. G. 1981, The Astronomical Journal, 86, 1730, doi: 10.1086/113058

    1981 doi

  12. [20]

    H., & Haghighipour, N

    Hsieh, H. H., & Haghighipour, N. 2016, Icarus, 277, 19, doi: 10/f8w88q

    2016

  13. [21]

    H., & Jewitt, D

    Hsieh, H. H., & Jewitt, D. 2006, Science, 312, 561, doi: 10.1126/science.1125150

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R

    Hsieh, H. H., Denneau, L., Wainscoat, R. J., et al. 2015, Icarus, 248, 289, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.10.031

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    2016, in Ground-Based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, Vol

    Huehnerhoff, J., Ketzeback, W., Bradley, A., et al. 2016, in Ground-Based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, Vol. 9908 (SPIE), 1630–1641, doi: 10.1117/12.2234214

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    Joye, W. A. 2006, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV ASP Conference Series, Vol. 351, 574–

    2006

  18. [26]

    2006, Acta Astronomica, 56, 413

    Kankiewicz, P., & W lodarczyk, I. 2006, Acta Astronomica, 56, 413

    2006

  19. [27]

    1979, Dynamical Interrelations among Comets and Asteroids., 289–309 K¨ uhrt, E., & Keller, H

    Kresak, L. 1979, Dynamical Interrelations among Comets and Asteroids., 289–309 K¨ uhrt, E., & Keller, H. U. 1994, Icarus, 109, 121, doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1080 L. Weisenburger, K., Huehnerhoff, J., M. Levesque, E., &

    1979

  20. [28]

    2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 102, doi: 10.21105/joss.00102

    Massey, P. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 102, doi: 10.21105/joss.00102

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Toth, I., Fernandez, Y

    Lamy, P. L., Toth, I., Fernandez, Y. R., & Weaver, H. A. 2004, The Sizes, Shapes, Albedos, and Colors of Cometary Nuclei (University of Arizona Press), 223

    2004

  22. [30]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, Astronomical Journal, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    E., & Smith, G

    Langland-Shula, L. E., & Smith, G. H. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 664, L119, doi: 10.1086/520839

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Levison, H. F. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings, Vol. 107 (Flagstaff, Arizona: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 173–191

    1996

  25. [33]

    F., Bottke, W

    Levison, H. F., Bottke, W. F., Gounelle, M., et al. 2009, Nature, 460, 364, doi: 10.1038/nature08094

    2009 doi

  26. [34]

    F., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 13, doi: 10/cbjh68 13

    1997

  27. [35]

    F., Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., Duncan, M. J., Dones, L., & Gladman, B. J. 2006, Icarus, 184, 619, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.05.008

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    2013, Astronomical Journal, 145, 154, doi: 10/gg28ch

    Li, J., & Jewitt, D. 2013, Astronomical Journal, 145, 154, doi: 10/gg28ch

    2013

  29. [37]

    2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 1991, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.11.015

    Licandro, J., de Le´ on, J., Pinilla, N., & Serra-Ricart, M. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 1991, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2005.11.015

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A170, doi: 10/gmg6s3

    Licandro, J., Popescu, M., de Le´ on, J., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A170, doi: 10/gmg6s3

    2018

  31. [39]

    M., & Rein, H

    Lu, T., Hernandez, D. M., & Rein, H. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 533, 3708, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1982

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    K., Bauer, J

    Mainzer, A. K., Bauer, J. M., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2019, NASA Planetary Data System, doi: 10.26033/18S3-2Z54

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Yang, B., Keane, J., et al

    Meech, K. J., Yang, B., Keane, J., et al. 2014, American Astronomical Society, DPS meeting #46, 46, 200.02

    2014

  34. [42]

    I., et al

    Morbidelli, A., Chambers, J., Lunine, J. I., et al. 2000, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1309-1320 (2000)., 35, 1309, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2000.tb01518.x

    2000

  35. [43]

    L., et al

    Moreno, F., Licandro, J., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 738, 130, doi: 10/dnk4jg

    2011

  36. [44]

    2021, AAS Division of Planetary Science meeting #53, id

    Moskovitz, N., Burt, B., Schottland, R., et al. 2021, AAS Division of Planetary Science meeting #53, id. 101.04, 53, 101.04

    2021

  37. [45]

    2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 1375, doi: 10/ggw3dx

    Ohtsuka, K., Nakato, A., Nakamura, T., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 61, 1375, doi: 10/ggw3dx

    2009

  38. [46]

    J., Chandler, C

    Oldroyd, W. J., Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., et al. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 957, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acfcbc

    doi

  39. [47]

    J., Chandler, C

    Oldroyd, W. J., Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., et al. 2023b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 42, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acc17c

    doi

  40. [48]

    Pravec, P., & Harris, A. W. 2000, Icarus, 148, 12, doi: 10/d8v6b2

    2000

  41. [49]

    Prialnik, D., & Rosenberg, E. D. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 399, L79, doi: 10/cnz3rm

    2009

  42. [50]

    2022,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6408044

    Reback, J., jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., et al. 2022,, Zenodo doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6408044

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7242, doi: 10.21105/joss.07242

    Richard, C., Hourdin, V., Melis, C., & Knagg-Baugh, A. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7242, doi: 10.21105/joss.07242

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Greenfield, P., et al. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10/gfvntd

    2013

  46. [54]

    Schleicher, D. G. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 2204, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/2204

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    2008, Astrophysical Journal, 682, 697, doi: 10/br2vgb

    Schorghofer, N. 2008, Astrophysical Journal, 682, 697, doi: 10/br2vgb

    2008

  48. [56]

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

    Seligman, D. Z., Farnocchia, D., Micheli, M., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 35, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb697

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    2017, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 25, 5, doi: 10/ggw3ff

    Snodgrass, C., Agarwal, J., Combi, M., et al. 2017, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 25, 5, doi: 10/ggw3ff

    2017

  50. [58]

    V., Cutri, M., R., Skrutskie, M

    Sykes, M. V., Cutri, M., R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2010, NASA Planetary Data System, EAR

    2010

  51. [59]

    V., Cutri, R

    Sykes, M. V., Cutri, R. M., Fowler, J. W., et al. 2000, Icarus, 146, 161, doi: 10.1006/icar.2000.6366 Szab´ o, G. M., Kiss, C., Szak´ ats, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6b23

    2000

  52. [60]

    G., Farnocchia, D., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., et al

    Taylor, A. G., Farnocchia, D., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., et al. 2024, Icarus, 408, 115822, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115822

    2024

  53. [61]

    2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 448, Issue 3, March IV 2006, pp.1191-1196, 448, 1191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053492

    Toth, I. 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 448, Issue 3, March IV 2006, pp.1191-1196, 448, 1191, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053492

    2006 doi

  54. [62]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 714, doi: 10.1086/591839

    Volk, K., & Malhotra, R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 687, 714, doi: 10.1086/591839

    2008 doi

  56. [64]

    D., Harris, A

    Warner, B. D., Harris, A. W., & Pravec, P. 2009, Icarus, 202, 134, doi: 10/fcwpb4

    2009

  57. [65]

    G., & Pokorn´ y, P

    Ye, Q.-Z., Brown, P. G., & Pokorn´ y, P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 3511, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1846 14 2MASS Two Micron All Sky Survey AA active asteroid ACO asteroid on a cometary orbit AI artificial intelligence API Application Programming...

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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