Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

The Ongoing Decline in Activity of Comet 103P/Hartley 2

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Comet Hartley 2 continues a steady fade, losing about 42% of its brightness each six-and-a-half-year return.

desk verdict The 2023 Hartley 2 photometry is valuable, but the paper's headline numbers do not reproduce from its own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20215 v1 pith:J3BD6KMI submitted 2025-08-27 astro-ph.EP

Ariel Graykowski , Guillaume Langin , David Chiron , Bruno Guillet , Franck Marchis , Nicolas Biver , Gérard Arlic , Bernard Baudouin
show 97 more authors
Etienne Bertrand Randall Blake Cyrille Bosquet John K. Bradley Isabelle Brocard Christophe Cac Alain Cagna Nicolas Castel Eric Chariot Olivier Clerget Tom Coarrase Lucas Cogniaux Julien Collot Christophe Coté Michel Deconinck Jean-Paul Desgrees Josselin Desmars Giuseppe Di Tommaso José Donas William Drapeaud Todd Forrester Florent Frémont Keiichi Fukui Paul Garde Jérôme Gaudilliere Pascal Gaudin Alexis Giacomoni David Gineste Patrice Girard Jean Claude Gomez Chuck Goodman Gerard-Philippe Grandjean Philippe Guiglion David Havell Patrick Huth Kachi Iwai Marc-Etienne Julien Rachel Knight Ryuichi Kukita Petri Kuossari Jean-Michel Ladruze Anis Ben Lassoued Cédric Latgé Jean-Marie Laugier Matthieu Lauvernier Patrice Le Guen Jean-Charles Le Tarnec Didier Lefoulon Liouba Leroux Niniane Leroux Arnaud Leroy Chelsey Logan Yohann Lorand Elisabeth Maris Jean-Pierre Masini Nicola Meneghelli Laurent Millart Eric Miny Mike Mitchell Baptiste Montoya Fabrice Mortecrette Anouchka Nardi Antoine Ngo Denis Nicolas Raphael Nicollerat Takaya Okada Wataru Ono George Patatoukas Jacqueline Payet-Ayrault Patrick Picard Claude Porchel Kanai Potts Michel Quienen Martial Relier Fabien Richardot Darren Rivett Matthew Ryno Fadi Saibi Sophie Saibi Christian Sartini Hiromichi Sasaki Philippe Seibert Masao Shimizu Lucas Sifoni Georges Simard Petri Tikkanen Ian Transom Bernard Tregon Frank Tyrlik Laurent Vadrot Michel Veuillet Christian Voirol Stefan Will Corine Yahia Phil Yehle Neil Yoblonsky Wai-Chun Yue
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords 103P/Hartley2cometactivitydeclineJupiter-familyreducedmagnitudephotometryvolatiledepletioncitizensciencehyperactivity
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 uses photometry from a worldwide citizen-astronomer network to measure Comet 103P/Hartley 2's peak brightness during its 2023 apparition. It finds the comet's minimum reduced magnitude Gmin = 10.24 ± 0.47, and when this is compared with fits to the 1991, 1997, and 2010 apparitions, the peak fades by 0.59 ± 0.11 mag per orbit, meaning roughly 42% of the flux is lost each return. The authors argue this is a real secular decline in activity, not an effect of orbital geometry, and that it implies the comet's active surface fraction has dropped by about an order of magnitude since 1991. They conclude Hartley 2 may no longer qualify as hyperactive and, if the fading continues, could reach bare-nucleus brightness around the year 2112 after at least 13 more active apparitions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the reduced magnitude G = mG − 5 log10(rhΔ), which removes distance effects, applied to the upper envelope of each apparition's light curve. Brightness is fitted with mG = HG + 5 log10(rh) + k log10(Δ), with separate pre- and post-perihelion slopes; the minimum reduced magnitude from each fit is then regressed against apparition number to obtain the per-return decline. The flux ratio f = 10^(−0.4ΔGmin) and the assumption that active fraction scales linearly with coma flux convert the photometric trend into an activity trend.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to re-reduce the 2023 images using only frames whose surface-brightness profile shows no star-contamination spikes and a fixed aperture radius, then compare that Gmin with a same-passband series from the next apparition around 2030; if the 2023 Gmin moves by more than about 0.2 mag under the stricter reduction, or the next apparition does not come in about 0.6 mag fainter, the claimed per-return fading rate is not secure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 103P/Hartley 2's activity is still declining on a human-observable timescale. Combining 2023 observations with archived photometry from earlier apparitions, the authors fit each apparition's light curve and track the minimum reduced magnitude Gmin—the brightness the comet would have if placed 1 AU from both the Sun and Earth. They find Gmin rose from 7.28 in 1991 to 10.24 in 2023, a linear trend of 0.59 ± 0.11 mag per 6.48-year orbit. Converting this to flux, each return delivers only 58% ± 6% of the previous apparition's peak outgassing, so peak activity is now lower than in 1991 by a factor of about 15, with a 1σ range of 9–26. Because coma brightness is t

Load-bearing premise

The trend assumes that unfiltered 2023 magnitudes, whose effective passband is closest to Gaia G, are directly comparable to the heterogeneous archived magnitudes from 1991, 1997, and 2010; a systematic passband or zero-point offset between apparitions would change the fitted ΔGmin and the active-fraction conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hartley 2's peak brightness in 2023 was about 15 times lower than in 1991, with a 1σ range of roughly 9–26 times lower.
  • The comet's effective active surface fraction dropped from about 1.17 at the 2010 perihelion to roughly 0.4 in 2023, so it no longer meets the definition of a hyperactive comet.
  • If the linear trend continues, Hartley 2 will reach bare-nucleus magnitude around 2112 ± 18, with about 13 more active orbits as a lower limit; activity more likely fades asymptotically.
  • The broadband decline of 42% ± 6% per orbit agrees with the roughly 40% per-orbit drop in water production reported previously, supporting progressive volatile depletion rather than observing geometry as the cause.
  • Because the unfiltered flux includes a gas contribution of roughly 15–25%, dust mass-loss estimates from this photometry are upper limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims: if the trend is real, Hartley 2 could become a live example of a comet crossing from hyperactive to ordinary and eventually dormant, giving observers a rare chance to watch the end stages of a Jupiter-family comet over just a few decades.
  • A cleaner test than fitting heterogeneous archived magnitudes would be a single-passband, aperture-matched photometric program across the next apparition around 2030, plus contemporaneous narrowband water-production measurements; the prediction is another ~0.6 mag fainter Gmin and a commensurate drop in gas production.
  • The upper-envelope approach assumes the brightest points are uncontaminated; if any of those points are background-star blends, Gmin would be biased. Checking the 2023 frames for star-free windows against the surface-brightness spike filter would tighten the result.
  • The active-fraction numbers assume constant nucleus size and a linear flux–production scaling over five orbits; both are approximations, so the 'no longer hyperactive' conclusion should be read as a quantitative estimate with systematic uncertainty comparable to the reported statistical error.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 2023 observing campaign of comet 103P/Hartley 2 by Unistellar/AFA citizen astronomers, presents unfiltered broadband photometry, and fits an upper-envelope lightcurve to the 2023 data. The fitted minimum apparent magnitude is normalized to a reduced magnitude G_min = 10.24 ± 0.47. Combining this value with COBS-based fits for the 1991, 1997, and 2010 apparitions, the authors derive a linear secular fading of ΔG_min = 0.59 ± 0.11 mag per apparition, corresponding to a ~42% flux loss per orbit. From this they estimate that the active fraction has dropped by an order of magnitude since 1991 and that the comet may no longer be hyperactive. The paper interprets the trend as progressive volatile depletion and projects a nuclear-magnitude endpoint around 2112.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is correct, the paper provides a valuable, citizen-science-enabled confirmation of secular fading in a well-studied JFC on human-observable timescales. The public data table and the explicit comparison with the independent narrowband result of Schleicher & Bair (2024) are strengths. However, the central reduction chain has serious internal inconsistencies as printed: the G_min values in Table 2 do not follow from Eq. (4) with the quantities given, and the Table 1 fit parameters do not reproduce the tabulated m_G,min values. Because the headline slope, flux-loss fraction, and active-fraction statements are arithmetic on those tabulated values, the quantitative claims are not currently supported. The qualitative fading trend is plausible and consistent with prior work, but the paper's headline numbers need to be re-derived transparently before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Table 2, Eq. (4)] The reduced magnitudes in Table 2 are not reproducible from Eq. (4) and the tabulated perihelion distances. For 2023: 8.34 − 5log10(1.06×0.693) = 9.01, not 10.24. For 2010: 4.47 − 5log10(1.06×0.695) = 5.13, not 8.92. For 1991: 6.83 − 5log10(0.95×0.719) = 7.66, not 7.28. The 2023 and 2010 values are approximately recovered if one uses the geocentric distance at the stated “Peak Date” (e.g., Δ≈0.39 AU on 2023 Oct 2; Δ≈0.12 AU on 2010 Oct 22) rather than the tabulated perihelion Δ. If that is the intended procedure, the table caption and column headings are wrong, and the 1991/1997 entries must be recomputed and shown. Since Fig. 4 and the ΔG_min = 0.59±0.11 fit are based directly on these four G_min values, the slope and all derived quantities (flux ratio f, active-fraction decline, “no longer hyperactive”) are not supported as printed.
  2. [§3, Eq. (3), Table 1] The fitted lightcurve parameters are inconsistent with the dataset they are supposed to describe. For 2023, using Table 1 (HG=9.85, k_pre=17.89) in Eq. (3) at the October 2 peak (rh≈1.07, Δ≈0.39) gives m_G ≈ 9.85 + 0.15 − 7.32 ≈ 2.7 mag, which is ~5.6 mag brighter than the tabulated m_G,min = 8.34 and ~4.9 mag brighter than the brightest Table 3 point near that date (7.60). Similar large discrepancies occur for 1991 and 2010 when the perihelion or perigee geometry is used. This suggests a sign error in Eq. (3), a mismatch between the quantity actually fitted (apparent vs. reduced magnitude), or an error in Tables 1–2. The authors need to supply a worked reduction example or fit diagnostics (residuals, fitted curves over data) so the chain from raw magnitudes to G_min and ΔG_min is checkable.
  3. [§2.1/§4.1] The quantitative slope assumes that the unfiltered 2023 magnitudes (described as “most comparable to the Gaia G filter”) are directly comparable to COBS broadband magnitudes from 1991, 1997, and 2010, with no passband or zero-point correction. A systematic offset of only ~0.2–0.3 mag between apparitions would change ΔG_min by 0.05–0.08 mag/orbit and the derived “order of magnitude” active-fraction decline by a factor of roughly 1.5–2. The formal 1σ error of ±0.11 mag does not include such systematics. I request a sensitivity analysis that shifts the 2023 (or each historical) point by a plausible passband/zero-point range and recomputes the slope, or an explicit anchoring of the 2023 photometry to a common photometric system (e.g., comparison with contemporaneous COBS or narrowband magnitudes on the same nights).
  4. [§4.2] The active-fraction estimates factive(2017)≈0.7 and factive(2023)≈0.4 are not independent measurements: they are obtained by applying the same fitted slope that is under question, and they also assume factive ∝ flux and constant nucleus size. This is acceptable arithmetic, but should be phrased as a model projection rather than a new observational constraint. The paper's wording (“we can estimate active fractions directly from the measured flux ratios”) is stronger than justified. Please label these as derived from the assumed trend.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The caption says “at perihelion” and gives rh and Δ at perihelion, but the G_min values apparently use peak-date distances. Clarify both in the caption and in the column headers (e.g., “r_h at peak” vs. “Δ at peak”), and state explicitly which distances enter Eq. (4).
  2. [§3] The phrase “minimum magnitude in each bin” should be “minimum numerical magnitude (i.e., brightest)” to avoid ambiguity; this is standard but should be stated because the paper is aimed at a broad citizen-science audience.
  3. [§5] In the second bullet, “The minimum reduced magnitude, m_G,min” should be G_min (the symbol m_G,min is used for the apparent minimum magnitude elsewhere). This typo also appears in the Conclusions bullet list.
  4. [Table 3] Several entries have no reported uncertainty or photometric radius (e.g., many AFA rows). Please indicate whether these were intentionally omitted because errors were not recorded, and give at least a representative description of how the AFA pipeline assigned errors.
  5. [Eq. (5)] The color transformation from V to G is cited to Jordi et al. (2010), but the equation as written appears to have no unit/zero-point explanation. A one-line sanity check would help: with B−V=0.75, V−R=0.43, the offset is −0.0176 −0.005 −0.074 = −0.097, so G≈V−0.10; confirm this is the intended sign and magnitude for the cited transformation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fading trend is an empirical fit, and the derived flux-loss, active-fraction, and 2112 extrapolation values are transparent arithmetic on that fit rather than independent predictions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The 2023 peak reduced magnitude Gmin = 10.24 is obtained from new Unistellar + AFA photometry via the Eq. (3) fit to the bright envelope (Sec. 3), while the 1991, 1997, and 2010 Gmin values come from applying the same equation to COBS data (Sec. 4.1, Tables 1 and 2). The secular slope ΔGmin = 0.59 ± 0.11 is a least-squares fit to these four empirical minima (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 4). The '42% flux loss per orbit' is the identity f = 10^{-0.4ΔGmin}; the 'order-of-magnitude' active-fraction change is (0.58)^5; the factive values are f scaled from the external Lisse et al. (2009) normalization; and the 2112 date is a linear extrapolation of the same fit. None of these is a separate prediction that is fed back into the fit, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction or self-definitional loop. Previous apparitions rest on the external COBS database, and the 2023 result is checked against COBS and against Schleicher & Bair (2024) narrow-band photometry, providing independent support. The only self-citation (Marchis et al. 2020, for the eVscope platform) is descriptive and not load-bearing for the comet's decline. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via self-citation, and no renaming of a known result as new organization. The paper explicitly flags its own limitations (unfiltered passband comparability, radial-symmetry assumption, upper-envelope selection), which are observational systematics, not circular reasoning. I note outside circularity that Table 2's Gmin values do not reproduce from Eq. (4) and the tabulated m_Gmin, r_h, Δ (e.g., 2010 gives 5.13 instead of 8.92; 2023 gives 9.01 instead of 10.24). That is a reproducibility/correctness concern for the fitted slope, not a circularity, and under the hard rules it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its results rest on a chain of fitted photometric parameters (HG, k, and the linear trend slope) and on the assumption that unfiltered, citizen-acquired magnitudes can be compared across apparitions to heterogeneous COBS data.

free parameters (5)
  • HG (lightcurve normalization) = 1991: 7.61±0.15, 1997: 7.83±0.36, 2010: 8.40±0.28, 2023: 9.85±0.47
    Normalization constant in Eq. 3 fitted separately for each apparition; the increase in HG is cited as evidence of fading.
  • kpre, kpost (geometry slopes) = pre: 25.6, 21.8, 26.7, 17.9; post: 12.7, 6.8, 11.5, 14.7 across 1991, 1997, 2010, 2023
    Fitted slope parameters in Eq. 3, allowed to differ pre- and post-perihelion.
  • ΔGmin (per-orbit fading rate) = 0.59 ± 0.11 mag/orbit
    Slope of the linear fit to Gmin vs. time across the four apparitions; all downstream conclusions (flux ratio, active fraction, 2112 date) are derived from this one fitted number.
  • Gmin trend intercept = not reported explicitly (implied ~7.3 at 1991)
    Intercept of the linear fit in Fig. 4; shifts with the slope and anchors the 'order of magnitude' comparison.
  • 9-day bin width = 9 days
    Chosen by hand to match the largest temporal gap in the 2023 dataset; affects which points define the upper envelope.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Coma is radially symmetric for the surface-brightness integration (Eq. 1).
    Authors acknowledge jets and asymmetries but assume the effect on integrated flux is negligible at low resolution (Sec. 2.1).
  • domain assumption The brightest (minimum-magnitude) points in each bin represent the comet's intrinsic brightness; fainter points are observational artifacts.
    Sec. 3 states this explicitly; if instead the brightest points are biased by background contamination, the upper envelope overestimates brightness.
  • domain assumption Unfiltered eVscope and AFA photometry are on the same magnitude scale as Gaia G and as the historical COBS photometry.
    Sec. 2.1 says no filters were applied and the effective passband is 'most comparable' to Gaia G; the cross-apparition trend depends on this comparability.
  • domain assumption Comet magnitude follows m = HG + 5 log10(rh) + k log10(Δ) (Eq. 3) and reduced magnitude uses G = m - 5 log10(rh Δ) (Eq. 4).
    Standard comet normalization, but the fixed 5 log10(Δ) factor may not hold if the coma's distance dependence differs.
  • domain assumption Broadband flux is proportional to active fraction: flux ∝ Q and Q ∝ factive.
    Sec. 4.2 uses this to convert the fitted brightness decline into a decline in active surface fraction; the paper notes gas may contribute 15-25% of the flux, so the dust-based proxy is an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Ongoing Decline in Activity of Comet 103P/Hartley 2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J3BD6KMI

@misc{pith2026250820215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Ongoing Decline in Activity of Comet 103P/Hartley 2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J3BD6KMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20215}
}
abstract

We report photometric observations of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 during its 2023 apparition. Our campaign, conducted from August through December 2023, combined data from a global network of citizen astronomers coordinated by Unistellar and the Association Fran\c{c}aise d'Astronomie. Photometry was derived using an automated pipeline for eVscope observations in partnership with the SETI Institute and aperture photometry via AstroLab Stellar. We find that the comet's peak reduced brightness, measured at $G_{\rm min} = 10.24 \pm 0.47$, continues a long-term fading trend since 1991. The decline in activity follows a per-apparition minimum magnitude increase of $\Delta G_{\rm min} = 0.59 \pm 0.11$ mag, corresponding to an approximately $42\%$ reduction in brightness each return. This trend implies that the comet's active fraction has declined by about an order of magnitude since 1991 and may indicate that Hartley 2 is no longer hyperactive by definition. The fading is consistent with progressive volatile depletion rather than orbital effects. These results offer insight into the evolutionary processes shaping Jupiter-family comets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel A shows a 20-minute stack showing the diffuse coma of Hartley 2 in a crowded star field during its 2023 apparition. Observation taken with a Unistellar eVscope. Panel B shows the surface brightness profile of the comet in blue, and the point at which the profile blends into the background of the image represented by the dashed purple line. 3. RESULTS The lightcurve of Hartley 2 during its 2023 apparition, cons… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lightcurve of Comet 103P/Hartley 2. The lightcurve is fitted to the upper envelope of Unistellar (blue) and AFA (red) data points. COBS submitted data is displayed in gray. The upper envelope of both sets of data points are in good agreement. 4. DISCUSSION 4.1. Comparison to Previous Apparitions To assess the ongoing secular decline in activity, we compare our fitted lightcurve to data from previous apparitions usin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lightcurves of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 from each observable apparition since 1991. Panels A–C show the fitted lightcurve (blue) over COBS data (gray). Panel D shows the lightcurve (blue) fitted only to AFA and Unistellar data (red and blue respectively), which aligns well with COBS data (gray). In all panels, reduced magnitudes are shown in green. The minimum apparent magnitude, mGmin , is derived from the fit, and Gmi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The observed decline in minimum reduced magnitude of Comet 103P/Hartley 2 across multiple apparitions. Previous apparitions include only COBS data, the 2023 apparition includes data from this work as well. The decreasing trend in brightness is indicative of progressive…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, Com` ete Hartley 2, https://web.archive.org/web/20241214183058/https: //www.afastronomie.fr/comete-hartley-2 A’Hearn, M

    AF A. 2024, Com` ete Hartley 2, https://web.archive.org/web/20241214183058/https: //www.afastronomie.fr/comete-hartley-2 A’Hearn, M. F., Millis, R. C., Schleicher, D. O., Osip, D. J., & Birch, P. V. 1995, Icarus, 118, 223, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1190 A’Hearn, M. F., Belton, M. J. S., Delamere, W. A., et al. 2005, Science, 310, 258, doi: 10.1126/science.11...

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    M., Walker, R

    Bauer, J. M., Walker, R. G., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 171, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/171

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/738/2/171 2011

  3. [3]

    Belton, M. J. S., Thomas, P., Li, J.-Y., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 595, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.037 2013

  4. [4]

    1994, Icarus, 108, 265, doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1061 COBS

    Chen, J., & Jewitt, D. 1994, Icarus, 108, 265, doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1061 COBS. 2024, Comet Observation Database. https://cobs.si

    work page arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    R., Bertaux, J

    Combi, M. R., Bertaux, J. L., Qu´ emerais, E., Ferron, S., & M¨ akinen, J. T. T. 2011, ApJL, 734, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L6

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/l6 2011

  6. [6]

    R., M¨ akinen, T., Bertaux, J

    Combi, M. R., M¨ akinen, T., Bertaux, J. L., et al. 2020, PSJ, 1, 72, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abb026 Dello Russo, N., Vervack, Jr., R. J., Lisse, C. M., et al. 2011, ApJL, 734, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L8 Di Sisto, R. P., Fern´ andez, J. A., & Brunini, A. 2009, Icarus, 203, 140, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.05.002 Fern´ andez, J. A., Gallardo, T., & Brunin...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    F., Fitzsimmons, A., Denneau, L., et al

    Gillan, A. F., Fitzsimmons, A., Denneau, L., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 25, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad1394 15

    doi:10.3847/psj/ad1394 2024

  8. [8]

    2004, A&A, 419, 375, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040073

    Groussin, O., Lamy, P., Jorda, L., & Toth, I. 2004, A&A, 419, 375, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040073

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040073 2004

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    1986, IAUC, 4197, 1

    Hartley, M. 1986, IAUC, 4197, 1

    1986

  2. [10]

    2017, Le e-learning informel?: Des apprentissages diffus et discontinus (Google Books)

    Heutte, J. 2017, Le e-learning informel?: Des apprentissages diffus et discontinus (Google Books). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id= UJo5DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA237

    2017

  3. [11]

    2017, A&A, 604, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629910

    Hu, X., Shi, X., Sierks, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 604, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629910

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2022, AJ, 164, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac886d

    Jewitt, D. 2022, AJ, 164, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac886d

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Jewitt, D. C. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver, 659

    2004

  6. [14]

    M., et al

    Jordi, C., Gebran, M., Carrasco, J. M., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015441

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    U., Mottola, S., Hviid, S

    Keller, H. U., Mottola, S., Hviid, S. F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, S357, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1726

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Lindler, D

    Kelley, M. S., Lindler, D. J., Bodewits, D., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 634, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.09.037

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Schleicher, D. G. 2015, AJ, 150, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/22

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    M., & Schleicher, D

    Knight, M. M., & Schleicher, D. G. 2011, AJ, 141, 183, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/183 —. 2013, Icarus, 222, 691, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.004

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Schleicher, D

    Knight, M. M., Schleicher, D. G., & Farnham, T. L. 2021, PSJ, 2, 104, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abef6c

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 68, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adc4e7

    Lehmann, T. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 68, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adc4e7

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    F., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., & Duncan, M. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 13, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.5637

    1997

  14. [22]

    F., et al

    Li, J.-Y., Besse, S., A’Hearn, M. F., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 559, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.001

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Fernandez, Y

    Lisse, C. M., Fernandez, Y. R., Reach, W. T., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 968, doi: 10.1086/605546

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, Acta Astronautica, 166, 23, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.028

    Arbouch, E. 2020, Acta Astronautica, 166, 23, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.09.028

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Kelley, M

    Meech, K. J., Kelley, M. S., A’Hearn, M. F., & DIXI Observing Team. 2011, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 217, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #217, 306.07

    2011

  18. [26]

    J., Bonev, B

    Mumma, M. J., Bonev, B. P., Villanueva, G. L., et al. 2011, ApJL, 734, L7, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L7

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Rahe, J., Vanysek, V., & Weissman, P. R. 1994, in Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids, ed. T. Gehrels, M. S. Matthews, & A. M. Schumann, 597

    1994

  20. [28]

    Sykes, M. V. 2009, Icarus, 203, 571, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.05.027

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    A., & Gustafson, B

    Rickman, H., Fernandez, J. A., & Gustafson, B. A. S. 1990, A&A, 237, 524

    1990

  22. [30]

    L., & Gersch, A

    Farnham, T. L., & Gersch, A. 2011, ApJL, 734, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L3

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, 56, 314.06

    Schleicher, D., & Bair, A. 2024, 56, 314.06

    2024

  24. [32]

    Schleicher, D. G. 2007, Icarus, 190, 406, doi: 10.1016/j. icarus.2007.04.01310.1016/j.icarus.2007.04.039

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V., Galad, A., Bohnhardt, H., et al

    Scotti, J. V., Galad, A., Bohnhardt, H., et al. 1996, IAUC, 6301, 1 The Schools’ Observatory. 2024, AstroLab Stellar: Photometric Analysis for Citizen Astronomers. https://schoolsobservatory.org

    1996

  26. [34]

    C., A’Hearn, M

    Thomas, P. C., A’Hearn, M. F., Veverka, J., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 550, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.05.034

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Feldman, P

    Weaver, H. A., Feldman, P. D., McPhate, J. B., et al. 1994, ApJ, 422, 374, doi: 10.1086/173732

    1994 doi

  28. [36]

    A., Lisse, C

    Weaver, H. A., Lisse, C. M., Mutchler, M. J., et al. 2006, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 38, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #38, 06.02

    2006

  29. [37]

    1989, in Asteroids II, ed

    Rickman, H. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews, 880–920

    1989

  30. [38]

    2006, Icarus, 183, 101, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.02.016

    Whitman, K., Morbidelli, A., & Jedicke, R. 2006, Icarus, 183, 101, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.02.016

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Ye, Q., Kelley, M. S. P., Bauer, J. M., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 47, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acbfbb

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    G., & Wiegert, P

    Ye, Q.-Z., Brown, P. G., & Wiegert, P. A. 2016a, ApJL, 818, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L29

    doi

  33. [41]

    G., et al

    Ye, Q.-Z., Hui, M.-T., Brown, P. G., et al. 2016b, Icarus, 264, 48, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.09.003

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.