Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Physical properties of newly active asteroid 2010 LH15

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The 2019 dust tail of main-belt asteroid 2010 LH15 was sustained for over a month and is best explained by water-ice sublimation, placing water ice at 1.86 AU from the Sun.

desk verdict First physical characterization of 2010 LH15, careful and honest, but the gamma=0.5 evidence for sublimation is weaker than it looks and the 0.1 AU boundary shift is provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12747 v1 pith:JEQSEG3M submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.EP

Bin Liu , Cunhui Li , Zhongcheng Mu , Xiaodong Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords activeasteroidsmain-beltcometswatericesublimation2010LH15dusttaildynamicalmodelingarchivalsurveydataphotometryC-typeasteroid
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 argues that the 2019 dust activity of main-belt asteroid 2010 LH15 was not a one-off impact but a sustained, sublimation-driven event. Using archival survey photometry and dust-tail dynamical modeling, it derives a nucleus radius of 1.11 km, a steady growth in scattering cross-section of $0.28 \pm 0.02\ \mathrm{km}^2\,\mathrm{day}^{-1}$, and an activity onset near 26 June 2019 at heliocentric distance 1.86 AU. The ejected grains span 0.03 to 3 mm in radius, with low terminal velocities of roughly 0.5 to 5 m/s whose size dependence tracks water-ice sublimation. If the orbit is stable, this places water ice 0.1 AU closer to the Sun than the previous inner edge inferred from active asteroids.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a dust-tail dynamical model in the syndyne-synchrone tradition, a family of models that traces where grains of a given size and ejection time would appear in the tail. In the model, grains leave the nucleus and move under solar gravity and radiation pressure, with the radiation-pressure ratio $\beta = 0.57 Q_{pr}/(\rho a)$ controlling their acceleration. The model ejects grains from a sunward cone of half-angle $\omega$, assuming activity is concentrated at the sub-solar point (the surface point directly facing the Sun), with ejection speed $v = v_0 \beta^\gamma$; a grid search over $\beta$ range, start time, $v_0$, $\gamma$, dust size index, and mass-loss rate $\dot{M}$ minimizes the difference between synthetic and observed images. These results are cross-checked against simpler photometric estimates: the coma-turnaround velocity relation, the aperture-by-aperture growth of the scattering cross-section, and an energy-balance calculation that converts the inferred mass-loss rate into a required sublimating area of roughly 0.1% of the nucleus surface. The agreement of these independent estimates is what carries the sublimation conclusion.

What would settle it

Search for OH or water-vapor emission from 2010 LH15 during a future perihelion passage; absence of such emission would contradict the water-ice sublimation interpretation. Independently pinning the 2019 activity onset from archival images to a date well after 26 June would falsify the modeled onset and with it the 1.86 AU boundary claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that 2010 LH15, a 1.11-kilometer main-belt asteroid, was undergoing a sustained dust-ejection episode during the summer of 2019. Archival photometry shows the effective scattering cross-section growing at $0.28 \pm 0.02\ \mathrm{km}^2\,\mathrm{day}^{-1}$ for over a month, and a dust-tail dynamical model reproduces the observed coma and tail with grains of 0.03 to 3 mm radius ejected from near the sub-solar point at terminal velocities following $v = v_0 \beta^{0.5}$ with $v_0 = 50 \pm 20$ m/s. The activity began around 26 June 2019, at a heliocentric distance of about 1.86 AU, and continued through the last observation on 31 August. The recurrence of activity near perihelion, the steady cross-section growth, and the velocity-size relation together point to water-ice sublimation as the driver. The paper concludes that, if the orbit is stable, this extends the known inner boundary of water-ice-bearing material in the main asteroid belt inward by about 0.1 AU.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy-balance constants used to convert the measured mass-loss rate into a sublimating area—dust-to-gas ratio of 10, heat-distribution factor of 2, bond albedo 0.04, and emissivity 0.9—are accurate, and that the orbit of LH15 is stable; if the dust-to-gas ratio is much larger, the required active area grows, and if the dust is not water-ice sublimation, the 1.86 AU boundary claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sustained sublimation source, not a single collision, is the preferred explanation for LH15's 2019 activity, because the scattering cross-section grew steadily for over a month and the fitted ejection-velocity exponent is $\gamma \approx 0.5$.
  • The activity began around 26 June 2019 at about 1.86 AU and continued through 31 August, giving specific dates and heliocentric distances that any reanalysis or future observation can check.
  • The required active area is only about 0.1% of the nucleus surface, roughly a circular patch 64 m in radius, so the water-ice source can be small and localized near the sub-solar point.
  • If the orbit is stable, water ice must be present at 1.86 AU in the main asteroid belt, extending the inferred water-ice-bearing region inward by about 0.1 AU compared with the previous best candidate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the 1.86 AU onset is confirmed, the main belt's water-ice boundary should be viewed as a gradual, thermal-history-dependent transition rather than a sharp line set by one object.
  • Inference: The same archival analysis applied to LH15's 2010 active episode should show a similar onset distance; a large discrepancy would weaken the stable-orbit sublimation picture.
  • Inference: Because the model assumes a slow rotator with a sub-solar active spot, high-cadence imaging during a future perihelion passage could look for a repeating jet pattern that would distinguish localized sublimation from rotational shedding.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a photometric and dynamical study of the newly recognized active asteroid 2010 LH15 using ZTF archival images from July to August 2019. The authors measure a nucleus radius of 1.11 +/- 0.02 km assuming an albedo of 0.05, document a steady increase in the effective scattering cross-section at 0.28 +/- 0.02 km^2/day, and fit a dust tail model to five epochs. From this they derive an activity onset around 26 June 2019 at 1.86 AU, ejected grain radii between 0.03 mm and 3 mm, an ejection velocity law v_ej = (50 +/- 20 m/s) beta^(0.5 +/- 0.2), and an average dust production rate of 6 +/- 5 kg/s. They argue the velocity-size dependence is consistent with sublimation-driven ejection and infer an active area of roughly 1.3e4 m^2, concluding that if the orbit of LH15 is stable, the onset at 1.86 AU extends the inner edge of the water-ice-bearing region of the main belt inward by about 0.1 AU.

Significance. The paper is a careful, well-structured characterization of a single active asteroid, with the clear strength that two relatively independent approaches (aperture photometry and tail dynamical modeling) agree on the activity onset around late June/early July 2019. The photometric trends are convincingly presented, and the authors are explicit about many assumptions, such as the geometric albedo and the dust-to-gas mass ratio. If the sublimation identification holds, the 1.86 AU onset distance would be a genuinely notable result, as it would place the inner boundary of water-ice stability in the main belt slightly closer to the Sun than inferred from other active asteroids. However, the central diagnostic for sublimation is the fitted velocity-size exponent gamma, and the analysis as presented does not demonstrate that gamma is independently constrained by the images rather than inherited from the assumed ejection law. This, together with an internal inconsistency in the reported grid for the activity start time, makes the main physical conclusion less secure than the paper suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.4/Table 3 and 4.1/Fig. 7] The detection of gamma = 0.5 is not independent of the assumed ejection law. Section 3.1's Equation (1) already imposes v_ej proportional to beta^(1/2), and the tail model in Section 3.4 adopts v_ej = v0 beta^gamma with gamma as a free parameter. The grid search over gamma (0.1 to 0.9 in steps of 0.2) returns a 'best' value of 0.5 with a 'possible range' [0.3,0.7] that coincides with the grid spacing; no chi-square surface or likelihood contours are shown. With five epochs and no explicit degeneracy analysis among gamma, v0, t0, and Mdot, the reported gamma cannot support the strong claim in Section 4.1 and Figure 7 that rotational instability is disfavored because gamma is near 0.5. Please either show that the image isophotes constrain gamma independently of v0 and t0, or soften the sublimation conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Table 3] The stated grid for the activity start time t0 is '26 May to 26 July, with an interval of 10 day', but the reported best value is 26 June, which does not lie on the grid (26 May, 5 June, 15 June, 25 June, 5 July, 15 July). Either the grid description is incorrect or the fitting procedure is not transparent. Since the onset date of 26 June underlies the 1.86 AU water-ice boundary claim, please clarify the actual grid and the derivation of the uncertainty range [16 June, 26 June].
  3. [3.2 and 3.3] The bulk dust density is quoted as 1600 kg/m3 in Section 3.2 (when estimating the dust production rate) and as 1.7 g/cm3 in Section 3.3 (for the syndyne-synchrone and tail model). These values differ by about 6%, and the mass-loss rate from Section 3.2 feeds into the active-area calculation in Equation (10) of Section 4.1. Please resolve the inconsistency or explain the different values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The row for the ejection cone half-angle omega lists the best value as 40 and the possible range as [45, 35], which appears to have the bounds reversed; please correct the ordering or the values.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains the typo 'sydynes' for 'syndynes'.
  3. [3.2] The linear extrapolation of the effective cross-section to Ce = 0 gives an onset around July 2, but the uncertainty in this date should also account for the assumed phase function, since the conversion from magnitudes to cross-section depends on it.
  4. [Section 2 and Figure 1] Section 2 states that the images are cropped to 4'x4', while Figure 1 reports a field of view of 2.5'x2.5'; please make these consistent.
  5. [4.1] Equation (10) depends on several assumed constants (fd2g=10, chi=2, bond albedo=0.04, emissivity=0.9); a short sensitivity discussion of how the inferred active area changes with these assumptions would help the reader assess the robustness of the sublimation hypothesis.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the gamma=0.5 result and the photometric Mdot cross-check inherit inputs from the same model/Eq. (1), so the sublimation evidence is not fully independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 (Eq. 1) and Section 3.4 (Table 3 and text)]
    "vej = sqrt(2βgsunlcoma), (1) ... yielding the relationship between the ejection velocity vej andβ as vej∼ (68.4± 4.6)β1/2 m s−1. ... The ejection velocity is given by vej = v0βγ, where v0 is explored around the value of 68.4± 4.6 m/s as detailed in section 3.1."

    Equation (1) is a turnaround formula whose mathematical form is v_ej proportional to beta^(1/2). Section 3.4 sets the v0 search range from the value 68.4 m/s obtained from Eq. (1), so the subsequent grid result gamma=0.5 is anchored to the same beta^(1/2) law. Section 4.1 then cites gamma approximately 0.5 as evidence for sublimation over rotational instability. Because the fitted exponent is not independent of the assumed scaling, this piece of evidence is partially self-confirming.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (dust production rate) and Section 3.4 (Table 3)]
    "Assuming a dust density of 1600 kg/m3 and an mean radius of the particles of 0.3 mm (Table 3), the corresponding dust production rate is derived to be about 1.56± 0.11 kg/s. ... The average dust mass production rate matching the observed brightness is 6±5 kg/s, which is compatible with the result obtained from photometric measurements in Section 3.2."

    The photometric production-rate estimate uses the dynamical model's mean particle radius (0.3 mm, Table 3) as an input. The tail model's Mdot is then reported as 'compatible' with this photometric estimate, but the two estimates share the model-derived size scale. The agreement is therefore partly built in and does not constitute an independent validation of the mass-loss rate.

full rationale

The central sublimation claim rests on three legs: sustained activity, gamma approximately 0.5, and the SSA/Whipple comparison. The sustained activity (linear Ce increase) is a direct photometric observation and is not circular. The SSA/Whipple comparison is an external theoretical benchmark. However, the gamma approximately 0.5 result is partly inherited from Eq. (1), which already assumes v proportional to beta^(1/2) and is used to set v0 in the tail model; the fitted gamma is thus not an out-of-sample prediction. The photometric Mdot cross-check also uses the model's 0.3 mm mean radius, so its agreement with the tail-model Mdot is partly by construction. Self-citations (Liu et al. 2016 for the model procedure) are described and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported. The 1.86 AU boundary is conditional on the sublimation hypothesis and is not circular in itself. The t0 grid inconsistency in Table 3 (26 June not on the stated 10-day grid) is a reporting flaw rather than a circular step. Overall, the paper has independent observational content, but the mechanism-discrimination argument is not as independent as presented.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a chain of assumed constants and fitted parameters. The photometric scale is set by an assumed albedo and phase function, the dynamical model by an assumed ejection geometry and velocity law, and the sublimation conclusion by assumed dust-to-gas and thermal parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • Geometric albedo pr = 0.05 (assumed)
    Assumed for nucleus and dust; directly scales nucleus radius and all effective cross-sections (Eq. 2 and 4).
  • HG phase function parameter G = 0.15 (assumed)
    Assumed C-type value; affects absolute magnitudes and therefore all cross-section estimates.
  • Dust bulk density rho = 1.7 g/cm3 (also 1600 kg/m3 in Sec. 3.2)
    Adopted C-type average; converts beta to grain radius and mass production rate; two slightly different values appear.
  • Dust size distribution index = 3.5 (model), 3 (aperture analysis)
    Assumed power-law slope from literature; affects cross-section growth and mass production rate.
  • Ejection velocity normalization v0 = 50 ± 20 m/s
    Grid search over 30 to 110 m/s; anchors the velocity-size relation.
  • Velocity-size exponent gamma = 0.5 ± 0.2
    Grid search over 0.1 to 0.9; used as evidence for sublimation.
  • Activity start time t0 = 26 June 2019
    Grid search over 26 May to 26 July; cross-checked with photometric extrapolation, but both derive from the same observations.
  • Minimum beta = 1e-4
    Grid search over 1e-6, 1e-5, 1e-4; sets the largest grain size in the model.
  • Ejection cone half-angle omega = 40 deg
    Grid search over 15 to 60 deg; isotropic ejection was rejected because it made the tail too wide.
  • Dust production rate Mdot = 6 ± 5 kg/s
    Grid search over 1 to 21 kg/s; used in the active-area calculation.
  • Dust-to-gas mass ratio fd2g = 10 (assumed)
    Assumed from cometary literature; controls the required active area for sublimation.
  • Mean particle radius for mass rate = 0.3 mm
    Taken from the model; used to convert dCe/dt into a mass loss rate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Dust grains after ejection are governed only by solar gravity and radiation pressure (Finson-Probstein), with beta = 0.57 Qpr/(rho a) and Qpr = 1.
    Sections 3.3 and 3.4; neglects nucleus gravity, solar wind drag, and particle-particle interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper Activity is continuous and concentrated at the sub-solar point within a sunward cone (slow rotator model), with ejection velocity law vej = v0 beta^gamma.
    Section 3.4; justified by a rotation period lower limit of 2 hours, but the geometry and velocity law are assumed and fitted.
  • domain assumption The HG phase function with G = 0.15 applies to the nucleus and dust.
    Section 3.2; affects all absolute magnitudes and cross-sections.
  • domain assumption Dust size distribution follows a power law with exponent 3.5 in the model and 3 in the aperture analysis.
    Equations 5-8 and Table 3; the range comes from literature, not from LH15 measurements.
  • domain assumption Energy balance for sublimation uses chi = 2, bond albedo A = 0.04, emissivity epsilon = 0.9, and latent heat Hs(T).
    Equation 9; standard choices, but they directly affect the active-area estimate.
  • domain assumption The dust-to-gas mass production ratio is 10.
    Equation 10 and following text; cited from Fulle et al. (2016), Reach et al. (2000), and Kim et al. (2022a).
  • domain assumption The orbit of LH15 is assumed stable over long timescales for the water-ice boundary extension claim.
    Abstract and Section 4.1; the statement is explicitly conditional ('If the orbit of LH15 is stable').

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical properties of newly active asteroid 2010 LH15." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JEQSEG3M

@misc{pith2026250712747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical properties of newly active asteroid 2010 LH15},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JEQSEG3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12747}
}
abstract

Main-belt asteroid 2010 LH$_{15}$ has been classified as an active asteroid, based on the recent discovery of dust activity from the archival images observed in 2010 and 2019. In this study, we perform measurements and dynamical modeling of the dust tail of the active asteroid 2010 LH$_{15}$ using ZTF archival data from July 26 to August 31, 2019, with the derived physical properties from these relatively independent methods being compatible. The photometric results show that the radius of the nucleus is $1.11\pm0.02$ km with assumed geometric albedo of $p_r = 0.05$, and the color index of the nucleus is relatively close to that of the ejecta around the nucleus, with a value of $H_g - H_r = 0.44\pm0.07$. The effective scattering cross-section increases at an average rate of $0.28\pm0.02$ km$^2$ day$^{-1}$ throughout the observation period, indicating that the activity of LH$_{15}$ is likely driven by mechanisms capable of causing a sustained process like sublimation. Further dust dynamics modeling indicates that the dust activity initiates as early as about 26 June 2019, with the ejected dust particles having a radius ranging from 0.03 mm to 3 mm. The dependence of the terminal velocity on dust size is consistent with a sublimation-driven mechanism. If the orbit of LH$_{15}$ is stable, its sublimation origin will extend the inner boundary of the water-ice-bearing region in the main asteroid belt inward by approximately 0.1 AU.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12747 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Composite images of LH15. The observation epoch is marked in the upper right corner of each panel. The projected Sun-LH15 radial direction (-S) and the anti-velocity direction of LH15’s projected motion (-V) are indicated as red arrows. The FOV of each image is 2.5 ′ × 2.5 ′ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reduced magnitudes of LH15 derived from photometry (circles) and HG function (dashed line) in 2018 (upper panel) and 2019 (lower panel). in which G is the gravitational constant, M⊙ is the mass of the Sun, and R is the heliocentric distance. The distribution of as￾teroidal dust typically follows a power-law with an exponent be￾tween 3 and 3.5 (e.g. Gorkavyi & Trofimov (2022)). In this con￾text, we assume an exponent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effective scattering cross-section vs. date of observation (MJD) for each of the five apertures with different radii. The radius of each aperture measured in units of 103 km is presented on the right side of each line. Due to the smaller size of the error bars compared to the data points, they become concealed behind these points. tail using the syndyne-synchrone model, which is based on the Finson-Probstein theory.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Syndynes (green) and synchrones (red) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The modeled morphology of LH15 using the parameters in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between brightness contours in observed images (black lines) and modeled images (red lines, using the parameters in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between the size-velocity relationship determined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002 Bottke Jr, W. F., Durda, D. D., Nesvorn`y, D., et al. 2005, Icarus, 179, 63

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    O., Oldroyd, W

    Chandler, C. O., Oldroyd, W. J., Hsieh, H. H., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the AAS, 7, 60

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    O., Trujillo, C

    Chandler, C. O., Trujillo, C. A., & Hsieh, H. H. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 922, L8

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Cheng, A. F. 2004, Icarus, 169, 357

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    F., Agrusa, H

    Cheng, A. F., Agrusa, H. F., Barbee, B. W., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 457

    2023

  6. [6]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 19

    Fulle, M., Marzari, F., Della Corte, V ., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 19

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    & Trofimov, P

    Gorkavyi, N. & Trofimov, P. 2022, Solar System Research, 56, 225

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    J., Kulkarni, S., Bellm, E

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001

    2019

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    2014, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 563, A75

    Hainaut, O., Boehnhardt, H., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 563, A75

    2014

  2. [10]

    H., Ishiguro, M., Knight, M

    Hsieh, H. H., Ishiguro, M., Knight, M. M., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 62

    2021

  3. [11]

    H., Jewitt, D., & Fernández, Y

    Hsieh, H. H., Jewitt, D., & Fernández, Y . R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 694, L111

    2009

  4. [12]

    H., Meech, K

    Hsieh, H. H., Meech, K. J., & Pittichová, J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 736, L18

    2011

  5. [13]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 402

    Ivanova, O., Licandro, J., Moreno, F., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 402

    2023

  6. [14]

    2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 66

    Jewitt, D. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 66

    2012

  7. [15]

    2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 798, 109

    Jewitt, D., Agarwal, J., Weaver, H., Mutchler, M., & Larson, S. 2015, The Astro- physical Journal, 798, 109

    2015

  8. [16]

    2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 117

    Jewitt, D., Ishiguro, M., Weaver, H., et al. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 117

    2014

  9. [17]

    & Meech, K

    Jewitt, D. & Meech, K. J. 1987, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 317, June 15, 1987, p. 992-1001. NASA-supported research., 317, 992

    1987

  10. [18]

    Joye, W. A. & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical data analysis software and systems XII, V ol. 295, 489

    2003

  11. [19]

    S., Hsieh, H

    Kelley, M. S., Hsieh, H. H., Bodewits, D., et al. 2023, Nature, 1

    2023

  12. [20]

    T., Hainaut, O

    Kleyna, J. T., Hainaut, O. R., Meech, K. J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 874, L20

    2019

  13. [21]

    2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 156

    Liu, B., Liu, X., Jia, X., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 156

    2023

  14. [22]

    2016, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Planets, 121, 1141

    Liu, X., Sachse, M., Spahn, F., & Schmidt, J. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Re- search: Planets, 121, 1141

    2016

  15. [23]

    MacLennan, E. M. & Hsieh, H. H. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 758, L3

    2012

  16. [24]

    2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 104

    Mastropietro, M., Krishna, H., Kim, Y ., & Agarwal, J. 2024, Research Notes of the AAS, 8, 104

    2024

  17. [25]

    2003, Astroart 5.0, MSB Software

    Nicolini, M., Cavicchio, F., & Facchini, M. 2003, Astroart 5.0, MSB Software

    2003

  18. [26]

    T., Sykes, M

    Reach, W. T., Sykes, M. V ., Lien, D., & Davies, J. K. 2000, Icarus, 148, 80

    2000

  19. [27]

    Vernazza, P., Ferrais, M., Jorda, L., et al. 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Whipple, F. L. 1951, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 113, p. 464, 113, 464

    1951

  21. [29]

    Willmer, C. N. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 47

    2018

  22. [30]

    S., Bodewits, D., et al

    Ye, Q., Kelley, M. S., Bodewits, D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters, 874, L16 Article number, page 9 of 9

    2019

Pith tools

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