Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Capture of interstellar objects during stellar encounters

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read During a close pass of another star, the Sun can gravitationally capture interstellar objects onto bound orbits — no planets needed.

desk verdict A solid new mechanism with a fragile headline number; the qualitative result deserves review, but the normalization slip and the unmeasured low-velocity tail need attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18551 v2 pith:PBZLOUEM submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Sean N. Raymond , Nathan A. Kaib , Matthew J. Hopkins This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords interstellarobjectsOortcloudstellarflybysgravitationalcaptureflybyimpulseN-bodysimulationsMonteCarlocomets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a star can capture interstellar objects (ISOs) from the Galactic field when another star flies by. The key quantity is the flyby impulse; capture is most efficient when that impulse is comparable to the escape speed at the star's tidal radius, about 0.1 km/s for the Sun. Using N-body simulations and Monte Carlo encounter histories, the authors estimate the Sun has undergone one or two such capture-inducing flybys and now hosts a few times 10^4 'Oumuamua-sized captured ISOs, mostly in the outer Oort cloud. The mechanism requires no giant planets, so it applies to essentially every star. If correct, most stars should carry a sparse cloud of captured interstellar debris.

What carries the argument

The flyby impulse, I = 2GM_star/(v_inf b), is the single control parameter. It sets the velocity kick a passing star gives to the Sun; capture happens when that kick is comparable to the local escape speed at the tidal radius (≈0.1 km/s), so objects near the Hill sphere edge can be gently bound. The paper fits the simulation capture probability with a lognormal in impulse, which is then convolved with the ISO velocity distribution to predict yields.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the ISO velocity distribution at heliocentric speeds below ~0.1 km/s — for instance from a future all-sky survey sensitive to very slow near-Earth objects — that finds a density orders of magnitude below 3e-6 (km/s)^-3 would falsify the abundance estimate. Conversely, a deep survey of the outer Oort cloud that finds no captured-ISO candidates beyond 50,000 au with the expected orbital signature would challenge the model's prediction that ~10^4 captured objects should currently reside there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the impulse from a passing star can bind a fraction of ISOs that are drifting through the Sun's sphere of influence, even when the flyby star itself does not directly perturb the objects. Across simulations spanning orders of magnitude in stellar mass, impact parameter, and encounter velocity, the capture probability collapses onto a single curve determined by the flyby impulse (2GM/(v_inf b)). Capture peaks at an impulse of about 0.1 km/s, matching the escape speed at the Solar System's tidal radius. The authors show that the Sun has likely experienced 1-2 flybys strong enough to capture ISOs in 4.5 Gyr, and that these events deposit roughly 10^4 'Oumuamua-sized ob

Load-bearing premise

The absolute number of captured ISOs rests on the assumed abundance of interstellar objects whose velocity relative to the Sun is below about 0.1 km/s — a regime no observation has probed; if that tail is much thinner than the adopted uniform density of 3e-6 (km/s)^-3, the headline 10^4 count collapses, though the capture mechanism itself would survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Sun probably currently contains ~10^4 'Oumuamua-sized ISOs captured by this mechanism, mostly on outer Oort cloud orbits.
  • The captured population is comparable in number to Jupiter-assisted capture, but far longer-lived (up to Gyr vs ~Myr).
  • Most stars should host similar sparse captured-ISO Oort clouds, regardless of whether they have planets.
  • Massive stars are both the main drivers of capture (during flybys) and more efficient captors around themselves.
  • Any chemical or isotopic difference in captured ISOs is likely diluted by native comets, making detection difficult.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism provides an independent pathway for populating outer Oort clouds around planet-free stars, which could matter for interpreting future direct-imaging or occultation surveys of exo-Oort clouds.
  • If the low-velocity tail of the ISO population is actually enhanced (e.g. by the Galactic tide), the predicted captured population could be far larger than the paper's median estimate.
  • The capture criterion could be tested in a controlled N-body experiment with artificially truncated impulse windows; a robust prediction is that no captures occur below ~0.02 km/s impulse.
  • A future telescope capable of detecting outer Oort cloud objects (e.g. via serendipitous occultations) might find a population with unusual composition; if none appear above the predicted threshold, the assumed ISO density at very low speeds would need revision.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses N-body simulations of stellar flybys through a sphere of radius ~1 pc around a solar-mass star, each with 10^7 ISO test particles, to show that a fraction of passing interstellar objects can be captured into bound, Oort-cloud-like orbits when a second star flies by. The capture efficiency collapses onto a single parameter—the flyby impulse 2GM/(v_inf b)—with a lognormal-like peak at an impulse comparable to the escape speed at the tidal radius, ~0.1 km/s for the Sun. The authors then build a Monte Carlo model of the Sun's encounter history and, adopting the Otautahi-Oxford low-velocity ISO phase-space density, estimate a median of ~1 capture-inducing flyby and a median of ~2×10^4 captured 'Oumuamua-sized ISOs, mostly beyond 50,000 au. They compare with Jupiter-assisted capture and conclude that flyby capture is a generic process that should operate around all stars.

Significance. The core dynamical finding is novel, clearly presented, and well supported by the simulations. The collapse of capture efficiency onto a single impulse parameter (Fig. 1) is a clean, falsifiable result that is independent of uncertain ISO abundances, and the use of 10^7 particles per flyby across three decades in mass, impact parameter, and velocity gives the scaling relation weight. The Monte Carlo machinery is straightforward and the comparison with Jupiter-assisted capture is useful. The main limitation, as the authors acknowledge, is that the absolute Solar System yield is linearly proportional to an unmeasured low-velocity phase-space density; the mechanism's existence, however, does not depend on this number. If the quantitative estimate is corrected and the internal inconsistencies are resolved, this will be a valuable contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] The fraction F(v_inf) is written with a coefficient 3π/4, but the volume of a sphere in velocity space is (4π/3) v_inf^3. With f0 = 3×10^-6 (km/s)^-3, the correct prefactor is (4π/3)×3×10^-6 ≈ 1.26×10^-5, not 7.07×10^-6. This makes F low by a factor of 16/9 and directly lowers all absolute capture numbers derived from Eq. (4). Please correct the coefficient and propagate the change through Sections 3, 4, and the abstract.
  2. [Section 3 vs. Section 5.4] The reported Monte Carlo statistics for 'Oumuamua-sized captured ISOs are inconsistent. Section 3 reports a median of 2.1×10^4 and a maximum of 1.1×10^7, while Section 5.4 reports a median of 1.8×10^4 and a maximum of 7.1×10^6. The 20th–80th percentile range is the same in both places. If the two numbers come from different subsets (e.g., with or without the 21 close-encounter realizations) or different assumptions (e.g., retention), state this explicitly; otherwise one of the values is a typographical error that must be fixed before publication.
  3. [Section 3 and Section 5.4] The headline estimate of ~10^4 captured ISOs is linearly proportional to the assumed phase-space density f0 = 3×10^-6 (km/s)^-3 at v_inf ≲ 0.1 km/s, a regime with no direct observational constraint. The paper lists this as a limitation, but I recommend adding an explicit sensitivity test—e.g., varying f0 by factors of 10 or using the velocity distributions of Peñarrubia (2023) or Forbes et al. (2026)—so that the reader can see how the central claim changes. This would make the quantitative prediction more robust and not merely assert that 'even a modest change' would matter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2) and Section 3, Eq. (4)] The symbol v_inf is used for both the flyby star's velocity at infinity and the ISO's heliocentric velocity at infinity. This makes the sentence 'The ISOs that were captured in our simulations had v_inf smaller than the flyby impulse' confusing, since in the preceding paragraph v_inf denotes the flyby velocity. Please use distinct symbols (e.g., u for the ISO speed and v_enc for the encounter velocity) throughout.
  2. [Fig. 1] The lognormal fit is shown without error bars or a goodness-of-fit metric. Given that the tightness of the relation is a central claim, a correlation coefficient or reduced chi-square and error bars on the capture fraction would strengthen the presentation.
  3. [Section 5.1] The M^4/3 scaling argument assumes that the shape of the capture-efficiency curve is the same for target stars of different masses. The simulations all use a solar-mass target, so this is an extrapolation; please state this caveat explicitly when deriving the scaling.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states 'a few times 10^4' captured ISOs, but the median in Section 3 is 2.1×10^4. The phrase 'a few times' is acceptable, but after correcting Eq. (4) the number will change; please ensure the abstract and table are consistent with the final values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the capture mechanism is derived from independent N-body simulations; the absolute yield depends on a co-authored but external population model and is explicitly flagged as uncertain.

full rationale

The central result -- flyby-driven ISO capture controlled by the impulse 2GM*/v_inf b -- is an empirical collapse of 10^7-particle N-body simulations spanning three orders of magnitude in stellar mass, impact parameter, and encounter velocity (Fig. 1). The lognormal capture probability (Eq. 3) is fit to those simulations, not adopted from a prior fit, so the mechanism is self-contained and not circular. The absolute number of captured ISOs is a calibration, not a derivation: the paper states 'In calculating the absolute number of captured ISOs, we have relied exclusively on the Otautahi-Oxford ISO population model (Hopkins et al. 2023, 2025; Dorsey et al. 2025).' Because Hopkins is a co-author, this is a self-citation, and the low-velocity tail (v_inf <~0.1 km/s) is observationally unconstrained. However, the Otautahi-Oxford model is a published external population model calibrated to ISO detections, not a parameter fitted to this paper's capture counts; the paper's Sec. 5.4 admits that 'even a modest change' in this tail would have a considerable impact, which lowers the epistemic weight of the headline number but does not make it circular. A separate internal issue, Eq. 4 writing the velocity-space volume prefactor as 3*pi/4 rather than 4*pi/3 (a 16/9 normalization slip), is a correctness/bug concern, not a circularity. No load-bearing claim reduces to its own input, and the mechanism's existence and impulse scaling survive even if the absolute yield is revised.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The physical mechanism adds few axioms. The main unproven inputs are the low-velocity ISO velocity distribution and the local ISO number density; both enter linearly and dominate the uncertainty in the predicted yield.

free parameters (4)
  • Lognormal capture-efficiency fit (A, x0, sigma, x_min) = A=0.040, x0=0.105 km/s, sigma=0.55, x_min=0.02 km/s
    Fitted to the authors' N-body results (Fig. 1, Eq. 3) and used to convert flyby impulses into captured numbers in the Monte Carlo.
  • Local ISO number density n = 0.1 au^-3 (Do et al. 2018); alternative 3e-3 au^-3 (Hui et al. 2026)
    Enters the absolute captured count linearly; uncertain by an order of magnitude, as acknowledged in Sec. 5.4.
  • Low-velocity ISO phase-space density = 3e-6 (km/s)^-3
    Adopted from the Otautahi-Oxford model as uniform at v_inf < 0.1 km/s (Eq. 4); sets the pool of capturable ISOs and is not directly measured.
  • Present-day retention fraction = 0.5
    Simple assumption that half of ever-captured ISOs survive Galactic tide and later flybys to the present (Sec. 5.3); a factor-of-2 knob.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fast-encounter impulse approximation: flyby imparts Delta-v ~= 2GM/(v_inf b) to the Sun
    Invoked in Eq. 2 and throughout; valid when encounter duration is short relative to outer Oort orbital periods, which it is for the simulated parameters.
  • domain assumption ISO population inside 1 pc is initially isotropic and uniform in space and in v_inf from 0 to 100 km/s
    Initial condition for N-body runs (Sec. 2); real ISOs have an anisotropic, non-uniform inflow, but this is used to derive a per-impulse efficiency.
  • domain assumption An ISO is counted as captured iff its aphelion distance is < 1 pc
    Capture criterion used throughout; 1 pc is slightly larger than the adopted tidal radius (Eq. 1), so some counted orbits may be only marginally bound.
  • standard math Mercury's Bulirsch-Stoer integrator with accuracy 1e-15 faithfully evolves the 10^7-particle systems
    Tooling assumption; no convergence tests or energy-error figures are shown.
  • domain assumption Sun's encounter statistics follow Rickman et al. (2008) mass/velocity distributions
    Basis for the Monte Carlo flyby generator (Sec. 3), including ~1 encounter per 50 kyr within 1 pc.
  • domain assumption Galactic tide and later flybys erode captured outer Oort objects with ~50% survival over 4.5 Gyr
    Used to convert ever-captured numbers to present-day population (Sec. 5.3); based on Kaib et al. 2011 rather than simulated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Capture of interstellar objects during stellar encounters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBZLOUEM

@misc{pith2026260718551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Capture of interstellar objects during stellar encounters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBZLOUEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18551}
}
abstract

As they orbit within the Galaxy, stars swim through a vast population of interstellar objects (ISOs). In this paper, we use N-body simulations to show that a fraction of ISOs within $\sim$1 pc of the Sun (its tidal radius) may be captured during the flyby of another star -- a mechanism that requires no planets. Capture is most efficient when the impulse imparted by the flyby is comparable to the escape speed at the widest stable orbit, which is roughly 0.1 km/s for the Sun. ISO capture is dominated by the few highest-impulse stellar flybys, typically involving relatively slow encounters with massive stars. Most ISOs are captured in the outer parts of the Oort cloud, with semimajor axes greater than $\sim$50,000 au. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we show that the Sun underwent only a small number of ISO-capturing flybys in its history (median [mean] of 1 [1.7]). Using the {\=O}tautahi-Oxford population model, we estimate that a few times $\sim$$10^{4}$ `Oumuamua-sized ISOs were likely captured by the Sun. This only represents a $\sim$$10^{-8\pm1}$ contribution to the total Oort cloud population, yet it contains roughly as many present-day captured ISOs as Jupiter-assisted capture provides. Given that flybys are unavoidable in the Galactic field, most stars should host sparse Oort clouds populated with ISOs captured during stellar flybys. Massive stars are both the main drivers of capture when they fly by a given star, and more efficient at capturing ISOs around themselves than low-mass stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The fraction of ISOs with v∞ less than the flyby impulse that are captured in a given flyby, as a function of the impulse. Each symbol is a simulation with 107 ISOs. The grey curve is a lognormal fit to the simulations. with predefined characteristics. Each simulation included a pop￾ulation of 107 ISOs with initially isotropic velocity and spatial distributions, and a velocity at infinity v∞ distribution evenly spre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows an example flyby history of the Sun drawn with this Monte Carlo method. In this case, there were three encounters strong enough to capture ISOs (shown in black); these were not necessarily the closest encounters, as a slow￾moving, high-mass star can impart a strong impulse at a large distance (see Eq. 2). Nonetheless, the highest-impulse flybys tend to come from stars significantly more massive than the Sun (R… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Orbital distribution of captured ISOs across all of our simula￾tions. consistent with previous work by Kaib & Quinn (2009). This value for the impulse is located along the increasing slope in capture probability seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2022, ApJ, 935, L9

    2022

  2. [2]

    & Tremaine, S

    Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  3. [3]

    W., Feldman, P

    Bodewits, D., Noonan, J. W., Feldman, P. D., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 867

    2020

  4. [4]

    J., et al

    Boe, B., Jedicke, R., Meech, K. J., et al. 2019, Icarus, 333, 252

    2019

  5. [5]

    & Rein, H

    Brown, G. & Rein, H. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5942

    2022

  6. [6]

    T., Vigeland, S

    Chakrabarti, S., Chang, P., Lam, M. T., Vigeland, S. J., & Quillen, A. C. 2021, ApJ, 907, L26

    2021

  7. [7]

    Chambers, J. E. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793

    1999

  8. [8]

    X., Micheli, M., et al

    Cordiner, M., Roth, N. X., Micheli, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.06911

    arXiv 2026

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    & Hands, T

    Dehnen, W. & Hands, T. O. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4062

    2022

  2. [10]

    O., & Schönrich, R

    Dehnen, W., Hands, T. O., & Schönrich, R. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4078

    2022

  3. [11]

    A., & Tonry, J

    Do, A., Tucker, M. A., & Tonry, J. 2018, ApJ, 855, L10

    2018

  4. [12]

    C., Hopkins, M

    Dorsey, R. C., Hopkins, M. J., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 214

    2025

  5. [13]

    2017, AJ, 153, 133

    Engelhardt, T., Jedicke, R., Vereš, P., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 133

    2017

  6. [14]

    1992, Science, 257, 1926

    Fink, U. 1992, Science, 257, 1926

    1992

  7. [15]

    C., Bannister, M

    Forbes, J. C., Bannister, M. T., Lintott, C., & Hopkins, M. J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2607.04216

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hands, T. O. & Dehnen, W. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L59

    2020

  9. [17]

    & Tremaine, S

    Heisler, J. & Tremaine, S. 1986, Icarus, 65, 13

    1986

  10. [18]

    Hills, J. G. 1981, AJ, 86, 1730

    1981

  11. [19]

    & Flynn, C

    Holmberg, J. & Flynn, C. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 209

    2000

  12. [20]

    J., Dorsey, R

    Hopkins, M. J., Dorsey, R. C., Forbes, J. C., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L30

    2025

  13. [21]

    J., Lintott, C., Bannister, M

    Hopkins, M. J., Lintott, C., Bannister, M. T., Mackereth, J. T., & Forbes, J. C. 2023, AJ, 166, 241

    2023

  14. [22]

    J., Agarwal, J., & Kim, Y

    Hui, M.-T., Jewitt, D., Mutchler, M. J., Agarwal, J., & Kim, Y . 2026, ApJ, 999, L37

    2026

  15. [23]

    P., et al

    Hut, P., Alvarez, W., Elder, W. P., et al. 1987, Nature, 329, 118

    1987

  16. [24]

    & Luu, J

    Jewitt, D. & Luu, J. 2019, ApJ, 886, L29 Jílková, L., Portegies Zwart, S., Pijloo, T., & Hammer, M. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3157

    2019

  17. [25]

    Kaib, N. A. & Quinn, T. 2009, Science, 325, 1234

    2009

  18. [26]

    Kaib, N. A. & Raymond, S. N. 2025, Icarus, 439, 116632

    2025

  19. [27]

    Kaib, N. A. & Raymond, S. N. 2026, PSJ, 7, 160

    2026

  20. [28]

    A., Roškar, R., & Quinn, T

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

    2011

  21. [29]

    Kaib, N. A. & V olk, K. 2024, in Comets III, ed. K. J. Meech, M. R. Combi, D. Bockelée-Morvan, S. N. Raymond, & M. E. Zolensky, 97–120

    2024

  22. [30]

    Kenyon, S. J. & Bromley, B. C. 2004, ApJ, 602, L133

    2004

  23. [31]

    1992, A&A, 259, 682

    Kresak, L. 1992, A&A, 259, 682

    1992

  24. [32]

    F., Thommes, E., & Duncan, M

    Levison, H. F., Thommes, E., & Duncan, M. J. 2010, AJ, 139, 1297

    2010

  25. [33]

    McGlynn, T. A. & Chapman, R. D. 1989, ApJ, 346, L105

    1989

  26. [34]

    J., DiSanti, M

    McKay, A. J., DiSanti, M. A., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 128

    2019

  27. [35]

    J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al

    Meech, K. J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 378 Moro-Martín, A. 2018, ApJ, 866, 131 Moro-Martín, A., Turner, E. L., & Loeb, A. 2009, ApJ, 704, 733

    2017

  28. [36]

    J., Adams, F

    Napier, K. J., Adams, F. C., & Batygin, K. 2021b, PSJ, 2, 217 Nesvorný, D., V okrouhlický, D., & Deienno, R. 2014, ApJ, 784, 22 Nesvorný, D., V okrouhlický, D., & Morbidelli, A. 2007, AJ, 133, 1962

    2014

  29. [37]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.07187 ’Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M

    Opitom, C., Manfroid, J., Hutsemékers, D., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.07187 ’Oumuamua ISSI Team, Bannister, M. T., Bhandare, A., et al. 2019, Nature As- tronomy, 3, 594 Peñarrubia, J. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1955 Portegies Zwart, S., Torres, S., Pelupessy, I., Bédorf, J...

    2026

  30. [38]

    H., Teukolsky, S

    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numer- ical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing

    1992

  31. [39]

    N., Gizis, J

    Reid, I. N., Gizis, J. E., & Hawley, S. L. 2002, AJ, 124, 2721

    2002

  32. [40]

    Rickman, H., Fouchard, M., Froeschlé, C., & Valsecchi, G. B. 2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 102, 111

    2008

  33. [41]

    Schleicher, D. G. 2008, AJ, 136, 2204

    2008

  34. [42]

    Sen, A. K. & Rama, N. C. 1993, A&A, 275, 298

    1993

  35. [43]

    & Torbett, M

    Smoluchowski, R. & Torbett, M. 1984, Nature, 311, 38

    1984

  36. [44]

    X., Brown, A

    Torres, S., Cai, M. X., Brown, A. G. A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2019, A&A, 629, A139

    2019

  37. [45]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Tremaine, S. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 36, Planets Around Pulsars, ed. J. A. Phillips, S. E. Thorsett, & S. R. Kulkarni, 335–344

    1993

  38. [46]

    Valtonen, M. J. & Innanen, K. A. 1982, ApJ, 255, 307

    1982

  39. [47]

    Whipple, F. L. 1975, AJ, 80, 525

    1975

  40. [48]

    K., Batygin, K., & Adams, F

    Zink, J. K., Batygin, K., & Adams, F. C. 2020, AJ, 160, 232 Article number, page 6

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.