Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Kuiperian Objects and Wandering Cosmic Objects

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

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

Pith's one-line read A 0.1-solar-mass wanderer crossing an ancient 90 AU Kuiper belt could produce the observed Sedna-like objects and their sky clustering, this paper argues.

desk verdict A fresh alternative to Planet Nine that never actually simulates its own preferred scenario; the Sednito matches are post-hoc fits, so the paper is not publishable as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06191 v1 pith:UKLLWA2G submitted 2019-08-16 astro-ph.EP

Gilles Couture This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Kuiperbeltextremetrans-NeptunianobjectsSednitoswanderingcosmicfree-floatingplanetsPlanetNineOortcloudthree-bodyencounters
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 the strange outer reaches of the solar system can be explained without invoking an undiscovered ninth planet. It models a wandering cosmic object (WCO) of about $0.1\,M_\odot$ — too dim to have been noticed — slicing through the outskirts of a Kuiper belt that once extended to roughly 90 AU instead of stopping at 50 AU. In three-body encounters with the Sun and Kuiper belt objects, such a passage would eject some objects, fling others onto the eccentric orbits of the Sedna-like Sednitos, and naturally leave those orbits clustered in two sky regions. If true, the sharp edge of today's Kuiper belt at about 50 AU would be a scar left by this encounter, and Planet Nine would not be needed to herd the extreme trans-Neptunian objects.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the impulsive three-body encounter among the Sun, a Kuiper belt object, and a wandering cosmic object of $0.1\,M_\odot$ moving at about 50 km/s. The WCO crosses the belt as a nearly straight line, deviating by about a degree, and the impact parameter between WCO and KO controls the outcome: large impact parameters leave the orbit nearly untouched, intermediate ones produce EKO-I and EKO-II, and small ones eject the object. Because the encounter is fast and local, the new orbits preserve a clean relation between perihelion and aphelion and cluster in angle around the incoming trajectory; a second encounter of the same WCO (or another) with an EKO-I or EKO-II then produces the far-Kuiper classes, including counter-rotating orbits by exchanging angular momentum with the Sun. The zone of influence of the WCO is about 10 AU, which sets how wide the ancient belt must have been for enough encounters to happen.

What would settle it

Simulate the full discovery history of extreme trans-Neptunian objects with the actual survey footprints and efficiency curves. If the apparent clustering of perihelion directions vanishes once selection effects are modelled, the phenomenon this paper explains is not present; if wide-field surveys instead find objects uniformly distributed in the opposite sky region, the two-lobe geometry predicted by a WCO crossing is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single close passage of a light wandering star can divide Kuiper belt objects into two observable families: EKO-I, with perihelion near but below the initial aphelion and a wide spread of eccentricities, and EKO-II, with perihelion as small as a few AU and very large eccentricities. A first encounter cannot produce perihelia larger than the original aphelion, so the Sednitos (Sedna, 2012VP113, 2015TG387, 2013SY99) require a second stage: a WCO crossing the orbit of an EKO-I lifts it into the FKO-I class, while encounters with EKO-II produce FKO-II (large axis, small eccentricity, opposite spin) and FKO-III, whose aphelia approach a fraction of a light-year and resemble lower Oort cloud objects. The encounters naturally cluster their products on opposite or same sides of the incoming trajectory, with the cluster separation angle shrinking from about 170 to 140 degrees as the interaction moves from 55 to 80 AU, and they obey the rule that when perihelion $q$ decreases, aphelion $Q$ increases. From these pieces the paper concludes that the Kuiper belt was once extended to about 90–100 AU, that the encounter happened near 85 AU, and that at least two WCO passages, one on each side of the Sun, are needed to cover the observed EKO-II population.

Load-bearing premise

The observed clustering of extreme trans-Neptunian objects in sky position is real and not mostly a selection effect of the surveys that discovered them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario is right, the Kuiper belt's sharp outer edge at about 50 AU is not primordial but was carved by the WCO passage, with the surviving belt still relaxing toward symmetry.
  • The observed Sednitos would be FKO-I objects lifted from an extended belt, removing the need for a Planet Nine to explain their detached orbits and sky clustering.
  • The angular separation between the two predicted orbital clusters should shrink with heliocentric distance of the encounter, giving a quantitative test against future detections of extreme trans-Neptunian objects.
  • At least two WCO passes are required to account for the spread of EKO-II objects around the sky, so the model predicts a history of multiple close stellar flybys rather than a single event.
  • FKO-III orbits, with semi-major axes reaching a fair fraction of a light-year and either spin direction, would populate a region comparable to the lower Oort cloud and could be looked for as distant solar-system objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue it, but the same encounter geometry implies a spatial asymmetry in the surviving belt: the region near the WCO's entry and exit tracks should be more depleted of Kuiper belt objects than the opposite side, which a number-density survey of the belt's outer edge could test.
  • A natural 3D extension would add inclination to the initial Kuiper belt objects; if the two-lobe clustering survives, the model would generate specific predictions for the inclination distribution of Sednitos and could be compared with the high-inclination outlier the paper discusses.
  • The scenario implies that a $0.1\,M_\odot$ free-floating object should still be drifting through the solar neighbourhood; high-precision astrometry of nearby faint objects could look for one whose past trajectory matches the direction inferred from the orbital clusters.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents two-dimensional three-body integrations of a 0.1-solar-mass wandering cosmic object (WCO/CWO) encountering Kuiper belt objects (KOs). A first crossing is claimed to produce two classes, EKO-I and EKO-II, with perihelia always below the initial KO aphelion, and with clustering in sky direction; a second encounter between the WCO and an EKO-I is claimed to produce FKO-I objects resembling 2015TG387, 2013SY99, Sedna, and 2012VP113, along with an FKO-II example; encounters with EKO-II are claimed to produce FKO-III objects that may be analogous to lower Oort cloud objects. The paper then proposes that the ancient Kuiper belt extended to roughly 90-100 AU and that one or two WCO passages at about 85 AU depleted its outer part, created the observed Sednitos and the 50 AU edge, and left angular clustering in the extreme trans-Neptunian population. The manuscript explicitly acknowledges that a full simulation of this extended-belt scenario has not been performed.

Significance. If the central scenario were established, it would offer an alternative to the Planet Nine hypothesis for the Sednitos and ETNO clustering, with the attraction of invoking a class of low-mass free-floating objects that at least one observed object (Scholz's star) suggests exists. The paper contributes a useful catalogue of encounter outcomes with tabulated orbital elements, and it is honest about the two-dimensional nature of the calculation and about the absence of the full extended-belt simulation. However, as submitted, the evidence is illustrative rather than demonstrative: the Sednito matches are tuned, the proposed mechanism is not simulated, and the clustering comparison ignores survey selection effects. A rigorous version would require an un-tuned parameter exploration with statistical comparisons and, ideally, a full three-dimensional simulation of the extended belt with a proper treatment of observational biases.

major comments (5)
  1. [Second Encounter, Table 3] The four claimed Sednito analogues are not independent predictions: the encounter geometry is adjusted object-by-object to match 2015TG387, 2013SY99, Sedna, and 2012VP113, including special velocity vectors of (-25,25) km/s for 2012VP113 and (-25,40) km/s for the clockwise FKO-II. Because the same four observed objects are then counted as support for the scenario, the argument is circular: tuned outputs cannot be used as evidence that the mechanism naturally produces the observed population. A demonstration using a fixed encounter parameter set, or a random draw over the parameter space with a quantitative comparison to the observed q-Q distribution, would be needed.
  2. [Scenario and Conclusions] The central scenario is never simulated. All direct-encounter runs in Figure 1 and Table 2 use an initial KO with Q=8.28e12 m (55.2 AU), and the paper states that it is impossible to produce q greater than the initial KO aphelion. The Sednito-like orbits in Figure 2 and Table 3 instead require a second encounter with an EKO-I having Q=5.67e13 m (378 AU), not an extended belt. The text admits that a full simulation of an extended belt with a tapering radial distribution out to 90-100 AU 'would be very interesting,' which is an explicit acknowledgment that the proposed mechanism for producing perihelia up to 80.5 AU was not computed. Consequently, the conclusion that the FKO-I objects 'would simply be EKO-I of the encounter CWO - KO_extended' is an unsupported extrapolation rather than a result of the paper.
  3. [Calculations] The numerical methods are not described at a level that allows the results to be checked. No equations of motion or integrator are given, and the step size is described only as 'as small as possible' (ranging from 200-300 seconds down to 10 seconds); no convergence tests, conservation checks, or error bars are reported. Since Tables 2 and 3 quote orbital elements to four significant figures and the paper's key claims are statements of possibility, it is essential to show that the quoted q and Q values are converged and robust to integration parameters. Without this, the apparent matching to observations cannot be evaluated.
  4. [Two and three dimensions] The claim that the two-dimensional results carry over to three dimensions is asserted rather than demonstrated: the paper says 'we are confident that the main results provided in this paper would be valid in 3D' without presenting a three-dimensional run or an analytic argument. Because the outcome is described as highly sensitive to encounter geometry, and because the observed sample includes 2015BP519 with an orbital inclination near 57 degrees, the absence of any three-dimensional test leaves the match to the observed ETNO population unverified. This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic caveat.
  5. [Discussion (clustering)] The comparison between simulated cluster angles and the observed concentration of ETNOs does not account for survey selection effects. The paper cites Shankman et al. (2017), who caution that orbit uncertainties and detection biases weaken the claimed clustering, but it does not model those biases or quantify the significance of the angular match. If the observed concentration is largely a discovery-selection artifact, the agreement of the simulated cluster geometry carries no evidential weight. The abstract's claim that 'we find some evidence of this scenario in current astronomical data' therefore overstates what the comparison can support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous copyediting errors, including 'ou Kuiper belt' in the abstract, 'wee' and 'read-end' in figure captions, 'Schulz's star' for Scholz's star, and inconsistent use of 'WCO' and 'CWO' for the same object.
  2. [Calculations and Tables] Units are mixed: figures are in metres while tables give both metres and AU, and Table 3's column header 'xinteraction(m)' is not defined; the '****' entry in that table also needs an explanation.
  3. [Table 1 and text] The custom Class-I/II/III taxonomy is introduced in Table 1 before its definition in the text, and it differs from standard usage; a short definition should precede the table.
  4. [References] The reference list contains apparent errors, including 'Barrister et al., 2017' for the 2013SY99 discovery paper (Bannister et al. 2017) and 'Madigan & McCout' for McCourt, and several entries have inconsistent formatting.
  5. [Scenario] The statement that the inclination instability of Madigan et al. requires 1-10 Earth masses beyond 50 AU is not substantiated with a citation to the precise requirement, and it is not connected quantitatively to the proposed depleted-belt scenario; this link should be either evidenced or removed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Sednito 'matches' are hand-tuned initial conditions, and the extended-belt width is set by the very Sednito perihelia it is then used to explain.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Second Encounter', Figure 2 and Table 3 (pp. 9-10)]
    "The larger orbit is similar to 2015TG387, the second one is similar to 2013SY99, the third one is similar to 2003VB12 (Sedna) and the fourth one is similar to 2012VP113; these are the FKO-I. ... in order to produce 2003VP113, the CWO came from the lower right such that its initial velocity was (-25.0,25.0) km/sec so that its velocity is about 35 km/sec as opposed to the usual 50 km/sec. This produced the desired orbit while staying far enough from the sun (at least 80 AU) so as to not disturb the Kuiper belt."

    The initial EKO-I orbit, the CWO encounter positions, and even special CWO velocities are adjusted until the integrations produce orbits 'similar to' the four observed Sednitos. Those same four objects are then classified as FKO-I/Class III and used as evidence that the Sednitos 'fit the FKO-I class' and that the q-Q anticorrelation holds. The match is therefore built into the inputs; it is a reproduction, not an independent prediction.

  2. self definitional [Section 'Scenario' (p. 12) and Conclusions (p. 14)]
    "Clearly, if we want to consider an extended Kuiper Belt in this scenario, its width would have to be at least equal to the largest qClass−III which is about 80 AU. [...] Instead, it seems more appealing to consider the scenario where the Kuiper Belt was larger than what it is now, maybe not uniformed either so that current Sednitos are in fact EKO-I of an encounter between a CWO and an extended Kuiper belt."

    The outer radius of the proposed ancient belt is chosen to be at least the largest observed Sednito perihelion (~80 AU), and the conclusion later sets the encounter at ~85 AU so that the model's own bound q_new < Q_initial no longer excludes the observed q values (up to 80.5 AU). The same Sednitos are then presented as 'some evidence of this scenario.' The hypothesis is defined by the data it is invoked to explain, so the confirmation is circular.

full rationale

The direct three-body integrations themselves are not circular: the EKO-I/EKO-II classification, the bound q_new < Q_initial, and the tendency of encounter products to cluster are genuine numerical outputs of Newtonian integrations with stated initial conditions. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, and no external benchmark is misrepresented. However, the paper's two central observational claims are built from the data they purport to explain. First, the FKO-I/Sednito orbits in Figure 2 and Table 3 are obtained by choosing the EKO-I orbit, CWO crossing points, and in some cases special CWO velocities so that the integrations yield orbits 'similar to' 2015TG387, 2013SY99, Sedna, and 2012VP113; those same objects are then counted as Class III/FKO-I evidence. Second, the extended-belt scenario is parameterized after the fact: the belt width is required to be at least the largest observed Sednito q (~80 AU), and the encounter is placed at ~85 AU, so the observed perihelia are guaranteed to be kinematically allowed; these same objects are then said to provide 'some evidence' for the extended belt. The paper also concedes that the preferred scenario - a CWO slicing an extended belt with a tapering radial distribution to 90-100 AU - was never simulated, calling such a simulation 'very interesting.' That concession is a missing-support flag rather than circularity, but it removes the numerical derivation from the conclusion. Overall, the genuinely independent pieces (cluster geometry in the direct runs, q-Q trend within one initial orbit) cannot rescue the Sednito match and extended-belt inference, which reduce to tuned inputs. Score 7.

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

The central scenario rests on several hand-chosen parameters: the WCO mass and speed, the encounter distances, and the initial KO orbits. These are tuned to reproduce observed objects, making the scenario partially circular. The paper also assumes a physically real ETNO clustering, which is contested in the literature, and it extrapolates 2D results to 3D without testing.

free parameters (4)
  • WCO mass = 0.1 solar mass
    Chosen by hand 'so as to be barely a star and almost invisible'; no detection-limit calculation is provided.
  • WCO speed = 50 km/s for most runs; 35 km/s for 2012VP113; ~47 km/s for FKO-II
    The nominal speed is set to 50 km/s, but the paper explicitly changes it to reproduce 2012VP113 and the clockwise FKO-II orbit.
  • WCO interaction distance = x_interaction values -5.0e13, -5.5e13, -4.5e13, -3.0e13, -3.3e13 m in Table 3
    These are adjusted object-by-object to make the output orbits resemble the four known Sednitos and the FKO-II orbit.
  • Initial KO orbit parameters = First encounter: q=7.6e12 m, e=0.043; second encounter: q_EKO-I=6.4e12 m, Q_EKO-I=5.67e13 m
    These are chosen as 'typical' representatives of the Kuiper belt and of an EKO-I; results depend on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Newtonian point-mass gravity (F=ma) governs the three-body system.
    The equations of motion are not written, but the simulation integrates gravitational forces; general relativity and non-gravitational effects are neglected.
  • domain assumption Kuiper belt objects are test particles whose mass is negligible.
    Section 'Kuiper belt': the KO mass is set to 10^10 kg and the author states results hold up to 10^20 kg, still far below a solar mass.
  • domain assumption The WCO is a single point mass on a near-straight-line trajectory through the belt.
    The paper treats the CWO as a star-like object that passes once through the belt; its deflection by the Sun is about one degree.
  • domain assumption The observed clustering of ETNOs is a real dynamical signal, not a survey selection effect.
    The paper compares simulated cluster angles to observed sky distributions without a survey-bias model, despite citing Shankman et al. (2017).
  • ad hoc to paper Two-dimensional simulation results are representative of three-dimensional dynamics.
    Section 'Two and three dimensions': the author states 'we are confident that the main results provided in this paper would be valid in 3D' without performing any 3D simulations.
  • domain assumption A 0.1-solar-mass object at 50 to 90 AU would have escaped detection.
    Introduction: the WCO is chosen to be 'barely a star and almost invisible'; no detection-limit calculation or survey sensitivity analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kuiperian Objects and Wandering Cosmic Objects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKLLWA2G

@misc{pith2026190806191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kuiperian Objects and Wandering Cosmic Objects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKLLWA2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06191}
}
read the original abstract

We study the effects of an encounter between a wandering cosmic object (WCO) of 0.1 solar mass and some Kuiperian Objects (KO). First, we let the WCO cross the out-skirt of ou Kuiper belt. Such encounters can produce two types of solar objects: Eccentric Kuiper Objects of type I (EKO-I) whose perihelion is comparable to, but always smaller than the aphelion of the initial KO and Eccentric Kuiper Objects of type II (EKO-II) whose perihelion can be as small as a few AU. EKO-I tend to have a fairly large range of eccentricities, but EKO-II tend to have very large eccentricities. Both tend to be produced in clusters similar to those observed in Extreme TransNeptunian Objects (ETNO). When a WCO crosses the path of an EKO-I, it will produce two main classes of objects: Far Kuiper Objects (FKO) of types I and II. The Sednitos discovered in the past years fit the FKO-I class with their large major axis and fairly large eccentricity, while the FKO-II class is different with its large major axis but smaller eccentricity and opposite spinning direction. When a WCO encounters an EKO-II, the latter can remain in the same class, spinning in either direction, it can also en up in the EKO-I class also spinning in either direction, but it can also be sent onto orbits with extremely long semi-major axis, relatively small eccentricity where both spins are allowed. This FKO-III class could be likened to the Lower Oort Cloud Objects as their major axis is a fair fraction of a light-year. These results lead us to consider the possibility that the Kuiper Belt was once substantially larger than it is now, perhaps 90 AU. We find some evidence of this scenario in current astronomical data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    OSSOS: V. Diffusion in the orbit of a high-perihelion distant Solar System object

    Allen,R.L., Bernstein,G.M., Malhotra, R., ApJ. 549 ,L241-L-244 (2001) Bacci,P.,Maestripieri,M.,Tesi,L. et al. ,2017,MPEC 2017-U181 Bannister,M.T.,Shankman,C.,Volk,K.,et al.,2017.arXiv1704.01952v1[astro-ph.EP] Bannister,M.T.,Schwamb,M.,Fraser,W.C.,et al. ,2017b, ApJ,851,L38 Bannister,M.T.,Alexandersen,M.,Benecchi,S.D. et al. 2016,AJ,152:212 Batygin,K., Bro...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  2. [2]

    Brasser, R.,Schwamb,M.E.,Lykawka,P.S., & Gomes,R.S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3396 Brasser,R,Schwamb,M.,MNRAS, 446, 3788, 2015 Brasser,R.,Morbidelli, A.,2013, Icarus, 225,pp 40-49 Brasser,R.,Duncan,M.J.,Levison,H.F.,Schwamb,M.E.,Brown,M.E.,2012, Icarus,217, 1-19 Bromley,B.C., Kenyon,S.J., 2016,ApJ,826,64 Brown,M.E., Trujillo, C., Rabinowitz,D., 2004; ApJ,617, 589...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    et al ,2002, Icarus,157269-279

    Fienga, A.,Laskar,J.,Manche,H.,Gastineau,M., 2016;A&A,587,L8 Gladman,B.,Kavelaars,J.J.,Petit,J.-M.,Morbidelli, A.,Holman,M.J.,Loredo,T.,2001, AJ,122,1051-1066 Gladman,B.,Holman,M.,Grav,T. et al ,2002, Icarus,157269-279

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    G.,Vanlaerhoven, C., Nomenclature in the Outer Solar System , ed.M.A.Barucci, H

    Gladman, B., Marsden, B. G.,Vanlaerhoven, C., Nomenclature in the Outer Solar System , ed.M.A.Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, Dotson, R., 43-57,2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    2003, Icarus, 161, 404-418

    Gomes, R.S. 2003, Icarus, 161, 404-418

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Gomes, R., Fernandez, J., Gallardo, T., Mrumini, A., 2008, The Solar System beyond Neptune ed. M. Barucci et al., (Tucson, AZ., Univ. Arizona Press), pp 259-273 Hands,T.O.,Dehnen,W.,Gration,A.,Stadel,J.,Moore,B.,2019, MNRAS april Holman,M.J.,Payne,M.J.,Fraser,W.,et al. ,2018,ApJ,855,L6 Ida,S.,Larwood,J.,Burkert,A.,2000,ApJ,528,351-356 Jilkova,L.,Portegies...

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    ,2016,AJ,153, 1

    Knight, M.M.,Protopapa, S., Kelley, S.S.P., et al., 2017, ApJ,851, L31 Lawler,S.M.,Shankman,C.,Kaib,N., et al. ,2016,AJ,153, 1

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Linder,E.F.,Mordasini,C.,2016;A&A,589,A134

    Levison, H.F., Morbidelli,A.,van Laerhoven, C.,Gomes,R.,2007, Icarus,196, 258-273 Li,G.,Adams,F.C.,2016,ApJ,823,L3. Linder,E.F.,Mordasini,C.,2016;A&A,589,A134

    work page 2007

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Madigan, A.-M., McCourt, M.,2016, MNRAS,457, L89 Madigan,A.-M., Zderic, A.,McCourt,M., Fleisig, J.,2018, AJ,156,4

    2016

  2. [10]

    ,2017,MPEC 2017-U183.A/2017 U1

    Malhotra, R.,Volk,K.,Wang,X.,2016;A&A,589,A134 Mamajek,E.E.,Barenfeld,S.S.,Ivanov,V.D.,Kniazev,A.Y.,Vaisanen,P., Beletsky,Y.,Boffin,H.M.J.,2015,ApJ,800,L17 Meech,K.,Bacci,P.,Maestripieri,M.,et al. ,2017,MPEC 2017-U183.A/2017 U1

    2016

  3. [11]

    2017b, Nature,552, 378 Millholland,S.,Laughlin,G.,2017,AJ,153,91

    Meech, K.J., et al. 2017b, Nature,552, 378 Millholland,S.,Laughlin,G.,2017,AJ,153,91

    2017

  4. [12]

    Morbidelli, A., Emel’yanenko,V., Levison, H.F.,2004, MNRAS,355,935-940

    2004

  5. [13]

    Morbidelli, A.,Nesvorny,D.; 2019 arXiv:1904.02980v1[astro-ph.EP]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Morbidelli, A.,Levison,H.F.,2004,ApJ,128,2564

    2004

  7. [15]

    Morbidelli, A.,Levison, H.F., Gomes, R, 2007 arXiv:astro-ph/07-3558v1 Pfalzner,S.,Bannister,M.T.,2019, ApJ, 874 ,L34

    2007

  8. [16]

    Rickman, H.,Valsecchi, G.B., Froeschl, C., 2001,MNRAS,325, 1303 Scholz,R.-D.,2014,A&A,561,A113 Shankman,C.,Kavelaars,J.J.,Bannister,M.T.,Gladman,B.J.,Lawler,S.M., Chen,Y.-T.,Jakubik,M.,Kaib,N.,Alexandersen,M.,Gwyn,S.D.J., Petit,J.-M., Volk,K.,2017, AJ 154 , 50 Sheppard,S.S.,Tr...

    2001

  9. [17]

    Sheppard, S.S.,Trujillo,C.A.,Tholen,D.J.,Kaib,N.,2019, AJ,157,139 Singer,K.N.,McKinnon,W.B.,Gladman,B.,et al. , 2019, Science,363,955 Stern,S.A.,2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0404525v2 Thirouin,A.,Sheppard,S.S.,2018;arXiv:1804.09695v1[astro-ph.EP] Thirouin,A.,Sheppard,S.S.,Noll,K.S.,20...

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    17 -1e+013 -5e+012 0 5e+012 1e+013 -1.5e+013 -1e+013 -5e+012 0 5e+012 1e+013 1.5e+013 Figure 1-B Orbits produced at the exit in a head-on collision between a CWO and a KO

    Trujillo, C.A., Brown, M.E., 2001, AJ, 554 , L95-L98 Trujillo,C.A.,Sheppard,S.S., 2014,Nature,507,471 16 -1e+013 -5e+012 0 5e+012 1e+013 -1.5e+013 -1e+013 -5e+012 0 5e+012 1e+013 1.5e+013 Figure 1-A Orbits produced at the entrance in a head-on collision between a CWO and a KO....

    2001

Pith tools

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