pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23168 · v1 · pith:QSPGRWF3new · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Thermal and rotational effects of giant impacts during terrestrial planet accretion

Adriana N. Postema , Simon J. Lock , Sarah T. Stewart This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords giant impactsterrestrial planet accretioncore-mantle boundarymantle meltingmetal-silicate equilibrationimpact heatingplanetary formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Giant impacts lower post-impact core-mantle boundary pressures through thermal and rotational effects.

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

This paper models a suite of giant impacts between Moon- to super-Earth-mass bodies using hydrocode simulations with updated equations of state. It then applies planetary structure calculations to determine how thermal energy, gravitational potential, and rotation after each collision change conditions at the core-mantle boundary. The calculations show that these effects produce lower CMB pressures than earlier estimates. Widespread mantle melting follows most impacts, and energetic collisions heat enough mantle material above the Fe-MgO solvus temperature to allow a miscible metal-silicate layer near the CMB. The resulting conditions alter the timing and location of metal-silicate equilibration during core formation.

Core claim

Post-impact CMB pressures are generally lower than previously assumed, due to both thermal and rotational effects. Full mantle melting is common and a substantial fraction of mantle material is heated above the Fe-MgO solvus closure temperature for impacts with modified specific energies Q_S > 10^6 J/kg, implying that a miscible layer could form close to the CMB for many giant impacts. The comparatively low internal pressures and large regions of metal-silicate miscibility after giant impacts have significant effects on the processes of core formation, and metal-silicate equilibration would occur near the CMB during later post-impact cooling, consistent with Earth's geochemistry.

What carries the argument

Scaling laws for impact heating efficiency, mantle-core heat partitioning, and CMB pressures and temperatures, derived from SWIFT hydrocode runs combined with HERCULES structure calculations.

If this is right

  • Post-impact CMB pressures are lower than earlier assumptions.
  • Full mantle melting occurs after most giant impacts.
  • For impacts above Q_S of 10^6 J/kg a miscible metal-silicate layer can form near the CMB.
  • Metal-silicate equilibration takes place near the CMB during subsequent cooling.
  • These pressure and mixing conditions change the expected outcomes of core formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The lower pressures and near-CMB mixing may help account for the observed abundances of siderophile elements in Earth's mantle.
  • Accretion models that omit these rotational and thermal effects may overestimate final core pressures on other terrestrial planets.
  • Direct seismic or geochemical constraints on early Earth CMB conditions could test the predicted pressure reduction.
  • Extending the same simulation approach to different mass ratios or velocities would show how sensitive the scaling laws are to the impact parameter distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen suite of collisions between Moon- to super-Earth-mass bodies is representative of the giant impacts that actually occurred during terrestrial planet accretion.

What would settle it

A measurement or independent model of post-impact CMB pressure in a terrestrial planet that equals or exceeds the higher values assumed in prior work rather than the lower values obtained here.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23168 by Adriana N. Postema, Sarah T. Stewart, Simon J. Lock.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example initial thermal profile for a 0.71M⊕ planet (blue line) compared to the peridotite solidus (G. Fi￾quet et al. 2010), ANEOS pyrolite melt curve (black line), and ANEOS iron alloy melt curve (dashed line). Core-man￾tle equilibration calculations typically use the static model thermal profile (Equation 2, red line for same body as blue line). Since the reference static model only concerns itself with … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Analytic collision outcome maps for the three impactor-to-target mass ratios (1:2, left column; 1:3, center column; 1:6, right column) included in this study. The horizontal axis of all panels represents impact angle (top axis) or impact parameter (bottom axis) scaled by probability (from E. M. Shoemaker 1962), while the lower row of panels also scale the vertical axis of scaled impact velocity by probabil… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Energy budgets for the largest collision remnant after accretionary impact events, separated by impact angle. As specific impact energy QS increases, the portion of the en￾ergy budget allotted towards gravitational potential energy increases at the expense of internal energy, while the parti￾tioning of total energy between the core and mantle remains relatively constant. The energy budgets are separated in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accretionary impact heating efficiency re￾lationships as a function of the log modified specific im￾pact energy QS: the final mantle or core internal energy as a fraction of total initial system energy normalized by the mass ratio of the final bound mass to the initial tar￾get ((MT /Mbnd)(IEcore or mantle/Etot)). We identified three main groupings that behaved as power laws: the bulk of im￾pact angles test… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Internal energy partitioning for oblique ac￾cretionary collisions (excluding head-on, Panel a) and hit-and-run collisions (Panel b). In both outcome regimes, the mantles contain roughly 80% of the planets’ internal en￾ergy budgets for low- to mid-energy impact events, while approaching 70% for higher energies, more comparable to the mantle-core mass ratios. mean for the mantle side, approaching ∼10% on the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Difference in pressure and temperature at the core-mantle boundary between the initial target planet and the final largest remnant for accretionary collisions (i.e., those for which the post-impact body is more massive than the largest colliding body). Points are colored according to the bound mass of the resulting planet. All cases showed temperature increases at the CMB while pressures generally decrease… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Core-mantle boundary core- (left) and mantle-side (right) temperature change in accretionary collisions compared to our scaling-law fits (blue surfaces) as a function of specific impact energy QS and impact angle θi, color-coded by the final angular momentum in units of LEM (the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system). The shape of the data point markers indicates the size of the initial target planet i… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Core-mantle boundary pressure change data in accretionary collisions compared to our scaling-law fit (blue surface) as a function of specific impact energy QS and im￾pact angle θi, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Caption on next page [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temperature-equatorial radius plot for an ex￾ample post-impact planet compared to the Fe-MgO solvus closure temperature from S. M. Wahl & B. Militzer (2015) (solid blue line). Silicate SPH particles are shown in red while iron alloy particles are shown in grey. The mantle con￾tains “superheated” metal particles that are at significantly higher temperatures than the surrounding mantle material. The median … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The fraction of core (a) and mantle (b) material in accretionary collisions that becomes miscible post impact, defined as attaining temperatures above the Fe-MgO solvus closure (S. M. Wahl & B. Militzer 2015) at the respective pressure of the material. Data points are plotted as a function of specific impact energy QS and are color-coded by their angular momentum as fractions of the angular momentum of th… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A schematic of the different planetary models used to calculate pressures at the CMB, as described in §4. Panel a depicts a post-impact body with a fuzzy boundary between a mantle layer (darker blue) and a dense silicate at￾mosphere (lighter blue), extended into a synestia (not fully pictured). Panel b represents a static model planet. Panel c highlights a spherically-symmetric depth (dashed line) that co… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example separation of the thermal and rota￾tional effects from a giant impact on a body’s pressure pro￾file. An example post-impact body (co-rotating mantle SPH particles in red and core particles in grey, also Figure 12a) is shown compared to a corresponding static model profile with the same mass and core mass fraction (solid black line; Figure 12b), and a rotating model planet (dashed line; Fig￾ure 12d… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparing static, rotating, and empirical CMB pressures for conditions of metal-silicate equilibration. Panel a: The CMB pressures of the static and rotating models as a function of final planet mass. Each data point represents the model profile calculated for each impact in our dataset: black ×’s representing a static model, grey ✚’s for the effective equilibration pressure fractional correction to the s… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The same data as Panels a & b in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Caption on next page [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mantle-core internal energy partitioning for accretionary head-on collisions θi = 0. For all collisions, post-impact mantles receive 80% of the internal energy budget of the planet, unlike for oblique accretionary and hit-and-run collisions (contrast with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Mass-normalized heating efficiency for accretionary head-on impacts, similar to Panel b in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: A comparison between the polynomial extrapolation method for finding pressure-radius relationships across CMB discontinuities in an initialized SPH body, the SPH data that the polynomial extrapolation is fitting, and the “true” analytic pressure profile that the polynomial method is expected to reproduce. Panel a: a comparison between SPH data (raw data points and moving averages of the range of SPH value… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Initial impact conditions in our study, comparing specific impact energy QS to scaled impact velocity v/vesc. The legend describes the masses and mass ratios of the collision dataset, with the actual mass values of each target-impactor pair given in brackets. 10 6 10 7 10 8 Specific Impact Energy QS (J/kg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Impact angle (degrees) Moon 1:2 [0.01 : 0.005M ] Moon 1:3 [0.01 : 0.00333M ] … view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: A corollary of 20 for impact angle and specific impact energy QS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Hit-and-run impact heating efficiency relationships as a function of specific impact energy QS: the final mantle or core internal energy of the largest remnant as a fraction of total initial system energy (IEmantle/Etot or IEcore/Etot). Similar to the accretionary groupings, this data falls into two groups: the bulk of impact angles tested (θ = 20◦ to 60◦ ), and significantly oblique impacts (θ ∼ 75◦ ). F… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Percent residuals for the core-mantle boundary temperature change fits depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Absolute residuals for the core-mantle boundary pressure change fits depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Energy budgets for hit-and-run impacts included in this study, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Mantle phase fractions for hit-and-run impacts included in this study, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Fractional change in moment of inertia between the co-rotating portion of the final post-impact SPH bodies and their corresponding rotating planet profiles for each accretionary event in this study. Panel a shows oblique impacts while Panel b shows head-on events. Markers indicate the size of the target body as described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_28.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Terrestrial planets likely experienced one or more giant impacts during their formation that inflicted large thermal, chemical, and rotational perturbations. The early states of terrestrial planets are expected to be dominated by the thermal and rotational outcomes of giant impacts, but critical parameters that control internal processes, such as the pressures and temperatures of core formation, are not fully understood. Here we present the results from a representative suite of collisions between Moon- to super-Earth-mass bodies using the SWIFT hydrocode and updated ANEOS equations of state, allowing more robust temperature calculations. Using these results and the HERCULES planetary structure code, we calculated the contributions from thermal energy, gravitational potential energy, and post-impact rotation on the pressure-temperature conditions of the core-mantle boundary (CMB). We derived scaling laws for the efficiency of impact heating, mantle-core heat partitioning, and CMB pressures and temperatures. We find that post-impact CMB pressures are generally lower than previously assumed, due to both thermal and rotational effects. Full mantle melting is common and a substantial fraction of mantle material is heated above the Fe-MgO solvus closure temperature for impacts with modified specific energies $Q_S>10^6$ J/kg, implying that a miscible layer could form close to the CMB for many giant impacts. The comparatively low internal pressures and large regions of metal-silicate miscibility after giant impacts have significant effects on the processes of core formation, and our work indicates that metal-silicate equilibration would occur near the CMB during later post-impact cooling, consistent with Earth's geochemistry.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents results from a suite of giant impact simulations between Moon- to super-Earth-mass bodies using the SWIFT hydrocode with ANEOS equations of state. Post-processing with the HERCULES code is used to calculate post-impact core-mantle boundary (CMB) pressures and temperatures, incorporating thermal, gravitational potential, and rotational effects. Scaling laws are derived for impact heating efficiency, mantle-core heat partitioning, and CMB conditions. The key findings are that post-impact CMB pressures are lower than previously assumed due to thermal and rotational effects, full mantle melting is common, and for impacts with Q_S > 10^6 J/kg a substantial fraction of mantle material exceeds the Fe-MgO solvus temperature, suggesting possible miscible layer formation near the CMB with implications for core formation and metal-silicate equilibration.

Significance. If the results hold, this work would provide important revisions to models of terrestrial planet formation by showing lower CMB pressures and conditions favoring metal-silicate equilibration near the CMB. The computational approach combining hydrodynamics with structure calculations is a positive aspect, and the derived scaling laws could be useful for broader modeling if validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that post-impact CMB pressures are 'generally lower' and that a miscible layer forms 'for many giant impacts' rests on the assertion of a 'representative suite'; however, the abstract provides no information on how the chosen mass ratios, velocities, angles, and resulting Q_S values were selected to match the statistical distribution from N-body accretion models, making representativeness load-bearing for the generalization.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (workflow description): the manuscript describes the SWIFT + ANEOS + HERCULES workflow and states derived scaling laws but provides no details on numerical resolution, convergence tests, or validation against known benchmarks; without these the quantitative support for the reported CMB pressures, temperatures, and scaling laws cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The modified specific energy Q_S is used in the abstract without an explicit definition or reference to its formula; this should be clarified on first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which identify opportunities to strengthen the abstract. We respond to each major comment below and have revised the abstract to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that post-impact CMB pressures are 'generally lower' and that a miscible layer forms 'for many giant impacts' rests on the assertion of a 'representative suite'; however, the abstract provides no information on how the chosen mass ratios, velocities, angles, and resulting Q_S values were selected to match the statistical distribution from N-body accretion models, making representativeness load-bearing for the generalization.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit context on parameter selection. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to state that the impact parameters were chosen to span the distributions of mass ratios, velocities, and angles reported in N-body accretion studies (with the specific selection criteria and resulting Q_S range detailed in Section 2). This makes the basis for the 'representative suite' and the generalizations clear while preserving the original findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (workflow description): the manuscript describes the SWIFT + ANEOS + HERCULES workflow and states derived scaling laws but provides no details on numerical resolution, convergence tests, or validation against known benchmarks; without these the quantitative support for the reported CMB pressures, temperatures, and scaling laws cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The full manuscript includes a Methods section that reports the numerical resolution employed in the SWIFT runs, presents convergence tests, and describes validation of the ANEOS equations of state and HERCULES structure calculations against benchmarks. To improve accessibility from the abstract, we will add a concise clause referencing the numerical methods and validation procedures (with a pointer to the Methods section). This directly addresses the concern about evaluability of the quantitative results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation from new hydrocode simulations is self-contained

full rationale

The paper obtains its CMB pressure, temperature, melting, and scaling-law results directly from a new suite of SWIFT hydrocode runs (with updated ANEOS) followed by independent HERCULES structure calculations. Scaling laws are stated as empirical fits to those simulation outputs; no equation reduces a reported quantity to a parameter fitted from the same data set, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation chain. The representativeness assumption is an external modeling choice, not a definitional or fitted-input circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the hydrocode temperature calculations and the assumption that the chosen collision parameters represent typical giant impacts. No explicit free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract; the work relies on standard hydrodynamics and tabulated equations of state.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The ANEOS equations of state provide sufficiently accurate temperatures for the post-impact states examined.
    Abstract states 'updated ANEOS equations of state, allowing more robust temperature calculations' as the basis for the thermal results.
  • domain assumption The HERCULES planetary structure code correctly incorporates thermal energy, gravitational potential, and rotation to compute CMB pressure and temperature.
    Abstract states the use of HERCULES to calculate contributions from these three sources to CMB conditions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5812 in / 1569 out tokens · 27575 ms · 2026-06-26T07:42:12.060862+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

299 extracted references · 203 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Nature , volume=

    Geophysical evidence for an enriched molten silicate layer above Mars’s core , author=. Nature , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  2. [2]

    Nature , volume=

    Evidence for a liquid silicate layer atop the Martian core , author=. Nature , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  3. [3]

    Super-Earths and Earth-like exoplanets , volume=

    Lichtenberg, Tim and Miguel, Yamila , year=. Super-Earths and Earth-like exoplanets , volume=. Treatise on Geochemistry (Third Edition) , publisher=. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4 , abstractNote=

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99762-1.00122-4

  4. [4]

    Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author=

    The Pressure and Temperature Limits of Likely Rocky Exoplanets , volume=. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , author=. 2019 , pages=. doi:10.1029/2018JE005844 , abstractNote=

    work page doi:10.1029/2018je005844 2019

  5. [5]

    2019", month =

    Collapsing Impact Vapor Plume Model for Chondrule and Chondrite Formation. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 50 , year = "2019", month = "Mar", eid =

    2019

  6. [6]

    Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , year = "2019", series =

    High Collision Velocities Between Planetesimals During Planet Growth and Migration. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , year = "2019", series =

    2019

  7. [7]

    Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , year = "2019", series =

    Collapsing Impact Vapor Plumes: A New Planetesimal Formation Environment. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , year = "2019", series =

    2019

  8. [8]

    2019", month =

    Impact Vaporization Criteria During Planet Formation. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 50 , year = "2019", month = "Mar", eid =

    2019

  9. [9]

    Wahl and Burkhard Militzer , doi =

    Sean M. Wahl and Burkhard Militzer , doi =. High-temperature miscibility of iron and rock during terrestrial planet formation , volume =. Earth and Planetary Science Letters , month =

  10. [10]

    2019", month =

    Size Distribution of Chondrules Set by Droplet Breakup and Coupling During Vaporizing Collisions in the Nebula. Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 50 , year = "2019", month = "Mar", eid =

    2019

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Impact disruption of gravity-dominated bodies: New simulation data and scaling. , keywords =. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.018 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.04.018 2016

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Gasoline2: a modern smoothed particle hydrodynamics code. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1643 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1643

  13. [13]

    doi:10.2138/gsrmg.55.1.197 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.2138/gsrmg.55.1.197

  14. [14]

    Growth of asteroids, planetary embryos and Kuiper belt objects by chondrule accretion

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500109 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1503.07347 , Journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500109

  15. [15]

    doi:10.1038/nature12908 , Eprint =

    , Month = jan, Pages =. doi:10.1038/nature12908 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12908

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1016/j.gca.2016.06.023 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2016.06.023 2016

  17. [17]

    doi:10.1016/j.gca.2004.01.008 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2004.01.008 2004

  18. [18]

    doi:10.1126/science.1168221 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1168221

  19. [19]

    Titanium isotopes and the radial heterogeneity of the solar system , Url =

    Ingo Leya and Maria Sch. Titanium isotopes and the radial heterogeneity of the solar system , Url =. Earth and Planetary Science Letters , Keywords =. 2008 , Bdsk-Url-1 =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.10.017 , Issn =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.10.017 2008

  20. [20]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60609-5_7 , Editor =

    Astrophysics and Space Science Library , Date-Added =. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60609-5_7 , Editor =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60609-5_7

  21. [21]

    and Davies, Erik and Lemke, Raymond W and Bliss, David E

    Root, Seth and Townsend, Joshua P. and Davies, Erik and Lemke, Raymond W and Bliss, David E. and Fratanduono, Dayne E. and Kraus, Richard G. and Millot, Marius and Spaulding, Dylan K. and Shulenburger, Luke and Stewart, Sarah T. and Jacobsen, Stein B. , Date-Added =. The. Geophysical Research Letters , Keywords =. doi:10.1029/2017GL076931 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1029/2017gl076931

  22. [22]

    doi:10.1086/338850 , Eprint =

    , Keywords =. doi:10.1086/338850 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1086/338850

  23. [23]

    doi:10.1086/318019 , Eprint =

    , Keywords =. doi:10.1086/318019 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1086/318019

  24. [24]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a5 , Eid =

    , Keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a5 , Eid =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a5

  25. [25]

    Disk evolution in the solar neighborhood. I Disk frequencies from 1 to 100 Myr

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322597 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1312.0609 , Journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322597

  26. [26]

    doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1998.tb01611.x , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1998.tb01611.x 1945

  27. [27]

    doi:10.1111/maps.12292 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.12292

  28. [29]

    doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6895 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6895 2002

  29. [30]

    doi:10.1038/nature10077 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10077

  30. [31]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.008 , Eprint =

    , Keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.008 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.008 2018

  31. [32]

    Meteorites and the Early Solar System II , Date-Added =

  32. [33]

    doi:10.1038/nature03676 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03676

  33. [34]

    and Walsh, Kevin J

    Johnson, Brandon C. and Walsh, Kevin J. and Minton, David A. and Krot, Alexander N. and Levison, Harold F. , Date-Added =. Timing of the formation and migration of giant planets as constrained by. Science Advances , Number =. 2016 , Bdsk-Url-1 =. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601658 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601658 2016

  34. [35]

    doi:10.1038/nature14105 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14105

  35. [36]

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.09.049 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.09.049 2015

  36. [37]

    doi:10.1126/science.1226919 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1226919

  37. [38]

    Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , Date-Added =

  38. [39]

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.020 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.020 2016

  39. [40]

    Mixing and transport of dust in the early solar nebula as inferred from titanium isotope variations among chondrules

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa72a2 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1705.03676 , Journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa72a2 2041

  40. [41]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/L133 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/l133

  41. [42]

    doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6909 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6909 2002

  42. [43]

    Ab initio Equation of State data for hydrogen, helium, and water and the internal structure of Jupiter

    doi:10.1086/589806 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:0712.1019 , Journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1086/589806

  43. [44]

    Ab initio equations of state for hydrogen (H-REOS.3) and helium (He-REOS.3) and their implications for the interior of Brown Dwarfs

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/21 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1411.4010 , Journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/21

  44. [45]

    doi:10.1086/192204 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1086/192204

  45. [46]

    The Frequency of Giant impacts on Earth-like Worlds

    The frequency of giant impacts on Earth-like worlds , Volume = 821, Year = 2016, Bdsk-Url-1 =. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/821/2/126 , Eid =. arXiv , Author =:1511.03663 , Journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/0004-637x/821/2/126 2016

  46. [47]

    doi:10.1006/icar.1998.6007 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1998.6007 1998

  47. [48]

    doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6639 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6639 2001

  48. [49]

    doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6526 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6526 2000

  49. [50]

    doi:10.1029/92JE02726 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1029/92je02726

  50. [51]

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.06.023 , Eprint =

    Earth and Planetary Science Letters , Keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.06.023 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.06.023 2015

  51. [52]

    doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9284-1 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9284-1

  52. [53]

    doi:10.1038/nature23899 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23899

  53. [54]

    Disruption of bound clusters by photoionization

    , Keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21546.x , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21546.x 2012

  54. [55]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.020 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.11.020 2011

  55. [56]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.022 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.022 2013

  56. [57]

    Origin of the Earth , Date-Added =

  57. [58]

    doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0248-1 , Eprint =

    , Keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0248-1 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-016-0248-1

  58. [59]

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.030 , Eprint =

    , Keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.030 , Eprint =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2017.06.030 2017

  59. [60]

    doi:10.1029/JB087iB08p06668 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1029/jb087ib08p06668

  60. [61]

    , Month = aug, Pages =

  61. [62]

    Canup , keywords =

    Robin M. Canup , keywords =. Simulations of a late lunar-forming impact , journal =. 2004 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.09.028 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2003.09.028 2004

  62. [63]

    doi:10.1126/science.1226073 , Journal =

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1226073

  63. [64]

    Canup and A.C

    R.M. Canup and A.C. Barr and D.A. Crawford , keywords =. Lunar-forming impacts: High-resolution SPH and AMR-CTH simulations , journal =. 2013 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.10.011 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.10.011 2013

  64. [65]

    Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977) , author =

    Dynamic compression of enstatite , volume =. Journal of Geophysical Research (1896-1977) , author =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/JB076i023p05504 , url =. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JB076i023p05504 , year =

    work page doi:10.1029/jb076i023p05504 1977

  65. [66]

    and Ahrens, Thomas J

    Raikes, Susan A. and Ahrens, Thomas J. , title = ". Geophysical Journal International , volume =. 1979 , month =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.1979.tb04804.x , url =

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-246x.1979.tb04804.x 1979

  66. [67]

    Stewart , title =

    Sarah T. Stewart , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3866507 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3866507

  67. [68]

    Stewart , title =

    Sarah T. Stewart , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3866550 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3866550

  68. [69]

    Equation of state model

    Stewart, S and Davies, E and Duncan, M and Lock, S and Root, S and Townsend, J and Jacobsen, S , journal=. Equation of state model

  69. [70]

    Thompson, S. L. and Lauson, H. S. and Melosh, H. J. and Collins, G. S. and Stewart, S. T. , title =. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3525030 , url =

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3525030

  70. [71]

    1995 , note =

    The composition of the Earth , journal =. 1995 , note =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(94)00140-4 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0009-2541(94)00140-4 1995

  71. [72]

    Chambers , keywords =

    John E. Chambers , keywords =. Planetary accretion in the inner Solar System , journal =. 2004 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2004.04.031 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.04.031 2004

  72. [73]

    Geophysical Research Letters , volume =

    Piet, Hélène and Badro, James and Gillet, Philippe , title =. Geophysical Research Letters , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075225 , url =. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017GL075225 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1002/2017gl075225

  73. [74]

    Peter and Ahrens, Thomas J

    Watt, J. Peter and Ahrens, Thomas J. , title =. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/JB091iB07p07495 , url =. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JB091iB07p07495 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1029/jb091ib07p07495

  74. [75]

    Rubie and Daniel J

    David C. Rubie and Daniel J. Frost and Ute Mann and Yuki Asahara and Francis Nimmo and Kyusei Tsuno and Philip Kegler and Astrid Holzheid and Herbert Palme , keywords =. Heterogeneous accretion, composition and core–mantle differentiation of the Earth , journal =. 2011 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2010.11.030 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.11.030 2011

  75. [76]

    Fischer and Yoichi Nakajima and Andrew J

    Rebecca A. Fischer and Yoichi Nakajima and Andrew J. Campbell and Daniel J. Frost and Dennis Harries and Falko Langenhorst and Nobuyoshi Miyajima and Kilian Pollok and David C. Rubie , abstract =. High pressure metal–silicate partitioning of Ni, Co, V, Cr, Si, and O , journal =. 2015 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2015.06.026 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2015.06.026 2015

  76. [77]

    Alexandre Emsenhuber and Erik Asphaug and Saverio Cambioni and Travis S. J. Gabriel and Stephen R. Schwartz , doi =. The Planetary Science Journal , month =

  77. [78]

    Stewart,S. T. and Kennedy,G. B. and Senft,L. E. and Furlanetto,M. R. and Obst,A. W. and Payton,J. R. and Seifter,A. , title =. AIP Conference Proceedings , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  78. [79]

    Kraus, R. G. and Stewart, S. T. and Swift, D. C. and Bolme, C. A. and Smith, R. F. and Hamel, S. and Hammel, B. D. and Spaulding, D. K. and Hicks, D. G. and Eggert, J. H. and Collins, G. W. , title =. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JE004082 , url =. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.10...

    work page doi:10.1029/2012je004082

  79. [80]

    Kraus and Seth Root and Raymond W

    Richard G. Kraus and Seth Root and Raymond W. Lemke and Sarah T. Stewart and Stein B. Jacobsen and Thomas R. Mattsson , doi =. Impact vaporization of planetesimal cores in the late stages of planet formation , volume =. Nature Geoscience , month =

  80. [81]

    and Seifter, Achim and Obst, Andrew W

    Stewart, Sarah T. and Seifter, Achim and Obst, Andrew W. , title =. Geophysical Research Letters , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035947 , url =. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2008GL035947 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1029/2008gl035947

Showing first 80 references.