Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

On The Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors conclude that near-Earth asteroid 2024 PT5 is a rock blasted off the Moon by an impact.

desk verdict A careful, well-argued case that 2024 PT5 is lunar ejecta, with the main caveat being the unquantified uniqueness of the RELAB spectral match. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10264 v1 pith:D2KP5UMA submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.EP

Theodore Kareta , Oscar Fuentes-Muñoz , Nicholas Moskovitz , Davide Farnocchia , Benjamin N.L. Sharkey This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords 2024PT5near-EarthasteroidlunarejectareflectancespectroscopyBus-DeMeotaxonomysolarradiationpressureKamoʻoalewaEarth-likeorbit
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 near-Earth asteroid 2024 PT5, which hovered near Earth for months in late 2024, is a fragment of the Moon ejected by an impact. The authors combined visible and near-infrared reflectance spectra and found that the object's surface matches returned lunar samples but no known asteroid type. They also measured the solar radiation pressure acting on the asteroid's trajectory and found it far too weak for an artificial rocket body, eliminating the main alternative. If the argument holds, PT5 is the second near-Earth asteroid of lunar origin, after Kamoʻoalewa, suggesting a population of lunar ejecta that current models of asteroid origins do not include.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is the combined visible/near-infrared reflectance spectrum of 2024 PT5, measured against two spectral libraries: the Bus-DeMeo asteroid taxonomy, which no class fits well, and the RELAB database of laboratory reflectance spectra, whose best matches are returned lunar regolith powders. The decisive quantitative step is the root-mean-square (RMS) ratio test: the best lunar samples fit roughly three times better than the best asteroid type, reproducing both the 1-μm and 2-μm band shapes and the reflectivity upturn beyond 2.1 μm. The second mechanism is the radiation-pressure test, which fits the astrometry with an area-to-mass parameter and separates natural asteroids from artificial objects; the measured value rules out the artificial origin that slow Earth-like orbits otherwise suggest.

What would settle it

A thermal-infrared measurement of 2024 PT5 giving a geometric albedo far outside the 0.13–0.17 range of the matched lunar samples, or a higher-signal-to-noise spectrum whose 1-μm band center and pyroxene-to-olivine ratio are incompatible with lunar highlands material, would weaken the lunar-ejecta interpretation. Alternatively, detecting a non-gravitational acceleration with area-to-mass above roughly $10^{-3}\ \mathrm{m^2\,kg^{-1}}$ would point back toward an artificial object.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 2024 PT5 is ejecta from an impact on the Moon, making it the second near-Earth asteroid suggested to have been sourced from the lunar surface. The combined reflectance spectrum, spanning roughly 0.4–2.45 μm, matches laboratory spectra of returned lunar samples (Luna 24, Apollo 14, Apollo 17) with a root-mean-square mismatch about one-third that of the best-fitting Bus-DeMeo asteroid class; the object is pyroxene-rich, whereas comparably red asteroids are olivine-rich. The trajectory analysis is equally decisive: fitting the astrometry with an area-to-mass parameter yields $A/m = (0.0 \pm 1.3)\times 10^{-4}\ \mathrm{m^2\,kg^{-1}}$, orders of magnitude below the roughly $0.01\ \mathrm{m^2\,kg^{-1}}$ typical of artificial debris and consistent with natural asteroids. Assuming the albedo of the matched lunar samples, the authors estimate a diameter of 8–12 m, and they find that the band centers and depths weakly favor lunar highlands material over mare material. They conclude that a population of lunar-sourced near-Earth objects likely exists, conservatively about 16 objects in the current catalog, and that identifying members requires both visible and near-infrared data.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation hinges on assuming that laboratory reflectance spectra of lunar regolith powders represent the surface of an 8–12 meter, likely regolith-poor body; if grain size or surface packing alters the spectrum significantly, the lunar match could be coincidental with an unusual asteroidal surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If 2024 PT5 is lunar ejecta, then lunar impact ejecta is a genuine, recurring source of near-Earth objects, not a one-off accident.
  • Population-scale models of near-Earth asteroid origins, which currently omit the Moon as a source, would need a new source term and would revise origin estimates for objects on very Earth-like orbits.
  • The 8–12 m size estimate puts PT5 in a size range where crater-ejecta scaling models can be checked against lunar impact observations.
  • Because identification requires both visible and near-infrared spectroscopy, planned surveys will need coordinated follow-up to find more members of this population.
  • The paper's checklist (low encounter velocity, no radiation-pressure drift, rocky surface, lunar-like spectrum) gives observers a practical way to screen future candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that the true number of lunar-sourced objects in the current NEO catalog could be several times the paper's conservative estimate of about 16, because lunar material is repeatedly shown to masquerade as ordinary asteroids when only visible or only near-infrared data are available.
  • A clean observational test would be a thermal-infrared measurement of 2024 PT5 to fix its albedo; if the albedo falls outside the 0.13–0.17 range of the matched lunar samples, the lunar-match interpretation would need to be revisited.
  • If lunar ejecta populates Aten/Apollo orbits as efficiently as the dynamical work cited here suggests, a targeted campaign to obtain visible-plus-near-infrared spectra of red, pyroxene-rich small NEOs on Earth-like orbits should uncover more members of this population.
  • The paper does not link PT5 to a specific lunar crater; the natural next step is a search for the source crater using the object's post-ejection trajectory and the lunar cratering record, which would date the impact that launched it.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy of the recently discovered near-Earth object 2024 PT5, obtained with the Lowell Discovery Telescope and the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility. The authors combine these data with LDT photometry, a Bus-DeMeo taxonomic classification, a comparison to the RELAB spectral library, and an orbital/astrometric analysis that includes an estimate of the area-to-mass ratio. They argue that the spectrum is much better matched by returned lunar samples (Luna 24, Apollo 14, Apollo 17) than by any known asteroid taxonomic class, that the measured A/m is orders of magnitude too small for an artificial object, and that the orbit is extremely difficult to populate from the Main Belt. They conclude that 2024 PT5 is ejecta from an impact on the Moon, making it the second such object after Kamoʻoalewa, and they use this to argue for a population of lunar-derived near-Earth objects.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, this is a significant result: it would establish a second confirmed lunar-origin near-Earth object, provide strong evidence for a previously unrecognized NEO source population, and connect lunar impact science to asteroid population models and planetary defense. The paper has notable strengths: it presents a carefully obtained, simultaneously observed visible+NIR dataset, it makes explicit comparisons to external benchmarks (RELAB lunar samples, Bus-DeMeo taxonomy), it provides a quantitative A/m estimate from astrometry, and it openly discusses caveats such as grain size, phase angle, and thermal emission. These strengths make the dataset valuable even if the provenance claim is ultimately refined. The main weakness is that the uniqueness of the lunar spectral match is not demonstrated quantitatively, and a few internal inconsistencies in the diagnostic criteria remain unresolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 (RELAB comparison)] The central claim that 2024 PT5 is spectrally 'lunar' rather than 'asteroidal' rests on the fact that the three best RELAB matches are returned lunar samples, with RMS values roughly one-third of the best Bus-DeMeo fits. However, the paper reports only the three best matches and does not report the full ranking of RMS values, nor the best non-lunar RELAB sample and its RMS. Because the RELAB database contains meteorites, terrestrial rocks, and lab mixtures, and because the object is small and likely regolith-poor, the uniqueness of the lunar match is not established. Please provide the top-N RELAB fits with their RMS values, explicitly identify the best non-lunar fit, and discuss whether its RMS is close enough to the lunar fits to alter the conclusion.
  2. [§5.2 checklist and Table 2] The diagnostic checklist in Section 5.2 states that a band center shorter than 0.93 μm is preferred for lunar identification, and the text says that 'for 2024 PT5, the answers to each of these questions is positive.' Yet Table 2 reports a Band 1 center of 0.94 ± 0.01 μm for PT5, which does not satisfy the stated criterion. This is an internal inconsistency in the paper's own validation scheme. Please either revise the criterion (for example, by acknowledging that the 0.94 μm center is still within the lunar range) or clarify why this criterion is not decisive for PT5; as written, the checklist cannot be used to support the conclusion.
  3. [§3 and §5 (grain-size and regolith state)] The spectral matches are to laboratory spectra of fine lunar regolith powders, while the paper itself estimates PT5 to be only 8–12 m in size and notes that such small bodies are expected to have little or no regolith. The Yutu-2 rock spectrum is a useful single comparison, but it does not systematically control for the effects of grain size, packing, or surface texture across the full 0.4–2.45 μm range. Given that the central argument depends on the fidelity of this match, I would like to see either a quantitative treatment using coarser grain-size separates from lunar samples, or a more explicit statement of how a regolith-free or partially regolith-covered surface would be expected to change band depths, slopes, and the >2.1 μm upturn. Without this, the spectral match could be partly coincidental with an unusual asteroidal surface.
  4. [§3 (phase angle)] The object was observed at a moderate phase angle of approximately 64°, where phase reddening is non-negligible. The paper argues that phase reddening is inconsistent with the observed band-depth ratios, but this argument is based on Ordinary Chondrite-like powders, and the phase-reddening behavior of lunar-like material is not measured or modeled here. Since the red continuum slope is one of the key discriminants between PT5 and S/Q-type asteroids, the absence of a phase-reddening control for lunar samples leaves a systematic uncertainty in the spectral comparison. Please add an explicit discussion of how lunar phase reddening might change the RELAB comparisons, or provide a quantitative estimate of its effect.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'what would expected for an artificial object' is missing the verb 'be'; it should read 'what would be expected for an artificial object.'
  2. [§2 (Observations)] There are several typographical errors: 'thoughout' should be 'throughout', 'varible light clouds' should be 'variable light clouds', and 'the affects that grain size has' should be 'the effects that grain size has.' These do not affect the science but should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The instrument name is spelled 'Deveny' in the caption but 'DeVeny' elsewhere; please make the spelling consistent.
  4. [§3] The phrase 'interal heat conduction' should be 'internal heat conduction'; also, the sentence beginning 'The object is relatively small, so perhaps insights...' could be clarified to state whether the thermal-emission interpretation is being preferred or merely not excluded.
  5. [Appendix B] The checklist in Appendix B repeats the band-center criterion (<0.93 μm) and also says the answers for PT5 are positive; this repetition makes the inconsistency noted in Major Comment 2 more salient, and the appendix should be harmonized with Table 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lunar-origin conclusion rests on external RELAB spectral matches and an astrometrically estimated A/m, not on inputs that assume the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The reflectance-spectrum conclusion is obtained by RMS fitting against the external RELAB library and the Bus-DeMeo taxonomy; the paper explicitly reports RMS_lunar/RMS_Bus-DeMeo ≈ 1/3, which is a comparison, not an identity. The A/m value used to exclude an artificial origin is estimated from astrometry (0.0 ± 1.3e-4 m^2/kg) and compared with published artificial-object values (0.0079-0.0118 m^2/kg), so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The Kamo'oalewa precedent (Sharkey et al. 2021, with an overlapping author) is contextual and not load-bearing for PT5's classification. The size estimate (8-12 m) is explicitly conditional on the lunar interpretation ('Should 2024 PT5 actually be composed of lunar material, the question of its size becomes critical...') and therefore cannot itself supply the conclusion. One non-circular consistency caveat: the paper's own checklist in Section 5.2 prefers a 1-µm band center <0.93 µm, while it measures 0.94±0.01 µm and then states all checklist answers are positive; this is a correctness caveat, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on spectral comparison to external samples and on an assumed dynamical model. No free parameters are introduced ad hoc; the A/m estimate is a fitted measurement used as evidence, not an input that guarantees the conclusion.

free parameters (1)
  • area-to-mass ratio A/m = 0.0 ± 1.3e-4 m^2/kg
    Estimated from the astrometric fit; used as evidence against an artificial origin, not as an assumption for the lunar conclusion.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reflectance spectroscopy of an airless body can be used to infer its surface mineralogy.
    The interpretation of the spectrum as pyroxene-rich and lunar-like assumes the standard spectral-composition connection.
  • domain assumption Laboratory reflectance spectra of returned lunar samples (RELAB) are representative of the lunar surface materials that would be ejected as asteroid-size fragments.
    The best-fit comparison is to powdered regolith samples, while 2024 PT5 is a multi-meter body; the paper argues fine powder is relevant via the Yutu-2 rock observation, but this remains an assumption.
  • domain assumption The dynamical model (DE441 + SB441-N16) and the stochastic non-gravitational model correctly describe the trajectory such that the A/m estimate is reliable.
    The A/m estimate of 0.0 ± 1.3e-4 m^2/kg comes from this model; if the model is wrong, the artificial-origin exclusion weakens.
  • domain assumption The statistical rarity of slow encounters implies that an Earth-like orbit is difficult to populate from the Main Belt.
    The orbital argument relies on the completeness and correctness of the CNEOS Close Approach catalog and on source-region models not including lunar ejecta.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On The Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2KP5UMA

@misc{pith2026241210264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On The Lunar Origin of Near-Earth Asteroid 2024 PT5},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2KP5UMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10264}
}
read the original abstract

The Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) 2024 PT5 is on an Earth-like orbit which remained in Earth's immediate vicinity for several months at the end of 2024. PT5's orbit is challenging to populate with asteroids originating from the Main Belt and is more commonly associated with rocket bodies mistakenly identified as natural objects or with debris ejected from impacts on the Moon. We obtained visible and near-infrared reflectance spectra of PT5 with the Lowell Discovery Telescope and NASA Infrared Telescope Facility on 2024 August 16. The combined reflectance spectrum matches lunar samples but does not match any known asteroid types -- it is pyroxene-rich while asteroids of comparable spectral redness are olivine-rich. Moreover, the amount of solar radiation pressure observed on the PT5 trajectory is orders of magnitude lower than what would be expected for an artificial object. We therefore conclude that 2024 PT5 is ejecta from an impact on the Moon, thus making PT5 the second NEA suggested to be sourced from the surface of the Moon. While one object might be an outlier, two suggest that there is an underlying population to be characterized. Long-term predictions of the position of 2024 PT5 are challenging due to the slow Earth encounters characteristic of objects in these orbits. A population of near-Earth objects which are sourced by the Moon would be important to characterize for understanding how impacts work on our nearest neighbor and for identifying the source regions of asteroids and meteorites from this under-studied population of objects on very Earth-like orbits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our 2024 August 14 photometric observations of 2024 PT5 are shown as black unfilled circles with one-sigma error bars. No obvious periodicity or variability is seen, suggesting that the lightcurve is either low-amplitude (implying a roughly circular shape of the object projected along the line of sight), very short (< 30 seconds) or significantly longer than our lightcurve observations (> 40 minutes). Following thos… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our visible photometric observations (taken with LMI on the LDT, white circles) of 2024 PT5 from August 14th are compared against the visible (Deveny on the LDT, blue circles) and near-infrared spectra (SpeX on the IRTF, red circles) taken on the 16th. The three datasets agree well in the region of overlap and high SNR (0.75µm < λ < 0.90µm). The surface of 2024 PT5 is likely silicate rich based on the presence of a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The combined LDT+IRTF visible/near-infrared reflectance spectrum is shown (black) compared against relevant asteroid types from DeMeo et al. (2009) (top panel) and returned samples from the Moon (bottom). As can be seen, none of the asteroid classes can fit the spectrum of 2024 PT5 well but the regolith samples from the Moon can fit all aspects of the spectrum relatively easily. The details of and limitations to the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geocentric distance and energy of 2024 PT5 between June 2024 and June 2025. The times when the distance < Hill distance and energy < 0 are highlighted by the shadowed areas, showing that these conditions do not occur simultaneously. The 2024 encounter of 2024 PT5 with …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Geocentric orbit of 2024 PT5 in Earth-ecliptic rotating frame (Sun to -XE direction). The left panel includes the 2002-2003 and 2055 close approaches (circled, details in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heliocentric semi-major axis of 2024 PT5 between years 1900 and 2150. Right 2 panels show histograms of the distribution before and after the 2084 encounters using 4 solutions: Current, gravity-only solution; Sim. Obs, including the additional simulated observations; N…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: a comparison of 863 visible/near-infrared reflectance spectra of returned lunar samples and meteorites from RELAB. 45 of these spectra had an RMS less than 0.2 when compared against a Bus-Demeo asteroid type, in which case they are colored according to which type…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A flowchart describing the general decision making process by which one might discern the origin of an object on a very Earth-like orbit based on its orbital and reflective properties. This approach will under-estimate the amount of lunar material in Near-Earth space, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Battle, A., Reddy, V., Sanchez, J. A., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 226, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac7223 —. 2024, PSJ, 5, 96, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad3078

    doi:10.3847/psj/ac7223 2022

  2. [2]

    A., Dunham, E

    Bida, T. A., Dunham, E. W., Massey, P., & Roe, H. G. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91472N, doi: 10.1117/12.2056872

    doi:10.1117/12.2056872 2014

  3. [3]

    P., DeMeo, F

    Binzel, R. P., DeMeo, F. E., Turtelboom, E. V., et al. 2019, Icarus, 324, 41, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.035

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.035 2019

  4. [4]

    The discovery and characterization of minimoon 2024 PT$_5$

    Bolin, B. T., Denneau, L., Abron, L.-M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08029. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08029

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    F., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al

    Bottke, W. F., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2002, Icarus, 156, 399, doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6788

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    2023, PSJ, 4, 52, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb268

    Bowen, B., Reddy, V., De Florio, M., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 52, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acb268

    doi:10.3847/psj/acb268 2023

  7. [7]

    C., Reddy, V., Battle, A., et al

    Cantillo, D. C., Reddy, V., Battle, A., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 177, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acf298

    doi:10.3847/psj/acf298 2023

  8. [8]

    D., Malhotra, R., & Rosengren, A

    Castro-Cisneros, J. D., Malhotra, R., & Rosengren, A. J. 2023, Communications Earth and Environment, 4, 372, doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-01031-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01031-w 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    2004, M&PS, 39, 1251, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2004.tb00944.x

    Connors, M., Veillet, C., Brasser, R., et al. 2004, M&PS, 39, 1251, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2004.tb00944.x

    2004

  2. [10]

    J., & Drake, M

    Consolmagno, G. J., & Drake, M. J. 1977, GeoCoA, 41, 1271, doi: 10.1016/0016-7037(77)90072-2

    1977 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907 de la Fuente Marcos, R., de Le´ on, J., de la Fuente Marcos, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 670, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245514

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Binzel, R

    DeMeo, F. E., Binzel, R. P., Slivan, S. M., & Bus, S. J. 2009, Icarus, 202, 160, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.005 Devog` ele, M., Moskovitz, N., Thirouin, A., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab43dd 20

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, Small-Body Perturber Files SB441-N16 and SB441-N343, Tech

    Farnocchia, D. 2021, Small-Body Perturber Files SB441-N16 and SB441-N343, Tech. Rep. IOM 392R-21-005, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

    2021

  6. [14]

    R., Milani, A., Gronchi, G

    Farnocchia, D., Chesley, S. R., Milani, A., Gronchi, G. F., & Chodas, P. W. 2015, in Asteroids IV (University of Arizona Press), 815–834, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch041

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Chesley, S. R. 2019, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 131, 36, doi: 10.1007/s10569-019-9914-4

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Chodas, P

    Giorgini, J. D., Chodas, P. W., & Yeomans, D. K. 2001, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 33, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #33, 58.13

    2001

  9. [17]

    2018, Icarus, 312, 181, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2018, Icarus, 312, 181, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, AJ, 153, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5daa

    Higuchi, A., & Ida, S. 2017, AJ, 153, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5daa

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    T., Bottke, W

    Jedicke, R., Bolin, B. T., Bottke, W. F., et al. 2018, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 5, 13, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2018.00013

    2018

  12. [20]

    W., et al

    Jenniskens, P., Albers, J., Koop, M. W., et al. 2016, Airborne observations of an asteroid entry for high fidelity modeling (AIAA), doi: 10.2514/6.2016-0999

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

    Jiao, Y., Cheng, B., Huang, Y., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 819, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Harris, W

    Kareta, T., Reddy, V., Sanchez, J. A., & Harris, W. M. 2022, PSJ, 3, 105, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac63cb

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, PSJ, 5, 253, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8b22

    Kareta, T., Vida, D., Micheli, M., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 253, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad8b22

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    M., & Dones, L

    Kary, D. M., & Dones, L. 1996, Icarus, 121, 207, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0082

    1996

  17. [25]

    2009, A&A, 495, 967, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810965

    Kwiatkowski, T., Kryszczy´ nska, A., Poli´ nska, M., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 967, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810965

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, National Science Review, 7, 913, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwz183

    Lin, H., He, Z., Yang, W., et al. 2019, National Science Review, 7, 913, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwz183

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    1990, Icarus, 86, 69, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90199-J

    Luu, J., & Jewitt, D. 1990, Icarus, 86, 69, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90199-J

    1990 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Adams, J

    McCord, T. B., Adams, J. B., & Johnson, T. V. 1970, Science, 168, 1445, doi: 10.1126/science.168.3938.1445

    1970

  21. [29]

    J., & Elliott, G

    Micheli, M., Tholen, D. J., & Elliott, G. T. 2012, NewA, 17, 446, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2011.11.008 —. 2013, Icarus, 226, 251, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.05.032 —. 2014, ApJL, 788, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/788/1/L1

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    2017, Astronomy and Computing, 18, 47, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.11.002

    Mommert, M. 2017, Astronomy and Computing, 18, 47, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.11.002

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al

    Naidu, S. P., Micheli, M., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 913, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf836 Nesvorn´ y, D., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Shelly, F., et al. 2024, Icarus, 417, 116110, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116110

    2021

  24. [32]

    S., Folkner, W

    Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. H. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd414

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Pieters, C. M. 1983, J. Geophys. Res., 88, 9534, doi: 10.1029/JB088iB11p09534

    1983 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0179, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0179

    Aharonson, O. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0179, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0179

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, AJ, 163, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5e2c

    Qi, Y., & Qiao, D. 2022, AJ, 163, 211, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5e2c

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 362, doi: 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Gaffey, M

    Reddy, V., Emery, J. P., Gaffey, M. J., et al. 2009, M&PS, 44, 1917, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.tb02001.x

    2009

  31. [39]

    S., Binzel, R

    Rivkin, A. S., Binzel, R. P., & Bus, S. J. 2005, Icarus, 175, 175, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.11.005

    2005 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Reddy, V., Nathues, A., et al

    Sanchez, J. A., Reddy, V., Nathues, A., et al. 2012, Icarus, 220, 36, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.04.008

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Thomas, C., Reddy, V., et al

    Sanchez, J. A., Thomas, C., Reddy, V., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab723f

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Reddy, V., Thirouin, A., et al

    Sanchez, J. A., Reddy, V., Thirouin, A., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 131, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad445f

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Sharkey, B. N. L., Reddy, V., Malhotra, R., et al. 2021, Communications Earth and Environment, 2, 231, doi: 10.1038/s43247-021-00303-7

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Povilaitis, R

    Speyerer, E. J., Povilaitis, R. Z., Robinson, M. S., Thomas, P. C., & Wagner, R. V. 2016, Nature, 538, 215, doi: 10.1038/nature19829

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    P., et al

    Thirouin, A., Moskovitz, N., Binzel, R. P., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 163, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/163

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    2024, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2024-P170, doi: 10.48377/MPEC/2024-P170

    Tonry, J., Robinson, J., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2024, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2024-P170, doi: 10.48377/MPEC/2024-P170

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    B., Alessi, E

    Valsecchi, G. B., Alessi, E. M., & Rossi, A. 2015, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 123, 151, doi: 10.1007/s10569-015-9631-6

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    B., Milani, A., Gronchi, G

    Valsecchi, G. B., Milani, A., Gronchi, G. F., & Chesley, S. R. 2003, A&A, 408, 1179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031039

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, ApJS, 236, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.