pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30069 · v1 · pith:4ZYQI2UGnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

The Shape of (486958) Arrokoth

Simon B. Porter , Kelsi N. Singer , Paul M. Schenk , Anne J. Verbiscer , Susan D. Benecchi , John R. Spencer , Joel Wm. Parker , Pontus Brandt
show 1 more author
S. Alan Stern
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 00:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords ArrokothKuiper Beltcontact binaryshape modelNew HorizonsLORRIbilobate objectStreaming Instability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new shape model of Arrokoth finds it thicker overall, with the larger lobe flattened and smaller lobe spherical at a 2:1 volume ratio.

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

The paper develops an improved shape modeling method using GPU acceleration to fit all available high-resolution images from the New Horizons flyby. This yields a revised model of the contact binary that is thicker and more voluminous than the initial post-flyby reconstruction. The smaller lobe appears nearly spherical while the larger one is oblate, leading to a volume ratio near 2 to 1. These shape details alter expectations for how the object's brightness changes with rotation from different viewing angles. The differences also bear on how common such bilobate objects are thought to be and on models of their assembly in the early solar system.

Core claim

The updated shape model of (486958) Arrokoth, obtained by fitting the full set of resolved LORRI images with a GPU-accelerated algorithm, is significantly thicker and larger in volume than the prior model. The smaller lobe Weeyo is roughly spherical, the larger lobe Wenu is more flattened, and their volume ratio is approximately 2:1.

What carries the argument

GPU-accelerated shape modeling algorithm that simultaneously fits the contact binary shape and rotational pole to the complete LORRI image set.

If this is right

  • Arrokoth's rotational lightcurve would show significantly lower mean reflectance when viewed from subobserver latitudes that produce lightcurve variation.
  • This revised shape may change estimates of how frequently contact binaries occur among Kuiper Belt objects.
  • The shape details provide new constraints on Arrokoth's formation, especially in relation to the Streaming Instability mechanism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the new thickness holds, it could imply that similar objects formed with more material or experienced less compaction than previously modeled.
  • Independent verification using different image processing or additional flyby data would strengthen or refute the volume ratio.
  • The altered lightcurve prediction might require re-examination of ground-based observations of other candidate contact binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The GPU-accelerated algorithm accurately recovers the true shape and pole without systematic errors from the image data or fitting process.

What would settle it

A comparison showing that the new model's rendered images match the observed LORRI data better than the old model, or a measurement of Arrokoth's actual volume from an independent technique such as occultation timing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30069 by Anne J. Verbiscer, Joel Wm. Parker, John R. Spencer, Kelsi N. Singer, Paul M. Schenk, Pontus Brandt, S. Alan Stern, Simon B. Porter, Susan D. Benecchi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four example distant images sequence stacks (APROTNAV L1 2018365A,APROTNAV L1 2018365H,APROTNAV L1 2019001C, and APROTNAV L1 2019001K) and their fit to the model. For each, the upper left shows the stacked, radiometrically-corrected image sequence obtained by LORRI, the upper right shows a high resolution render of the shape model with correct orientation and lighting, the lower left shows the shape model … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The closest four image sequences (CA04,CA05,CA06,CA07), in the same format as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The shape model of Arrokoth as viewed from the negative (south) pole. Note the roughly hexagonal shape of Wenu, the larger lobe, and the similar (but less well-defined) hexagonal shape for Weeyo, the smaller lobe. This profile may be due to the formation of Arrokoth from “mounds”, as detailed in (Stern et al. 2023). Note that the bright features in Akasa Linea (between the lobes) are relatively small, but … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The “lookback” image sequence CA07 superim￾posed with the shape model, the stars that were occulted by Arrokoth in the sequence in red, and unocculted stars in white. These were the only only 4×4 images used for the analysis, due to the long required exposures. Stars were con￾sidered as occulted if their PSF-fit flux dropped more than 50% for the 0.2 second images. Note that the only stars oc￾culted in the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The shape of Arrokoth as viewed from its equator. The red areas indicate regions that were not well-imaged by New Horizons at closest approach (i.e. those areas images at too low resolutions for the albedo fitter). The detailed shape of these areas is effectively the reflections of the parametric shapes for the well-imaged parts (due to the nature of the octantoid spherical harmonics), though the overall d… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The rotation lightcurve of Arrokoth at a Sun-Target-Observer angle of zero, as viewed from various sub-observer latitudes. The left plot shows the variation in the shape and reflectance of the lightcurve at different latitudes, while the right plot shows the variation of the mean reflectance (solid line) and lightcurve amplitude (shaded area) as a function of sub-observer latitude. Note that even with unce… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Here we present an updated shape model of (486958) Arrokoth, the bilobate Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) which the NASA New Horizons spacecraft flew past in 2019. This updated shape model uses all of the resolved images of Arrokoth obtained by the New Horizons LOng Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI). We developed an updated shape modeling algorithm which allowed the shape and rotational pole of Arrokoth to be fit to much better quality with an efficient use of GPU-accelerated features. The resulting model of Arrokoth's contact binary shape is significantly thicker and of larger volume than the one previously published immediately after the flyby by Spencer et al (2020). We show that Arrokoth's smaller lobe Weeyo is roughly spherical in shape, while the larger lobe Wenu is more flattened, with the volume ratio between the lobes being roughly 2:1. Owing to Wenu's oblate shape, Arrokoth's rotational lightcurve would have significantly lower mean reflectance when viewed from subobserver latitudes that would have shown lightcurve variation. We discuss the impact this may have on estimates of the frequency of contact binaries in the Kuiper Belt. We also discuss the implications of this shape for the formation of Arrokoth, particularly in the context of the Streaming Instability.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents an updated shape model of the bilobate KBO Arrokoth derived from all resolved LORRI images obtained during the New Horizons flyby. A new GPU-accelerated algorithm is used to simultaneously fit the contact-binary shape and rotational pole, yielding a model that is significantly thicker and larger in volume than the Spencer et al. (2020) model. The smaller lobe Weeyo is described as roughly spherical, the larger lobe Wenu as more oblate, and the lobe volume ratio as approximately 2:1. Implications are discussed for rotational lightcurves, the observed frequency of contact binaries, and formation via streaming instability.

Significance. If the revised dimensions hold, the result would alter interpretations of Arrokoth's formation and the prevalence of contact binaries in the Kuiper Belt, while the GPU-accelerated fitting method constitutes a reusable technical advance for spacecraft image analysis. The use of the complete LORRI dataset is a clear strength relative to prior work.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Methods section (shape-modeling algorithm): the central claim of increased thickness and a 2:1 volume ratio rests on the new GPU-accelerated fitting procedure. The manuscript must supply validation tests (recovery of synthetic shapes, residual maps against the full LORRI dataset, or direct comparison with the Spencer et al. solution on identical data) to demonstrate that the reported geometry is not an artifact of regularization choices, priors, or convergence behavior.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that the new model fits 'to much better quality' but does not quantify the improvement (e.g., rms residuals or reduced chi-squared); these metrics should appear in the results section alongside the shape parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested validation tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section (shape-modeling algorithm): the central claim of increased thickness and a 2:1 volume ratio rests on the new GPU-accelerated fitting procedure. The manuscript must supply validation tests (recovery of synthetic shapes, residual maps against the full LORRI dataset, or direct comparison with the Spencer et al. solution on identical data) to demonstrate that the reported geometry is not an artifact of regularization choices, priors, or convergence behavior.

    Authors: We agree that the central claims require explicit validation of the GPU-accelerated algorithm. The revised manuscript will add a new subsection to the Methods section that includes: (1) recovery tests using synthetic contact-binary shapes rendered into simulated LORRI images, (2) residual maps comparing the best-fit model to the complete LORRI dataset, and (3) a direct side-by-side comparison of our solution against the Spencer et al. (2020) model when both are fitted to identical data. These tests will quantify any effects from regularization, priors, or convergence and confirm that the reported increase in thickness and 2:1 volume ratio are robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives an updated shape model by fitting a new GPU-accelerated algorithm directly to the full set of resolved LORRI images, producing outputs (increased thickness, larger volume, ~2:1 lobe volume ratio, spherical Weeyo vs. flattened Wenu) that are compared against the independent prior result of Spencer et al. (2020). No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are present; the central claim rests on external image data and an independent baseline rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; ledger is therefore empty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5808 in / 1133 out tokens · 22021 ms · 2026-06-29T00:23:45.464485+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

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    P., Simon, J

    Abod, C. P., Simon, J. B., Li, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 192, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab40a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab40a3 2019

  2. [2]

    2021, AndrewAnnex/SpiceyPy: SpiceyPy 4.0.1, v4.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4883901 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Annex, A., Pearson, B., Seignovert, B., et al. 2021, AndrewAnnex/SpiceyPy: SpiceyPy 4.0.1, v4.0.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4883901 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4883901 2021

  3. [3]

    D., Noll, K

    Benecchi, S. D., Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 292, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025 2009

  4. [4]

    D., Noll, K

    Benecchi, S. D., Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., & Levison, H. F. 2010, Icarus, 207, 978, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.12.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.12.017 2010

  5. [5]

    D., Noll, K

    Benecchi, S. D., Noll, K. S., Stephens, D. C., Grundy, W. M., & Rawlins, J. 2011, Icarus, 213, 693, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.03.005 2011

  6. [6]

    , keywords =

    Benecchi, S. D., Porter, S. B., Buie, M. W., et al. 2019, Icarus, 334, 11, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.023 2019

  7. [7]

    , keywords =

    Buie, M. W., Porter, S. B., Tamblyn, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6ced

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6ced 2020

  8. [8]

    W., Spencer, J

    Buie, M. W., Spencer, J. R., Porter, S. B., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 196, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad676d

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad676d 2024

  9. [9]

    2022, vispy/vispy: Version 0.11.0, v0.11.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6795163

    Campagnola, L., Larson, E., Klein, A., et al. 2022, vispy/vispy: Version 0.11.0, v0.11.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6795163

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6795163 2022

  10. [10]

    M., Anderson, K

    Campbell, H. M., Anderson, K. E., & Kaib, N. A. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 75, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02388-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02388-4 2025

  11. [11]

    Carrera, D., Gorti, U., Johansen, A., & Davies, M. B. 2017, ApJ, 839, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6932 2017

  12. [12]

    F., Weaver, H

    Cheng, A. F., Weaver, H. A., Conard, S. J., et al. 2008, SSRv, 140, 189, doi: 10.1007/s11214-007-9271-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-007-9271-6 2008

  13. [13]

    Edgeworth, K. E. 1949, MNRAS, 109, 600, doi: 10.1093/mnras/109.5.600

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/109.5.600 1949

  14. [14]

    L., Kern, S

    Elliot, J. L., Kern, S. D., Clancy, K. B., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 1117, doi: 10.1086/427395

    work page doi:10.1086/427395 2005

  15. [15]

    H., Kusnierkiewicz, D

    Fountain, G. H., Kusnierkiewicz, D. Y., Hersman, C. B., et al. 2008, SSRv, 140, 23, doi: 10.1007/s11214-008-9374-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-008-9374-8 2008

  16. [16]

    C., Bannister, M

    Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., Pike, R. E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0088, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0088

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0088 2017

  17. [17]

    C., Porter, S

    Fraser, W. C., Porter, S. B., Peltier, L., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 227, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad6f9e Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad6f9e 2024

  18. [18]

    2002, Nature, 420, 643, doi: 10.1038/nature01227

    Goldreich, P., Lithwick, Y., & Sari, R. 2002, Nature, 420, 643, doi: 10.1038/nature01227

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01227 2002

  19. [19]

    B., Kavelaars, J

    Greenstreet, S., Gladman, B., McKinnon, W. B., Kavelaars, J. J., & Singer, K. N. 2019, ApJL, 872, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab01db

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab01db 2019

  20. [20]

    Icarus , author =

    Grundy, W. M., Noll, K. S., Roe, H. G., et al. 2019, Icarus, 334, 62, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.035

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.035 2019

  21. [21]

    Hapke, B. 1981, J. Geophys. Res., 86, 3039, doi: 10.1029/JB086iB04p03039 —. 1993, Theory of reflectance and emittance spectroscopy (Cambridge UP) —. 2012, Theory of Reflectance and Emittance Spectroscopy (Cambridge UP), doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139025683 14

    work page doi:10.1029/jb086ib04p03039 1981

  22. [22]

    , keywords =

    Hofgartner, J. D., Buratti, B. J., Benecchi, S. D., et al. 2021, Icarus, 356, 113723, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113723

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.113723 2021

  23. [23]

    , keywords =

    Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. 1993, Nature, 362, 730, doi: 10.1038/362730a0

    work page doi:10.1038/362730a0 1993

  24. [24]

    2012, A&A, 543, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219267

    Kaasalainen, M., & Viikinkoski, M. 2012, A&A, 543, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219267

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219267 2012

  25. [25]

    PyCUDA and PyOpenCL: A Scripting-Based Approach to GPU Run-Time Code Generation

    Keane, J. T., Porter, S. B., Beyer, R. A., et al. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 127, e07068, doi: 10.1029/2021JE007068 Kl¨ ockner, A., Pinto, N., Lee, Y., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0911.3456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0911.3456

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1029/2021je007068 2022

  26. [26]

    Kuiper, G. P. 1974, Celestial Mechanics, 9, 321, doi: 10.1007/BF01228575

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01228575 1974

  27. [27]

    Numba: A

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proc. Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1–6, doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    work page doi:10.1145/2833157.2833162 2015

  28. [28]

    W., Keller, J

    Leiva, R., Buie, M. W., Keller, J. M., et al. 2020, PSJ, 1, 48, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abb23d

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/abb23d 2020

  29. [29]

    https://doi.org/10.1086/300408

    Ma, C., Arias, E. F., Eubanks, T. M., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 516, doi: 10.1086/300408

    work page doi:10.1086/300408 1998

  30. [30]

    F., & Hapke, B

    McGuire, A. F., & Hapke, B. W. 1995, Icarus, 113, 134, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1012

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1995.1012 1995

  31. [31]

    B., Richardson, D

    McKinnon, W. B., Richardson, D. C., Marohnic, J. C., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aay6620, doi: 10.1126/science.aay6620

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay6620 2020

  32. [32]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. 1965, The computer journal, 7, 308, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 1965

  33. [33]

    A., Ragozzine, D., Proudfoot, B

    Nelsen, M. A., Ragozzine, D., Proudfoot, B. C. N., Giforos, W. G., & Grundy, W. 2025, PSJ, 6, 53, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad864d

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad864d 2025

  34. [34]

    S., Pelletier, F

    Nelson, D. S., Pelletier, F. J., Buie, M. W., et al. 2022, SSRv, 218, 11, doi: 10.1007/s11214-022-00877-4 Nesvorn´ y, D., Li, R., Youdin, A. N., Simon, J. B., &

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00877-4 2022

  35. [35]

    Grundy, W. M. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 808, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0806-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0806-z 2019

  36. [36]

    B., Benecchi, S

    Porter, S. B., Benecchi, S. D., Verbiscer, A. J., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 143, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad3f19

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad3f19 2024

  37. [37]

    B., & Grundy, W

    Porter, S. B., & Grundy, W. M. 2012, Icarus, 220, 947, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.034

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2012.06.034 2012

  38. [38]

    2024, in Comets III, ed

    Porter, S. B., Verbiscer, A. J., Weaver, H. A., Cook, J. C., & Grundy, W. M. 2021, in The Pluto System After New Horizons, ed. S. A. Stern, J. M. Moore, W. M. Grundy, L. A. Young, & R. P. Binzel (Arizona UP), 457–472, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816540945-ch020

    work page doi:10.2458/azu 2021

  39. [39]

    B., Buie, M

    Porter, S. B., Buie, M. W., Parker, A. H., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac2e1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac2e1 2018

  40. [40]

    B., Spencer, J

    Porter, S. B., Spencer, J. R., Verbiscer, A., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 23, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac3491

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac3491 2022

  41. [41]

    Powell, M. J. 1964, The computer journal, 7, 155, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155

    work page doi:10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155 1964

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Schwamb, M. E., Jones, R. L., Yoachim, P., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acc173

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc173 2023

  43. [43]

    , keywords =

    Showalter, M. R., Benecchi, S. D., Buie, M. W., et al. 2021, Icarus, 356, 114098, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114098

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114098 2021

  44. [44]

    C., Holler, B

    Souza-Feliciano, A. C., Holler, B. J., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348222

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348222 2024

  45. [45]

    Science , keywords =

    Spencer, J. R., Stern, S. A., Moore, J. M., et al. 2020, Science, 367, aay3999, doi: 10.1126/science.aay3999

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay3999 2020

  46. [46]

    Stern, S. A. 2025, New Horizons Encounter with (486958) Arrokoth: Derived Shape Models and Surface Maps, NASA Planetary Data System, doi: 10.26007/VZ79-9862

    work page doi:10.26007/vz79-9862 2025

  47. [47]

    A., Weaver, H

    Stern, S. A., Weaver, H. A., Spencer, J. R., et al. 2019, Science, 364, aaw9771, doi: 10.1126/science.aaw9771

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaw9771 2019

  48. [48]

    A., White, O

    Stern, S. A., White, O. L., Grundy, W. M., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 176, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acf317

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/acf317 2023

  49. [49]

    Thirouin, A., & Sheppard, S. S. 2019, AJ, 157, 228, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab18a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab18a9 2019

  50. [50]

    Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, A., & Levison, H. F. 2005, Nature, 435, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature03539

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03539 2005

  51. [51]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  52. [52]

    A., Porter, S

    Weaver, H. A., Porter, S. B., Spencer, J. R., & The New Horizons Science Team. 2022, PSJ, 3, 46, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac4cb7

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ac4cb7 2022

  53. [53]

    A., Buie, M

    Weaver, H. A., Buie, M. W., Buratti, B. J., et al. 2016, Science, 351, aae0030, doi: 10.1126/science.aae0030

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aae0030 2016

  54. [54]

    A., Cheng, A

    Weaver, H. A., Cheng, A. F., Morgan, F., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab67ec

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab67ec 2020

  55. [55]

    2007, ApJ, 662, 613, doi: 10.1086/516729

    Youdin, A., & Johansen, A. 2007, ApJ, 662, 613, doi: 10.1086/516729

    work page doi:10.1086/516729 2007