Explosive Molecular Outflows

Luis A. Zapata (IRyA-UNAM)

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 13 references

Explosive Molecular Outflows

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Explosive molecular outflows are short-lived, nearly isotropic blasts from the dynamical breakup of massive protostellar systems, occurring roughly once every 140 years across the Galaxy.

desk verdict Solid synthesis that defines a morphological/kinematic class of explosive outflows and gives a transparent order-of-magnitude Galactic rate; the rate is soft but not load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10452 v1 pith:RU2FXXOC submitted 2026-07-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Luis A. Zapata (IRyA-UNAM) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA

keywords explosivemolecularoutflowsmassivestarformationprotostellarmergersOrionBN/KLHubble-Lemaîtreexpansionstreamersdynamicalinteractionsyoungclusters

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 review establishes explosive molecular outflows as a distinct class of extreme ejections from luminous, massive young clusters. Unlike classical bipolar jets driven by steady accretion, they appear as dozens of narrow, straight molecular filaments streaming outward in nearly all directions from a common center, with speeds that increase linearly with distance in a Hubble–Lemaître pattern. Their kinetic energies reach 10^47–10^49 erg, yet they last only about a thousand years and leave no massive star at the explosion site—the stars have already been flung away as runaways. The favored mechanism is a brief dynamical disruption of a non-hierarchical multiple system of massive protostars that either merges or hardens into a close binary, releasing enough gravitational energy to power the blast. Because the inferred Galactic rate of roughly one event every 140 years is comparable to the rates of massive-star formation and supernovae, the process may be a common, short-lived phase in the birth of most high-mass stars.

What carries the argument

Disruption of non-hierarchical massive protostellar systems: chaotic multi-body encounters that eject runaway stars while releasing gravitational energy (~10^47–48 erg) capable of launching the isotropic streamers that display Hubble–Lemaître expansion.

What would settle it

A complete volume-limited ALMA or ngVLA survey of all high-mass star-forming regions within ~5 kpc that recovers either zero additional explosive outflows or a rate orders of magnitude different from one per 140 years would falsify the claimed Galactic occurrence rate and its link to massive-star formation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Explosive molecular outflows form a new class of short-lived (~10^3 yr), quasi-isotropic molecular ejections with kinetic energies of 10^47–49 erg that are associated with luminous (≥10^5 L_⊙), massive young clusters. They are generated by a single brief dynamical event—the disruption of a non-hierarchical massive protostellar system that either merges or forms a tight binary—rather than by continuous jet-driven feedback.

Load-bearing premise

The conversion of only eight known nearby objects and their short dynamical ages into a Galaxy-wide rate of one event every 140 years rests on a simple steady-state scaling that ignores strong selection biases toward luminous, nearby regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A large fraction of massive stars experience an explosive-outflow phase during their formation.
The Galactic rate of ~1 event per 140 yr is comparable to the massive-star formation and supernova rates.
Future sensitive surveys with ALMA, JWST and the ngVLA of nearby high-mass regions should uncover many more such outflows.
Explosive outflows can heat hot molecular cores and drive expanding molecular or ionized shells.
Magnetic fields are dragged into radial configurations by the outflow rather than acting as its primary driver.

Reading between the lines

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

Many classical massive outflows may be misclassified older or faded explosive remnants once high-resolution kinematics become routine.
The same dynamical decay naturally accounts for the high runaway fraction among O stars and the excess of apparently single massive stars in dense clusters.
Truncated or disrupted disks, excess single massive stars, and proper-motion vectors that back-track to the explosion center are direct, testable signatures of the merger scenario.
Gamma-ray detections already associated with a few of these sources may identify explosive outflows as a previously unrecognized class of Galactic cosmic-ray accelerators.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a clean, well-referenced review that pulls a decade of interferometric work into a coherent class: quasi-isotropic molecular streamers with Hubble–Lemaître expansion, E_kin ~ 10^47–49 erg, dynamical ages ~10^3 yr, tied to luminous massive clusters. The multi-object evidence (Orion BN/KL SMA+ALMA+JWST, G5.89 ALMA, DR21, IRAS 16076, IRAS 12326, G34.26, etc.) is carefully cited and consistent across independent groups. Table 1 and the L_mech–L_bol plot (Fig. 11) make the energetic contrast with classical bipolar outflows immediate and useful. The merger/disruption scenario is presented as the leading explanation, not the only one; §2.10 fairly walks through alternatives and their shortcomings.

What is new is the organization itself plus two transparent calculations: the mechanical-versus-bolometric comparison and the Galactic rate (~1 per 140 yr). Both rest on literature values; neither claims new data. The rate (eqs. 4–6) is order-of-magnitude only—small biased sample, uncertain visibility timescales, projection effects—and the paper flags this. That limitation is real but non-load-bearing for the class definition; the morphology and kinematics stand without it. Self-citation of the author’s discovery papers is present but those results have been confirmed by others, so circularity is low.

Soft spots are minor and proportional: free parameters in the rate (ages, sample radius, τ_EO), possible residual contamination by fossil bipolar flows in older objects, and the still-open question of the precise energy-release channel. None of these undercut the observational synthesis.

This is for anyone working on massive-star formation, cluster dynamics, runaways, or high-mass multiplicity. It deserves a serious referee and is worth citing when discussing feedback modes or the high-mass end of the IMF. I would accept it for peer review without hesitation.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review synthesizes the observational evidence for a distinct class of explosive molecular outflows in massive star-forming regions. These flows are characterized by numerous narrow, quasi-isotropic streamers with Hubble–Lemaître (v∝r) kinematics, kinetic energies of ~10^47–49 erg, and short dynamical ages (~10^2–10^4 yr). The paper compiles multi-tracer data for Orion BN/KL, G5.89–0.39, DR21, IRAS 16076–5134, IRAS 12326–6245, G34.26+0.15, Sh2-106, and IRAS 15520–5234 (Table 1), contrasts their mechanical luminosities with classical bipolar outflows (Fig. 11), estimates a Galactic occurrence rate of roughly one event every ~140 yr (§2.6), and evaluates candidate driving mechanisms, favoring dynamical disruption of non-hierarchical massive protostellar systems (merger or close-binary formation).

Significance. If the morphological/kinematic class is robust, explosive outflows constitute a previously under-recognized, short-lived feedback channel that may operate for a substantial fraction of massive stars. The multi-object, multi-tracer compilation (SMA/ALMA CO streamers, JWST H2 fingers, proper-motion runaway stars, expanding shells) and the clear separation from classical L_mech–L_bol trends (Fig. 11) are valuable. The rate estimate is presented only as order-of-magnitude and is not required for the class definition itself. The review is timely given recent ALMA confirmations and provides a useful framework for future JWST/ALMA/ngVLA surveys.

major comments (2)

§2.6 (eqs. 4–6) and the associated Galactic-rate claim: the conversion of eight known objects and their dynamical ages into R_EO ~ 1/140 yr rests on a small, strongly selection-biased sample and an uncertain visibility timescale τ_EO. The paper already flags these limitations, but the Abstract and §3 still present the rate as comparable to the massive-star formation and supernova rates and as implying that the process operates for a large fraction of massive stars. The rate should be more carefully caveated in those summary statements (or moved to a clearly secondary status) so that the central morphological/kinematic claim is not over-linked to an order-of-magnitude estimate.
§2.10 and §3: the preferred gravitational-disruption/merger scenario is presented as the leading model, yet several alternatives (magnetic explosion, failed supernova, high-speed compact-object slingshot) remain only partially constrained. A short, explicit list of falsifiable discriminants (e.g., presence/absence of a compact remnant, nucleosynthetic signatures, required stellar densities, predicted binary fraction) would strengthen the theoretical section without changing the observational core.

minor comments (5)

Table 1: ages and energies are order-of-magnitude and tracer-dependent; a brief note on the dominant uncertainty for each entry (projection, optical depth, mass conversion) would help readers.
Fig. 11: the classical L_mech ∝ L_bol^0.6–0.7 relation is shown with two slightly different slopes after artificial errors; clarify which fit is preferred for comparison and whether the explosive points remain outliers under both.
§2.1.2 / Fig. 6: the status of IRc23 and Zapata 11 as true runaways versus outflow features is still debated (Bally et al. 2020); a one-sentence acknowledgment of that residual ambiguity would be useful.
Scattered minor typos and incomplete references (e.g., “?” after Plambeck & Wright 2016 discussion of Source I continuum; “Santamaria et al. (2025/2026), in prep.”) should be cleaned before final acceptance.
§2.7: the radial B-field morphology is interesting but rests on only three sources; a short caveat that the sample is still small would keep the magnetic-field discussion proportionate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-citations document prior multi-tracer discoveries that rest on independent interferometric data and external confirmations, while the Galactic rate is an order-of-magnitude estimate from published ages rather than a fitted or definitional prediction.

self citation load bearing [§2.1.1 Confirmation; §2.2.1; §2.6; Abstract]
"High angular resolution (3″) interferometric CO(2−1) line observations were carried out with the Submillimeter Array resolved the molecular material distributed into about 40 striking jet-like streams... This observation confirmed that in fact the outflow in BN/KL is explosive. ... Zapata et al. (2019) ... report the possible detection... This scenario for G5.89−0.39 was confirmed using... ALMA observations (Zapata et al. 2020). ... Taking the explosive outflows listed in Table 1 ... we obtain an estimated Galactic explosive event rate of R_EO ∼ 8 × 10^{-3} yr^{-1}"

The paper’s discovery claims for several individual sources rest on the author’s own prior papers. However these rest on independent interferometric datasets (SMA/ALMA) that have been externally confirmed or extended by other groups; the rate formula merely inserts the published census and ages and is not load-bearing for the morphological class. This is therefore only a minor, non-circular self-citation.

full rationale

This is a review paper whose central claim is the observational existence of a morphological/kinematic class (quasi-isotropic narrow streamers with Hubble–Lemaître expansion, E_kin ∼ 10^47–49 erg, short dynamical ages) powered by brief dynamical disruption of non-hierarchical massive systems. The class definition is built from multi-object, multi-tracer data (SMA/ALMA CO streamers, H2/[Fe II] fingers, proper motions of runaways, expanding shells) spanning Orion BN/KL, G5.89–0.39, DR21, IRAS 16076, IRAS 12326, G34.26, Sh2-106 and IRAS 15520; many of these datasets and confirmations are independent of the author (Bally et al., Guzmán Ccolque et al., Issac et al., etc.). The preferred physical model (merger/close-binary formation) is presented as the leading scenario among several alternatives reviewed in §2.10, not as a uniqueness theorem. The Galactic rate estimate (§2.6, eqs. 4–6) simply inserts the published census N_EO ∼ 8 and characteristic τ_EO ∼ 10^3 yr into the steady-state formula R_EO ≃ N_EO/τ_EO (plus a geometric area scaling); it is explicitly qualified as preliminary and selection-biased and is not required for the class definition itself. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted free parameter by construction, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and no result is renamed from a known empirical pattern. Minor self-citation of the author’s earlier discovery papers is normal for a review and is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review the paper inherits standard astrophysical assumptions (distances, CO-to-mass conversion, ballistic expansion) and literature dynamical ages; free parameters are the numerical values adopted for those ages, energies and the Galactic scaling radii. No new physical entities are postulated beyond the already-named class of explosive outflows.

free parameters (3)

dynamical ages of individual outflows = ∼10^2–10^4 yr (source-dependent)
Adopted values (Orion 500–700 yr, G5.89 ∼1000 yr, DR21 ∼8600 yr, etc.) enter the rate calculation directly; they are literature estimates subject to projection and deceleration uncertainties.
sample radius for rate scaling = 5.0 kpc
5.0 kpc (distance to IRAS 16076) used to normalize the local rate before scaling to the full Galactic disk of radius 14 kpc.
characteristic visibility timescale τ_EO = ∼10^3 yr
Taken as ∼10^3 yr for the steady-state rate R_EO ≃ N_EO/τ_EO; choice of this single number sets the final rate.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Linear velocity–distance (Hubble–Lemaître) relation of molecular streamers implies a single impulsive ballistic explosion rather than continuous driving.
Invoked throughout §2.1–2.4 and used to classify sources as explosive; standard in the literature but not derived from first principles here.
domain assumption Absence of a luminous star at the geometric center of the streamers means the original massive members have been ejected (runaways).
Stated in Abstract and §2.1.2; underpins the dynamical-decay interpretation.
domain assumption Gravitational energy released by merger or hardening of a few-au binary (∼10^47–48 erg) is sufficient and available to power the observed kinetic energy.
Eq. (3) and §2.10.5; order-of-magnitude estimate using solar-mass and au scales.
ad hoc to paper The eight known objects constitute a representative (if incomplete) sample whose local surface density can be scaled by area to a Galactic rate.
§2.6; the paper itself notes strong selection bias, making the scaling an explicit modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explosive Molecular Outflows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RU2FXXOC

@misc{pith2026260710452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explosive Molecular Outflows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RU2FXXOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10452}
}

abstract

About fifteen years ago a new type of extreme (with kinetic energies of $\mathrm{E}_k \sim 10^{47-49}\, \mathrm{erg}$) molecular outflows associated with very luminous ($\geq 10^5\, \mathrm{L}_\odot$) and massive (10$^3$ M$_\odot$) young clusters was confirmed, the Explosive Molecular Outflows. This new class of outflows is largely different from the classical bipolar protostellar flows, with spatial distributions made of numerous narrow straight filament- or streamer-like ejections in an almost isotropic arrangement and with clear Hubble--Lema\^itre-like expansion motions. Straight filaments point directly to the center of expanding molecular or ionized shells, which exhibit expansion velocities of about 10--50 km s$^{-1}$. However, no young massive stars are clearly located there, probably because they moved to other places. These physical characteristics suggest that explosive outflows are short-lived in nature and possibly generated by an energetic single and brief disrupting event. The most up-to-date theoretical model for explaining their nature involves the disruption of non-hierarchical massive protostellar systems, where members may either form a close binary (with separations of a few au) or merge into a single massive star, as recently proposed for the nearest high-mass star-forming region, Orion BN/KL.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Modeling the accretion disk around the high-mass protostar GGD 27-MM1

A˜ nez-L´ opez N, Osorio M, Busquet G, et al (2020) Modeling the Accretion Disk around the High-mass Protostar GGD 27-MM1. Astrophys J 888(1):41. https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ab5dbc, arXiv:1911.12398 [astro-ph.SR] Acord JM, Churchwell E, Wood DOS (1998) The Expansion Rate of and Distance to G5.89-0.39. Astrophys J Lett 495(2):L107–L110. https://doi....

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1086/311230 2020
[2]

Nature Astronomy https://doi. org/10.1038/s41550-025-02716-2, arXiv:2512.14458 [astro-ph.GA] 45 B¨ ohm LM, Jacob AM, Wyrowski F, et al (2026) APEX survey of interstellar HCl: 35Cl/37Cl isotopic ratios in dense cores and outflows. Astron Astrophys 705:A80. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202556793, arXiv:2511.21813 [astro-ph.GA] Bonnell IA, Bate MR (2003...

doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02716-2 2026
[3]

Evolution and final fates of massive stars

Astrophys J 244:869–883. https://doi.org/10.1086/158763 47 Ekstr¨ om S (2026) Evolution and final fates of massive stars. In: Mandel I (ed) En- cyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition), 1st edn. Elsevier, Oxford, p 252–263, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00089-4, arXiv:2502.06614 Elia D, Molinari S, Schisano E, et al (2022) The Star Formatio...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1086/158763 2026
[4]

Hot Ammonia around O-type Young Stars. I. JVLA imaging of Ammonia (6,6) to (14,14) in NGC7538 IRS1

in NGC 7538 IRS1. Astron As- trophys 573:A108. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424832, arXiv:1410.5448 [astro-ph.SR] Goicoechea JR, G¨ usten R, Godard B, et al (2026) Velocity-resolved [O I] 63,145 um, [C II] 158 um, and OH mapping along the Orion BN/KL explosive outflow and irradiated shocks. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.18438. https://doi.org/10.48550...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424832 2026
[5]

Astrophys J Suppl Ser 154(1):275–280. https://doi.org/10.1086/422689 Gorti U, Hollenbach D (2009) Photoevaporation of Circumstellar Disks By Far- Ultraviolet, Extreme-Ultraviolet and X-Ray Radiation from the Central Star. Astrophys J 690(2):1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1539, arXiv:0809.1494 [astro-ph] Greenhill LJ, Gwinn CR, Schwartz...

arXiv doi:10.1086/422689 2009
[6]

Astron J 113:1733–1768

Astron Astrophys 197:L19–L21 Hillenbrand LA (1997) On the Stellar Population and Star-Forming History of the Orion Nebula Cluster. Astron J 113:1733–1768. https://doi.org/10.1086/118389 Hirota T, Machida MN, Matsushita Y, et al (2017) Disk-driven rotating bipolar outflow in Orion Source I. Nature Astronomy 1:0146. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-017-0146,...

arXiv doi:10.1086/118389 1997
[7]

https://doi.org/10

Astrophys J Lett 813(1):L19. https://doi.org/10. 1088/2041-8205/813/1/L19, arXiv:1509.08469 [astro-ph.SR] Johnston KG, Hoare MG, Beuther H, et al (2020) A Detailed View of the Circumstellar Environment and Disk of the Forming O-star AFGL

arXiv
[8]

A Detailed View of the Circumstellar Environment and Disk of the Forming O-star AFGL 4176

Astrophys J 896(1):35. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8adc, arXiv:2004.13739 [astro-ph.SR] Kahn FD (1974) Cocoons around early-type stars. Astron Astrophys 37:149–162 Kauffmann J, Pillai T (2010) How Many Infrared Dark Clouds Can form Massive Stars and Clusters? Astrophys J Lett 723(1):L7–L12. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/ 723/1/L7, arXiv:1009.1...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8adc 2004

Show all 13 references

[9]

Hot Core

Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, p 544 Okuda T, Ikeuchi S (1986) Hydrodynamical Models of the Orion-Kl Nebula. Astrophys Space Sci 119(1):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00648827 Orozco-Aguilera MT, Zapata LA, Hirota T, et al (2017) ALMA Observations of t...

1986 doi arXiv
[10]

Mapping and model- ing the Galactic disk

https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1989, arXiv:1310.4049 [astro-ph.GA] Rix HW, Bovy J (2013) The Milky Way’s stellar disk. Mapping and model- ing the Galactic disk. Astron Astrophys Rev 21:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00159-013-0061-8, arXiv:1301.3168 [astro-ph.GA] Rodr´ ıguez ...

2013 doi arXiv
[11]

https://doi

Astrophys J Lett 637(2):L129–L132. https://doi. org/10.1086/500732, arXiv:astro-ph/0601270 [astro-ph] Schultz ASB (2001) The Secret Inner Life of the Orion Nebula. Publ Astron Soc Aust 18(1):58–63. https://doi.org/10.1071/AS01009 Scoville N, Kleinmann SG, Hall DNB, et al (1983...

2001 doi arXiv
[12]

https://doi.org/10.1086/421294, arXiv:astro-ph/0403524 [astro-ph] Sridharan TK, Williams SJ, Fuller GA (2005) The Direct Detection of a (Proto)Binary/Disk System in IRAS 20126+4104

Astrophys J Lett 616(1):L35–L38. https://doi.org/10.1086/421294, arXiv:astro-ph/0403524 [astro-ph] Sridharan TK, Williams SJ, Fuller GA (2005) The Direct Detection of a (Proto)Binary/Disk System in IRAS 20126+4104. Astrophys J Lett 631(1):L73– L76. https://doi.org/10.1086/4970...

2005 doi arXiv
[13]

https://doi.org/10

Astron J 156(5):239. https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-3881/aae51e, arXiv:1804.00625 [astro-ph.SR] Zapata LA, Garay G, Palau A, et al (2019) An Asymmetric Keplerian Disk Sur- rounding the O-type Protostar IRAS 16547-4247. Astrophys J 872(2):176. https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/...

2019 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Modeling the accretion disk around the high-mass protostar GGD 27-MM1

A˜ nez-L´ opez N, Osorio M, Busquet G, et al (2020) Modeling the Accretion Disk around the High-mass Protostar GGD 27-MM1. Astrophys J 888(1):41. https://doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ab5dbc, arXiv:1911.12398 [astro-ph.SR] Acord JM, Churchwell E, Wood DOS (1998) The Expansion Rate of and Distance to G5.89-0.39. Astrophys J Lett 495(2):L107–L110. https://doi....

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1086/311230 2020

[2] [2]

Nature Astronomy https://doi. org/10.1038/s41550-025-02716-2, arXiv:2512.14458 [astro-ph.GA] 45 B¨ ohm LM, Jacob AM, Wyrowski F, et al (2026) APEX survey of interstellar HCl: 35Cl/37Cl isotopic ratios in dense cores and outflows. Astron Astrophys 705:A80. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202556793, arXiv:2511.21813 [astro-ph.GA] Bonnell IA, Bate MR (2003...

doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02716-2 2026

[3] [3]

Evolution and final fates of massive stars

Astrophys J 244:869–883. https://doi.org/10.1086/158763 47 Ekstr¨ om S (2026) Evolution and final fates of massive stars. In: Mandel I (ed) En- cyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition), 1st edn. Elsevier, Oxford, p 252–263, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00089-4, arXiv:2502.06614 Elia D, Molinari S, Schisano E, et al (2022) The Star Formatio...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1086/158763 2026

[4] [4]

Hot Ammonia around O-type Young Stars. I. JVLA imaging of Ammonia (6,6) to (14,14) in NGC7538 IRS1

in NGC 7538 IRS1. Astron As- trophys 573:A108. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424832, arXiv:1410.5448 [astro-ph.SR] Goicoechea JR, G¨ usten R, Godard B, et al (2026) Velocity-resolved [O I] 63,145 um, [C II] 158 um, and OH mapping along the Orion BN/KL explosive outflow and irradiated shocks. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.18438. https://doi.org/10.48550...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424832 2026

[5] [5]

Astrophys J Suppl Ser 154(1):275–280. https://doi.org/10.1086/422689 Gorti U, Hollenbach D (2009) Photoevaporation of Circumstellar Disks By Far- Ultraviolet, Extreme-Ultraviolet and X-Ray Radiation from the Central Star. Astrophys J 690(2):1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1539, arXiv:0809.1494 [astro-ph] Greenhill LJ, Gwinn CR, Schwartz...

arXiv doi:10.1086/422689 2009

[6] [6]

Astron J 113:1733–1768

Astron Astrophys 197:L19–L21 Hillenbrand LA (1997) On the Stellar Population and Star-Forming History of the Orion Nebula Cluster. Astron J 113:1733–1768. https://doi.org/10.1086/118389 Hirota T, Machida MN, Matsushita Y, et al (2017) Disk-driven rotating bipolar outflow in Orion Source I. Nature Astronomy 1:0146. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-017-0146,...

arXiv doi:10.1086/118389 1997

[7] [7]

https://doi.org/10

Astrophys J Lett 813(1):L19. https://doi.org/10. 1088/2041-8205/813/1/L19, arXiv:1509.08469 [astro-ph.SR] Johnston KG, Hoare MG, Beuther H, et al (2020) A Detailed View of the Circumstellar Environment and Disk of the Forming O-star AFGL

arXiv

[8] [8]

A Detailed View of the Circumstellar Environment and Disk of the Forming O-star AFGL 4176

Astrophys J 896(1):35. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab8adc, arXiv:2004.13739 [astro-ph.SR] Kahn FD (1974) Cocoons around early-type stars. Astron Astrophys 37:149–162 Kauffmann J, Pillai T (2010) How Many Infrared Dark Clouds Can form Massive Stars and Clusters? Astrophys J Lett 723(1):L7–L12. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/ 723/1/L7, arXiv:1009.1...

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8adc 2004