Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

The parent bodies of chondrites formed as satellites of young planetary embryos and were later scattered into the asteroid belt.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:08 UTC pith:WA54JSOF

load-bearing objection A genuinely new and clearly framed scenario for ordinary chondrite parent bodies as escaped satellites, but the abstract's 'robust' oversells a chain that leans on an unmodeled thermal premise. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18523 v1 pith:WA54JSOF submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.EP

Chondrite Parent Bodies as Escaped Satellites of Proto-Planetary Embryos

Harold F. Levison , Rogerio Deienno , Kevin J. Walsh , Brandon C. Johnson , Harold C. Connolly Jr. , Shigeru Wakita , Robert E. Grimm This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords chondruleschondrite parent bodiesplanetary embryosgiant impactscircum-embryo disksterrestrial planet formationasteroid belt implantationimpact jetting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the asteroids that fell to Earth as ordinary chondrites were not built in the solar nebula at all. Instead, they formed as satellites in rings of debris around Mars-sized planetary embryos, where those rings were created by collisions between embryos during the last stages of terrestrial planet formation. Melted material from the collision jetted into orbit, cooled into chondrules, mixed with unmelted ejecta, and accreted into asteroid-sized moons; later gravitational encounters with other embryos tore these moons away onto heliocentric orbits. If true, this would explain why chondrules date to 2-5 million years after the first solar-system solids, why chondrites are nearly solar in composition with locally related components, and why planet-formation models have struggled to make chondrules early enough. It also inverts the usual picture: chondrules are a byproduct of planet formation, not its precursor.

Core claim

The central claim is that chondrite parent bodies (CPBs) are escaped satellites of planetary embryos. Embryo-embryo impacts at speeds above about 5 km/s put more than 60% melted ejecta into orbit around the surviving target, forming a steep, short-lived circum-embryo disk. The melt cools to chondrules on the right timescale; the unmelted ejecta supplies the matrix; the disk's high surface density lets kilometer-to-hundred-kilometer bodies accrete quickly; and subsequent close encounters between embryos strip 60-95% of this satellite mass into heliocentric orbit. The paper applies this chain to four published terrestrial-planet formation scenarios and finds that two—scenarios with compact fir

What carries the argument

Circum-embryo disks created by embryo-embryo collisions. The argument runs through four quantitative steps: (1) shock-physics impact simulations that give the melt fraction of ejecta below escape speed (with melt fraction >60% for impacts ≳5 km/s); (2) a fit to published large-impact disk-mass results relating disk mass to impactor-to-target mass ratio; (3) a satellite-accretion prescription (isolation masses plus viscous spreading of material inside the Roche limit) that converts disk surface density into 30-300 km satellites; and (4) N-body integrations of post-impact systems that track satellite stripping during close embryo encounters.

Load-bearing premise

The entire pathway rests on the impact-jetting model being right about chondrules: that collisions between embryos actually produce enough melted material that cools at the observed rates, and that the embryos involved still had undifferentiated, chondritic surface layers.

What would settle it

A single ordinary chondrite whose chondrules are found to have a broad, continuous spread of ages rather than a few discrete components would contradict the disk-corralling picture. Equivalently, if thermal evolution shows that 26Al remained abundant enough to differentiate 100 km bodies forming at ~2 Myr, the model's late-forming CPBs would be melted and cease to be chondrites.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Ordinary chondrite parent bodies originate in the terrestrial-planet region and were later implanted into the asteroid belt, making them a byproduct of terrestrial planet formation.
  • Most chondrules in a single meteorite should share similar ages and cooling properties, with only a few discrete age or composition components.
  • Chondrule formation becomes an outcome of planet formation rather than a precursor stage, shifting the timing of chondrule ages to 2-5 Myr after CAIs.
  • Many inner-solar-system chondrite groups may form around specific embryos, for example enstatite chondrites around the proto-Earth.
  • Only planet-formation scenarios that produce many high-speed collisions between Moon- to Mars-sized embryos yield enough chondrite mass, constraining terrestrial-planet formation models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If this mechanism operates, the asteroid belt's current mass of ordinary chondrite material is a fossil record of late giant impacts among embryos; the size distribution of S-type asteroids might carry a signature of satellite accretion in disks, distinguishable from pure collisional evolution.
  • The requirement that embryos have chondritic upper layers could be tested by combining thermal and impact models: very early embryo-embryo collisions would produce differentiated ejecta, so the model implies a minimum time before which such collisions must not dominate.
  • The same mechanism might operate in exoplanetary systems: close-in super-Earths formed by giant impacts could have satellite systems that later became asteroids, providing a way to form small bodies long after the gas disk dissipates.
  • Because the model predicts nearly simultaneous formation of chondrules and matrix within a meteorite, high-precision radioisotope mapping of a single ordinary chondrite could test it directly.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new formation pathway for ordinary chondrite parent bodies (CPBs). In this scenario, embryo–embryo collisions during the late stages of terrestrial planet formation produce melt by impact jetting; this melt, together with unmelted ejecta, forms a circum-embryo disk; accretion in the disk builds asteroid-sized satellites; and later gravitational encounters with other embryos eject a fraction of these satellites onto heliocentric orbits, eventually populating the main belt. The authors post-process four published terrestrial-planet-formation simulations (Grand Tack, Ring, 2xMMSN, and pebble accretion), use a fitted disk-mass relation (Eq. 1) and new iSALE melt-fraction calculations, and construct satellite systems using the Crida–Charnoz (CC12) model. They find that the Grand Tack and Ring simulations produce substantial mass in high-melt (>60%) disks, that such disks form mostly after 2 Myr, and that the resulting heliocentric CPB mass, after applying an assumed ~1% implantation efficiency, is comparable to the inferred mass of S-complex asteroids in the main belt. The paper is explicit that it is proposing a plausible scenario rather than a fully quantitative model, and it lists several predictions and caveats.

Significance. If the scenario holds, it would connect chondrule formation to the final assembly of the terrestrial planets, solving the long-standing problem of how chondrules remain genetically related to matrix and avoid dilution in the solar nebula. The paper's strengths include: (i) it tackles a real and difficult constraint set (chondrule ages, cooling rates, chondrule/matrix complementarity, and the timing of CPB formation); (ii) it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions (e.g., a small number of discrete chondrule age/composition groups within a given CPB; enhanced surface area for CAI and presolar-grain accretion in the circum-embryo disk); (iii) it is unusually transparent about its assumptions, listing the most optimistic choices and the conditions under which the model fails; and (iv) it provides archived machine-readable data and setup files for the new iSALE simulations and post-processing pipelines. The quantitative yield, however, rests on several unquantified premises, most notably that target embryos retain a chondritic outer layer at 2–5 Myr despite 26Al heating, and that the melt-fraction and disk-mass estimates from independent modeling suites can be safely multiplied.

major comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, p.4 and 'Producing melt in an impact and then into the disk', p.8; Discussion, p.14] The entire pathway depends on the targeted embryos having an undifferentiated, chondritic outer layer at 2–5 Myr. The text asserts this on p.4 ('we assume that the growing embryos maintained a chondritic upper layer, as argued in Ref. (22)') and again on p.8 ('it is mandatory ... target body is not yet fully differentiated'), but no thermal evolution model is presented. The Discussion concedes 'Our models fail if 26Al heating is important well after 2 Myr because nearly all the satellites produced would be differentiated.' This is load-bearing: if the melt source is mantle peridotite rather than chondritic material, the resulting satellites would not be ordinary chondrites regardless of the dynamical details. The abstract's 'robust pathway' overstates what is demonstrated. Please either add a quantitative assessment of embryo thermal structure (even a parameterized 26Al heating model for
  2. ['Producing melt in an impact and then into the disk', p.8 and Eq. (1)] The final disk mass is the product of the disk-mass fit in Eq. (1) (based on SPH satellite-formation simulations) and the melt fraction from the new iSALE jetting simulations. The paper states, 'In absolute terms the predicted amount of bound material from jetting modeling is similar to the predicted disk mass from satellite formation modeling, giving confidence to this approach', but no quantitative comparison is shown. Because the yields in Figures 4–6 scale linearly with this product, a factor-of-two discrepancy would materially change which models pass the >60% threshold and the final CPB mass. Please show the comparison directly (e.g., for the same impact parameters, plot the bound mass from the jetting simulations against the disk mass from Eq. 1), or clearly state the uncertainty range this introduces.
  3. ['Satellite liberation to heliocentric orbit', p.12, and Discussion, p.13] The quantitative match to the observed 0.2–0.3 M_AB of S-complex material is obtained by multiplying the produced heliocentric mass (32.7 M_AB for the Grand Tack) by an assumed ~1% implantation efficiency, citing Refs. (41,42). No implantation simulation is performed, and the 1% value is an order-of-magnitude estimate from a different context. The Discussion then states 'we find that this mechanism can produce roughly 0.33 MAB of main belt OC asteroids' as though it were a model output. This is an assumed post-processing efficiency, not a prediction of the model. Please present this as an explicit assumption with a plausible range, or ideally test it with a dynamical implantation model, since the central quantitative claim hinges on it.
  4. ['Producing chondrule-rich disks during terrestrial planet formation', p.9, and Abstract] The paper draws conclusions about which terrestrial-planet-formation scenarios are compatible with the mechanism (Grand Tack and Ring viable; 2xMMSN and pebble accretion not) on the basis of one randomly chosen realization per model. The authors acknowledge this on p.9 ('we caution against drawing any conclusion ... we only studied one realization from each'). In a chaotic dynamical system, a single realization cannot establish robustness, and the abstract's use of 'robust pathway' is not supported by the evidence. The paper would be more accurately framed as a proof-of-concept demonstration. If the claim of robustness is to be retained, multiple realizations of at least the successful models are needed to show that the qualitative result (high-melt disk mass dominating) is a systematic property rather than a stochastic fluctuation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Repeated spelling errors: 'chrondrules' and 'condrules' for 'chondrules'; 'chrondule' in the Methods section; 'later two effects' should be 'latter two effects'; 'doted line' in the Figure 1 caption should be 'dotted line'.
  2. [p.4 and Methods, 'Melt Fraction Calculations'] The main text says 'models with impact angles larger than 45° and speeds larger than 5 km/s produce ejecta that is more than 60% melt,' while the new iSALE runs assume 'a fixed impact angle of 45°.' Please clarify whether the 60% threshold is based on the new 45° runs or on previous higher-angle results, as this affects the interpretation of Figure 3.
  3. [Figure 2 caption and Eq. (1)] The fit in Eq. (1) is shown as a green curve in Figure 2 but the caption does not list the best-fit coefficients or the number of data points used. Please state the fit parameters and the data range over which the fit is valid, since the model later applies it to impactor fractions up to γ=0.5.
  4. [p.10, 'Forming asteroid-sized objects in circum-embryo disks'] The text states that 'the density of the disk solids is orders of magnitude larger than the surrounding nebula and so the presence of gas is unlikely to affect our results.' The Methods section provides an order-of-magnitude estimate, but this is a simplified spherical-average calculation. Please note explicitly that this is a zeroth-order estimate and that the effect of gas drag on satellite accretion in these circum-embryo disks remains to be modeled.
  5. [Discussion, p.13] The sentence 'Roughly 1/4 of main belt asteroids are broadly S-complex taxonomic types, implying that we need approximately 0.2–0.3 M_AB of OC material delivered to the asteroid belt' should identify the source of the 0.2–0.3 value; the cited Refs. (39,47,73,74) provide the taxonomic fraction and belt mass, but the translation to OC mass is not explicit.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Abundance and age 'matches' are partly built in by threshold and time-window choices; the core dynamical pathway and final yield remain independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Producing melt in an impact and then into the disk'; Discussion]
    "In what follows, we require the melt fraction to be more than 60% by mass in order to match the observed chondrule mass fraction found in meteorites ... while creating chondrites that are more than 60% chondrules by volume."

    The 60% threshold is set to the observed 60–80% chondrule abundance in ordinary chondrites, and only disks exceeding this threshold are classified as 'high-chondrule' and used to build CPBs. The later statement that the model creates chondrites 'more than 60% chondrules by volume' is therefore a restatement of the input threshold, not an independent prediction. The observed abundance enters as a fitted selection criterion and then is re-presented as a model output.

  2. self definitional [Section 'Forming asteroid-sized objects in circum-embryo disks'; abstract]
    "We restrict the following analysis to disks that formed between 2 and 5 Myr to be consistent with the observed chondrule ages."

    The observed chondrule age range (2–5 Myr) is imposed as a selection filter on which disks are modeled into CPBs. The resulting CPB population therefore has formation times in that window by construction, and the abstract's claim that the mechanism forms chondrites 'at times commensurate with measured chondrule ages' is a consistency statement about the filter, not a derived prediction. Some nontrivial timing information survives (Figure 4 shows 85–97% of the high-melt disk mass forming after 2 Myr within a 0.8–5 Myr sample), so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The central dynamical chain—embryo–embryo impacts produce circum-embryo disks, disks form asteroid-sized satellites, and satellites are stripped into heliocentric orbits—is not circular: the final yields (32.7 and 8.3 M_AB) are compared with, rather than fitted to, the 0.2–0.3 M_AB requirement, and Eq. (1) is a fit to published SPH satellite-formation data, not to the asteroid belt mass. The self-cited impact-jetting model is an explicitly stated assumption rather than a derived result, and the paper adds new iSALE melt-fraction calculations, so that premise is not itself a circular step. However, two observational constraints are used as selection criteria and then presented as successful model outcomes: the >60% melt threshold (matching observed chondrule abundance) and the 2–5 Myr disk-formation window (matching observed chondrule ages). These are mild fitted-input/called-prediction and self-definitional steps. The paper is transparent about them and describes itself as a 'possible pathway' rather than a quantitative model, which tempers the score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The mechanism uses no new physical entities. It combines known impact-jetting, disk, satellite-formation, and dynamical-stripping physics, but the specific scenario is assembled here; the main burden is carried by the fitted and assumed inputs listed above.

free parameters (8)
  • Disk-mass fit coefficients in Eq. (1) = 0.015, 2.92
    MDisk/MTotal = 0.015 γ e^{2.92γ}; coefficients fitted to published SPH data points in Figure 2. This relation converts every recorded impact into a disk mass and directly sets the total CPB mass.
  • Target porosity for melt calculations = 25%
    Assumed in Materials and Methods for the melt-fraction simulations; the paper calls this the 'most optimistic outcome from the jetting modeling.' Lower porosity would reduce melt and the fraction of viable disks.
  • Impact angle in new iSALE runs = 45°
    Fixed in all new melt-fraction simulations; melt production depends on impact angle.
  • Disk surface density exponent = x ≈ 4.5
    Assumed from Canup & Salmon (2017) SPH results; determines satellite isolation masses and the size distribution.
  • Outer edge of circum-embryo disk = 10 R_r
    Used to truncate satellite construction, consistent with the outer edge of SPH disks.
  • Chondrule mass-fraction threshold = 60%
    Chosen to match the observed 60–80% chondrule abundance in ordinary chondrites; disks below threshold are classified non-viable, driving model selection.
  • Impact time window = 0.8–5 Myr after CAI
    Impacts before 0.8 Myr are excluded because large satellites would differentiate; impacts after 5 Myr are excluded to match gas lifetime and observed ages. This selection strongly affects the accumulated mass.
  • Implantation efficiency = ≈1%
    Taken from cited works to estimate how much heliocentric material reaches the main belt; used when comparing to the observed S-complex mass.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The impact jetting model adequately produces chondrules with the observed cooling rates, sizes, and ages.
    Explicitly assumed in the Introduction; the paper says it is not re-litigating this model. If jetting does not produce chondrules, the pathway produces only melted ejecta.
  • domain assumption Growing embryos maintained a chondritic, undifferentiated upper layer at the time of impacts.
    Invoked via Ref. (22) in the Introduction; required so the melted ejecta has chondritic composition.
  • domain assumption The solar nebula was present while chondrules formed and damped eccentricities so impact speeds are near target escape speeds.
    Used in 'Forming Embryo-Centric Disks' to justify the impact-speed assumptions.
  • domain assumption Disk mass and surface density from Earth-Moon and Mars SPH simulations apply to all embryo-embryo impacts.
    Eq. (1) and Σ~r^-4.5 are extrapolated to the full range of impactor/target mass ratios encountered.
  • domain assumption Satellite accretion in these disks follows the gas-free CC12 ring/viscous-spreading model; nebular gas is dynamically negligible.
    Materials and Methods; the paper argues solid density is orders of magnitude above gas density but does not model gas effects.
  • domain assumption Ordinary chondrite parent bodies formed in the inner terrestrial region with negligible mixing from the outer disk.
    Used to justify focusing on terrestrial planet formation models and ordinary chondrite constraints.
  • domain assumption Bodies >30 km survive collisional evolution and bodies forming after ~2 Myr do not differentiate from 26Al heating.
    Used to set the size window and the 0.8–5 Myr selection; the paper notes the models fail if 26Al heating lasts beyond 3 Myr.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17135 in / 13741 out tokens · 147020 ms · 2026-08-01T15:08:44.214190+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Chondrites are composed of formerly partially molten material, known as chondrules, surrounded by fine-grained matrix. They date from the earliest times in Solar System history. However, their role in the formation of the planets is uncertain because, in part, it is not clear how they were produced. Here, we show a robust pathway for forming meteorite-producing asteroids that contain chondrules through embryo-embryo collisions during the late stages of terrestrial planet formation. Melted material from these impacts cool into chondrules and mix with unmelted material in embryo-centric disks that formed from the ejecta. This material accretes into numerous asteroid-sized satellites. These objects are later ejected onto heliocentric orbits because of gravitational encounters with other embryos, thereby becoming the parent bodies of chondrites. This mechanism provides a pathway to form chondrites in Solar System history at times commensurate with measured chondrule ages, while explaining many of their physical properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18523 by Brandon C. Johnson, Harold C. Connolly Jr., Harold F. Levison, Kevin J. Walsh, Robert E. Grimm, Rogerio Deienno, Shigeru Wakita.

Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: the Grand Tack, and Ring. The temporal evolution of the total mass of CPBs is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗

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

78 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The jetting model in Ref

    The cooling rates for chondrules are observed to be 10 – 1000 K/hr (24, 25), which imply that they cooled in a low density environment. The jetting model in Ref. (4) can generally 4 explain these rates

  2. [2]

    Most condrules in OCs formed between∼2 – 4 Myr after CAIs (6, 7)

  3. [3]

    Chondrules account for 60 – 80% mass of ordinary chondrite meteorites (26, 27)

  4. [4]

    However, in unequilibrated chondrites, the chondrules and matrix have different compositions

    Chondrites have essentially solar composition, apart from some volatile depletion. However, in unequilibrated chondrites, the chondrules and matrix have different compositions. This implies that these components must have remained together in their solar proportions

  5. [5]

    Grand Tack

    Around 15% of chondrules show evidence for multiple heating events (1). Forming Embryo-Centric Disks with Chondrules The viability of the scenario introduced above depends on: 1] the outcomes of embryo-embryo collisions, 2] their production of jetted melt material, 3] the evolution of bound ejecta forming a circum-embryo disk, 4] the formation of asteroid...

  6. [6]

    H. C. Connolly, R. H. Jones, Chondrules: The canonical and noncanonical views.Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets)121(10), 1885–1899 (2016), doi:10.1002/2016JE005113

    work page doi:10.1002/2016je005113 2016

  7. [7]

    Asphaug, M

    E. Asphaug, M. Jutzi, N. Movshovitz, Chondrule formation during planetesimal accretion. Earth and Planetary Science Letters308(3), 369–379 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.06.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011.06.007 2011

  8. [8]

    I. S. Sanders, E. R. D. Scott, The origin of chondrules and chondrites: Debris from low-velocity impacts between molten planetesimals?M&PS47(12), 2170–2192 (2012), doi:10.1111/maps. 12002

    doi:10.1111/maps 2012

  9. [9]

    B. C. Johnson, D. A. Minton, H. J. Melosh, M. T. Zuber, Impact jetting as the origin of chondrules.Nature517(7534), 339–341 (2015), doi:10.1038/nature14105

    doi:10.1038/nature14105 2015

  10. [10]

    Wakita, B

    S. Wakita, B. C. Johnson, C. A. Denton, T. M. Davison, Jetting during oblique impacts of spherical impactors.Icarus360, 114365 (2021), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114365

    arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    N. T. Kita, T. Ushikubo, Evolution of protoplanetary disk inferred from 26Al chronology of individual chondrules.Meteoritics & Planetary Science47(7), 1108–1119 (2012), doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01264.x,https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01264.x

    arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    Villeneuve, M

    J. Villeneuve, M. Chaussidon, G. Libourel, Homogeneous Distribution of 26Al in the Solar System from the Mg Isotopic Composition of Chondrules.Science325(5943), 985 (2009), doi:10.1126/science.1173907

    doi:10.1126/science.1173907 2009

  13. [13]

    K. J. Walsh, H. F. Levison, Planetesimals to terrestrial planets: Collisional evolution amidst a dissipating gas disk.Icarus329, 88–100 (2019), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.031

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.031 2019

  14. [14]

    Lichtenberg, J

    T. Lichtenberg, J. Dra˙ zkowska, M. Sch¨onb¨achler, G. J. Golabek, T. O. Hands, Bifurcation of planetary building blocks during Solar System formation.Science371(6527), 365–370 (2021), doi:10.1126/science.abb3091

    doi:10.1126/science.abb3091 2021

  15. [15]

    Morbidelli,et al., Contemporary formation of early Solar System planetesimals at two distinct radial locations.Nature Astronomy6, 72–79 (2022), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7

    A. Morbidelli,et al., Contemporary formation of early Solar System planetesimals at two distinct radial locations.Nature Astronomy6, 72–79 (2022), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7. 20

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01517-7 2022

  16. [16]

    Izidoro,et al., Planetesimal rings as the cause of the Solar System’s planetary architecture

    A. Izidoro,et al., Planetesimal rings as the cause of the Solar System’s planetary architecture. Nature Astronomy6, 357–366 (2022), doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01557-z 2022

  17. [17]

    T. S. Kruijer, T. Kleine, L. E. Borg, The great isotopic dichotomy of the early Solar System. Nature Astronomy4, 32–40 (2020), doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0959-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0959-9 2020

  18. [18]

    B. P. Weiss, X.-N. Bai, R. R. Fu, History of the solar nebula from meteorite paleomagnetism. Science Advances7(1), eaba5967 (2021), doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba5967

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba5967 2021

  19. [19]

    P. A. Bland,et al., Volatile fractionation in the early solar system and chondrule/matrix com- plementarity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science102(39), 13755–13760 (2005), doi:10.1073/pnas.0501885102

    doi:10.1073/pnas.0501885102 2005

  20. [20]

    Budde, T

    G. Budde, T. Kleine, T. S. Kruijer, C. Burkhardt, K. Metzler, Tungsten isotopic constraints on the age and origin of chondrules.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science113(13), 2886–2891 (2016), doi:10.1073/pnas.1524980113

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1524980113 2016

  21. [21]

    R. M. Canup, Lunar-forming collisions with pre-impact rotation.Icarus196(2), 518–538 (2008), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.011

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.03.011 2008

  22. [22]

    Canup, J

    R. Canup, J. Salmon, Origin of Phobos and Deimos by the impact of a Vesta-to-Ceres sized body with Mars.Science Advances4(4), eaar6887 (2018), doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar6887

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar6887 2018

  23. [23]

    M. M. Marinova, O. Aharonson, E. Asphaug, Geophysical consequences of planetary-scale impacts into a Mars-like planet.Icarus211(2), 960–985 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010. 10.032

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010 2011

  24. [24]

    W. F. Bottke,et al., The fossilized size distribution of the main asteroid belt.Icarus175(1), 111–140 (2005), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.026

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2004.10.026 2005

  25. [25]

    R. E. Grimm, H. Y. McSween, Heliocentric Zoning of the Asteroid Belt by Aluminum-26 Heating.Science259(5095), 653–655 (1993)

    1993

  26. [26]

    L. T. Elkins-Tanton, B. P. Weiss, M. T. Zuber, Chondrites as samples of differentiated planetes- imals.Earth and Planetary Science Letters305(1-2), 1–10 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011. 03.010. 21

    doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2011 2011

  27. [27]

    B. P. Weiss, L. T. Elkins-Tanton, Differentiated Planetesimals and the Parent Bodies of Chondrites.Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences41, 529–560 (2013), doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133520

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-040610-133520 2013

  28. [28]

    Morbidelli, T

    A. Morbidelli, T. Kleine, F. Nimmo, Did the terrestrial planets of the solar system form by pebble accretion?Earth and Planetary Science Letters650, 119120 (2025), doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.epsl.2024.119120,https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0012821X24005521

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Lofgren, W

    G. Lofgren, W. J. Russell, Dynamic crystallization of chondrule melts of porphyritic and radial pyroxene composition.GeoCoA50(8), 1715–1726 (1986), doi:10.1016/0016-7037(86) 90133-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-7037(86 1986

  30. [30]

    S. J. Desch, M. A. Morris, H. C. Connolly, A. P. Boss, The importance of experiments: Constraints on chondrule formation models.M&PS47(7), 1139–1156 (2012), doi:10.1111/j. 1945-5100.2012.01357.x

    arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    S. J. Desch, A. Kalyaan, C. M. O’D. Alexander, The Effect of Jupiter’s Formation on the Distribution of Refractory Elements and Inclusions in Meteorites.ApJS238(1), 11 (2018), doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad95f

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aad95f 2018

  32. [32]

    R. H. Jones, Meteorites and Planet Formation.arXiv e-printsarXiv:2404.15424 (2024), doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.15424

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15424 2024

  33. [33]

    S. N. Raymond, A. Morbidelli, Planet Formation: Key Mechanisms and Global Models, in Demographics of Exoplanetary Systems, Lecture Notes of the 3rd Advanced School on Exo- planetary Science, K. Biazzo, V. Bozza, L. Mancini, A. Sozzetti, Eds., vol. 466 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library(2022), pp. 3–82, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88124-5 1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-88124-5 2022

  34. [34]

    Canup, Lunar conspiracies.Nature504(7478), 27 (2013), doi:10.1038/504027a

    R. Canup, Lunar conspiracies.Nature504(7478), 27 (2013), doi:10.1038/504027a

    work page doi:10.1038/504027a 2013

  35. [35]

    B. C. Johnson, K. J. Walsh, D. A. Minton, A. N. Krot, H. F. Levison, Timing of the formation and migration of giant planets as constrained by CB chondrites.Science Advances2(12), e1601658 (2016), doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601658,https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/sciadv.1601658. 22

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1601658 2016

  36. [36]

    S. N. Raymond, D. P. O’Brien, A. Morbidelli, N. A. Kaib, Building the terrestrial planets: Constrained accretion in the inner Solar System.Icarus203(2), 644–662 (2009), doi:10.1016/ j.icarus.2009.05.016

    2009

  37. [37]

    Johansen,et al., A pebble accretion model for the formation of the terrestrial planets in the Solar System.Science Advances7(8), eabc0444 (2021), doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    A. Johansen,et al., A pebble accretion model for the formation of the terrestrial planets in the Solar System.Science Advances7(8), eabc0444 (2021), doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0444 2021

  38. [38]

    K. J. Walsh, A. Morbidelli, S. N. Raymond, D. P. O’Brien, A. M. Mandell, A low mass for Mars from Jupiter’s early gas-driven migration.Nature475(7355), 206–209 (2011), doi: 10.1038/nature10201

    doi:10.1038/nature10201 2011

  39. [39]

    H. F. Levison, K. A. Kretke, K. J. Walsh, W. F. Bottke, Growing the terrestrial planets from the gradual accumulation of sub-meter sized objects.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science112(4), 14180–14185 (2015), doi:10.1073/pnas.1513364112

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1513364112 2015

  40. [40]

    S. Ida, R. M. Canup, G. R. Stewart, Lunar accretion from an impact-generated disk.Nature 389(6649), 353–357 (1997), doi:10.1038/38669

    work page doi:10.1038/38669 1997

  41. [41]

    R. I. Citron, H. Genda, S. Ida, Formation of Phobos and Deimos via a giant impact.Icarus 252, 334–338 (2015), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.02.011

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.02.011 2015

  42. [42]

    H. J. Melosh,Impact cratering : a geologic process(1989)

    1989

  43. [43]

    Crida, S

    A. Crida, S. Charnoz, Formation of Regular Satellites from Ancient Massive Rings in the Solar System.Science338(6111), 1196 (2012), doi:10.1126/science.1226477

    doi:10.1126/science.1226477 2012

  44. [44]

    Moth ´e-Diniz, J

    T. Moth ´e-Diniz, J. M. ´a. Carvano, D. Lazzaro, Distribution of taxonomic classes in the main belt of asteroids.Icarus162(1), 10–21 (2003), doi:10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00066-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-1035(02)00066-0 2003

  45. [45]

    Morbidelli, J

    A. Morbidelli, J. I. Lunine, D. P. O’Brien, S. N. Raymond, K. J. Walsh, Building Terrestrial Planets.Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences40(1), 251–275 (2012), doi:10.1146/ annurev-earth-042711-105319

    2012

  46. [46]

    S. N. Raymond, A. Izidoro, The empty primordial asteroid belt.Science Advances3(9), e1701138 (2017), doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701138. 23

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701138 2017

  47. [47]

    Implantation of asteroids from the terrestrial planet region: The effect of the timing of the giant planet instability

    A. Izidoro, R. Deienno, S. N. Raymond, M. S. Clement, Implantation of asteroids from the terrestrial planet region: The effect of the timing of the giant planet instability.arXiv e-prints arXiv:2404.10831 (2024), doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.10831

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.10831 2024

  48. [48]

    T. S. Kruijer, C. Burkhardt, G. Budde, T. Kleine, Age of Jupiter inferred from the distinct genetics and formation times of meteorites.Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 114(26), 6712–6716 (2017), doi:10.1073/pnas.1704461114

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1704461114 2017

  49. [49]

    Dauphas, A

    N. Dauphas, A. Pourmand, Hf-W-Th evidence for rapid growth of Mars and its status as a planetary embryo.Nature473(7348), 489–492 (2011), doi:10.1038/nature10077

    doi:10.1038/nature10077 2011

  50. [50]

    A. N. Krot, H. Yurimoto, I. D. Hutcheon, G. J. MacPherson, Chronology of the early Solar System from chondrule-bearing calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions.Nature434(7036), 998– 1001 (2005), doi:10.1038/nature03470

    work page doi:10.1038/nature03470 2005

  51. [51]

    J. Pape, K. Mezger, A. S. Bouvier, L. P. Baumgartner, Time and duration of chondrule for- mation: Constraints from 26Al-26Mg ages of individual chondrules.GeoCoA244, 416–436 (2019), doi:10.1016/j.gca.2018.10.017

    doi:10.1016/j.gca.2018.10.017 2019

  52. [52]

    Deienno,et al., Accretion and Uneven Depletion of the Main Asteroid Belt.Planetary Science Journal5(5), 110 (2024), doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad3a68

    R. Deienno,et al., Accretion and Uneven Depletion of the Main Asteroid Belt.Planetary Science Journal5(5), 110 (2024), doi:10.3847/PSJ/ad3a68

    work page doi:10.3847/psj/ad3a68 2024

  53. [53]

    Bollard,et al., Early formation of planetary building blocks inferred from Pb isotopic ages of chondrules.Science Advances3(8), e1700407 (2017), doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700407

    J. Bollard,et al., Early formation of planetary building blocks inferred from Pb isotopic ages of chondrules.Science Advances3(8), e1700407 (2017), doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700407

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700407 2017

  54. [54]

    Siron, K

    G. Siron, K. Fukuda, M. Kimura, N. T. Kita, High precision 26Al-26Mg chronology of chon- drules in unequilibrated ordinary chondrites: Evidence for restricted formation ages.GeoCoA 324, 312–345 (2022), doi:10.1016/j.gca.2022.02.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2022.02.010 2022

  55. [55]

    Marrocchi,et al., Isotopic evolution of the inner solar system revealed by size-dependent oxygen isotopic variations in chondrules.GeoCoA371, 52–64 (2024), doi:10.1016/j.gca.2024

    Y. Marrocchi,et al., Isotopic evolution of the inner solar system revealed by size-dependent oxygen isotopic variations in chondrules.GeoCoA371, 52–64 (2024), doi:10.1016/j.gca.2024. 03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gca.2024 2024

  56. [56]

    Lichtenberg, L

    T. Lichtenberg, L. K. Schaefer, M. Nakajima, R. A. Fischer, Geophysical Evolution During Rocky Planet Formation, inProtostars and Planets VII, S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, 24 K. Tomida, M. Tamura, Eds., vol. 534 ofAstronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series (2023), p. 907, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.10023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.10023 2023

  57. [57]

    J. A. Wood, Unresolved issues in the formation of chondrules and chondrites., inChondrules and the Protoplanetary Disk, R. H. Hewins, R. H. Jones, E. R. D. Scott, Eds. (1996), pp. 55–69

    1996

  58. [58]

    F. J. Ciesla, Outward Transport of High-Temperature Materials Around the Midplane of the Solar Nebula.Science318(5850), 613 (2007), doi:10.1126/science.1147273

    doi:10.1126/science.1147273 2007

  59. [59]

    Zinner, Presolar Grains, inMeteorites and Cosmochemical Processes, A

    E. Zinner, Presolar Grains, inMeteorites and Cosmochemical Processes, A. M. Davis, Ed., vol. 1, pp. 181–213 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    N. Kawasaki,et al., Oxygen isotopes of anhydrous primary minerals show kinship between asteroid Ryugu and comet 81P/Wild2.Science Advances8(50), eade2067 (2022), doi:10.1126/ sciadv.ade2067

    2022

  61. [61]

    M. D. Cashion,et al., Chondrule formation indicates protracted growth of giant planet cores. Icarus429, 116400 (2025), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116400

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    M. D. Cashion,et al., Chondrule formation via impact jetting in the icy outer solar system. Icarus384, 115110 (2022), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2022.115110

    arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    A. N. Krot, Y. Amelin, P. Cassen, A. Meibom, Young chondrules in CB chondrites from a giant impact in the early Solar System.Nature436(7053), 989–992 (2005), doi:10.1038/ nature03830

    2005

  64. [64]

    A. N. Krot, M. I. Petaev, K. Nagashima, E. Dobric ˘a, B. C. C. M. D. Johnson, Impact plume- formed and protoplanetary disk high-temperature components in CB and CH metal-rich car- bonaceous chondrites.MAPS57(2), 352–380 (2021), doi:10.1111/maps.13717

    work page doi:10.1111/maps.13717 2021

  65. [65]

    Elbeshausen, K

    D. Elbeshausen, K. W¨ unnemann, G. S. Collins, Scaling of oblique impacts in frictional targets: Implications for crater size and formation mechanisms.Icarus204(2), 716–731 (2009), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.018,https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0019103509003054. 25

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.07.018 2009

  66. [66]

    D. Elbeshausen, W¨ unneman, ISALE-3D: A three-dimensional, multi-material, multi-rheology hydrocode and its applications to large-scale geodynamic processes, inProceedings, 11th Hypervelocity Impact Society Symposium(2011), p. 287–301

    2011

  67. [67]

    Svetsov, V

    V. Svetsov, V. Shuvalov, Water delivery to the Moon by asteroidal and cometary impacts. Planetary and Space Science117, 444–452 (2015), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2015.09. 011,https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063315002615

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pss.2015.09 2015

  68. [68]

    Charnoz, J

    S. Charnoz, J. Salmon, A. Crida, The recent formation of Saturn’s moonlets from viscous spreading of the main rings.Nature465(7299), 752–754 (2010), doi:10.1038/nature09096

    doi:10.1038/nature09096 2010

  69. [69]

    Charnoz,et al., Accretion of Saturn’s mid-sized moons during the viscous spreading of young massive rings: Solving the paradox of silicate-poor rings versus silicate-rich moons

    S. Charnoz,et al., Accretion of Saturn’s mid-sized moons during the viscous spreading of young massive rings: Solving the paradox of silicate-poor rings versus silicate-rich moons. Icarus216(2), 535–550 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.09.017

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2011.09.017 2011

  70. [70]

    Kokubo, S

    E. Kokubo, S. Ida, Formation of Protoplanet Systems and Diversity of Planetary Systems.ApJ 581(1), 666–680 (2002), doi:10.1086/344105

    doi:10.1086/344105 2002

  71. [71]

    Daisaka, H

    H. Daisaka, H. Tanaka, S. Ida, Viscosity in a Dense Planetary Ring with Self-Gravitating Particles.Icarus154(2), 296–312 (2001), doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6716

    arXiv 2001

  72. [73]

    Nakagawa, M

    Y. Nakagawa, M. Sekiya, C. Hayashi, Settling and growth of dust particles in a lam- inar phase of a low-mass solar nebula.Icarus67(3), 375–390 (1986), doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0019-1035(86)90121-1,https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0019103586901211

    arXiv 1986

  73. [74]

    T. Taki, M. Fujimoto, S. Ida, Dust and gas density evolution at a radial pressure bump in protoplanetary disks.A&A591, A86 (2016), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527732

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527732 2016

  74. [75]

    C. Hayashi, Structure of the Solar Nebula, Growth and Decay of Magnetic Fields and Effects of Magnetic and Turbulent Viscosities on the Nebula.Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 70, 35–53 (1981), doi:10.1143/PTPS.70.35. 26

    doi:10.1143/ptps.70.35 1981

  75. [76]

    K. E. Haisch, Jr., E. A. Lada, C. J. Lada, Disk Frequencies and Lifetimes in Young Clusters. ApJL553(2), L153–L156 (2001), doi:10.1086/320685

    doi:10.1086/320685 2001

  76. [77]

    M. J. Duncan, H. F. Levison, M. H. Lee, A Multiple Time Step Symplectic Algorithm for Integrating Close Encounters.AJ116(4), 2067–2077 (1998), doi:10.1086/300541

    doi:10.1086/300541 2067

  77. [78]

    F. E. DeMeo, B. Carry, The taxonomic distribution of asteroids from multi-filter all-sky photometric surveys.Icarus226(1), 723–741 (2013), doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.06.027

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.06.027 2013

  78. [79]

    F. E. DeMeo, B. Carry, Solar System evolution from compositional mapping of the asteroid belt.Nature505(7485), 629–634 (2014), doi:10.1038/nature12908. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Julien Salmon, Robin Canup, and William Bottke for useful discus- sions. We gratefully acknowledge the developers of iSALE-3D, including Dirk Elbeshausen, Kai W¨...

    doi:10.1038/nature12908 2014