Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Grand Theft Moons. Formation of habitable moons around giant planets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read N-body simulations of moon formation show that 32% of synthetic moons around 10-Jupiter-mass planets at 1-2 au from a solar-type star are habitable, extending the circumstellar habitable zone to exomoons.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept with a genuinely nice stellar-thief result, but the 32% habitable fraction is propped up by an initial disk mass about six times the canonical value, and the paper mislabels that mass as canonical. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18144 v1 pith:2TCS5RGX submitted 2025-05-23 astro-ph.EP

Zoltan Dencs , Vera Dobos , Zsolt Regaly This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords exomoonsmoonformationcircumplanetarydiskshabitablezonetidalheatingN-bodysimulationsgiantplanetsstellartheft
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

The paper argues that the circumstellar habitable zone is not the only place where liquid water can persist: moons orbiting giant planets can be habitable too, because tidal heating adds to stellar irradiation. The authors simulate the final assembly of moons in disks around 10-Jupiter-mass planets at 1-5 au from a solar-type star, letting 100 moon embryos and 1000 small satellitesimals collide and grow into moons. They then compute each moon's surface heat budget from starlight, reflected light, planet heat, and tidal dissipation. They find that 32% of the synthetic moons formed at 1-2 au satisfy a practical habitability test: they are more massive than Mars and receive flux between the recent Venus and early Mars limits. The paper concludes that the circumstellar habitable zone can be extended to moons around giant planets, making exomoons a worthwhile target in the search for habitable environments.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two coupled tools. First, a GPU-based direct N-body integrator simulates the final assembly of moons: 100 fully interacting moon embryos and 1000 satellitesimals -- small solid building blocks -- grow by perfectly inelastic collisions in a gas-free circumplanetary disk around a 10-Jupiter-mass planet, with the central star's gravity included in the stellar-centered runs. The star can 'steal' embryos whose eccentricities are excited above the escape threshold, which is the dynamical mechanism that sets the mass and number of surviving moons. Second, a semi-analytical habitability model combines stellar irradiation, reflected starlight, planet thermal emission, and tidal heating -- with tidal dissipation computed through a Maxwell viscoelastic model, $H_{\rm tidal} = \frac{21}{2}\frac{k_2}{Q}\frac{G M_{\rm pl}^2 R^5 n e^2}{a^6}$ -- to assign each moon a total surface flux. A moon counts as habitable only if its mass exceeds one Mars mass and its flux lies between the recent Venus and early Mars limits, the same flux benchmarks used to define exoplanet habitable zones.

What would settle it

Re-run the fiducial 1 au and 2 au N-body simulations with the circumplanetary disk mass set to the canonical $10^{-4}$ of the planet mass (about 0.3 Earth masses) rather than 2 Earth masses; if no surviving moon reaches one Mars mass, the 32% habitability rate is an artifact of the inflated starting disk. A second check would be observational: high-cadence transit or microlensing surveys that find typical exomoons around warm Jupiters are far below one Mars mass would contradict the predicted assembly masses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that moon formation in a circumplanetary disk naturally produces Mars-to-Earth-mass moons at 1-2 au, and a substantial fraction of those moons meet a concrete habitability criterion. In the fiducial simulations, a 10-Jupiter-mass planet with an initial 2-Earth-mass disk forms moons whose average individual mass is 0.46 Earth masses at 1 au and declines to 0.07 Earth masses at 5 au; the most massive moons reach 0.74 Earth masses. Counting only moons more massive than one Mars mass whose total surface flux falls between the recent Venus and early Mars limits, 32% of all synthetic moons from the 1 au and 2 au runs are habitable, with those habitable moons averaging 0.39-0.52 Earth masses. At 3 au and 5 au the habitable fraction drops to about 1%, because weaker stellar irradiation leaves only a very narrow annulus where tidal heating alone sustains liquid water. Applied to 461 known giant exoplanets, the same heat-budget calculation implies about 26% could host an Earth-analog habitable moon, while none of the 12 current exomoon candidates passes the habitability test.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that a circumplanetary disk around a 10-Jupiter-mass planet can begin with 2 Earth masses of solid material, a value chosen specifically so that at least one Earth-mass moon can form; if the disk is instead given the more commonly assumed mass of about 0.3 Earth masses (the canonical $10^{-4}$ satellites-to-planet ratio), the resulting moons would fall below one Mars mass and most of the 32% habitable fraction would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 32% rate holds, the search for habitable worlds should include moons of giant planets at 1-2 au around Sun-like stars, not only rocky planets in the classical habitable zone.
  • Moons of 10-Jupiter-mass planets at 1-2 au can be massive enough to retain atmospheres and remain in the liquid-water flux range, with habitable moons averaging 0.39-0.52 Earth masses.
  • Beyond about 2 au, tidal heating becomes the dominant heat source, but the circumplanetary habitable zone is so narrow that fewer than about 1 in 100 moons are habitable.
  • The stellar thief effect implies that giant planets closest to the star lose more moons, making planets at roughly 1-2 au more promising exomoon hosts than planets much closer in.
  • For 461 known giant exoplanets, about a quarter could in principle host an Earth-analog habitable moon, and nine systems with parameters close to the simulated ones are concrete follow-up targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 32% rate is typical, future high-cadence transit or microlensing surveys should find a population of Mars-to-Earth-mass exomoons around warm Jupiters, and the absence of such a population would point to smaller circumplanetary disk masses.
  • The 32% fraction is likely an upper bound rather than a typical rate: it is set by the chosen 2-Earth-mass initial disk, and using the lower canonical disk mass would push most moons below the one-Mars-mass threshold.
  • The habitability calculation is sensitive to assumed moon eccentricity and viscoelastic parameters; since the paper flags e=0.1 as the reliability limit, a population-level census with more realistic tidal models could shift the 32% figure.
  • Because stellar theft should scatter many embryos onto circumstellar orbits, surveys for wide-orbit or free-floating small planets could test the model's dynamical predictions independently of moon detections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper models the final assembly phase of regular moons in gas-free circumplanetary disks around giant planets using direct N-body simulations with 100 moon embryos and 1000 satellitesimals. In the fiducial stellar-centered (SC) scenario a 10 Jupiter-mass planet orbits a solar analog at 1, 2, 3, and 5 au; planet-centered (PC) simulations without the star are used to isolate the stellar-thief effect. Ten realizations per setup and dynamically cold/hot disk variants are computed. The surviving embryos are classified as moons, and their habitability is evaluated from stellar irradiation, reflected light, planetary thermal emission, and tidal heating, with a minimum mass threshold of 1 Mars mass. The main quantitative result is that 32% of synthetic moons in the 1 and 2 au simulations are habitable, with the incidence falling to about 1% at 5 au; the authors conclude that the circumstellar habitable zone can be extended to moons around giant planets.

Significance. If the quantitative result held, the paper would provide a formation-based prior for the occurrence of potentially habitable exomoons, connecting N-body moon-formation modeling with habitability calculations. The work is valuable in several respects: it uses a GPU-based direct N-body integrator with good energy conservation (relative errors ~1e-10 to 1e-8), it runs ten realizations per initial condition and reports cold/hot disk variations, and it gives a clear dynamical picture of the stellar-thief effect, including the mass lost from the circumplanetary disk and the resulting number and mass of surviving moons. The semi-analytic habitability treatment follows established tidal-heating formulations. However, the headline 32% figure rests on an initial circumplanetary disk mass that is chosen specifically to allow Earth-mass moons to form, and the paper does not quantify how the result depends on that choice. The qualitative conclusion that stellar theft suppresses moon mass close to the star and that tidal heating can support habitability at 1-2 au may survive a lower disk mass, but the quantitative claim is not robust as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (initial disk mass) and Section 4.3 / Table B.1] The initial circumplanetary disk mass is set to 2 Earth masses, 'for which case at least one Earth-mass moon may form.' For the 10 Jupiter-mass planet this is a disk-to-planet ratio of about 6.3e-4, roughly six times the ~1e-4 ratio cited from Canup & Ward (2006). The final average embryo mass in the SC runs is about 1.3 Earth masses, so the formation efficiency is about 65%, and the individual moon masses in Table B.1 scale approximately linearly with the initial disk mass. With a canonical ~0.3 Earth-mass disk, the average surviving moon mass at 1 au would drop to roughly 0.07 Earth masses, below the 1 Mars-mass threshold used in Section 4.3, and the habitable categories at 1 and 2 au (average masses 0.39-0.52 Earth masses) would be essentially empty, collapsing the 32% figure. The paper reports no disk-mass variation and Section 4.5 does not list this as a caveat. I ask for either additional simulations with a lower disk mass, or an explicit scaling analysis that quantifies the sensitivity of the habitable fraction to the disk mass, with the abstract and conclusions revised accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2 / Section 3 (disk size and stellar distance)] The comparison across stellar distances uses a fixed disk mass (2 Earth masses) while the disk outer radius grows with the planetary Hill radius, so the surface density decreases with stellar distance by construction. The finding that individual moon masses decrease with stellar distance is therefore partly a geometric consequence of holding the disk mass fixed rather than a pure dynamical result. The paper states that it uses an increasing disk size with constant disk mass, but it does not explore disks whose mass also depends on orbital distance (e.g., through the planet's accretion history). This does not invalidate the stellar-thief mechanism, which is clearly isolated by the SC/PC comparison, but it should be acknowledged as a modeling assumption when interpreting the distance dependence of moon masses and habitability.
  3. [Section 4.5 / abstract] The abstract's statement that '32% of synthetic moons can be habitable' is presented without an uncertainty or a sensitivity caveat. This fraction is based on a modest number of moons in the habitable category (about 38 across the 1 and 2 au runs in Table B.1), so the Poisson uncertainty alone is on the order of 15-20%. Adding the disk-mass sensitivity discussed above, the quantitative claim is not yet robust enough for the abstract; a caveat or a reworded conclusion is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The sentence 'Section 3 presents a describe of the numerical method' should read 'a description of the numerical method.'
  2. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'so they have maxima have maxima at ~1.58 Earth masses' contains a duplicated 'have maxima.'
  3. [Section 4.4] In the selection criteria, '1 au<M pl <5 au' should refer to the semi-major axis a_pl rather than the planetary mass M_pl.
  4. [Figure 1 caption] The caption reads 'The date of the exoplanets.org query is May 2024'; 'date' should likely be 'data' or the sentence should be rephrased.
  5. [Table B.1] The use of '···' for empty entries is understandable but could be replaced by an explicit 'no moons' entry or a footnote to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 32% habitable-moon fraction and the claim that Mars-to-Earth-mass moons form around 10 MJ planets are set by the 2 M⊕ initial circumplanetary disk mass, which is chosen so that an Earth-mass moon may form; the headline statistic is partly a restatement of the input normalization.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, 'N-body simulations of moon formation', paragraph 'To determine the initial mass of the CP disk'; echoed in Section 5 Conclusions]
    "To determine the initial mass of the CP disk, we assume the formation of Earth-mass moons, which are important for the habitability investigations. The initial disk mass is set to 2M⊕, for which case at least one Earth-mass moon may form due to the fact that the formation efficiency is less than 100%."

    The initial condition is defined in terms of the desired result: the disk mass is chosen so that an Earth-mass moon may form. The later conclusion — 'Our simulations show that moons with masses between Mars and Earth could form around planets with masses about 10 times that of Jupiter' — is therefore a restatement of the input choice rather than an independent prediction. Because the final moon mass is the initial disk mass times the formation efficiency divided by the number of surviving moons (Sect. 4.1 reports 1.31 M⊕ average final embryo mass from the 2 M⊕ disk), a disk closer to the quoted canonical 10^-4 satellites-to-planet ratio (~0.3 M⊕ for 10 MJ) would yield sub-Mars-mass moons, so the stated Mars-to-Earth mass range is largely enforced by the chosen normalization.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Abstract Results and Section 4.3 / Table B.1, with the input fixed in Section 3]
    "We find that 32% of synthetic moons can be habitable in the circumstellar habitable zone."

    The 32% is the fraction of habitable moons among the 1 and 2 au simulations: Table B.1 gives 38 habitable of 118 moons at those distances. Habitability requires M > 1 MMars (Sect. 4.3), and the average masses of the 1–2 au moons (0.39–0.52 M⊕, Table B.1) are produced by the same 2 M⊕ disk that was deliberately set so that an Earth-mass moon may form. Thus the mass cut is passed because the input was normalized to produce such moons. Scaling the disk to the canonical 10^-4 satellites-to-planet ratio (~0.3 M⊕) would lower final moon masses by roughly an order of magnitude, moving nearly all moons below the mass threshold and collapsing the headline statistic. The 32% is therefore a consequence of the tuned initial disk mass rather than an independent output of the formation model.

full rationale

The N-body dynamics and the stellar-theft and tidal-heating trends are not circular: the integrations are self-contained, the stellar stealing at 1 au and the increasing role of tidal heating at 2–5 au are genuine simulation outputs, and the habitability flux calculation uses externally specified models (Henning et al. 2009; Heller & Barnes 2013; Kopparapu et al. 2014). The self-citations to Dencs & Regály (2021) concern numerical convergence and a definition of formation efficiency; they are not load-bearing for the central habitability claim. However, the central quantitative claim — that 32% of synthetic moons in the circumstellar habitable zone are habitable, and more broadly that Mars-to-Earth-mass moons can form around 10 MJ planets — is not independent of the initial circumstellar disk mass. Section 3 sets the disk to 2 M⊕ explicitly so that an Earth-mass moon may form, and the tie to the canonical 10^-4 satellites-to-planet ratio is loose: the actual adopted ratio is about 6×10^-4, roughly six times the canonical value. The final moon masses scale with this input through the formation efficiency, and the M > 1 MMars habitability cut then selects the 1–2 au moons that the input was designed to produce. This is a partial, normalization-driven circularity in the headline statistic, not a formal identity in the dynamics; the disk-mass sensitivity is not tested and is absent from the caveats in Sect. 4.5. Score 6 reflects the partial reduction by construction of the 32% result while acknowledging that the dynamical mechanisms and tidal-heating trends retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claim (32% habitable moons) depends on a small set of hand-picked initial conditions, most importantly the disk mass and the embryo and satellitesimal masses, which set the mass scale of the moons. The dynamics and habitability post-processing are standard. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial circumplanetary disk mass = 2 Earth masses
    Chosen so that at least one Earth-mass moon may form (Section 3); about six times the canonical 10^-4 disk-to-planet ratio.
  • Initial embryo mass = 0.01 Earth masses
    100 embryos of 0.01 Earth masses, adopted from scaling of planet formation simulations.
  • Initial satellitesimal mass = 0.001 Earth masses
    1000 satellitesimals of 0.001 Earth masses, giving a 1:1 embryo-to-satellitesimal mass ratio.
  • Inner disk radius = 5.16 Jupiter radii
    Based on the orbit of Io scaled up for a 10 Jupiter-mass planet; affects collision rates and simulation runtime.
  • Habitability mass threshold = 1 Mars mass
    Moons below this mass are considered unable to retain an atmosphere; Lammer et al. 2014 suggest 2.5 Mars masses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gravitational N-body dynamics with perfectly inelastic collisions describe final assembly of moons
    Assumes moon formation is analogous to rocky planet formation, scaled down to satellite scales (Section 1).
  • domain assumption The circumplanetary disk is gas-free during the final assembly phase
    No gas drag or gas gravity is included; the model corresponds to the end of the gas-starve or solid-enhanced minimum-mass nebula scenarios (Section 1).
  • standard math Standard tidal heating formula (Eq. 1) with Maxwell viscoelastic response
    Uses Peale 2003, Meyer & Wisdom 2007, Henning et al. 2009; well-established in exomoon literature.
  • domain assumption Kopparapu et al. (2014) flux limits for habitable planets apply to moons with Earth-like atmospheres
    The habitability classification assumes the same recent Venus, runaway greenhouse, maximum greenhouse, and early Mars flux limits as for planets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Grand Theft Moons. Formation of habitable moons around giant planets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2TCS5RGX

@misc{pith2026250518144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Grand Theft Moons. Formation of habitable moons around giant planets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2TCS5RGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18144}
}
read the original abstract

Of the few thousand discovered exoplanets, a significant number orbit in the habitable zone of their star. Many of them are gas giants lacking a rocky surface and solid water reservoirs necessary for life as we know it. The search for habitable environments may extend to the moons of these giant planets. No confirmed exomoon discoveries have been made as of today, but promising candidates are known. Theories suggest that moon formation is a natural process in planetary systems. We aim to study moon formation around giant planets in a phase similar to the final assembly of planet formation. We search for conditions for forming the largest moons with the highest possibility in circumplanetary disks, and investigate whether the resulting moons can be habitable. We determined the fraction of the circumplanetary disk's mass converted into moons using numerical N-body simulations where moon embryos grow via embryo-satellitesimal collisions, investigated in disks around giant planets consisting of 100 fully interacting embryos and 1000 satellitesimals. In fiducial simulations, a 10 Jupiter-mass planet orbited a solar analog star at distances of 1-5 au. To determine the habitability of the synthetic moons, we calculated the stellar irradiation and tidal heating flux on these moons based on their orbital and physical parameters. The individual moon mass is found to be higher when the host planet orbits at a smaller stellar distance. However, moons leave the circumplanetary disk due to the stellar thief effect, which is stronger closer to the star. We find that 32% of synthetic moons can be habitable in the circumstellar habitable zone. Due to the intense tidal heating, the incidence rate of moon habitability is similar at 2 au, and decreasing to 1% at larger distances (<5 au). We conclude that the circumstellar habitable zone can be extended to moons around giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. is an illustration of the phenomenon of how many giant exoplanets in our sample can have a putative habitable moon. The figure shows the luminosity of the exoplanets’ central stars as a function of the semi-major axis of the planetary orbits. The CSHZ boundaries are calculated using Eq. (4) of Kopparapu et al. (2014), where we assumed S eff⊙ values for 1 M⊕ moon. Conservative and optimistic habitable zone (HZ) limit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Face-on view of the circumplanetary habitable zone of HD 114386 b assuming an Earth analog moon on e = 0.05 orbit around the planet. The axes represent the distance from the host planet in the planetary Hill radius. Roche (black), recent Venus (red), runaway green￾house (orange), maximum greenhouse (light green), and early Mars (green) limits are displayed with solid circles. The shaded zones are too hot region for … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of the moon embryos and the protosatellite disks of 10 MJ host planets on a logarithmic timescale. The left and right panels show the stellar-centered (SC) and the planet-centered (PC) scenarios, respectively. Green, yellow, red, and blue colors indicate the apl=1, 2, 3, and 5 au simulations, respectively. Shaded regions represent the range between the minimum and maximum values from the ten simulation… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The time for the average total embryo mass to reach its max￾imum as a function of the size of the disks. The time is displayed in terms of the number of orbits at the inner edge of the CP disk on the left vertical axis, as well as in years on the right vertical axis. T…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Properties of the formed moons as a function of the size of the circumplanetary disks. Panel A shows the average number, panel B shows the average individual mass, and panel C shows the average ec￾centricity of the moons. Solid and dotted lines display the SC and the P…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Habitability of the moons formed in the disk of the 10 MJ planets. Each panel shows the eccentricity as a function of the semi-major axis of the moon orbits in units of the planet’s Hill radius. Left and right panels show the moons in dynamically cold and hot disks, re…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., & Williams, J

    Andrews, S. M., & Williams, J. P. 2007, ApJ, 659, 705, doi:10.1086/511741

    doi:10.1086/511741 2007

  2. [2]

    2012, A&A, 545, A55, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201118419

    Boisse, I., Pepe, F., Perrier, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A55, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201118419

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    M., & Asphaug, E

    Canup, R. M., & Asphaug, E. 2001, Nature, 412, 708

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    M., & Ward, W

    Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2002, AJ, 124, 3404, doi:10.1086/344684 —. 2006, Nature, 441, 834, doi:10.1038/nature04860

    doi:10.1086/344684 2002

  5. [5]

    2024, Revealing the Oblateness and Satellite System of an Extrasolar Jupiter Analog, JWST Proposal

    Cassese, B., Batygin, K., Chachan, Y ., et al. 2024, Revealing the Oblateness and Satellite System of an Extrasolar Jupiter Analog, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6491

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chambers, J. E. 2013, Icarus, 224, 43, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.015

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.015 2013

  7. [7]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4355, doi:10

    Cilibrasi, M., Szulágyi, J., Mayer, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4355, doi:10. 1093/mnras/sty2163

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    S., & Chambers, J

    Clement, M. S., & Chambers, J. E. 2021, AJ, 162, 3, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ abfb6c

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ 2021

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Science, 338, 1196, doi:10.1126/science

    Crida, A., & Charnoz, S. 2012, Science, 338, 1196, doi:10.1126/science. 1226477

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    H., & Sigurdsson, S

    Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2007, ApJ, 668, L167, doi:10.1086/523103

    2007 doi

  3. [12]

    Dobos, V ., Heller, R., & Turner, E. L. 2017, A&A, 601, A91, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/201730541

    2017

  4. [13]

    Dobos, V ., & Turner, E. L. 2015, ApJ, 804, 41, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/804/ 1/41

    2015 doi

  5. [14]

    C., Winter, O

    Domingos, R. C., Winter, O. C., & Yokoyama, T. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1227, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11104.x

    2006

  6. [15]

    R., Mosqueira, I., Lissauer, J

    Estrada, P. R., Mosqueira, I., Lissauer, J. J., D’Angelo, G., & Cruikshank, D. P. 2009, in Europa, ed. R. T. Pappalardo, W. B. McKinnon, & K. K. Khurana, 27, doi:10.48550/arXiv.0809.1418

    2009 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    2013, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 116, 109, doi:10.1007/s10569-013-9482-y

    Ferraz-Mello, S. 2013, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 116, 109, doi:10.1007/s10569-013-9482-y

    2013 doi

  8. [18]

    I., Kobayashi, H., Takahashi, S

    Fujii, Y . I., Kobayashi, H., Takahashi, S. Z., & Gressel, O. 2017, AJ, 153, 194, doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa647d

    2017 doi

  9. [19]

    Gebek, A., & Oza, A. V . 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5271, doi:10.1093/mnras/ staa2193

    2020 doi

  10. [20]

    F., Hartmann, W

    Greenberg, R., Wacker, J. F., Hartmann, W. K., & Chapman, C. R. 1978, Icarus, 35, 1, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(78)90057-X

    1978 doi

  11. [22]

    Haghighipour, N., & Maindl, T. I. 2022, ApJ, 926, 197, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac4969

    2022

  12. [23]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 5, doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/806/1/5

    Harakawa, H., Sato, B., Omiya, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 5, doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/806/1/5

    2015

  13. [24]

    2012, A&A, 545, L8, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220003

    Heller, R. 2012, A&A, 545, L8, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220003

    2012 doi

  14. [25]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 18, doi:10.1089/ast.2012

    Heller, R., & Barnes, R. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 18, doi:10.1089/ast.2012. 0859

    2013 doi

  15. [26]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 181, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/ 2/181

    Heller, R., & Pudritz, R. 2015, ApJ, 806, 181, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/806/ 2/181

    2015 doi

  16. [27]

    G., O’Connell, R

    Henning, W. G., O’Connell, R. J., & Sasselov, D. D. 2009, ApJ, 707, 1000, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1000

    2009 doi

  17. [28]

    1992, Icarus, 96, 107, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(92) 90008-U —

    Ida, S., & Makino, J. 1992, Icarus, 96, 107, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(92) 90008-U —. 1993, Icarus, 106, 210, doi:10.1006/icar.1993.1167

    1992

  18. [29]

    2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 115, B06314, doi:10.1029/2009JB007134

    Ji, S., Sun, S., Wang, Q., & Marcotte, D. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth), 115, B06314, doi:10.1029/2009JB007134

    2010 doi

  19. [30]

    2010, ApJ, 712, L125, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/2/L125

    Kaltenegger, L. 2010, ApJ, 712, L125, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/712/2/L125

    2010 doi

  20. [31]

    F., Whitmire, D

    Kasting, J. F., Whitmire, D. P., & Reynolds, R. T. 1993, Icarus, 101, 108, doi:10. 1006/icar.1993.1010

    1993

  21. [32]

    M., Fossey, S

    Kipping, D. M., Fossey, S. J., & Campanella, G. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 398, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15472.x

    2009

  22. [33]

    1998, Icarus, 131, 171, doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5840 —

    Kokubo, E., & Ida, S. 1998, Icarus, 131, 171, doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5840 —. 2000, Icarus, 143, 15, doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6237

    1998

  23. [34]

    K., Ramirez, R

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R. M., SchottelKotte, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, L29, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L29

    2014 doi

  24. [35]

    K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J

    Kopparapu, R. K., Ramirez, R., Kasting, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 765, 131, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/765/2/131

    2013

  25. [36]

    H., Coustenis, A., et al

    Lammer, H., Bredehöft, J. H., Coustenis, A., et al. 2009, A&A Rev., 17, 181, doi:10.1007/s00159-009-0019-z

    2009 doi

  26. [37]

    2014, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 44, 239, doi:10.1007/s11084-014-9377-2

    Lammer, H., Schiefer, S.-C., Juvan, I., et al. 2014, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 44, 239, doi:10.1007/s11084-014-9377-2

    2014 doi

  27. [38]

    M., & Stewart, S

    Leinhardt, Z. M., & Stewart, S. T. 2012, ApJ, 745, 79, doi:10.1088/ 0004-637X/745/1/79

    2012

  28. [39]

    S., & Ito, T

    Lykawka, P. S., & Ito, T. 2019, ApJ, 883, 130, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ ab3b0a

    2019 doi

  29. [40]

    Makino, J., & Aarseth, S. J. 1992, PASJ, 44, 141

    1992

  30. [41]

    2007, Icarus, 188, 535, doi:10.1016/j.icarus

    Meyer, J., & Wisdom, J. 2007, Icarus, 188, 535, doi:10.1016/j.icarus. 2007.03.001

    2007 doi

  31. [42]

    P., López-Morales, M., et al

    Minniti, D., Butler, R. P., López-Morales, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1424, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1424

    2009 doi

  32. [43]

    Mosqueira, I., & Estrada, P. R. 2003, Icarus, 163, 198, doi:10.1016/ S0019-1035(03)00076-9

    2003

  33. [44]

    2007, A&A, 470, 721, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361:20077361

    Naef, D., Mayor, M., Benz, W., et al. 2007, A&A, 470, 721, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361:20077361

    2007

  34. [45]

    2010, A&A, 523, A15, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/200913616

    Naef, D., Mayor, M., Lo Curto, G., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A15, doi:10.1051/ 0004-6361/200913616

    2010

  35. [46]

    2010, ApJ, 719, L145, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L145

    Namouni, F. 2010, ApJ, 719, L145, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L145

    2010 doi

  36. [47]

    2008, New A, 13, 498, doi:10.1016/j.newast

    Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2008, New A, 13, 498, doi:10.1016/j.newast. 2008.01.010

    2008 doi

  37. [48]

    2012, ApJ, 753, 60, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/ 60

    Ogihara, M., & Ida, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, 60, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/ 60

    2012 doi

  38. [49]

    V ., Johnson, R

    Oza, A. V ., Johnson, R. E., Lellouch, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 168, doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/ab40cc

    2019

  39. [50]

    L., Charbonneau, D., Cherubim, C., & Garcia-Mejia, J

    Pass, E., Bean, J. L., Charbonneau, D., Cherubim, C., & Garcia-Mejia, J. 2024, A Search for Exoplanet Satellites that are the Same Size as the Earth’s Moon, JWST Proposal. Cycle 3, ID. #6193

    2024

  40. [51]

    Peale, S. J. 2003, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 87, 129, doi:10.1023/A:1026187917994

    2003 doi

  41. [52]

    J., & Canup, R

    Peale, S. J., & Canup, R. M. 2015, in Treatise on Geophysics, ed. G. Schubert, 559–604, doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00177-9

    2015 doi

  42. [53]

    H., & Spergel, D

    Press, W. H., & Spergel, D. N. 1988, ApJ, 325, 715, doi:10.1086/166042

    1988 doi

  43. [54]

    N., O’Brien, D

    Raymond, S. N., O’Brien, D. P., Morbidelli, A., & Kaib, N. A. 2009, Icarus, 203, 644, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.05.016

    2009 doi

  44. [55]

    P., de Elía, G

    Ronco, M. P., de Elía, G. C., & Guilera, O. M. 2015, A&A, 584, A47, doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/201526367

    2015

  45. [56]

    2020, A&A, 633, A93, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201936804

    Ronnet, T., & Johansen, A. 2020, A&A, 633, A93, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 201936804

    2020 doi

  46. [57]

    2017, ApJ, 845, 92, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aa80e6

    Ronnet, T., Mousis, O., & Vernazza, P. 2017, ApJ, 845, 92, doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/aa80e6

    2017

  47. [58]

    N., & Schubert, G

    Segatz, M., Spohn, T., Ross, M. N., & Schubert, G. 1988, Icarus, 75, 187, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(88)90001-2

    1988 doi

  48. [59]

    A., Zuluaga, J

    Sucerquia, M., Alvarado-Montes, J. A., Zuluaga, J. I., Cuello, N., & Giuppone, C. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 2313, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2110

    2019 doi

  49. [60]

    T., Cochran, W., et al

    Wang, Sharon, X., Wright, J. T., Cochran, W., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 46, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/761/1/46

    2012

  50. [61]

    Williams, D. M. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 315, doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0892

    2013

  51. [62]

    M., Kasting, J

    Williams, D. M., Kasting, J. F., & Wade, R. A. 1997, Nature, 385, 234, doi:10. 1038/385234a0

    1997

  52. [63]

    A., Endl, M., Cochran, W

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Endl, M., Cochran, W. D., Levison, H. F., & Henry, G. W. 2009, ApJS, 182, 97, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/1/97

    2009 doi

  53. [64]

    A., Horner, J., Tuomi, M., et al

    Wittenmyer, R. A., Horner, J., Tuomi, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 169, doi:10. 1088/0004-637X/753/2/169

    2012

  54. [65]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 7, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/7

    Yang, M., Xie, J.-W., Zhou, J.-L., Liu, H.-G., & Zhang, H. 2016, ApJ, 833, 7, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/7

    2016 doi

  55. [66]

    F., & Peale, S

    Yoder, C. F., & Peale, S. J. 1981, Icarus, 47, 1, doi:10.1016/0019-1035(81) 90088-9 Article number, page 12 of 14 Zoltán Dencs, Vera Dobos and Zsolt Regály: Grand Theft Moons Appendix A: Demonstration of the change in the distributions of embryos and satellitesimals To demonst...

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.