arXiv:1712.01823v2 [astro-ph.EP] 18 Dec 2017 [email protected] orsodn uhr Matija author: Corresponding lntta a ial irpe n hneetdb es membe dense a tha by ejected conclude then I and disrupted tidally planets. was Jupite terrestrial expec that or planet disrupting Sun are dis tidally the are bodies Unlike thoroughly planets fragments. small of whole 100-m 100-m when of events that population interstellar occasional observe that I population and collisional a populations, of ejec asteroids. bette member at much small a inefficient not a from relatively is offer ‘Oumuamua are systems that planets conclude binary giant also that that and find stars, I main-sequence exp as origins. stars, its local on the with ( moving system was nearby it s that not indicates does trajectory ‘Oumuamua comets, on ( based expectations Against size. onanVe,C 44,USA 94043, CA View, 200 Mountain Suite Ave, Bernardo N. 189 1 ec ta.2017 al. et Meech EIInstitute SETI I‘uumai h rtkonitrtla ml oy( body small interstellar known first the is 1I/‘Oumuamua yee sn L using 2017 Typeset 19, December version Draft Keywords: I‘UUMAA IA IRPINFAMN RMABNR STA BINARY A FROM FRAGMENT DISRUPTION TIDAL A AS 1I/‘OUMUAMUA A aae 2017 Mamajek T E X ,adas xiisudme oainltmln ( tumbling rotational undamped exhibits also and ), aelts omto lntsa interactions planet-star — formation satellites: io lnt,atris niiul(I‘uuma binaries:gene — (1I/‘Oumuamua) individual asteroids: planets, minor twocolumn Cuk ´ .Hr sueta Omau stpclo 0- neselrobj interstellar 100-m of typical is ‘Oumuamua that assume I Here ). tl nAASTeX61 in style umte oApJL to Submitted Matija ABSTRACT Cuk ´ ac ta.2017 al. et Bacci 1 potnt o jcin fnnvltl ois I bodies. non-volatile of ejections for opportunity r ce rmalwvlct jcinfo relatively a from ejection low-velocity a from ected h rgno Omau safamn rma from fragment a as ‘Oumuamua of origin the t fabnr ytmcudepanispeculiarities. its explain could system binary a of r utdi aatohcecutr a dominate may encounters catastrophic in rupted o n ciiyadhsavr lnae figure elongated very a has and activity any how ,rddafsasaevr es n r capable are and dense very are stars dwarf red r, e ocryltl asi elsi collisional realistic in mass little carry to ted rsre l 2017 al. et Fraser igsalbde rminrslrssesof systems solar inner from bodies small ting hc ol xli t rmtcdifference dramatic its explain could which , ,poal en nyaot10min m 100 about only being probably ), .I otat ‘Oumuamua’s contrast, In ). a lnt and planets — ral SYSTEM R cs n speculate and ects, 2 Cuk´
1. INTRODUCTION we expect to detect more interstellar bodies as more and 1I/‘Oumuamua is the first known interstellar object, larger automated surveys become operational. that was discovered in October 2017 after it has already passed perihelion (Bacci et al. 2017; Meech et al. 2017). 2. DYNAMICAL CONSIDERATIONS ‘Oumuamua is clearly extrasolar in origin, having a ve- Ejection of planetesimals from our Solar System locity at infinity of 26 km/s and an eccentricity of 1.2. is a natural consequence of planetary formation and Much of Oumuamua’s velocity relative to the Solar Sys- migration (Fernandez & Ip 1984; Duncan et al. 1987; tem is a reflection of the Sun’s own velocity relative Kaib & Quinn 2008). Young giant planets scattered the to the local standard of rest (Mamajek 2017), mak- remaining small bodies, with the resulting exchange of ing ‘Oumuamua’s trajectory close to our expectations angular momentum enabling expansion of the orbits of for an interstellar interloper. However, ‘Oumuamua’s Neptune, Uranus and Saturn, which on average were physical characteristics were unexpected, starting with passing small bodies from the trans-Neptunian belt to a complete lack of cometary activity (Knight et al. 2017; Jupiter. Jupiter, due to its large mass, was highly ef- Meech et al. 2017) or associated meteoroids (Ye et al. ficient at ejecting bodies from the system, resulting in 2017). The observed spectrum of ‘Oumuamua is feature- the planet’s inward migration. Some of the bodies that less and somewhat red (Masiero 2017; Bannister et al. narrowly escaped ejection ended up on very large orbits 2017), similar to a number of outer Solar System ob- torqued by passing stars and Galactic tide, forming the jects. However, ‘Oumuamua’s Solar System spectral Oort Cloud. The existence of the Oort Cloud, inferred analogues are expected to be volatile rich and should from the continuous influx of long-period comets, is exhibit cometary activity after passing within 0.25 AU a direct indication that large number of comets must from the Sun, as ‘Oumuamua did. Therefore, one can- have been ejected from our Solar System when the Oort not say if ‘Oumuamua’s spectral similarity to certain Cloud formed. outer Solar System bodies is meaningful or a coinci- Ejection of volatile-free asteroids is also possible, but dence. The most puzzling feature of ‘Oumuamua is they are thought to have been a relatively small fraction its very elongated shape, with aspect ratio of 5:1 to of planetesimals that were ejected or placed into the 10:1 (Bolin et al. 2017; Meech et al. 2017). This is an Oort cloud. One reason for this is the much greater extreme value for Solar System bodies of similar size, supply of icy planetesimals in our system, which may and may indicate that ‘Oumuamua has internal strength not apply elsewhere. Another is that our giants planets (Fraser et al. 2017). While ‘Oumuamua’s rotation pe- all orbit beyond the “snowline”, the distance beyond riod was reported to be 7-8 h, it has been suggested that which planetesimals incorporate large fractions of water the observations are not consistent with a single period, ice. Rocky planetesimals are thus less likely to make probably indicating a non-principal axis rotation, i.e. it to Jupiter-crossing orbits, and the majority of bodies tumbling (Fraser et al. 2017; Drahus et al. 2017). Non- with a <2.5 AU that become unstable end up colliding damped tumbling would indicate that the interior of with the Sun (Gladman et al. 1997; Minton & Malhotra ‘Oumuamua is not particularly dissipative, and is consis- 2010). tent with ‘Oumuamua being a rigid body (Fraser et al. Many known giant exoplanets are well within the rele- 2017). Monolithic 100-m bodies are known in the So- vant “snowline” for their solar system, and some of them lar System, but are less common than “rubble piles”, are certainly capable of ejecting small bodies into inter- tend to have less elongated shapes and, not being at risk stellar space (Ford & Rasio 2008). In general, two major from rotational disruption, often have very short spin processes are competing for the elimination of planetes- periods (as radiational YORP effect distributes their ro- imals: scattering and collisions. Collisions become more tation rates throughout the large allowed phase space; likely if the planet is brought closer to the star (as size of Pravec et al. 2002). the planet increases relative to the size of the orbit), but Therefore, while the trajectory and rotational physics scattering becomes less efficient closer to the star, as the of ‘Oumuamua appear to be consistent with our prior orbital velocities are higher while the the planet’s escape understanding, its shape and composition are surprising. velocity is the same. Using expressions from Tremaine In this paper, I will make an assumption of Copernican (1993) and Wyatt et al. (2017), I find that the ratio of principle with respect to ‘Oumuamua, i.e. that it is ejection and collision rates is (assuming constant density typical of bodies of its size that are populating the local for the planet): interstellar space. This assumption is far from secure as it is based on only one object, but it is also testable as 4/3 2 Rej ∝ Mp a 2 (1) Rcol M∗ AASTEX 1I/‘Oumuamua As a Tidal Disruption Fragment 3
Where Mp and M∗ are masses of the star and the planet, ‘Oumuamua is an indication that the events leading to and a is the planet’s semimajor axis. This implies ejections of most numerous interstellar bodies are very that Jupiter at 1 AU would be more than an order of different than those that operate in our Solar System, magnitude weaker ejector than at its present distance. it is a very good guess that stellar companions may be Since for most of the Main Sequence, log(L∗/LSun) = implicated, as they are both very common, and more 1 k log(M∗/MSun), with 3.5 1 AU (Duchˆene & Kraus 2013). Of course, availability 1 After the first version of this Letter was submitted for review, of material for ejection is still an issue for binary com- I realized that Raymond et al. (2017) reached conclusions similar panions, and one may still expect icy material to pre- to mine on the relative abundance of icy and rocky planetesimals, as well as on the possible importance of binary stars for ejection dominate among small bodies in binary systems. But, if of small bodies 4 Cuk´ planetesimals may have been much larger, in the 100 km sions between the original 100-1000 km planetesimals (or range (Youdin & Goodman 2005; Johansen et al. 2007; planets accreted from them) would not be pre-fractured Morbidelli et al. 2009). Asteroids (433) Eros (30 km or reaccreted, so they could produce a rather different long) and 25143 Itokawa (600 m long), both visited suite of first-generation collisional fragments, some of by spacecraft, are thought to be typical of intermedi- which may have unusual shapes. But the amount of ate steps of collisional evolution from 100 km bodies to mass in 100-meter fragments resulting from disruption 100 m fragments. Eros has a density of 2.7 g/cc, similar of much larger bodies would be modest (as most of the to ordinary chondrite meteorites it is likely related to, mass would be in larger pieces). Also, these unprocessed and is thought to be a fractured body, meaning that it is planetesimals would have to be on somewhat stable or- held together by gravity but without significant internal bits in order to have a reasonable probability of collid- voids (Cheng 2004). Itokawa, in contrast, has a den- ing, but then their fragments would need to be ejected sity of 1.9 g/cc despite a composition similar to Eros’s. by a giant planet or a companion star rapidly, before a Itokawa is thought to be a rubble pile, with fragments of collisional cascade could obliterate non-compact shapes. a range of sizes held together by gravity and possibly E- This scenario is rather contradictory and unlikely to pro- M surface forces, with a large porosity (Fujiwara et al. duce more interstellar bodies than ejection of more con- 2006). While solid blocks are present on Itokawa, they ventional collisional fragments. are results of many collisional events, some of which de- Interestingly, ‘Oumuamua is at or just below the size stroyed their past parent bodies, and some led only to threshold at which asteroid material strength starts fracturing. It is easy to see why long and thin frag- dominating over gravity (O’Brien & Greenberg 2003). ments would be rare, as the orientation of stresses from It is tempting to speculate that if a larger body’s grav- multiple asteroidal collisions becomes basically random. ity would somehow be neutralized, it may dissociate Therefore, not only is the elongation of Oumuamua un- itself into fragments the size of ‘Oumuamua (if other usual (near-Earth asteroid 1865 Cerberus comes close to conditions are met). Gravity, of course, cannot be this, but it is over 1 km long and probably not a mono- “turned off”, but gravitationally bound bodies can be lith), but one would expect such long and thin pieces torn apart by variety of mechanisms, a prominent one to be rare on theoretical grounds. While ‘Oumuamua being tidal forces. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was dra- could be an outlier from a population similar to aster- matically tidally disrupted by Jupiter, before its col- oids, here I am assuming that ‘Oumuamua is typical of lision with the planet (Asphaug & Benz 1996). It is interstellar objects, which would make them collectively fully possible that some of the comets that were ejected quite distinct from asteroids. by Jupiter may have first been tidally disrupted. How- Interstellar nature of ‘Oumuamua has led to specula- ever, tidal disruption in the Solar System is limited by tion of a possible artificial nature. However, its tra- the restricted density ranges of planets and small bod- jectory is that of “celestial driftwood”2 as shown by ies. Jupiter’s density of 1.3 g/cc means that a comet Mamajek (2017). If ‘Oumuamua were to be artificial, it must approach very closely (within a couple radii) to the would require artificial 100-meter bodies on passive in- planet in order to be disrupted, limiting the efficiency terstellar trajectories to be more common than ejected of the process (Jeffreys 1947; Holsapple & Michel 2008). asteroids and comets of the same size. This is an ex- Also, most tidal disruptions of rubble piles are marginal, traordinary claim, and would require evidence more ex- with the pieces reaccreting into one or more new ruble traordinary than ‘Oumuamua’s elongated shape. More piles afterward (Walsh & Richardson 2006). specifically, continuing tumbling of ‘Oumuamua is most In the previous section I proposed that stellar com- consistent with a single solid body with no moving parts panions are expected to be major producers of interstel- (Fraser et al. 2017). A hollow object containing movable lar small bodies in the Galaxy. A solar type star has items would damp its non-principal axis rotation much a density comparable to Jupiter’s, so tidal disruptions more quickly (Burns & Safronov 1973). Therefore, an are unlikely to be very common during ejections. How- artificial origin would not explain any of ‘Oumuamua ever, M-type main sequence stars are significantly denser observed peculiarities. than the Sun, with M0V stars being 3 times, M5V 20 If ‘Oumuamua is not a result of collisional evolution times, and M9V stars 150 times more dense than the like the one experienced by Solar System asteroids, is Sun (Kaltenegger & Traub 2009). Such densities make there a way of naturally producing its shape? Colli- it possible for these low mass stars to tidally disrupt not only under-dense rubble piles, but also planet-sized bodies. An Earth-like planet passing close enough to 2 Michele Bannister, 11/21/17, Twitter an M-type dwarf would be completely torn apart, with AASTEX 1I/‘Oumuamua As a Tidal Disruption Fragment 5 only material cohesion on sizes comparable to that of at its smallest. Figure 1 shows that the most eccentric ‘Oumuamua being able to resist the star’s tides. In ad- temporary capture orbits (and the closest approaches dition, sizable planets would also suffer decompression to the smaller star) occur during entrance into and exit during tidal encounters, which would help disperse the from temporary capture. fragments during this event (Asphaug et al. 2006). Inte- Our simulation results are unit-independent and can rior material would be exposed to vacuum, which could be applied to a range of binary masses and separations. lead to rapid solidification and other strange effects. If the binary semimajor axis is set to 1 AU, then the Even if the planet was not volatile poor, atmosphere closest approach of the planet to the secondary would 5 and volatile-rich layers may not survive the event, both be 2.5 × 10 km, or 0.36 RSun. This distance results in due to tidal forces and stellar irradiation (however brief). a collision for main sequence stars of the spectral type Anisotropic forces acting to shape fragments may pro- M4 (with ≃ 0.5MSun) and earlier. For later type M duce elongated bodies like ‘Oumuamua, and with mod- dwarfs the collision is avoided, but the tides would to- erate rotation rates as observed for ‘Oumuamua, in con- tally destroy any plausible planet. The least massive trast to monoliths produced in collisions. main sequence star, a 0.075 MSun M9 dwarf, would be able to tidally disrupt a fluid non-rotating planet with 4. NUMERICAL TEST a density of 30 g/cc (Harris 1996), and the tides from M5V-M8V stars would be even stronger. After the original version of this paper was submitted Simulation shown in Fig. 1 was literally the first sim- (and a preprint made public), Jackson et al. (2017) have ulation I attempted of an instability with a planet start- published numerical simulations of planetesimal scatter- ing on a S-type orbit (orbiting one of the stars; nomen- ing in binary systems. Jackson et al. (2017) state that clature from Holman & Wiegert 1999). Jackson et al. their simulations did not find any cases where a planet (2017) in contrast integrated only P-type orbits, where would be tidally disrupted by a close stellar passage be- their particles initially orbited both stars. I also did fore being ejected, indicating that such disruptions are a quick test of planets initially on P-type orbits, and very rare. In this section I will address the claims of obtained results consistent with those of Jackson et al. Jackson et al. (2017) with the help of a simple numeri- (2017), as the planet never comes very close to either cal simulation. of the stars before being ejected. Therefore, results of Figure 1 shows a numerical simulation of a binary Jackson et al. (2017) show that tidal disruption is un- system, with a planet initially orbiting the more mas- likely only for initially P-type planetary orbits, but have sive component. Stellar mass ratio is 2:1, the planet is no relevance for S-type orbits, which appear to hold treated as massless, the ratio of binary and planetary much more potential for tidal disruption. semimajor axis is 6:1, both eccentricities are 0.5, while Note that the planet (or several, since an instability the planet’s orbit is inclined by 10◦. Initially, both the is required to couple the planet to the binary compan- planet and secondary are at their periastra (which are ion) would need to form within 20% of binary periastron aligned), and the planet is also at its ascending node. distance (Quintana et al. 2007), or 0.1 of binary semi- The simulation was done using the IAS15 algorithm major axis in this case. Almost half of red dwarfs are (Rein & Spiegel 2015) within the rebound integration thought to have super-Earth’s in their habitable zones package (Rein & Liu 2012). Figure 1 plots the distance (Bonfils et al. 2013), and the habitable zone of 0.1 AU between the planet and the smaller component. At first, corresponds to a M4V star (Kaltenegger & Traub 2009), the planet orbits the larger star (for most of 0 100 100 10 10 1 1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 (binary semimajor axis = 1) Secondary-planet distance 0.001 0.001 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Time (binary periods) Time (binary periods) Figure 1. Simulation of a binary star system with a planet initially orbiting the primary, done using rebound’s IAS15 algorithm. The planet initially orbits the larger star, but then gets temporarily captured into orbiting around the smaller star during binary orbits 13-14 and 15-18(enlarged in right-hand panel). The minimum separation between the planet from the − smaller star is 1.7 × 10 3 of the binary semimajor axis. Around the fiftieth binary period the planet is ejected from the system. their shapes may be quite irregular, possibly elongated. icy planetesimals (Nesvorn´y& Vokrouhlick´y2016), and Unless the original planet was a bound companion of the overall cumulative size distribution of TNOs below the red dwarf, the fragments would almost certainly be 100 km is proportional to D−2 (Bierhaus & Dones 2015; ejected from the system, likely without any significant Greenstreet et al. 2015; Robbins et al. 2017), then I es- collisional evolution. timate that approximately 0.01 MEarth of 100-m bod- This is a somewhat exotic way of producing small bod- ies was ejected by the planets from our Solar System. ies, quite different from our experience based on the So- Therefore, if the Sun is typical, mass in ‘Oumuamua- lar System. However, ‘Oumuamua is clearly suggesting like objects may be ten times larger than in interstellar that the range of processes operating on 100-m bod- comets of the same size (the number ratio is a factor ies in the Galaxy extends beyond those we are familiar of few closer due to lower cometary densities). Actually, with. First of all, it is very likely that binary stars are the average stellar rate of cometary ejections may be be- a very important contributor to the population of in- low solar, as comets are easier to detect than asteroids terstellar asteroids, as stars are naturally more powerful like ‘Oumuamua (Engelhardt et al. 2017; Meech et al. scatterers than the planets. Second, if occasional ex- 2017). treme events are able to produce large numbers of 100-m A Mars-mass of ‘Oumuamuas ejected from every sys- fragments, such bodies may overwhelm the population tem seems rather excessive, especially given that this of collisionally-produced comets and asteroids that are is the low end of available estimates of the number of ejected individually by either planets of binary compan- ‘Oumuamuas. Not every star is a binary, and not all bi- ions. naries include a dense M-dwarf. Therefore, I speculate How common are objects like ‘Oumuamua? Pub- that a smaller number of larger events generates the ob- lished estimates of their number density based on one de- served population. So the kind of “typical” disruption tection include 1015 pc−3 (Portegies Zwart et al. 2017; I am envisioning is that in every hundredth solar sys- 16 −3 Meech et al. 2017) and 10 pc (Trilling et al. 2017). tem, a 10MEarth super-Earth has a close encounter with Since there is no more than one star per cubic parsec a dense late M-dwarf and is tidally disrupted into 100- in the Galactic disk (Portegies Zwart et al. 2017), this meter strength-dominated fragments with a relatively would mean that there are at least 1015 ‘Oumuamuas for high efficiency, and that these fragments are then ejected each star in the disk. If we assume an albedo of 0.2 and from the system. M-dwarfs are the most common stars, therefore dimensions of 180 × 18 × 18 meters, equivalent while we have recently learned that possibly as many volume sphere radius is about 40 meters (5:1 aspect ra- as half of the stars have super-Earths (Buchhave et al. tio does not change that). A total of 1015 such objects, 2012), so an occasional event of this type would not be with a density of 3 g/cc would have a mass comparable extraordinary. to that of Mars (0.1MEarth). On the other hand, if the The present hypothesis is based on the assumption Solar System ejected approximately 10 MEarth of 100 km that ‘Oumuamua is not a fluke but a typical represen- AASTEX 1I/‘Oumuamua As a Tidal Disruption Fragment 7 tative of interstellar asteroids. If future discoveries look inspired the current paper. The author thanks an more like Solar System comets or small asteroids, the anonymous referee for suggestions that greatly im- need for this exotic formation mechanism becomes less proved the manuscript, as well as Michele Bannis- pressing. But if new discoveries are likewise monolithic ter, Igor Smoli´c, Dan Tamayo and Jorge Zuluaga for fragments with unusual shapes, defying the expectations their helpful comments on the first version of the based on collisional evolution, this idea may warrant a paper. Simulations in this paper made use of the closer look, with in-depth modeling of binary system dy- rebound code which can be downloaded freely at namics and tidal disruptions being needed before we can http://github.com/hannorein/rebound. MC´ is sup- determine if this hypothesis is tenable. ported by NASA Emerging Worlds award NNX15AH65G. MC´ acknowledges Igor Smoli´c as the first to sug- gest the possibility that ‘Oumuamua is tumbling, which REFERENCES Asphaug, E., & Benz, W. 1996, Icarus, 121, 225 Harris, A. W. 1996. Worlds in Interaction: Small Bodies Asphaug, E., Agnor, C. B., & Williams, Q. 2006, Nature, and Planets of the Solar System, pp. 113-117 (Rickman, 439, 155 H. & Valtonen, M., Eds., Springer) Bacci, P., Maestripieri, M., Tesi, L., et al. 2017, Minor Holman, M. J., & Wiegert, P. A. 1999, AJ, 117, 621 Planet Electronic Circulars, 2017-U181, Holsapple, K. A., & Michel, P. 2008, Icarus, 193, 283 Bannister, M. T., Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., et al. Jackson, A. P., Tamayo, D., Hammond, N., Ali-Dib, M., & 2017, arXiv:1711.06214 Rein, H. 2017, arXiv:1712.04435 Bierhaus, E. B., & Dones, L. 2015, Icarus, 246, 165 Jeffreys, H. 1947, MNRAS, 107, 260 Bolin, B. T., Weaver, H. A., Fernandez, Y. R., et al. 2017, Johansen, A., Oishi, J. S., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2007, arXiv:1711.04927 Nature, 448, 1022 Bonfils, X., Delfosse, X., Udry, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, Kaib, N. A., & Quinn, T. 2008, Icarus, 197, 221 A109 Kaltenegger, L., & Traub, W. A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 519 Buchhave, L. A., Latham, D. W., Johansen, A., et al. 2012, Kary, D. M., & Dones, L. 1996, Icarus, 121, 207 Nature, 486, 375 Knight, M. M., Protopapa, S., Kelley, M. S. P., et al. 2017, Burns, J. A., & Safronov, V. S. 1973, MNRAS, 165, 403 arXiv:1711.01402 Cheng, A. F. 2004, Advances in Space Research, 33, 1558 Laughlin, G., & Batygin, K. 2017, arXiv:1711.02260 Cuk,´ M., & Burns, J. A. 2004, Icarus, 167, 369 Mamajek, E. 2017, Research Notes of the American Drahus, M., Guzik, P., Waniak, W., et al. 2017, Astronomical Society, 1, 21 arXiv:1712.00437 Masiero, J. 2017, arXiv:1710.09977 Duchˆene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269 Meech, K. J., Weryk, R., Micheli, M., et al. 2017. Nature, Duncan, M., Quinn, T., & Tremaine, S. 1987, AJ, 94, 1330 doi:10.1038/nature25020. Duric, N. 2004. Advanced astrophysics (Cambridge Minton, D. A., & Malhotra, R. 2010, Icarus, 207, 744 University Press) Morbidelli, A., Bottke, W. F., Nesvorn´y, D., & Levison, Engelhardt, T., Jedicke, R., Vereˇs, P., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, H. F. 2009, Icarus, 204, 558 133 Nesvorn´y, D., & Vokrouhlick´y, D. 2016, ApJ, 825, 94 Fernandez, J. A., & Ip, W.-H. 1984, Icarus, 58, 109 O’Brien, D. P., & Greenberg, R. 2003, Icarus, 164, 334 Ford, E. B., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 621-636 Portegies Zwart, S., Pelupessy, I., Bedorf, J., Cai, M., & Fraser, W. C., Pravec, P., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2017, Torres, S. 2017, arXiv:1711.03558 arXiv:1711.11530 Pravec, P., Harris, A. W., & Michalowski, T. 2002, Fujiwara, A., Kawaguchi, J., Yeomans, D. K., et al. 2006, Asteroids III, 113 Science, 312, 1330 Quintana, E. V., Adams, F. C., Lissauer, J. J., & Gladman, B. J., Migliorini, F., Morbidelli, A., et al. 1997, Chambers, J. E. 2007, ApJ, 660, 807 Science, 277, 197 Raymond, S. N., Armitage, P. J., Veras, D., Quintana, Greenstreet, S., Gladman, B., & McKinnon, W. B. 2015, E. V., & Barclay, T. 2017, arXiv:1711.09599 Icarus, 258, 267 Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128 8 Cuk´ Rein, H., & Spiegel, D. S. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1424 Trilling, D. E., Robinson, T., Roegge, A., et al. 2017, ApJL, 850, L38 Robbins, S. J., Singer, K. N., Bray, V. J., et al. 2017, Walsh, K. J., & Richardson, D. C. 2006, Icarus, 180, 201 Icarus, 287, 187 Wyatt, M. C., Bonsor, A., Jackson, A. P., Marino, S., & Sharma, I., Burns, J. A., & Hui, C.-Y. 2005, MNRAS, 359, Shannon, A. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3385 79 Ye, Q.-Z., Zhang, Q., Kelley, M. S. P., & Brown, P. G. 2017, ApJL, 851, L5 Smullen, R. A., Kratter, K. M., & Shannon, A. 2016, Youdin, A. N., & Goodman, J. 2005, ApJ, 620, 459 MNRAS, 461, 1288 Zuluaga, J. I., Sanchez-Hernandez, O., Sucerquia, M., & Tremaine, S. 1993, Planets Around Pulsars, 36, 335 Ferrin, I. 2017, arXiv:1711.09397