http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08792
In the context of a recently proposed contact-binary model of the Kreutz system, all its members are products of the process of cascading fragmentation of the two lobes of the parent, Aristotle’s comet of 372 BC. This process presumably began with the lobes’ separation from each other near aphelion. However, not every object in a Kreutz-like orbit is a Kreutz sungrazer. Any surviving sungrazer that had split off from the progenitor before the lobes separated, as well as its surviving fragments born in any subsequent tidal or nontidal event, are by definition not members of the Kreutz system. Yet, as parts of the same progenitor, they belong — as do all Kreutz sungrazers — to a broader assemblage of related objects, which I refer to as a super-Kreutz system. After estimating the ratio of the number of super-Kreutz members to nonmembers among potential historical sungrazers, I generate representative extended pedigree charts for both the Kreutz system and super-Kreutz system. While the fragmentation paths and relationships among the individual sungrazers or potential sungrazers in the two charts are (with at most a few exceptions) arbitrary, the purpose of the exercise is to suggest that the Kreutz system proper could in effect represent an ultimate deagglomeration stage of the super-Kreutz system.
Z. Sekanina
Tue, 16 May 23
65/83
Comments: 15 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables