Talk:Kuiper belt dynamics

I'm sorry to say that this page requires a lot of work, still. It is not very clear. A lot of references are missing. It is not at the level of a review paper published in a journal or in a book.

I have edited it up to the section on detached objects (excluded). I have no time to continue. Even the edited part, though, would benefit from substantial rewriting.

Reviewer A: Reviewer A report

This is a generally well-written and concise review, presented by one of the leading experts on KBO dynamics and origins. Thus, apart from a few modifications needed (see below), the article can be accepted for publication. I have edited the article myself to include minor changes (such as typos, small corrections, etc..), as this was indicated by the author as "preferred mode" of review. My more substantial comments follow.

I have essentially only one major comment. Throughout the article (3rd paragraph of 1st section, section on Cold classical belt and section on Origins) the author mentions as "most accepted" scenarios for the origin of KBOs those that advocate that all KBOs did not form in situ but were transported from orbits with smaller semi-major axes to their currently observed locations, by various dynamical mechanisms.

While this may very well be true, and several recent works suggest so, I don't think it is really the most accepted scenario by the community. Even if it were true, I still think that a more balanced view is better suited for a review article. So, I strongly suggest to the author to mention also models (and their possible advantages or drawbacks) that assume KBOs to have formed locally. By the way, in the last section of the article, the last phrase ".. classical cold population, which possible has a local origin" really contradicts what is written in the previous sections and is the subject of my criticism here. It really makes the reader wonder "at the end, what does the author believe to be true?". Thus I suggest that the author modifies these sections accordingly.

The last section seems to be a bit out of place there. Although it is a good summary -- and it should probably serve as such -- it repeats many of the things explained by the author in previous sections, especially the introduction. I suggest to try reducing redundant text.

other minor comments:

Section 1: KB and SSD - a reference or an explanation of what is the invariable plane should be added in par 1 - subsection on secular resonance: I think that a definition or explanation of precession is needed.

 Also, a few lines below, the definition of secular resonance given is actually true only for 1st-order 
 (linear) secular resonances.   

- next paragraph after Kozai res: the first phrase needs some rewording. As it is written it seems that the orbital configuration of the KBOs mostly reflects the integractions with MMRs, Kozai etc. These are the "above mentioned" interactions. However, it is clear that the author means the opposite and probably refers to the mechanism described BEFORE the tutorial on resonances...

- Fig. 1, caption: after "... vertical lines". Please explain why MMRs have nearly vertical locii in (a,e) space

- The numbering of the figures is wrong -- they are all labeled as "Fig. 1"

Section on The Resonant Population: - When describing the resonant increase in eccentricity of captured plutinos, maybe it should be noted that this is due to a well-known phenomenon in classical mechanics (adiabatic invariance) that is also connected with the orbits of natural satellites, etc.

Scattered Disk: - a reference should be added in the last phrase (i.e. the SDOs being the main source of JFCs).