Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A dynamical dichotomy in large binary asteroids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Large binary asteroid systems split into two dynamical populations, and the orbit of (283) Emma's satellite reveals a low-density outer shell on its primary.

desk verdict New orbital solutions are the real product; the dichotomy's headline p-value is statistically impossible at n=7, and Emma's low-density crust is a shape-model-dependent hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13072 v1 pith:24IZQXUX submitted 2025-07-17 astro-ph.EP

K. Minker , B. Carry , F. Vachier , M. Marsset , J. Ďurech , J. Hanuš , L. Liberato , W. J. Merline
show 15 more authors
J. L. Margot C. Dumas L. M. Close A. Conrad W. M. Grundy R. Behrend R. Roy J. Berthier I. Sokova E. Sokov D. Gorshanov M. Ferrais E. Jehin A. Martin K. B. Alton
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords binaryasteroidsasteroidsatellitesadaptiveopticsorbitaldynamicsinternalstructurefamiliesquadrupoleJ2collisionalformation
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

This paper tries to show that the population of large binary asteroid systems is not a single class, and that two similar-looking systems, (762) Pulcova and (283) Emma, trace back to different impact histories. By re-reducing twenty years of adaptive-optics images and fitting the moons' orbits, the authors find that Emma's moon precesses measurably, giving a gravitational quadrupole $J_2 = 0.11 \pm 0.01$ that is significantly lower than the $J_2 \approx 0.14$ expected if the primary were uniform. They read this as evidence that Emma has a low-density, void-rich outer shell around a denser core, consistent with a catastrophic impact and re-accumulation, and they place its bulk density at $0.9 \pm 0.3\ \mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$. Pulcova's moon, by contrast, sits on a nearly circular, co-planar orbit that leaves the internal structure ambiguous, and the authors assign Pulcova to the 'typical' group of circular binaries. Across the wider sample of large binaries, satellite eccentricity correlates strongly with primary elongation in one group, and the authors argue that two distinct formation pathways, sub-catastrophic and catastrophic impacts, produced the observed dichotomy.

What carries the argument

The central comparison is between two estimates of the primary's gravity field: one computed from the shape model under the assumption of a homogeneous interior, via spherical-harmonic decomposition, and one measured from the satellite's orbit through the non-Keplerian signal. The key coefficient is $J_2$ (defined by $C_{20} = -J_2$ in the expansion of the gravitational potential), which measures the equatorial bulge of gravity; for a satellite in a moderately eccentric, nearly equatorial orbit, $J_2$ drives a nodal precession rate $\omega_P = -3 D_p^2 J_2 \omega \cos\Lambda \,/\, [8 (a (1-e^2))^2]$, so a measured precession directly yields $J_2$ once the semi-major axis, eccentricity, and inclination are known. The orbital fits are made with the genoid genetic algorithm, and the shape-derived multipoles are obtained by spherical-harmonic decomposition of the topographic shape model. The dichotomy diagnosis uses the axial ratio $b/a$ of the primary and the satellite eccentricity $e$ as the two population-defining observables, with the correlation between them separating the two groups.

What would settle it

A high-cadence stellar occultation of (283) Emma that constrains its oblateness well enough to show the shape-only $J_2$ is actually about 0.11, matching the orbit, would remove the need for the low-density shell.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that large binaries split into two dynamical populations, and that Emma and Pulcova sit in different ones. The load-bearing new result is Emma: with 56 satellite positions spanning ten years, a purely Keplerian orbit cannot fit the data, and the genoid orbital search detects nodal precession at the level $J_2 = 0.11 \pm 0.01$ for the adopted radius; an alternative shape model with a 133 km diameter gives $J_2 = 0.13$. Because the shape model of Emma, assuming a homogeneous interior, predicts $J_2 \approx 0.14$, the dynamical value is roughly one-fifth lower, and the authors interpret the shortfall as a non-homogeneous interior: a dense core surrounded by a low-density outer shell that is at least 30% void and may be up to 80% void. Pulcova's orbital solution, from 68 positions over twenty years, is nearly circular and co-planar, so $J_2$ is effectively unconstrained (values up to about 0.13 fit the data); the authors report a mass of $1.865 \pm 0.019 \times 10^{18}\ \mathrm{kg}$ and a density of $1.4 \pm 0.2\ \mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$. At the population level, the paper compiles about thirteen large binaries and finds a strong anticorrelation between primary elongation $b/a$ and satellite eccentricity ($r = -0.98$, $p = 10^{-5}$) among the eccentric group, while the circular group occupies a narrow elongation range; the eccentric systems tend to have large families and slower rotation, the circular ones small or absent families and fast rotation. These two clusters are interpreted as end states of catastrophic versus sub-catastrophic impacts.

Load-bearing premise

The Emma interior conclusion collapses if the adopted shape model misrepresents the primary's true oblateness, since the authors' own alternative shape model was orbit-incompatible and concavities or cratering could mimic a low-density crust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Emma's two-layer interior is real, eccentric-satellite binaries with large families are rubble-pile re-accumulations with porous outer shells, so their bulk densities substantially underestimate the density of the solid material.
  • The $b/a$–$e$ correlation offers a cheap diagnostic: for eccentric binaries, measuring either primary elongation or satellite eccentricity predicts the other and flags which formation pathway a newly found system follows.
  • Pulcova-type circular binaries will remain stubborn for interior studies: without a detectable precession signal, orbital fits cannot distinguish homogeneous from layered interiors, so shape models must be improved by occultation or disk-resolved data before $J_2$ can be trusted.
  • The dichotomy predicts that undiscovered large binaries should cluster into two sequences in shape–eccentricity space rather than filling the plane, and that eccentric systems should typically harbor large asteroid families.
  • Stellar occultations are the paper's designated next test: the authors publish predictions for Emma and Pulcova through 2029, arguing that these are essential to break the shape-model degeneracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the dichotomy is real, a cheap way to classify newly discovered large binaries is to measure satellite eccentricity alone, then predict both primary elongation and the presence of a large family from the two-sequence relation.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's proposed factor-of-five mass criterion for distinguishing 'smashed target' from 'escaping ejecta' families could be applied to the whole asteroid-family catalog; if the dichotomy holds, the two groups should separate cleanly under that classification.
  • Editorial inference: The tidal-equilibrium condition derived in the paper (roughly $\rho_p/\rho_s \approx 0.83$ for equal tidal quality factors) implies that the physical densities of primary and satellite differ systematically in eccentric systems, a prediction that future component-density measurements could check.
  • Editorial inference: The sample of thirteen systems is small, so the natural stress test is to add newly characterized large binaries; the dichotomy predicts that new members will fall near the existing two sequences rather than in the gap between them.
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. This paper combines re-reduced archival adaptive-optics astrometry, new lightcurve shape modeling, and genoid orbital fits to study the binary asteroid systems (762) Pulcova and (283) Emma, and then places them in a broader population of large binary asteroids. For Pulcova the satellite orbit is found to be nearly circular and co-planar, leaving the primary's J2 essentially unconstrained; for Emma the orbit is eccentric and yields a dynamical J2 = 0.11 +/- 0.01, which the authors compare with a homogeneous-shape J2 of about 0.14 to argue for a non-homogeneous internal structure with a low-density outer shell. The paper also claims an overall dichotomy in large binary asteroids, with one group showing a strong correlation between primary elongation and satellite eccentricity, and proposes two distinct formation pathways.

Significance. If the Emma inference is sustained, it would be an important new datum on internal structure of a carbonaceous main-belt asteroid, and the proposed population dichotomy would be a useful organizing hypothesis for future observations and simulations. The paper has concrete strengths: it makes the full astrometric and photometric measurements available in tables, shows residual plots for the orbital fits, documents the shape-model construction, provides occultation predictions, and explicitly discusses many limitations of the data. The Emma orbital fit has impressively low residuals, and the Pulcova analysis honestly lays out the degeneracy of the circular co-planar case. However, the two headline conclusions rest on statistical and shape-model supports that need strengthening before the claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.1 (Fig. 10)] The central dichotomy claim rests on the Pearson correlation of r = -0.98 (p = 10^-5) between satellite eccentricity and primary elongation b/a for the seven 'atypical' systems. With n = 7, no exact permutation test can produce a one-sided p-value smaller than 1/7! ≈ 1.98 × 10^-4, so the reported p = 10^-5 cannot be a valid significance statement; it must come from an asymptotic approximation that is inappropriate at this sample size. The test also uses the same eccentricity variable to select the group as appears on the y-axis, the b/a values are drawn from heterogeneous sources without propagated uncertainties, and no Spearman correlation, permutation p-value, or leave-one-out analysis is reported. I request an exact permutation test, a rank-based correlation, a sensitivity analysis to the group-selection criterion, and a discussion of how the selection affects the inferred relationship.
  2. [§4.2, §5, and Appendix A.2.1] Emma's non-homogeneous internal structure is a load-bearing conclusion, but the comparison between the dynamical J2 = 0.11 ± 0.01 and the shape-model J2 ≈ 0.14 is not robust to the shape and radius uncertainties documented in the paper itself. The authors state that their own new shape model has an oblateness incompatible with the orbit, that the adopted Viikinkoski et al. (2017) model is a poor fit to the AO images, and that concavities or cratering could mimic a low-density crust; the alternative radius gives J2 = 0.13, and the core/crust densities in Figure 7 are chosen in an inversion that reproduces the adopted J2. I request a systematic propagation of shape-model and radius uncertainty into the homogeneous-body J2, for example by considering all admissible shape models and occultation scalings, and a correspondingly conditional statement of the internal-structure result. As written, the abstract's claim of a 'significantly non-homogeneous internal structure' overstates what the current data can support.
  3. [§7.1–§7.5] The two-population dichotomy is presented as an established result, but the classification into 'typical' and 'atypical' systems is made using the same orbital eccentricity that is then correlated with shape, and the family-size distinction in §7.2 is not statistically quantified: the 'large family sequence' in Figure 11 is identified by eye with very few points after excluding Hektor. The two-pathway formation conclusion is a plausible hypothesis, but the paper should demonstrate that the dichotomy is not an artifact of the chosen eccentricity threshold and should quantify the separation of the family-size distributions. I encourage the authors to include the full sample in a robustness test or to explicitly describe the selection effects that determine which binaries have measured b/a and eccentricity values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The semi-major axis for Emma's satellite is quoted as 588.3 ± 0.0 km; please report a nonzero uncertainty or explain how this value and its rounding were obtained.
  2. [§4.2 and Conclusions] The main text uses several different radii for Emma (67 km, 71 km, and 74.5 km) without a single table stating which reference radius corresponds to the headline J2 = 0.11; please harmonize these values and the corresponding shape-model reference.
  3. [Fig. 10 and Fig. 11] The figures showing the shape-eccentricity and family-size relations would be much more informative with uncertainty bars on b/a and family-size estimates; currently the strength of the visual correlations appears larger than the data quality warrants.
  4. [Table C.2] Some entries in the astrometry table, such as ΔM = 100.0 or negative ΔM values, appear unphysical; please explain how these epochs are treated in the outlier rejection and whether they enter the orbital fits.
  5. [§7.1] The phrase 'Pearson Correlation Coefficient test of the linearity' is imprecise: the Pearson coefficient measures linear association but is not a test of linearity; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central J2 comparison and the dichotomy correlation are not circular, but the crust void fraction is a fitted output presented as a prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5 (Fig. 7) and Appendix A.2.2 (Fig. A.4)]
    "Reasonable models have core densities ranging from 1.2 and 4 g cm−3 for spherical cores ranging between 56 and 100 km in diameter (see Figure A.4). The corresponding crust densities are approximately 0.6 g cm3. ... Emma is likely to be void-dominated, particularly in the crustal layer, which we predict to be at least 30% void space, but may be up to 80% void."

    The two-layer internal structure model is solved by requiring the modeled J2 to match the observed orbital J2: Figure A.4 explicitly plots 'residuals between the observed and modeled J2 values' and selects solutions on that basis. Given the adopted total mass and radius, the crust density (and hence void fraction) is the free parameter that absorbs the J2 discrepancy. Calling the resulting 'at least 30% void space' a prediction presents a fitted output as an independent inference; it does not independently validate the non-homogeneous interpretation, but restates the J2 difference in density units. The main Emma J2 comparison itself is not circular, because the shape-model J2 is computed independently from the shape, and Eqs. (3)-(4) are only algebra relating the measured precession to J2.

full rationale

The central Emma result is a comparison of two independent determinations: the dynamical J2 = 0.11 ± 0.01 from the orbital fit and the shape-model J2 ≈ 0.14 computed with SHTOOLS. This comparison does not reduce to a fit: the orbital J2 is a fitted parameter, but it is compared with an independently computed shape-based value, and the paper's Eqs. (2)-(4) merely reparametrize the measured nodal precession into J2 for a given diameter. The dichotomy claim rests on a correlation between eccentricity and elongation in a small sample; selecting the 'atypical' group by eccentricity does not by construction force the correlation, although the reported p = 10^-5 for n = 7 is lower than the exact permutation minimum, which is a statistical robustness concern rather than a circularity. The one genuinely circular element is the internal-structure model: the crust density and void fraction are solved to match the observed J2, then reported as a 'prediction' of 30-80% void space. This is a fitted output, not an independent test, and it is secondary to the main J2-discrepancy result. The paper also candidly acknowledges shape-model ambiguities (concavities, cratering, poor AO fit, incompatible oblateness in its own new model), which weaken the non-homogeneous interpretation but do not constitute circular reasoning. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained and independent; the score reflects the one fitted-input-called-prediction step in the interior modeling.

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

The central claims rest on the accuracy of lightcurve-inversion shape models, the assumption that satellites are spherical, and the applicability of tidal evolution theory. The internal structure inference is an inversion of the fitted J2, so the number of free parameters is larger than the paper's prose suggests.

free parameters (5)
  • Emma core density = 1.2-4 g/cm3 range; 'reasonable' choice 1.5 g/cm3
    Chosen to match the observed J2 while keeping the crust density plausible; the paper presents a family of solutions, not a unique prediction.
  • Emma crust density = ≈0.6 g/cm3
    Derived from the core density choice and the requirement that total mass and J2 match; this is a fit, not a prediction.
  • Emma primary radius = 74.5 km (or 67 km alternative)
    Held fixed in the orbit fit; the dynamical J2 varies from 0.11 to 0.13 between the two values, so the internal structure conclusion is sensitive to this choice.
  • Pulcova spin pole orientation = λp, βp = 195, -56 ± 9, 5 deg
    Fitted as part of the orbital model; the shape model is very sensitive to small changes in the spin pole, and this uncertainty propagates into the shape-derived J2.
  • Hektor family scaling factor = 29
    Applied ad hoc to rescale Hektor's family size to Main Belt conditions so that Hektor falls on the 'large family' sequence.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lightcurve-inversion shape models accurately represent the primary's true shape
    Used throughout Sect. 3 and 5 to compute shape-derived J2; the paper acknowledges sensitivity to spin pole and concavities.
  • domain assumption Satellites can be modeled as spheres and their higher-order gravity neglected
    Sect. 3.3 states no disk-resolved data exist and assumes spherical secondaries.
  • domain assumption Gravitational field can be truncated at quadrupole order for these satellites
    Sect. 4 states terms above order two are negligible due to the large semi-major axis.
  • domain assumption The tidal equilibrium condition and Love number k = 1e-5 (R/km) apply
    Sect. 7.3 uses Goldreich (1963) and Goldreich & Sari (2009) to derive the stable eccentricity condition, which underpins the proposed dichotomy.
  • domain assumption The Walsh et al. (2025) SPH/N-body simulations are representative of binary-forming impacts
    Sect. 7.4 uses these simulations to connect elongation, rotation, and satellite material, but the simulations end at 38h and do not form satellites.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A dynamical dichotomy in large binary asteroids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24IZQXUX

@misc{pith2026250713072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A dynamical dichotomy in large binary asteroids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24IZQXUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13072}
}
read the original abstract

No less than 15% of large (diameter greater than 140 km) asteroids have satellites. The commonly accepted mechanism for their formation is post-impact reaccumulation. However, the detailed physical and dynamical properties of these systems are not well understood, and many of them have not been studied in detail. We aim to study the population of large binary asteroid systems. To do so, we compare the gravitational fields predicted from the shape of the primary body with the non-Keplerian gravitational components identified in orbital models of the satellites of each system. We also aim to contextualize these systems in the greater population of large binary systems, providing clues to asteroid satellite formation. We reduce all historical high-angular-resolution adaptive-optics (AO) images from ground-based telescopes to conduct astrometric and photometric measurements of each system's components. We then determine orbital solutions for each system using the genoid algorithm. We model the shapes of the system primaries using lightcurve-inversion techniques scaled with stellar occultations and AO images, and we develop internal structure models using SHTOOLS. Finally, we compare the distribution of the physical and orbital properties of the known binary asteroid systems. We find that differences between studies binary systems reflect an overall dichotomy within the population of large binary systems, with a strong correlation between primary elongation and satellite eccentricity observed in one group. We determine that there may be two distinct formation pathways influencing the end-state dichotomy in these binary systems, and that (762) Pulcova and (283) Emma belong to the two separate groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. First (left) and most recent (right) images of (762) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Residuals of spin pole solutions from lightcurve in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Expected gravitational force due to system grav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residuals of Pulcamoon’s orbital solution in the x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Residuals of Emmoon’s orbital solution in the x and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Range of bulk density distribution for Pulcova. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Range of bulk density distribution for Emma, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Primary-satellite diameter ratio (Ds/Dp) vs. system equivalent diameter for known large (Dp > 100 km) bina￾ries and higher-multiplicity systems. In the case where the system hosts more than one satellite, we consider here the outermost satellite. Double asteroids Antio…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Eccentricity of the (outer) satellite of each binary or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Rotation period vs. satellite eccentricity for large [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Simulation results from Walsh et al. (2025), pre￾sented as number of stable satellites vs. b/a. Potential analogs of the "typical" population are marked as dia￾monds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Semi-major axis vs. eccentricity for both popula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unmasking (44) Nysa: Evidence for a trilobate structure

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    AO imaging and a shape model indicate (44) Nysa's primary is a contact-trinary or highly irregular body with two colli, orbited by a ~1-km satellite.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  5. [5]

    Alton , K. B. 2011, Minor Planet Bulletin, 38, 8

    2011

  6. [6]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, apj, 935, 167

    2022

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  8. [8]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    2006, , 446, 1177

    Behrend, R., Bernasconi, L., Roy, R., et al. 2006, , 446, 1177

    2006

  2. [10]

    2023, , 671, A151

    Berthier , J., Carry , B., Mahlke , M., & Normand , J. 2023, , 671, A151

    2023

  3. [11]

    2009, in European Planetary Science Congress 2009, 676

    Berthier, J., Hestroffer, D., Carry, B., et al. 2009, in European Planetary Science Congress 2009, 676

    2009

  4. [12]

    2014, , 239, 118

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Marchis, F., D urech, J., & Carry, B. 2014, , 239, 118

    2014

  5. [13]

    T., Yeomans, D

    Britt, D. T., Yeomans, D. K., Housen, K. R., & Consolmagno, G. J. 2002, Asteroids III, 485

    2002

  6. [14]

    2022, , 664, A69

    Bro z , M., Ferrais , M., Vernazza , P., S eve c ek , P., & Jutzi , M. 2022, , 664, A69

    2022

  7. [15]

    2021, , 653, A56

    Bro z , M., Marchis , F., Jorda , L., et al. 2021, , 653, A56

    2021

  8. [16]

    F., et al

    Bro z , M., Morbidelli , A., Bottke , W. F., et al. 2013, , 551, A117

    2013

  9. [17]

    2012, , 73, 98

    Carry, B. 2012, , 73, 98

    2012

  10. [18]

    2008, , 478, 235

    Carry, B., Dumas, C., Fulchignoni, M., et al. 2008, , 478, 235

    2008

  11. [19]

    2010, , 205, 460

    Carry, B., Dumas, C., Kaasalainen, M., et al. 2010, , 205, 460

    2010

  12. [20]

    2019, , 623, A132

    Carry , B., Vachier , F., Berthier , J., et al. 2019, , 623, A132

    2019

  13. [21]

    2021, , 650, A129

    Carry , B., Vernazza , P., Vachier , F., et al. 2021, , 650, A129

    2021

  14. [22]

    R., Veverka, J., Thomas, P

    Chapman, C. R., Veverka, J., Thomas, P. C., et al. 1995, , 374, 783

    1995

  15. [23]

    2019, , 624, A69

    Delbo , M., Avdellidou , C., & Morbidelli , A. 2019, , 624, A69

    2019

  16. [24]

    2017, Science , 357, 1026

    Delbo, M., Walsh, K., Bolin, B., Avdellidou, C., & Morbidelli, A. 2017, Science , 357, 1026

    2017

  17. [25]

    F., Christou , A

    Dermott , S. F., Christou , A. A., Li , D., Kehoe , T. J. J., & Robinson , J. M. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 549

    2018

  18. [26]

    Dobrovolskis, A. R. 1996, , 124, 698

    1996

  19. [27]

    D., Bottke , W

    Durda , D. D., Bottke , W. F., Enke , B. L., et al. 2004, , 170, 243

    2004

  20. [28]

    2015, Asteroid Models from Multiple Data Sources (Univ

    D urech, J., Carry, B., Delbo, M., Kaasalainen, M., & Viikinkoski, M. 2015, Asteroid Models from Multiple Data Sources (Univ. Arizona Press), 183--202

    2015

  21. [29]

    2011, , 214, 652

    D urech, J., Kaasalainen, M., Herald, D., et al. 2011, , 214, 652

    2011

  22. [30]

    2010, , 513, A46

    D urech, J., Sidorin, V., & Kaasalainen, M. 2010, , 513, A46

    2010

  23. [31]

    J., Molnar , L., Van Kooten , S

    Dykhuis , M. J., Molnar , L., Van Kooten , S. J., & Greenberg , R. 2014, , 243, 111

    2014

  24. [32]

    & Margot , J.-L

    Fang , J. & Margot , J.-L. 2012, , 143, 24

    2012

  25. [33]

    2012, , 144, 70

    Fang , J., Margot , J.-L., & Rojo , P. 2012, , 144, 70

    2012

  26. [34]

    2022, , 662, A71

    Ferrais , M., Jorda , L., Vernazza , P., et al. 2022, , 662, A71

    2022

  27. [35]

    2023, , 677, A189

    Fuksa , M., Bro z , M., Hanu s , J., et al. 2023, , 677, A189

    2023

  28. [36]

    1963, , 126, 257

    Goldreich , P. 1963, , 126, 257

    1963

  29. [37]

    & Sari , R

    Goldreich , P. & Sari , R. 2009, , 691, 54

    2009

  30. [38]

    & Soter , S

    Goldreich , P. & Soter , S. 1966, , 5, 375

    1966

  31. [39]

    R., Morgado, B

    Gomes-Júnior, A. R., Morgado, B. E., Benedetti-Rossi, G., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 1167

    2022

  32. [40]

    E., Northcott , M

    Graves , J. E., Northcott , M. J., Roddier , F. J., Roddier , C. A., & Close , L. M. 1998, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 3353, Adaptive Optical System Technologies, ed. D. Bonaccini & R. K. Tyson , 34--43

    1998

  33. [41]

    Gwyn , S. D. J., Hill , N., & Kavelaars , J. J. 2012, , 124, 579

    2012

  34. [42]

    Hartmann , W. K. & Davis , D. R. 1975, , 24, 504

    1975

  35. [43]

    Herald , D., Gault , D., Carlson , N., et al. 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    J., & Bodewits , D

    Hirabayashi , M., Trowbridge , A. J., & Bodewits , D. 2020, , 891, L12

    2020

  37. [45]

    W., Jensen, J

    Hodapp, K. W., Jensen, J. B., Irwin, E. M., et al. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 1388

    2003

  38. [46]

    2021, Introduction aux \' e ph\' e m\' e rides et ph\' e nom\` e nes astronomiques , ed

    IMCCE. 2021, Introduction aux \' e ph\' e m\' e rides et ph\' e nom\` e nes astronomiques , ed. J. Berthier , P. Descamps , & F. Mignard (edp sciences)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Jacobson , S. A. & Scheeres , D. J. 2011, , 736, L19

    2011

  40. [48]

    2011, The Messenger, 145, 2

    Jehin , E., Gillon , M., Queloz , D., et al. 2011, The Messenger, 145, 2

    2011

  41. [49]

    2016, , 277, 257

    Jorda , L., Gaskell , R., Capanna , C., et al. 2016, , 277, 257

    2016

  42. [50]

    2011, Inverse Problems and Imaging, 5, 37

    Kaasalainen, M. 2011, Inverse Problems and Imaging, 5, 37

    2011

  43. [51]

    & Torppa, J

    Kaasalainen, M. & Torppa, J. 2001, , 153, 24

    2001

  44. [52]

    2001, , 153, 37

    Kaasalainen, M., Torppa, J., & Muinonen, K. 2001, , 153, 37

    2001

  45. [53]

    2003, SPIE, 4841, 944

    Lenzen, R., Hartung, M., Brandner, W., et al. 2003, SPIE, 4841, 944

    2003

  46. [54]

    2008 a , , 196, 97

    Marchis , F., Descamps , P., Baek , M., et al. 2008 a , , 196, 97

    2008

  47. [55]

    2008 b , , 195, 295

    Marchis , F., Descamps , P., Berthier , J., et al. 2008 b , , 195, 295

    2008

  48. [56]

    E., Emery, J

    Marchis, F., Enriquez, J. E., Emery, J. P., et al. 2012, , 221, 1130

    2012

  49. [57]

    2021, , 653, A57

    Marchis , F., Jorda , L., Vernazza , P., et al. 2021, , 653, A57

    2021

  50. [58]

    2015, Asteroid Systems: Binaries, Triples, and Pairs , ed

    Margot, J.-L., Pravec, P., Taylor, P., Carry, B., & Jacobson, S. 2015, Asteroid Systems: Binaries, Triples, and Pairs , ed. P. Michel, F. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke (Univ. Arizona Press), 355--374

    2015

  51. [59]

    2022, , 164, 167

    Marschall , R., Nesvorn \'y , D., Deienno , R., et al. 2022, , 164, 167

    2022

  52. [60]

    2016 a , , 9282, 1

    Marsset , M., Carry , B., Yang , B., et al. 2016 a , , 9282, 1

    2016

  53. [61]

    2016 b , , 586, A15

    Marsset , M., Vernazza , P., Birlan , M., et al. 2016 b , , 586, A15

    2016

  54. [62]

    R., Mainzer , A

    Masiero , J. R., Mainzer , A. K., Bauer , J. M., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 162

    2021

  55. [63]

    J., Close , L

    Merline , W. J., Close , L. M., Dumas , C., et al. 2000, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 32, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts \#32, 13.06

    2000

  56. [64]

    J., Dumas , C., Siegler , N., et al

    Merline , W. J., Dumas , C., Siegler , N., et al. 2003, , 8165, 1

    2003

  57. [65]

    J., Weidenschilling , S

    Merline , W. J., Weidenschilling , S. J., Durda , D. D., et al. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. J. Bottke , W. F., A. Cellino , P. Paolicchi , & R. P. Binzel , 289--312

    2002

  58. [66]

    C., et al

    Michel , P., Jutzi , M., Richardson , D. C., et al. 2015, , 107, 24

    2015

  59. [67]

    2014, , 239, 46

    Milani, A., Cellino, A., Kne z evi \'c , Z., et al. 2014, , 239, 46

    2014

  60. [68]

    2019, , 622, A47

    Milani , A., Kne z evi \'c , Z., Spoto , F., & Paolicchi , P. 2019, , 622, A47

    2019

  61. [69]

    Moth \'e -Diniz , T., Roig , F., & Carvano , J. M. 2005, , 174, 54

    2005

  62. [70]

    2015, Nesvorny HCM Asteroid Families V3.0 , NASA Planetary Data System, id

    Nesvorny , D. 2015, Nesvorny HCM Asteroid Families V3.0 , NASA Planetary Data System, id. EAR-A-VARGBDET-5-NESVORNYFAM-V3.0

    2015

  63. [71]

    F., & Levison, H

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke, W. F., & Levison, H. F. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 878

    2018

  64. [72]

    F., Levison , H

    Nesvorn \'y , D., Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Bottke , W. F., Levison , H. F., & Grundy , W. M. 2020, , 893, L16

    2020

  65. [73]

    2018, , 309, 134

    Pajuelo, M., Carry, B., Vachier, F., et al. 2018, , 309, 134

    2018

  66. [74]

    S., Folkner, W

    Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., & Boggs, D. H. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 105

    2021

  67. [75]

    2021, , 501, 356

    Pavela , D., Novakovi \'c , B., Carruba , V., & Radovi \'c , V. 2021, , 501, 356

    2021

  68. [76]

    & Brown , M

    Ragozzine , D. & Brown , M. E. 2007, , 134, 2160

    2007

  69. [77]

    S., Chabot , N

    Rivkin , A. S., Chabot , N. L., Stickle , A. M., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 173

    2021

  70. [78]

    2003, SPIE, 4839, 140

    Rousset, G., Lacombe, F., Puget, P., et al. 2003, SPIE, 4839, 140

    2003

  71. [79]

    Ro \.z ek , A., Breiter , S., & Jopek , T. J. 2011, , 412, 987

    2011

  72. [80]

    J., Britt, D., Carry, B., & Holsapple, K

    Scheeres, D. J., Britt, D., Carry, B., & Holsapple, K. A. 2015, Asteroid Interiors and Morphology , ed. P. Michel, F. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke (Univ. Arizona Press), 745--766

    2015

  73. [81]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  74. [82]

    C., Armstrong , J

    Thomas , P. C., Armstrong , J. W., Asmar , S. W., et al. 2007, , 448, 50

    2007

  75. [83]

    C., Belton , M

    Thomas , P. C., Belton , M. J. S., Carcich , B., et al. 1996, , 120, 20

    1996

  76. [84]

    2019, , 482, 2612

    Tsirvoulis , G. 2019, , 482, 2612

    2019

  77. [85]

    2012, , 543, A68

    Vachier, F., Berthier, J., & Marchis, F. 2012, , 543, A68

    2012

  78. [86]

    2022, , 382, 115013

    Vachier , F., Carry , B., & Berthier , J. 2022, , 382, 115013

    2022

  79. [87]

    A., Le Mignant, D., & Macintosh, B

    van Dam, M. A., Le Mignant, D., & Macintosh, B. 2004, Applied Optics, 43, 5458

    2004

  80. [88]

    Vereshchagina , I. A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1102.0152

    2011 arXiv

  81. [89]

    2021, , 654, A56

    Vernazza , P., Ferrais , M., Jorda , L., et al. 2021, , 654, A56

    2021

  82. [90]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 136

    Vernazza , P., Jorda , L., S eve c ek , P., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 136

    2020

  83. [91]

    2017, , 607, A117

    Viikinkoski, M., Hanu s , J., Kaasalainen, M., Marchis, F., & D urech, J. 2017, , 607, A117

    2017

  84. [92]

    2015, , 576, A8

    Viikinkoski, M., Kaasalainen, M., & Durech, J. 2015, , 576, A8

    2015

  85. [93]

    Vinogradova , T. A. 2019, , 484, 3755

    2019

  86. [94]

    F., & Morbidelli , A

    Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., Bottke , W. F., & Morbidelli , A. 2010 a , , 139, 2148

    2010

  87. [95]

    F., & Morbidelli , A

    Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Nesvorn \'y , D., Bottke , W. F., & Morbidelli , A. 2010 b , , 139, 2148

    2010

  88. [96]

    2021, , 649, A115

    Vokrouhlick \'y , D., Novakovi \'c , B., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2021, , 649, A115

    2021

  89. [97]

    J., Ballouz , R.-L., Agrusa , H

    Walsh , K. J., Ballouz , R.-L., Agrusa , H. F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.03325

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Walsh, K. J. & Jacobson, S. A. 2015, Formation and Evolution of Binary Asteroids , ed. P. Michel, F. DeMeo, & W. F. Bottke, 375--393

    2015

  91. [99]

    D., Stephens , R

    Warner , B. D., Stephens , R. D., & Harris , A. W. 2011, Minor Planet Bulletin, 38, 172

    2011

  92. [100]

    Wieczorek , M. A. & Meschede , M. 2018, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 19, 2574

    2018

  93. [101]

    2020 a , , 643, A38

    Yang , B., Hanu s , J., Bro z , M., et al. 2020 a , , 643, A38

    2020

  94. [102]

    2020 b , , 641, A80

    Yang , B., Hanu s , J., Carry , B., et al. 2020 b , , 641, A80

    2020

  95. [103]

    2016, , 820, L35

    Yang , B., Wahhaj , Z., Beauvalet , L., et al. 2016, , 820, L35

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.