Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Stellar occultation observations of (38628) Huya and its satellite: a detailed look into the system

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper uses three stellar occultations of the trans-Neptunian binary (38628) Huya, plus the first orbit of its satellite, to derive a system density of $1073 \pm 66\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$ and show this is incompatible with the Maclaurin…

desk verdict New occultation data and the first satellite orbit for Huya are solid contributions, but the Maclaurin exclusion claim collapses once the paper's own limb-fit chi2 is taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09739 v1 pith:TNMBYNAG submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.EP

F. L. Rommel , E. Fernández-Valenzuela , B. C. N. Proudfoot , J. L. Ortiz , B. E. Morgado , B. Sicardy , N. Morales , F. Braga-Ribas
show 73 more authors
J. Desmars R. Vieira-Martins B. J. Holler Y. Kilic W. Grundy J. L. Rizos J. I. B. Camargo G. Benedetti-Rossi A. Gomes-Júnior M. Assafin P. Santos-Sanz M. Kretlow M. Vara-Lubiano R. Leiva D. A. Ragozzine R. Duffard H. Kučáková K. Hornoch V. Nikitin T. Santana-Ros O. Canales-Moreno D. Lafuente-Aznar S. Calavia-Belloc C. Perelló A. Selva F. Organero L. A. Hernandez I. de la Cueva M. Yuste-Moreno E. García-Navarro J. E. Donate-Lucas L. Izquierdo-Carrión R. Iglesias-Marzoa E. Lacruz R. Gonçalves B. Staels R. Goossens A. Henden G. Walker J. A. Reyes S. Pastor S. Kaspi M. Skrutskie A. J. Verbiscer P. Martinez P. André J. L. Maestre F. J. Aceituno P. Bacci M. Maestripieri M. D. Grazia A. J. Castro-Tirado I. Pérez-Garcia E. J. Fernández García E. Fernández S. Messner G. Scarfi H. Mikuž J. Prat P. Martorell D. Nardiello V. Nascimbeni R. Sfair P. B. Siqueira V. Lattari L. Liberato T. F. L. L. Pinheiro T. de Santana C. L. Pereira M. A. Alava-Amat F. Ciabattari H. González-Rodriguez C. Schnabel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords stellaroccultationstrans-Neptunianbinaries(38628)HuyasatelliteorbitMaclaurinequilibriumsystemdensitymutualeventshydrostatic
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 sets out to measure the physical nature of the trans-Neptunian binary (38628) Huya by watching it pass in front of three stars. From the 2023 multi-chord occultation, combined with the 2019 profile, it obtains Huya's volume; from the first fitted orbit of its satellite, it obtains the system mass. Dividing the two gives a system density of $\rho_1 = 1073 \pm 66\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$. The paper then compares this with the density $\rho_2 = 768 \pm 42\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$ that a Maclaurin spheroid would need at Huya's $6.725$ hour rotation period and $60^\circ$ aspect angle. The gap between the two numbers is the paper's central result: Huya's main body is not in hydrostatic equilibrium, a finding that matters because Huya sits near the size where such equilibrium is usually expected to begin among small outer-solar-system bodies.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two measurements and one assumption. The measurements are (1) multi-chord stellar occultation limb fitting, which turns the timing of star disappearances and reappearances at many ground stations into an ellipse on the sky plane, and (2) satellite relative astrometry over 20 years, fitted with a Markov-chain orbit solution to give the system mass and orbit orientation. The assumption is that the satellite orbits in Huya's equatorial plane, which converts the satellite orbit's opening angle into Huya's polar aspect angle $\theta = 60^\circ$ and fixes the limb position angle used in the restricted fit. The comparison density comes from the Maclaurin spheroid formula, which gives the unique density at which a rotating fluid body of a given period and aspect angle is an oblate equilibrium figure.

What would settle it

If continued astrometry of the satellite shows its orbital pole is measurably tilted from the assumed spin pole, or if the predicted mutual eclipses starting around 2033 arrive at clearly different times or depths, then the equatorial-orbit assumption breaks and the derived volume, aspect angle, and both density values change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Huya system's measured density is incompatible with the Maclaurin equilibrium shape that its rotation would imply. Using the 2023 occultation limb constrained by the satellite orbit's position angle ($PA = 53.7^\circ \pm 2.2^\circ$) and the 2019 profile for the true axes, the authors obtain an oblate primary with axes $a=b=218.05\pm0.11$ km and $c=187.5\pm2.4$ km. Adding a spherical satellite with diameter between 165 and 243 km to this volume and dividing the system mass $M_{\mathrm{sys}} = (45.2\pm1.6)\times10^{18}$ kg gives $\rho_1 = 1073\pm66\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$. The Maclaurin equilibrium density computed from the published rotation period and the assumed aspect angle $\theta = 60^\circ \pm 3.5^\circ$ is $\rho_2 = 768\pm42\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$. Since the satellite would need a density of about $3500\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$ to reconcile the two values under a shared shape, the paper concludes that Huya is better described as an oblate body of density $1073\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$ that has not relaxed to a Maclaurin figure. The same astrometric data set yields the satellite's first orbit: semimajor axis $1898\pm22$ km, period $3.46293$ days, eccentricity $0.036$, and a system mass of $45.2\times10^{18}$ kg. The Keplerian fit is statistically poor, and a non-Keplerian fit with similar mass and period improves it, suggesting the tight orbit is precessing.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the satellite moving in Huya's equatorial plane, an assumption that is not directly tested and that controls both the viewing angle used to build Huya's volume and the limb fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the main body is not a Maclaurin spheroid, Huya's volume and the satellite orbit imply a shared system density near $1073\ \mathrm{kg\,m^{-3}}$, placing Huya between the low-density small binaries and the high-density large TNOs.
  • The satellite's orbit, with a $3.46$ day period and semimajor axis $1898\pm22$ km, makes Huya one of the tightest known trans-Neptunian binaries and implies measurable orbital precession on roughly one-to-five year timescales.
  • If the orbit geometry is correct, mutual eclipse events begin around 2033 and peak near 2039, with about five-hour, $0.25$ magnitude eclipses observable with modest telescopes.
  • The 2023 single-chord satellite detection sets a lower limit of $D=165$ km on the satellite diameter, which together with the system's absolute magnitude gives an upper-limit geometric albedo of $0.15$.
  • The occultation data place no detection of ring-like structures around Huya above the $3\sigma$ level out to about $9000$ km from the body, with only a Haumea-like ring being detectable if present.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equatorial-orbit assumption is relaxed, the aspect angle and the restricted limb fit change, so the density gap could shrink; measuring the satellite's orbital pole independently is the decisive next observation.
  • Huya's apparent failure to relax into hydrostatic equilibrium near the $450$ km boundary suggests the transition to equilibrium shapes among cold, porous TNOs may sit at larger sizes than often assumed, a claim worth testing on similar-sized binaries.
  • The predicted mutual event season is a natural experiment: timing and depth of the eclipses will test the assumed spin-orbit alignment before 2033 and can refine the system's internal density distribution.
  • The poor Keplerian fit implies the satellite's orbit is precessing, so future astrometry should be modeled with a precessing orbit; if confirmed, Huya becomes a rare probe of the primary's $J_2$ and interior structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 reports three stellar occultation campaigns on the (38628) Huya binary system, including a multi-chord event in June 2023, single-chord detections of the satellite in 2021, 2023, and 2023, and a reanalysis of the 2019 occultation. Combining the occultation chords with HST and Keck astrometry, the authors derive the first satellite orbit, a system mass of (45.2±1.6)×10^18 kg, and a semi-major axis of 1898±22 km. They then compute a system density ρ1 = 1073±66 kg m^-3 from the occultation-derived volume and the satellite orbit mass, compare it with a Maclaurin equilibrium density ρ2 = 768±42 kg m^-3 computed from the 6.725 h rotation period, and conclude that the Maclaurin equilibrium assumption is ruled out for Huya's main body shape. The paper also places upper limits on a putative ring system and predicts a mutual event season beginning around 2033.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable contribution to TNO binary science: it provides the first mutual orbit for the Huya system, a system mass with few-percent precision, an occultation-based volume that improves on the 2019 single-event determination, and a concrete, falsifiable prediction of a mutual event season for a tight TNO binary. The paper also places useful ring limits and demonstrates the power of combining occultation chords with AO and HST astrometry. The data products, including HST archival images with a DOI and the use of public tools (SORA, MultiMoon), are strengths that support reproducibility. However, the central statistical inference—the exclusion of the Maclaurin shape—rests on a limb fit with χ2_pdf = 210.9 whose quoted sub-kilometer uncertainties are used as if they were random errors, and on a Keplerian orbit fit that is formally rejected by the data. These issues must be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 3, Appendix B, Appendix C] The volume used for ρ1 is built on the 2019 Restrict limb solution (a' = 218.05±0.11 km, b' = 195.59±0.24 km, Req = 206.5±0.16 km), which has χ2_pdf = 210.9. The text itself attributes this large χ2 to uncorrected time offsets or topography. Under either attribution, the quoted 0.11-km uncertainty is not a valid 1σ random error for the limb parameter. A standard treatment inflates the formal errors by at least sqrt(χ2_pdf) ≈ 14.5, giving a' uncertainty ~1.6 km and a polar-axis uncertainty of tens of km. Propagating this into Eq. (C5) and ρ1 = M/V increases the volume-driven uncertainty of ρ1 to roughly 150–200 kg m^-3, reducing the significance of the difference from ρ2 = 768±42 kg m^-3 to about 1.5–2σ. The conclusion in Section 4 that the Maclaurin equilibrium is 'ruled out' therefore does not follow from the data as analyzed. The authors should either re-fit with a model that accounts for the outliers and/or topography, or rescale the uncertainties and re-derive the density comparison and the corresponding language in the abstract and Section 4.
  2. [Section 3.3, Table 6, Appendix D] The Keplerian orbit fit has χ2_pdf ≈ 4 with p ≈ 5×10^-5, so the quoted system mass Msys = (45.2±1.6)×10^18 kg and semi-major axis are formally rejected by the astrometric data. The non-Keplerian fit improves to χ2_pdf ≈ 3 but is stated to be 'not fully converged' with p ≈ 0.02. The system mass enters ρ1 linearly, so even a modest shift in Msys from a correctly converged precessing-orbit model, or from a reweighting of the astrometric errors, propagates directly into the density. The paper states that the non-Keplerian fit has 'similar' mass, semi-major axis, and period, but gives no quantitative comparison or convergence diagnostics beyond trace plots. Please provide the posterior values from the non-Keplerian fit, assess its convergence, and include any systematic mass uncertainty in the ρ1 error budget.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Appendix C (Eq. C1)] The assumption that the satellite orbits in Huya's equatorial plane is load-bearing: it sets the aspect angle θ = 60°±3.5° used in Eq. (C1) to derive the true oblateness ϵ = 0.14 and the polar semi-axis c = 187.5±2.4 km, and it sets the PA = 53.7°±2.2° constraint for the 2023 Restrict limb fit. If the mutual orbit pole is not aligned with Huya's spin pole, the derived volume, ρ1, ρ2, and the Maclaurin comparison all shift. The paper cites no independent test of coplanarity (e.g., a spin-pole estimate from light curves that does not assume the satellite orbit, or a comparison of the orbit pole with an independently determined shape pole). Please provide such a test or explicitly quantify how the Maclaurin exclusion degrades for plausible spin-orbit misalignments of the order of the current pole uncertainty (~2°).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section C] The abstract says the system density is obtained by summing 'the most precise measurement of Huya's volume to the spherical satellite average volume', but Section C defines only a minimum (D = 165 km) and maximum (D = 243 km) satellite diameter and does not state what average was used to obtain ρ1 = 1073±66 kg m^-3. Please specify the adopted mean satellite radius and how the ±66 kg m^-3 uncertainty is derived from the min/max range and the primary volume uncertainty.
  2. [Table 4] The satellite astrometric solutions are labeled 'Southern' and 'Northern' without a definition in the table or text; clarify that these are the two degenerate center solutions from the single-chord fits and how the two solutions are averaged in Table 5.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption says 'Dotted and dashed circles show the solutions for the satellite detections', but panels (a) and (c) each contain two solutions; adding a legend or explicit labels for the southern/northern solutions would improve readability.
  4. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'The 2023 Restrict solution was used to obtain Huya's limb from the single detection acquired in 2021' is unclear, because a single chord cannot by itself constrain an ellipse; explain how the 2023 restrict parameters are transferred or combined with the 2021 chord to obtain the astrometric position reported in Table 4.
  5. [Appendix A] There are several typographical and formatting issues in Table 7 and Table 8, including 'Unites States', an entry with exposure time '1.183' without a cycle time for La Palma, and the use of '**' whose meaning is defined only in the caption of Table 8; please proofread the tables for internal consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the density comparison combines independently derived mass, volume, and rotation-period inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a comparison between the system density rho1 = M/V and the Maclaurin equilibrium density rho2 derived from the rotation period and aspect angle. These two densities come from independent data sets: the mass from a satellite orbit fit that includes HST/Keck and occultation astrometry, the volume from occultation limb fits, and the rotation period from the published light curve. The satellite orbit also supplies the position-angle constraint for the restricted limb fits and the aspect angle theta used in both the volume reconstruction (Eq. C1) and Eq. (1); that shared assumption is a physical hypothesis (equatorial satellite orbit), explicitly disclosed in the abstract and Section 3.1, not an equation that reduces one result to another. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the Maclaurin density formula is an external equilibrium relation, not derived from the measured density. The self-citations to MultiMoon and the TNB precession formula are methodological and non-load-bearing for the main density comparison. The large chi2_pdf of the 2019 Restrict limb fit is a statistical/data-consistency concern that affects uncertainty propagation, but it is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger captures the main assumptions: the equatorial orbit assumption is the most important, followed by equal-density and spherical-satellite assumptions for interpreting ρ1, the use of a statistically poor Keplerian orbit for the mass, and a 2019 limb solution with very high χ2 used for the volume. No new entities are invented. The two free parameters listed are the satellite diameter range and the assumed rotational period uncertainty; both shift the density values within the quoted errors.

free parameters (2)
  • Satellite spherical diameter for volume = 165 to 243 km
    The density ρ1 uses the satellite volume from a spherical body with D from the occultation lower limit to the thermal upper limit; assuming a sphere and using this range sets part of the density uncertainty.
  • Rotational period uncertainty = 0.01 h (assumed)
    The published 6.725 h period has no uncertainty, so the authors assumed ±0.01 h for ρ2; this is arbitrary and affects the Maclaurin density error.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The satellite orbits in Huya's equatorial plane, so the orbit pole gives the body's spin pole and aspect angle.
    Used to set θ = 60° ± 3.5° in Eq. C1 and to constrain the limb position angle; Sections 3.1 and 3.3, Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Keplerian two-body motion is sufficient to derive the system mass.
    The main MCMC orbit fit assumes no precession; the fit is poor (χ2_pdf ≈ 4), and the non-Keplerian test is not fully converged, so the mass carries model uncertainty. Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Huya's body is an oblate spheroid with equatorial axes equal to the 2019 fitted a'.
    The volume uses a = b = 218.05 km and c from Eq. C3; a triaxial shape or 2019 fit error would change the volume. Table 3, Appendix C.
  • domain assumption The satellite is spherical for volume and center fitting.
    Single-chord detections cannot constrain shape; a circular limb with the thermal radius is assumed for astrometry, and a sphere is used for volume. Section 3.2.
  • standard math Maclaurin spheroid equilibrium formula correctly maps P and θ to density.
    Standard fluid equilibrium result invoked for ρ2, Eq. (1), following Chandrasekhar (1969).
  • domain assumption Primary and satellite have the same density when interpreting the system density as the primary density.
    ρ1 = M_system / V_total is an average; the claim that Huya alone has density 1073 kg/m3 assumes equal component densities, stated in Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar occultation observations of (38628) Huya and its satellite: a detailed look into the system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNMBYNAG

@misc{pith2026250109739,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar occultation observations of (38628) Huya and its satellite: a detailed look into the system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNMBYNAG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09739}
}
abstract

The physical and orbital parameters of Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs) provide valuable information about the Solar System's formation and evolution. In particular, the characterization of binaries provides insights into the formation mechanisms that may be playing a role at such large distances from the Sun. Studies show two distinct populations, and (38628) Huya occupies an intermediate position between the unequal-size binaries and those with components of roughly equal sizes. In this work, we predicted and observed three stellar occultation events by Huya. Huya and its satellite - S/2012 (38628) 1 - were detected during occultations in March 2021 and again in June 2023. Additionally, an attempt to detect Huya in February 2023 resulted in an additional single-chord detection of the secondary. A spherical body with a minimum diameter of D = 165 km can explain the three single-chord observations and provide a lower limit for the satellite size. The astrometry of Huya's system, as derived from the occultations and supplemented by observations from the Hubble Space Telescope and Keck Observatory, provided constraints on the satellite orbit and the mass of the system. Therefore, assuming the secondary is in an equatorial orbit around the primary, the limb fitting was constrained by the satellite orbit position angle. The system density, calculated by summing the most precise measurement of Huya's volume to the spherical satellite average volume, is $\rho_{1}$ = 1073 $\pm$ 66 kg m$^{-3}$. The density that the object would have assuming a Maclaurin equilibrium shape with a rotational period of 6.725 $\pm$ 0.01 hours is $\rho_{2}$ = 768 $\pm$ 42 kg m$^{-3}$. This difference rules out the Maclaurin equilibrium assumption for the main body shape.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09739 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Objects’ densities as a function of the diameter. The square marks the location of Huya using the published primary diameter (Santos-Sanz et al. 2022) and the density derived in this work. Quaoar’s density is from Kiss et al. (2024). Other densities and primary diameters are from Grundy et al. (2019) and references therein. Numerical Integration of the Motion of an Asteroid (nima; Desmars et al. 2015) and Gaia stell… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Green lines present the predicted shadow path northern and southern limits with the 1σ uncertainties in gray for the stellar occultations recorded on (a) 2021-03-28, (b) 2023-02-17, and (c) 2023-06-24. The red line shows the predicted center for Huya’s shadow path. The green markers depict the stations with positive detections of the primary component, the blue markers represent observatories that recorded only the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Occultation light curves of Huya system as recorded on (a) 2021-03-28, (b) 2023-02-17, and (c) 2023-06-24. Black dots and lines represent the observed data. The red dotted lines show the synthetic light curve model (see text). indicated by χ 2 pdf = χ 2/(N −M) ≈ 1, where N is the number of data points and M is the number of fitted parameters. Among the three events presented here, only the multi-chord detection of H… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stellar occultation by Huya on 2023-06-24 with the location of the stations that had inconclusive results indicated by gray dotted lines, the positive detections represented by colorful solid lines, and the red segments denoting the 1σ uncertainties. The light green se…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stellar occultations by the Huya system observed on (a) 2021-03-28, (b) 2023-02-17, and (c) 2023-06-24, as analyzed in this study. Positive chords are presented by solid lines in colors with error bars in red segments. Close negative exposures are presented by darker g…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A comparison of the Keplerian orbit solution and the observational data. The black ellipses are approximately to scale and show the shape of Huya and its satellite during the 2023-06-24 occultation. Colored crosses show relative astrometry at the various epochs of obse…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ring radial width as a function of the ring apparent opacity (p ′ ), considering the data dispersion and exposure time of each data set (see text). The data points represent the known rings around small bodies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Target star flux ratio (red) with uncertainties (gray) as a function of time for the three datasets that place the best constraints on the presence of rings around Huya (see text). The vertical black line presents the prediction instant for the Huya occultation at each…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Huya’s limb as observed during the stellar occultation in 2019-03-28 (Santos-Sanz et al. 2022). The dashed green line shows the negative data set observed from the QOS Observatory in Ukraine. The solid, colorful lines represent the observed positive light curves (LC), …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A corner plot of the MCMC chains from the satellite orbit fit. The 2-dimensional contour plots show the joint posterior distributions for each pair of parameters, and the histograms at the top of each column show the marginal posteriors of each parameter. Black points…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraints on Quaoar's rings and atmosphere from JWST/NIRCam observations of a stellar occultation

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    JWST occultation data detect Quaoar's outer ring on both sides and inner ring on one side, and rule out a global methane atmosphere above 1 nanobar pressure.

  2. Where are the missing Kuiper Belt binaries?

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Kuiper belt binary systems are rare in the 10^19 to 10^20 kg mass range, suggesting a mix of formation effects and observational bias.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2023a, Planet

    Assafin, M. 2023a, Planet. Space Sci., 238, 105801, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105801 —. 2023b, Planet. Space Sci., 239, 105816, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2023.105816 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    M., Brown, M

    Barkume, K. M., Brown, M. E., & Schaller, E. L. 2008, AJ, 135, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/55

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/55 2008

  3. [3]

    M., Holler, B

    Bernstein, G. M., Holler, B. J., Navarro-Escamilla, R., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 115, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acdd5f

    doi:10.3847/psj/acdd5f 2023

  4. [4]

    2000, Dr

    Bradski, G. 2000, Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools

    2000

  5. [5]

    L., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/26 —. 2014, Nature, 508, 72, doi: 10.1038/nature13155

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/26 2013

  6. [6]

    L., Sicardy, B., et al

    Braga-Ribas, F., Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346749

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346749 2023

  7. [7]

    1969, Ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1969, Ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium

    work page 1969

  8. [8]

    2023, astropy/ccdproc: 2.4.1, 2.4.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7986923

    Craig, M., Crawford, S., Seifert, M., et al. 2023, astropy/ccdproc: 2.4.1, 2.4.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7986923

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7986923 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Desmars, J., Camargo, J. I. B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526498 Fern´ andez-Valenzuela, E., Ortiz, J. L., Morales, N., et al. 2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022–406, doi: 10.5194/epsc2022-406 Fern´ andez-Valenzu...

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    2000, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2000-L09

    Ferrin, I., Snyder, J., Andrews, P., et al. 2000, Minor Planet Electronic Circulars, 2000-L09

    2000

  3. [11]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  4. [12]

    2013, A&A, 555, A15 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., M¨ uller, T., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A15 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 —. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brow...

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Jaffar, A. Y. 2024, Sensors, 24, 691, doi: 10.3390/s24020691

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    G., & Vanlaerhoven, C

    Gladman, B., Marsden, B. G., & Vanlaerhoven, C. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci, H. Boehnhardt, D. P. Cruikshank, A. Morbidelli, & R. Dotson, 43–57 Gomes-J´ unior, A. R., Morgado, B. E., Benedetti-Rossi, G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1167, doi: 10.10...

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    2009, Icarus, 200, 627

    Grundy, W., Noll, K., Buie, M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 627

    2009

  8. [16]

    2008, Icarus, 197, 260

    Grundy, W., Noll, K., Virtanen, J., et al. 2008, Icarus, 197, 260

    2008

  9. [17]

    2011, Icarus, 213, 678

    Grundy, W., Noll, K., Nimmo, F., et al. 2011, Icarus, 213, 678

    2011

  10. [18]

    M., Noll, K

    Grundy, W. M., Noll, K. S., Buie, M. W., et al. 2019, Icarus, 334, 30, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.037

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    W., & Foreman-Mackey, D

    Hogg, D. W., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 11

    2018

  12. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 1346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1595

    Kilic, Y., Braga-Ribas, F., Kaplan, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1346, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1595

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    G., Marton, G., et al

    Kiss, C., M¨ uller, T. G., Marton, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348054

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Hern´ andez, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hern´ andez, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Kiss, C., et al

    Mommert, M., Harris, A. W., Kiss, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118562

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al

    Morgado, B. E., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141543 —. 2023, Nature, 614, 239, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05629-6 Nesvorn´ y, D., & Vokrouhlick´ y, D. 2019, Icarus, 331, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.04.030

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Grundy, W

    Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., Schlichting, H., Murray-Clay, R., & Benecchi, S. D. 2012, IAUC, 9253, 2

    2012

  18. [26]

    L., Sicardy, B., Camargo, J

    Ortiz, J. L., Sicardy, B., Camargo, J. I. B., Santos-Sanz, P., & Braga-Ribas, F. 2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed. D. Prialnik, M. A. Barucci, & L. Young, 413–437, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816490-7.00019-9

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    L., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Sicardy, B., Braga-Ribas, F., et al. 2012a, Nature, 491, 566, doi: 10.1038/nature11597

    doi

  20. [28]

    L., Thirouin, A., Campo Bagatin, A., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Thirouin, A., Campo Bagatin, A., et al. 2012b, MNRAS, 419, 2315, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19876.x

    2011

  21. [29]

    L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al

    Ortiz, J. L., Santos-Sanz, P., Sicardy, B., et al. 2017, Nature, 550, 219, doi: 10.1038/nature24051

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    L., Pereira, C

    Ortiz, J. L., Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 676, L12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347025

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B

    Pereira, C. L., Sicardy, B., Morgado, B. E., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346365

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    C., et al

    Ragozzine, D., Pincock, S., Proudfoot, B. C., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12785 25

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L., Braga-Ribas, F., Desmars, J., et al

    Rommel, F. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Desmars, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039054

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    L., Braga-Ribas, F., Ortiz, J

    Rommel, F. L., Braga-Ribas, F., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346892

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    L., Sicardy, B., et al

    Santos-Sanz, P., Ortiz, J. L., Sicardy, B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 6062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3881 —. 2022, A&A, 664, A130

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    L., Assafin, M., et al

    Sicardy, B., Ortiz, J. L., Assafin, M., et al. 2011, Nature, 478, 493, doi: 10.1038/nature10550

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    C., Alvarez-Candal, A., & Jim´ enez-Teja, Y

    Souza-Feliciano, A. C., Alvarez-Candal, A., & Jim´ enez-Teja, Y. 2018, A&A, 614, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731464

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    C., Holler, B

    Souza-Feliciano, A. C., Holler, B. J., Pinilla-Alonso, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, L17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348222

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    2008, Icarus, 195, 851, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.12.020

    Tancredi, G., & Favre, S. 2008, Icarus, 195, 851, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.12.020

    2008 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Porter, S

    Weaver, H. A., Porter, S. B., Spencer, J. R., & The New Horizons Science Team. 2022, PSJ, 3, 46, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac4cb7

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    L., Le Mignant, D., Bouchez, A

    Wizinowich, P. L., Le Mignant, D., Bouchez, A. H., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 297, doi: 10.1086/499290

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Levine, S

    Zacharias, N., Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., et al. 2005, VizieR Online Data Catalog: NOMAD Catalog (Zacharias+ 2005), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/297. Originally published in: 2004AAS...205.4815Z

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.