Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 93 references

Thermal and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Objects: Science Commissioning of the Recently Upgraded Mid-Infrared Camera MIRSI on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A refurbished ground-based mid-infrared camera measured sizes and albedos for 31 near-Earth asteroids.

desk verdict A solid commissioning paper with real new NEO measurements and credible evidence the upgraded MIRSI works; the main caveat is that single-band beaming-parameter systematics make the claimed 20%/50% accuracy optimistic for the full sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13943 v1 pith:SPJA3WRE submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Andy J. López-Oquendo , Joseph L. Hora , David E. Trilling , Howard A. Smith This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IM
keywords near-Earthobjectsmid-infraredphotometryNEATMalbedodiameterplanetarydefenseDARTejectaMIRSI
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 reports the first science-commissioning results of MIRSI, a mid-infrared camera on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility that was upgraded with a closed-cycle cooler and an attached optical camera. Using 42 observations of 31 near-Earth objects, it attempts to show that single-band 10.5-micron thermal photometry, interpreted with the Near-Earth Asteroid Thermal Model, can recover asteroid diameters and albedos that agree with earlier measurements. The average measured diameter ratio relative to literature values is 0.95 and the albedo ratio is about 1.3, within the 20% and 50% accuracy expected for such single-band fits. The paper also argues that MIRSI's always-cold design and simultaneous optical camera make it a practical rapid-response instrument for planetary-defense and mission-support observations, and it demonstrates this on DART-impact ejecta, a Hayabusa2# flyby target, and several recently discovered asteroids.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Near-Earth Asteroid Thermal Model (NEATM), a single-band thermal model that converts measured mid-infrared flux, geometry, and assumed surface roughness (encoded in the beaming parameter $\eta$) into a diameter, with the V-band albedo $p_V$ then obtained from the simultaneously measured absolute magnitude $H_V$. Because $\eta$ cannot be fit from one band alone, the paper adopts the empirical linear relation $\eta = (0.00963\pm0.00015)\alpha + 0.761\pm0.009$ from Mainzer et al. (2011a), draws $\eta$ from a Gaussian around it in $10^6$-trial Monte Carlo runs, and combines this with MOC optical photometry and Cohen et al. (1999) standard-star flux calibration.

What would settle it

Observe a set of NEOs whose diameters are independently known from radar measurements or spacecraft encounters, measure each in MIRSI's N-band with the same reduction and the same beaming-parameter relation, and compare the resulting single-band diameters to the known values; a systematic departure from the claimed 20% accuracy would show that the calibration or the assumed relation is biased. A complementary check is to fit several bands simultaneously so the beaming parameter is free and compare it to the assumed relation for those targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the upgraded MIRSI system, calibrated on Cohen et al. (1999) standard stars and using the empirical $\eta$-$\alpha$ relation of Mainzer et al. (2011a) for single-band NEATM fits, produces diameter and albedo solutions consistent with prior characterizations: average $D_\mathrm{MIRSI}/D_\mathrm{lit}=0.95$ and $p_{V,\mathrm{MIRSI}}/p_{V,\mathrm{lit}}\approx1.3$. The paper presents the first albedo and diameter measurements for eleven NEOs, constrains the properties of the Didymos system after the DART impact, and reports a $D\approx0.43$ km, $p_V\approx0.25$ solution for the Hayabusa2# flyby target 2001 CC21 that agrees with independent work. It concludes that MIRSI is ready to serve as an easily accessible, rapidly deployable thermal camera for airless-body characterization.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that the population-averaged empirical relation between the thermal beaming parameter and solar phase angle applies to each individual NEO, so any per-object bias in that relation translates directly into systematic diameter and albedo errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MIRSI can deliver diameter and albedo estimates for recently discovered NEOs within days of discovery, while the object is still bright enough for a single N-band measurement.
  • Simultaneous optical and thermal lightcurves, combined with a shape model, can constrain an asteroid's thermal inertia and regolith properties.
  • The DART ejecta results imply that large dust grains carried a few million kilograms of mass 11 hours after impact and that the small-particle thermal excess had cleared from the system within nine days.
  • The measured size and albedo of 2001 CC21 support an S-type classification and provide direct input for the Hayabusa2# flyby planning.
  • The survey adds first-known diameters and albedos for eleven NEOs, filling gaps for small objects relevant to impact-risk assessment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the average diameter ratio of 0.95 reflects a small systematic calibration offset rather than the beaming-parameter assumption, comparing MIRSI N-band diameters to radar-calibrated objects on a larger sample could yield a correction factor that sharpens future single-band surveys.
  • The simultaneous lightcurve technique could be extended to the growing number of NEOs with shape models, turning a single-object demonstration into a survey of thermal inertia across the near-Earth population.
  • A targeted multi-band observing campaign on a handful of NEOs would test how well the population-level $\eta$-$\alpha$ relation holds for individual objects, quantifying the systematic term the current Monte Carlo does not capture.
  • The same always-cold rapid-response capability is directly applicable to future impactor scenarios and close-approach campaigns, where decameter-scale objects fade within days.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first science-commissioning results of the upgraded MIRSI mid-infrared camera at the NASA IRTF, which now includes a closed-cycle cooler and a simultaneous optical camera (MOC). The authors describe target selection, MIRSI and MOC data reduction, in-band color corrections, NEATM thermal modeling, and Monte Carlo/MCMC uncertainty estimation. They report 44 observations of 33 unique targets (described in the abstract as 42 observations of 31 NEOs) from 2021 to 2024, deriving diameters and albedos for the NEOs, including first-time solutions for 11 objects. The survey results are benchmarked against 21 previously measured objects, yielding average ratios D(us)/D(literature)=0.95 and pV(us)/pV(literature)=1.3, which the authors interpret as consistent with the expected 20% and 50% accuracy of single-band NEATM. The paper also presents special results: post-DART ejecta characterization of Didymos, mission-support measurements of (98943) 2001 CC21, rapid-response characterization of 2023 GM and 2024 CG2, and diameter/albedo constraints for non-detections.

Significance. If the central accuracy claim survives scrutiny, this paper demonstrates that a ground-based, closed-cycle-cooled mid-IR camera can fill a real capability gap for rapid-response thermal characterization of NEOs, after the decommissioning of T-ReCS, Michelle, and the original MIRSI. The photometric reduction, color-correction formalism, and external benchmarking are described in detail, and weak detections are explicitly flagged. The paper also provides useful mission-support data for Hayabusa2# and the DART aftermath, and it highlights a plausible path to thermal-inertia measurements from simultaneous optical and thermal lightcurves. The main strength is the careful presentation of the reduction pipeline and the transparent reporting of uncertain measurements. However, the load-bearing claim that single-band diameters and albedos are accurate to 20% and 50% rests on the unquantified applicability of a population-level beaming-parameter relation to individual objects; this issue must be resolved before the accuracy claim can be accepted as demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2] The Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis draws the beaming parameter eta from a Gaussian around the Mainzer et al. (2011a) eta-alpha relation using only the formal slope and intercept uncertainties of that relation, rather than the intrinsic scatter of individual objects around it. This matters because several Table 1 targets have phase angles near or above the range where the relation is well calibrated (e.g., 1994 PC1 at 79.9 deg, 2000 EE14 at 78.1 deg, 2000 NM at 74.6 deg, and Sigurd at 90.3 deg). At 10.5 um, the NEATM flux scales roughly as eta^{-1.4} for fixed diameter, so D scales as eta^{0.7}; a systematic eta error of 0.2 shifts D by about 15% and pV (proportional to D^{-2}) by about 30%. A bias of this size is comparable to or larger than the quoted random uncertainties, and it is not captured by the Table 2 error bars. Please propagate the intrinsic scatter of the Mainzer et al. relation (or an independent eta prior) into the Monte Carlo, restrict the accuracy claim to objects whose phase angles lie within the calibrated range, or demonstrate with the multiband targets (e.g., 7482 and 23 Thalia) that the relation matches a free-eta fit.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Table 2] The validation of the central accuracy claim is under-specified. The paper states that 21 of the 31 NEOs have previous diameter measurements and that the average ratios D(us)/D(literature)=0.95 and pV(us)/pV(literature)=1.3 are computed 'after excluding those measurements with poor detections,' but it does not state how many objects enter the final averages or how the non-detections and limit measurements for Eger, 2000 EE14, 2006 DP14, and 1989 ML are handled. The comparison is also partially circular with respect to the beaming parameter: many of the literature values are themselves NEATM single-band results obtained with the same family of eta-alpha relations (e.g., Mainzer et al. 2011a and ExploreNEOs), so a common eta bias would cancel in the ratios and would not be detected. The paper's own note in Section 5.1 that one object required a taxonomy-based eta prior is internal evidence that the Mainzer relation is not universal. Please report the comparison sample size and the list of objects after exclusions, show a per-object comparison plot with uncertainties, and add a systematic eta term to the accuracy statement so that the 20%/50% claim is not over-stated.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Section 3.2] The treatment of calibration systematics is internally inconsistent. Section 2.3.1 quotes calibration uncertainties of 10-15%, Section 3.2 includes a flat 10% flux uncertainty in the Monte Carlo, and Section 5.1 then attributes possible diameter underestimation to 'typical flux underestimations of about 5%' that 'can result in an underestimation of the diameter of as much as 25%.' Since thermal flux scales approximately as D^2 at fixed temperature, a 5% flux error produces roughly a 2.5% diameter error unless additional systematic effects are being invoked. The paper should clarify whether the 25% figure is meant to include the beaming-parameter systematics, and it should add that combined systematic to the reported uncertainties in Table 2 rather than presenting it only as a post-hoc explanation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The abstract states '42 observations of 31 NEOs,' while Section 4 states '44 observations of 33 unique targets' observed from 2022 to 2024; the numbers should be reconciled, especially because Table 1 includes a comet and main-belt asteroids.
  2. [Section 5.1] The object referred to as 'NEO 2005 TY16' appears to be a typo for (170891) 2004 TY16, which is the D-type target listed in Tables 1 and 2.
  3. [Section 5.2.3] The Didymos post-impact observations are dated '2023 September 27' and 'October 6' in the text, but Table 1 and the DART timeline indicate 2022 September 27 and 2022 October 6; please correct the year.
  4. [Section 2.3.2] The calibration offset of 0.36 mags is mentioned but it is not stated whether this offset is applied to all MOC photometry or only reported as a check; please clarify.
  5. [Section 5.2.6] The statement that MIRSI 'currently lacks a 20 um entrance window' is hard to reconcile with the claim in Section 2.2 that the instrument covers the 17-26 um atmospheric window; please clarify whether this refers to the available filter set or to a hardware limitation.
  6. [Tables 2 and Figure 5] Several Table 2 entries have pV uncertainties that span almost the full physical range (e.g., 2002 AL14 with pV=0.40+0.86-0.49), and Figure 5 plots these as if they were point measurements; consider using different symbols for upper limits and for detections below 5 sigma, and consider excluding non-detections from the average ratios in Section 5.1.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the only circular element is a minor in-band color-correction self-consistency, while the eta-alpha prior is external and the literature benchmarks are independent.

  1. other [Section 2.4 (In-band flux correction), Eq. (1)]
    "For the asteroid thermal spectrum, we assumed a visible albedo pV of 0.15 and the geometry conditions at the time of the observation (see Table 1). ... We find that correction factors ranged between 0.9 and 1.2 and averaged around 0.97 for the NEOs observed here at the N-band; ultimately, each measured flux was divided by each correction f."

    The calibration of the measured N-band flux uses a color-correction factor f computed from a NEATM SED B(lambda) evaluated with an assumed albedo pV=0.15, i.e., a prior on the very quantity that the subsequent NEATM/Monte-Carlo analysis (Sections 3.2 and 5.1) claims to derive. The corrected flux enters the diameter fit and the albedo follows from D and H, so the assumed pV is embedded in the input to the derivation. The loop is weak, however: f is close to unity (0.9-1.2, mean ~0.97) and the derived pV values are not forced to 0.15 (they span 0.04-0.53), so this is a small self-consistency rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is otherwise self-contained and not circular. Fluxes are calibrated against Cohen et al. (1999) standard stars, H comes from simultaneous MOC photometry, and the single-band NEATM fits use eta from the external Mainzer et al. (2011a) eta-alpha relation rather than fitting eta to the MIRSI data; the Monte Carlo therefore propagates, rather than manufactures, the eta uncertainty. The diameter/albedo validation is computed against literature values, several of which come from the same NEOWISE/ExploreNEOs community that includes co-authors (Trilling, Hora), but those are published external data sets and the D ratio 0.95 / pV ratio 1.3 is an independent measurement. The 'expected 20%/50%' benchmark from Harris et al. (2011) is a same-team citation, but it is not the argument that the MIRSI results are correct; the paper's own comparison supplies that content. The one genuinely circular element is the in-band correction's assumed pV, which is a minor prior embedded in calibration and does not drive the main size and albedo results.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey's physical results depend on a chain of assumptions: an empirical beaming-parameter relation, assumed phase-curve slopes, taxonomy-based color conversions, and a simple blackbody model for the DART ejecta. None of these are invented entities; all are standard assumptions from prior literature or explicit simplifications. The numbers that are fit to the data (ejecta temperature/effective diameter) are clearly labeled as such, while the other parameters are pulled from external priors.

free parameters (6)
  • Beaming parameter eta = Per-object, from Mainzer et al. (2011a) relation eta = (0.00963 +/- 0.00015)*alpha + 0.761 +/- 0.009; free in…
    NEATM requires eta to account for surface roughness/thermal inertia. For single-band fits it is set by an empirical phase-angle relation; for multiband fits it is a free parameter. The uncertainty in eta is propagated as a Gaussian in Monte Carlo, but any bias in the relation is not captured.
  • Assumed visible albedo for in-band flux correction = 0.15
    Adopted to compute the asteroid SED shape for the color-correction factor in Section 2.4. The correction factors vary 0.9-1.2 and average 0.97, so the impact on derived properties is modest.
  • G slope parameter for H-G phase function = 0.15 (C/unknown), 0.25 (S), 0.4 (X)
    Used to convert the single-epoch MOC magnitude to absolute magnitude H_V (Section 3.1). H_V directly affects albedo and, to a lesser extent, diameter. An incorrect G assumption biases the derived albedo.
  • V-r color correction = 0.386 (S), 0.323 (X), 0.308 (C), 0.397 (V), 0.346 (average)
    Transforms MOC SDSS-r photometry to V-band using spectral convolution of MITHNEOS spectra (Section 3.1). The adopted value depends on taxonomy and is an assumption for unclassified objects.
  • Ejecta blackbody temperature and effective diameter = T=195 K, D_eff=3.31 km for Didymos ejecta on 2022-09-27
    Fitted to the measured 8.7/10.5/11.7 um SED excess in Section 5.2.3 to estimate the ejecta mass. The mass estimate also assumes a particle density of 3500 kg/m^3 and that detected particles are ~10 um in size.
  • Thermal emissivity = 0.95
    Assumed for target selection SED predictions in Section 2.1; not used in the final NEATM fits, which assume unit emissivity or handle it internally. Minor effect.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption NEATM is a valid description of thermal emission from NEOs
    The model assumes a spherical body in energy balance with insolation, and uses a beaming parameter to approximate surface roughness and thermal inertia. Invoked in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Mainzer eta-alpha relation applies to all observed NEOs
    The empirical relation from NEOWISE is applied to each single-band target based on its phase angle (Section 3.2). If a target has a different regolith behavior, the derived diameter is biased.
  • domain assumption H-G phase function with assumed G is appropriate
    Bowell et al. (1989) phase function is used to reduce MOC magnitudes to H_V (Equation 2). The assumed G values are typical for the taxonomy but not measured per object.
  • domain assumption MOC SDSS-r photometry has a stable calibration offset
    The paper finds an average offset of 0.36 mag between MOC and standard stars and applies it uniformly (Section 2.3.2). This assumes the offset is constant across nights and airmasses.
  • domain assumption Cohen et al. (1999) standard star absolute fluxes are correct
    Photometric calibration of MIRSI data relies on the Cohen et al. (1999) mid-IR standard star catalog. Uncertainties in this calibration contribute the stated 10-15% systematic flux uncertainty.
  • standard math ATRAN atmospheric transmission model is accurate
    Used for color corrections (Section 2.4) with 1.6 mm precipitable water and airmass 1.2. Errors in atmospheric transmission shift the in-band correction factors slightly.
  • ad hoc to paper Ejecta can be modeled as a single-temperature blackbody sphere
    The Didymos ejecta are approximated by a blackbody at T=195 K with effective diameter 3.31 km (Section 5.2.3), used to convert excess flux to mass. This ignores a realistic particle size distribution and is labeled as a lower estimate by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Objects: Science Commissioning of the Recently Upgraded Mid-Infrared Camera MIRSI on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPJA3WRE

@misc{pith2026250613943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal and Optical Characterization of Near-Earth Objects: Science Commissioning of the Recently Upgraded Mid-Infrared Camera MIRSI on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPJA3WRE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13943}
}
read the original abstract

Mid-infrared (mid-IR) observations of Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) have historically been a valuable tool for understanding their physical properties. However, the current state of mid-IR instruments on ground-based telescopes places several limitations on performing thermal characterization of NEOs. The complexity of maintaining these instruments in operational conditions on telescopes has led to their decommissioning. Here, we present the first science commissioning observations out to 12.5 microns from the upgraded Mid-Infrared Spectrograph and Imager (MIRSI) at the NASA-IRTF. We obtained 42 observations of 31 NEOs and derived their diameters and albedos. Since MIRSI allows simultaneous optical observations with its MIRSI Optical Camera (MOC), we were able to determine the absolute magnitude for most of the targets at the time of the thermal acquisition. We present ejecta characterization for the Didymos system from observations made 11 hours and 9 days after the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) impact. We present albedo and size measurements for (98943) Torifune 2001 CC21, the fly-by target of the Japanese Extended Hayabusa2 Mission. We also highlight several applications that the MIRSI system will provide for future airless body characterization, such as constraining thermal inertia from simultaneous optical and thermal lightcurves. This work also demonstrates the importance of having MIRSI as an available rapid-response instrument for planetary defense purposes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Predicted N-band flux as a function of Solar Sys￾tem absolute magnitude HV for all observable NEOs from the NASA IRTF during a given observing semester. The top axis is the estimated diameter from HV assuming a 15% albedo in the Harris & Lagerros (2002) relationship. Each circle’s color indicates the visible magnitude of the NEO at the time it reached peak in brightness. Yellow represents fainter objects (larger vis… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mid-IR mosaics of NEO 7482 obtained with MIRSI’s 7.7 (top-left), 8.7 (top-right), 11.7 (bottom-left), and 12.5 µm (bottom-right) filters. Each image size is about 26. ′′7 horizontally and 21. ′′4 vertically. MIRSI pipeline consists of a set of Python scripts that perform A-B subtracted images, pixel-to-pixel gain cor￾rections, construct the mosaics, and perform aperture photometry, including airmass correction and f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MIRSI transmission filter curves obtained at room temperature at the IRTF as a function of wave￾lengths in microns. Grey continuous curves correspond to the 1.6 mm atmospheric transmission from Mauna Kea. provided by Wright et al. (2010) to fit the Vega contin￾uum between the mid-IR wavelengths. We generated atmospheric transmission spectra using the ATRAN model (Lord 1992). The atmospheric model was built by adopti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visible (V-band) and absolute magnitudes (HV ) of the MIRSI+MOC NEO survey. In black circles are those magnitudes solutions derived in this work while red ones cor￾respond to the JPL Horizons systems. The top and right sub-figures are the histogram distribution of the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visible albedo as a function of diameter for the 31 NEOs observed with MIRSI. The dark diamonds show the results using the MOC-HV while the red ones show the solutions with JPL-HV . paign with MIRSI. We performed 44 observations of 33 unique targets observed from 2022 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average visible albedo of NEOs by taxonomic type. Black and red diamonds illustrate the average pV us￾ing HV from MOC and JPL, respectively. In blue diamonds, we show the comparable average albedos for complex tax￾onomies from previous ExploreNEOs work by Thomas et al.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simultaneous optical and thermal lightcurves of NEO 7482 as a function of time (hours) after the beginning of the observation on 2022 January 18. The left y-axis il￾lustrates the R-band magnitudes (black circles). The right y-axis shows the flux variability at the 8.7 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted and measured spectral energy distri￾bution of the Didymos-Dimorphos system. The black (solid) and red (dashed) lines illustrate the predicted spectral energy distribution (i.e., with no impact or dust) for 2022 Septem￾ber 27 and 2022 October 6, respectively. …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: for a visual representation of the predicted fluxes of 1989 ML for a range of albedo and diameters). Thus, we place a conservative lower limit on pV of 25% and D < 0.4 km. Our established limits fall within Mueller et al. (2011) estimates, which derived a pV of 47% an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Usui, F., & Hasegawa, S

    Al ´ ı-Lagoa, V., M¨ uller, T. G., Usui, F., & Hasegawa, S. 2018, A&A, 612, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731806 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 5 https://irtfweb.ifa.hawaii.edu/∼opihi/

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731806 2018

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 671, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244878

    Berthier, J., Carry, B., Mahlke, M., & Normand, J. 2023, A&A, 671, A151, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244878

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244878 2023

  3. [3]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    doi:10.1051/aas:1996164 1996

  4. [4]

    P., PEROZZI, E., RIVKIN, A

    Binzel, R. P., PEROZZI, E., RIVKIN, A. S., et al. 2004, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 39, 351, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2004.tb00098.x 18

    arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    P., DeMeo, F

    Binzel, R. P., DeMeo, F. E., Turtelboom, E. V., et al. 2019, Icarus, 324, 41, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.035

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.035 2019

  6. [6]

    1989, in Asteroids II, ed

    Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews, 524–556

    1989

  7. [7]

    2022, Planetary and Space Science, 220, 105533, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2022.105533

    Brisset, J., S´ anchez, P., Cox, C., et al. 2022, Planetary and Space Science, 220, 105533, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2022.105533

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    T., & Consolmagno, G

    Britt, D. T., & Consolmagno, G. J. 2003, Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 38, 1161, doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2003.tb00305.x

    arXiv 2003

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Planetary and Space Science, 73, 98, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009

    Carry, B. 2012, Planetary and Space Science, 73, 98, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2012.03.009

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Barlow, M

    Cohen, M., Walker, R. G., Barlow, M. J., & Deacon, J. R. 1992, AJ, 104, 1650, doi: 10.1086/116349

    1992 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Carter, B., et al

    Cohen, M., Walker, R. G., Carter, B., et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 1864, doi: 10.1086/300813

    1999 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Ernst, C

    Daly, R. T., Ernst, C. M., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 443, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05810-5

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    T., Ernst, C

    Daly, R. T., Ernst, C. M., Barnouin, O. S., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 24, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad0b07 De Buizer, J., & Fisher, R. 2005, in High Resolution Infrared Spectroscopy in Astronomy, 84–87, doi: 10.1007/10995082 12 Delb´ o, M., Harris, A. W., Binzel, R...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Davies, J. K. 2003, Icarus, 166, 116, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2003.07.002 Delb´ o, M., Mueller, M., Emery, J. P., Rozitis, B., & Capria, M. T. 2015, in Asteroids IV, 107–128, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch006

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Binzel, R

    DeMeo, F. E., Binzel, R. P., Slivan, S. M., & Bus, S. J. 2009, Icarus, 202, 160, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.02.005

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    K., Hora, J

    Deutsch, L. K., Hora, J. L., Adams, J. D., & Kassis, M. 2003, in Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, Vol. 4841, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 106 – 116, doi: 10.1117/12.461436

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    2002, Icarus, 155, 205, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.2001.6764

    Domingue, D., Robinson, M., Carcich, B., et al. 2002, Icarus, 155, 205, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.2001.6764

    2002

  10. [18]

    L., Burbine, T

    Dunn, T. L., Burbine, T. H., Bottke, W. F., & Clark, J. P. 2013, Icarus, 222, 273, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.007

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Conley, A., Meierjurgen Farr, W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    2013

  12. [21]

    2024, A&A, 688, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450447

    Fornasier, S., Dotto, E., Panuzzo, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450447

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    W., & Chillemi, J

    Fowler, J. W., & Chillemi, J. R. 1992, The IRAS Minor Planet Survey 17, 43, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom AF

    1992

  14. [23]

    2022, Minor Planet Bulletin, 49, 200

    Franco, L., Marchini, A., Papini, R., et al. 2022, Minor Planet Bulletin, 49, 200

    2022

  15. [24]

    2015, Planetary and Space Science, 111, 155, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2015.04.004

    Galache, J., Beeson, C., McLeod, K., & Elvis, M. 2015, Planetary and Space Science, 111, 155, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2015.04.004

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad073

    Geem, J., Ishiguro, M., Granvik, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L17, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad073

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    Giorgini, J. D. 2015, in IAU General Assembly, Vol. 29, 2256293

    2015

  18. [27]

    Gulbis, A. A. S., Elliot, J. L., Rojas, F. E., et al. 2010, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 42, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #42, 49.14

    2010

  19. [28]

    Gulbis, A. A. S., Bus, S. J., Elliot, J. L., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 461, doi: 10.1086/659636

    2011 doi

  20. [29]

    E., Mommert, M., et al

    Gustafsson, A., Trilling, D. E., Mommert, M., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab29ea

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    S., Tokunaga, A

    Hanner, M. S., Tokunaga, A. T., Veeder, G. J., & A’Hearn, M. F. 1984, AJ, 89, 162, doi: 10.1086/113495 Hanuˇ s, J., Marchis, F., &ˇDurech, J. 2013, Icarus, 226, 1045, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.023

    1984 doi

  22. [31]

    Harris, A. W. 1998, Icarus, 131, 291, doi: 10.1006/icar.1997.5865

    1998

  23. [33]

    W., & Lagerros, J

    Harris, A. W., & Lagerros, J. S. V. 2002, in Asteroids III, 205–218

    2002

  24. [34]

    W., Mommert, M., Hora, J

    Harris, A. W., Mommert, M., Hora, J. L., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/75

    2011 doi

  25. [35]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  26. [36]

    2021, Advances in Space Research, 68, 1533, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2021.03.030

    Hirabayashi, M., Mimasu, Y., Sakatani, N., et al. 2021, Advances in Space Research, 68, 1533, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2021.03.030

    2021 doi

  27. [37]

    F., Fazio, G

    Hoffmann, W. F., Fazio, G. G., Shivanandan, K., Hora, J. L., & Deutsch, L. K. 1994, Infrared Physics and Technology, 35, 175, doi: 10.1016/1350-4495(94)90079-5 19

    1994 doi

  28. [38]

    L., Trilling, D., Mommert, M., et al

    Hora, J. L., Trilling, D., Mommert, M., et al. 2015, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 47, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #47, 312.21

    2015

  29. [39]

    L., Trilling, D

    Hora, J. L., Trilling, D. E., L´ opez-Oquendo, A. J., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 105003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad75ba

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  31. [41]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fdd

    Kareta, T., Thomas, C., Li, J.-Y., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0fdd

    2023 doi

  32. [42]

    Tollestrup, E. V. 2008, PASP, 120, 1271, doi: 10.1086/595711

    2008 doi

  33. [43]

    Kwiatkowski, T., Buckley, D. A. H., O’Donoghue, D., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913152

    2010 doi

  34. [44]

    2023, in LPI Contributions, Vol

    Lazzarin, M., La Forgia, F., Migliorini, A., et al. 2023, in LPI Contributions, Vol. 2806, 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2080

    2023

  35. [45]

    2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 359, 1575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09006.x

    Lazzarin, M., Marchi, S., Magrin, S., & Licandro, J. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 359, 1575, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09006.x

    2005

  36. [46]

    A., Carvano, J

    Lazzaro, D., Angeli, C. A., Carvano, J. M., et al. 2004, Icarus, 172, 179, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.06.006

    2004 doi

  37. [47]

    L., et al

    Li, J.-Y., Hirabayashi, M., Farnham, T. L., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 452, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05811-4

    2023 doi

  38. [48]

    2008, A&A, 481, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078340 L´ opez-Oquendo, A., Trilling, D., & Mommert, M

    Licandro, J., Alvarez-Candal, A., de Le´ on, J., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 861, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078340 L´ opez-Oquendo, A., Trilling, D., & Mommert, M. 2023, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 55, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Ab...

    2008 doi

  39. [49]

    Lord, S. D. 1992, A new software tool for computing Earth’s atmospheric transmission of near- and far-infrared radiation, NASA Technical Memorandum 103957 L´ opez-Oquendo, A., Trilling, D. E., Gustafsson, A., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 189, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac7e4f L´ opez-Oquendo, A...

    1992 doi

  40. [50]

    2021, Icarus, 354, 114094, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114094

    Mahlke, M., Carry, B., & Denneau, L. 2021, Icarus, 354, 114094, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114094

    2021

  41. [51]

    Mainzer, A., Usui, F., & Trilling, D. E. 2015, in Asteroids IV, 89–106, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816532131-ch005

    2015 doi

  42. [52]

    2011a, ApJ, 743, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156

    Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Bauer, J., et al. 2011a, ApJ, 743, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156

    doi

  43. [53]

    2011b, ApJ, 741, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/90

    Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Masiero, J., et al. 2011b, ApJ, 741, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/90

    doi

  44. [54]

    R., Wright, E

    Masiero, J. R., Wright, E. L., & Mainzer, A. K. 2021, PSJ, 2, 32, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/abda4d

    2021 doi

  45. [55]

    R., Mainzer, A

    Masiero, J. R., Mainzer, A. K., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 68, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/68

    2011 doi

  46. [56]

    2022, in Hayabusa2 Asteroid Sample Return Mission, ed

    Mimasu, Y., Kikuchi, S., Takei, Y., et al. 2022, in Hayabusa2 Asteroid Sample Return Mission, ed. M. Hirabayashi & Y. Tsuda (Elsevier), 557–571, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99731-7.00027-1

    2022 doi

  47. [57]

    C., Tancredi, G., et al

    Moreno, F., Bagatin, A. C., Tancredi, G., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 138, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace827

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    1976, Icarus, 28, 125, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90094-4

    Morrison, D. 1976, Icarus, 28, 125, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(76)90094-4

    1976 doi

  49. [59]

    L., et al

    Mueller, M., Delbo’, M., Hora, J. L., et al. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 141, 109, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/109

    2011 doi

  50. [60]

    P., Opitom, C., Snodgrass, C., et al

    Murphy, B. P., Opitom, C., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 238, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad0a87

    2023 doi

  51. [61]

    R., Mainzer, A., Masiero, J., et al

    Nugent, C. R., Mainzer, A., Masiero, J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/117

    2015 doi

  52. [62]

    R., Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., et al

    Nugent, C. R., Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 63, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/3/63

    2016 doi

  53. [63]

    2023, A&A, 671, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345960

    Opitom, C., Murphy, B., Snodgrass, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345960

    2023 doi

  54. [64]

    M., Tatsumi, E., Licandro, J., et al

    Popescu, M. M., Tatsumi, E., Licandro, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15644, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15644

    2025 doi arXiv

  55. [65]

    Pravec, P., & Harris, A. W. 2000, Icarus, 148, 12, doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.2000.6482

    2000

  56. [66]

    2012, Icarus, 221, 365, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.026

    Hornoch, K. 2012, Icarus, 221, 365, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.07.026

    2012 doi

  57. [67]

    D., Jutzi, M., Merrill, C

    Raducan, S. D., Jutzi, M., Merrill, C. C., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 79, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad29f6

    2024 doi

  58. [68]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 362, doi: 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  59. [69]

    S., Dotson, J., et al

    Reddy, V., Kelley, M. S., Dotson, J., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 123, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac66eb

    2022 doi

  60. [70]

    S., Benner, L., et al

    Reddy, V., Kelley, M. S., Benner, L., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 141, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad4a6d

    2024 doi

  61. [71]

    S., Farnocchia, D., et al

    Reddy, V., Kelley, M. S., Farnocchia, D., et al. 2024, PSJ, accepted

    2024

  62. [72]

    H., Wright, G

    Rieke, G. H., Wright, G. S., B¨ oker, T., et al. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 127, 584, doi: 10.1086/682252

    2015 doi

  63. [73]

    S., Chabot, N

    Rivkin, A. S., Chabot, N. L., Stickle, A. M., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 173, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac063e 20

    2021 doi

  64. [74]

    S., Thomas, C

    Rivkin, A. S., Thomas, C. A., Wong, I., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 214, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad04d8

    2023 doi

  65. [75]

    E., Fitzsimmons, A., Young, D

    Robinson, J. E., Fitzsimmons, A., Young, D. R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae966

    2024 doi

  66. [76]

    R., et al

    Rossi, A., Marzari, F., Brucato, J. R., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 118, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac686c

    2022 doi

  67. [77]

    X., Milam, S

    Roth, N. X., Milam, S. N., Remijan, A. J., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 206, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acfcaa

    2023 doi

  68. [78]

    F., Jackson, S

    Rozitis, B., Green, S. F., Jackson, S. L., et al. 2024, PSJ, 5, 66, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ad23eb

    2024 doi

  69. [79]

    2018, Icarus, 304, 183, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.029

    Scheeres, D. 2018, Icarus, 304, 183, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.05.029

    2018 doi

  70. [80]

    M., Hicks, M., Lawrence, K., et al

    Somers, J. M., Hicks, M., Lawrence, K., et al. 2010, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 42, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts #42, 13.16

    2010

  71. [81]

    Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., Misselt, K. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 487, doi: 10.1086/430819

    2005 doi

  72. [82]

    Tholen, D. J. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews, 1139–1150

    1989

  73. [83]

    A., Emery, J

    Thomas, C. A., Emery, J. P., Trilling, D. E., et al. 2014, Icarus, 228, 217, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.10.004

    2014 doi

  74. [84]

    A., Trilling, D

    Thomas, C. A., Trilling, D. E., Emery, J. P., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/85

    2011 doi

  75. [85]

    A., Naidu, S

    Thomas, C. A., Naidu, S. P., Scheirich, P., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 448, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05805-2

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    T., & Vacca, W

    Tokunaga, A. T., & Vacca, W. D. 2005, PASP, 117, 421, doi: 10.1086/429382

    2005 doi

  77. [87]

    E., Bryden, G., Beichman, C

    Trilling, D. E., Bryden, G., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 674, 1086, doi: 10.1086/525514

    2008 doi

  78. [88]

    E., Mueller, M., Hora, J

    Trilling, D. E., Mueller, M., Hora, J. L., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 770, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/3/770

    2010 doi

  79. [89]

    E., Mommert, M., Hora, J., et al

    Trilling, D. E., Mommert, M., Hora, J., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 172, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/172

    2016 doi

  80. [90]

    G., et al

    Usui, F., Kuroda, D., M¨ uller, T. G., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 1117, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.5.1117 Vereˇ s, P., Jedicke, R., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2015, Icarus, 261, 34, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2015.08.007

    2011 doi

  81. [91]

    K., Marshall, S

    Virkki, A. K., Marshall, S. E., Venditti, F. C. F., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 222, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac8b72

    2022 doi

  82. [92]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  83. [93]

    D., Green, S

    Wolters, S. D., Green, S. F., McBride, N., & Davies, J. K. 2008, Icarus, 193, 535, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.08.011

    2008 doi

  84. [94]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  85. [95]

    S., Wright, D., Goodson, G

    Wright, G. S., Wright, D., Goodson, G. B., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 595, doi: 10.1086/682253

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.