Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Potential series expansion method applied in Analytical Modeling of Gravitational field of Irregularly Shaped Celestial Bodies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Decomposing a lumpy asteroid into tetrahedra and expanding each one's potential as a Legendre series yields an explicit closed-form gravity model that stays below 0.1% error outside the body and cuts computation time by up to 98%.

desk verdict Useful extended test set for an already-published method; the math is standard and validation is decent, but the paper under-reports its accuracy metrics and leaves a load-bearing geometric assumption unstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19433 v1 pith:CSUEQJ46 submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.EP

Marcelo Lisboa Mota , Safwan Aljbaae , Antonio F. B. A. Prado This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords asteroidgravitypotentialseriesexpansiontetrahedraldecompositionLegendrepolynomialsequilibriumpointspolyhedralmodelBrillouinsphereastrodynamics
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 introduces the Potential Series Expansion Method (PSEM), an analytical way to compute the gravitational potential of a homogeneous, irregularly shaped asteroid. The body is treated as a polyhedron split into tetrahedra, and the potential of each tetrahedron is written as a truncated Legendre series in the ratio of source distance to field-point distance. Summing these series produces an explicit algebraic expression for the potential outside the Brillouin sphere. On four real asteroids the method reproduces the classical polyhedral gravity field with relative errors below 0.1% at orders 11 and 12, while cutting computational time by up to 98%. This matters because mission design around asteroids needs fast, repeatable force evaluations for orbits, landings, and stability studies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the tetrahedral decomposition combined with the symbolic integration identity $\int_W X^{n_1} Y^{n_2} Z^{n_3} dX dY dZ = n_1! n_2! n_3! / (n_1+n_2+n_3+3)!$ on the standard right tetrahedron. Each generic tetrahedron is mapped to this right tetrahedron by the linear transformation formed from its three non-origin vertices, with the Jacobian equal to the determinant of that vertex matrix. Under this map every Legendre-polynomial integrand becomes a finite multinomial that the identity evaluates exactly, turning the potential into an explicit polynomial-like series in the field-point coordinates. The $i=0$ term is the Keplerian point-mass potential, and the rest of the series is the non-central perturbation.

What would settle it

Evaluate the PSEM expansion at order 11 on a grid of points that lie outside the solid but inside the circumscribed Brillouin sphere of a strongly non-convex shape, such as Sylvia, and compare with the classical polyhedral potential; relative errors that exceed 0.1% or that fail to shrink as the order rises would violate the stated convergence and accuracy claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the external potential of a constant-density polyhedron can be approximated by a finite sum of closed-form integrals, one per tetrahedron and per Legendre degree, each evaluated symbolically after an affine map to a right tetrahedron. The resulting potential is a homogeneous algebraic function of the field-point coordinates, so acceleration and its derivatives follow by direct differentiation instead of numerical quadrature over thousands of surface faces. The paper reports relative errors below 0.1% for exterior points when the series is taken to higher orders such as 11 and 12, across tests on Sylvia, Bennu, Itokawa, and Apophis, and shows that equilibrium points and their stability classifications match known results. The method does not aim to beat the polyhedral approach in accuracy; its advantage is speed plus an explicit, differentiable field.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction assumes that the potential of the body equals the algebraic sum of potentials of the tetrahedra formed by joining each surface triangle to the center of mass, with signed volumes handling concavities; the paper does not prove this decomposition for the non-convex shapes it studies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With an explicit algebraic potential, acceleration, Hessian, and higher derivatives come from direct differentiation, so orbit propagation and stability analysis skip repeated numerical integration over the shape model.
  • For the four tested asteroids, equilibrium-point positions computed with PSEM agree with the polyhedral reference to roughly 0.01-0.1%, and the resulting stability classes match published classifications.
  • Truncation order controls the accuracy-speed trade-off; expansions above order 9 outperform the 20-point-per-tetrahedron mascon approximation in the reported comparisons.
  • The reported 98% reduction in processing time relative to the classical polyhedral method makes large grid surveys and long-term orbital simulations practical on ordinary computers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because each basis term is a homogeneous polynomial in the field-point coordinates, PSEM effectively generates a closed-form analogue of a spherical-harmonic model; the same integrals could be repackaged as shape-derived multipole coefficients and compared with harmonic expansions.
  • The stated 0.1% accuracy applies outside the Brillouin sphere, and for elongated or non-convex bodies the surface dips inside that sphere; near-surface trajectories and landings would need a separate error assessment not covered by the paper's headline claim.
  • The tetrahedral construction should extend to layered internal structure by summing concentric constant-density shells, removing the homogeneity assumption while keeping the same series machinery.
  • Since the coefficients depend differentiably on vertex coordinates, the method is naturally suited to propagating shape-model uncertainty into gravity-field uncertainty, an analysis the paper does not perform.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Potential Series Expansion Method (PSEM) for modeling the external gravitational field of a homogeneous irregular celestial body. The body is decomposed into tetrahedra formed by connecting each surface triangle to the center of mass; the reciprocal distance is expanded in Legendre polynomials, and each term is integrated over a tetrahedron using an affine map to a reference tetrahedron and closed-form Beta/Gamma integrals. The resulting truncated series is validated against the classical polyhedral method of Tsoulis and Petrovic and against the TC20 mascon-type model for four asteroids: (87) Sylvia, (101955) Bennu, (99942) Apophis, and (25143) Itokawa. The paper also computes equilibrium points, their linear stability, zero-velocity curves, and, for Apophis, compares orbit propagation times and accuracies.

Significance. If the method is correct as stated, it is a useful contribution: it provides a closed-form, algebraically differentiable approximation of the external potential that is much faster than the classical polyhedral method while retaining acceptable accuracy, and it is validated against an independent benchmark. The derivation is self-contained and rests on standard potential theory; no fitted parameters enter beyond the truncation order. The explicit analytical potential expressions in Appendix B and the use of public shape models are strengths. However, the manuscript currently omits a load-bearing justification for the tetrahedral decomposition of non-convex bodies, states an incorrect and internally inconsistent convergence condition, and does not report quantitative error statistics or a controlled runtime comparison. These issues must be resolved before the accuracy and speed claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (12)–(16)] The central construction is asserted rather than proved: the potential of a polyhedron is obtained by summing potentials of tetrahedra formed by connecting each surface triangle to the center of mass. For non-convex bodies, which the paper explicitly says Sylvia is (§4.1), unsigned tetrahedra overlap or extend outside the body unless the body is star-shaped with respect to the origin. The manuscript never specifies the vertex ordering (outward face normals) nor whether the Jacobian determinant in Eq. (14) is taken with its sign or as an absolute value. If unsigned volumes are summed, the integrated source distribution is not the body, and the claimed 0.1% accuracy is not established. Please state the orientation convention, prove or cite the signed decomposition property for arbitrary triangulated polyhedra, or restrict the applicability to star-shaped bodies and justify that all four shape models satisfy that condition.
  2. [§2, Eq. (4) and text after Eq. (5)] The convergence condition is internally inconsistent and partly wrong. The paper states the Legendre expansion holds for |χ| < √2 − 1, then says 'This holds if ρ < √2 − 1', which is dimensionally inconsistent because χ = ρ′/ρ, and then concludes convergence for ρ′/ρ < 1. The standard generating-function expansion converges for |χ| < 1. Please correct the condition, and reconcile the statement in §5 that the series may diverge inside the Brillouin sphere with the validation in §4, where points outside the body but possibly inside the Brillouin sphere are included in the error assessment.
  3. [§4, Eq. (29) and Tables 1, 4, 7, 10] The central accuracy and speed claims are not supported by reproducible quantitative statements. The abstract claims relative errors below 0.1% and the conclusion claims processing-time reductions of up to 98%, but the paper gives no maximum or mean relative errors over the 1,002,000-point grid. The quantity 'Position vector accuracy EP' in Tables 1, 4, 7, and 10 is never defined. The runtime comparison is also not controlled: the text for Sylvia says a Pentium 3.10 GHz CPU while Table 1 says a Pentium 3.60 GHz CPU, and the Itokawa and Apophis sections have the reverse mismatch. Please define EP, report error statistics at the stated truncation orders, and describe a single computing environment for all timing comparisons.
  4. [§4.4 and Appendix B] The text states that U1 = 0 because the center of mass is at the origin and that the xy, xz, and yz coefficients in U2 vanish because the axes are principal axes, but the displayed expressions in Eq. (B12) contain nonzero terms of exactly these forms (e.g., the x/r^3, y/r^3, z/r^3 terms in U1 and the xy/r^5, xz/r^5, yz/r^5 terms in U2). Please clarify whether these are numerical residuals from an approximate alignment, whether the shape model was not exactly centered, or whether the expressions were truncated inconsistently; the printed text and the formulas should agree.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, Eq. (29) and figure captions] The red vertical line in Figures 4, 6, 8, and 10 is described as separating inside from outside the body, but the caption and text should explicitly state whether it marks the body surface or the Brillouin sphere, since the convergence guarantee applies only outside the Brillouin sphere.
  2. [§4, Tables 2 and 5] The table captions refer to potentials 'per Equation (20)' and 'per Equation (19)', but the relevant definition of the truncated potential is Equation (18) or (19); the equation references should be corrected.
  3. [§4, introduction to applications] The text describes UT C20 as dividing the asteroid into twenty layers of equal density, whereas the Introduction describes the mascon-type model as using point masses per tetrahedron; these descriptions should be reconciled.
  4. [References] References [10] and [35] are the same paper by Aljbaae et al. and should be consolidated to avoid duplicate entries.
  5. [§2, Eq. (14)] The notation ||T|| for the Jacobian determinant is confusing because double bars usually denote a norm; please use |det T| or det T with an explicit sign convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PSEM is derived from standard potential theory and validated against independent polyhedral benchmarks, not from its own fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section 2 builds PSEM from the standard Legendre expansion of 1/r (Eqs. 1-5), the volume integral of the potential over each tetrahedron (Eqs. 6-8), and Lien-Kajiya's affine map to a reference tetrahedron with the Beta/Gamma evaluation (Eqs. 11-15 and Appendix A); the total potential is then the sum over tetrahedra (Eqs. 16-18), which is standard potential theory rather than an input redefined as an output. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: densities, rotation periods, and shape models are taken from DAMIT, PDS, and cited observations, and the claimed sub-0.1% errors are measured relative to the independent Tsoulis-Petrovic polyhedral method and the TC20 mass-concentration model (Eq. 29), not derived from the model's own coefficients. The self-citations to Mota [13], Mota and Rocco [14], and Mota et al. [15] record method provenance and prior applications; the load-bearing integration identity is re-derived in the present paper and the symbolic integral is proved in Appendix A, so these self-citations are not load-bearing. The geometric decomposition of a non-convex polyhedron into tetrahedra is asserted rather than proved and requires signed-volume/orientation care; this is a correctness and rigor concern about the model's domain of validity, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its input. The paper explicitly disclaims higher accuracy than the classical polyhedral method, and the equilibrium-point and stability results are checked against published classifications and the classical polyhedral method, so the central claims have independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses no fitted constants; the only hand-chosen numerical parameter is the series truncation order. The main assumptions are constant density, uniform rotation, and the validity of the tetrahedral decomposition of non-convex shapes.

free parameters (1)
  • Truncation order m = orders 5 to 14 depending on body (Pot 8-14)
    Number of Legendre terms kept in the series (Eq. 16 and Eq. 18). Selected numerically per asteroid to balance accuracy and runtime; not derived from theory.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Legendre expansion of the inverse distance converges for ρ'/ρ < 1
    Eqs. (3)-(5); the expansion 1/r = (1/ρ) Σ P_i(u)(ρ'/ρ)^i is the standard generating function of Legendre polynomials.
  • domain assumption Polyhedron decomposes into tetrahedra with a common vertex at the origin
    Section 2, after Eq. (7); the method sums potentials over tetrahedra formed by each surface face and the center of mass. For non-convex bodies this needs signed volume treatment, which is not discussed.
  • domain assumption Constant density across the body
    Section 2 and Section 4: each asteroid is modeled with uniform density, for example 1.373 g/cm3 for Sylvia.
  • standard math Lien-Kajiya isometry and Beta/Gamma integral formula
    Eqs. (12)-(15) and Appendix A: affine map of a general tetrahedron to the standard simplex and the closed-form monomial integral.
  • domain assumption Uniform rotation about the principal z-axis
    Section 3.1: ω = ω e_z; used to define the effective potential and equilibrium points.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential series expansion method applied in Analytical Modeling of Gravitational field of Irregularly Shaped Celestial Bodies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSUEQJ46

@misc{pith2026250719433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential series expansion method applied in Analytical Modeling of Gravitational field of Irregularly Shaped Celestial Bodies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSUEQJ46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19433}
}
read the original abstract

This study aims to establish an analytical model that reproduces the gravitational field around non-spherical bodies with constant density. Due to the non-spherical geometry of such bodies, their gravitational potential is disturbed relative to a central field. By considering the body as a polyhedron and decomposing it into tetrahedral elements, we use the Series Potential Expansion Method (PSEM) to approximate the total potential by summing the potentials of each tetrahedron. While this model does not offer higher accuracy than the classical polyhedral approach, it achieves relative errors below 0.1\% for points outside the body when developed to higher orders (e.g., orders 11 and 12), and significantly reduces execution time. To validate this approach, we apply our model to asteroids (87) Sylvia, (101955) Bennu, (99942) Apophis, and (25143) Itokawa. We determine equilibrium points, analyze stability, investigate zero-velocity planes, and calculate the relative errors between the gravitational field modeled by PSEM and the results obtained using both the classical polyhedral method by Tsoulis and Petrovic and the mass concentration method. Our results highlight the computational efficiency of PSEM in modeling the gravitational potential of irregularly shaped bodies. This efficiency stems from expressing the gravitational potential through a homogeneous analytical function that is easy to manipulate algebraically, enabling explicit determination of the acceleration vector. Our model provides a robust framework for more complex analyses, such as studying periodic orbits around non-spherical celestial bodies, assessing their stability, and planning the smooth landing trajectories of spacecraft.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (MacMillan: Theoretical Mechan- ics), (1930)

    MacMillan, W.D.: The Theory of the Potential. (MacMillan: Theoretical Mechan- ics), (1930). https://books.google.com.br/books?id=-PEgAAAAMAAJ

    work page 1930

  2. [2]

    Applications of Satellites to Geodesy, (1966)

    Kaula, W.M.: Theory of Satellite Geodesy. Applications of Satellites to Geodesy, (1966)

    work page 1966

  3. [3]

    Heiskanen, W.A., Moritz, H.: Physical Geodesy, (1967)

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 60(3), 331–364 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00691901

    Balmino, G.: Gravitational Potential Harmonics from the Shape of an Homo- geneous Body. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 60(3), 331–364 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00691901

    doi:10.1007/bf00691901 1994

  5. [5]

    AIAA Journal 57(10), 4291–4299 (2019) https://doi.org/10.2514/1

    Roithmayr, C.M.: Contributions of Spherical Harmonics to Gravitational Moment. AIAA Journal 57(10), 4291–4299 (2019) https://doi.org/10.2514/1. J057227

    doi:10.2514/1 2019

  6. [6]

    In: AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts 26 #32

    Casotto, S.: Representation of the External Potential of a Solid Body within its Brillouin Sphere. In: AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts 26 #32. AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, vol. 32, pp. 65–29 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    icarus 120(1), 140–157 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996.0042

    Geissler, P., Petit, J.-M., Durda, D.D., Greenberg, R., Bottke, W., Nolan, M., Moore, J.: Erosion and Ejecta Reaccretion on 243 Ida and Its Moon. icarus 120(1), 140–157 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996.0042

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Chanut, T.G.G., Aljbaae, S., Carruba, V.: Mascon gravitation model using a shaped polyhedral source. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450, 3742–3749 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv845

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv845 2015

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Aljbaae, S., Chanut, T.G.G., Carruba, V., Souchay, J., Prado, A.F.B.A., Ama- rante, A.: The dynamical environment of asteroid 21 Lutetia according to different internal models. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 464, 3552–3560 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2619 arXiv:1610....

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Romanian Astronomical Journal 31(3), 241–264 (2021) arXiv:2012.06781 [astro-ph.EP]

    Aljbaae, S., Sanchez, D.M., Prado, A.F.B.A., Souchay, J., Terra, M.O., Negri, R.B., Marchi, L.O.: First approximation for spacecraft motion relative to (99942) Apophis. Romanian Astronomical Journal 31(3), 241–264 (2021) arXiv:2012.06781 [astro-ph.EP]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 59(3), 253–278 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00692875

    Werner, R.A.: The Gravitational Potential of a Homogeneous Polyhedron or Don’t Cut Corners. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 59(3), 253–278 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00692875

    1994 doi

  4. [12]

    Geophysics 66(2), 535 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1190/1

    Tsoulis, D., Petrovi´ c, S.: On the singularities of the gravity field of a homoge- neous polyhedral body. Geophysics 66(2), 535 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1190/1. 1444944

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    PhD thesis, INPE, S˜ ao Jos´ e dos Campos (2017)

    Mota, M.L.: Modelo do campo gravitacional de um corpo com distribui¸ c˜ ao de massa irregular utilizando o m´ etodo da expans˜ ao do potencial em s´ erie e deter- mina¸ cao de seus coeficientes dos harmˆ onicos esf´ ericos. PhD thesis, INPE, S˜ ao Jos´ e dos Campos (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    In: Journal of Physics Conference Series

    Mota, M.L., Rocco, E.M.: Equilibrium points stability analysis for the asteroid 21 Lutetia. In: Journal of Physics Conference Series. Journal of Physics Conference Series, vol. 1365, p. 012007 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1365/1/ 012007 . https://ui.adsabs.harvard...

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    European Physical Journal Special Topics 232(18-19), 2961–2966 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-01026-w

    Mota, M.L., Aljbaae, S., Prado, A.F.B.A.: The potential series expansion method: application to the asteroid (87) Sylvia. European Physical Journal Special Topics 232(18-19), 2961–2966 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-023-01026-w

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Die Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen, (1953)

    Kellogg, O.D.: Foundations of Potential Theory. Die Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen, (1953). https://books.google.com. br/books?id=TxlfQi46CvEC 27

    1953

  9. [17]

    Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 65(3), 313–344 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053511

    Werner, R.A., Scheeres, D.J.: Exterior gravitation of a polyhedron derived and compared with harmonic and mascon gravitation representations of asteroid 4769 Castalia. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 65(3), 313–344 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00053511

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 4(10), 35–42 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.1984.6429334

    Lien, S.-l., Kajiya, J.T.: A symbolic method for calculating the integral properties of arbitrary nonconvex polyhedra. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 4(10), 35–42 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.1984.6429334

    1984

  11. [19]

    Prentice-Hall international series in dynamics, (1988)

    Greenwood, D.T.: Principles of Dynamics. Prentice-Hall international series in dynamics, (1988). https://books.google.com.br/books?id=j RQAAAAMAAJ

    1988

  12. [20]

    icarus 121(1), 67–87 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996

    Scheeres, D.J., Ostro, S.J., Hudson, R.S., Werner, R.A.: Orbits Close to Asteroid 4769 Castalia. icarus 121(1), 67–87 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/icar.1996. 0072

    1996 doi

  13. [21]

    Hu, W.-D., Scheeres, D.J.: Periodic Orbits in Rotating Second Degree and Order Gravity Fields. Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys.8(1), 108–118 (2008) https://doi. org/10.1088/1009-9271/8/1/12

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Durech, J., Sidorin, V., Kaasalainen, M.: DAMIT: a database of asteroid mod- els. Astron. Astrophys. 513, 46 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/ 200912693

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Marchis, F., Kaasalainen, M., Hom, E.F.Y., Berthier, J., Enriquez, J., Hestrof- fer, D., Le Mignant, D., de Pater, I.: Shape, size and multiplicity of main-belt asteroids. I. Keck Adaptive Optics survey. icarus 185, 39–63 (2006) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2006.06.001

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    icarus 226, 1045–1057 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.023 arXiv:1308.0446 [astro-ph.EP]

    Hanuˇ s, J., Marchis, F.,ˇDurech, J.: Sizes of main-belt asteroids by combining shape models and Keck adaptive optics observations. icarus 226, 1045–1057 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.023 arXiv:1308.0446 [astro-ph.EP]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    icarus 239, 118– 130 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.05.046 arXiv:1407.1292 [astro- ph.EP]

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Marchis, F., ˇDurech, J., Carry, B.: Physical and dynam- ical properties of the main belt triple Asteroid (87) Sylvia. icarus 239, 118– 130 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.05.046 arXiv:1407.1292 [astro- ph.EP]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv e-prints, 1403– 1967 (2014) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1403.1967 arXiv:1403.1967 [astro- ph.EP]

    Jiang, Y., Baoyin, H., Wang, X., Li, H.: Stability and Motion around Equilibrium Points in the Rotating Plane-Symmetric Potential Field. arXiv e-prints, 1403– 1967 (2014) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1403.1967 arXiv:1403.1967 [astro- ph.EP]

    2014 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Astrophys

    Wang, X., Jiang, Y., Gong, S.: Analysis of the potential field and equilibrium points of irregular-shaped minor celestial bodies. Astrophys. Space Sci. 353(1), 105–121 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-014-2022-8 arXiv:1403.5025 [astro-ph.EP] 28

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nolan, M.C., Magri, C., Howell, E.S., Benner, L.A.M., Giorgini, J.D., Hergen- rother, C.W., Hudson, R.S., Lauretta, D.S., Margot, J.L., Ostro, S.J., Scheeres, D.J.: Asteroid (101955) Bennu Shape Model V1.0

  21. [29]

    icarus 235, 5–22 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.02.020 arXiv:1402.5573 [astro- ph.EP]

    Chesley, S.R., Farnocchia, D., Nolan, M.C., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Chodas, P.W., Milani, A., Spoto, F., Rozitis, B., Benner, L.A.M., Bottke, W.F., Busch, M.W., Emery, J.P., Howell, E.S., Lauretta, D.S., Margot, J.-L., Taylor, P.A.: Orbit and bulk density of the OSIRIS-REx target ...

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gaskell, R., Saito, J., Ishiguro, M., Kubota, T., Hashimoto, T., Hirata, N., Abe, S., Barnouin-Jha, O., Scheeres, D.: Gaskell Itokawa Shape Model V1.0

  23. [31]

    Science 312(5778), 1344– 1349 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1126272

    Abe, S., Mukai, T., Hirata, N., Barnouin-Jha, O.S., Cheng, A.F., Demura, H., Gaskell, R.W., Hashimoto, T., Hiraoka, K., Honda, T., Kubota, T., Matsuoka, M., Mizuno, T., Nakamura, R., Scheeres, D.J., Yoshikawa, M.: Mass and Local Topography Measurements of Itokawa by Hayabusa. ...

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    Scheeres, D.J., Gaskell, R.W., Abe, S., Barnouin-Jha, O.S., Hashimoto, T., Kawaguchi, J., Kubota, T., Saito, J., Yoshikawa, M., Hirata, N., Mukai, T., Ishig- uro, M., Kominato, T., Shirakawa, K., Uo, M.: The actual dynamical environment about itokawa. (2006). https://api.seman...

    2006

  25. [33]

    icarus 233, 48–60 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2014.01.026

    Pravec, P., Scheirich, P., ˇDurech, J., Pollock, J., Kuˇ snir´ ak, P., Hornoch, K., Gal´ ad, A., Vokrouhlick´ y, D., Harris, A.W., Jehin, E., Manfroid, J., Opitom, C., Gillon, M., Colas, F., Oey, J., Vraˇ stil, J., Reichart, D., Ivarsen, K., Haislip, J., LaCluyze, A.: The tumb...

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    icarus 300, 115–128 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.08

    Brozovi´ c, M., Benner, L.A.M., McMichael, J.G., Giorgini, J.D., Pravec, P., Scheirich, P., Magri, C., Busch, M.W., Jao, J.S., Lee, C.G., Snedeker, L.G., Silva, M.A., Slade, M.A., Semenov, B., Nolan, M.C., Taylor, P.A., Howell, E.S., Lawrence, K.J.: Goldstone and Arecibo radar...

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Romanian Astronomical Journal 31(3), 241–264 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2012.06781 arXiv:2012.06781 [astro-ph.EP]

    Aljbaae, S., Sanchez, D.M., Prado, A.F.B.A., Souchay, J., Terra, M.O., Negri, R.B., Marchi, L.O.: First approximation for spacecraft motion relative to (99942) Apophis. Romanian Astronomical Journal 31(3), 241–264 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2012.06781 arXiv:2012.06...

    2021 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lowry, S.C., Weissman, P.R., Duddy, S.R., Rozitis, B., Fitzsimmons, A., Green, S.F., Hicks, M.D., Snodgrass, C., Wolters, S.D., Chesley, S.R., Pittichov´ a, J., van Oers, P.: The internal structure of asteroid (25143) Itokawa as revealed by detection of YORP spin-up. Astron. A...

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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