Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Synchronous Rotation in the (120347) Salacia-Actaea System

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper finds that Salacia and Actaea rotate synchronously with their mutual orbit, making them the third confirmed doubly-synchronous transneptunian binary.

desk verdict A 16-year photometric dataset makes a solid case that Salacia-Actaea is doubly synchronous; the main open question is the 1:2 resonance alternative, which is argued away rather than quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02734 v1 pith:O2G44GXH submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.EP

Cameron Collyer , Estela Fernandez-Valenzuela , Jose Luis Ortiz , Bryan J. Holler , Benjamin Proudfoot , Nicolas Morales , Rafael Morales , Susan Benecchi
show 3 more authors
Flavia L. Rommel Will Grundy Darin Ragozzine
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords transneptunianbinarydoublysynchronousrotationtidallockingSalacia-ActaealightcurveperiodogramLomb-ScargleTNOsatelliteorbit
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 study reports roughly 16 years of photometric monitoring of the transneptunian binary Salacia-Actaea and argues that the system has reached fully synchronous rotation, with both components spinning once per $5.49389$-day mutual orbit. A Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the unresolved ground-based photometry yields a synodic rotation period of $T_{\rm syn}=5.49430 \pm 0.00016$ days and a peak-to-peak amplitude of $\Delta m = 0.0900 \pm 0.0036$ mag, matching the updated orbital period. Using six resolved space-based brightness measurements, the authors attribute the periodicity to longitude-dependent albedo on Salacia's surface rather than to Actaea or to a shape effect. They convert the synodic period to a sidereal period $T_{\rm sid}=5.49403 \pm 0.00016$ days, consistent with the mutual orbital period within $1\sigma$, and a tidal model places the locking time within 1.1 Gyr. If correct, this is the third observationally confirmed doubly-synchronous TNO binary, after Pluto-Charon and Eris-Dysnomia.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a matched pair of periods, one orbital and one rotational. The orbital period comes from a Keplerian fit to resolved astrometry spanning 2006-2024, giving $P_{\rm orb}=5.49389 \pm 0.00001$ days and a system mass; the rotational period comes from a Lomb-Scargle periodogram, a frequency-analysis method for unevenly spaced time series, applied to 16 years of ground-based photometry and giving $T_{\rm syn}=5.49430 \pm 0.00016$ days. The link between the unresolved photometry and Salacia's surface is a set of six resolved space-based brightness measurements whose sinusoidal fit is nearly in phase with the unresolved signal at $\Delta m \simeq 0.1$ mag. The single-peaked interpretation is supported by the tidal argument that a body starting with faster spin would have to pass through the 1:2 spin-orbit resonance to reach a 1:1 state, which is unlikely. A constant-$Q$ tidal evolution model then shows that if Salacia's dissipation factor is within an order of magnitude of Eris's, the system synchronizes in 150 Myr to 1.1 Gyr.

What would settle it

Resolve Salacia and Actaea over at least one full 5.49-day orbit with more than a dozen epochs. If Salacia's folded brightness is flat at the $\sim0.01$ mag level while Actaea shows a large in-phase variation, or if the resolved Salacia amplitude and phase do not reproduce the unresolved $\Delta m=0.09$ mag sinusoid, the doubly-synchronous interpretation fails. A longer-baseline periodogram with dense phase coverage that fails to recover the 5.494-day peak would also refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, put forward in Section 5.2, is that Salacia rotates once per Actaea's orbit: the sidereal rotation period $T_{\rm sid}=5.49403 \pm 0.00016$ days agrees with the mutual orbital period $P_{\rm orb}=5.49389 \pm 0.00001$ days within $1\sigma$. The authors argue that the sinusoidal signal in the unresolved lightcurve is single-peaked and driven by a longitudinally varying surface albedo on Salacia: a triaxial shape would produce a double-peaked lightcurve and would place the body in the unlikely 1:2 spin-orbit resonance, while attributing the full amplitude to Actaea alone would require an implausible $\sim0.95$ mag hemispheric albedo contrast. Resolved photometry of Salacia fits the unresolved signal in phase and at $\sim0.1$ mag amplitude. A previous report of a 6.5-hour rotation period is reinterpreted as a short-period alias of the 5.494-day period, an artifact of short-baseline relative photometry. Together with an updated orbit and system mass, these results support the hypothesis of doubly synchronous rotation, placing Salacia-Actaea alongside Pluto-Charon and Eris-Dysnomia.

Load-bearing premise

The case that the 5.49-day periodicity is on Salacia's surface, not Actaea's, rests on sinusoid fits to only six resolved brightness measurements and on the assumption that passing through the 1:2 spin-orbit resonance is unlikely; if either assumption fails, the system could still be singly synchronous or accidentally matched.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Salacia-Actaea becomes the third TNO binary with observationally confirmed doubly synchronous rotation, joining Pluto-Charon and Eris-Dysnomia.
  • The updated orbit yields a system mass of $(486.1^{+7.6}_{-7.4})\times 10^{18}$ kg and an effective bulk density of $1.38^{+0.22}_{-0.18}$ g cm$^{-3}$, placing the system in the intermediate density regime between porous small bodies and compacted dwarf planets.
  • Other TNO binaries whose short-baseline lightcurves suggested non-synchronous rotation, such as Orcus-Vanth, may actually be tidally locked; the paper predicts Orcus-Vanth is fully synchronized.
  • The small residual eccentricity in the Keplerian orbit is likely not physical but a center-of-body/center-of-light offset caused by Salacia's albedo pattern, analogous to the historical Pluto-Charon case.
  • Because Actaea's synchronization timescale is much shorter than Salacia's, confirming Salacia's lock implies Actaea is also locked.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the doubly synchronous state is confirmed with denser resolved photometry, Salacia-Actaea would provide a direct measure of tidal dissipation ($Q$) for an intermediate-density TNO, bridging the porous-comet and dwarf-planet regimes.
  • The reinterpretation of the old 6.5-hour period as an alias implies that short-baseline relative photometry may systematically miss long rotation periods; reanalyzing other TNO binaries with absolute calibration and window-function analysis could reveal hidden synchronized systems.
  • A practical test: a single continuous lightcurve of the unresolved system covering several 5.49-day cycles, or resolved photometry sampling at least a dozen phases, would distinguish albedo-driven single-peaked variation from alternative configurations.
  • If the COB-COL explanation for the eccentricity is right, astrometric residuals phased to the orbit encode the surface brightness map of Salacia, offering an indirect way to image its albedo features.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes roughly 16 years of unresolved ground-based R-band photometry of the (120347) Salacia–Actaea binary system, reports a Lomb-Scargle period of Tsyn = 5.49430 ± 0.00016 days with peak-to-peak amplitude 0.0900 ± 0.0036 mag, and shows that this matches Actaea's independently determined orbital period (Porb = 5.49389 ± 0.00001 days) once the sidereal correction is applied. The authors use six resolved HST/WFPC2 points to argue that the periodicity originates from a longitudinally varying albedo pattern on Salacia rather than from Actaea or a shape effect, and they invoke a Goldreich-Soter tidal model to suggest that synchronization occurred within about 1.1 Gyr. The paper concludes that Salacia and Actaea are doubly synchronous, which would make this the third confirmed doubly-synchronous TNO binary after Pluto-Charon and Eris-Dysnomia.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is a valuable result: it adds a third example of a fully synchronous TNO binary, provides a new constraint on tidal dissipation in an intermediate-density TNO, and highlights the danger of relying on short-baseline lightcurves for rotation periods. The strongest observational asset is the large, carefully calibrated dataset with a 16-year baseline, a periodogram peak that is robust under 10,000 bootstrap and Monte Carlo resamplings, and a period comparison against an orbit determined from independent astrometry rather than from the photometry itself. The tidal model is transparently parameterized. However, the conclusion that the signal is specifically Salacia's single-peaked rotation, rather than a 1:2 resonant double-peaked shape or an Actaea-driven signal, rests on a small number of resolved HST points and an unquantified tidal prior, so the 'confirmed doubly-synchronous' wording overstates the present evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 (paragraph beginning 'At the outset')] The exclusion of the 1:2 spin-orbit resonance is the only quantitative discriminator between a synchronous single-peaked albedo pattern and a double-peaked triaxial shape, but it is not quantified. The paper states that the system 'would have had to pass the 1:1 spin-orbit resonance ... which is unlikely,' yet it provides no capture probability, resonance width, or initial spin distribution. The Lomb-Scargle search cannot distinguish the two hypotheses because a sinusoid at 5.494 days is exactly the second harmonic of a 10.988-day double-peaked signal. Please supply a quantitative resonance-passage estimate or a harmonic test (for example, search for odd harmonics near 0.091 and 0.273 cycles/day, or fit a two-harmonic model to the phase-folded data and show that the fundamental is absent) before the synchronous interpretation is treated as load-bearing.
  2. [Section 5.1, Figure 3] The attribution of the 5.494-day signal to Salacia's surface rests on sinusoid fits to n = 6 resolved HST points, but the supporting statements are qualitative: the fit is described as 'good' and 'nearly in-phase,' with no uncertainties on the fitted Salacia amplitude and phase and no formal comparison between the phase-fixed and phase-free models. Because the unresolved periodogram is consistent with either a Salacia-driven single-peaked signal or an Actaea-driven signal (the latter requiring the extreme 0.95-magnitude amplitude only under the stated assumptions), the phase-coincidence argument needs a quantitative significance measure, such as a bootstrap over the six HST points or a likelihood-ratio test against the Actaea-only model.
  3. [Appendix A] The sentence 'Given the system's single-peaked light curve, which appears to be the result of rotating albedo features (see below), this explanation seems plausible' uses the conclusion of Section 5 as a premise for the COB-COL interpretation of the orbit residuals. This is circular if the COB-COL argument is intended to independently support the albedo interpretation. Please separate the photometric determination of single-peakedness from the astrometric COB-COL argument so that the latter does not presuppose the former.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 6] The text contains a duplicated paragraph: the passage beginning 'The mass ratio q (q = ms/Mp)...' appears twice, and Figure 4 is invoked with a repeated caption. Please remove the duplicate material.
  2. [Appendix C] The tidal evolution equations are numbered (C2) and (C3), but no equation (C1) appears; renumber the equations or add the missing equation so that the cross-references in Section 6 are unambiguous.
  3. [Section 5.2] The conversion from synodic to sidereal period uses a representative heliocentric orbital angular velocity ωsys ≈ 0.000569 rad/day, but the exact epoch or date range over which this value is evaluated is not stated; please specify it so the 1σ consistency claim can be reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photometric rotation period is measured independently of the astrometric orbit, and the attribution to Salacia is a model interpretation rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two independently measured periods. The orbital period Porb = 5.49389 ± 0.00001 days comes from a Keplerian fit to resolved astrometry using MultiMoon, with no photometric input. The synodic period Tsyn = 5.49430 ± 0.00016 days comes from a Lomb-Scargle periodogram of 16 years of unresolved ground-based photometry; the orbital period is not used as a prior or fitted parameter in that search. The sidereal correction is a standard small geometric term, and the resulting 1σ agreement is an external benchmark, not an identity by construction. The attribution of the periodicity to Salacia's surface is based on resolved HST photometry: a free sinusoid fit to Salacia's six points lands nearly in phase with the unresolved signal, while a forced in-phase fit to Actaea's points requires an amplitude far below what would be needed to explain the unresolved variation. These are model comparisons, not circular reductions. The exclusion of a 1:2 spin-orbit resonance rests on a tidal-evolution argument rather than on the photometry itself; this may be a robustness concern, but it is not circular because the conclusion is not used as an input to the period measurement. The tidal evolution model uses standard Goldreich-Soter equations and explores free parameters Q and q; its output is a locking timescale, and it is not used to derive the observed period. Self-citations to MultiMoon, to the HST photometry method, and to the Eris-Dysnomia synchronous-rotation literature are methodological or are explicitly labeled as assumptions; none of them supplies the central claim as a pre-existing result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters only enter the tidal timescale discussion, not the period detection. The central claim depends mainly on the periodogram and the HST attribution assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • Tidal dissipation factor Q = 50 to 10000 (range)
    Adopted range for the tidal quality factor; tlock scales with Q. The Eris-derived bound is QEris < 650.
  • Mass ratio q = 0.013 to 0.037
    Derived from assumed Actaea density range (0.5 to 1.38 g cm-3) conserving system mass; used in tidal model.
  • Modulus of rigidity μ = 4 GPa
    Chosen as representative of water ice (Neumeier 2018), affecting Q' and tidal timescale.
  • Initial semimajor axis a0 = 3 to 8 Rp
    Range from Arakawa et al. (2021) for impact-formed satellites; used as initial condition for tidal integration.
  • Linear phase coefficient β = 0.1284 ± 0.0048 mag deg-1
    Fitted to the phase curve; used to correct photometry to hR magnitudes. Not central to the rotation claim but part of the calibration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Goldreich-Soter constant-Q tidal model with homogeneous interior is adequate to estimate tlock
    The model assumes homogeneous rock-ice composition and constant Q, as stated in Section 6 and Appendix C; it does not track internal temperature evolution.
  • domain assumption Actaea's spin is always synchronized to the orbit and its spin angular momentum is negligible.
    Stated in Section 6; allows the model to ignore Actaea's rotation evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The photometric lightcurve is single-peaked (albedo-driven) rather than double-peaked (shape-driven).
    The paper argues that a double-peaked shape would put the system in the 1:2 spin-orbit resonance, which is dynamically unlikely (Section 5.1). This is a plausibility argument, not directly observed.
  • domain assumption The F606W-to-R color offset derived from the unresolved system applies to both Salacia and Actaea.
    Section 5.1 assumes equal color for both components based on similar F606W-F814W colors (Benecchi 2009).
  • standard math The bootstrap re-sampling of photometry gives a valid 0.1% false-positive threshold for the periodogram.
    Standard Lomb-Scargle practice (VanderPlas 2018), used in Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption The phase curve of the system is linear over phase angles 0.5-1.3 degrees.
    Section 3.2 constrains the phase curve in this range; the H_R magnitude may be overestimated but this does not affect the period search.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synchronous Rotation in the (120347) Salacia-Actaea System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O2G44GXH

@misc{pith2026250902734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synchronous Rotation in the (120347) Salacia-Actaea System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O2G44GXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02734}
}
read the original abstract

We report on roughly 16 years of photometric monitoring of the transneptunian binary system (120347) Salacia-Actaea which provides significant evidence that Salacia and Actaea are tidally locked to the mutual orbital period in a fully synchronous configuration. The orbit of Actaea is updated, followed by a Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis of the ground-based photometry which reveals a synodic period similar to the orbital period and a peak-to-peak lightcurve amplitude of {\delta}m = 0.0900 {\pm} 0.0036 mag (1{\sigma} uncertainty). Incorporating archival HST photometry that resolves each component, we argue that the periodicity in the unresolved data is driven by a longitudinally varying surface morphology on Salacia, and derive a sidereal rotation period that is within 1{\sigma} of the mutual orbital period. A rudimentary tidal evolution model is invoked that suggests synchronization occurred within 1.1 Gyr after Actaea was captured/formed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02734 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The magnitude dependence as a function of the Sun-TNO-Earth phase angle α. Over the 0.5 ◦ ≲ α ≲ 1.3 ◦ range the relationship is clearly linear. M. E. Brown & B. J. Butler (2017) due to the larger updated system mass. 3. LIGHTCURVE OBSERVATIONS AND PHOTOMETRY 3.1. Description of Observations The ground-based photometry used in this work were obtained from August 2005 - October 2021. The total on-target time was ∼165 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the unresolved ground-based photometry of the Salacia-Actaea system in the range where spectral powers are significant. The frequency with the highest power, ∼0.182 cycles-per-day, is highlighted in orange. The blue dashed lines are the expected locations of aliases of this frequency (up to k = 3) due to the windowing frequencies (See Section 4.1). Right: The time-series photometry … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: In grey are the ground-based data from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top row is for the Salacia-Actaea system. (a): a0 ￾ q space where outward migration is viable by conservation of angular momentum. The range of q-values are calculated by allowing Actaea’s density to range from 0.5 g cm￾3 up to the e↵ective system density of ⇢ =1.3…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-dimensional view of the orbit fitting residu￾als. The colorbar indicates the date of observation. faces were convolved with precise HST astrometry (D. J. Tholen & M. W. Buie 1997; M. W. Buie et al. 2012). Given the system’s single-peaked light curve, which ap￾pears…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thermal-orbital evolution of Eris

    Akiba, R., & Nimmo, F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.16532. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16532

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    D., Chen, Y.-T., et al

    Alexandersen, M., Benecchi, S. D., Chen, Y.-T., et al. 2019, ApJS, 244, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2fe4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2fe4 2019

  3. [3]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 802, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0797-9

    Arakawa, S., Hyodo, R., & Genda, H. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 802, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0797-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0797-9 2019

  4. [4]

    2021, AJ, 162, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f91

    Arakawa, S., Hyodo, R., Shoji, D., & Genda, H. 2021, AJ, 162, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f91

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1f91 2021

  5. [5]

    2025, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 130, e2024JE008923, doi: 10.1029/2024JE008923

    Arakawa, S., Kamata, S., & Genda, H. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 130, e2024JE008923, doi: 10.1029/2024JE008923

    work page doi:10.1029/2024je008923 2025

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJS, 267, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ashton, E., Chang, C.-K., Chen, Y.-T., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration,...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda1e 2023

  7. [7]

    D., Noll, K

    Benecchi, S. D., Noll, K. S., Grundy, W. M., et al. 2009, Icarus, 200, 292, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.025 2009

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Nimmo, F

    Bierson, C. J., & Nimmo, F. 2019, Icarus, 326, 10, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.027

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Brown, M. E. 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105352

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    E., & Butler, B

    Brown, M. E., & Butler, B. J. 2017, AJ, 154, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6346

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    E., & Butler, B

    Brown, M. E., & Butler, B. J. 2023, PSJ, 4, 193, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ace52a

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    W., Grundy, W

    Buie, M. W., Grundy, W. M., Young, E. F., Young, L. A., & Stern, S. A. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 1128

    2010

  6. [14]

    W., Tholen, D

    Buie, M. W., Tholen, D. J., & Grundy, W. M. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 15

    2012

  7. [15]

    W., & Harrington, R

    Christy, J. W., & Harrington, R. S. 1978, AJ, 83, 1005, doi: 10.1086/112284

    1978 doi

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    2013, A&A, 555, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321329

    Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., M¨ uller, T., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321329

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Pike, R

    Fraser, W. C., Pike, R. E., Marsset, M., et al. 2023, PSJ, 4, 80, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/acc844

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010005

    Gladman, B., & Volk, K. 2021, ARA&A, 59, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010005

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Noll, K

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

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Noll, K

    Grundy, W. M., Noll, K. S., Roe, H. G., et al. 2019b, Icarus, 334, 62, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.035

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Grundy, W

    Holler, B. J., Grundy, W. M., Buie, M. W., & Noll, K. S. 2021, Icarus, 355, 114130, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114130

    2021

  17. [25]

    2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020–516, doi: 10.5194/epsc2020-516

    Kiss, C., P´ al, A., Szak´ ats, R., Marton, G., & M¨ uller, T. 2020, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2020–516, doi: 10.5194/epsc2020-516

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2014, ApJL, 793, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

    Lacerda, P., Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., et al. 2014, ApJL, 793, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340, doi: 10.1086/116242

    1992 doi

  20. [28]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4962

    Loveless, S., Prialnik, D., & Podolak, M. 2022, ApJ, 927, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4962

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Antonov, I

    McMaster, M., Turner, A. M., Antonov, I. O., et al. 2008, Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 Instrument Handbook v. 10.0

    2008

  23. [31]

    2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022–652, doi: 10.5194/epsc2022-652

    Morales, R., Morales, N., Duffard, R., et al. 2022, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2022–652, doi: 10.5194/epsc2022-652

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Dynamics, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    Neumeier, J. J. 2018, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 47, 033101, doi: 10.1063/1.5030640

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Nimmo, F., & Brown, M. E. 2023, Science Advances, 9, eadi9201, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adi9201

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Ragozzine, D

    Proudfoot, B. C., Ragozzine, D. A., Thatcher, M. L., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 144

    2024

  28. [36]

    C., et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  31. [39]

    A., Grundy, W

    Stansberry, J. A., Grundy, W. M., Mueller, M., et al. 2012, Icarus, 219, 676, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.03.029 Szak´ ats, R., Kiss, C., Ortiz, J. L., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245234

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Ortiz, J

    Thirouin, A., Noll, K. S., Ortiz, J. L., & Morales, N. 2014, A&A, 569, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423567

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    J., & Buie, M

    Tholen, D. J., & Buie, M. W. 1997, Icarus, 125, 245

    1997

  34. [42]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 16

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Helfenstein, P., Porter, S

    Verbiscer, A. J., Helfenstein, P., Porter, S. B., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 95, doi: 10.3847/PSJ/ac63a6

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2012, A&A, 541, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118743

    Vilenius, E., Kiss, C., Mommert, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118743

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.