Table A.1
Summary of TPM results, including the minimum reduced chi-squared (
), the best-fitting diameter (D) and corresponding 1σ statistical error bars, and the number of IR data that were modeled (NIR).
| Target [pole] | NIR | TLC |  |
D ± σD (km) |  for sphere |
Γ [SI units] | Roughness | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (3) Juno | 112 | No | 1.3 | 254 ± 4 | 1.0 |  |
≳1.00 | Borderline acceptable |
| fit. Sphere does | ||||||||
| better | ||||||||
| (14) Irene 1 | 6 | No | 0.1 | 155 | 0.4 | 70 | 0.80 | Very few data to |
| provide realistic | ||||||||
| error bars | ||||||||
| (14) Irene 2 | 6 | No | 0.2 | 154 | 0.2 | 70 | 0.80 | Idem |
| (20) Massalia 1,2 | 72 | No | 0.5 | 145 ± 2 | 1.6 |  |
≲0.20 | Mirror solutions pro- |
| vide virtually same fit | ||||||||
| (64) Angelina 1 | 23 | Yes | 0.8 | 54 ± 2 | 1.10 |  |
0.20 | Did not model MSX data |
| (64) Angelina 2 | 23 | Yes | 1.16 | 54 ± 2 | 1.24 |  |
0.25 | Idem |
| (68) Leto 1 | 55 | Yes | 0.6 | 121 ± 5 | 0.83 |  |
0.50 | Small offset between mir- |
| ror solutions (not stat. | ||||||||
| significant) | ||||||||
| (68) Leto 2 | 55 | Yes | 0.7 | 123 ± 5 | 0.87 |  |
0.45 | Idem |
| (89) Julia | 27 | No | 1.0 | 150 ± 10 | 1.5 |  |
≳0.90 | Only northern aspect |
| angles covered (A < 70°) | ||||||||
| in the IR. Unexpectedly | ||||||||
| high thermal inertia | ||||||||
| fits better probably | ||||||||
| because the phase angle | ||||||||
| coverage is not well | ||||||||
| balanced (only 3 measu- | ||||||||
| rements with α > 0) | ||||||||
| (114) Kassandra 1,2 | 46 | Yes | 0.6 | 98 ± 3 | 0.70 |  |
0.55 | Quite irregular but spheres |
| provide similar fit | ||||||||
| (145) Adeona | 17 | No | 0.47 | 149 ± 10 | 0.23 |  |
0.60 | Phase angle coverage |
| is not well balanced | ||||||||
| between pre- and | ||||||||
| post-opposition | ||||||||
| (297) Caecilia | 13 | No | 0.9 | 41 | 0.9 | 10 | 0.35 | Too few data to give |
| realistic error bars | ||||||||
| (308) Polyxo 1,2 | 13 | No | 0.4 | 139 | 0.35 | 50 | 0.45 | Too few data to give |
| realistic error bars | ||||||||
| (381) Myrrha | 73 | Yes | 0.40 | 131± 4 | 1.6 |  |
≳1.00 | Good fit but some small |
| waviness in residuals | ||||||||
| vs. rot. phase plot | ||||||||
| (441) Bathilde 1 | 26 | Yes | 0.7 | 72 ± 2 | 1.7 |  |
≳0.90 | Very high thermal inertia |
| (441) Bathilde 2 | 26 | Yes | 1.6 | – | > 2 | − | − | Bad fit |
| (721) Tabora 1 | 40 | Yes | 1.4 | 78± 5 | > 5 |  |
0.65 | Borderline acceptable fit, |
| still better than sphere | ||||||||
| (721) Tabora 2 | 40 | Yes | 2.1 | – | > 5 | − | − | Bad fit |
Notes.
TLC (Yes/No) refers to the availability of at least one thermal lightcurve with eight or more points sampling the rotation period. The 
obtained for a spherical model with the same spin properties is shown. We also provide the value of thermal inertia
Γ and surface roughness. Whenever the two mirror solutions provided different optimum diameters, we show them in different lines. Acceptable solutions, and preferred ones whenever it applies to mirror models, are highlighted in bold face.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.