EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 638 (June 2020) A&A, 638 (2020) A84 Full HTML
Open Access

Table 2

Summary of TPM results.

Asteroid Model D0 D Γ ρ (rms) (au) Γ1au Comments
(km) (km) (SI units) (SI units)
(1) Ceres Dawn SPC 939.5 ~1 0.2 2.80 43 Modelled PACS data only
                   
Spherical model 0.5 Similar conclusion but larger error bars
(2) Pallas ADAM 520 ~0.65 0.4 2.95 67 AKARI data show a small slope in the OMR vs. λ plot
                   
Spherical model – 0.6 D ~ 5% larger than ADAM → higher Γ
(3) Juno ADAM 248 ~1 0.5 2.70 126 Feature in the OMR-vs.-aspect angle plot
                   
Spherical model – 1.0 Formally acceptable fit, consistent thermal properties
                   
SAGE – ~1 1.27 147 Formally acceptable fit, consistent thermal properties
(4) Vesta Gaskell 522 ~0.9 0.8 2.36 66 Shallow χ2 minimum, slope in the OMR-vs.-wavelength plot
                   
Spherical model – 1.1 Formally acceptable fit
(8) Flora ADAM 143 ~0.4 0.4 2.20 90 IRAS data: slope in the OMR vs. λ plot
                   
Spherical model – 0.5 Low χ2 too, but significantly higher Γ
(10) Hygiea ADAM 433.6 ~0.9 0.6 3.02 114 IRAS data: slope in the OMR vs. λ plot. IR insensitive to albedo variegation
                   
Spherical model – 0.65 Virtually the same results
(18) Melpomene ADAM 146 ~1 0.3 2.35 95 Shallow and asymmetric . Requires 8% rescaling
                   
Spherical model – 0.3 Similar fit, but only small rescaling required (2%)
(19) Fortuna ADAM 212 ~0.50 0.5 2.45 78 rms > 0.2 at 3σ level. Few data but low pole obliquity
                   
Spherical model – 1.1 Lower Γ, formally acceptable fit
(20) Massalia SAGE1 – ~0.2 0.45 2.40 67 No mirror solution can be rejected. Very low roughness favoured
                   
Spherical model – 146 35 1.6 too high, although in agreement with the SAGE results
(21) Lutetia Jorda 98.15 ~0.6 0.7 2.40 20 0.4 < rms < 0.9. Possible rotational phase shift (see Appendix A.4)
                   
Spherical model 104 60 >3 Spherical approximation fails
(29) Amphitrite ADAM 205.5 ~0.4 0.4 2.55 50 IRAS data: strong slope in the OMR vs. λ plot
                   
Spherical model 0.9 Formally acceptable fit but significantly higher Γ
(52) Europa ADAM 313.7 ~0.5 0.5 3.05 23 Very shallow , despite large dataset. Γ ∝ T effect?
                   
Spherical model – 342 200 > 2 Sphere greatly overestimates diameter and Γ
(54) Alexandra ADAM 143. ~0.3 0.2 2.60 20 Few data, Southern hemisphere not well sampled in the IR data
                   
Spherical model – 0.8 Formally acceptable fit, but inconsistent Γ
(65) Cybele ADAM 313.3 ~0.45 0.7 3.30 73 Required 12% rescaling. Southern hemisphere not well sampled in the IR
                   
Spherical model 1.1 Formally acceptable fit, size in better agreement with ADAM
(88) Thisbe ADAM 220 ~0.9 0.3 3.00 137 IRAS data: slight slope in the OMR vs. λ plot
                   
Spherical model 0.5 Very low and similar D-Γ despite irregular shape
(93) Minerva ADAM 160 ~0.2 0.5 3.01 57 Removed MSX and IRAS 12-μm data from analysis
                   
Spherical model 0.2 Sphere gets lower , but too high Γ
(423) Diotima ADAM 209 ~0.45 0.6 3.07 93 IRAS data: slope in the OMR vs. λ plot. Southern hemisph. not sampled
                   
Spherical model 205 150 > 2 Bad fit
(511) Davida ADAM 313 ~0.5 0.4 3.35 87 IRAS data: slight slope in the OMR vs. λ plot. North. Hemisph. not sampled
                   
Spherical model 0.6 Low but unrealistically high Γ, perhaps because shape is elongated

Notes. D0 is the sphere-equivalent diameter of the ADAM or in-situ shape models. Spherical model refers to a sphere (~3000 facets) with the same spin axis. The symbols D, Γ (SI units = J m −2 s−1∕2 K−1) and ρ denote the best-fitting diameter, thermal inertia and surface roughness (rms) of the corresponding model. To normalise Γ at 1 au (Γ1au), we took the mid-point () between the shortest and longest heliocentric distance at which the data were taken. The surface roughness (rms) were not constrained at the 1σ level unless otherwise stated. For more information we refer to Appendix A and Table A.1.

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.