Reconstruction of asteroid spin states from Gaia DR3 photometry

Open Access

Table 2

Asteroids whose rotation period derived from DR3 was different from that in DAMIT.

	Asteroid	P_Gaia	P_DAMIT	N	Method	Ref.	Comment
		(h)	(h)
219	Thusnelda	4.44300	59.712	24	E	1	Incorrect, already in Table 1
1040	Klumpkea	37.734	56.588	33	CE	2	Confirmed by Pál et al. (2020); DAMIT incorrect
1284	Latvia	13.0214	9.5506	29	E	3	Incorrect
1465	Autonoma	4.88180	11.94897	44	C	4	Agrees with Brinsfield (2008); Fauvaud & Fauvaud (2013); Ditteon et al. (2018); DAMIT incorrect
1957	Angara	3.67345	3.793615	37	CE	4	Agrees with Binzel (1987); DAMIT incorrect
2177	Oliver	6.10516	6.9969	47	E	3	Agrees with the LCDB period; DAMIT incorrect
2180	Marjaleena	7.7030	8.34623	59	CE	5	Agrees with the LCDB period; DAMIT incorrect
3097	Tacitus	7.4170	8.77591	50	CE	2	Agrees with Waszczak et al. (2015); DAMIT incorrect
4846	Tuthmosis	16.3788	20.0351	46	CE	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
5513	Yukio	5.35953	4.81954	24	C	3	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
10533	1991 PT12	8.6007	17.20736	38	C	6	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
10579	Diluca	16.4749	33.1577	63	C	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
11235	1999 JP91	20.2221	20.5136	48	C	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
11618	1996 EX1	33.691	40.2342	37	CE	6	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
12396	Amyphillips	10.4992	4.450053	53	CE	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
12833	Kamenný Újezd	51.232	24.731	40	E	3	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
13116	Hortensia	47.259	37.1773	48	CE	4	Confirmed by Pál et al. (2020); DAMIT incorrect
13289	1998 QK75	438.6	43.2618	35	CE	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
14555	Shinohara	35.650	23.856	40	CE	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
14664	Vandervelden	4.90927	2.454632	50	CE	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
16394	1981 QD4	3.43229	26.8986	53	C	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
16712	1995 SW29	17.6578	17.17	28	CE	6	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
21181	1994 EB2	82.34	72.957	32	C	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
22018	1999 XK105	3.54874	17.0575	27	CE	7	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
27070	1998 SA101	5.47726	4.91448	28	C	3	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
29198	Weathers	4.50165	4.536367	46	C	4	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
32591	2001 QV134	3.79064	3.79346	48	CE	4	Only slightly different periods
46244	2001 HU15	5.01382	4.877866	40	CE	4	Confirmed by Waszczak et al. (2015); DAMIT incorrect
50776	2000 FS12	11.1477	16.7993	39	CE	6	Confirmed by Waszczak et al. (2015); DAMIT incorrect
52421	Daihoji	23.191	22.5465	33	C	6	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
57046	2001 KW55	6.8831	3.418974	32	C	6	No conclusion
99667	2002 JO1	5.6812	5.07877	26	C	7	DAMIT model is likely incorrect
101537	1998 YX14	15.7599	17.0944	25	C	6	No conclusion

Notes. The table lists for each asteroid the period P_Gaia we derived from Gaia DR3 data, the period P_DAMIT from the DAMIT database, the number of points N in DR3, the method used for computing periodograms: C – convex shape models, E – ellipsoids, CE – both methods provided the same period, and the reference to the DAMIT model. The last column gives our conclusion about the discrepancy between the models.

References. (1) Marciniak et al. (2021); (2) Hanuš et al. (2013); (3) Ďurech et al. (2020); (4) Ďurech et al. (2019); (5) Hanuš et al. (2018); (6) Ďurech et al. (2018); (7) Ďurech et al. (2016).

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.