1: % This is a template LaTeX input file. (Version of 15 August 1999)
2: %
3: % A '%' character causes TeX to ignore all remaining text on the line,
4: % and is used for comments like this one.
5:
6: \documentstyle[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: % The preamble begins here.
11: \title{Light Curves of Dwarf Plutonian Planets and other Large Kuiper Belt Objects:
12: Their Rotations, Phase Functions and Absolute Magnitudes}
13: \author{Scott S. Sheppard}
14: \affil{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, \\
15: 5241 Broad Branch Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20015 \\ sheppard@dtm.ciw.edu}
16:
17:
18: \begin{abstract} % Produces abstract
19:
20: I report new time-resolved light curves and determine the rotations
21: and phase functions of several large Kuiper Belt objects, which
22: includes the dwarf planet Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$). Three of the new
23: sample of ten Trans-Neptunian objects display obvious short-term
24: periodic light curves. (120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$ shows a light curve
25: which if double-peaked has a period of $11.70\pm0.01$ hours and a
26: peak-to-peak amplitude of $0.22\pm 0.02$ magnitudes. (84922) 2003
27: VS$_{2}$ has a well defined double-peaked light curve of $7.41\pm0.02$
28: hours with a $0.21\pm 0.02$ magnitude range. (126154) 2001 YH$_{140}$
29: shows variability of $0.21\pm 0.04$ magnitudes with a possible
30: $13.25\pm0.2$ hour single-peaked period. The seven new KBOs in the
31: sample which show no discernible variations within the uncertainties
32: on short rotational time scales are 2001 UQ$_{18}$, (55565) 2002
33: AW$_{197}$, (119979) 2002 WC$_{19}$, (120132) 2003 FY$_{128}$,
34: (136108) Eris 2003 UB$_{313}$, (90482) Orcus 2004 DW, and (90568) 2004
35: GV$_{9}$. Four of the ten newly sampled Kuiper Belt objects were
36: observed over a significant range of phase angles to determine their
37: phase functions and absolute magnitudes. The three medium to large
38: sized Kuiper Belt objects 2004 TY$_{364}$, Orcus and 2004 GV$_{9}$
39: show fairly steep linear phase curves ($\sim$ 0.18 to 0.26 mags per
40: degree) between phase angles of 0.1 and 1.5 degrees. This is
41: consistent with previous measurements obtained for moderately sized
42: Kuiper Belt objects. The extremely large dwarf planet Eris (2003
43: UB$_{313}$) shows a shallower phase curve ($0.09\pm 0.03$ mags per
44: degree) which is more similar to the other known dwarf planet Pluto.
45: It appears the surface properties of the largest dwarf planets in the
46: Kuiper Belt maybe different than the smaller Kuiper Belt objects.
47: This may have to do with the larger objects ability to hold more
48: volatile ices as well as sustain atmospheres. Finally, it is found
49: that the absolute magnitudes obtained using the phase slopes found for
50: individual objects are several tenths of magnitudes different than
51: that given by the Minor Planet Center.
52:
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \keywords{Kuiper Belt --- Oort Cloud --- minor planets, asteroids ---
56: solar system: general --- planets and satellites: individual (2001
57: UQ$_{18}$, (126154) 2001 YH$_{140}$, (55565) 2002 AW$_{197}$, (119979) 2002 WC$_{19}$,
58: (120132) 2003 FY$_{128}$, (136199) Eris 2003 UB$_{313}$, (84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$, (90482)
59: Orcus 2004 DW, (90568) 2004 GV$_{9}$, and (120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$)}
60:
61:
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: To date only about $1\%$ of the Trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) are
66: known of the nearly one hundred thousand expected larger than about 50
67: km in radius just beyond Neptune's orbit (Trujillo et al. 2001). The
68: majority of the largest Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs) now being called
69: dwarf Plutonian planets (radii $>$ 400 km) have only recently been
70: discovered in the last few years (Brown et al. 2005). The large self
71: gravity of the dwarf planets will allow them to be near Hydrostatic
72: equilibrium, have possible tenuous atmospheres, retain extremely
73: volatile ices such as Methane and are likely to be differentiated.
74: Thus the surfaces as well as the interior physical characteristics of
75: the largest TNOs may be significantly different than the smaller TNOs.
76:
77: The largest TNOs have not been observed to have any remarkable
78: differences from the smaller TNOs in optical and near infrared broad
79: band color measurements (Doressoundiram et al. 2005; Barucci et
80: al. 2005). But near infrared spectra has shown that only the three
81: largest TNOs (Pluto, Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$) and (136472) 2005
82: FY$_{9}$) have obvious Methane on their surfaces while slightly
83: smaller objects are either spectrally featureless or have strong water
84: ice signatures (Brown et al. 2005; Licandro et al. 2006). In addition
85: to the Near infrared spectra differences, the albedos of the larger
86: objects appear to be predominately higher than those for the smaller
87: objects (Cruikshank et al. 2005; Bertoldi et al. 2006; Brown et
88: al. 2006). A final indication that the larger objects are indeed
89: different is that the shapes of the largest KBOs seem to signify they
90: are more likely to be in hydrostatic equilibrium than that for the
91: smaller KBOs (Sheppard and Jewitt 2002; Trilling and Bernstein 2006;
92: Lacerda and Luu 2006).
93:
94: The Kuiper Belt has been dynamically and collisionally altered
95: throughout the age of the solar system. The largest KBOs should have
96: rotations that have been little influenced since the sculpting of the
97: primordial Kuiper Belt. This is not the case for the smaller KBOs
98: where recent collisions and fragmentation processes will have highly
99: modified their spins throughout the age of the solar system (Davis and
100: Farinella 1997). The large volatile rich KBOs show significantly
101: different median period and possible amplitude rotational differences
102: when compared to the rocky large main belt asteroids which is expected
103: because of their differing compositions and collisional histories
104: (Sheppard and Jewitt 2002; Lacerda and Luu 2006).
105:
106: I have furthered the photometric monitoring of large KBOs (absolute
107: magnitudes $H < 5.5$ or radii greater than about 100 km assuming
108: moderate albedos) in order to determine their short term rotational
109: and long term phase related light curves to better understand their
110: rotations, shapes and possible surface characteristics. This is a
111: continuation of previous works (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002; Sheppard and
112: Jewitt 2002; Sheppard and Jewitt 2003; Sheppard and Jewitt 2004).
113:
114:
115: \section{Observations}
116:
117: The data for this work were obtained at the Dupont 2.5 meter telescope
118: at Las Campanas in Chile and the University of Hawaii 2.2 meter
119: telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
120:
121: Observations at the Dupont 2.5 meter telescope were performed on the
122: nights of February 14, 15 and 16, March 9 and 10, October 25, 26, and
123: 27, November 28, 29, and 30 and December 1, 2005 UT. The instrument
124: used was the Tek5 with a $2048 \times 2048$ pixel CCD with $24$
125: $\micron$ pixels giving a scale of $0.\arcsec 259$ pixel$^{-1}$ at the
126: f/7.5 Cassegrain focus for a field of view of about $8\arcmin .85
127: \times 8\arcmin .85$. Images were acquired through a Harris R-band
128: filter while the telescope was autoguided on nearby bright stars at
129: sidereal rates (Table 1). Seeing was generally good and ranged from
130: $0.\arcsec 6$ to $1.\arcsec 5$ FWHM.
131:
132: Observations at the University of Hawaii 2.2 meter telescope were
133: obtained on the nights of December 19, 21, 23 and 24, 2003 UT and used
134: the Tektronix $2048 \times 2048$ pixel CCD. The pixels were $24$
135: $\micron$ in size giving $0.\arcsec 219$ pixel$^{-1}$ scale at the
136: f/10 Cassegrain focus for a field of view of about $7\arcmin .5 \times
137: 7\arcmin .5$. Images were obtained in the R-band filter based on the
138: Johnson-Kron-Cousins system with the telescope auto-guiding at
139: sidereal rates using nearby bright stars. Seeing was very
140: good over the several nights ranging from $0.\arcsec 6$ to
141: $1.\arcsec 2$ FWHM.
142:
143: For all observations the images were first bias subtracted and then
144: flat-fielded using the median of a set of dithered images of the
145: twilight sky. The photometry for the KBOs was done in two ways in
146: order to optimize the signal-to-noise ratio. First, aperture
147: correction photometry was performed by using a small aperture on the
148: KBOs ($0.\arcsec 65$ to $1.\arcsec 04$ in radius) and both the same
149: small aperture and a large aperture ($2.\arcsec 63$ to $3. \arcsec 63$
150: in radius) on several nearby unsaturated bright field stars. The
151: magnitude within the small aperture used for the KBOs was corrected by
152: determining the correction from the small to the large aperture using
153: the PSF of the field stars. Second, I performed photometry on the
154: KBOs using the same field stars but only using the large aperture on
155: the KBOs. The smaller apertures allow better photometry for the
156: fainter objects since it uses only the high signal-to-noise central
157: pixels. The range of radii varies because the actual radii used
158: depends on the seeing. The worse the seeing the larger the radius of
159: the aperture needed in order to optimize the photometry. Both
160: techniques found similar results, though as expected, the smaller
161: aperture gives less scatter for the fainter objects while the larger
162: aperture is superior for the brighter objects.
163:
164: Photometric standard stars from Landolt (1992) were used for
165: calibration. Each individual object was observed at all times in the
166: same filter and with the same telescope setup. Relative photometric
167: calibration from night to night was very stable since the same fields
168: stars were observed. The few observations that were taken in mildly
169: non-photometric conditions (i.e. thin cirrus) were easily calibrated
170: to observations of the same field stars on the photometric nights.
171: Thus, the data points on these mildly non-photometric nights are
172: almost as good as the other data with perhaps a slightly larger error
173: bar. The dominate source of error in the photometry comes from
174: simple root N noise.
175:
176: \section{Light Curve Causes}
177:
178: The apparent magnitude or brightness of an atmospherless inert body in
179: our solar system is mainly from reflected sunlight and can be
180: calculated as
181: \begin{equation}
182: m_{R}=m_{\odot}-2.5\mbox{log}\left[p_{R}r^{2}\phi (\alpha )/(2.25\times 10^{16}R^{2}\Delta^{2})\right] \label{eq:appmag}
183: \end{equation}
184: in which $r$ [km] is the radius of the KBO, $R$ [AU] is the
185: heliocentric distance, $\Delta$ [AU] is the geocentric distance,
186: $m_{\odot}$ is the apparent red magnitude of the sun ($-27.1$),
187: $m_{R}$ is the apparent red magnitude, $p_{R}$ is the red geometric
188: albedo, and $\phi (\alpha)$ is the phase function in which the phase
189: angle $\alpha=0$ deg at opposition and $\phi (0)=1$.
190:
191: The apparent magnitude of the TNO may vary for the main following reasons:
192:
193: 1) The geometry in which $R, \Delta$ and/or $\alpha$ changes for the
194: TNO. Geometrical considerations at the distances of the TNOs are
195: usually only noticeable over a few weeks or longer and thus are
196: considered long-term variations. These are further discussed in
197: section 5.
198:
199: 2) The TNOs albedo, $p_{R}$, may not be uniform on its surface causing
200: the apparent magnitude to vary as the different albedo markings on
201: the TNOs surface rotate in and out of our line of sight. Albedo or
202: surface variations on an object usually cause less than a $30 \%$
203: difference from maximum to minimum brightness of an object.
204: (134340) Pluto, because of its atmosphere (Spencer et al. 1997),
205: has one of the highest known amplitudes from albedo variations
206: ($\sim 0.3$ magnitudes; Buie et al. 1997).
207:
208: 3) Shape variations or elongation of an object will cause the
209: effective radius of an object to our line of sight to change as the
210: TNO rotates. A double peaked periodic light curve is expected to
211: be seen in this case since the projected cross section would go
212: between two minima (short axis) and two maxima (long axis) during
213: one complete rotation of the TNO. Elongation from material strength
214: is likely for small TNOs ($r < 100$ km) but for the larger TNOs
215: observed in this paper no significant elongation is expected from
216: material strength because their large self gravity.
217:
218: A large TNO ($r > 100$ km) may be significantly elongated if it has
219: a large amount of rotational angular momentum. An object will be
220: near breakup if it has a rotation period near the critical rotation
221: period ($P_{crit}$) at which centripetal acceleration equals
222: gravitational acceleration towards the center of a rotating
223: spherical object,
224: \begin{equation}
225: P_{crit} = \left(\frac{3\pi }{G \rho}\right)^{1/2} \label{eq:equil}
226: \end{equation}
227: where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $\rho$ is the density of
228: the object. With $\rho$ = $10^3$ kg m$^{-3}$ the critical period is
229: about 3.3 hours. At periods just below the critical period the object
230: will likely break apart. For objects with rotations significantly
231: above the critical period the shapes will be bimodal Maclaurin
232: spheroids which do not shown any significant rotational light curves
233: produced by shape (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002). For periods just above
234: the critical period the equilibrium figures are triaxial ellipsoids
235: which are elongated from the large centripetal force and usually show
236: prominent rotational light curves (Weidenschilling 1981; Holsapple
237: 2001; Jewitt and Sheppard 2002).
238:
239: For an object that is triaxially elongated the peak-to-peak amplitude
240: of the rotational light curve allows for the determination of the
241: projection of the body shape into the plane of the sky by (Binzel et
242: al. 1989)
243: \begin{equation}
244: \Delta m=2.5\mbox{log}\left(\frac{a}{b}\right) - 1.25\mbox{log}\left(\frac{a^{2}cos^{2}\theta +c^{2}sin^{2}\theta}{b^{2}cos^{2}\theta +c^{2}sin
245: ^{2}\theta}\right)
246: \label{eq:elong}
247: \end{equation}
248: where $a \geq b \geq c$ are the semiaxes with the object in rotation
249: about the $c$ axis, $\Delta m$ is expressed in magnitudes, and
250: $\theta$ is the angle at which the rotation ($c$) axis is inclined to
251: the line of sight (an object with $\theta = 90$ deg. is viewed
252: equatorially). The amplitudes of the light curves produced from
253: rotational elongation can range up to about 0.9 magnitudes (Leone et
254: al. 1984).
255:
256: Assuming $\theta = 90$ degrees gives $a/b=10^{0.4 \Delta m}$. Thus
257: the easily measured quantities of the rotation period and amplitude
258: can be used to determine a minimum density for an object if it is
259: assumed to be rotational elongated and strengthless (i.e. the bodies
260: structure behaves like a fluid, Chandrasekhar 1969). The two best
261: cases of this high angular momentum elongation in the Kuiper Belt are
262: (20000) Varuna (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002) and (136108) 2003 EL$_{61}$
263: (Rabinowitz et al. 2006).
264:
265:
266: 4) Periodic light curves may be produced if a TNO is an eclipsing or
267: contact binary. A double-peaked light curve would be expected with
268: a possible characteristic notch shape near the minimum of the light
269: curve. Because the two objects may be tidally elongated the light
270: curves can range up to about 1.2 magnitudes (Leone et al. 1984).
271: The best example of such an object in the Kuiper Belt is 2001
272: QG$_{298}$ (Sheppard and Jewitt 2004).
273:
274:
275: 5) A non-periodic short-term light curve may occur from a complex
276: rotational state, a recent collision, a binary with each component
277: having a large light curve amplitude and a different rotation
278: period or outgassing/cometary activity. These types of short term
279: variability are expected to be extremely rare and none have yet
280: been reliably detected in the Kuiper Belt (Sheppard and Jewitt
281: 2003; Belskaya et al. 2006)
282:
283: \section{Light Curve Results and Analysis}
284:
285: The photometric measurements for the 10 newly observed KBOs are listed
286: in Table~1, where the columns include the start time of each
287: integration, the corresponding Julian date, and the magnitude. No
288: correction for light travel time has been made. Results of the
289: light curve analysis for all the KBOs newly observed are summarized in
290: Table~2.
291:
292: The phase dispersion minimization (PDM) method (Stellingwerf 1978) was
293: used to search for periodicity in the individual light curves. In
294: PDM, the metric is the so-called Theta parameter, which is essentially
295: the variance of the unphased data divided by the variance of the data
296: when phased by a given period. The best fit period should have a very
297: small dispersion compared to the unphased data and thus Theta $<<$ 1
298: indicates that a good fit has been found. In practice, a Theta less
299: than 0.4 indicates a possible periodic signature.
300:
301: \subsection{(120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$}
302:
303: Through the PDM analysis I found a strong Theta minima for 2004
304: TY$_{364}$ near a period of $P=5.85$ hours with weaker alias periods
305: flanking this (Figure~\ref{fig:pdmty}). Phasing the data to all
306: possible periods in the PDM plot with Theta $< 0.4$ found that only
307: the single-peaked period near 5.85 hours and the double-peaked period
308: near 11.70 hours fits all the data obtained from October, November and
309: December 2005. Both periods have an equally low Theta parameter of
310: about 0.15 and either could be the true rotation period
311: (Figures~\ref{fig:phasesinglety} and~\ref{fig:phasedoublety}). The
312: peak-to-peak amplitude is $0.22\pm 0.02$ magnitudes.
313:
314: If 2004 TY$_{364}$ has a double-peaked period it may be elongated from
315: its high angular momentum. If the TNO is assumed to be observed
316: equator on then from Equation~\ref{eq:elong} the $a:b$ axis ratio is
317: about 1.2. Following Jewitt and Sheppard (2002) I assume the TNO is a
318: rotationally elongated strengthless rubble pile. Using the spin
319: period of 11.7 hours, the 1.2 $a:b$ axis ratio found above and the
320: Jacobi ellipsoid tables produced by Chandrasekhar (1969) I find the
321: minimum density of 2004 TY$_{364}$ is about 290 kg m$^{-3}$ with an
322: $a:c$ axis ratio of about 1.9. This density is quite low which leads
323: one to believe either the TNO is not being viewed equator on or the
324: relatively long double-peaked period is not created from high angular
325: momentum of the object.
326:
327:
328: \subsection{(84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$}
329:
330: The KBO 2003 VS$_{2}$ has a very low Theta of less than 0.1 near 7.41
331: hours in the PDM plot (Figure~\ref{fig:pdmvs}). Phasing the December
332: 2003 data to this period shows a well defined double-peaked period
333: (Figure~\ref{fig:phasedoublevs}). The single peaked period for this
334: result would be near 3.71 hours which was a possible period determined
335: for this object by Ortiz et al. (2006). The 3.71 hour single-peaked
336: period does not look as convincing (Figure~\ref{fig:phasesinglevs})
337: which confirms the PDM result that the single-peaked period has about
338: three times more dispersion than the double-peaked period. This is
339: likely because one of the peaks is taller in amplitude ($\sim 0.05$
340: mags) and a little wider. The other single-peaked period of 4.39
341: hours (Figure~\ref{fig:phasesinglevs2}) and the double-peaked period
342: of 8.77 hours (Figure~\ref{fig:phasedoublevs2}) mentioned by Oritz et
343: al. (2006) do not show a low Theta in the PDM and also do not look
344: convincing when examining the phased data. The peak-to-peak
345: amplitude is $0.21\pm 0.02$ magnitudes, which is similar to that
346: detected by Ortiz et al. (2006).
347:
348: The fast rotation of 7.41 hours and double-peaked nature suggests that
349: 2003 VS$_{2}$ may be elongated from its high angular momentum. Using
350: Equation~\ref{eq:elong} and assuming the TNO is observed equator on
351: the $a:b$ axis ratio is about 1.2. Using the spin period of 7.41
352: hours, the 1.2 $a:b$ axis ratio and the Jacobi ellipsoid tables
353: produced by Chandrasekhar (1969) I find the minimum density of 2003
354: VS$_{2}$ is about 720 kg m$^{-3}$ with an $a:c$ axis ratio of about
355: 1.9. This result is similar to other TNO densities found through the
356: Jacobian Ellipsoid assumption (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002; Sheppard and
357: Jewitt 2002; Rabinowitz et al. 2006) as well as recent thermal results
358: from the Spitzer space telescope (Stansberry et al. 2006).
359:
360: \subsection{(126154) 2001 YH$_{140}$}
361:
362: (126154) 2001 YH$_{140}$ shows variability of $0.21 \pm 0.04$
363: magnitudes. The PDM for this TNO shows possible periods near 8.5,
364: 9.15, 10.25 and 13.25 hours though only the 13.25 hour period has a
365: Theta less than 0.4 (Figure~\ref{fig:pdmyh}). Visibly examining the
366: phased data finds only the 13.25 hour period is viable
367: (Figure~\ref{fig:phasesingleyh}). This is consistent with the
368: observation that one minimum and one maximum were shown on December
369: 23, 2003 in about six and a half hours, which would give a
370: single-peaked light curve of twice this time or about 13.25 hours.
371: Ortiz et al. (2006) found this object to have a similar variability
372: but with very limited data could not obtain a reliable period. Ortiz
373: et al. did have one period of 12.99 hours which may be consistent with
374: our result.
375:
376: \subsection{Flat Rotation Curves}
377:
378: Seven of the ten newly observed KBOs; 2001 UQ$_{18}$, (55565) 2002
379: AW$_{197}$, (119979) 2002 WC$_{19}$, (120132) 2003 FY$_{128}$,
380: (136199) Eris 2003 UB$_{313}$, (90482) Orcus 2004 DW, and (90568) 2004
381: GV$_{9}$ showed no variability within the photometric uncertainties of
382: the observations (Table 2; Figures~\ref{fig:multiuq}
383: to~\ref{fig:multigv2}). These KBOs thus either have extremely long
384: rotational periods, are viewed nearly pole-on or most likely have
385: small peak-to-peak rotational amplitudes. The upper limits for the
386: objects short-term rotational variability as shown in Table 2 were
387: determined through a monte carlo simulation. The monte carlo
388: simulation determined the lowest possible amplitude that would be seen
389: in the data from the time sampling and variance of the photometry as
390: well as the errors on the individual points.
391:
392: Ortiz et al. (2006) reported a possible $0.04\pm 0.02$ photometric
393: range for (90482) Orcus 2004 DW and a period near 10 hours. I do not
394: confirm this result here. Ortiz et al. (2006) also reported a
395: marginal $0.08\pm 0.03$ photometric range for (55565) 2002 AW$_{197}$
396: with no one clear best period. I can not confirm this result and find
397: that for 2002 AW$_{197}$ the rotational variability appears
398: significantly less than 0.08 magnitudes.
399:
400: Some of the KBOs in this sample appear to have variability which is
401: just below the threshold of the data detection and thus no significant
402: period could be obtained with the current data. In particular 2001
403: UQ$_{18}$ appears to have a light curve with a significant amplitude
404: above 0.1 magnitudes but the data is sparser for this object than most
405: the others and thus no significant period is found. Followup
406: observations will be required in order to determine if most of these
407: flat light curve objects do have any significant short-term
408: variability.
409:
410: \subsection{Comparisons with Size, Amplitude, Period, and MBAs}
411:
412: In Figures~\ref{fig:ampdia} and \ref{fig:perdia} are plotted the
413: diameters of the largest TNOs and Main Belt Asteroids (MBAs) versus
414: rotational amplitude and period, respectively. Most outliers on
415: Figure~\ref{fig:ampdia} can easily be explained from the discussion in
416: section 3. Varuna, 2003 EL$_{61}$ and the other unmarked TNOs with
417: photometric ranges above about 0.4 magnitudes are all spinning faster
418: than about 8 hours. They are thus likely hydrostatic equilibrium
419: triaxial Jacobian ellipsoids which are elongated from their rotational
420: angular momentum (Jewitt and Sheppard 2002; Sheppard and Jewitt 2002;
421: Rabinowitz et al. 2006). 2001 QG$_{298}$'s large photometric range is
422: probably because this object is a contact binary indicative of its
423: longer period and notched shaped light curve (Sheppard and Jewitt
424: 2004). Pluto's relatively large amplitude light curve is best
425: explained through its active atmosphere (Spencer et al. 1997). Like
426: the MBAs, the photometric amplitudes of the TNOs start to increase
427: significantly at sizes less than about 300 km in diameter. The likely
428: reason is this size range is where the objects are still large enough
429: to be dominated by self-gravity and are not easily disrupted through
430: collisions but can still have their angular momentum highly altered
431: from the collisional process (Farinella et al. 1982; Davis and
432: Farinella 1997). Thus this is the region most likely to be populated
433: by high angular momentum triaxial Jacobian ellipsoids (Farinella et
434: al. 1992).
435:
436: From this work Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$) has one of the highest
437: signal-to-noise time-resolved photometry measurements of any TNO
438: searched for a rotational period. There is no obvious rotational
439: light curve larger than about 0.01 magnitudes in our extensive data
440: which indicates a very uniform surface, a rotation period of over a
441: few days or a pole-on viewing geometry. Carraro et al. (2006) suggest
442: a possible 0.05 magnitude variability for Eris between nights but this
443: is not obvious in this data set. The similar inferred composition and
444: size of Eris to Pluto suggests these objects should behave very
445: similar (Brown et al. 2005,2006). Since Pluto has a relatively
446: substantial atmosphere at its current position of about 30 AU (Elliot
447: et al. 2003; Sicardy et al. 2003) it is very likely that Eris has an
448: active atmosphere when near its perihelion of 38 AU. At Eris' current
449: distance of 97 AU its surface thermal temperature should be over 20
450: degrees colder than when at perihelion. Like Pluto, Eris' putative
451: atmosphere near perihelion would likely be composed of N$_{2}$,
452: CH$_{4}$ or CO which would mostly condense when near aphelion (Spencer
453: et al. 1997; Hubbard 2003), effectively resurfacing the TNO every few
454: hundred years. This is the most likely explanation as to why the
455: surface of Eris appears so uniform. This may also be true for 2005
456: FY$_{9}$ which appears compositionally similar to Pluto (Licandro et
457: al. 2006) and at 52 AU is about 15 degrees colder than Pluto.
458:
459: Figure~\ref{fig:perdia} shows that the median rotation period
460: distribution for TNOs is about $9.5\pm 1$ hours which is marginally
461: larger than for similarly sized main belt asteroids ($7.0\pm 1$
462: hours)(Sheppard and Jewitt 2002; and Lacerda and Luu 2006). If
463: confirmed, the likely reason for this difference are the collisional
464: histories of each reservoir as well as the objects compositions.
465:
466:
467: \section{Phase Curve Results}
468:
469: The phase function of an objects surface mostly depends on the albedo,
470: texture and particle structure of the regolith. Four of the newly
471: imaged TNOs (Eris 2003 UB$_{313}$, (120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$, Orcus
472: 2004 DW, and (90568) 2004 GV$_{9}$) were viewed on two separate
473: telescope observing runs occurring at significantly different phase
474: angles (Figures~\ref{fig:phaseub} to~\ref{fig:phasegv}). This allowed
475: their linear phase functions,
476: \begin{equation}
477: \phi(\alpha) = 10^{-0.4\beta \alpha}
478: \label{eq:phangle}
479: \end{equation}
480: to be estimated where $\alpha$ is the phase angle in degrees and
481: $\beta$ is the linear phase coefficient in magnitudes per degree
482: (Table 3). The phase angles for TNOs are always less than about 2
483: degrees as seen from the Earth. Most atmosphereless bodies show
484: opposition effects at such small phase angles (Muinonen et al. 2002).
485: The TNOs appear to have mostly linear phase curves between phase
486: angles of about 2 and 0.1 degrees (Sheppard and Jewitt 2002,2003;
487: Rabinowitz et al. 2007). For phase angles smaller than about 0.1
488: degrees TNOs may display an opposition spike (Hicks et al. 2005;
489: Belskaya et al. 2006).
490:
491: The moderate to large KBOs Orcus, 2004 TY$_{364}$, and 2004 GV$_{9}$
492: show steep linear R-band phase slopes ($0.18$ to $0.26$ mags per
493: degree) similar to previous measurements of similarly sized moderate
494: to large TNOs (Sheppard and Jewitt 2002,2003; Rabinowitz et al. 2007).
495: In contrast the extremely large dwarf planet Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$)
496: has a shallower phase slope ($0.09$ mags per degree) more similar to
497: Charon ($\sim 0.09$ mags/deg; Buie et al. (1997)) and possibly Pluto
498: ($\sim 0.03$ mags/deg; Buratti et al. (2003)). Empirically lower
499: phase coefficients between 0.5 and 2 degrees may correspond to bright
500: icy objects whose surfaces have probably been recently resurfaced such
501: as Triton, Pluto and Europa (Buie et al. 1997; Buratti et al. 2003;
502: Rabinowitz et al. 2007). Thus Eris' low $\beta$ is consistent with it
503: having an icy surface that has recently been resurfaced.
504:
505: In Figures~\ref{fig:betaversusHr} to~\ref{fig:betaversuscolor} are
506: plotted the linear phase coefficients found for several TNOs versus
507: several different parameters (reduced magnitude, albedo, rotational
508: photometric amplitude and $B-I$ broad band color). Table 4 shows the
509: significance of any correlations. Based on only a few large objects
510: it appears that the larger TNOs may have lower $\beta$ values. This
511: is true for the R-band and V-band data at the $97 \%$ confidence level
512: but interestingly using data from Rabinowitz et al. (2007) no
513: correlation is seen in the I-band (Table 4). Thus further
514: measurements are needed to determine if there is a significantly
515: strong correlation between the size and phase function of TNOs.
516: Further, it may be that the albedos are anti-correlated with $\beta$,
517: but since we have such a small number of albedos known the statistics
518: don't give a good confidence in this correlation. If confirmed with
519: additional observations, these correlations may be an indication that
520: larger TNOs surfaces are less susceptible to phase angle opposition
521: effects at optical wavelengths. This could be because the larger TNOs
522: have different surface properties from smaller TNOs due to active
523: atmospheres, stronger self-gravity or different surface layers from
524: possible differentiation.
525:
526: \subsection{Absolute Magnitudes}
527:
528: From the linear phase coefficient the reduced magnitude, $m_{R}(1,1,0)
529: = m_{R} - 5\mbox{log}(R\Delta)$ or absolute magnitude $H$ (Bowell et
530: al. 1989), which is the magnitude of an object if it could be observed
531: at heliocentric and geocentric distances of 1 AU and a phase angle of
532: 0 degrees, can be estimated (see Sheppard and Jewitt 2002 for further
533: details). The results for $m_{R}(1,1,0)$ and $H$ are found to be
534: consistent to within a couple hundreths of a magnitude (Table 3 and
535: Figures~\ref{fig:phaseub} to~\ref{fig:phasegv}). It is found that the
536: R-band empirically determined absolute magnitudes of individual TNOs
537: appears to be several tenths of a magnitude different than what is
538: given by the Minor Planet Center (Table 3). This is likely because
539: the MPC assumes a generic phase function and color for all TNOs while
540: these two physical properties appear to be significantly different for
541: individual KBOs (Jewitt and Luu 1998). The work by Romanishin and
542: Tegler (2005) attempts to determine various absolute magnitudes of
543: TNOs by using main belt asteroid type phase curves which are not
544: appropriate for TNOs (Sheppard and Jewitt 2002).
545:
546: \section{Summary}
547:
548: Ten large trans-Neptunian objects were observed in the R-band to
549: determine photometric variability on times scales of hours, days and
550: months.
551:
552: 1) Three of the TNOs show obvious short-term photometric variability
553: which is taken to correspond to their rotational states.
554:
555: \begin{itemize}
556:
557: \item (120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$ shows a double-peaked period of 11.7
558: hours and if single-peaked is 5.85 hours. The peak-to-peak amplitude
559: of the light curve is $0.22\pm 0.02$ mags.
560:
561: \item (84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$ has a well defined double-peaked period of
562: 7.41 hours with a peak-to-peak amplitude of $0.21\pm 0.02$ mags. If
563: the light curve is from elongation than 2003 VS$_{2}$'s $a/b$ axis
564: ratio is at least 1.2 and the $a/c$ axis ratio is about 1.9.
565: Assuming 2003 VS$_{2}$ is elongated from its high angular momentum
566: and is a strengthless rubble pile it would have a minimum density of
567: about 720 kg m$^{-3}$.
568:
569: \item (126154) 2001 YH$_{140}$ has a single-peaked period of about 13.25
570: hours with a photometric range of $0.21\pm 0.04$ mags.
571:
572: \end{itemize}
573:
574: 2) Seven of the TNOs show no short-term photometric variability within
575: the measurement uncertainties.
576:
577: \begin{itemize}
578:
579: \item Photometric measurements of the large TNOs (90482) Orcus and
580: (55565) 2002 AW$_{197}$ showed no variability within or
581: uncertainties. Thus these measurements do not confirm possible small
582: photometric variability found for these TNOs by Ortiz et al. (2006).
583:
584: \item No short-term photometric variability was found for (136199)
585: Eris 2003 UB$_{313}$ to about the 0.01 magnitude level. This high
586: signal to noise photometry suggests Eris is nearly spherical with a
587: very uniform surface. Such a nearly uniform surface may be
588: explained by an atmosphere which is frozen onto the surface of Eris
589: when near aphelion. The atmosphere, like Pluto's, may become active
590: when near perihelion effectively resurfacing Eris every few hundred
591: years. The Methane rich TNO 2005 FY$_{9}$ may also be in a similar
592: situation.
593:
594: \end{itemize}
595:
596: 3) Four of the TNOs were observed over significantly different phase
597: angles allowing their long term photometric variability to be
598: measured between phase angles of 0.1 and 1.5 degrees.
599:
600: \begin{itemize}
601:
602: \item TNOs Orcus, 2004 TY$_{364}$ and 2004 GV$_{9}$ show steep linear
603: R-band phase slopes between 0.18 and 0.26 mags/degree.
604:
605: \item Eris 2003 UB$_{313}$ shows a shallower R-band phase slope of 0.09
606: mags/degree. This is consistent with Eris having a high albedo, icy
607: surface which may have recently been resurfaced.
608:
609: \item At the $97\%$ confidence level the largest TNOs have shallower
610: R-band linear phase slopes compared to smaller TNOs. The largest TNOs
611: surfaces may differ from the smaller TNOs because of their more
612: volatile ice inventory, increased self-gravity, active atmospheres,
613: differentiation process or collisional history.
614:
615: \end{itemize}
616:
617: 3) The absolute magnitudes determined for several TNOs through
618: measuring their phase curves show a difference of several tenths of
619: a magnitude from the Minor Planet Center values.
620:
621: \begin{itemize}
622:
623: \item The values found for the reduced magnitude, $m_{R}(1,1,0)$, and absolute
624: magnitude, $H$, are similar to within a few hundreths of a magnitude
625: for most TNOs.
626:
627: \end{itemize}
628:
629: \section*{Acknowledgments}
630:
631: Support for this work was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship
632: grant \# HF-01178.01-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science
633: Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
634: Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555.
635:
636:
637: \begin{references}
638:
639: \reference{Bar05} Barucci, M., Belskaya, I., Fulchignoni, M. \& Birlan, M. 2005, AJ, 130, 1291
640:
641: \reference{Bel06} Belskaya, I., Ortiz, J., Rousselot, P., Ivanova, V.,
642: Borisov, G., Shevchenko, V. \& Peixinho, N. 2006, Icarus, 184, 277
643:
644: \reference{Ber06} Bertoldi, F., Altenhoff, W., Weiss, A., Menten, K. \& Thum, C. 2006, Nature, 439, 563
645:
646: \reference{Bin89} Binzel, R., Farinella, P., Zappala V., \& Cellino, A. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. Binzel, T. Gehrels, and M. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 416
647:
648: \reference{Bow89} Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., Lumme, K., Peltoniemi, J., \& Harris, A. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. Binzel, T. Gehrels, and M. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 524
649:
650:
651: \reference{Bro05} Brown, M., Trujillo, C. \& Rabinowitz, D. 2005, ApJ, 635, L97
652:
653: \reference{Bro06} Brown, M., Schaller, E., Roe, H., Rabinowitz, D., \& Trujillo, C. 2006, ApJ, 643, L61
654:
655: \reference{Bui97} Buie, M., Tholen, D. \& Wasserman, L. 1997, Icarus, 125, 233
656:
657: \reference{Bur03} Buratti, B., Hillier, J., Heinze, A., Hicks, M., Tryka, K., Mosher, J., Ward, J., Garske, M., Young, J. and Atienza-Rosel, J. 2003, Icarus, 162, 171
658:
659: \reference{Car06} Carraro, G., Maris, M., Bertin, D. and Parisi, M. 2006, AA, 460, L39
660:
661: \reference{Cha69} Chandrasekhar, S. 1969, Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn.
662:
663: \reference{Cru05} Cruikshank, D., Stansberry, J., Emery, J., Fernandez, Y., Werner, M., Trilling, D. \& Rieke, G. 2005, ApJ, 624, 53
664:
665: \reference{Cru06} Cruikshank, D., Barucci, M., Emery, J., Fernandez,
666: Y., Grundy, W., Noll, K. and Stansberry, J. 2006, in Protostars and
667: Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, and K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona
668: Press), in press
669:
670: \reference{Dav97} Davis, D. and Farinella, P. 1997, Icarus, 125, 50
671:
672: \reference{deb05} de Bergh, C., Delsanti, A., Tozzi, G., Dotto, E., Doressoundiram, A. and Barucci, M. 2005, AA, 437, 1115
673:
674: \reference{Dor05} Doressoundiram, A., Peixinho, N., Doucet, C., Mousis, O., Barucci, M., Petit, J. and Veillet, C. 2005, Icarus, 174, 90
675:
676: \reference{Ell05} Elliot, J., Ates, A., Babcock, B. et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 165
677:
678: \reference{Far82} Farinella, P. and Paolicchi, P. 1982, Icarus, 52, 409
679:
680: \reference{Far92} Farinella, P., Davis, D., Paolicchi, P., Cellino, A. and Zappala, V. 1992, AA, 253, 604
681:
682: \reference{Hic05} Hicks, M., Simonelli, D. and Buratti, B. 2005, Icarus, 176, 492
683:
684: \reference{Hol01} Holsapple, K. 2001, Icarus, 154, 432
685:
686: \reference{Hub03} Hubbard, W. 2003, Nature, 424, 137
687:
688: \reference{Jew98} Jewitt, D. \& Luu, J. 1998, AJ, 115, 1667
689:
690: \reference{Jew01c} Jewitt, D. \& Sheppard, S. 2002, AJ, 123, 2110
691:
692: \reference{Lac06} Lacerda, P. \& Luu, J. 2006, AJ, 131, 2314
693:
694: \reference{Lan92} Landolt, A. 1992, AJ, 104, 340
695:
696: \reference{Leo84} Leone, G., Farinella, P., Paolicchi, P. \& Zappala, V. 1984, A\&A, 140, 265
697:
698: \reference{Lic06} Licandro, J., Pinilla-Alonso, N., Pedani, M., Oliva, E., Tozzi, G. and Grundy, W. 2006, A\&A, 445, L35
699:
700: \reference{Mui02} Muinonen, K., Piironen, J., Shkuratov, Y., Ovcharenko, A. and Clark, B. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W. Bottke, A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi and R. Binzel (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 123
701:
702: \reference{Ort06} Ortiz, J., Gutierrez, P., Santos-Sanz, P., Casanova, V. and Sota, A. 2006, A\&A, 447, 1131
703:
704: \reference{Rab06} Rabinowitz, D., Barkume, K., Brown, M. et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1238
705:
706: \reference{Rab06b} Rabinowitz, D., Schaefer, B. and Tourtellotte, S. 2007, AJ, 133, 26
707:
708: \reference{Rom05} Romanishin, W. and Tegler, S. 2005, Icarus, 179, 523
709:
710: \reference{She02} Sheppard, S. \& Jewitt, D. 2002, AJ, 124, 1757
711:
712: \reference{She03} Sheppard, S. \& Jewitt, D. 2003, EM\&P, 92, 207
713:
714: \reference{She04} Sheppard, S. \& Jewitt, D. 2004, AJ, 127, 3023
715:
716: \reference{Sic03} Sicardy, B., Widemann, T., Lellouch, E. et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 168
717:
718: \reference{Spe97} Spencer, J., Stansberry, J., Trafton, L, Young, E.,
719: Binzel, R. and Croft, S. 1997, in Pluto and Charon, ed. S. Stern and
720: D. Tholen (Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press), 435
721:
722: \reference{Sta06} Stansberry, J., Grundy, W., Margot, J., Cruikshank, D., Emery, J., Rieke, G. and Trilling, D. 2006, ApJ, 643, 556
723:
724: \reference{Ste78} Stellingwerf, R. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953
725:
726: \reference{Tri06} Trilling, D. \& Bernstein, G. 2006, AJ, 131, 1149
727:
728: \reference{Tru01} Trujillo, C., Jewitt, D. \& Luu, J. 2001, AJ, 122, 457
729:
730: \reference{Wei81} Weidenschilling, S. 1981, Icarus, 46, 124
731:
732: \end{references}
733:
734: \newpage
735:
736: \input{tab1.tex}
737:
738: \newpage
739:
740: \input{tab2.tex}
741:
742: \newpage
743:
744: \input{tab3.tex}
745:
746: \newpage
747:
748: \input{tab4.tex}
749:
750: \newpage
751:
752: \begin{figure}
753: \epsscale{0.7}
754: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig01.ps}}
755: \caption{The Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) plot for (120348) 2004
756: TY$_{364}$. The best fit single-peaked period is near 5.85 hours.}
757: \label{fig:pdmty}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: \clearpage
761:
762: \begin{figure}
763: \epsscale{0.7}
764: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig02.ps}}
765: \caption{The phased best fit single-peaked period for (120348) 2004
766: TY$_{364}$ of 5.85 hours. The peak-to-peak amplitude is about 0.22
767: magnitudes. The data from November and December has been vertically
768: shifted to correspond to the same phase angle as the data from
769: October using the phase function found for this object in this work.
770: Individual error bars for the measurements are not shown for clarity
771: but are generally $\pm 0.01$ mags as seen in Table 1.}
772: \label{fig:phasesinglety}
773: \end{figure}
774:
775: \clearpage
776:
777:
778: \begin{figure}
779: \epsscale{0.7}
780: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig03.ps}}
781: \caption{The phased double-peaked period for (120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$
782: of 11.70 hours. The data from November and December has been
783: vertically shifted to correspond to the same phase angle as the data
784: from October using the phase function found for this object in this
785: work. Individual error bars for the measurements are not shown for
786: clarity but are generally $\pm 0.01$ mags as seen in Table 1.}
787: \label{fig:phasedoublety}
788: \end{figure}
789:
790: \clearpage
791:
792: \begin{figure}
793: \epsscale{0.7}
794: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig04.ps}}
795: \caption{The Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) plot for (84922) 2003
796: VS$_{2}$. The best fit is the double-peaked period near 7.41 hours.}
797: \label{fig:pdmvs}
798: \end{figure}
799:
800: \clearpage
801:
802: \begin{figure}
803: \epsscale{0.7}
804: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig05.ps}}
805: \caption{The phased best fit double-peaked period for (84922) 2003
806: VS$_{2}$ of 7.41 hours. The peak-to-peak amplitude is about 0.21
807: magnitudes. The two peaks have differences since one is slightly
808: wider while the other is slightly shorter in amplitude. This is the
809: best fit period for (84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$. Individual error bars
810: for the measurements are not shown for clarity but are generally
811: $\pm 0.01$ mags as seen in Table 1.}
812: \label{fig:phasedoublevs}
813: \end{figure}
814:
815: \clearpage
816:
817:
818: \begin{figure}
819: \epsscale{0.7}
820: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig06.ps}}
821: \caption{The phased single-peaked period for (84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$ of
822: 3.70 hours. The single peaked period for 2003 VS$_{2}$ does not
823: look well matched and has a larger scatter about the solution
824: compared to the double-peaked period shown in
825: Figure~\ref{fig:phasedoublevs}. Individual error bars for the
826: measurements are not shown for clarity but are generally $\pm 0.01$
827: mags as seen in Table 1.}
828: \label{fig:phasesinglevs}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: \clearpage
832:
833: \begin{figure}
834: \epsscale{0.7}
835: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig07.ps}}
836: \caption{The phased single-peaked period for (84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$ of
837: 4.39 hours. Again, the single peaked period for 2003 VS$_{2}$ does
838: not look well matched and has a larger scatter about the solution
839: compared to the double-peaked period shown in
840: Figure~\ref{fig:phasedoublevs}. Individual error bars for the
841: measurements are not shown for clarity but are generally $\pm 0.01$
842: mags as seen in Table 1.}
843: \label{fig:phasesinglevs2}
844: \end{figure}
845:
846: \clearpage
847:
848: \begin{figure}
849: \epsscale{0.7}
850: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig08.ps}}
851: \caption{The phased double-peaked period for (84922) 2003 VS$_{2}$ of
852: 8.77 hours. This double-peaked period for 2003 VS$_{2}$ does not
853: look well matched and has a larger scatter about the solution
854: compared to the 7.41 hour double-peaked period shown in
855: Figure~\ref{fig:phasedoublevs}. Individual error bars for the
856: measurements are not shown for clarity but are generally $\pm 0.01$
857: mags as seen in Table 1.}
858: \label{fig:phasedoublevs2}
859: \end{figure}
860:
861:
862: \clearpage
863:
864: \begin{figure}
865: \epsscale{0.7}
866: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig09.ps}}
867: \caption{The Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) plot for 2001 YH$_{140}$.
868: The best fit is the single-peaked period near 13.25 hours. The other
869: possible fits near 8.5, 9.15 and 10.25 hours don't look good when
870: phasing the data and viewing the result by eye.}
871: \label{fig:pdmyh}
872: \end{figure}
873:
874: \clearpage
875:
876: \begin{figure}
877: \epsscale{0.7}
878: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig10.ps}}
879: \caption{The phased best fit single-peaked period for 2001 YH$_{140}$
880: of 13.25 hours. The peak-to-peak amplitude is about 0.21
881: magnitudes. Individual error bars for the measurements are not
882: shown for clarity but are generally $\pm 0.02$ mags as seen in Table
883: 1.}
884: \label{fig:phasesingleyh}
885: \end{figure}
886:
887: \clearpage
888:
889: \begin{figure}
890: \epsscale{0.7}
891: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig11.ps}}
892: \caption{The flat light curve of 2001 UQ$_{18}$. The KBO may have a
893: significant amplitude light curve but further observations are needed
894: to confirm.}
895: \label{fig:multiuq}
896: \end{figure}
897:
898:
899: \begin{figure}
900: \epsscale{0.7}
901: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig12.ps}}
902: \caption{The flat light curve of (55565) 2002 AW$_{197}$. The KBO has no
903: significant short-term variations larger than 0.03 magnitudes over two
904: days.}
905: \label{fig:multiaw}
906: \end{figure}
907:
908: \clearpage
909:
910:
911: \begin{figure}
912: \epsscale{0.7}
913: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig13.ps}}
914: \caption{The flat light curve of (119979) 2002 WC$_{19}$. The KBO has no
915: significant short-term variations larger than 0.03 magnitudes over four
916: days.}
917: \label{fig:multiwc}
918: \end{figure}
919:
920: \clearpage
921:
922: \begin{figure}
923: \epsscale{0.7}
924: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig14.ps}}
925: \caption{The flat light curve of (119979) 2002 WC$_{19}$. The KBO has no
926: significant short-term variations larger than 0.03 magnitudes over four
927: days.}
928: \label{fig:multiwcb}
929: \end{figure}
930:
931:
932: \clearpage
933:
934:
935: \begin{figure}
936: \epsscale{0.7}
937: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig15.ps}}
938: \caption{The flat light curve of (120132) 2003 FY$_{128}$. The KBO has no
939: significant short-term variations larger than 0.08 magnitudes over two
940: days.}
941: \label{fig:multify}
942: \end{figure}
943:
944: \clearpage
945:
946: \begin{figure}
947: \epsscale{0.7}
948: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig16.ps}}
949: \caption{The flat light curve of Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$) in October 2005. The KBO has no
950: significant short-term variations larger than 0.01 magnitudes over
951: several days.}
952: \label{fig:multiub1}
953: \end{figure}
954:
955:
956: \clearpage
957:
958: \begin{figure}
959: \epsscale{0.7}
960: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig17.ps}}
961: \caption{The flat light curve of Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$) in November and December
962: 2005. The KBO has no significant short-term variations larger than
963: 0.01 magnitudes over several days.}
964: \label{fig:multiub2}
965: \end{figure}
966:
967: \clearpage
968:
969:
970: \begin{figure}
971: \epsscale{0.7}
972: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig18.ps}}
973: \caption{The flat light curve of (90482) Orcus 2004 DW in February
974: 2005. The KBO has no significant short-term variations larger than
975: 0.03 magnitudes over several days.}
976: \label{fig:multidw1}
977: \end{figure}
978:
979: \clearpage
980:
981: \begin{figure}
982: \epsscale{0.7}
983: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig19.ps}}
984: \caption{The flat light curve of (90482) Orcus 2004 DW in March 2005.
985: The KBO has no significant short-term variations larger than 0.03
986: magnitudes over several days.}
987: \label{fig:multidw2}
988: \end{figure}
989:
990: \clearpage
991:
992:
993: \begin{figure}
994: \epsscale{0.7}
995: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig20.ps}}
996: \caption{The flat light curve of (90568) 2004 GV$_{9}$ in February
997: 2005. The KBO has no significant short-term variations larger than
998: 0.1 magnitudes over several days.}
999: \label{fig:multigv1}
1000: \end{figure}
1001:
1002: \clearpage
1003:
1004: \begin{figure}
1005: \epsscale{0.7}
1006: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig21.ps}}
1007: \caption{The flat light curve of (90568) 2004 GV$_{9}$ in March 2005.
1008: The KBO has no significant short-term variations larger than 0.1
1009: magnitudes over several days.}
1010: \label{fig:multigv2}
1011: \end{figure}
1012:
1013: \clearpage
1014:
1015:
1016: \begin{figure}
1017: \epsscale{0.7}
1018: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig22.ps}}
1019: \caption{This plot shows the diameter of asteroids and TNOs versus
1020: their light curve amplitudes. The TNOs sizes if unknown assume they
1021: have moderate albedos of about 10 percent. For objects with flat
1022: light curves they are plotted at the variation limit found by
1023: observations.}
1024: \label{fig:ampdia}
1025: \end{figure}
1026:
1027: \clearpage
1028:
1029: \begin{figure}
1030: \epsscale{0.7}
1031: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig23.ps}}
1032: \caption{Same as the previous figure except the diameter versus the
1033: light curve period is plotted. The dashed line is the median of known
1034: TNOs rotation periods ($9.5 \pm 1$ hours) which is significantly above
1035: the median large MBAs rotation periods ($7.0 \pm 1$ hours). Pluto
1036: falls off the graph in the upper right corner because of its slow
1037: rotation created by the tidal locking to its satellite Charon.}
1038: \label{fig:perdia}
1039: \end{figure}
1040:
1041: \clearpage
1042:
1043: \begin{figure}
1044: \epsscale{0.7}
1045: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig24.ps}}
1046: \caption{The phase curve for Eris (2003 UB$_{313}$). The dashed line
1047: is the linear fit to the data while the solid line uses the Bowell et
1048: al. (1989) H-G scattering formalism. In order to create only a few
1049: points with small error bars, the data has been averaged for each observing night.}
1050: \label{fig:phaseub}
1051: \end{figure}
1052:
1053: \clearpage
1054:
1055: \begin{figure}
1056: \epsscale{0.7}
1057: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig25.ps}}
1058: \caption{The phase curve for (90482) Orcus 2004 DW. The dashed line is
1059: the linear fit to the data while the solid line uses the Bowell et
1060: al. (1989) H-G scattering formalism. In order to create only a few
1061: points with small error bars, the data has been averaged for each observing night.}
1062: \label{fig:phasedw}
1063: \end{figure}
1064:
1065: \clearpage
1066:
1067: \begin{figure}
1068: \epsscale{0.7}
1069: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig26.ps}}
1070: \caption{The phase curve for (120348) 2004 TY$_{364}$. The dashed line is
1071: the linear fit to the data while the solid line uses the Bowell et
1072: al. (1989) H-G scattering formalism. In order to create only a few
1073: points with small error bars, the data has been averaged for each observing night.}
1074: \label{fig:phasety}
1075: \end{figure}
1076:
1077: \clearpage
1078:
1079: \begin{figure}
1080: \epsscale{0.7}
1081: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig27.ps}}
1082: \caption{The phase curve for (90568) 2004 GV$_{9}$. The dashed line is
1083: the linear fit to the data while the solid line uses the Bowell et
1084: al. (1989) H-G scattering formalism. In order to create only a few
1085: points with small error bars, the data has been averaged for each observing night.}
1086: \label{fig:phasegv}
1087: \end{figure}
1088:
1089: \clearpage
1090:
1091: \begin{figure}
1092: \epsscale{0.7}
1093: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig28.ps}}
1094: \caption{The R-band reduced magnitude versus the R-band linear phase
1095: coefficient $\beta (\alpha < 2$ degrees) for TNOs. R-band data is
1096: from this work and Sheppard and Jewitt (2002),(2003) as well as Sedna
1097: from Rabinowitz et al. (2007) and Pluto from Buratti et al. (2003). A
1098: linear fit is shown by the dahsed line. Larger objects (smaller
1099: reduced magnitudes) may have smaller $\beta$ at the $97 \%$ confidence
1100: level using the Pearson correlation coefficient.}
1101: \label{fig:betaversusHr}
1102: \end{figure}
1103:
1104: \clearpage
1105:
1106: \begin{figure}
1107: \epsscale{0.7}
1108: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig29.ps}}
1109: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:betaversusHr} except for the V-band
1110: (squares) and I-band (diamonds). Pluto and Charon data are from Buie
1111: et al. (1997) and the other data are from Rabinowitz et al. (2007).
1112: Error bars are usually less than 0.04 mags/deg. The V-band data shows
1113: a similar correlation ($97 \%$ confidence, dashed line) as found for
1114: the R-band data in Figure~\ref{fig:betaversusHr}, that is larger
1115: objects may have smaller $\beta$. There is no correlation found using
1116: the I-band data (dotted line).}
1117: \label{fig:betaversusHvi}
1118: \end{figure}
1119:
1120: \clearpage
1121:
1122: \begin{figure}
1123: \epsscale{0.7}
1124: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig30.ps}}
1125: \caption{Same as Figures~\ref{fig:betaversusHr}
1126: and~\ref{fig:betaversusHvi} except is the albedo versus linear phase
1127: coefficient for TNOs. Filled circles are R-band data, squares are
1128: V-band and diamonds are I-band data. Albedos are from Cruikshank et
1129: al. (2006).}
1130: \label{fig:betaversusalbedo}
1131: \end{figure}
1132:
1133:
1134: \clearpage
1135: \begin{figure}
1136: \epsscale{0.7}
1137: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig31.ps}}
1138: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:betaversusHr} except is the light
1139: curve amplitude versus the linear phase coefficient for TNOs. TNOs
1140: with no measured rotational variability are plotted with their
1141: possible amplitude upper limits. No significant correlation is found.}
1142: \label{fig:betaversusamp}
1143: \end{figure}
1144:
1145: \clearpage
1146: \begin{figure}
1147: \epsscale{0.7}
1148: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=90,width=\textwidth]{fig32.ps}}
1149: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:betaversusHr} except is the B-I broad
1150: band colors versus the linear phase coefficient for TNOs. Colors are
1151: from Barucci et al. (2005). No significant correlation is found.}
1152: \label{fig:betaversuscolor}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155:
1156: \end{document} % End of document.
1157:
1158:
1159:
1160:
1161: