1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{emulateapj}
2:
3: \shorttitle{Contact Binary Trojan Asteroids}
4: \shortauthors{Mann, Jewitt \& Lacerda}
5:
6: \received{2006 October 6}
7: %\accepted{2007 May 22}
8: \slugcomment{{\sc Accepted to AJ:} 2007 May 22}
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Fraction of Contact Binary Trojan Asteroids}
12: \author{Rita K. Mann, David Jewitt \& Pedro Lacerda}
13:
14: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822}
15: \email{rmann@ifa.hawaii.edu, jewitt@ifa.hawaii.edu, pedro@ifa.hawaii.edu}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: We present the results of an optical lightcurve survey of 114 Jovian
19: Trojan asteroids conducted to determine the fraction of contact
20: binaries. Sparse-sampling was used to assess the photometric range
21: of the asteroids and those showing the largest ranges were targeted
22: for detailed follow-up observations. This survey led to the discovery
23: of two Trojan asteroids, (17365) and (29314) displaying large lightcurve
24: ranges ($\sim$ 1 magnitude) and long rotation periods ($<$ 2 rotations
25: per day) consistent with a contact binary nature. The optical
26: lightcurves of both asteroids are well matched by Roche binary
27: equilibrium models. Using these binary models, we find low densities
28: of $\sim$ 600 kg m$^{-3}$ and 800 kg m$^{-3}$, suggestive of porous
29: interiors. The fraction of contact binaries is estimated to be
30: between 6\% and 10\%, comparable to the fraction in the Kuiper Belt.
31: The total binary fraction in the Trojan clouds (including both wide
32: and close pairs) must be higher.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \keywords{minor planets --- asteroids --- solar system: general --- surveys}
36:
37: \section{Introduction}\label{sec: intro}
38: The existence and importance of binary asteroids in small-body
39: populations has only been realized in the last decade, after the first
40: unambiguous detection of a satellite around main-belt asteroid 243
41: Ida by the Galileo spacecraft \citep{belton,chapman}. It is now
42: evident that binaries exist in the main-belt asteroids, the near-earth
43: asteroids and in the Kuiper Belt (see review by \citet{richardson06}
44: and references therein). Apart from spacecraft flybys
45: (and the rare case of measuring
46: gravitational perturbations of planets by very large asteroids), studying
47: the orbital dynamics of binary systems provides the only method
48: available for calculating mass and density. Density measurements
49: are important as probes of internal structure, enabling constraints
50: to be placed on the porosity and composition.
51:
52: The Jovian Trojan asteroids are trapped in a 1:1 mean
53: motion resonance with Jupiter. They form two large
54: clouds around the stable (L4, L5) Lagrangian points 60\degr\ ahead of and behind
55: the giant planet. It has been estimated that $\sim$ 10$^5$ Trojan asteroids
56: with diameters larger than 1-km exist \citep{jewitt00,yoshida}, comparable in
57: number to the Main Belt population
58: ($6.7 \times 10^5$ asteroids, \citet{ivezic}), making it clear
59: that they comprise an important reservoir of information.
60: The Trojan asteroids of Jupiter have yet to be searched systematically for
61: the presence of binaries. Despite this fact, two Trojan binaries
62: have already been identified:
63: 617 Patroclus, a resolved wide binary discovered by
64: Merline et al. (2001),
65: while 624 Hektor has a distinctive lightcurve that
66: indicates it is a close or contact binary (\cite{cook71}, \cite{hartmann88}) and a widely
67: separated satellite has recently been imaged \citep{marchis_iauc}.
68: The Trojans are intriguing because they show
69: larger photometric ranges when compared with
70: main-belt asteroids \citep{hartmann88}, particularly those with
71: diameters larger than 90-km \citep{binzel}.
72: Large lightcurve amplitudes suggest
73: elongated shapes or binarity.
74:
75: While it is not clear whether the Trojans formed at their current
76: location alongside Jupiter or were trapped after forming at larger
77: heliocentric distances \citep{morbidelli}, it is believed
78: that these bodies are primordial.
79: Understanding their composition and internal structure
80: is therefore of great interest, making density determination vital.
81: The density of Trojan 617 Patroclus has been estimated as
82: $\rho = 800^{+200}_{-100}$ kg m$^{-3}$ based on the measured orbital
83: period and size, and on diameter determinations made from infrared
84: data \citep{marchis}. This low density contrasts with a comparatively high
85: estimate for 624 Hektor, namely $\rho$ = 2480$^{+290}_{-80}$ kg m$^{-3}$,
86: determined from the lightcurve and a Roche binary model \citep{lacerda}.
87:
88: Close or contact binaries are composed of two asteroids
89: in a tight orbit around each other. The Trojan contact binary
90: fraction is potentially important in distinguishing between various
91: formation theories. For example, one model of binary formation by
92: dynamical friction predicts that close binaries should be common
93: \citep{goldreich} while another based on 3-body interactions asserts that
94: they should be rare \citep{weidenschilling02}. The nature of the Trojan
95: binaries can also reveal clues about their formation. It is known that
96: different mechanisms formed binaries in the Main Belt and the Kuiper Belt
97: because of the distinct types of binaries found in both populations.
98: It is suspected that gravitational processes predominantly form
99: Kuiper Belt binaries, the known examples of which have components of comparable
100: mass and large separations \citep{weidenschilling02,goldreich,funato,astakhov}.
101: Sub-catastrophic impacts followed by
102: gravitational interaction with the debris formed are
103: the leading way to form tight binary systems with unequal mass
104: components that make up the larger main-belt binary population
105: \citep{weidenschilling89,richardson06}.
106: A comparative study of the binaries in the Trojan clouds, the Main Belt and
107: the Kuiper Belt might illuminate the different roles played
108: by formation conditions in these populations.
109:
110: Motivated by the lack of studies about Trojan binaries, the aim of this paper
111: is to investigate the fraction of close or contact binary systems
112: among the Jovian Trojan population. Contact binaries
113: are specifically targeted for the ease with which they can be identified
114: using optical lightcurve information.
115: Here, we present a technique called sparse sampling, which
116: we used to conduct a lightcurve survey of 114 Jovian Trojan
117: asteroids. The results of this survey, the discovery of two
118: suspected contact binary asteroids and a discussion of the
119: binary fraction in the Jovian Trojan population will follow.
120:
121: \section{Observations}
122:
123: \subsection{Sparse Sampling}
124: The maximum photometric range that can be exhibited by a rotationally elongated, strengthless
125: body is 0.9 mag \citep{leone}. Ranges larger than 0.9 mag. are strongly suggestive of a
126: contact binary nature, in which mutual
127: gravitational deformation of the components can drive the range
128: up to $\sim$ 1.2 magnitudes \citep{weidenschilling80, leone}. In principle, structurally strong bodies can maintain
129: any shape and show an arbitrarily large photometric range. However, most main-belt asteroids larger than $\sim$ 150-m in
130: diameter show little sign of possessing internal strength sufficient to resist
131: gravity and/or rotational deformation \citep{pravec, holsapple04} and we expect that the Trojan asteroids are
132: similarly structurally weak. In what follows, we assume that objects with photometric range $>$0.9 mag.
133: are candidate contact binaries.
134:
135: \begin{figure}
136: \epsscale{1.0}
137: \plotone{f1.eps}
138: \caption{Percentage of asteroids detected with photometric
139: ranges greater than 0.9 magnitudes versus number of lightcurve
140: observations. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted
141: on a sample of asteroids with a photometric
142: range of 1.2 magnitudes and single-peaked lightcurve
143: periods between 3 and 10 hours to determine sparse
144: sampling efficiency.}
145: \end{figure}
146:
147: To examine the efficiency of sparse lightcurve sampling, we conducted
148: a series of Monte Carlo tests. The tests were applied to asteroids
149: with a photometric range of 1.2 magnitudes and double-peaked lightcurve
150: periods uniformly distributed between 6 and 20 hours. The lightcurves
151: were uniformly sampled by N=1,2...10 observations over one night.
152: Asteroids for which the sparse-sampling technique detected photometric
153: ranges between 0.9 and 1.2 magnitudes were picked out as successful
154: candidates. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that between 85\% and
155: 92\% of asteroids with photometric ranges of 1.2 magnitudes would be
156: identified as contact binary candidates from just five measurements
157: of brightness per night (see Figure 1). (The efficiency of detecting
158: brightness variations larger than 0.9 magnitudes ranged from
159: $\sim$ 71\% for asteroids with actual peak-to-peak lightcurve
160: amplitudes of 1.0 magnitudes to $\sim$ 81\% of asteroids with
161: peak-to-peak amplitudes of 1.1 magnitudes.) The simulations indicate that
162: the accuracy with which contact binary candidates are identified varies
163: little when sampling between five and eight lightcurve points per
164: asteroid (see Figure 1).
165: The advantage of sparse sampling is clear: estimates
166: of photometric range for a large number of asteroids can be made
167: rapidly, significantly reducing observing time. Asteroids exhibiting
168: large photometric ranges in the sparse sampling study are
169: subsequently targeted for detailed follow-up observations with
170: dense coverage in rotational phase space.
171:
172: To further test the sparse sampling technique, we
173: observed 2674 Pandarus and 944 Hidalgo, two asteroids known to
174: show large photometric variations.
175: From published lightcurves, 2674 Pandarus is known to have a
176: photometric range of 0.49 magnitudes \citep{hartmann88}.
177: Using the sparse sampling technique, with the same sampling
178: as for all other asteroids in the study (and without prior knowledge of the
179: rotational phase), we measured a lightcurve
180: amplitude of 0.50 $\pm$ 0.01 magnitudes for Pandarus.
181: Hidalgo has shown a maximum photometric
182: variation of 0.60 magnitudes \citep{harris}, whereas
183: sparse sampling measured the brightness range to be
184: 0.58 $\pm$ 0.02 magnitudes (see Figures 2 and 3).
185: The agreement results show that the
186: photometric range can be usefully estimated with only five
187: measurements of asteroid brightness.
188:
189: Having gained confidence in the technique through simulations and
190: observational tests, we applied sparse sampling to the Trojan asteroids.
191: Taking five short exposures, while cycling through the asteroids,
192: we were able to obtain limited sampling of 114 asteroid
193: lightcurves in nine good weather nights of observing.
194:
195: \begin{figure}
196: \epsscale{1.0}
197: \plotone{f2.eps}
198: \caption{Sparse-sampled R-band photometry of 944 Hidalgo. The photometric
199: range estimated from five observations is 0.58 $\pm$ 0.02
200: magnitudes, consistent with previous measurements of
201: 0.60 magnitudes from Harris et al. (2006).}
202: \end{figure}
203:
204: \begin{figure}
205: \epsscale{1.0}
206: \plotone{f3.eps}
207: \caption{Sparse-sampled R-band photometry of 2674 Pandarus.
208: The photometric range estimated from five observations is
209: 0.50 $\pm$ 0.01 magnitudes, consistent with previous
210: measurements of 0.49 magnitudes (Hartmann et al. 1988).}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213: \subsection{Data Acquisition and Reduction}
214: We obtained sparsely sampled optical lightcurve data for the
215: Jovian Trojan asteroids using both the University of Hawaii 2.2-m
216: telescope on Mauna Kea and the Lulin One-meter Telescope (LOT) in
217: Taiwan. We used a 2048 x 2048 pixel Tektronix charge-coupled
218: device (CCD) on the 2.2-m telescope. This detector has a
219: 0.219 arcseconds per pixel image scale and a field of view of
220: 7.5 square arcminutes. The CCD
221: on LOT (VersArray:1300B) has 1340 x 1300 pixels with 0.516
222: arcseconds per pixel scale, and a field of view of 11.5 x 11.2
223: arcminutes. All images
224: were taken in the R band with exposure times scaled to the
225: brightnesses of the asteroids. On LOT, the exposure times ranged
226: from 30 seconds for objects brighter than 15th magnitude, up to
227: 120 seconds for 19th magnitude Trojans. At the 2.2-m telescope,
228: the exposure times ranged from 10 seconds for objects brighter
229: than 17th magnitude, to 150 seconds for 20th magnitude asteroids.
230: See Table 1 for a description of the observations.
231: \LongTables
232: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccr}
233: \tablecolumns{6}
234: \tablewidth{0pc}
235: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
236: \tablecaption{Journal of Observations}
237: \tablehead{
238: \colhead{UT Date} & \colhead{Telescope} & \colhead{Seeing (\arcsec)} & \colhead{Project\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Full/Half Night} & \colhead{Comments}}
239: \startdata
240: 2005 March 07 & LOT 1-m & 2.0 & Sparse & Full & Scattered Cirrus \\
241: 2005 March 09 & LOT 1-m & 2.2 & Sparse & Full & Windy\\
242: 2005 March 11 & LOT 1-m & 2.0 & Sparse & Half & Cloudy\\
243: 2005 March 13 & LOT 1-m & 1.7 & Sparse & Full & Clear Skies\\
244: 2005 April 05 & UH 2.2-m & 0.6 & Sparse & Full & Cirrus \\
245: 2005 April 06 & UH 2.2-m & 0.6-0.8 & Sparse & Half & Cloudy\\
246: 2005 April 07 & UH 2.2-m & 0.6 & Sparse & Half & Photometric\\
247: 2005 April 09 & UH 2.2-m & 0.6-0.7 & Sparse & Half & Clear\\
248: 2005 April 11 & UH 2.2-m & 0.6 & Sparse & Half & Clear\\
249: 2005 April 12 & UH 2.2-m & 0.7 & Sparse & Half & Clear\\
250: 2005 April 14 & UH 2.2-m & 0.7 & Sparse & Half & Clear\\
251: 2005 April 15 & UH 2.2-m & 0.8 & Sparse & Half & Cloudy\\
252: 2005 April 17 & UH 2.2-m & 0.8 & Dense & Half & Cloudy \\
253: 2005 April 18 & UH 2.2-m & 0.8-1.0 & Dense & Half & Moon Rising \\
254: 2006 February 01 & UH 2.2-m & 1.0 & Dense & Full & Focus Problems \\
255: 2006 February 02 & UH 2.2-m & 0.6 & Dense & Full & Clear \\
256: 2006 February 04 & UH 2.2-m & 1.5 & Dense & Full & Strong Winds \\
257: 2006 February 24 & UH 2.2-m & 1.0-1.2 & Dense & Full & Windy \\
258: 2006 April 24 & UH 2.2-m & 0.7 & Dense & Half & Cloudy/Clear \\
259: 2006 April 29 & UH 2.2-m & 0.8 & Dense & Half & Clear,Windy \\
260: 2006 April 30 & UH 2.2-m & 0.9 & Dense & Half & Clear,Windy \\
261: 2006 May 01 & UH 2.2-m & 0.9-1.0 & Dense & Half & Windy\\
262: \enddata
263: \tablenotetext{a}{Sparse Sampling Survey or Follow-up Densely Sampled Lightcurves}
264: \end{deluxetable*}\label{table: obs_journal}
265:
266:
267: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccccc}
268: \tablecolumns{9}
269: \tablewidth{0pc}
270: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
271: \tablecaption{Photometry of Jovian Trojan Asteroids \label{binary_prob}}
272: \tablehead{
273: \colhead{Trojans} & \colhead{Tel} & \colhead{ $\bar m_{R}$\tablenotemark{a}}
274: & \colhead{$m_1 - \bar m_{R}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$m_2 - \bar m_{R}$\tablenotemark{b}}
275: & \colhead{$m_3 - \bar m_{R}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$m_4 - \bar m_{R}$\tablenotemark{b}}
276: &\colhead{$m_5 - \bar m_{R}$\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$\Delta m_{R}$\tablenotemark{c} } }
277: \startdata
278: 884 & UH & 16.37 & 0.13 & -0.09 & -0.07 & 0.08 & -0.05 & 0.22 \\
279: 1172 & UH & 15.78 & 0.06 & -0.05 & -0.04 & 0.03 & & 0.11 \\
280: 1173 & LOT & 16.85 & 0.02 & -0.20 & -0.08 & 0.17 & 0.10 & 0.37 \\
281: 1208 & UH & 16.60 & 0.06 & 0.06 & -0.01 & 0.00 & -0.06 & 0.12 \\
282: 1583 & UH & 16.87 & -0.02 & -0.07 & 0.00 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.11 \\
283: 1647 & UH & 18.88 & -0.20 & -0.14 & 0.09 & 0.24 & & 0.44 \\
284: 1867 & UH & 15.82 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.02 & -0.07 & -0.04 & 0.12 \\
285: 1868 & UH & 17.52 & 0.03 & -0.03 & -0.08 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.14 \\
286: 1869 & UH & 19.51 & -0.18 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.26 \\
287: 1870 & UH & 17.90 & -0.05 & -0.01 & 0.05 & -0.03 & 0.03 & 0.10 \\
288: 1871 & UH & 19.29 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.01 & -0.07 & -0.04 & 0.12 \\
289: 1872 & LOT & 17.99 & 0.09 & -0.03 & -0.01 & 0.01 & -0.06 & 0.15 \\
290: 1873 & UH & 17.24 & -0.14 & -0.05 & 0.11 & 0.08 & & 0.25 \\
291: 2146 & UH & 17.79 & -0.07 & 0.07 & 0.05 & -0.06 & 0.00 & 0.14 \\
292: 2207 & UH & 16.03 & 0.05 & -0.02 & -0.03 & 0.03 & -0.03 & 0.08 \\
293: 2241 & UH & 15.95 & 0.11 & -0.15 & 0.01 & 0.03 & & 0.26 \\
294: 2260 & UH & 17.47 & 0.03 & 0.12 & -0.09 & -0.03 & -0.03 & 0.22 \\
295: 2357 & UH & 15.93 & 0.01 & 0.04 & -0.02 & -0.03 & & 0.07 \\
296: 2357 & LOT & 15.96 & -0.02 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.05 \\
297: 2363 & UH & 17.12 & 0.03 & 0.03 & -0.06 & 0.01 & & 0.09 \\
298: 2674 & LOT & 16.54 & 0.19 & -0.23 & 0.03 & 0.26 & -0.23 & 0.49 \\
299: 2893 & UH & 16.62 & 0.14 & -0.03 & -0.11 & 0.00 & & 0.26 \\
300: 2895 & UH & 17.24 & -0.01 & -0.04 & 0.08 & -0.02 & & 0.12 \\
301: 2895 & LOT & 16.73 & -0.02 & 0.05 & 0.01 & -0.01 & -0.04 & 0.09 \\
302: 2920 & UH & 16.57 & 0.10 & 0.06 & -0.10 & -0.06 & & 0.20 \\
303: 3240 & UH & 18.06 & -0.09 & -0.17 & 0.01 & -0.15 & 0.40 & 0.57 \\
304: 3317 & UH & 16.33 & 0.02 & 0.01 & -0.05 & -0.01 & 0.04 & 0.09 \\
305: 3451 & UH & 15.91 & -0.10 & 0.14 & 0.04 & -0.02 & -0.06 & 0.25 \\
306: 3708 & UH & 17.20 & 0.01 & -0.04 & -0.01 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.06 \\
307: 3709 & UH & 17.42 & -0.05 & -0.04 & 0.01 & -0.05 & 0.13 & 0.18 \\
308: 4068 & UH & 17.41 & -0.07 & -0.06 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.11 \\
309: 4348 & UH & 17.09 & 0.13 & 0.10 & -0.03 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.16 \\
310: 4489 & LOT & 17.04 & 0.08 & -0.01 & -0.06 & -0.01 & & 0.13 \\
311: 4707 & LOT & 17.81 & -0.18 & 0.16 & -0.10 & -0.08 & 0.21 & 0.40 \\
312: 4708 & LOT & 17.35 & -0.20 & 0.13 & -0.04 & 0.11 & & 0.33 \\
313: 4709 & UH & 15.92 & -0.05 & 0.05 & 0.09 & -0.05 & -0.06 & 0.15 \\
314: 4715 & LOT & 17.13 & 0.17 & -0.23 & -0.13 & 0.23 & -0.03 & 0.46 \\
315: 4722 & LOT & 17.28 & -0.02 & 0.00 & 0.01 & -0.04 & 0.05 & 0.08 \\
316: 4754 & LOT & 16.95 & 0.02 & 0.00 & 0.01 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.03 \\
317: 4792 & UH & 17.85 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & -0.03 & & 0.05 \\
318: 4792 & LOT & 17.56 & 0.17 & 0.03 & -0.10 & -0.06 & -0.04 & 0.27 \\
319: 4805 & UH & 17.73 & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0.04 & -0.09 & & 0.14 \\
320: 4827 & UH & 17.86 & 0.01 & 0.07 & 0.02 & -0.06 & -0.05 & 0.13 \\
321: 4828 & UH & 17.63 & 0.13 & 0.11 & -0.06 & -0.19 & & 0.32 \\
322: 4828 & LOT & 17.47 & 0.06 & 0.00 & -0.11 & 0.06 & & 0.18 \\
323: 4832 & LOT & 17.55 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.00 & -0.02 & 0.03 \\
324: 4833 & UH & 17.25 & -0.18 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.05 & -0.10 & 0.31 \\
325: 4834 & UH & 17.70 & 0.06 & 0.02 & -0.02 & -0.04 & -0.03 & 0.10 \\
326: 4867 & LOT & 16.97 & 0.02 & -0.01 & -0.02 & -0.03 & 0.04 & 0.07 \\
327: 5119 & UH & 17.97 & 0.07 & 0.07 & -0.02 & -0.11 & & 0.18 \\
328: 5233 & UH & 18.85 & 0.00 & -0.08 & 0.06 & 0.02 & & 0.15 \\
329: 5648 & UH & 17.84 & 0.06 & 0.02 & -0.03 & -0.05 & & 0.11 \\
330: 6002 & UH & 18.00 & 0.06 & 0.03 & -0.02 & -0.07 & & 0.13 \\
331: 9030 & UH & 18.20 & -0.21 & 0.06 & 0.36 & -0.08 & -0.13 & 0.57 \\
332: 9142 & LOT & 18.19 & -0.08 & 0.05 & 0.04 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.13 \\
333: 9431 & LOT & 18.19 & 0.07 & -0.01 & -0.12 & -0.06 & 0.13 & 0.25 \\
334: 9694 & UH & 17.90 & -0.05 & -0.16 & -0.02 & 0.08 & 0.15 & 0.32 \\
335: 11554 & LOT & 17.31 & 0.03 & 0.00 & -0.03 & 0.00 & -0.01 & 0.06 \\
336: 11668 & UH & 19.33 & -0.05 & -0.02 & 0.14 & -0.03 & -0.08 & 0.22 \\
337: 12649 & UH & 19.64 & 0.04 & 0.00 & -0.06 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.10 \\
338: 13402 & UH & 19.08 & -0.02 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.04 \\
339: 15527 & LOT & 18.50 & 0.05 & 0.29 & -0.13 & -0.20 & & 0.49 \\
340: 16667 & UH & 19.02 & -0.11 & 0.06 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.17 \\
341: 17172 & LOT & 17.83 & 0.04 & 0.03 & -0.04 & 0.00 & -0.03 & 0.07 \\
342: 17365 & LOT & 17.61 & -0.21 & 0.35 & 0.05 & -0.20 & & 0.56 \\
343: 17419 & UH & 18.76 & -0.03 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.05 \\
344: 17442 & UH & 19.39 & 0.11 & 0.00 & 0.06 & -0.04 & -0.13 & 0.24 \\
345: 17492 & UH & 17.70 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.03 & -0.05 & -0.16 & 0.26 \\
346: 18037 & UH & 19.22 & -0.05 & -0.06 & -0.03 & -0.01 & 0.15 & 0.21 \\
347: 18054 & UH & 18.22 & -0.06 & 0.02 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.05 & 0.11 \\
348: 23463 & UH & 19.15 & -0.07 & 0.01 & 0.08 & -0.04 & 0.02 & 0.15 \\
349: 23549 & UH & 18.90 & -0.03 & 0.02 & 0.09 & 0.00 & -0.08 & 0.16 \\
350: 24018 & UH & 19.19 & 0.09 & 0.02 & -0.18 & -0.11 & 0.17 & 0.35 \\
351: 24022 & UH & 19.79 & 0.06 & -0.08 & -0.06 & 0.08 & & 0.16 \\
352: 24449 & UH & 19.50 & 0.13 & 0.08 & -0.17 & -0.17 & 0.13 & 0.30 \\
353: 24451 & UH & 18.19 & 0.04 & 0.00 & 0.05 & -0.01 & -0.07 & 0.12 \\
354: 24452 & UH & 19.06 & -0.03 & 0.03 & -0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.06 \\
355: 24456 & UH & 19.37 & -0.15 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.04 & -0.11 & 0.27 \\
356: 24531 & LOT & 19.72 & 0.25 & -0.07 & 0.05 & 0.00 & -0.23 & 0.48 \\
357: 25344 & UH & 19.22 & 0.13 & 0.01 & -0.13 & -0.11 & 0.09 & 0.26 \\
358: 25347 & UH & 19.23 & 0.09 & 0.20 & 0.04 & -0.16 & -0.17 & 0.37 \\
359: 29314 & UH & 19.44 & 0.22 & 0.31 & 0.21 & -0.21 & -0.53 & 0.83 \\
360: 30498 & UH & 19.59 & 0.00 & -0.07 & -0.12 & 0.10 & 0.09 & 0.22 \\
361: 30499 & UH & 19.76 & 0.05 & -0.03 & 0.04 & -0.07 & 0.01 & 0.12 \\
362: 30505 & UH & 19.02 & -0.13 & 0.15 & 0.08 & -0.22 & 0.12 & 0.34 \\
363: 30506 & UH & 18.78 & -0.19 & -0.18 & -0.02 & 0.19 & 0.20 & 0.39 \\
364: 30704 & UH & 18.67 & -0.08 & -0.03 & -0.01 & 0.11 & & 0.19 \\
365: 30942 & UH & 18.52 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.00 & -0.02 & -0.04 & 0.08 \\
366: 31806 & UH & 19.51 & 0.15 & 0.07 & -0.09 & -0.03 & -0.10 & 0.25 \\
367: 31814 & UH & 19.81 & -0.11 & 0.11 & 0.23 & -0.09 & -0.16 & 0.39 \\
368: 31819 & UH & 18.90 & 0.20 & 0.01 & 0.00 & -0.03 & -0.17 & 0.37 \\
369: 31820 & UH & 20.06 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 0.05 & 0.12 & -0.40 & 0.56 \\
370: 32482 & LOT & 18.68 & 0.13 & -0.14 & 0.13 & 0.03 & -0.15 & 0.27 \\
371: 32496 & UH & 18.01 & 0.01 & -0.01 & -0.01 & 0.02 & -0.02 & 0.04 \\
372: 32811 & UH & 18.43 & -0.11 & -0.02 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.07 & 0.18 \\
373: 47962 & UH & 19.59 & 0.04 & -0.05 & -0.02 & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0.09 \\
374: 51364 & UH & 18.49 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 0.04 & -0.01 & -0.09 & 0.15 \\
375: 53436 & UH & 18.40 & -0.03 & 0.02 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.04 \\
376: 55060 & LOT & 18.85 & 0.27 & -0.09 & -0.22 & 0.03 & & 0.48 \\
377: 55419 & LOT & 18.68 & 0.01 & -0.22 & -0.05 & 0.20 & 0.06 & 0.42 \\
378: 65216 & UH & 19.67 & 0.14 & -0.02 & -0.05 & -0.03 & -0.03 & 0.19 \\
379: 67065 & UH & 18.99 & 0.08 & -0.12 & -0.09 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.21 \\
380: 69437 & UH & 19.54 & -0.06 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.08 \\
381: 73677 & UH & 19.34 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.00 & -0.02 & -0.01 & 0.08 \\
382: 85798 & UH & 19.10 & -0.08 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.00 & 0.12 \\
383: 1999 XJ55 & UH & 19.29 & 0.04 & 0.00 & -0.03 & -0.01 & & 0.06 \\
384: 2000 TG61 & UH & 19.76 & 0.01 & -0.01 & 0.00 & 0.02 & -0.03 & 0.04 \\
385: 2000 SJ350 & UH & 20.17 & -0.20 & -0.14 & -0.13 & 0.15 & 0.08 & 0.35 \\
386: 2001 QZ113 & UH & 19.53 & -0.02 & -0.02 & -0.02 & 0.00 & 0.05 & 0.07 \\
387: 2001 XW71 & UH & 20.24 & 0.06 & -0.03 & -0.05 & 0.17 & -0.08 & 0.24 \\
388: 2001 QQ199 & UH & 20.51 & -0.12 & -0.09 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.11 & 0.23 \\
389: 2004 BV84 & UH & 20.34 & 0.05 & -0.01 & 0.01 & -0.05 & & 0.10 \\
390: 2004 FX147 & UH & 19.67 & 0.06 & -0.16 & -0.13 & 0.02 & 0.20 & 0.36 \\
391: 2005 EJ133 & UH & 20.15 & -0.11 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.08 & 0.01 & 0.18 \\
392: \enddata
393: \tablenotetext{a}{Mean R-Band Magnitude}
394: \tablenotetext{b}{R-Band Magnitude minus Mean R-Band Magnitude}
395: \tablenotetext{c}{Photometric Range}
396: \end{deluxetable*}
397:
398: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccc}
399: \tablecolumns{7}
400: \tablewidth{0pc}
401: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
402: \tablecaption{Photometry of Jovian Trojan Asteroids \label{binary_prob}}
403: \tablehead{
404: \colhead{Trojan} & \colhead{$m_{R}(1,1,0)$\tablenotemark{a}}
405: & \colhead{r [AU]\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$\Delta$ [AU]\tablenotemark{c}}
406: & \colhead{$\alpha$ [degrees]\tablenotemark{d}} & \colhead{D$_{e}$ [km]\tablenotemark{e}}
407: & \colhead{L4/L5}}
408: \startdata
409: 884 & 8.53 & 5.66 & 5.34 & 9.9 & 146 & L5 \\
410: 1172 & 8.00 & 5.68 & 5.24 & 9.4 & 193 & L5 \\
411: 1173 & 9.08 & 6.02 & 5.27 & 6.6 & 150 & L5 \\
412: 1208 & 8.86 & 5.69 & 5.17 & 9.0 & 134 & L5 \\
413: 1583 & 9.30 & 5.33 & 4.92 & 10.2 & 99 & L4 \\
414: 1647 & 11.50 & 5.20 & 4.70 & 10.1 & 37 & L4 \\
415: 1867 & 8.18 & 5.34 & 5.12 & 10.7 & 163 & L5 \\
416: 1868 & 9.91 & 5.50 & 5.00 & 9.5 & 80 & L4 \\
417: 1869 & 12.10 & 5.49 & 4.75 & 7.5 & 34 & L4 \\
418: 1870 & 10.29 & 5.42 & 5.03 & 10.1 & 64 & L5 \\
419: 1871 & 11.47 & 5.46 & 5.46 & 10.5 & 36 & L5 \\
420: 1872 & 10.78 & 5.51 & 4.61 & 4.7 & 84 & L5 \\
421: 1873 & 9.71 & 5.11 & 5.02 & 11.3 & 78 & L5 \\
422: 2146 & 9.98 & 5.69 & 5.28 & 9.6 & 77 & L4 \\
423: 2207 & 8.73 & 5.05 & 4.61 & 10.7 & 127 & L5 \\
424: 2241 & 8.34 & 5.17 & 5.17 & 11.1 & 148 & L5 \\
425: 2260 & 9.92 & 5.39 & 4.92 & 9.8 & 77 & L4 \\
426: 2357 & 8.34 & 5.29 & 4.90 & 10.4 & 149 & L5 \\
427: 2357 & 8.79 & 5.29 & 4.51 & 7.1 & 164 & L5 \\
428: 2363 & 9.74 & 5.24 & 4.69 & 9.7 & 85 & L5 \\
429: 2674 & 9.37 & 5.17 & 4.49 & 8.6 & 111 & L5 \\
430: 2893 & 8.75 & 5.56 & 5.50 & 10.4 & 128 & L5 \\
431: 2895 & 9.79 & 5.25 & 4.69 & 9.6 & 81 & L5 \\
432: 2895 & 9.67 & 5.24 & 4.39 & 6.3 & 118 & L5 \\
433: 2920 & 9.23 & 5.25 & 4.64 & 9.3 & 111 & L4 \\
434: 3240 & 10.04 & 5.92 & 5.61 & 9.5 & 75 & L5 \\
435: 3317 & 8.44 & 5.78 & 5.39 & 9.5 & 157 & L5 \\
436: 3451 & 8.38 & 5.44 & 4.90 & 9.4 & 163 & L5 \\
437: 3708 & 9.29 & 5.93 & 5.41 & 8.6 & 113 & L5 \\
438: 3709 & 9.77 & 5.58 & 5.04 & 9.1 & 87 & L4 \\
439: 4068 & 9.97 & 5.33 & 4.78 & 9.5 & 78 & L4 \\
440: 4348 & 9.51 & 5.49 & 4.95 & 9.2 & 97 & L5 \\
441: 4489 & 9.26 & 5.54 & 5.37 & 10.3 & 104 & L4 \\
442: 4707 & 10.60 & 5.53 & 4.62 & 4.4 & 96 & L5 \\
443: 4708 & 10.05 & 5.34 & 4.65 & 8.2 & 84 & L5 \\
444: 4709 & 8.53 & 5.30 & 4.71 & 9.3 & 153 & L5 \\
445: 4715 & 9.85 & 5.30 & 4.62 & 8.4 & 91 & L5 \\
446: 4722 & 10.04 & 5.44 & 4.60 & 6.0 & 102 & L5 \\
447: 4754 & 10.04 & 5.22 & 4.29 & 4.1 & 129 & L5 \\
448: 4792 & 10.00 & 5.69 & 5.25 & 9.5 & 74 & L5 \\
449: 4792 & 10.11 & 5.68 & 4.86 & 6.1 & 98 & L5 \\
450: 4805 & 10.06 & 5.46 & 5.11 & 10.2 & 71 & L5 \\
451: 4827 & 10.51 & 5.08 & 4.70 & 10.9 & 55 & L5 \\
452: 4828 & 10.18 & 4.96 & 4.81 & 11.6 & 59 & L5 \\
453: 4828 & 10.37 & 4.96 & 4.40 & 10.1 & 63 & L5 \\
454: 4832 & 10.00 & 5.94 & 5.03 & 4.2 & 128 & L5 \\
455: 4833 & 9.58 & 5.61 & 5.07 & 9.1 & 95 & L4 \\
456: 4834 & 9.80 & 5.94 & 5.38 & 8.4 & 91 & L4 \\
457: 4867 & 9.86 & 5.20 & 4.43 & 7.4 & 97 & L5 \\
458: 5119 & 10.08 & 5.74 & 5.30 & 9.3 & 72 & L5 \\
459: 5233 & 11.32 & 5.05 & 4.92 & 11.4 & 35 & L5 \\
460: 5648 & 9.76 & 5.88 & 5.62 & 9.7 & 82 & L5 \\
461: 6002 & 10.34 & 5.55 & 4.97 & 8.9 & 66 & L5 \\
462: 9030 & 11.03 & 5.11 & 4.46 & 9.1 & 49 & L5 \\
463: 9142 & 10.41 & 5.84 & 5.27 & 8.4 & 70 & L5 \\
464: 9431 & 10.51 & 5.52 & 5.17 & 10.0 & 59 & L4 \\
465: 9694 & 10.75 & 5.39 & 4.51 & 5.5 & 78 & L4 \\
466: 11554 & 10.12 & 5.32 & 4.53 & 6.9 & 90 & L5 \\
467: 11668 & 11.74 & 5.87 & 5.04 & 5.9 & 47 & L4 \\
468: 12649 & 11.61 & 5.90 & 5.58 & 9.5 & 36 & L5 \\
469: 13402 & 11.20 & 5.72 & 5.35 & 9.6 & 43 & L5 \\
470: 15527 & 10.95 & 5.32 & 5.01 & 10.5 & 47 & L4 \\
471: 16667 & 10.85 & 6.17 & 5.88 & 9.1 & 54 & L5 \\
472: 17172 & 10.59 & 5.45 & 4.61 & 6.0 & 80 & L5 \\
473: 17365 & 10.31 & 5.54 & 4.69 & 5.8 & 92 & L5 \\
474: 17419 & 11.33 & 5.38 & 4.81 & 9.3 & 43 & L5 \\
475: 17442 & 11.62 & 5.43 & 5.35 & 10.6 & 34 & L5 \\
476: 17492 & 10.10 & 5.42 & 5.07 & 10.3 & 70 & L5 \\
477: 18037 & 11.50 & 5.51 & 5.21 & 10.3 & 37 & L5 \\
478: 18054 & 10.85 & 5.19 & 4.74 & 10.3 & 50 & L5 \\
479: 23463 & 11.57 & 5.27 & 5.05 & 10.9 & 34 & L5 \\
480: 23549 & 11.54 & 5.10 & 4.76 & 11.0 & 35 & L5 \\
481: 24018 & 11.65 & 5.44 & 4.95 & 9.7 & 36 & L5 \\
482: 24022 & 12.12 & 5.66 & 5.12 & 9.0 & 30 & L5 \\
483: 24449 & 11.96 & 5.36 & 4.94 & 10.2 & 30 & L5 \\
484: 24451 & 10.33 & 5.89 & 5.39 & 8.8 & 70 & L5 \\
485: 24452 & 11.78 & 5.01 & 4.63 & 11.1 & 31 & L5 \\
486: 24456 & 11.86 & 5.33 & 4.90 & 10.2 & 31 & L5 \\
487: 24531 & 11.79 & 5.76 & 5.57 & 9.9 & 33 & L4 \\
488: 25344 & 11.54 & 5.62 & 5.11 & 9.2 & 39 & L5 \\
489: 25347 & 11.44 & 5.57 & 5.32 & 10.2 & 38 & L5 \\
490: 29314 & 11.84 & 5.46 & 5.02 & 9.9 & 32 & L5 \\
491: 30498 & 11.78 & 5.70 & 5.33 & 9.7 & 34 & L5 \\
492: 30499 & 12.16 & 5.32 & 5.06 & 10.7 & 26 & L5 \\
493: 30505 & 11.60 & 5.32 & 4.76 & 9.5 & 37 & L5 \\
494: 30506 & 11.06 & 5.43 & 5.24 & 10.6 & 44 & L5 \\
495: 30704 & 11.20 & 5.34 & 4.85 & 9.8 & 43 & L5 \\
496: 30942 & 11.20 & 5.17 & 4.64 & 10.0 & 43 & L5 \\
497: 31806 & 11.73 & 5.67 & 5.29 & 9.7 & 34 & L5 \\
498: 31814 & 12.16 & 5.65 & 5.10 & 8.9 & 30 & L5 \\
499: 31819 & 11.65 & 5.14 & 4.57 & 9.8 & 36 & L5 \\
500: 31820 & 12.46 & 5.50 & 5.03 & 9.6 & 25 & L5 \\
501: 32482 & 11.36 & 5.26 & 4.66 & 9.2 & 42 & L5 \\
502: 32496 & 10.30 & 5.63 & 5.17 & 9.5 & 68 & L5 \\
503: 32811 & 11.14 & 5.00 & 4.64 & 11.2 & 41 & L5 \\
504: 47962 & 12.04 & 5.54 & 4.95 & 8.9 & 32 & L5 \\
505: 51364 & 11.42 & 4.95 & 4.34 & 9.9 & 39 & L5 \\
506: 53436 & 11.36 & 5.21 & 4.35 & 6.4 & 54 & L4 \\
507: 55060 & 11.41 & 5.34 & 4.83 & 9.6 & 40 & L5 \\
508: 55419 & 11.12 & 5.51 & 4.98 & 9.1 & 47 & L5 \\
509: 65216 & 12.49 & 5.44 & 4.54 & 5.2 & 36 & L4 \\
510: 67065 & 12.02 & 5.20 & 4.30 & 5.3 & 44 & L4 \\
511: 69437 & 11.89 & 5.55 & 5.10 & 9.7 & 32 & L5 \\
512: 73677 & 11.99 & 5.27 & 4.70 & 9.6 & 31 & L5 \\
513: 85798 & 11.89 & 5.45 & 4.57 & 5.6 & 45 & L4 \\
514: 1999 XJ55 & 12.21 & 5.29 & 4.42 & 6.0 & 38 & L4 \\
515: 2000 TG61 & 12.23 & 5.47 & 4.92 & 9.2 & 28 & L5 \\
516: 2000 SJ350 & 12.55 & 5.44 & 5.03 & 10.0 & 23 & L5 \\
517: 2001 QZ113 & 11.98 & 5.39 & 4.98 & 10.2 & 30 & L5 \\
518: 2001 XW71 & 12.71 & 5.51 & 4.89 & 8.7 & 23 & L5 \\
519: 2001 QQ199 & 12.59 & 6.36 & 5.48 & 4.6 & 37 & L5 \\
520: 2004 BV84 & 12.95 & 5.37 & 4.74 & 8.8 & 21 & L5 \\
521: 2004 FX147 & 12.61 & 5.25 & 4.39 & 6.0 & 31 & L4 \\
522: 2005 EJ133 & 12.72 & 5.39 & 4.80 & 9.1 & 23 & L5 \\
523: \enddata
524: \tablenotetext{a}{Absolute Magnitude (see Equation 1)}
525: \tablenotetext{b}{Heliocentric Distance}
526: \tablenotetext{c}{Geocentric Distance}
527: \tablenotetext{d}{Phase Angle}
528: \tablenotetext{e}{Effective Diameter (see Equation 2)}
529: \end{deluxetable*}
530:
531:
532: Raw data frames were bias subtracted, then flat fielded using a
533: master flat field produced from median filtering dithered images
534: of the sky taken at dusk and dawn. Landolt (1992) standard star
535: fields were imaged and measured to convert the instrumental
536: magnitudes to an absolute magnitude scale. An aperture radius of
537: eight pixels was consistently used throughout the observations
538: for images taken on both telescopes. Median sky values were
539: determined using an adjacent annulus around the aperture having
540: an outer radius of 20 pixels. The reason for similar aperture
541: and sky annulus size on both telescopes, despite
542: differing pixel scales was because of the significantly worse
543: seeing conditions at Lulin (see Table 1).
544: For the sparse sampling survey, two images were taken in each
545: setting and then averaged to obtain the brightness measurement.
546: The photometric uncertainties are small ($\le$ 0.02 mag.) compared to
547: the photometric variability that is the subject of interest and so we
548: have ignored these uncertainties in our
549: presentation of the data.
550: For the densely sampled lightcurves, errors for each observation
551: were calculated using Poisson statistics.
552: The instrumental magnitude of the
553: asteroid in each image was subtracted from the brightness of a
554: nearby field star. The field star was chosen to be persistent
555: in all five observations and helped reduce photometric errors by
556: providing a correction for weather variations occuring throughout
557: the night. Images in which the asteroid was affected by proximity to a
558: field star were rejected and resulted in some Trojans
559: having only four measurements of brightness rather than five.
560:
561: \section{Results}
562: Tables 2 and 3 contain results of the sparsely sampled lightcurve survey.
563: In Table 2, the average R band magnitude,
564: $\overline{m_R}$ is listed, along with the independent measurements of the
565: asteroid's brightness, expressed as deviations from the mean
566: magnitude. The last column shows the maximum deviation measured,
567: which gives a lower limit to the photometric range of each asteroid.
568: Table 3 contains the absolute magnitude, $m_R(1,1,0)$, which is
569: defined as the magnitude an object would have if placed at
570: heliocentric ($r$) and geocentric $(\Delta)$ distances
571: of 1 AU, and at a phase angle of $ \alpha $ = 0 degrees. The
572: conversion between the apparent magnitude, $m_R$ and absolute
573: magnitude, $m_R(1,1,0)$ is
574:
575: \begin{equation} \label{equ: abs_mag}
576: m_R(1,1,0) = m_R - 5log(r\Delta) - \beta \alpha ,
577: \end{equation}
578:
579: where $ \beta $ is the phase coefficient for which we used a value of
580: 0.04 magnitudes per degree for the low albedo Trojan asteroids \citep{bowell}.
581: Also listed in Table 3 is an estimate of the equivalent
582: circular diameter, $D_e$ which was calculated using \citep{russell}
583:
584: \begin{equation}
585: m_R(1,1,0)=m_{\sun}-2.5\log\left[ \frac{p D_e^2}{4 \times 2.25 \times 10^{16} } \right].
586: \end{equation}
587:
588: \begin{figure}
589: \epsscale{1.0}
590: \plotone{f4.eps}
591: \caption{Histogram of the distribution of photometric ranges found from
592: sparse-sampled observations of 114 Jovian Trojan asteroids.}
593: \end{figure}
594:
595: \begin{figure}
596: \epsscale{1.0}
597: \plotone{f5.eps}
598: \caption{Histogram of the photometric ranges of Jovian Trojan asteroids
599: and Main Belt asteroids with diameters between 70-km and 150-km.
600: Data for Main Belt asteroids taken from Barucci et al. (2002).}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603:
604: Here, \textit{p} is the geometric albedo, for which a value of 0.04 was
605: used throughout \citep{fernandez} and $m_{\sun}$ = -27.1 is the
606: apparent red magnitude of the sun \citep{cox}.
607:
608: Figures 4 shows the distribution of photometric
609: ranges shown by the Trojan asteroids in the sparsely-sampled
610: lightcurve survey. For comparison, Figure 5 shows the
611: photometric range distributions of both the Trojan and
612: Main Belt asteroids with diameters between 70-km
613: and 150-km (Main Belt asteroid data taken from \citet{barucci}).
614: Figure 5 reveals that a larger fraction of Trojan
615: asteroids have photometric ranges larger than Main Belt
616: asteroids, similar to previous studies by \citet{hartmann88}.
617: A Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test found a 32.1\%
618: probability that the two distributions are
619: drawn from the same parent distribution.
620:
621: \begin{figure}
622: \epsscale{1.0}
623: \plotone{f6.eps}
624: \caption{Absolute magnitude (calculated from equation 1) of Trojan
625: asteroid (29314) in April 2005. Data are phased to a single-peaked
626: lightcurve period of 7.52 hours.}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \begin{figure}
630: \epsscale{1.0}
631: \plotone{f7.eps}
632: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan
633: asteroid (17365) in April 2005. Data are phased to a
634: single-peaked lightcurve period of 6.35 hours.}
635: \end{figure}
636:
637: \begin{figure}
638: \epsscale{1.0}
639: \plotone{f8.eps}
640: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan asteroid
641: (29314) in April 2005. Data phased to a double-peaked lightcurve
642: period of 15.04 hours. Best fit Roche binary equilibrium model
643: is overplotted. }
644: \end{figure}
645:
646: \begin{figure}
647: \epsscale{1.0}
648: \plotone{f9.eps}
649: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan asteroid
650: (17365) in April 2005. Data phased to a double-peaked lightcurve
651: period of 12.67 hours. Best fit Roche binary equilibrium model
652: is overplotted. }
653: \end{figure}
654:
655: Trojan asteroids (17365) and (29314) showed the largest photometric
656: ranges in the sparsely-sampled photometry,
657: with 0.56 $\pm$ 0.02 magnitudes and 0.83 $\pm$ 0.03 magnitudes,
658: respectively (see Table 2). Follow-up observations to obtain densely
659: sampled optical lightcurves for both Trojan asteroids were taken
660: using the University of Hawaii 2.2-m telescope between 2005 April
661: 9th and 17th. We were unable to complete the observations
662: due to bad weather coupled with the fact the asteroids were quickly
663: setting. We were however, able to confirm the large photometric
664: ranges to motivate further study of these Trojan asteroids (see Figures 6 through 9).
665: In our first dense light curve study, in 2005,
666: asteroid (17365) had a photometric range of 0.98 $\pm$ 0.02
667: magnitudes, centered at a mean of 10.64 $\pm$ 0.01 magnitudes,
668: while asteroid (29314) had a peak-to-peak lightcurve
669: amplitude of 1.05 $\pm$ 0.03 centered on 11.89 $\pm$ 0.02
670: magnitudes.
671:
672: \begin{figure}
673: \epsscale{1.0}
674: \plotone{f10.eps}
675: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan asteroid
676: (29314) between February and May 2006.
677: Data are phased to a single-peaked lightcurve period of 7.52 hours.}
678: \end{figure}
679:
680: \begin{figure}
681: \epsscale{1.0}
682: \plotone{f11.eps}
683: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan asteroid
684: (29314) between February and May 2006. Data are phased to a double-peaked
685: lightcurve period of 15.04 hours. Best fit Roche binary equilibrium model
686: is overplotted. }
687: \end{figure}
688:
689: \begin{figure}
690: \epsscale{1.0}
691: \plotone{f12.eps}
692: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan asteroid (17365)
693: between February and May 2006. Data are phased to a single-peaked lightcurve
694: period of 6.35 hours. }
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: \begin{figure}
698: \epsscale{1.0}
699: \plotone{f13.eps}
700: \caption{Absolute magnitude (see equation 1) of Trojan asteroid (17365)
701: between February and May 2006. Data are phased to a double-peaked
702: lightcurve period of 12.67 hours. Best fit Roche binary equilibrium
703: model is overplotted. }
704: \end{figure}
705:
706: To complete the lightcurve study, we
707: continued optical observations of both candidate
708: contact binary asteroids in 2006. Figures 10 through 13 show the
709: results of the photometric observations. In 2006, asteroid
710: (17365) showed a photometric range of 0.81 $\pm$ 0.02 magnitudes,
711: centered at a mean absolute magnitude of 10.76 $\pm$ 0.01. Asteroid
712: (29314) shows a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.86 $\pm$ 0.03 magnitudes,
713: with a mean absolute magnitude of 11.80 $\pm$ 0.02.
714:
715: The phase dispersion minimization (PDM) method \citep{stellingwerf}
716: was used to determine possible rotation periods for each asteroid.
717: Figures 14 and 15 show plots of $\Theta$, which characterizes the dispersion
718: in the data phased to a given period (see
719: \citet{stellingwerf} for more information). The most likely rotation
720: periods correspond to the smallest values of theta. Several periods appeared to
721: minimize theta, but when used to phase the data,
722: the results were not persuasive lightcurves. In fact, only two
723: periods per asteroid produced convincing lightcurve results.
724: For Trojan (29314), minima consistent with the data occur at
725: periods of 0.3133 $\pm$ 0.0003 days (7.518 $\pm$ 0.007 hr), and a
726: double-peaked period of 0.6265 $\pm$ 0.0003 days
727: (15.035 $\pm$ 0.007 hr). Asteroid (17365) shows a single-peaked
728: lightcurve period of 0.2640 $\pm$ 0.0004 days (6.336 $\pm$ 0.009 hr)
729: and double-peaked period of 0.52799 $\pm$ 0.0008 days
730: (12.672 $\pm$ 0.019 hr).
731:
732: While both the single-peaked and double-peaked periods produce good
733: fits for Trojan asteroid (29314), the double-peaked lightcurve
734: is more convincing. The lightcurve of (29314) shows subtle differences in
735: the shapes of the two minima, which is obvious by the spread in the data
736: when phased to the single-peaked period (see Figure 10 and 11).
737: Asteroid (17365) shows a more obvious double-peaked lightcurve
738: (see Figures 12 and 13) with maxima of different shapes.
739: The maxima of (17365) differ by 0.10 $\pm$ 0.01 magnitudes while
740: the minima differ by 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 magnitudes.
741:
742: \begin{figure}
743: \epsscale{1.0}
744: \plotone{f14.eps}
745: \caption{Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) plot for Trojan
746: asteroid (17365) showing $\Theta$ versus period.
747: Probable periods are at minimum $\Theta$ values: 0.2640 $\pm$ 0.0004 days
748: and 0.52799 $\pm$ 0.0008 days.}
749: \end{figure}
750:
751: \begin{figure}
752: \epsscale{1.0}
753: \plotone{f15.eps}
754: \caption{Phase Dispersion Minimization (PDM) plot for Trojan
755: asteroid (29314) showing $\Theta$ versus period.
756: Probable periods minimize $\Theta$: 0.3133 $\pm$ 0.0003 days
757: and 0.6265 $\pm$ 0.0003 days.}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760: \subsection{Candidate Contact Binary Asteroids}
761: Trojan asteroids (17365) and (29314) show strong evidence of being contact
762: binaries. Both asteroids reveal photometric ranges greater than
763: 0.9 magnitudes, sufficiently long rotation periods ($<$ 2 rotations per day)
764: and lightcurve profiles (qualitatively similar to 624 Hektor)
765: containing U-shaped maxima and
766: V-shaped minima. Here, we speculate about all possible explanations
767: for the brightness variations in the lightcurve observations of these
768: Trojan asteroids, including albedo variations, elongated shapes or binarity
769: \citep{dunlap,cook71,hartmann78,weidenschilling80}.
770:
771: Surface albedo contrasts provide a possible but
772: unconvincing explanation for the large brightness variations of the Trojans.
773: Amongst Solar system objects, only Iapetus, a satellite of Saturn, shows strong
774: spatial albedo variations which account for its large lightcurve amplitude.
775: However, Iapetus' synchronous rotation about Saturn plays a large role in
776: producing the dichotomous behaviour of the satellite \citep{cook70} and
777: this circumstance is not relevant in the context of the Trojan
778: asteroids. Amongst previously studied asteroids, double-peaked lightcurves
779: are almost always caused by rotational variations in the projected area, and
780: reflect the elongated shapes of the bodies.
781: While albedo contrasts cannot be formally ruled out,
782: we feel that they are an unlikely cause of the observed brightness
783: variations.
784:
785: Increasing evidence suggests asteroids have little or
786: no internal strength, probably as a result of impacts that disrupt but do
787: not disperse the object \citep{farinella81,pravec}. The Trojan
788: asteroids have undergone a collisional history that is either
789: similar to that of the main-belt asteroids \citep{marzari}
790: or perhaps even more intense \citep{davis,barucci},
791: making it highly probable that they, too, are gravity dominated
792: ``rubble piles", strengthless or nearly so in tension \citep{farinella81}.
793: Studies have found that only the smallest main-belt asteroids,
794: with diameters less than 0.15-km, have sufficient internal
795: strength to overcome gravity \citep{pravec}.
796: Figure 5 from \citet{pravec} shows observations of decreasing
797: maximum spin rate with increasing lightcurve amplitude (a proxy for
798: elongation) of near-earth asteroids. This observation indicates a lack
799: of fast rotating elongated bodies, which implies that
800: asteroids larger than $\sim$ 0.15-km
801: are structurally weak and lack the tensile strength to
802: withstand high rotation rates without becoming unstable and flying apart.
803: Also evident in Figure 5 \citep{pravec} is the tendency of
804: fast rotators to have spheroidal shapes, an indicator of
805: gravity-dominated bodies which do not possess the internal
806: strength to resist gravity. Collectively, the observations point
807: to asteroids being bodies of negligible strength, whose
808: shapes are dominated by rotation and gravity.
809:
810: Rotation rates must lie between 4 and 6 rotations per day
811: in order for rotational elongation of a structurally weak body
812: to be maintained. This is the range for which Jacobi ellipsoids
813: are possible figures of equilibrium \citep{leone,farinella97}.
814: If the rotation rate was much higher than 6 rotations per day,
815: the body would fall apart, while at a much lower rotation rate,
816: the body would adopt a spherical figure of equilibrium.
817: In 2005, both asteroids (17365) and (29314) showed photometric
818: variations larger than 0.9 magnitudes, above the threshold
819: for rotational instability in a structurally weak body.
820: Additionally, both asteroids have double-peaked lightcurve
821: periods that are too slow to cause sufficient rotational
822: elongation. Both observations indicate that rotationally-induced
823: elongation is an insufficient explanation for
824: the brightness variations of these Trojan asteroids.
825:
826: \begin{figure}
827: \epsscale{1.0}
828: \plotone{f16.eps}
829: \caption{Modification of Figure 5 from Sheppard \& Jewitt, 2004
830: (originally taken from Leone et al. 1984) to include
831: contact binary candidates (17365) and (29314). Stars
832: represent Kuiper Belt objects, black circles are main-belt
833: asteroids with diameters larger than 50-km and pink squares are
834: the candidate binary Trojans (17365), (29314) and 624 Hektor. Region
835: A includes all objects whose photometric range could be caused
836: by albedo, elongation or binarity. Region B contains objects that
837: are likely to be rotationally elongated. Only binaries are expected
838: in Region C.}
839: \end{figure}
840:
841: We are therefore left with the strong possibility that
842: Trojan asteroids (29314) and (17365) are contact binaries.
843: Figure 16 is a plot of rotation periods and photometric ranges
844: of several well studied Kuiper Belt objects and main-belt
845: asteroids. It is divided into three main regions:
846: Region A spans the photometric ranges that can be explained by
847: albedo variations, elongation or binarity of an asteroid.
848: Region B represents the characteristics
849: explained by albedo variations or rotational elongation of an
850: object, while variations in region C can only be explained by binary asteroids.
851: Both Trojan asteroids lie well within Region C, alongside
852: contact binaries 216 Kleopatra, 624 Hektor and 2001 QG$_{298}$,
853: contributing to their suspected binary nature.
854:
855: \begin{figure}
856: \epsscale{1.0}
857: \plotone{f17.eps}
858: \caption{Lightcurve of 624 Hektor in April 1968, taken from \citet{dunlap}.
859: Note the similarities between lightcurves of (29314), (17365) and 624 Hektor.}
860: \end{figure}
861:
862: The lightcurve of a contact binary is expected to show
863: U-shaped or spread out maxima and V-shaped or notched minima,
864: as shown by the lightcurves of 2001 QG$_{298}$ (see \citet{sheppard})
865: and 624 Hektor (see Figure 17). These characteristic
866: lightcurve profiles are unlike the
867: distinctive ``notched" profile expected for wide, eclipsing binaries
868: which remain flat for the majority of the orbit, and contain sharp
869: dips during the relatively short eclipsing events.
870: The photometric observations of Trojan asteroids (29314) and (17365) are
871: consistent with lightcurve profiles expected of very close
872: or contact binary systems.
873:
874: 624 Hektor was recently discovered to possess a satellite of
875: diameter 15-km using Keck Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics
876: \citep{marchis_iauc}, but an independent density estimate derived from the
877: orbital motion of this satellite has not yet been published. Additionally, the imaging observations of 624
878: Hektor indicate that its primary component has a double-lobed nature.
879: Similarities are obvious between the lightcurves
880: of 624 Hektor, (17365) and (29314) (see Figures 11, 13 and 17)
881: and consistent with our interpretation that the latter two asteroids are
882: contact binaries.
883:
884: We used equilibrium models of Roche binaries to determine how well the
885: photometric observations of (17365) and (29314) could be matched by theoretical lightcurves
886: of contact binary systems. A Roche binary consists of a pair of homogeneous
887: bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting each other. A strength of this
888: modeling is the ability to estimate densities for the asteroids without knowing
889: the sizes of the binary components. The exact shapes and rotation rates of the
890: Roche binaries were calculated using the mathematical description presented in
891: \citet{leone} (see also \citet{chandrasekhar}). Binary configurations were
892: calculated for secondary to primary mass ratios from $q=0.25$ to $q=1.00$ in
893: steps of 0.01. For each value $q$, Equations 1 to 3 of \citet{leone} were
894: solved simultaneously to find possible shapes and orbital frequencies for the
895: primary. The same equations were then solved using mass ratio $q'=1/q$ to
896: calculate the shapes and orbital rates for the secondary. Finally, valid
897: binaries are uniquely selected by matching pairs (q,1/q) with the same orbital
898: frequency. This procedure is described in detail in \citet{leone} and
899: \citet{lacerda}.
900:
901: The models were ray-traced using publicly available software POV-Ray
902: (http://www.povray.org), but the surface scattering routine of POV-Ray was
903: rewritten to allow better control of the scattering function. The scattering
904: law used here was first implemented by \citet{kaas01}.
905: It linearly combines single (Lommel-Seeliger) and multiple (Lambert) scattering
906: terms using a parameter $k$ \citep{takahashi}, which varies from 0 to 1.
907: The resulting reflectance function is
908: \begin{equation}
909: r\propto(1-k)\,\frac{\mu_0}{\mu_0+\mu}+k\,\mu_0
910: \end{equation}
911: where $\mu_0$ and $\mu$ are the cosines of the incidence and emission angles.
912: When $k=0$, only single scattering is present, while $k=1$ simulates pure
913: multiple scattering of light off the surface of the binaries. All binary
914: configurations were raytraced for $k$ between 0 and 1 in steps of 0.1. Two
915: viewing geometries were modelled, at aspect angles of 75 and 90$\,$deg
916: (equator-on). The aspect angle lies between the line of sight of the
917: observations and the rotation axis of the body. Simulated illumination angles
918: were chosen to match the phase angles at the time the data were taken. In
919: total, nearly 50000 models were computed for comparison with the data.
920:
921: Observations of (17365) and (29314) were simultaneously fitted
922: for the different viewing orientations in 2005 and 2006 to find
923: the best shape interpretation for the asteroids.
924: We assumed that the objects were viewed equatorially in 2005, thus
925: producing the larger photometric range in the discovery epoch data.
926: This assumption was encouraged by the fact that an aspect angle of
927: 75 degrees (rather than 90 degrees) produced a better fit with the
928: 2006 observations (see Figures 10 and 12).
929:
930: Figures 8, 9, 11 and 13 show the best-fit models overlaying lightcurve data,
931: with residuals plotted underneath. Best fit models were found
932: by minimizing chi-squared. Small deviations ($\sim$ 0.1 magnitudes) from the
933: binary model are evident for both asteroids, but are negligible compared
934: with the total range of the observations, the more important parameter.
935: Presumably, the deviations are caused by irregularities on the surface
936: of the asteroids, which were not included in the simple binary model,
937: but without which the asteroids would be considered odd.
938: The ability of the models to simultaneously fit two
939: epochs of photometric observations lends strong support to the idea
940: that we observed contact binary asteroids over two years at different
941: viewing geometries.
942:
943: \begin{figure}
944: \epsscale{1.0}
945: \plotone{f18.eps}
946: \caption{Shape interpretation of Trojan asteroid (29314)
947: from Roche binary equilibrium models.}
948: \end{figure}
949:
950: \begin{figure}
951: \epsscale{1.0}
952: \plotone{f19.eps}
953: \caption{Shape interpretation of Trojan asteroid
954: (17365) from Roche binary equilibrium models.}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957:
958: Figures 18 and 19 show the shapes derived from the binary models for (17365) and
959: (29314). Orbital periods combined with shape information allowed us to
960: estimate the densities of the asteroids. The components of our model of
961: asteroid (29314) were found to have a mass ratio of $0.4^{+0.5}_{-0.1}$ and
962: a density of $590^{+40}_{-80}$ kg/m$^3$, while our best model of asteroid
963: (17365) has a mass ratio of $0.6^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ and density of
964: $780^{+50}_{-80}$ kg/m$^3$. These low densities suggest porous asteroid
965: interiors. If (29314) and (17365) have a rock/ice composition similar to the
966: moons of Jupiter, (29314) would have a porosity of $\sim$ 64\%, while (17365)
967: would have a smaller porosity of 50\% (see Figure 3 from \citet{marchis}). If
968: (17365) and (29314) were composed purely of water ice, their porosities would be
969: 15\% and 35\%, respectively \citep{marchis}. This pure water ice composition
970: is unrealistic, however. It is interesting to note that our low density
971: measurements are consistent with 617 Patroclus \citep{marchis}.
972:
973: Among the Trojans, only 624 Hektor is known to have a comparable
974: lightcurve amplitude, making (29314) and (17265) the 2nd and 3rd known
975: Trojans to show such large rotational variations.
976: Lightcurve analysis suffers from the notorious non-uniqueness problem, which
977: arises from the ability to reproduce any lightcurve with a complicated pattern
978: of surface markings and shapes. Our interpretation is not unique, but is the
979: simplest, most plausible explanation for the behaviour of the Trojan asteroids.
980:
981:
982: \section{Discussion: Binary Fraction}
983: Following the method outlined in \citet{sheppard} to account for
984: the geometrical circumstances of the observations, we were able to
985: estimate the fraction of contact binary systems among the Jovian Trojan
986: asteroids. This method uses two very crude approximations.
987: In the first approximation, the binary system is simplified to
988: be an elongated, rectangular object with dimensions
989: a $\geq$ b = c, having a lightcurve amplitude as follows:
990:
991: \begin{equation}
992: \Delta m = 2.5\log\left\{\frac{1+\tan\theta}{\frac{b}{a} + \tan\theta}\right\}.
993: \end{equation}
994:
995: The range of lightcurve amplitudes used to identify contact binary asteroids is
996: 0.9 to 1.2 magnitudes. For the maximum amplitude of 1.2 magnitudes and viewing
997: angle of $\theta$ = 0$\degr$, an axis ratio of $\frac{a}{b}$ = 3 is calculated
998: from Equation 4. Using this axis ratio and the minimum expected amplitude of 0.9
999: magnitudes, a viewing angle of 10$\degr$ was determined. Therefore, the range
1000: of lightcurve amplitudes expected for a contact binary asteroid would only
1001: be observed if the Earth lies within 10$\degr$ of the equator of the asteroid.
1002: The probability that the Earth would lie within 10$\degr$ of the equator
1003: of a randomly oriented asteroid is P($\theta \leqslant 10\degr$) = 0.17.
1004: We found two suspected contact binary asteroids in our sample of 114
1005: Trojan asteroids, so the fraction of contact binary Jovian Trojan
1006: asteroids is approximately $\frac{2}{114(0.17)}$ = 10 \%.
1007:
1008: A second approximation uses an ellipsoid shape to represent the contact
1009: binary asteroid, again having dimensions a $\geq$ b = c, and having a
1010: lightcurve amplitude expressed by the following:
1011:
1012: \begin{equation}
1013: \Delta m = 2.5\log\left(\frac{a}{b}\right) - 1.25\log\left\{\left[\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^2 - 1\right]\sin^2 \theta + 1 \right\}.
1014: \end{equation}
1015:
1016: Using the axis ratio of $\frac{a}{b}$ = 3, in order to observe
1017: photometric ranges between 0.9 and 1.2 magnitudes, the Earth must
1018: lie within 17$\degr$ of the equator of the ellipsoidal asteroid.
1019: The probability of a randomly oriented object having this
1020: geometrical orientation relative to the observer is
1021: P($\theta \leqslant 17\degr$) = 0.29, implying a contact binary
1022: fraction of $\frac{2}{114(0.29)}$ = 6 \%.
1023:
1024: We conclude that the fraction of contact binary Trojan asteroids
1025: is $\sim$6\% to $\sim$10\%. This is a lower limit to the actual fraction as some of
1026: the objects not found in the survey sample to have large
1027: amplitudes might in fact have them because the sparse sampling
1028: method is not 100\% efficient. The existence of likely contact
1029: binary 624 Hektor separately suggests that the binary fraction is high.
1030:
1031: Binaries with equal-sized components are rare in the main-belt (the
1032: frequency of large main-belt binaries is $\sim$ 2\% \citep{richardson06}) and have
1033: yet to be observed in the near-earth asteroid population. However, they
1034: are abundant in the observed binary Kuiper Belt population, where the
1035: fraction lies between 10\% and 20\% \citep{sheppard}. The results of this study
1036: show that there are three Jovian Trojan asteroids that reside in Region
1037: C. The observations tend to suggest a closer relationship between
1038: the binary populations of the Kuiper Belt and the Trojan clouds.
1039: This correlation could signify similar binary formation mechanisms
1040: in the two populations. This is an interesting connection considering
1041: that in one model of formation, the Trojans are actually captured Kuiper
1042: Belt objects \citep{morbidelli}.
1043: However, it is clear that the total binary fractions in the Kuiper Belt
1044: and in the Trojans needs to be more tightly constrained
1045: before conclusions can be made.
1046:
1047: The contact binaries detected were skewed towards those with components of
1048: comparable sizes, which are capable of producing photometric ranges $\geq$ 0.9
1049: magnitudes. For mass ratios $\ll$ 1, sparse sampling would more likely
1050: miss the eclipsing event and the photometric range would be $\leq$ 0.9 magnitudes
1051: and would not attract our attention.
1052: The method was strongly dependent on geometrical circumstances, and only
1053: binaries viewed edge-on or almost equatorially would be detected in our survey.
1054: Additionally, sparse sampling is only able to put lower limits on the
1055: photometric range of an asteroid, making the binary fraction a lower limit
1056: estimate. Only binaries with sufficiently short orbital periods
1057: (optimally between 6 to 12 hour rotation
1058: periods) would be detected, so wide binaries were not accounted for in this study.
1059: Therefore, again the measured binary fraction is a strong lower limit
1060: to the actual fraction and is suggestive of a
1061: significant binary population among the Trojan clouds.
1062:
1063: Our project is a pilot study for the much larger
1064: scale Pan-STARRS, which will detect every object with a red
1065: magnitude brighter than $24^{th}$ magnitude. It is estimated that
1066: approximately 10$^5 $ Jovian Trojans exist with red magnitudes
1067: lower than 24, all of which will be detected using Pan-STARRS \citep{jewitt03,durech}.
1068: Our results suggest that Pan-STARRS will reveal between 6000 and 10,000 contact
1069: binary systems among the Trojan clouds.
1070:
1071: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccr}
1072: \tablecolumns{6}
1073: \tablewidth{0pc}
1074: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1075: \tablecaption{Likely Contact Binary Trojans}
1076: \tablehead{
1077: \colhead{Asteroid}
1078: & \colhead{$\bar m(1,1,0)$\tablenotemark{a}}
1079: & \colhead{D$_e$ [km]\tablenotemark{b}}
1080: & \colhead{P [hr]}
1081: & \colhead{$\Delta$m\tablenotemark{c}}
1082: & \colhead{$\rho$ [kg/m$^3$]}}
1083: \startdata
1084: (17365) & 10.76 &92 &12.672 &0.98 &780 \\
1085: (29314) & 11.80 &32 & 15.035 &1.05 &590 \\
1086: 624 Hektor& 7.37 &$350 \times 210$& 6.921 &1.10 &2200 \\
1087: \enddata
1088: \tablenotetext{a}{Mean Absolute Magnitude (see Equation 1)}
1089: \tablenotetext{b}{Effective Diameter (see Equation 2)}
1090: \tablenotetext{c}{Maximum Photometric Range}
1091: \end{deluxetable}\label{table: obs_journal}
1092:
1093: \section{Summary}
1094: Sparsely sampled lightcurve measurements were used to
1095: statistically study the photometric variations of 114 Jovian Trojan asteroids.
1096: Objects with large photometric ranges were targeted for follow-up
1097: in this survey, and are considered as candidate contact binary systems.
1098:
1099: \begin{enumerate}
1100: \item The sparse sampling technique successfully confirmed known photometric
1101: ranges of both 944 Hidalgo (0.58 $\pm$ 0.02 magnitudes) and 2674 Pandarus
1102: (0.50 $\pm$ 0.01 magnitudes).
1103:
1104: \item Two of the 114 observed Trojans, asteroids (17365) and (29314), were found to show
1105: photometric ranges larger than expected for rotationally deformed equilibrium figures, and were targeted for dense follow-up lightcurve observations.
1106: The resulting ranges (0.98 $\pm$ 0.02 mag
1107: and 1.05 $\pm$ 0.03 mag, respectively) and long rotation periods (12.672 $\pm$ 0.019 hr
1108: and 15.035 $\pm$ 0.007 hr) of these two Trojans are consistent with a contact binary
1109: structure for each object.
1110:
1111: \item Roche binary models give densities of $780^{+50}_{-80}$ kg/m$^3$ for asteroid (17365) and
1112: $590^{+40}_{-80}$ kg/m$^3$
1113: for asteroid (29314), suggestive
1114: of porous interiors.
1115:
1116: \item If (17365) and (29314) are indeed contact binaries, then we estimate from our survey
1117: that the binary fraction of the Jovian Trojans is $\sim$6\% to 10\% or more. The total binary fraction (including
1118: both wide and close pairs) must be higher.
1119:
1120: \end{enumerate}
1121:
1122: \acknowledgments
1123: We thank John Dvorak, Daniel Birchall, Dave Brennan and Ian Renaud-Kim for
1124: operating the UH telescope and Henry Hsieh for assisting with the observations
1125: both in Taiwan and Honolulu.
1126: We are grateful for the assistance and expertise of the Lulin Observatory
1127: staff, in particular Wen-Ping Chen, Chung-Ming Ko and HC Lin.
1128: Support for this work by a grant to D.J. from NASA's Origins
1129: Program is greatly appreciated.
1130:
1131: \newpage
1132: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1133: \bibitem[Astakhov, Lee, \& Farrelly(2005)]{astakhov} Astakhov, S.A., Lee,
1134: E.A., Farrelly, D. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 401
1135: \bibitem[Barucci et al.(2002)]{barucci} Barucci, M.A., Cruikshank, D.P.,
1136: Mottola, S., Lazzarin, M. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W.F. Bottke Jr., A.
1137: Cellino, P. Paolicchi \& R. P. Binzel (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 273
1138: \bibitem[Belton et al.(1995)]{belton} Belton, M., Champman, C., Thomas, P.,
1139: Davies, M., Greenberg, R., Klaasen, K., Byrnes, D., D'Amario, L.,
1140: Synnott, S., Merline, W., Petit, J.M., Storrs, A., Zellner, B. 1995, Nature, 374, 785
1141: \bibitem[Binzel \& Sauter(1992)]{binzel} Binzel, R.P., \& Sauter, L.M. 1992,
1142: Icarus, 95, 222-238
1143: \bibitem[Bowell et al.(1989)]{bowell} Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., Lumme, K.,
1144: Peltoniemi, J., and Harris, A.W. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R.P. Binzel, T.
1145: Gehrels \& M.S. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 524
1146: \bibitem[Cellino et al.(1985)]{cellino} Cellino, A., Pannunzio, R., Zappal\'{a}, V.,
1147: Farinella, P., Paolicchi,P. 1985, A\&A, 144, 355
1148: \bibitem[Chandrasekhar(1987)]{chandrasekhar} Chandrasekhar, S. 1987,
1149: Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium (New York: Dover)
1150: \bibitem[Chapman et al.(1995)]{chapman} Chapman, C.R., Veverka, J., Thomas, P.C.,
1151: Klaasen, K., Belton, M.J.S. Harch, A., McEwen, A., Johnson, T.V., Helfenstein, P.,
1152: Davies, M.E., Merline, W.J., Denk, T. 1995, Nature, 374, 783
1153: \bibitem[Cook \& Franklin(1970)]{cook70} Cook, A.F., Franklin, F.A. 1970, Icarus, 13, 282
1154: \bibitem[Cook(1971)]{cook71} Cook, A.F. 1971, in Physical Studies of Minor Planets, ed. T.
1155: Gehrels, 155
1156: \bibitem[Cox(2000)]{cox} Cox, A.N., 2000, in Allen's Astrophysical Quantities,
1157: (New York: Springer-Verlag), 341
1158: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2002)]{davis} Davis, D.R., Durda, D.D., Marzari, F., Campo B.A.,
1159: Gil-Hutton, R. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W.F. Bottke Jr., A. Cellino, P.
1160: Paolicchi, \& R. P. Binzel (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 545
1161: \bibitem[Dunlap \& Gehrels(1969)]{dunlap} Dunlap, J. L., Gehrels, T. 1969, AJ, 74, 796
1162: \bibitem[\v{D}urech et al.(2006)]{durech} \v{D}urech, J., Grav, T., Jedicke, R., Denneau,
1163: L., \& Kaasalainen, M.\ 2005, Earth Moon
and Planets, 97, 179
1164: \bibitem[Farinella et al.(1981)]{farinella81}Farinella, P., Paolicchi, P.,
1165: Tedesco, E.F., Zappal\'{a}, V. 1981, Icarus, 46, 114
1166: \bibitem[Farinella \& Zappal\`{a} (1997)]{farinella97} Farinella, P., Zappal\`{a}, V. 1997,
1167: Advances in Space Research, 19, 181
1168: \bibitem[Fernandez, Sheppard \& Jewitt(2003)]{fernandez}Fern\'{a}ndez, Y.R.,
1169: Sheppard, S.S., Jewitt, D.C. 2003, AJ, 126, 1563
1170: \bibitem[Funato et al.(2004)]{funato}Funato, Y., Makino, J., Hut, P., Kokubo, E.,
1171: Kinoshita, D. 2004, Nature, 427, 518
1172: \bibitem[Goldreich, Lithwick, \& Sari(2002)]{goldreich} Goldreich, P., Lithwick, Y., Sari, R. 2002, Nature, 420, 643
1173: \bibitem[Harris et al.(2006)]{harris} Harris, A.W., Lagerkvist, C.I.,
1174: Zappal\'{a}, V., Warner, B.D. Minor Planet Lightcurve Parameters, Jan 15, 2006.
1175: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/LightcurveDat.html
1176: \bibitem[Hartmann \& Cruikshank(1978)]{hartmann78} Hartmann, W.K., Cruikshank, D.P. 1978, Icarus, 36, 353
1177: \bibitem[Hartmann et al.(1988)]{hartmann88} Hartmann, W.K., Binzel, R. P., Tholen, D.J., Cruikshank, D.P., Goguen, J. 1988, Icarus, 73, 487
1178: \bibitem[Holsapple(2004)]{holsapple04} Holsapple, K.~A.\ 2004,
Icarus, 172, 272
1179: \bibitem[Ivezic et al.(2001)]{ivezic} Ivezic, Z., et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2749
1180: \bibitem[Jewitt, Trujillo, \& Luu(2000)]{jewitt00} Jewitt, D.C., Trujillo, C.A., \& Luu, J.X.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1140
1181: \bibitem[Jewitt(2003)]{jewitt03}Jewitt, D.C., 2003, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 92, 465
1182: \bibitem[Jewitt, Sheppard, \& Porco(2004)]{jewitt04}Jewitt, D. C., Sheppard, S., Porco, C. 2004, in Jupiter: The planet, satellites and magnetosphere. ed. Bagenal, F., Dowling, T.E., McKinnon, W.B. Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press), 263
1183: \bibitem[Kaasalainen, Torppa, \& Muinonen(2001)]{kaas01} Kaasalainen, M., Torppa, J., Muinonen, K. 2001, Icarus, 153, 37
1184: \bibitem[Kaasalainen, Torppa, \& Piironen(2002)]{kaasalainen} Kaasalainen, M., Torppa, J., Piironen, J. 2002, A\&A, 383, L19
1185: \bibitem[Lacerda \& Jewitt(2007)]{lacerda} Lacerda, P., Jewitt, D. 2007, AJ,133, 1393
1186: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{landolt} Landolt, A.U. 1992, AJ, 104, 340
1187: \bibitem[Leone et al.(1984)]{leone}Leone, G., Paolicchi, P., Farinella, P., Zappal\'{a}i, V. 1984, A\&A, 140, 265
1188: \bibitem[Marchis et al.(2006a)]{marchis} Marchis, F., et al. 2006a Nature, 439, 565
1189: \bibitem[Marchis et al.(2006b)]{marchis_iauc} Marchis, F. Wong, M. H., Berthier, J., Descamps, P., Hestroffer, D., Vachier, F., Le Mignant, D., Keck Observatory, W.M., de Pater, I. 2006b, \iaucirc, 8732, 1
1190: \bibitem[Marzari et al.(1997)]{marzari} Marzari, F., Farinella, P., Davis, D.R., Scholl, H., Campo B.A. 1997, Icarus, 125, 39
1191: \bibitem[Merline et al.(2001)]{merlineiauc} Merline, W.J., et al.\ 2001, \iaucirc, 7741, 2
1192: \bibitem[Morbidelli et al.(2005)]{morbidelli} Morbidelli, A., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R. 2005, Nature, 435, 462
1193: \bibitem[Pravec, Harris, \& Michalowski(2002)]{pravec}Pravec, P., Harris, A.W.,
1194: Michalowski, T. 2002, in Asteroids III, ed. W.F. Bottke Jr., A. Cellino, P. Paolicchi,
1195: \& R. P. Binzel (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 113
1196: \bibitem[Richardson \& Walsh(2006)]{richardson06} Richardson, D.C., \& Walsh, K.J.\ 2006,
1197: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 34,
47
1198: \bibitem[Russell(1916)]{russell} Russell, H.N. 1916, AJ, 43, 173
1199: \bibitem[Stellingwerf(1978)]{stellingwerf} Stellingwerf, R.F. 1978. ApJ, 224, 953
1200: \bibitem[Sheppard \& Jewitt(2004)]{sheppard}Sheppard, S. \& Jewitt, D.C. 2004, AJ, 127, 3023
1201: \bibitem[Takahashi \& Ip(2004)]{takahashi} Takahashi, S., \& Ip, W. H.\ 2004, \pasj, 56, 1099
1202: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1980)]{weidenschilling80}Weidenschilling, S. J. 1980, Icarus, 44, 807
1203: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(1989)]{weidenschilling89}Weidenschilling, S. J. 1989, in Asteroids II,
1204: ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, M.S. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 643
1205: \bibitem[Weidenschilling(2002)]{weidenschilling02}Weidenschilling, S.J. 2002, Icarus, 160, 212
1206: \bibitem[Wisniewski(1997)]{wisniewski}Wisniewski, W.Z., Michalowski, T.M., Harris, A.W.,
1207: McMillan, R.S. 1997, Icarus, 126, 395
1208: \bibitem[Yoshida \& Nakamura(2005)]{yoshida} Yoshida, F., \&
1209: Nakamura, T.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 2900
1210: \end{thebibliography}
1211:
1212:
1213:
1214:
1215:
1216: \clearpage
1217:
1218:
1219:
1220:
1221:
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227:
1228:
1229:
1230: \end{document}
1231: