1: % DDT NEO ApJL
2:
3: %%
4: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
5: %%
6: %% Modified 2004 January 9
7: %%
8: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
9: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
10:
11: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
12: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
13: %% any data that comes before this command.
14:
15: %% The command below calls the preprint style
16: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
17: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
18: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
19: %%
20: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
21:
22: %%% xxx
23: %\usepackage{ulem}
24: %%% for striking out stuff -- can be deleted before submission
25: %%% xxx
26:
27: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
28:
29: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
30:
31: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
32:
33: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
34:
35: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
36: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
37: %% use the longabstract style option.
38:
39: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
40:
41: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
42: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
43: %% the \begin{document} command.
44: %%
45: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
46: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
47: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
48: %% for information.
49:
50: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
51:
52: \slugcomment{ApJL in press}
53:
54: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
55: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
56: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
57: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
58: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
59: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
60:
61: \shorttitle{Diameters and albedos of three Near Earth Objects}
62: \shortauthors{Trilling et al.}
63:
64: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
65: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
66:
67: \begin{document}
68:
69: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
70: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
71: %% you desire.
72:
73: \title{Diameters and albedos of three sub-kilometer Near Earth Objects derived
74: from Spitzer observations}
75:
76: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
77: %% author and affiliation information.
78: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
79: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
80: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
81: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
82:
83: \author{D. E. Trilling$^{1}$,
84: M. Mueller$^{1}$,
85: J. L. Hora$^{2}$,
86: G. Fazio$^{2}$,
87: T. Spahr$^{2}$,
88: J. A. Stansberry$^{1}$,
89: H. A. Smith$^{2}$,
90: S. R. Chesley$^{3}$, \&
91: A. K. Mainzer$^{3}$}
92:
93: \affil{
94: 1: Steward Observatory, 933 N. Cherry Avenue,
95: The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721;
96: {\tt trilling@as.arizona.edu}}
97: \affil{
98: 2:
99: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
100: 60 Garden Street,
101: Cambridge, MA 02138}
102: \affil{
103: 3: Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
104: Caltech, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109}
105:
106: %S. Djorgovski\altaffilmark{1,2,3} and Ivan R. King\altaffilmark{1}}
107: %\affil{Astronomy Department, University of California,
108: % Berkeley, CA 94720}
109:
110: %\author{C. D. Biemesderfer\altaffilmark{4,5}}
111: %\affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ 85719}
112: %\email{aastex-help@aas.org}
113:
114: %\and
115:
116: %\author{R. J. Hanisch\altaffilmark{5}}
117: %\affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218}
118:
119: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
120: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
121: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
122: %% affiliation.
123:
124: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.
125: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science
126: %Foundation.}
127: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}
128: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,
129: % 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
130: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}
131: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}
132:
133: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
134: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
135: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
136: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
137: %% editorial office after submission.
138:
139: \begin{abstract}
140: Near Earth Objects (NEOs) are fragments of
141: remnant primitive bodies
142: that date from the era of Solar System formation.
143: %NEO orbits bring these primordial samples close to
144: %the Earth,
145: %and studies of
146: %the composition of the material from which the planets formed may
147: %follow. However,
148: At present, the physical properties and origins of NEOs are poorly
149: understood.
150: We have measured
151: thermal emission from
152: three NEOs --- (6037) 1988~EG,
153: 1993~GD, and 2005~GL ---
154: with Spitzer's IRAC instrument
155: at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0~$\mu$m (the last object
156: was detected only at 5.8~and 8.0~$\mu$m).
157: The diameters of these three objects are
158: 400~m, 180~m, and 160~m, respectively, % numbers updated 19 jun 2008 updatd june 24 2008
159: with uncertainties of around 20\% % numbers updated 19 jun 2008: this includes systematic model unc. of 15%
160: (including both observational and systematic
161: errors).
162: For all three the
163: geometric
164: albedos are
165: around~0.30, in agreement with previous results
166: that most NEOs
167: are
168: S-class asteroids.
169: %These results demonstrate
170: %the power of the Spitzer Warm Mission (observations
171: %only at 3.6 and 4.5~microns) to make these measurements.
172: For the two objects detected at 3.6~and 4.5~$\mu$m,
173: diameters and albedos based only on those data agree with the values
174: based
175: on modeling the data in all four bands. This agreement, and the high
176: sensitivity
177: of IRAC, show the promise of the Spitzer Warm Mission for determining the
178: physical
179: parameters for a large number of NEOs.
180: \end{abstract}
181:
182: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
183: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
184: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
185: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
186:
187: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
188: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
189: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
190: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
191: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
192: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
193: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
194: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
195: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
196: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
197: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
198: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
199:
200: \keywords{minor planets, asteroids --- infrared: Solar System}
201:
202: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
203: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
204: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
205: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
206: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
207: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
208: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
209: %% each reference.
210:
211: \section{Introduction}
212:
213: Near Earth Objects (NEOs)
214: are
215: bodies whose orbits pass within a few tenths of an AU of the Earth's orbit. As of this
216: writing, there are around 5000 NEOs known. The Pan-STARRS program is
217: likely to increase the number of known NEOs to $\sim$10,000 or more by 2013.
218: These bodies are of critical interest to both the scientific
219: community and the public.
220: The NEO population is the source of potential
221: Earth-impacting asteroids (hence a Congressional mandate
222: to study these objects),
223: and some may be
224: easily reached by spacecraft, enabling our exploration of the nearby Solar
225: System.
226: Because NEOs have only recently been perturbed out of orbits in the
227: main asteroid belt, and so are relatively primitive objects, they contain
228: information that records the origin
229: of our Solar
230: System and that may offer insight into both the past (via delivery of
231: organic material) and
232: future (via impact-caused extinctions) of life on Earth.
233: However, the physical characterization of these objects is by far outpaced by discoveries.
234: The NEO size and albedo distributions, crucial inputs for
235: Solar System studies as well as the assessment of the NEO Earth impact hazard,
236: are only poorly constrained, especially at the smallest sizes \citep[e.g.,][]{StuartBinzel2004}.
237:
238: %However, the physical properties of these objects are poorly
239: %known, largely due to their small sizes and difficult observing
240: %geometries.
241: %Assessing the impact hazard, for example, requires knowledge
242: %of both NEO size and albedo distributions,
243: %%%% xxx
244: %%\sout{but there are only a
245: %%handful of NEO size and albedo measurements available.}
246: %which currently are only poorly constrained.
247: %%% there are several tens at least -- would make for a large hand
248: %%% xxx
249: %Even our understanding of the small body dynamical processing
250: %in which main belt asteroids become NEOs
251: %is hindered by our ignorance of NEO taxonomic class.
252:
253: %% xxx
254: The diameter and albedo of asteroids can be determined from thermal-infrared observations together with appropriate thermal modeling
255: \citep[e.g.,][]{STM,LebofskySpencer1989,HarrisLagerros2002}, provided the absolute magnitude $H$
256: \citep[optical magnitude at a standardized observing geometry; see][]{HG}
257: is known.
258: %\citep[$H$ is the V magnitude normalized to heliocentric and observer-centric distances of 1~AU and a solar phase angle of zero, see][for details]{HG}.
259: % The diameter $D$, geometric albedo $p_V$, and $H$ are related by \citep{FowlerChillemi}:
260: %\begin{equation}
261: %\label{eq:HG}
262: %p_V = 10^{-H/2.5} \left( 1329~\textrm{km}/D\right)^2.
263: %\end{equation}
264: %% xxx
265: A suitable thermal model for NEOs is the
266: Near-Earth Asteroid Thermal model \citep[NEATM, ][]{neatm}, which
267: allows for simultaneous fits of the
268: asteroid diameter, albedo, and effective surface temperature (parametrized through the beaming parameter $\eta$)
269: \citep[e.g.,][]{neatm,HarrisLagerros2002}.
270: %---see, e.g., \citet{neatm,HarrisLagerros2002,Delbo2003} for more detailed descriptions of the NEATM.
271: %For observations at solar phase angles $\lesssim60^{\circ}$, the
272: %systematic uncertainties on
273: %%it has been shown numerically \citep{Harris2006,Wright2007} and empirically \citep[e.g., ][]{Harris2005,Mueller2006,Harris2007} that the systematic uncertainty of
274: %NEATM-derived diameters and albedos are around 15\% and 30\%, respectively
275: %%\citep{Harris2005,Harris2006,Mueller2006,Harris2007,Wright2007}.
276: %\citep[e.g.,][]{Wright2007}.
277:
278: %The thermal emission of asteroids is modeled using
279: %the Near Earth Asteroid Thermal Model \citep[NEATM,][]{neatm}.
280: %The NEATM is similar to the Standard Thermal Model \citep{STM}
281: %in that it assumes a spherical shape and instantaneous thermal equilibrium with the impinging solar radiation.
282: %It differs from the STM by explicitly accounting for non-zero solar phase angles. Also, it allows the effective color temperature of the model thermal continuum to be matched to the data; this is achieved by varying the model parameter $\eta$.
283: %Varying $\eta$ allows a first-order correction to the effects of surface roughness and thermal inertia, which would otherwise introduce major diameter and albedo uncertainties.
284: %The NEATM has been shown to be superior to the STM at the solar phase angles at which our observations took place.
285: %Systematic diameter uncertainties are generally not larger than
286: %15\%, with corresponding albedo uncertaintes up to 30\%
287: %\citep{Harris2006,Wright2007}.
288:
289: We have measured
290: thermal emission from
291: three NEOs with the Spitzer Space
292: Telescope \citep{werner04}
293: and present our data (\S2) and results (\S3) here.
294: Using the NEATM, we derive albedos and diameters for all three objects (\S3).
295: In \S4 we comment on the apparent thermal inertias for these objects
296: and
297: demonstrate that a study of NEOs could profitably
298: be carried out with the Spitzer Warm Mission.
299:
300: \section{Observations and data reduction}
301:
302: We observed three NEOs ((6037) 1988~EG;
303: 1993~GD; and 2005~GL) at 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0~$\mu$m
304: with Spitzer's InfraRed Array Camera \citep[IRAC;][]{fazio04} using the moving cluster
305: observing mode, tracking according to the standard NAIF ephemeris.
306: Table~\ref{geom} gives
307: the observing log and observing geometries.
308: These objects were chosen to be visible by Spitzer
309: on our observing date, have small positional uncertainties,
310: and have a range of absolute magnitudes.
311: %IRAC views the same field of view (FOV) with
312: %the 3.6 and
313: %5.8~$\mu$m channels
314: %simultaneously, and a nearby field at
315: %4.5~and 8.0~$\mu$m simultaneously.
316: IRAC observes simultaneously at
317: [3.6, 5.8]~$\mu$m and at
318: [4.5, 8.0]~$\mu$m.
319: Our dithered observations alternated
320: between these two pairs of bandpasses
321: to reduce the
322: relative effects of any lightcurve variations within the observing period, and
323: to maximize the relative motion of the asteroid to help reject
324: background sources.
325: The high dynamic range mode was
326: used, and the frame times for each object are given in Table \ref{geom}.
327: %We used a moving cluster AOT for these observations,
328: %which allows us to alternate between fields
329: %of view (first 3.6 and 5.8~microns, then
330: %4.5~and 8.0~microns). This ameliorates any
331: %potential lightcurve effects xxxx did we see any? xxx.
332: %%% xxx
333: %\emph{xxx It also makes it easier to reject inertial background targets. But maybe we don't have to mention the moving-cluster thing at all (if we do, we need to spell out AOT, too... xxx}
334: %%% xxx
335: %xxx anything more to say here? xxx
336: %\emph{xxx integration times should be listed someplace xxx}
337:
338: We used the Basic Calibrated Data (v.\ 17.2.0) and MOPEX (v.\
339: 16.0) in the moving object mode to construct mosaics of the
340: fields in the reference frame of the asteroid, assuming the offsets given
341: by the NAIF ephemeris. Aperture photometry was
342: performed using an aperture radius of 5 pixels (at 1.22 arcsec/pixel) and an
343: annulus of 5 pixels for background measurement around the source. The aperture
344: and annulus sizes were calibrated using one of the IRAC calibration stars
345: (HD 165459) and the zero point set so that the measurements matched the
346: source magnitudes given in \citet{reach05}.
347: 6037 and 1993~GD were detected in all four bands;
348: 2005~GL was only detected at 5.8~and 8.0~$\mu$m (Table~\ref{geom}).
349: Only 6037 is bright enough to provide good
350: time-series photometry; no significant flux
351: variation was detected in the $\sim$15~minute span
352: of the observations.
353:
354: %\section{Model results}
355:
356: Due to the spectral width of the IRAC passbands, measured flux values must be color corrected.
357: The observed asteroid fluxes comprise
358: thermal and reflected light components, which have different
359: color corrections (though color correction for the
360: latter is negligible).
361: %Also, the observed asteroid flux contains reflected sunlight which must be subtracted before thermal models can be applied.
362: %Due to their different spectral shapes, different color corrections apply to the thermally emitted and reflected flux components; color corrections for the latter are negligible.
363: To derive color-corrected thermal fluxes,
364: we must first remove the reflected flux contribution in each band.
365: The flux component from reflected sunlight was assumed to have the spectral shape of a $T=5800$~K black body over IRAC's spectral range. The flux level was determined from the solar flux at 3.6~$\mu$m \citep[$5.54\times10^{16}$~mJy, ][]{solarspec}, the solar magnitude of $V=-26.74$, and the asteroid's V magnitude as determined from the observing geometry and the known $H$ value.
366: We assumed that asteroid reflectivity at 3.6~$\mu$m and longward is 1.4~times the reflectivity
367: in the V~band (A. Rivkin, pers.\ comm.), although using the naive assumption
368: of equal reflectivity makes only a few percent difference in the resulting
369: albedos and diameters.
370: The estimated reflected light component was subtracted
371: from the measured fluxes to get the (uncorrected) thermal fluxes.
372:
373: Color-correction factors for the thermal flux were determined using the iterative procedure described in \citet{Mueller2007}: Color-correction factors were first determined for typical NEATM parameters,
374: the resulting fluxes were fit using the NEATM, then color-correction factors were re-derived using the best-fit NEATM parameters until convergence was reached.
375: Color corrections and
376: color-corrected thermal fluxes for all three targets are given in Table~\ref{results}.
377:
378: %The measured fluxes must be color corrected to account for the detector spectral response and the asteroid spectral shape.
379: %Color-correction factors were determined by numerically convolving synthetic asteroid spectra with the tabulated IRAC
380: %bandpasses\footnote{{\tt \url{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/spectral\_response.html}}}.
381: %Due to their different spectral shapes, different color corrections apply to the thermally emitted flux component and to reflected sunlight component. Color corrections for the latter are negligible, while those for the former will be discussed in the next section.
382: %Color-corrected fluxes for all three targets are given in Table~\ref{geom} and Figure~\ref{sed}.
383:
384: %We must determine the reflected light
385: %and thermal emission components of the measured fluxes in order
386: %to properly model these data.
387: %To estimate the amount of reflected sunlight, we first determined the expected $V$ magnitude from the observing geometry
388: %and the $H$~value. We convert this expected $V$ to an expected 3.6~micron flux
389: %using a solar $V$ magnitude of $-26.74$ and the known solar 3.6~micron flux of $5.54\times10^{16}$~mJy \citep{solarspec}.
390: %We assumed that the reflectivity at 3.6~microns is 1.4~times that in the $V$~band, and
391: %that the reflectivities at 3.6~microns and 4.5~microns are equal (A. Rivkin,
392: %pers.\ comm.).
393: %Solar contributions to the remaining channels were determined assuming a solar black-body temperature of 5800~K.
394: %We subtract the reflected light contributions at all four wavelengths
395: %to determine the thermal emission.
396:
397: %Using H, the Solar System absolute magnitude (magnitude
398: %an object would have in the hypothetical geometry of
399: %1~AU from the Sun, 1~AU from Earth, and at zero phase angle),
400: %we calculate the reflected light component of the observed
401: %fluxes assuming that an asteroid's reflectance at
402: %3.6~and 4.5~microns is 40\% higher than that at 0.55~microns
403: %(refs) (Figure~\ref{sed}). xxx what other assumptions? spherical body? xxx
404: %We subtract this reflected light component from the measured
405: %flux in each band and color-correct the remaining thermal
406: %flux using values from xxx IRAC handbook xxx (see Table~\ref{geom}).
407:
408: \section{Model results and uncertainties}
409:
410: Thermal fluxes were measured in all four IRAC bands for
411: (6037) 1988~EG and 1993~GD.
412: For each target, the four-band data were fit using the NEATM
413: by varying diameter $D$, albedo $p_V$, and $\eta$ until $\chi^2$ was minimized. $D$ and $p_V$ are related through the optical magnitude $H$: $p_V = 10^{-H/2.5} \left( 1329~\textrm{km}/D\right)^2$ \citep{FowlerChillemi}. (In all cases we assume
414: emissivity of~0.9 and standard scattering behavior in the visible,
415: resulting in a phase integral of~0.39.) % what solar constant did we assume?
416: These best-fit (floating $\eta$) values for $D$, $p_V$, and $\eta$ are given in Table~\ref{results} and
417: %These best values are given in Table~\ref{results},
418: the corresponding model spectra are shown
419: %with the solutions shown
420: %% xxx
421: in Figure~\ref{sed}.
422:
423: For these four-band (floating $\eta$) fits, we use a Monte Carlo analysis
424: to estimate the statistical uncertainty of our results.
425: 300~random sets of flux values were generated such that their mean and
426: standard deviation match the measured fluxes and flux uncertainties, respectively.
427: Each trial was fit using the NEATM as above.
428: The standard deviations of the resulting
429: diameter and albedo values were taken to be
430: the statistical uncertainties on our four-band results (Table~\ref{results}).
431: We do the same NEATM/Monte Carlo analysis using just
432: the 5.8~and 8.0~$\mu$m data for the brighter two objects (Table~\ref{results}),
433: allowing us to assess systematic variations in model
434: results.
435: However,
436: because the measurements of 2005~GL have relatively
437: low significance, this Monte Carlo approach
438: does not work, and
439: we require a proxy technique to determine
440: variations among models, as follows.
441:
442: With this Monte Carlo proxy model, the
443: nominal fit is determined
444: in the usual way (NEATM, as above). We then
445: use the NEATM
446: to fit a ``hot'' solution, where the short wavelength
447: data is increased by 0.7$\sigma$ and the long wavelength
448: solution is decreased by 0.7$\sigma$ relative to
449: the nominal flux values ($\sigma$ is the
450: measurement error). We also fit a ``cold''
451: solution, which has short band decreased and the
452: long band increased by 0.7$\sigma$.
453: The range in derived albedo
454: and diameter then is derived from the range of values
455: produced by the hot and cold solutions.
456: We show in Table~\ref{results}
457: that for 6037 this hot/cold proxy approach replicates
458: the full Monte Carlo result quite closely.
459: We present this proxy model here because,
460: in general, this approach is a useful substitute
461: for full Monte Carlo modeling.
462: However, for 2005~GL, the
463: significance of our measurements is so poor that even this technique
464: does not work (producing implausible albedos
465: around~2 and unlikely $\eta$~values around~0.38).
466: We must therefore move to yet a
467: simpler technique to assess
468: systematic errors due to model variations.
469:
470: \citet{Delbo2003,Delbo2007,wolters} derived an empirical relationship
471: between the phase angle $\alpha$ at which observations
472: are made and the best-fit $\eta$.
473: This ``fixed $\eta$'' technique works here
474: because the number of free parameters is decreased
475: by one: the surface temperature is fixed
476: due to the fixed $\eta$ (compare to the hot/cold
477: models above).
478: Thus, we produce ``fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$''
479: solutions for 2005~GL, as well as for
480: 6037 (fitting 5.8~and 8.0~$\mu$m data and fitting
481: 3.6~and 4.5~$\mu$m data) and for
482: 1993~GD (with the same data subsets) (Table~\ref{results}).
483: In the interest of assessing variations due
484: to different model solutions, we also derive
485: ``fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$'' solutions
486: for 2005~GL using just 5.8~$\mu$m data and
487: using just 8.0~$\mu$m data (Table~\ref{results}).
488: The formal errors
489: on these fixed $\eta$ solutions are derived
490: directly from the measurement errors:
491: because any acceptable fit must pass within
492: the measurement error bars, the percent
493: error on diameter is equal to the percent
494: error on the best measurement utilized in the fit,
495: divided by two (since flux is proportional to
496: diameter squared).
497: The albedo uncertainty is twice that of the
498: diameter uncertainty, or equal to the uncertainty
499: on the best measurement utilized.
500:
501: %%% xxx
502: %2005~GL was detected only at 5.8~and 8.0~microns, and at
503: %relatively low significance,
504: %making it impractical to constrain the effective temperature and hence $\eta$ reliably.
505: %%These data were fitted by varying $D$ and $p_V$, only, assuming a fixed $\eta$ value.
506: %Instead, we use the empiricially determined correlation
507: %between solar phase angle $\alpha$ and $\eta$
508: %\citep{Delbo2003,Delbo2007,wolters}
509: %to estimate $\eta=1.48$ for 2005~GL.
510: %%It has been found empirically that for NEOs $\eta$
511: %%correlates with solar phase angle $\alpha$ in an approximately linear fashion
512: %%\citep[see also \citealp{Delbo2007} for an explanation of this phenomenon]{Delbo2003}.
513: %%Using a recently updated version of the $\eta(\alpha)$ dependency \citep{wolters}
514: %%we arrived at $\eta=1.495$ for 2005~GL;
515: %We then
516: %fit the data for 2005~GL by varying $D$ and $p_V$,
517: %using this fixed $\eta$ value
518: %(Table~\ref{results} and Figure~\ref{sed}).
519: %
520: %For this 2005~GL model (and all fixed $\eta$ models described
521: %here), we find the errors on the diameter and albedo
522: %solutions in the following way, after xxx stans et al/grundy et al.
523: %Full Monte Carlo simulations are not effective here due to the
524: %small number of free parameters xxx is that why?. Instead, we estimate the
525: %1$\sigma$ errors
526: %on albedo and diameter by fitting
527: %fixed $\eta$ solutions to ``hot'' and ``cold''
528: %instances of the data.
529: %Here, the ``hot'' data set has the flux in the short band
530: %(3.6~microns, as below, or 5.8~microns, for 2005~GL)
531: %increased by 0.7~times the
532: %measured flux uncertainty in that band and the
533: %flux in the long band (4.5~or 8.0~microns) decreased
534: %by 0.7~times the measured flux uncertainty in that band.
535: %The ``cold'' solution has the reverse: the short band
536: %flux is decreased by 0.7$\sigma$ and the long band flux is
537: %increased by 0.7$\sigma$.
538: %The uncertainties in albedo and diameter are then
539: %derived from the deviations of the hot and cold solutions
540: %from the nominal fixed $\eta$ solutions, and are presented
541: %in Table~\ref{results}.
542: %
543: %%For (6037) 1988~EG and
544: %%1993~GD we fit the thermal fluxes in all four bands
545: %%by solving for the best albedo, diameter, and $\eta$.
546: %%These best values are given in Table~\ref{results},
547: %%with the solutions shown in Figure~\ref{sed}.
548: %%We use a slightly different approach to derive solutions
549: %%for 2005~GL, where we have only two measurements.
550: %%Here we take the empirical relationship between
551: %%phase angle and $\eta$ derived by \citet{wolters}
552: %%to fix $\eta=1.495$. We then solve for albedo and diameter
553: %%(Table~\ref{results} and Figure~\ref{sed}).
554: %
555: %To estimate systematic uncertainties in our model
556: %solutions, we also fit the data for 6037 and 1993~GD
557: %using just the 5.8~and 8.0~micron measurements and two
558: %different model approaches. The first is a floating~$\eta$
559: %approach similar to that used for the four-band fit. Because the
560: %reflected light components of the 5.6~and 8.0~micron
561: %fluxes are negligible and the measured fluxes are
562: %of high significance, satisfactorily converging solutions
563: %can be found, and are given in Table~\ref{results}.
564: %The second approach is a fixed $\eta$ approach,
565: %where $\eta$ is again determined from phase angle;
566: %these are ``fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$'' solutions
567: %(Table~\ref{results}).
568: %Generally, all of these solutions are in agreement.
569: %As described below,
570: %the variation in the model solutions
571: %among these different models is used to determine the
572: %global uncertainties on diameter and albedo.
573: %
574: %Finally, we also find two-band solutions using fluxes
575: %only at 3.6~and 4.5~microns for
576: %6037 and 1993~GD using this same
577: %``fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$'' technique (Table~\ref{results} and
578: %Figure~\ref{sed}).
579: %These fits are hampered
580: %by relatively low S/N detections at 3.6~and 4.5~microns,
581: %particularly for 1993~GD.
582: %Nevertheless, the model results agree fairly
583: %well
584: %with results derived from other the models
585: %described above (and excellent agreement in the
586: %case of 6037, where the significance of the measurements
587: %is quite high).
588: %%confirming
589: %%the phase angle-$\eta$ relationship.
590: %The importance of these short band fixed $\eta$ results is described
591: %in \S4.
592:
593: We take our
594: final model solutions to be the averages
595: of the solutions from the various techniques (Table~\ref{results}).
596: This allows us to capture the scatter among
597: the different model solutions
598: in the error bars on our final solutions.
599: %The final uncertainties that we derive, also shown
600: %in Table~\ref{results}, include
601: %both the mean of the errors from the individual
602: %solutions and the error on the mean (that is,
603: %the scatter among the different model solutions),
604: %combined in quadrature. %%% do this!
605: The uncertainties on diameter
606: are around 7\% for the strongly %%% xxx check this number
607: detected 6037 and around 16\% for the less well %%% xxx check this number
608: detected 1993~GD.
609: For 2005~GL, where there are only three models, all
610: of the same type, the uncertainty on diameter
611: is also around 16\%.
612: Uncertainties on albedo are twice those on
613: diameter.
614: These final solutions are given in
615: Table~\ref{results} and plotted in
616: Figure~\ref{sed}.
617:
618: %xxx here's the logic:
619: %four band MC fit. can't get good
620: %floating eta values from just 12. what then?
621: %then fixed eta from
622: %alpha. then fixed eta with 1.25, which
623: %is mean of floating eta values for
624: %6037 and 93GD and is also the eta
625: %for the 6037 34 fit.
626:
627: %errors:
628: %
629: %monte carlo
630: %
631: %stans used 0.7 times sigma
632: %
633: %stans did +/- and -/+
634: %
635: %errors on physical properties are smaller when you do +/+ and -/-
636:
637: Our diameter solutions are hindered by our
638: lack of knowledge about physical target properties such as shape, spin state, thermal inertia, and surface roughness, all of which affect surface temperatures and hence thermal flux; together, these typically
639: imply an uncertainty around 15\% \citep[e.g.,][]{Wright2007},
640: comparable to the systematic errors
641: we estimate from our cross-model comparisons above.
642: More realistic thermophysical modeling \citep[e.g.,][]{HarrisLagerros2002} would require models for shape and spin state as inputs, but those are unlikely to become available for our targets in the near future.
643: %To estimate the statistical diameter uncertainty, we performed a Monte-Carlo analysis similar to that described in \citet{Mueller2007}, finding that statistical uncertainties are indeed negligible.
644: %It is hard to estimate the diameter uncertainty in the two-band fixed-$\eta$ fits, but it is plausible that the 15\% quoted above are a lower bound. While we caution that more work is required to reach a reliable quantitative uncertainty estimate, the similarity of our four-band and two-band results for 6037 and 1993~GD is certainly encouraging.
645:
646: Additional diameter uncertainty derives from the rotational flux variability (lightcurves) of our
647: targets.
648: The peak-to-peak lightcurve amplitude of 6037 is\footnote{{\tt http://www.asu.cas.cz/$\sim$ppravec/neo.html}} around 0.2~mag.
649: Following the arguments
650: presented in Appendix~A, we find that the resulting diameter uncertainty due to
651: lightcurve effects is
652: negligible: less than 4\%.
653: Nothing is known about the lightcurves of our remaining targets. Given their small
654: size, their lightcurves are likely to have a rather large amplitude and small period
655: \citep{pravec}.
656: By virtue of our observation design, measured fluxes in all four channels are
657: effectively averaged over $\sim$900~s (1993~GD) and $\sim$2,000~s
658: (2005~GL).
659: Assuming a lightcurve amplitude of 1~mag and a period of 1 hour for 2005~GL, the
660: corresponding diameter uncertainty due to lightcurve effects would be around 2\% -- negligibly small.
661:
662: The final diameter uncertainties are therefore the combination
663: of uncertainties from modeling ($<$20\%);
664: uncertainties in physical properties (15\%);
665: and lightcurve effects (small). The total uncertainties
666: on diameters are likely to be around 20\%, including
667: errors from both measurement and systematic
668: uncertainties.
669:
670: %Additional diameter uncertainty derives from potential rotational flux variability (lightcurves) of our targets.
671: %The peak-to-peak lightcurve amplitude of 6037 is\footnote{{\tt http://www.asu.cas.cz/~ppravec/neo.html}} around $\sim$0.2~mag,
672: %which could imply an asphericity as large as 20\% (via
673: %$\Delta {\rm mag} = 2.5 \log (a/b)$, where $a$ and $b$
674: %are the largest and middle axes of the asteroid).
675: %There are no published lightcurves for 1993~GD or 2005~GL.
676: %We mitigate lightcurve effects for these targets with our observation
677: %design, in which
678: %measured fluxes in all four channels are effectively averaged over $\sim$900~sec (1993~GD) and $\sim$2,000~sec (2005~GL).
679: %(NEO spin periods range from minutes to days \citep{pravec}.)
680:
681: The corresponding albedo uncertainty due to
682: scatter in model results and ignorance of
683: physical properties
684: is therefore around 40\%.
685: %The systematic fractional albedo uncertainty is twice that of the diameter, so
686: %that the uncertainty due to lack of knowledge of the physical properties
687: %of our targets is likely to be 30\%, again comparable to the
688: %scatter from employing various models.
689: %% (since $H$ is a function of $D^2 \times p_V$), i.e.\ around 30\% for the four-band fits, larger for the fixed-$\eta$ two-band fits.
690: Uncertainties in $H$, which leave the best-fit diameter estimate practically unchanged \citep{HarrisHarris}, add to the error budget for $p_V$.
691: This effect is small for 6037 (where the uncertainty
692: in $H$ is estimated to be 0.15~mag), but $H$ could be in error by 0.3~mag or more for the
693: other two targets, leading to errors in $p_V$ of 30\% or more.
694: % but hard to estimate for 1993~GD and 2005~GL. Our albedo results for the latter can be easily updated once improved $H$ values will be available \citep{HarrisHarris}.
695: %Conservatively, we allow 30\% uncertainties from
696: %each of model scatter; ignorance of physical properties;
697: %and uncertainty in~$H$.
698: Combining these two uncertainties (40\% from above
699: and 30\% from $H$ uncertainty), we therefore
700: estimate the total uncertainty
701: on our albedo determinations to be around 50\%.
702:
703: \section{Discussion}
704:
705: All three objects have diameters less than 500~meters, making them
706: among the smallest NEOs with known albedos and diameters, and
707: among the smallest individual objects studied with the Spitzer
708: Space Telescope. All three objects also have albedos close
709: to~0.3,
710: in agreement with the idea that the NEO
711: population is dominated by S-class asteroids
712: \citep[e.g.,][]{binzel04}.
713: \citet{binzel04} also found that
714: the albedos for S-class (and related classes)
715: NEOs rise from their main belt average value
716: around~0.22 to greater than~0.3 for objects
717: $\lesssim$500~m.
718: %If our targets are indeed
719: %S types,
720: Our results appear to confirm
721: this trend (Figure~\ref{sed}),
722: though with small numbers and
723: not insignificant error bars.
724: It is quite premature to discuss
725: the reality of the potentially interesting downward turn
726: at even smaller sizes.
727:
728: The best-fit (floating) $\eta$ values found for 6037 and 1993~GD are roughly consistent with empirical expectations \citep{Delbo2003}, which were recently used by \citet{Delbo2007} to determine the typical thermal inertia of $D\sim 1$~km NEAs.
729: Thermal inertia is indicative of the presence or absence of loose material (regolith) on the surface and is a key parameter for model calculations of the Yarkovsky effect, a non-gravitational force that severely influences the orbital dynamics of small asteroids.
730: (Note that \citet{Vokrouhlicky2005} list 6037 as a potential target for direct observations of the Yarkovsky effect.)
731: Our results suggest that our targets have unremarkable thermal inertias
732: and may be similar to the
733: 320~meter diameter S-type NEO (25143) Itokawa \citep{ThMueller,MuellerDiss}, the target of the Hayabusa mission.
734: However, more work and a systematic, large survey
735: are needed
736: to determine the typical thermal inertia of sub-km NEAs.
737:
738: %As described above, we solved for albedos
739: %and diameters for 6037 and 1993~GD using
740: %both the complete data sets for these objects
741: %and using just the 3.6~and 4.5~micron fluxes.
742: %The solutions for these two cases are generally
743: %consistent. This demonstration has
744: %important implications for the proposed Warm Spitzer mission.
745: %After Spitzer's onboard cryogen is exhausted, observations
746: %in IRAC bands~1 and~2 (3.6 and 4.5~microns) could still be made
747: %with essentially no loss of sensitivity. We show here that
748: %a Warm Spitzer could be used to derive albedos and diameters
749: %for NEOs. The efficiency of Warm Spitzer at making
750: %these observations would be
751: %unequaled elsewhere.
752:
753: For 6037 and 1993~GD
754: the diameters and albedos we derive
755: using only 3.6~and 4.5~$\mu$m data
756: are in agreement with our other model
757: solutions, particularly for 6037,
758: which is strongly detected (SNR$>$10)
759: in both bands.
760: %Our results (diameter and albedo)
761: %using four band data and using
762: %only 3.6~and 4.5~micron data
763: %are in agreement for 6037 and 1993~GD.
764: %%The agreement of our
765: %%results (diameter and albedo) for
766: %%four-band and 3.6~and~4.5~micron-only
767: %%data sets
768: %%for 6037 and 1993~GD
769: This agreement
770: has important implications for the Spitzer Warm Mission.
771: After Spitzer's onboard cryogen is exhausted, observations
772: in IRAC bands 1 and 2 (3.6 and 4.5~$\mu$m) can still be made
773: with essentially no loss of sensitivity.
774: Our results
775: show the promise of capitalizing on the superior
776: sensitivity of IRAC
777: to determine the physical properties of
778: a large number of NEOS during the Spitzer
779: Warm Mission.
780:
781: % with a sensitivity that is unequaled elsewhere.
782:
783: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
784: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
785: %% command.
786:
787: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
788: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
789: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
790: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
791: %% text to be printed in the second.
792:
793: \acknowledgments
794:
795: We thank the referee for a number of useful suggestions.
796: We thank Tom Soifer for allocating Director's Discretionary
797: time for this project and Mike Werner
798: for helpful suggestions. We acknowledge the extremely rapid release
799: of these data by the SSC and
800: Sean Carey for MOPEX advice.
801: Andy Rivkin helped us estimate the relative spectral
802: reflectances of asteroids and
803: Rick Binzel provided us his data
804: that we plotted in Figure~1.
805: This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by JPL/Caltech under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech.
806:
807: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
808: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
809: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
810: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
811: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
812: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
813: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
814: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
815:
816: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
817: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
818: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
819: %% copy editing. Individual instruments can be provided in parentheses,
820: %% after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
821:
822: Facilities: \facility{Spitzer(IRAC)}
823:
824: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
825: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
826: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
827:
828: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
829: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
830: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
831:
832: \appendix
833:
834: \section{The effect of unknown lightcurve variations on diameter uncertainties}
835:
836: Uncertainties in diameter can arise from the rotational flux variability (lightcurve)
837: of an observed asteroid.
838: To first order, the projected area $A$ of an asteroid with
839: a double-peaked lightcurve varies as
840: %
841: %\begin{equation}
842: $A (\phi)/A_0 = 1+(10^{\frac{\Delta m/2}{2.5}}-1)\sin 2\phi$,
843: %\label{lceqn1}
844: %\end{equation}
845: %
846: %\noindent
847: where $\phi$ is rotational phase, $A_0$ is the average area,
848: and $\Delta m$ is the peak-to-peak lightcurve
849: amplitude.
850: For an instantaneous area measurement at a random time, the expectation value
851: is $A_0$ and the
852: standard deviation is
853: %
854: %\begin{equation}
855: $\sigma_A = A_0 (10^{\Delta m/5}-1)/\sqrt{2}$.
856: %\label{lceqn2}
857: %\end{equation}
858: %
859: Since area is proportional to diameter squared, the
860: lightcurve-induced contribution to the fractional diameter
861: uncertainty is
862: %
863: %\begin{equation}
864: $\sigma_{D} = (10^{\Delta m/5}-1)/\sqrt{8}$.
865: %\label{lceqn3}
866: %\end{equation}
867: %
868: %\noindent
869: Therefore,
870: for objects whose lightcurve amplitudes but not
871: periods are known, $\sigma_{D}$ can
872: be estimated.
873: Only for objects with $\Delta m \geq 1.9$, which is a very large
874: amplitude lightcurve, is
875: $\sigma_{D}$ greater than 50\%.
876:
877: Some observations may span a significant portion of
878: an asteroid's rotation period; our relatively
879: long integrations on 1993~GD and 2005~GL may be
880: examples.
881: The time-averaged lightcurve-induced
882: diameter uncertainty is
883: %
884: %\begin{equation}
885: $\sigma_{D}\langle t\rangle = \sigma_{D} \times S$,
886: %\label{lceqn4}
887: %\end{equation}
888: %
889: %\noindent
890: where $S$ is a smoothing factor and
891: is equal to $|\sin\phi|/\phi$, with $\phi=2\pi T/P$ (the rotational
892: phase, as above); $T$ giving the duration of the measurement;
893: and $P$ being the rotation period.
894:
895: For all $T\gtrsim0.4~P$, it is the case
896: that $S\lesssim0.2$, so
897: $\sigma_D\langle t\rangle$ will almost always
898: be small for sufficiently long observations.
899: In cases where an asteroid's lightcurve
900: period is known, an observing plan that results
901: in small $\sigma_{D}$
902: can be created without requiring that the thermal and
903: reflected light observations be simultaneous or even phased.
904: Finally, we conclude that for very small asteroids,
905: uncertainties introduced
906: by lightcurve effects will almost always be small, as follows.
907: Some very small asteroids have very short
908: rotation periods (just a few minutes), and most generally will require
909: long integration
910: times. Therefore, $T$ is likely to be $\gtrsim0.4~P$,
911: making $\sigma_{D}\langle t\rangle$ small.
912:
913: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
914: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
915: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
916: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
917: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
918: %%
919: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
920: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
921: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
922: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
923: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
924: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
925: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
926: %% place of the \cite commands.
927:
928: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
929: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
930: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
931:
932: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
933: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
934: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
935: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
936: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
937:
938: \begin{thebibliography}{}
939: %yyy
940:
941: \bibitem[Binzel et al.(2004)]{binzel04}
942: Binzel, R.P., Rivkin, A.S., Stuart, J.S.,
943: Harris, A.W., Bus, S.J., \& Burbine,
944: T.H. 2004,
945: Icarus, 170, 259
946:
947: %% xxx
948: \bibitem[Bowell et al.(1989)]{HG}
949: Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., Lumme, K., Peltoniemi, J., \& Harris, A.W. 1989,
950: %Application of photometric models to asteroids
951: in Asteroids II, eds.\ R.P. Binzel et al.\ (Tucson: Univ.\ of Arizona Press), 524
952:
953: \bibitem[Delbo' et al.(2003)]{Delbo2003}
954: Delbo', M., Harris, A.W., Binzel, R.P., Pravec, P., Davies, J.K., 2003,
955: %Keck observations of near-Earth asteroids in the thermal infrared.
956: Icarus, 166, 116
957:
958: \bibitem[Delbo' et al.(2007)]{Delbo2007}
959: Delbo', M., dell'Oro, A., Harris, A.W., Mottola, S., Mueller, M. 2007,
960: Icarus, 190, 236
961:
962: \bibitem[Fazio et al.(2004)]{fazio04} Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 10
963:
964: \bibitem[Fowler \& Chillemi(1992)]{FowlerChillemi}
965: Fowler, J.W.\ \& Chillemi, J.R. 1992,
966: %IRAS data processing.
967: in The IRAS Minor Planet Survey, %Tech.\ Rpt.\ PL-TR-92-2049,
968: ed.\ E.D. Tedesco (Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts), 17
969:
970: \bibitem[Gueymard(2004)]{solarspec}
971: Gueymard, C.A. 2004, Solar Energy, 76, 423
972:
973: \bibitem[Harris(1998)]{neatm}
974: Harris, A.W. 1998, Icarus, 131, 291
975:
976: %\bibitem[Harris(2006)]{Harris2006}
977: %Harris, A.W. 2006.,
978: %%The surface properties of small asteroids from thermal-infrared observations
979: %Asteroids, Comets, and Meteors 2005 (Lazzaro, D., Ferraz-Mello, S., Fern\'andez, J.A, eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (pp.\ 449--463).
980: %xxx format? what is this? xxx
981:
982: \bibitem[Harris \& Harris(1997)]{HarrisHarris}
983: Harris, A.W.\ \& Harris, A.W.\ 1997,
984: % On the Revision of Radiometric Albedos and Diameters of Asteroids.
985: Icarus, 126, 450
986:
987: %\bibitem[Harris et al.(2005)]{Harris2005}
988: %Harris, A.W., Mueller, M., Delbo', M., Bus, S.J. 2005.
989: %%The surface properties of small asteroids: Peculiar Betulia---A case study.
990: %\icarus\ 179, 95--108.
991:
992: %\bibitem[Harris et al.(2007)]{Harris2007}
993: %Harris, A.W., Mueller, M., Delbo', M., Bus, S.J. 2007.
994: %%Physical characterization of the potentially hazardous high-albedo asteroid (33342) 1998 WT24 from thermal-infrared observations.
995: %\icarus\ 188, 414--424.
996:
997: \bibitem[Harris \& Lagerros(2002)]{HarrisLagerros2002}
998: Harris, A.W.\ \& Lagerros, J.S.V. 2002,
999: in Asteroids III, eds.\ W.F. Bottke et al.\ (Tucson: Univ.\ of Arizona Press), 205
1000:
1001: \bibitem[Lebofsky et al.(1986)]{STM}
1002: Lebofsky, L.A. et al.\ 1986,
1003: %, Sykes, M.V., Tedesco, E.F., Veeder, G.J., Matson, D.L., Brown, R.H., Gradie, J.C., Feierberg, M.A., \& Rudy, R.J. 1986,
1004: %%A refined ``standard'' thermal model for asteroids based on observations of 1 Ceres and 2 Pallas
1005: Icarus, 68, 239
1006:
1007: \bibitem[Lebofsky \& Spencer(1989)]{LebofskySpencer1989}
1008: Lebofsky, L.A.\ \& Spencer, J.R. 1989,
1009: %% Radiometry and thermal modeling of asteroids,
1010: in Asteroids II, eds.\ R.P. Binzel et al.\ (Tucson: Univ.\ of Arizona Press), 128
1011: %% xxx
1012:
1013: \bibitem[Mueller(2007)]{MuellerDiss}
1014: Mueller, M. 2007,
1015: %Surface properties of asteroids from mid-infrared observations and thermophysical modeling.
1016: Ph.D. thesis, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Germany ({\tt http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/2007/471/indexe.html})
1017:
1018: %\bibitem[Mueller et al.(2006)]{Mueller2006}
1019: %Mueller, M., Harris, A.W., Bus, S.J., Hora, J.L., Kassis, M., Adams, J.D. 2006.
1020: %% The size and albedo of Rosetta fly-by target 21 Lutetia from new IRTF measurements and thermal modeling.
1021: %\aap\ 447 1153--1158.
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Mueller et al.(2007)]{Mueller2007}
1024: Mueller, M., Harris, A.W., \& Fitzsimmons, A. 2007,
1025: %Size, albedo, and taxonomic type of potential spacecraft target asteroid (10302) 1989 ML.
1026: Icarus, 187, 611
1027:
1028: \bibitem[M\"uller et al.(2005)]{ThMueller}
1029: M\"uller, T.G., Sekiguchi, T., Kaasalainen, M., Abe, M., \& Hasegawa, S. 2005,
1030: %Thermal infrared observations of the Hayabusa spacecraft target asteroid 25143 Itokawa.
1031: \aap, 443, 347
1032:
1033: \bibitem[Pravec et al.(2002)]{pravec}
1034: Pravec, P., Harris, A.W., \& Micha\l{}owsky, T. 2002,
1035: in Asteroids III, eds.\ W.F. Bottke et al.\ (Tucson: Univ.\ of Arizona Press), 113
1036:
1037: \bibitem[Reach et al.(2005)]{reach05} Reach, W. T. et al. 2005, \pasp, 117, 978
1038:
1039: \bibitem[Stuart \& Binzel(2004)]{StuartBinzel2004}
1040: Stuart, J.S. \& Binzel, R.P. 2004, Icarus,
1041: %Bias-corrected population, size distribution, and impact hazard for the near-Earth objects.
1042: 170, 295
1043:
1044: \bibitem[Vokrouhlick\'{y}\ et al.(2005)]{Vokrouhlicky2005}
1045: Vokrouhlick\'{y}, D., \v{C}apek, D., Chesley, S.R., \& Ostro, S.J. 2005, Icarus,
1046: % Yarkovsky detection opportunities. I. Solitary asteroids
1047: 173, 166
1048:
1049: \bibitem[Werner et al.(2004)]{werner04} Werner, M. et al. 2004, \apjs, 154, 1
1050:
1051: \bibitem[Wolters et al.(2008)]{wolters}
1052: Wolters, S.D., Green, S.F.,
1053: McBride, N., \& Davies, J.K. 2008,
1054: Icarus, 193, 535
1055:
1056: \bibitem[Wright(2007)]{Wright2007}
1057: Wright, E.L. 2007,
1058: %Comparing the NEATM with a Rotating, Cratered Thermophysical Asteroid Model
1059: preprint (astro-ph/0703085)
1060:
1061: \end{thebibliography}
1062:
1063: \clearpage
1064:
1065: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc|rrrr|c}
1066: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1067: %\tabletypesize{\tiny}
1068: \rotate
1069: \tablecaption{Observing log \label{geom}}
1070: \tablewidth{0pt}
1071: \tablehead{
1072: \colhead{Target} &
1073: \colhead{AOR} &
1074: \colhead{UT} &
1075: \colhead{$H$} &
1076: \colhead{$r$} &
1077: \colhead{$\Delta$} &
1078: \colhead{$\alpha$} &
1079: \colhead{t$_{{\rm frame}}$} &
1080: \colhead{t$_{{\rm exp}}$} &
1081: \colhead{F$_{3.6}$} &
1082: \colhead{F$_{4.5}$} &
1083: \colhead{F$_{5.8}$} &
1084: \colhead{F$_{8.0}$} &
1085: \colhead{Comment} \\
1086: \colhead{} & % target
1087: \colhead{} & % AOR
1088: \colhead{Date} & % date
1089: \colhead{(mag)} & % H
1090: \colhead{(AU)} & % r
1091: \colhead{(AU)} & % delta
1092: \colhead{(deg)} & % alpha
1093: \colhead{(sec)} & % t_frame
1094: \colhead{(sec)} & % t_exp
1095: \colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH1
1096: \colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH2
1097: \colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH3
1098: \colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH4
1099: \colhead{}}
1100: \startdata
1101: % obs geometry updated 30 may 2008 from stans' email of 27 may 2008
1102: % flux values updated 30 may 2008 from hora's email of 19 may 2008
1103: (6037) 1988 EG & 26984704 & 2008-Apr-07 21:34 & 18.7 & 1.24 & 0.42 & 46.96 & 12 & 120 & 50 (4) & 180 (7) & 856 (24) & 3013 (34) & 1 \\
1104: 1993 GD & 26985216 & 2008-Apr-07 21:57 & 20.8 & 1.28 & 0.49 & 46.64 & 30 & 450 & 11 (3) & 36 (3) & 124 (13) & 436 (13) & 2 \\
1105: 2005 GL & 26984960 & 2008-Apr-07 18:35 & 21.2 & 1.37 & 0.71 & 44.06 & 100 & 1000 & \nodata & \nodata & 52 (7) & 108 (7) & 3 \\
1106: \enddata
1107: %% Text for table notes should follow after the \enddata but before
1108: %% the \end{deluxetable}. Make sure there is at least one \tablenotemark
1109: %% in the table for each \tablenotetext.
1110: \tablecomments{
1111: We list here the
1112: AOR (unique observation ID; these observations
1113: were made as part of PID~476);
1114: midtimes of the observations;
1115: the Solar System absolute magnitude $H$, from the MPC;
1116: the target heliocentric distance $r$,
1117: Spitzer-centric distance $\Delta$, and
1118: phase angle $\alpha$ at time of observation;
1119: the individual frame time;
1120: the total exposure time;
1121: and the measured (not color-corrected) fluxes in the four
1122: IRAC bandpasses, with the errors in parentheses.
1123: The effective wavelengths of these four bandpasses
1124: are [3.550, 4.493, 5.731, 7.872]~$\mu$m.
1125: The errors listed here do not include the
1126: 3\% absolute calibration uncertainty
1127: \citep{reach05}.
1128: It is difficult to estimate upper limit fluxes
1129: at 3.6~and 4.5~$\mu$m for 2005~GL due to
1130: many faint star trails at the position of the asteroid.
1131: %The uncertainties in the fluxes are
1132: %[25\%, 20\%, 15\%, 5\%] at
1133: %[3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0]~microns.
1134: Notes: (1) $H$ magnitude uncertainty around~0.15;
1135: this object has a known lightcurve with period
1136: near just under 3~hours and amplitude 0.2~mag.
1137: (2) $H$ magnitude uncertainty around~0.4.
1138: (3) $H$ magnitude uncertainty around~0.3.
1139: }
1140: \end{deluxetable}
1141:
1142: %% If you use the table environment, please indicate horizontal rules using
1143: %% \tableline, not \hline.
1144: %% Do not put multiple tabular environments within a single table.
1145: %% The optional \label should appear inside the \caption command.
1146:
1147: \clearpage
1148:
1149: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc|cccl}
1150: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1151: \rotate
1152: \tablecaption{Physical properties of NEOs \label{results}}
1153: \tablewidth{0pt}
1154: \tablehead{
1155: \colhead{Target} &
1156: \multicolumn{4}{c}{Thermal fluxes ($\mu$Jy)} &
1157: %\colhead{T$_{3.6}$} &
1158: %\colhead{T$_{4.5}$} &
1159: %\colhead{T$_{5.8}$} &
1160: %\colhead{T$_{8.0}$} &
1161: \colhead{diameter} &
1162: \colhead{albedo} &
1163: \colhead{$\eta$} &
1164: \colhead{Model} \\
1165: \colhead{} & % target
1166: %\colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH1
1167: %\colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH2
1168: %\colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH3
1169: %\colhead{($\mu$Jy)} & % FCH4
1170: \colhead{3.6~$\mu$m} &
1171: \colhead{4.5~$\mu$m} &
1172: \colhead{5.8~$\mu$m} &
1173: \colhead{8.0~$\mu$m} &
1174: \colhead{(m)} & % diameter
1175: \colhead{} & % albedo
1176: \colhead{} & % eta
1177: \colhead{}}
1178: \startdata
1179: % need to get migo's updated values for thermal flux
1180: % thermal flux values updated 12 jun 2008 from migo's email of 2 jun 2008
1181: % model solutions from migo's email of 2 jun 2008 and re-updated from migo's new email of 2 jun 2008
1182: (6037) 1988 EG & 10 & 142 & 806 & 2970 & 435 (23) & 0.31 (0.03) & 1.64 (0.11) & Floating $\eta$ \\ % migo
1183: % & 10 & 142 & 806 & 2970 & 410 (xxx) & 0.347 (xxx) & 1.52 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\
1184: % & 10 & 142 & 806 & 2970 & 356 (xxx) & 0.46 (xxx) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\
1185: % & \nodata & \nodata & 806 & 2970 & 376 (35) & 0.426 (0.078) & 1.31 (0.19) & Floating $\eta$ \\
1186: & \nodata & \nodata & 806 & 2970 & 374 (34) & 0.43 (0.08) & 1.30 (0.18) & Floating $\eta$ \\ % MC from migo 20 jun
1187: & \nodata & \nodata & 806 & 2970 & 372 (35) & 0.42 (0.07) & 1.29 (0.17) & Floating $\eta$, hot/cold MC proxy \\ % stans, with hot/cold
1188: & \nodata & \nodata & 806 & 2970 & 414 (4) & 0.34 (0.006) & 1.52 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % migo
1189: % & \nodata & \nodata & 806 & 2970 & xxx (xxx) & xxxxx (xxx) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\
1190: % do we need eta = 1.25 here too?
1191: % stans floating eta for 1+2 gives eta = 3.28 and other nonsensical results
1192: & 10 & 142 & \nodata & \nodata & 398 (15) & 0.37 (0.03) & 1.52 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % assume errors are similar to 3+4 fixed eta errors
1193: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 399 (27) & 0.37 (0.05) & 1.45 (0.15) & Average of model results \\ \hline
1194: % & 10 & 142 & \nodata & \nodata & 336 (xxx) & 0.519 (xxx) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\ \hline
1195: %
1196: 1993 GD & 6 & 31 & 117 & 430 & 143 (11) & 0.42 (0.07) & 1.02 (0.12) & Floating $\eta$ \\
1197: % & 6 & 31 & 117 & 430 & 187 (xxx) & 0.241 (xxx) & 1.52 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\
1198: % & 6 & 31 & 117 & 430 & 164 (30) & 0.316 (0.12) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\
1199: % & \nodata & \nodata & 117 & 430 & 167 (30) & 0.33 (0.12) & 1.31 (0.034) & Floating $\eta$ \\
1200: % & \nodata & \nodata & 117 & 430 & 164 (30) & 0.33 (0.13) & 1.26 (0.35) & Floating $\eta$ \\ % stans
1201: & \nodata & \nodata & 117 & 430 & 170 (31) & 0.32 (0.12) & 1.34 (0.36) & Floating $\eta$ \\ % MC from migo 20 jun
1202: & \nodata & \nodata & 117 & 430 & 184 (6) & 0.25 (0.02) & 1.52 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % assume errors are similar to 6037 errors
1203: % & \nodata & \nodata & 117 & 430 & 162 (xxx) & 0.322 (xxx) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\
1204: % stans floating eta for 1+2 gives eta = 0.66 and other nonsensical results
1205: & 6 & 31 & \nodata & \nodata & 213 (17) & 0.19 (0.03) & 1.52 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % assume errors are similar to 3+4 fixed eta errors
1206: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 178 (29) & 0.30 (0.10) & 1.35 (0.24) & Average of model results \\ \hline
1207: % & 6 & 31 & \nodata & \nodata & 174 (xxx) & 0.281 (xxx) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\ \hline
1208: %
1209: 2005 GL & \nodata & \nodata & 49 & 107 & 147 (10) & 0.27 (0.03) & 1.48 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % assume errors are similar to 6037 errors
1210: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 107 & 145 (6) & 0.29 (0.02) & 1.48 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % stans 20 jun 2008 with errors from fluxes +/- and -/+ 1sigma
1211: & \nodata & \nodata & 49 & \nodata & 191 (12) & 0.17 (0.03) & 1.48 & Fixed $\eta$ from $\alpha$ \\ % stans 20 jun 2008 with errors from fluxes +/- and -/+ 1sigma
1212: & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & 161 (26) & 0.24 (0.06) & 1.48 & Average of model results \\
1213: % stans floating eta for 3+4 gives eta = 0.38 and other nonsensical results
1214: % & \nodata & \nodata & 49 & 107 & 132 (xxx) & 0.338 (xxx) & 1.25 & Fixed average $\eta$ \\
1215: \enddata
1216: \tablecomments{
1217: We list here the color-corrected thermal fluxes
1218: (reflected light components subtracted)
1219: for each target.
1220: Errors (omitted for clarity) on these thermal fluxes are
1221: equal to the measurement errors given in Table~\ref{geom}
1222: divided by
1223: our derived color corrections of
1224: [1.16, 1.09, 1.04, 1.01] for
1225: [3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0]~$\mu$m.
1226: (The same color corrections apply for
1227: all three targets. We neglect
1228: uncertainties in reflected light flux, that is,
1229: we assume that those uncertainties are zero).
1230: %
1231: We list solutions (with errors in parentheses)
1232: to four-band and two-band sets
1233: of data, indicating in the flux columns which
1234: measurements are being used.
1235: A range of models, discussed in the text,
1236: are presented, as well as the average results
1237: from the various models. The average results
1238: are also plotted in Figure~\ref{sed}.
1239: }
1240: %xxxx
1241: %find floating eta solution.
1242: %then eta floats with 3+4 only.
1243: %then use 3+4 only using wolters value.
1244: %then use 1+2 only with 3+4 only eta.
1245: %then use 1+2 only with wolters value.
1246: \end{deluxetable}
1247:
1248: \clearpage
1249:
1250: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
1251: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
1252: %% To embed the sample graphics in
1253: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
1254: %% \includegraphics commands
1255: %%
1256: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
1257: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
1258: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
1259: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
1260: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
1261: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
1262: %%
1263: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
1264: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
1265: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
1266: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
1267: %% journal to journal.
1268:
1269:
1270: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
1271: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
1272: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
1273: %% available in the electronic journal.
1274:
1275: \begin{figure}
1276: \begin{center}
1277: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.50]{f1.ps}
1278: \end{center}
1279: \caption{{\em Panels a,b,c:} Spectral energy distributions for
1280: the three observed NEOs.
1281: Data points (black filled symbols with
1282: red error bars overplotted) show
1283: our color-corrected total (reflected plus
1284: thermal) fluxes. % this is essentially correct. the
1285: % color corrections are small for CH4 and CH3.
1286: % they are big for CH1 and CH2, but here there
1287: % is a lot of reflected light flux, which has no CC.
1288: Green curves (panels a,b) show fits to four band
1289: data. Orange curves (panels a,b) show
1290: fits to data at 3.6~and 4.5~$\mu$m only, with
1291: $\eta$ fixed.
1292: Blue curves (panel c) show fits to
1293: data at 5.8~and 8.0~$\mu$m only,
1294: with $\eta$ fixed.
1295: Dashed lines indicate thermal components and
1296: dotted lines indicate reflected
1297: light components of the total flux, which
1298: is plotted with solid lines.
1299: In panels (a) and (b) the orange curves lie
1300: nearly on top of the green curves, implying that
1301: the two fits are very similar (but making the
1302: green curves difficult to see).
1303: {\em Panel d:} A modified version of
1304: Figure~8 from \citet{binzel04} that
1305: also plots the average diameters and albedos that
1306: we report here as large black circles with
1307: red error bars; see Table~\ref{results}.
1308: The open small black circles are individual data points
1309: and
1310: filled black squares are mean values for
1311: S-class (and related classes) NEOs \citep{binzel04}.
1312: The dotted line is the mean
1313: albedo for main belt S class asteroids.
1314: The error bars on the solutions here reflect the
1315: scatter in the model solutions, but do not include
1316: additional uncertainties that may derive from ignorance
1317: of physical properties of the asteroids or
1318: uncertainties in $H$ (see text for discussion).
1319: \label{sed}}
1320: \end{figure}
1321:
1322:
1323: \clearpage
1324:
1325: %% Tables should be submitted one per page, so put a \clearpage before
1326: %% each one.
1327:
1328: %% Two options are available to the author for producing tables: the
1329: %% deluxetable environment provided by the AASTeX package or the LaTeX
1330: %% table environment. Use of deluxetable is preferred.
1331: %%
1332:
1333: %% Three table samples follow, two marked up in the deluxetable environment,
1334: %% one marked up as a LaTeX table.
1335:
1336: %% In this first example, note that the \tabletypesize{}
1337: %% command has been used to reduce the font size of the table.
1338: %% We also use the \rotate command to rotate the table to
1339: %% landscape orientation since it is very wide even at the
1340: %% reduced font size.
1341: %%
1342: %% Note also that the \label command needs to be placed
1343: %% inside the \tablecaption.
1344:
1345: %% This table also includes a table comment indicating that the full
1346: %% version will be available in machine-readable format in the electronic
1347: %% edition.
1348: %%
1349:
1350:
1351: \end{document}
1352:
1353: %%
1354: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1355: