1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \lefthead{GAUDI ET AL.} \righthead{ROTATION PERIOD OF SEDNA}
3: \def\kms{{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}
4: \def\eq#1{equation (\ref{#1})}
5: \def\Eq#1{Eq.~\ref{#1}}
6: \def\km{\rm km}
7: \def\au{\rm AU}
8: \def\hours{{\rm hours}}
9: \def\days{{\rm days}}
10: \def\mj{M_{J}}
11: \def\rj{R_{J}}
12: \def\msun{M_\odot}
13: \def\rsun{R_\odot}
14: \def\ms{{\rm m\,s^{-1}}}
15: \def\sn{{\rm S/N}}
16: \def\ave#1{\left<#1\right>}
17: \def\tp{\tilde{\cal P}}
18: \def\ntot{N_{\rm tot}}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \title{On the Rotation Period of (90377) Sedna}
23: \author{B.\ Scott Gaudi, Krzysztof Z.\ Stanek, Joel D.\ Hartman, Matthew J.\ Holman, and Brian A.\ McLeod}
24:
25: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138}
26: \email{sgaudi@cfa.harvard.edu}
27:
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We present precise, $\sim 1\%$, $r$-band relative photometry of the
31: unusual solar system object (90377) Sedna. Our data consist of 143
32: data points taken over eight nights in October 2004 and
33: January 2005. The RMS variability over the longest contiguous stretch
34: of five nights of data spanning nine days is only $\sim 1.3\%$. This
35: subset of data alone constrain the amplitude of any long-period
36: variations with period $P$ to be $A\la 1\%(P/20~\days)^2$. Over the
37: course of any given $\sim 5$-hour segment, the data exhibits
38: significant linear trends not seen in a comparison star of similar
39: magnitude, and in a few cases these segments show clear evidence for
40: curvature at the level of a few millimagnitudes per hour$^2$. These
41: properties imply that the rotation period of Sedna is $O(10~\hours)$,
42: cannot be $\la 5~\hours$, and cannot be $\ga 10~\days$, unless the
43: intrinsic light curve has significant and comparable power on multiple
44: timescales, which is unlikely. A sinusoidal fit
45: yields a period of
46: $P=(10.273\pm0.002)\hours$ and semi-amplitude of $A=(1.1 \pm 0.1)\%$.
47: There are additional acceptable fits with flanking periods separated by
48: $\sim 3~{\rm minutes}$, as well as another class of fits with $P\sim
49: 18~\hours$, although these later fits appear less viable based on
50: visual inspection.
51: Our results indicate that the period of Sedna is likely consistent
52: with typical rotation periods of solar system objects, thus obviating
53: the need for a massive companion to slow its rotation.
54: \end{abstract}
55: \keywords{Kuiper belt -- minor planets, asteroids -- Oort cloud -- solar system: general}
56:
57:
58: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
59:
60: There is increasing evidence for the existence of an extended
61: scattered disk; a massive population of objects orbiting beyond the
62: Kuiper belt \citep{gladman02}. These objects have orbits with
63: substantial eccentricities and inclinations and are distinct from
64: Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) in that their perihelia are little affected
65: by gravitational perturbations from Neptune. Thus it appears that
66: Neptune cannot be responsible for
67: their unusual orbits, and several novel mechanisms to explain the
68: origin of these object have been proposed \citep{ml04,kb04,stern05}.
69: The total mass in these objects is poorly known because only a handful
70: of members have been discovered. These include the recently detected
71: object (90377) Sedna ($=2003~{\rm VB}_{12}$), whose orbit has a
72: semimajor axis of $a \simeq 500~\au$ and a perihelion of $q \simeq
73: 80~\au$ \citep{sedna}.
74:
75: Sedna appears to be extreme in several ways in addition to its unusual
76: orbit. It is intrinsically bright, with an absolute magnitude of
77: $H=1.6$, implying that it is one of the largest known minor planets.
78: Unpublished reports also indicate
79: that it is quite red, has a relatively high albedo, a weak opposition
80: surge, and has a very long rotation period, with $P\sim
81: 20-40~\days$ \citep{brown04b}. The latter claim is especially interesting in light of
82: the fact that a {\it Hubble Space Telescope} snapshot of Sedna
83: revealed no evidence for a large companion that could have tidally decreased
84: Sedna's rotation period from typical solar system rotation
85: periods of $O(10~\hours)$ to a longer period of $\sim 20~\days$.
86:
87: Here we present precise relative photometry of Sedna that
88: indicates a rotation period of $O(10~\hours)$, and rules out
89: rotation periods longer than $\sim 10~\days$, under reasonable assumptions.
90: The rotation period of Sedna is likely within the range
91: of typical solar system objects, obviating the need for a massive companion.
92:
93: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccc}
94: \tablecaption{\sc Sedna Relative Photometry and Phase}
95: \tablewidth{0pt}
96: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
97: \tablehead{
98: \colhead{Date} &
99: \colhead{HJD-2450000.} &
100: \colhead{$\Delta r$\tablenotemark{a}} &
101: \colhead{$\sigma_{\Delta r}$} &
102: \colhead{Phase Angle ($^\circ$)}
103: }
104: \startdata
105: UT 2004 Oct 8
106: &3286.83028 & -0.001 & 0.005 & 0.3759\\
107: &3286.84411 & -0.004 & 0.006 & 0.3758\\
108: &3286.84823 & -0.013 & 0.006 & 0.3757\\
109: &3286.85249 & -0.001 & 0.007 & 0.3757\\
110: &3286.85723 & -0.001 & 0.007 & 0.3757\\
111: &3286.86124 & 0.005 & 0.009 & 0.3757\\
112: &3286.86525 & -0.010 & 0.007 & 0.3756\\
113:
114: \enddata
115: \tablecomments{[The complete version of this table is in the
116: electronic edition of the Journal. The printed edition contains only
117: a sample.]}
118: \tablenotetext{a}{Note that the photometry has
119: an arbitrary zero point which differs for the data
120: taken during UT 2004 Oct 8-9, UT 2004 Oct 16, and UT 2005 Jan 7-15.}
121: \label{tab:data}
122: \end{deluxetable*}
123:
124: \begin{figure}
125: \epsscale{1.8}
126: \plotone{f1.eps}
127: \caption{\label{fig:one}
128: Relative photometry of Sedna. The data points show the $r$-magnitude
129: of Sedna versus HJD-2450000., relative to an arbitrary offset that is
130: independent for each chunk. The solid line shows the best-fit
131: sinusoidal model. Individual panels show data from
132: the nights of (a) UT 2004 Oct 8, (b) UT 2004 Oct 9, (c) UT
133: 2005 Oct 16, (d) UT 2004 Jan 7, (e) UT 2004 Jan 8, (f) UT 2004 Jan 9, (g) UT 2004 Jan 11, (h) UT 2004 Jan 15.
134: }
135: \end{figure}
136:
137:
138:
139: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{sec:data}
140:
141: We observed Sedna over eight nights in October 2004
142: (UT 2004 Oct 8,9,16) and January 2005 (UT 2005 Jan 7-9,11,15). Photometric
143: data were obtained with the MegaCam CCD camera \citep{mcleod00}
144: on the MMT 6.5m telescope. The MegaCam instrument uses 36
145: 2048x4608 CCDs to cover a 24'x24' field-of-view with a pixel scale of
146: 0.08''. Our primary science goal was to search for small KBOs,
147: but we chose to target the field of Sedna to simultaneously
148: acquire a precise light curve for this unusual object. The results of
149: the KBO search will be presented elsewhere. Conditions during the
150: observations ranged from good to poor, with image FWHMs in the range
151: 0.7-1.9''. All data were taken with a Sloan $r$-band filter with 2x2 image binning.
152: Exposure times were 300-450 seconds. The apparent motion of Sedna during
153: our observations was $\sim 1''/{\rm hr}$, so trailing losses are negligible.
154:
155: The images were further binned and then reduced in the usual manner.
156: Photometry was performed in two ways: using PSF-fitting
157: photometry with the DAOPHOT II package \citep{stetson87,stetson92},
158: and using image-subtraction photometry with the ISIS 2.1 package
159: \citep{al98,alard00}. For the DAOPHOT reductions, relative photometry
160: of Sedna was derived using 10-50 reference stars.
161:
162: For moving objects, one must take care to consider background stars or
163: galaxies that may be blended with the target in only a subset of
164: exposures, potentially leading to artificial variability when using
165: PSF-fitting photometry. In fact, during the night of UT 2004 Jan 8,
166: Sedna was blended with a background object that was $\sim 3.5$
167: magnitudes fainter. Image subtraction photometry
168: eliminates any constant, stationary objects, and so removes such
169: contamination. On the other hand, the quality of PSF-fitting
170: photometry can be comparable to image-subtraction photometry for
171: uncontaminated objects in relatively sparse fields. Furthermore, we
172: have found that DAOPHOT can extract reliable measurements from very
173: poor-quality frames, where ISIS fails. Therefore, in order to provide the best
174: possible photometry, we adopted a hybrid approach, combining
175: PSF-fitting photometry for the nights which showed no evidence for
176: contaminating
177: background objects (UT 2004 Oct 8-9,16 and UT 2005 Jan 11), and
178: image-subtraction photometry for the remainder of the nights (UT 2005
179: Jan 7-9,15). We stress that, for nights with no contamination, the
180: light curves produced by the two methods are completely consistent.
181: We used the DAOPHOT-reported errors for all data, as we judged these
182: to be more reliable than ISIS-reported errors.
183:
184: Due to Sedna's proper motion, it was not possible to use the same
185: reference stars or images and thus tie the photometry to the same zero
186: point for the entire dataset. Therefore the data consist of three
187: `chunks', corresponding to data taken on UT 2004 Oct 8-9, UT 2004 Oct
188: 16, and UT 2005 Jan 7-15. Each of these chunks have an independent
189: zero point. Although the relative offset and absolute photometric
190: calibration of these chunks could be
191: determined by various methods, these methods all require additional data.
192: These data are not currently available. We therefore chose to
193: present only relative photometry. This final photometry, consisting
194: of 143 data points, is listed in Table 1, where we have subtracted the
195: error-weighted mean instrumental magnitude from each chunk. We note
196: that the apparent magnitude of Sedna during our observations was
197: approximately $R\sim 21$.
198:
199:
200: \section{Analysis}\label{sec:ana}
201:
202: Figure \ref{fig:one} shows the light curve for Sedna, where each panel
203: corresponds to a different night. The nights belonging to the three
204: separate chunks are indicated; each chunk has an independent zero
205: point. The solid curve is a sinusoidal model, which is
206: described below.
207:
208:
209: Several relatively model-independent conclusions can be drawn from the
210: properties of the light curve. First, the RMS deviation during the largest chunk spanning
211: nine nights during UT 2005 Jan 7-15 is only $\sim 1.3\%$. In addition,
212: these data show no evidence for significant curvature;
213: a simple second-order polynomial fit to the January data yields an upper limit
214: to the coefficient of the quadratic term of $c_2\le 440~\mu{\rm
215: mag/day^2}$. This implies that if the light
216: curve amplitude is large, the rotation period must be long. For example,
217: for a sinusoidal light curve, this corresponds a
218: limit on the semi-amplitude of $A \la c_2P^2/2\pi^2 \sim 1\% (P/20~\days)^2$ for
219: large $P$. Second, the
220: data during any given individual night spanning $\la 5~\hours$ generally have very small RMS
221: deviations. For example, the RMS for the night of UT 2004 Oct 8 is
222: only 0.7\%. Nevertheless, several nights show evidence for
223: significant variability that is not seen in a comparison star of
224: similar magnitude. In many cases, this variability is
225: consistent with a simple linear trend, which argues that the period
226: cannot be $\la 5~\hours$.
227: However, for a few nights, curvature is evident. For example, a second-order polynomial fit to
228: the UT 2004 Oct 8 data yields a $\sim 3\sigma$ detection of curvature
229: with $c_2=(-3.8\pm 1.2){\rm millimag/hr^2}$. Similarly, a fit to the UT
230: 2004 Oct 9 data yields $c_2=(2.0\pm 0.9){\rm millimag/hr^2}$.
231: The detection
232: of significant curvature, the fact that the curvature
233: on adjacent nights has opposite sign, and the fact that the difference in
234: mean magnitudes between adjacent nights is $\sim 1\%$, argue
235: that the period must be $O(10~\hours)$. This assumes that the primary power in the intrinsic
236: light curve occurs at only one period. We believe this is a
237: reasonable assumption.
238:
239: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccc}
240: \tablecaption{\sc Fit Parameters}
241: %\tablewidth{0pt}
242: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
243: \tablehead{
244: \colhead{$P$} &
245: \colhead{$A$} &
246: \colhead{$\phi_0$} &
247: \colhead{$k$} &
248: \colhead{$F_{0,1}$} &
249: \colhead{$F_{0,2}$} &
250: \colhead{$F_{0,3}$} &
251: \colhead{$\chi^2$} \\
252: \colhead{(hours)} &
253: \colhead{} &
254: \colhead{} &
255: \colhead{(${\rm deg}^{-1}$)} &
256: \colhead{} &
257: \colhead{} &
258: \colhead{} &
259: \colhead{(136 dof) }
260: }
261: \startdata
262: 10.273$\pm$ 0.002 & 0.011$\pm$0.001 & 0.73$\pm$0.12 & 0.2$\pm$0.2 & 1.004$\pm$0.001 & 1.015$\pm$0.002 & 0.970$\pm$0.002 & 150.0\\
263: 10.321$\pm$ 0.002 & 0.010$\pm$0.001 & 5.60$\pm$0.12 & 0.2$\pm$0.2 & 1.004$\pm$0.001 & 1.019$\pm$0.003 & 0.969$\pm$0.002 & 150.0\\
264: 17.991$\pm$ 0.006 & 0.011$\pm$0.002 & 4.43$\pm$0.17 & 0.2$\pm$0.2 & 1.001$\pm$0.008 & 1.016$\pm$0.025 & 0.978$\pm$0.036 & 150.0\\
265: 17.845$\pm$ 0.006 & 0.011$\pm$0.002 & 5.84$\pm$0.16 & 0.2$\pm$0.2 & 1.002$\pm$0.008 & 1.011$\pm$0.025 & 0.977$\pm$0.036 & 150.2\\
266: 18.139$\pm$ 0.006 & 0.010$\pm$0.002 & 3.01$\pm$0.18 & 0.2$\pm$0.2 & 1.003$\pm$0.008 & 1.026$\pm$0.025 & 0.971$\pm$0.036 & 150.9\\
267: \enddata
268: \label{tab:fits}
269: \end{deluxetable*}
270: \bigskip
271:
272: \begin{figure}
273: \epsscale{1.0}
274: \plotone{f2.eps}
275: \caption{\label{fig:two}
276: The difference in $\chi^2$ of a sinusoidal model fit
277: to the Sedna light curve from the minimum
278: $\chi^2$ of the best-fit model with $P=(10.273\pm0.002)\hours$,
279: as a function of the period of the model. The top
280: panel shows the full range of periods searched, whereas the bottom
281: panels show close-ups of the two most significant classes of fits.
282: The horizontal lines show $\Delta\chi^2=1$ (dashed) and $9$ (dotted).
283: }
284: \end{figure}
285:
286: \begin{figure}
287: \epsscale{1.0}
288: \plotone{f3.eps}
289: \caption{\label{fig:three}
290: The black points show the relative photometry of Sedna,
291: phased to the best-fit period of $P=(10.273\pm 0.002)~\hours$, with the fitted zero point
292: and phase variations subtracted. The red points show the data binned
293: into intervals of $0.067$ in phase. The blue curve shows the best-fit
294: sinusoidal model.
295: }
296: \end{figure}
297:
298: \begin{figure}
299: \epsscale{1.0}
300: \plotone{f4.eps}
301: \caption{\label{fig:four}
302: Same as Figure \ref{fig:three}, except for the best model
303: of the second class of acceptable fits, with
304: a period of $P=(17.991 \pm0.006)~\hours$. Although the
305: $\chi^2$ of this model for the unbinned data is
306: nearly indentical to that of the model with
307: $P=(10.273\pm 0.002)~\hours$ shown in Figure \ref{fig:three},
308: the $\chi^2$ of the binned data
309: is considerably worse. Thus the model with
310: $P\sim 10~\hours$ is favored.
311: }
312: \end{figure}
313:
314: We fit the light curve to the seven-parameter model,
315: \begin{equation}
316: F(t_i)=A\sin\left[ \frac{2\pi}{P}(t_i-t_0)+\phi_0\right]-k[\alpha(t_i)-\alpha_0]+F_{0,j},
317: \label{eqn:model}
318: \end{equation}
319: where $F(t_i)$ is the flux at the time $t_i$ of observation $i$, $\alpha$ is the phase
320: angle of Sedna at this time, $k$ is the coefficient of the phase function\footnote{We have
321: assumed a linear phase function. This is appropriate given the relatively small range of
322: phase angles spanned by our dataset \citep{bowell89}. See Table \ref{tab:data}.},
323: $F_{0,j}$ is the flux zero point for chunk $j$, and
324: $t_0-2450000.=3308.23289$ and $\alpha_0=0.4039$ are the error-weighted mean
325: observation times and phase angles, respectively. Note that
326: we are fitting relative photometry, and thus $A$, $k$, and $F_{0,j}$
327: are dimensionless. In practice, we
328: expand the sinusoidal term in \eq{eqn:model} into separate sine and
329: cosine terms, and then perform a linear fit in flux to the
330: coefficients of these terms, the phase angle term, and the constant
331: terms. We then reconstruct the more physical parameters $A$ and
332: $\phi_0$ from the coefficients of the sine and cosine terms. This has
333: the advantages that the only non-linear variable that must be fitted
334: is $P$, and errors on the parameters $A,\phi_0,k$, and $F_{0,j}$ can
335: be determined analytically at fixed $P$. We constrain $k$ to be
336: within $1\sigma$ of the range $0\le k \le 0.3~{{\rm deg}^{-1}}$, although the
337: exact form of the contraint has little effect on the results. Note
338: that, aside from the phase angle term, \eq{eqn:model} is equivalent to
339: a Lomb-Scargle periodogram with a floating mean
340: \citep{lomb76,scargle82,cumming04}.
341:
342:
343: We search for fits in the range $-1\le \log(P/{\rm day})\le 3$, with steps of
344: $\delta P/P=4\times 10^{-6}$. The resulting periodogram, here
345: displayed as $\Delta\chi^2\equiv \chi^2-\chi^2_{\rm min}$ versus $P$, is
346: shown in Figure \ref{fig:two}. The best-fit has $\chi^2_{\rm
347: min}=150.0$ for $143-7=136~{\rm dof}$, indicating a good fit. For reference, a
348: constant flux fit to the data yields $\chi^2=272.4$ for $140~{\rm dof}$. Thus the
349: detection of variability, as judged by the improvement in $\chi^2$, is extremely
350: significant.
351: The parameters for the fit are $P=(10.273\pm0.002)\hours$ and $A=(1.1\pm0.1)\%$.
352: The phase angle coefficient $k$ is poorly constrained, due to the fact
353: that the separate chunks are not tied together, and thus the time
354: baseline for determining $k$ is limited to the $\sim 9$ day span of our January data.
355: Figure \ref{fig:three} shows the light curve phased to the
356: best-fit period, with the constant flux and phase angle terms subtracted, along
357: with the model fit.
358: The model appears to describe the data
359: reasonably well.
360:
361: Flanking the best-fit period are additional fits separated by $\sim
362: 2.82~{\rm minutes}$ (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:two}); these correspond to fits in which there are one or more
363: additional cycles between the October and January datasets, i.e.\
364: where $P_1^{-1}-P_2^{-1}\simeq \pm n (90~\days)^{-1}$ for integer $n$.
365: In addition, there is a cluster of fits that is separated by
366: $\sim 27.6~{\rm minutes}$ from the best-fit period. These corresponds
367: to fits in which there is one additional cycle between UT Oct 9 and
368: UT Oct 16. Finally, there are also diurnal aliases near $P\simeq
369: 18~\hours$ and $3~\days$ (and the associated aliases of these
370: aliases). Fits near the latter period are allowed at the $\sim 3\sigma$ level.
371:
372: We find a total of five fits that are statistically indistinguishable
373: ($\Delta\chi^2 \la 1$) from the best fit. The parameters of these
374: fits are given in Table 2. Two of these fits have $P\sim 10~\hours$,
375: and appear equally good by eye. The other three fits have
376: $P\simeq 18~\hours$. Although these fits are statistically acceptable, they appear
377: much less convincing upon inspection of the phased light curves, one
378: example of which is shown in Figure \ref{fig:four}.
379: The amplitude is relatively constant for all the acceptable fits, with $A\simeq 1\%$.
380: Models with $P\ge 10~\days$ are ruled out at the $> 4\sigma$ level.
381: Refitting the data after subtracting the flux predicted
382: by the best-fit model reveals no significant additional
383: periodicities.
384:
385: As a sanity check, we repeated the analysis described above on a light
386: curve constructed from comparison stars of similar magnitude as Sedna.
387: We find no evidence for variability at the level exhibited by Sedna. The
388: best fit has an improvement in $\chi^2$ over a constant flux
389: model of $\sim 38$ for 4 additional degrees of freedom, with an amplitude
390: of only $A=(0.38\pm 0.06)\%$.
391:
392:
393:
394: \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
395:
396: We have presented relative photometry of the unusual solar system object
397: Sedna, obtained with the MMT 6.5m telescope over eight nights in two campaigns
398: in October 2004 and January 2005.
399: The light curve during the longest contiguous stretch of nine days has a remarkably
400: small RMS of $\sim 1.3\%$, and exhibits no significant curvature, which
401: severely constrains the amplitude of any long-term variability to
402: $A\le 1\% (P/20~\days)^2$.
403: The light curve during any individual night exhibits significant variability
404: that is not seen in a comparison star of similar brightness. The photometry
405: from several individual nights shows significant curvature over the span of $\sim 5$ hours.
406:
407: These properties indicate that the period of Sedna is $O(10~\hours)$,
408: and cannot be larger than $\sim 10~{\rm days}$.
409: A sinusoidal model fit to Sedna yields a best-fit period of
410: $P=(10.273\pm0.003)\hours$ and semi-amplitude $A=(1.0 \pm 0.1)\%$,
411: with additional acceptable fits with flanking periods separated by
412: $\sim 3~{\rm minutes}$, as well as another class of fits with $P\sim
413: 18~\hours$, although these later fits appear less viable based on
414: visual inspection. We note that, if the variability is due to an
415: aspherical shape such as a triaxial ellipsoid, the true rotation
416: period is twice the fitted period. There also exist fits at the
417: diurnal aliases of the primary period with $P\sim 3~\days$ that are
418: marginally acceptable at the $3\sigma$ level. Fits with $P\le
419: 10~\hours$ or $P\ge 10~\days$ are ruled out at the $\ge 3\sigma$
420: level. Thus we conclude that the rotation period of Sedna is most
421: likely $P\sim 10~\hours$, although other periods cannot be completely
422: excluded. Additional observations
423: should be pursued to distinguish between
424: the various viable fits found here, and so firmly identify the true
425: rotation period of Sedna.
426: The best-fit rotation period of $\sim 10~\hours$ makes
427: Sedna entirely typical of the bulk of solar system objects, including
428: main-belt asteroids \citep{ph00,harris02}, as well as the $\sim$dozen
429: KBOs with measured rotation rates \citep{sheppard02}.
430:
431: We conclude that there is no real evidence that the period of Sedna is
432: extraordinarily long ($P\ge 10~\days$) or even unusual. Therefore there is
433: no compelling reason to invoke a massive companion to spin down
434: Sedna's rotation period.
435:
436:
437: \acknowledgments
438: BSG was supported by a Menzel Fellowship from the Harvard College
439: Observatory. KZS acknowledges support from the William F.\ Milton
440: Fund. We would like to thank Roman Rafikov for helpful discussions,
441: Scott Kenyon for reading the manuscript, and Perry Berlind, Emeric Le
442: Floc'h, Casey Papovich, Jane Rigby, and Kurtis Williams for assistance
443: in acquiring additional data.
444:
445:
446: \begin{thebibliography}{}
447: \bibitem[Alard(2000)]{alard00} Alard, C.\ 2000, \aaps, 144, 363
448:
449: \bibitem[Alard \& Lupton(1998)]{al98} Alard, C., \& Lupton,
450: R.~H.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 325
451:
452: \bibitem[Bowell et al.(1989)]{bowell89} Bowell, E., Hapke, B.,
453: Domingue, D., Lumme, K., Peltoniemi, J., \& Harris, A.~W.\ 1989, Asteroids
454: II, 524
455:
456:
457: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2004a)]{sedna} Brown, M.~E., Trujillo,
458: C., \& Rabinowitz, D.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 645
459:
460: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2004b)]{brown04b} Brown, M.~E., Trujillo,
461: C.~A., Rabinowitz, D., Stansberry, J., Bertoldi, F., \& Koresko, C.~D.\
462: 2004, DPS, 36,
463:
464:
465: \bibitem[Cumming(2004)]{cumming04} Cumming, A.\ 2004, \mnras,
466: 354, 1165
467:
468: \bibitem[Gladman et al.(2002)]{gladman02} Gladman, B., Holman,
469: M., Grav, T., Kavelaars, J., Nicholson, P., Aksnes, K., \& Petit, J.-M.\
470: 2002, Icarus, 157, 269
471:
472: \bibitem[Harris(2002)]{harris02} Harris, A.~W.\ 2002, Icarus,
473: 156, 184
474:
475: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley(2004)]{kb04} Kenyon, S.~J., \&
476: Bromley, B.~C.\ 2004, \nat, 432, 5
477:
478: \bibitem[Lomb(1976)]{lomb76} Lomb, N.~R.\ 1976, \apss, 39, 447
479:
480: \bibitem[McLeod et al.(2000)]{mcleod00} McLeod, B.~A., Conroy,
481: M., Gauron, T.~M., Geary, J.~C., \& Ordway, M.~P.\ 2000, Further
482: Developments in Scientific Optical Imaging, 11
483:
484: \bibitem[Morbidelli \& Levison(2004)]{ml04} Morbidelli, A.,
485: \& Levison, H.~F.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 2564
486:
487: \bibitem[Pravec \& Harris(2000)]{ph00} Pravec, P., \&
488: Harris, A.~W.\ 2000, Icarus, 148, 12
489:
490: \bibitem[Scargle(1982)]{scargle82} Scargle, J.~D.\ 1982, \apj,
491: 263, 835
492:
493: \bibitem[Sheppard \& Jewitt(2002)]{sheppard02} Sheppard, S.~S., \&
494: Jewitt, D.~C.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1757
495:
496: \bibitem[Stern(2005)]{stern05} Stern, S.~A.\ 2005, \aj, 129,
497: 526
498:
499: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{stetson87} Stetson, P.~B. 1987, \pasp, 99 191
500:
501: \bibitem[Stetson(1992)]{stetson92} Stetson, P.~B. 1992, in ASP
502: Conf.~Ser.~25, Astrophysical Data Analysis Software and Systems I,
503: ed. ~D.~M.~Worrall, C.~Bimesderfer, \& J.~Barnes (San Francisco: ASP),
504: 297
505: \end{thebibliography}
506:
507: \clearpage
508:
509: \LongTables
510:
511: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
512: \tablecaption{\sc Sedna Relative Photometry and Phase (Full Table)}
513: \tablewidth{0pt}
514: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
515: \tablehead{
516: \colhead{Date} &
517: \colhead{HJD-2450000.} &
518: \colhead{$\Delta r$\tablenotemark{a}} &
519: \colhead{$\sigma_{\Delta r}$} &
520: \colhead{Phase Angle ($^\circ$)}
521: }
522: \startdata
523: UT 2004 Oct 8
524: & 3286.83028 & -0.001 & 0.005 & 0.3759 \\
525: & 3286.84411 & -0.004 & 0.006 & 0.3758 \\
526: & 3286.84823 & -0.013 & 0.006 & 0.3757 \\
527: & 3286.85249 & -0.001 & 0.007 & 0.3757 \\
528: & 3286.85723 & -0.001 & 0.007 & 0.3757 \\
529: & 3286.86124 & 0.005 & 0.009 & 0.3757 \\
530: & 3286.86525 & -0.010 & 0.007 & 0.3756 \\
531: & 3286.86923 & -0.006 & 0.005 & 0.3756 \\
532: & 3286.87324 & 0.001 & 0.007 & 0.3756 \\
533: & 3286.87721 & -0.017 & 0.007 & 0.3755 \\
534: & 3286.88508 & -0.008 & 0.007 & 0.3755 \\
535: & 3286.88937 & -0.019 & 0.008 & 0.3754 \\
536: & 3286.89847 & -0.026 & 0.007 & 0.3754 \\
537: & 3286.90247 & -0.013 & 0.008 & 0.3753 \\
538: & 3286.90671 & -0.009 & 0.007 & 0.3753 \\
539: & 3286.91076 & -0.007 & 0.007 & 0.3752 \\
540: & 3286.91472 & -0.007 & 0.007 & 0.3752 \\
541: & 3286.91867 & -0.016 & 0.007 & 0.3752 \\
542: & 3286.92265 & -0.008 & 0.007 & 0.3751 \\
543: & 3286.92768 & -0.012 & 0.007 & 0.3751 \\
544: & 3286.93158 & -0.008 & 0.006 & 0.3750 \\
545: & 3286.93554 & -0.005 & 0.006 & 0.3750 \\
546: & 3286.93950 & -0.004 & 0.007 & 0.3749 \\
547: & 3286.94340 & -0.007 & 0.009 & 0.3749 \\
548: & 3286.94738 & -0.002 & 0.010 & 0.3749 \\
549: & 3286.95137 & -0.014 & 0.007 & 0.3748 \\
550: & 3286.95530 & 0.016 & 0.009 & 0.3748 \\
551: & 3286.95929 & -0.006 & 0.008 & 0.3748 \\
552: & 3286.97152 & -0.006 & 0.007 & 0.3747 \\
553: & 3286.97705 & 0.001 & 0.007 & 0.3746 \\
554: & 3286.98105 & 0.007 & 0.008 & 0.3746 \\
555: UT 2004 Oct 9
556: & 3287.79633 & -0.011 & 0.011 & 0.3676 \\
557: & 3287.80032 & -0.016 & 0.011 & 0.3676 \\
558: & 3287.80436 & -0.010 & 0.009 & 0.3676 \\
559: & 3287.80875 & -0.003 & 0.011 & 0.3675 \\
560: & 3287.81288 & -0.029 & 0.009 & 0.3675 \\
561: & 3287.81709 & 0.006 & 0.009 & 0.3674 \\
562: & 3287.82135 & 0.012 & 0.010 & 0.3674 \\
563: & 3287.82553 & 0.000 & 0.010 & 0.3674 \\
564: & 3287.83422 & 0.009 & 0.009 & 0.3673 \\
565: & 3287.83827 & 0.037 & 0.010 & 0.3672 \\
566: & 3287.84231 & 0.011 & 0.009 & 0.3672 \\
567: & 3287.84635 & 0.010 & 0.008 & 0.3672 \\
568: & 3287.85118 & 0.000 & 0.007 & 0.3671 \\
569: & 3287.85518 & 0.014 & 0.008 & 0.3671 \\
570: & 3287.85914 & 0.013 & 0.008 & 0.3671 \\
571: & 3287.86317 & 0.012 & 0.009 & 0.3670 \\
572: & 3287.86728 & 0.007 & 0.009 & 0.3670 \\
573: & 3287.87132 & -0.001 & 0.009 & 0.3670 \\
574: & 3287.87678 & 0.022 & 0.009 & 0.3669 \\
575: & 3287.88130 & 0.020 & 0.008 & 0.3669 \\
576: & 3287.88542 & 0.012 & 0.009 & 0.3669 \\
577: & 3287.88954 & -0.007 & 0.008 & 0.3668 \\
578: & 3287.89360 & -0.005 & 0.011 & 0.3668 \\
579: & 3287.89764 & 0.008 & 0.009 & 0.3668 \\
580: & 3287.90167 & 0.019 & 0.009 & 0.3667 \\
581: & 3287.90569 & 0.020 & 0.010 & 0.3667 \\
582: & 3287.90969 & 0.001 & 0.009 & 0.3667 \\
583: & 3287.95197 & 0.015 & 0.009 & 0.3662 \\
584: & 3287.95628 & 0.014 & 0.008 & 0.3662 \\
585: & 3287.96039 & 0.017 & 0.009 & 0.3662 \\
586: & 3287.96446 & 0.024 & 0.009 & 0.3661 \\
587: & 3287.96847 & 0.026 & 0.010 & 0.3661 \\
588: & 3287.97248 & 0.013 & 0.010 & 0.3661 \\
589: & 3287.97643 & 0.011 & 0.008 & 0.3660 \\
590: & 3287.98805 & 0.001 & 0.008 & 0.3659 \\
591: & 3287.99222 & 0.025 & 0.009 & 0.3659 \\
592: & 3287.99626 & 0.010 & 0.009 & 0.3659 \\
593: & 3288.00030 & 0.020 & 0.008 & 0.3659 \\
594: & 3288.00428 & 0.008 & 0.010 & 0.3658 \\
595: & 3288.00826 & 0.008 & 0.010 & 0.3658 \\
596: & 3288.01231 & 0.013 & 0.011 & 0.3658 \\
597: UT 2004 Oct 16
598: & 3294.92551 & -0.010 & 0.012 & 0.3049 \\
599: & 3294.93194 & 0.013 & 0.021 & 0.3048 \\
600: & 3294.93511 & -0.001 & 0.013 & 0.3048 \\
601: & 3294.93771 & 0.023 & 0.014 & 0.3048 \\
602: & 3294.94036 & 0.019 & 0.014 & 0.3048 \\
603: & 3294.94297 & 0.015 & 0.013 & 0.3047 \\
604: & 3294.94560 & 0.018 & 0.012 & 0.3047 \\
605: & 3294.94859 & -0.007 & 0.013 & 0.3047 \\
606: & 3294.95159 & -0.002 & 0.011 & 0.3047 \\
607: & 3294.95417 & 0.003 & 0.012 & 0.3046 \\
608: & 3294.95682 & 0.004 & 0.014 & 0.3046 \\
609: & 3294.95942 & 0.014 & 0.011 & 0.3046 \\
610: & 3294.96230 & 0.000 & 0.012 & 0.3045 \\
611: & 3294.96511 & -0.023 & 0.014 & 0.3045 \\
612: & 3294.96771 & -0.008 & 0.012 & 0.3045 \\
613: & 3294.97066 & -0.003 & 0.010 & 0.3045 \\
614: & 3294.97333 & -0.001 & 0.012 & 0.3044 \\
615: & 3294.97592 & -0.002 & 0.015 & 0.3044 \\
616: & 3294.97858 & -0.013 & 0.014 & 0.3044 \\
617: & 3294.98151 & 0.001 & 0.009 & 0.3044 \\
618: & 3294.98411 & -0.005 & 0.009 & 0.3043 \\
619: & 3294.98672 & -0.004 & 0.010 & 0.3043 \\
620: & 3294.98936 & -0.016 & 0.016 & 0.3043 \\
621: & 3294.99201 & -0.016 & 0.012 & 0.3043 \\
622: & 3294.99467 & 0.005 & 0.015 & 0.3042 \\
623: UT 2005 Jan 7
624: & 3377.72877 & -0.019 & 0.014 & 0.5415 \\
625: & 3377.73359 & -0.012 & 0.010 & 0.5415 \\
626: & 3377.73765 & -0.021 & 0.011 & 0.5415 \\
627: UT 2005 Jan 8
628: & 3378.60779 & -0.001 & 0.008 & 0.5463 \\
629: & 3378.61168 & 0.008 & 0.012 & 0.5463 \\
630: & 3378.61564 & 0.010 & 0.013 & 0.5463 \\
631: & 3378.61955 & 0.015 & 0.012 & 0.5464 \\
632: & 3378.62348 & 0.038 & 0.009 & 0.5464 \\
633: & 3378.62764 & 0.011 & 0.010 & 0.5464 \\
634: & 3378.63155 & 0.010 & 0.010 & 0.5464 \\
635: & 3378.63556 & 0.012 & 0.011 & 0.5464 \\
636: & 3378.63979 & 0.002 & 0.011 & 0.5465 \\
637: & 3378.64371 & 0.020 & 0.010 & 0.5465 \\
638: & 3378.64770 & 0.014 & 0.011 & 0.5465 \\
639: & 3378.65161 & 0.017 & 0.010 & 0.5465 \\
640: & 3378.65551 & 0.008 & 0.012 & 0.5466 \\
641: & 3378.65941 & -0.002 & 0.013 & 0.5466 \\
642: & 3378.66333 & 0.013 & 0.014 & 0.5466 \\
643: & 3378.66742 & 0.014 & 0.013 & 0.5466 \\
644: & 3378.67147 & -0.007 & 0.012 & 0.5466 \\
645: & 3378.67559 & -0.007 & 0.013 & 0.5467 \\
646: & 3378.67951 & 0.006 & 0.010 & 0.5467 \\
647: & 3378.68344 & 0.005 & 0.013 & 0.5467 \\
648: & 3378.68732 & 0.008 & 0.011 & 0.5467 \\
649: & 3378.69146 & -0.006 & 0.014 & 0.5468 \\
650: & 3378.69543 & 0.003 & 0.012 & 0.5468 \\
651: & 3378.69936 & -0.004 & 0.012 & 0.5468 \\
652: & 3378.70325 & -0.016 & 0.011 & 0.5468 \\
653: UT 2005 Jan 9
654: & 3379.60272 & 0.021 & 0.020 & 0.5517 \\
655: & 3379.60662 & 0.013 & 0.025 & 0.5517 \\
656: & 3379.67326 & 0.015 & 0.010 & 0.5520 \\
657: & 3379.67991 & 0.006 & 0.011 & 0.5521 \\
658: & 3379.68560 & -0.010 & 0.009 & 0.5521 \\
659: & 3379.69299 & 0.001 & 0.012 & 0.5522 \\
660: & 3379.69874 & -0.001 & 0.008 & 0.5522 \\
661: & 3379.75010 & -0.019 & 0.009 & 0.5525 \\
662: & 3379.75624 & -0.020 & 0.009 & 0.5525 \\
663: & 3379.76249 & -0.007 & 0.010 & 0.5526 \\
664: & 3379.76823 & -0.013 & 0.009 & 0.5526 \\
665: & 3379.77411 & -0.014 & 0.009 & 0.5526 \\
666: & 3379.77987 & -0.003 & 0.010 & 0.5527 \\
667: UT 2005 Jan 11
668: & 3381.75575 & -0.015 & 0.024 & 0.5629 \\
669: & 3381.75992 & 0.010 & 0.026 & 0.5629 \\
670: & 3381.76399 & -0.013 & 0.022 & 0.5629 \\
671: UT 2005 Jan 15
672: & 3385.80239 & -0.019 & 0.013 & 0.5817 \\
673: & 3385.80874 & -0.032 & 0.011 & 0.5817 \\
674: \enddata
675: \tablenotetext{a}{Note that the photometry has
676: an arbitrary zero point which differs for the data
677: taken during UT 2004 Oct 8-9, UT 2004 Oct 16, and UT 2005 Jan 7-15.}
678: \label{tab:datafull}
679: \end{deluxetable}
680:
681: \end{document}
682:
683:
684:
685:
686:
687:
688:
689: