Convex-Profile Inversion of Asteroid Lightcurves: Theory and Applications

Convex-profile inversion, introduced by S.J. Ostro and R. Connelly (1984, Icarus 57, 443–463), is reformulated, extended, and calibrated as a theory for physical interpretation of an asteroid's lightcurve and then is used to constrain the shapes of selected asteroids. Under ideal conditions, one can obtain the asteroid's “mean cross section” C, a convex profile equal to the average of the convex envelopes of all the surface contours parallel to the equatorial plane. C is a unique, rigorously defined, two-dimensional average of the three-dimensional shape and constitutes optimal extraction of shape information from a nonopposition lightcurve. For a lightcurve obtained at opposition, C's odd harmonics are not accessible, but one can estimate the asteroid's symmetrized mean cross section, Cs. To convey visually the physical meaning of the mean cross sections, we show C and Cs calculated numerically for a regular convex shape and for an irregular, nonconvex shape. The ideal conditions for estimating C from a lightcurve are Condition GEO, that the scattering is uniform and geometric; Condition EVIG, that the viewing-illumination geometry is equatorial; Condition CONVEX, that all of the asteroid's surface contours parallel to the equatorial plane are convex; and Condition PHASE, that the solar phase angle θ ≠ 0. Condition CONVEX is irrelevant for estimation of Cs. Definition of a rotation- and scale-invariant measure of the distance, Ω, between two profiles permits quantitative comparison of the profile's shapes. Useful descriptors of a profile's shape are its noncircularity, Ωc, defined as the distance of the profile from a circle, and the ratio β∗ of the maximum and minimum values of the profile's breath function β(θ), where θ is rotational phase. C and Cs have identical breadth functions. At opposition, under Conditions EVIG and GEO, (i) the lightcurve is equal to C's breadth function, and (ii) β∗ = 100.4Δm, where Δm is the lightcurve peak-to-valley amplitude in magnitudes; this is the only situation where Δm has a unique physical interpretation. An estimate can be distorted if the applicable ideal conditions are violated. We present results of simulations designed to calibrate the nature, severity, and predictability of such systematic error. Distortion introduced by violation of Condition EVIG depends on θ, on the asteroid-centered declinations δs and δE of the Sun and Earth, and on the asteroid's three-dimensional shape. Violations of Condition EVIG on the order of 10° appear to have little effect for convex, axisymmetric shapes. Errors arising from violation of Condition GEO have been studied by generating lightcurves for model asteroids having known mean cross sections and obeying Hapke's photometric function, inverting the lightcurves, and comparing . The distance of from C depends on θ and rarely is negligible, but values of Ωc and β∗ for resemble those of C rather closely for a range of solar phase angles (θ ∼ 20° ± 10°) generally accessible for most asteroids. Opportunities for reliable estimation of Cs far outnumber those for C. We have examined how lightcurve noise and rotational-phase sampling rate propagate into statistical error in and offer guidelines for acquisition of lightcurves targeted for convex-profile inversion. Estimates of C and/or Cs are presented for selected asteroids, along with profile shape descriptors and goodness-of-fit statistics for the inverted lightcurves. For 15 Eunomia and 19 Fortuna, we calculate weighted estimates of C from lightcurves taken at different solar phase angles.

[1]  F. Scaltriti,et al.  Lightcurves, phase function and pole of the asteroid 22 Kalliope , 1978 .

[2]  J. Dunlap,et al.  Minor planets and related objects. IX. Photometry and polarimetry of (1685) Toro , 1973 .

[3]  A. Harris,et al.  Physical studies of Apollo-Amor asteroids: UBVRI photometry of 1036 Ganymed and 1627 Ivar , 1989 .

[4]  S. Weidenschilling,et al.  Hektor: Nature and origin of a binary asteroid , 1980 .

[5]  B. Hapke Bidirectional reflectance spectroscopy: 4. The extinction coefficient and the opposition effect , 1986 .

[6]  Hooshang Hemami,et al.  Identification of Three-Dimensional Objects Using Fourier Descriptors of the Boundary Curve , 1974, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[7]  Yukio Sato,et al.  Pseudodistance Measures for Recognition of Curved Objects , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  R. Plackett,et al.  Principles of regression analysis , 1961 .

[9]  J. Veverka,et al.  Limb darkening of meteorites and asteroids , 1983 .

[10]  W. Hartmann,et al.  The nature of Trojan asteroid 624 Hektor , 1978 .

[11]  A. Harris,et al.  Asteroid rotation. IV , 1983 .

[12]  K. Zeigler,et al.  Photoelectric photometry of asteroids 9 Metis, 18 Melpomene, 60 Echo, 116 Sirona, 230 Athamantis, 694 Ekard, and 1984 KD , 1985 .

[13]  L. French Rotation properties of four L5 Trojan asteroids from CCD photometry , 1987 .

[14]  M. Martino,et al.  Photoelectric photometry of 21 asteroids , 1983 .

[15]  Z. Knežević,et al.  Rotation axes of asteroids: Results for 14 objects , 1984 .

[16]  J. Surdej,et al.  Determination of the pole orientation of an asteroid - The amplitude-aspect relation revisited , 1985 .

[17]  J. Dunlap,et al.  Minor planets. III - Lightcurves of a Trojan asteroid. , 1969 .

[18]  Robert Connelly,et al.  Convex profiles from asteroid lightcurves , 1983 .

[19]  T. Gehrels Photometric Studies of Asteroids. V. The Light-Curve and Phase Function of 20 Massalia. , 1956 .

[20]  B. Hapke Bidirectional reflectance spectroscopy: 1. Theory , 1981 .

[21]  Gerard P. Kuiper,et al.  PHOTOMETRIC STUDIES OF ASTEROIDS. X , 1954 .

[22]  Robert Connelly,et al.  Ellipsoids and lightcurves , 1984 .

[23]  M. Martino,et al.  Photoelectric photometry of 17 asteroids , 1987 .

[24]  R. Binzel,et al.  A photoelectric lightcurve survey of small main belt asteroids , 1983 .

[25]  E. Bowell,et al.  Photoelectric photometry of asteroid 69 Hesperia , 1985 .

[26]  A. Harris,et al.  Asteroid rotation III. 1978 Observations , 1980 .

[27]  D. Davis,et al.  Photometric geodesy of main-belt asteroids: III. Additional lightcurves , 1990 .

[28]  Kari Lumme,et al.  Radiative transfer in the surfaces of atmosphereless bodies. I. Theory. , 1981 .

[29]  H. N. Russell On the light variations of asteroids and satellites , 1906 .

[30]  J. Goguen A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Photometric Functions of Particulate Surfaces. , 1981 .

[31]  C. V. Houten,et al.  Photometrics Studies of Asteroids. VII. , 1958 .

[32]  Joseph Veverka,et al.  Photometric properties of lunar terrains derived from Hapke's equation , 1987 .

[33]  B. Hapke Bidirectional reflectance spectroscopy , 1984 .

[34]  Kari Lumme,et al.  Radiative transfer in the surfaces of atmosphereless bodies , 1981 .

[35]  A. Harris,et al.  Photoelectric lightcurve and phase relation of the asteroid 505 Cava , 1985 .

[36]  D. Davis,et al.  Photometric Geodesy of main-belt asteroids. I. Lightcurves of 26 large, rapid rotators , 1987 .

[37]  Per Magnusson,et al.  Distribution of spin axes and senses of rotation for 20 large asteroids , 1986 .

[38]  M. Fulchignoni,et al.  Rotational properties of ten main belt asteroids: Analysis of the results obtained by photoelectric photometry , 1985 .