DOCSLIB.ORG

Dynamical Evolution of Haumea Collisional Family and Implications for the Outer Solar System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dynamical Evolution of Haumea Collisional Family and Implications for the Outer Solar System Asteroids, Comets, Meteors (2012) 6056.pdf DYNAMICAL EVOLUTION OF HAUMEA COLLISIONAL FAMILY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM. P. S. Lykawka1, J. Horner2, T. Mukai3 and A. M. Nakamura3, 1 Astronomy Group, Faculty of Social and Natural Sciences, Kinki University, Japan ( [email protected] ), 2 Dept. of Astrophysics, School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Australia, 3 Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Kobe Uni- versity, Japan. Introduction: Trans-neptunian objects (TNOs) or- neptunian belt: classical and detached (majority), res- biting in the trans-neptunian belt (or Edge- onant (<10%), and scattered (<1%). In particular, the worth-Kuiper belt) carry precious information about fraction of resonant fragments is sensitive to the tim- the origin and evolution of the solar system. More re- ing of the collision and orbital history of Neptune. cently, the first collisional family was identified in the ● If the ejection velocities of the fragments are belt, thus providing evidence of the importance of col- strongly dependent on their size, the larger fragments lisions between TNOs. The family consists of the will likely be more tightly clustered in orbital element dwarf planet (136108) Haumea (formerly 2003 EL61) space than their smaller counterparts within the trans- located at semimajor axis, a ~ 43 AU (currently neptunian belt. locked in the 12:7 mean motion resonance), and at ● Approximately 25-40% of the fragments ac- least nine other ~100 km-sized TNOs located around quired unstable orbits, and were subsequently lost a = 42-44.5 AU. Haumea is also one of the largest from the solar system. However, we do not expect TNOs known to date, with an estimated diameter of slowly diffusing unstable fragments to contribute sig- ~1500 km. The ten family members concentrate in or- nificantly to the currently known populations of Cen- bital elements at a = 42-44.5 AU, q = 37-39 AU and i taurs and short period comets. = 24-29° and share the peculiar C-depleted and H2O ice rich surface spectra with Haumea’s. Here, based on current knowledge of the family and asteroid collision physics, we modeled the long term orbital evolution of an ensemble of fragments with varied sizes after the collision that created Haumea’s family over 4 Gyr. Three realistic scenarios of kinetic energies carried by the fragments were considered, represented by mean ejection velocities veje = 200, 300 and 400 m/s. Each theoretical family of fragments was modeled with 1600 particles, whose orbits were evolved for 4 Gyr under the gravitational perturbation of the giant plan- ets and the most massive family members in supple- mentary calculations. We also tested other model parameters. Conclusions: ● We can reproduce the orbital distribution of the currently known members of the Haumean collisional family. However, the model suggests that the family fragments appear spread over a wide range of orbital The orbital distributions in a-e-i element space of representative theor- elements: ∆a ~ 6-11 AU; ∆e ~ 0.1-0.17; ∆i ~ 7-11°. etical Haumean collisional families after 4 Gyr for the three main scen- This provides predictions for new family members arios considered in this work, modeled with ejecta fragments following with future observations. a mean ejection velocity of 200, 300 and 400 m/s. Currently known ● The orbital diffusion of the stable theoretical Haumea collisional family members are shown with red squares. family fragments over 4 Gyr is extremely small. Therefore, the observed orbital distribution of Acknowledgments: PSL gratefully acknowledge Haumea’s family can be used to draw conclusions the use of the General Purpose cluster at the National about the nature of the collision that originated the Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) to perform the calcula- family. tions presented in this work. JH acknowledges the fin- ● The theoretical family fragments were found to ancial support of the Australian Research Council, populate all four dynamical classes within the trans- through the ARC discovery grant DP774000..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Astrodynamics
    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
    [Show full text]
  • Flight and Orbital Mechanics
    Flight and Orbital Mechanics Lecture slides Challenge the future 1 Flight and Orbital Mechanics AE2-104, lecture hours 21-24: Interplanetary flight Ron Noomen October 25, 2012 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 1 | Example: Galileo VEEGA trajectory Questions: • what is the purpose of this mission? • what propulsion technique(s) are used? • why this Venus- Earth-Earth sequence? • …. [NASA, 2010] AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 2 | Overview • Solar System • Hohmann transfer orbits • Synodic period • Launch, arrival dates • Fast transfer orbits • Round trip travel times • Gravity Assists AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 3 | Learning goals The student should be able to: • describe and explain the concept of an interplanetary transfer, including that of patched conics; • compute the main parameters of a Hohmann transfer between arbitrary planets (including the required ΔV); • compute the main parameters of a fast transfer between arbitrary planets (including the required ΔV); • derive the equation for the synodic period of an arbitrary pair of planets, and compute its numerical value; • derive the equations for launch and arrival epochs, for a Hohmann transfer between arbitrary planets; • derive the equations for the length of the main mission phases of a round trip mission, using Hohmann transfers; and • describe the mechanics of a Gravity Assist, and compute the changes in velocity and energy. Lecture material: • these slides (incl. footnotes) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 4 | Introduction The Solar System (not to scale): [Aerospace
    [Show full text]
  • The Solar System
    5 The Solar System R. Lynne Jones, Steven R. Chesley, Paul A. Abell, Michael E. Brown, Josef Durech,ˇ Yanga R. Fern´andez,Alan W. Harris, Matt J. Holman, Zeljkoˇ Ivezi´c,R. Jedicke, Mikko Kaasalainen, Nathan A. Kaib, Zoran Kneˇzevi´c,Andrea Milani, Alex Parker, Stephen T. Ridgway, David E. Trilling, Bojan Vrˇsnak LSST will provide huge advances in our knowledge of millions of astronomical objects “close to home’”– the small bodies in our Solar System. Previous studies of these small bodies have led to dramatic changes in our understanding of the process of planet formation and evolution, and the relationship between our Solar System and other systems. Beyond providing asteroid targets for space missions or igniting popular interest in observing a new comet or learning about a new distant icy dwarf planet, these small bodies also serve as large populations of “test particles,” recording the dynamical history of the giant planets, revealing the nature of the Solar System impactor population over time, and illustrating the size distributions of planetesimals, which were the building blocks of planets. In this chapter, a brief introduction to the different populations of small bodies in the Solar System (§ 5.1) is followed by a summary of the number of objects of each population that LSST is expected to find (§ 5.2). Some of the Solar System science that LSST will address is presented through the rest of the chapter, starting with the insights into planetary formation and evolution gained through the small body population orbital distributions (§ 5.3). The effects of collisional evolution in the Main Belt and Kuiper Belt are discussed in the next two sections, along with the implications for the determination of the size distribution in the Main Belt (§ 5.4) and possibilities for identifying wide binaries and understanding the environment in the early outer Solar System in § 5.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal Pre-Proof
    Journal Pre-proof A statistical review of light curves and the prevalence of contact binaries in the Kuiper Belt Mark R. Showalter, Susan D. Benecchi, Marc W. Buie, William M. Grundy, James T. Keane, Carey M. Lisse, Cathy B. Olkin, Simon B. Porter, Stuart J. Robbins, Kelsi N. Singer, Anne J. Verbiscer, Harold A. Weaver, Amanda M. Zangari, Douglas P. Hamilton, David E. Kaufmann, Tod R. Lauer, D.S. Mehoke, T.S. Mehoke, J.R. Spencer, H.B. Throop, J.W. Parker, S. Alan Stern, the New Horizons Geology, Geophysics, and Imaging Team PII: S0019-1035(20)30444-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114098 Reference: YICAR 114098 To appear in: Icarus Received date: 25 November 2019 Revised date: 30 August 2020 Accepted date: 1 September 2020 Please cite this article as: M.R. Showalter, S.D. Benecchi, M.W. Buie, et al., A statistical review of light curves and the prevalence of contact binaries in the Kuiper Belt, Icarus (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114098 This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
    [Show full text]
  • New Closed-Form Solutions for Optimal Impulsive Control of Spacecraft Relative Motion
    New Closed-Form Solutions for Optimal Impulsive Control of Spacecraft Relative Motion Michelle Chernick∗ and Simone D'Amicoy Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305, USA This paper addresses the fuel-optimal guidance and control of the relative motion for formation-flying and rendezvous using impulsive maneuvers. To meet the requirements of future multi-satellite missions, closed-form solutions of the inverse relative dynamics are sought in arbitrary orbits. Time constraints dictated by mission operations and relevant perturbations acting on the formation are taken into account by splitting the optimal recon- figuration in a guidance (long-term) and control (short-term) layer. Both problems are cast in relative orbit element space which allows the simple inclusion of secular and long-periodic perturbations through a state transition matrix and the translation of the fuel-optimal optimization into a minimum-length path-planning problem. Due to the proper choice of state variables, both guidance and control problems can be solved (semi-)analytically leading to optimal, predictable maneuvering schemes for simple on-board implementation. Besides generalizing previous work, this paper finds four new in-plane and out-of-plane (semi-)analytical solutions to the optimal control problem in the cases of unperturbed ec- centric and perturbed near-circular orbits. A general delta-v lower bound is formulated which provides insight into the optimality of the control solutions, and a strong analogy between elliptic Hohmann transfers and formation-flying control is established. Finally, the functionality, performance, and benefits of the new impulsive maneuvering schemes are rigorously assessed through numerical integration of the equations of motion and a systematic comparison with primer vector optimal control.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Article in PDF Format
    A&A 564, A35 (2014) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322416 & c ESO 2014 Astrophysics “TNOs are Cool”: A survey of the trans-Neptunian region X. Analysis of classical Kuiper belt objects from Herschel and Spitzer observations E. Vilenius1,C.Kiss2, T. Müller1, M. Mommert3,4, P. Santos-Sanz5,6,A.Pál2, J. Stansberry7, M. Mueller8,9, N. Peixinho10,11,E.Lellouch6, S. Fornasier6,12, A. Delsanti6,13, A. Thirouin5, J. L. Ortiz5,R.Duffard5, D. Perna6, and F. Henry6 1 Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Postfach 1312, Giessenbachstr., 85741 Garching, Germany e-mail: [email protected] 2 Konkoly Observatory, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences, Konkoly Thege 15-17, 1121 Budapest, Hungary 3 Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V., Institute of Planetary Research, Rutherfordstr. 2, 12489 Berlin, Germany 4 Northern Arizona University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, PO Box 6010, Flagstaff AZ 86011, USA 5 Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC), Glorieta de la Astronomía s/n, 18008-Granada, Spain 6 LESIA-Observatoire de Paris, CNRS, UPMC Univ. Paris 06, Univ. Paris-Diderot, France 7 Stewart Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, USA 8 SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, Postbus 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands 9 UNS-CNRS-Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Laboratoire Cassiopée, BP 4229, 06304 Nice Cedex 04, France 10 Center for Geophysics of the University of Coimbra, Geophysical and Astronomical Observatory of the University of Coimbra, Almas de Freire, 3040-004 Coimbra, Portugal 11 Unidad de Astronomía, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad de Antofagasta, 601 avenida Angamos, Antofagasta, Chile 12 Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury's Resonant Rotation from Secular Orbital Elements
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institute of Transport Research:Publications Mercury’s resonant rotation from secular orbital elements Alexander Stark a, Jürgen Oberst a,b, Hauke Hussmann a a German Aerospace Center, Institute of Planetary Research, D-12489 Berlin, Germany b Moscow State University for Geodesy and Cartography, RU-105064 Moscow, Russia The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10569-015-9633-4. Abstract We used recently produced Solar System ephemerides, which incorpo- rate two years of ranging observations to the MESSENGER spacecraft, to extract the secular orbital elements for Mercury and associated uncer- tainties. As Mercury is in a stable 3:2 spin-orbit resonance these values constitute an important reference for the planet’s measured rotational pa- rameters, which in turn strongly bear on physical interpretation of Mer- cury’s interior structure. In particular, we derive a mean orbital period of (87.96934962 ± 0.00000037) days and (assuming a perfect resonance) a spin rate of (6.138506839 ± 0.000000028) ◦/day. The difference between this ro- tation rate and the currently adopted rotation rate (Archinal et al., 2011) corresponds to a longitudinal displacement of approx. 67 m per year at the equator. Moreover, we present a basic approach for the calculation of the orientation of the instantaneous Laplace and Cassini planes of Mercury. The analysis allows us to assess the uncertainties in physical parameters of the planet, when derived from observations of Mercury’s rotation. 1 1 Introduction Mercury’s orbit is not inertially stable but exposed to various perturbations which over long time scales lead to a chaotic motion (Laskar, 1989).
    [Show full text]
  • SATELLITES ORBIT ELEMENTS : EPHEMERIS, Keplerian ELEMENTS, STATE VECTORS
    www.myreaders.info www.myreaders.info Return to Website SATELLITES ORBIT ELEMENTS : EPHEMERIS, Keplerian ELEMENTS, STATE VECTORS RC Chakraborty (Retd), Former Director, DRDO, Delhi & Visiting Professor, JUET, Guna, www.myreaders.info, [email protected], www.myreaders.info/html/orbital_mechanics.html, Revised Dec. 16, 2015 (This is Sec. 5, pp 164 - 192, of Orbital Mechanics - Model & Simulation Software (OM-MSS), Sec 1 to 10, pp 1 - 402.) OM-MSS Page 164 OM-MSS Section - 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------43 www.myreaders.info SATELLITES ORBIT ELEMENTS : EPHEMERIS, Keplerian ELEMENTS, STATE VECTORS Satellite Ephemeris is Expressed either by 'Keplerian elements' or by 'State Vectors', that uniquely identify a specific orbit. A satellite is an object that moves around a larger object. Thousands of Satellites launched into orbit around Earth. First, look into the Preliminaries about 'Satellite Orbit', before moving to Satellite Ephemeris data and conversion utilities of the OM-MSS software. (a) Satellite : An artificial object, intentionally placed into orbit. Thousands of Satellites have been launched into orbit around Earth. A few Satellites called Space Probes have been placed into orbit around Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. The Motion of a Satellite is a direct consequence of the Gravity of a body (earth), around which the satellite travels without any propulsion. The Moon is the Earth's only natural Satellite, moves around Earth in the same kind of orbit. (b) Earth Gravity and Satellite Motion : As satellite move around Earth, it is pulled in by the gravitational force (centripetal) of the Earth. Contrary to this pull, the rotating motion of satellite around Earth has an associated force (centrifugal) which pushes it away from the Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Orbital Mechanics MAE 342 2016
    2/12/20 Orbital Mechanics Space System Design, MAE 342, Princeton University Robert Stengel Conic section orbits Equations of motion Momentum and energy Kepler’s Equation Position and velocity in orbit Copyright 2016 by Robert Stengel. All rights reserved. For educational use only. http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE342.html 1 1 Orbits 101 Satellites Escape and Capture (Comets, Meteorites) 2 2 1 2/12/20 Two-Body Orbits are Conic Sections 3 3 Classical Orbital Elements Dimension and Time a : Semi-major axis e : Eccentricity t p : Time of perigee passage Orientation Ω :Longitude of the Ascending/Descending Node i : Inclination of the Orbital Plane ω: Argument of Perigee 4 4 2 2/12/20 Orientation of an Elliptical Orbit First Point of Aries 5 5 Orbits 102 (2-Body Problem) • e.g., – Sun and Earth or – Earth and Moon or – Earth and Satellite • Circular orbit: radius and velocity are constant • Low Earth orbit: 17,000 mph = 24,000 ft/s = 7.3 km/s • Super-circular velocities – Earth to Moon: 24,550 mph = 36,000 ft/s = 11.1 km/s – Escape: 25,000 mph = 36,600 ft/s = 11.3 km/s • Near escape velocity, small changes have huge influence on apogee 6 6 3 2/12/20 Newton’s 2nd Law § Particle of fixed mass (also called a point mass) acted upon by a force changes velocity with § acceleration proportional to and in direction of force § Inertial reference frame § Ratio of force to acceleration is the mass of the particle: F = m a d dv(t) ⎣⎡mv(t)⎦⎤ = m = ma(t) = F ⎡ ⎤ dt dt vx (t) ⎡ f ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ x ⎡ ⎤ d ⎢ ⎥ fx f ⎢ ⎥ m ⎢ vy (t) ⎥ = ⎢ y ⎥ F = fy = force vector dt
    [Show full text]
  • Ice Ontnos: Focus on 136108 Haumea
    Ice onTNOs: Focus on 136108 Haumea C. Dumas Collaborators: A. Alvarez, A. Barucci, C. deBergh, B. Carry, A. Guilbert, D. Hestroffer, P. Lacerda, F. deMeo, F. Merlin, C. Snodgrass, P. Vernazza, … Haumea Pluto (dwarf planets) DistribuTon of TNOs Largest TNOs Icy bodies in the OPSII context • Reservoir of volales in the solar system (H2O, N2, CH4, CO, CO2, C2H6, NH3OH, etc) • Small bodies populaon more hydrated than originally pictured – Main-belt comets (Hsieh and JewiZ 2006) – Themis asteroids family (Campins et al. 2010, Rivkin and Emery 2010) • Transport of water to the inner terrestrial planets (e.g. talk by Paul Hartogh) Paranal Observatory 6 SINFONI at UT4 7 SINFONI + NACO at UT4 8 SINFONI = MACAO + SPIFFI (SINFONI=Spectrograph for INtegral Field Observations in the Near Infrared) • AO SYSTEM: MACAO (Multi-Application Curvature Adaptive Optics): – Similar to UTs AO system for VLTI – 60 elements curvature sensing bimorph mirror – NGS or LGS – Developed by ESO • NEAR-IR SPECTRO: SPIFFI (SPectrometer for Infrared Faint Field Imaging): – 3-D spectrograph, 32 image slices, 1-2.5µm – Developed by MPE:Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics + NOVA: Netherlands Research School for Astronomy SINFONI - Main characteristics • Location UT4 Cassegrain • Wavelength range 1-2.5µm • Detector 2048 x 2048 HAWAII array • Gratings J,H,K,H+K • Spectral resolution 1500 (H+K-filter) to 4000 (K-band) (outside OH lines) • Limiting magnitude (0.1”/spaxel) K~18.2, H+K~19.2 in hr, SNR~10 • FoV sampling 32 slices • Spatial resolution 0.25”/slice (no-AO), 0.1”(AO), 0.025” (AO) • Resulting FoV 8”x8”, 3”x3”, 0.8”x0.8” • Modes noAO, NGS-AO, LGS-AO SINFONI - IFS Principles SINFONI - IFS Principles (Cont’d) SINFONI - products Reconstructed image PSF spectrum H+K TNOs spectroscopy Orcus (Carry et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Mechanics
    Orbital Mechanics Part 1 Orbital Forces Why a Sat. remains in orbit ? Bcs the centrifugal force caused by the Sat. rotation around earth is counter- balanced by the Earth's Pull. Kepler’s Laws The Satellite (Spacecraft) which orbits the earth follows the same laws that govern the motion of the planets around the sun. J. Kepler (1571-1630) was able to derive empirically three laws describing planetary motion I. Newton was able to derive Keplers laws from his own laws of mechanics [gravitation theory] Kepler’s 1st Law (Law of Orbits) The path followed by a Sat. (secondary body) orbiting around the primary body will be an ellipse. The center of mass (barycenter) of a two-body system is always centered on one of the foci (earth center). Kepler’s 1st Law (Law of Orbits) The eccentricity (abnormality) e: a 2 b2 e a b- semiminor axis , a- semimajor axis VIN: e=0 circular orbit 0<e<1 ellip. orbit Orbit Calculations Ellipse is the curve traced by a point moving in a plane such that the sum of its distances from the foci is constant. Kepler’s 2nd Law (Law of Areas) For equal time intervals, a Sat. will sweep out equal areas in its orbital plane, focused at the barycenter VIN: S1>S2 at t1=t2 V1>V2 Max(V) at Perigee & Min(V) at Apogee Kepler’s 3rd Law (Harmonic Law) The square of the periodic time of orbit is proportional to the cube of the mean distance between the two bodies. a 3 n 2 n- mean motion of Sat.
    [Show full text]
  • Observing Water in Our Solar System
    Observing water in our Solar System Colin Snodgrass Ice in our Solar System www.nightsky.ie www.nightsky.ie 250 K 150 K 50 K Equilibrium temperature drops with distance ( d-½ ) Present day snow line is at ~2.7 AU from Sun, in asteroid belt. Ice exists on surfaces in Kuiper Belt. In inner solar system, sublimation drives cometary activity. Kuiper Belt Objects – Haumea Spectroscopy of KBOs, particularly in the NIR, reveals differences in their surface ices. Haumea ‘family’ have spectra that match almost pure water ice. Remains from a collision. We used the VLT+Hawk-I to identify ices on potential family members using photometry. Snodgrass et al 2010, Carry et al (submitted) Further Family Members Ragozzine & Brown (2007, AJ 134, p2160) published a list of further family member candidates selected on dynamical grounds. The orbits in the TN region (and interactions with resonances) make this difficult to do. Need to confirm that they share the same water ice surface to be true family members. However, most are too faint for the NIR spectroscopy that can unambiguously detect water ice. Water Ice Detection We use HAWK-I at the VLT to perform J and CH4 band photometry, using the CH4 band as a narrower H band. We confirm that our measurements of (J-Hs) are sensitive to water ice. We measured this colour for 18 objects. 6 are objects previously claimed as family members - they have strongly negative (J-Hs). 2 other objects are confirmed as family members, 2003 SQ317 and 2005 CB79. The remaining 10 (including non-candidate Eris, observed for comparison) have positive values and we rule out water ice surfaces.
    [Show full text]