Forming Binary Near-Earth Asteroids From Tidal Disruptions

2000 SB 193 (Fig. 3.2f). Extensive observations on 10 March, 2005 were unable to reveala definitive period for this object. The very long baseline of images of over 6 hallowed for a strong upper limit in the amplitude of ∼ 0.25 magnitudes. The PDMroutine finds a marginal period fit at 1.28 h, suggesting a double-peaked period attwice to four times that value.2000 UE 109 (Fig. 3.3a). Observations spread over a long baseline of two nights, 4 and9 March, 2005 revealed a very flat lightcurve with amplitude fluctuations similar tothe error in the photometry. The amplitude can be constrained below 0.1 magnitudes,but no constraints on the rotation period can be made.1981 EJ 27 (Fig. 3.3b). Observations over 3 and 4 March, 2005 revealed a large-amplitudelightcurve with a period ∼ 13.56 h. The lightcurve was not covered in its entiretyso the amplitude is estimated to be ≥ 0.7 magnitudes.1981 EL 31 (Fig. 3.3c). Observations on 8 March, 2005 revealed a low-amplitude lightcurvewith a possible period ∼ 6 h.The best PDM fit is for a 3.0 h single-peakedlightcurve with an amplitude of 0.07 magnitudes.1998 HZ 32 (Fig. 3.3d). This asteroid demonstrated a very long period and requiredspaced out observations over multiple nights, 8 and 10 March, 2005. Both nights ofobservations covered a baseline longer than 4 hours and only observed one maximumand no minimum. Combined, the two nights of observations suggest a period∼ 32 h, with an amplitude greater than 0.7 magnitudes.1999 CM 50 (Fig. 3.3e). One night of observations revealed a relatively low-amplitudelightcurve, 0.26 magnitudes. The best double-peaked period solution from PDMwas 3.18 h, though it was only with a marginal significance.2001 TZ 50 (Fig. 3.3f). Observations on 4 March, 2006 were not enough to solidify a65