Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus

Non-gravitational force modeling of Comet 81P/Wild 2

I. A nucleus bulk density estimate
Björn J.R. Davidsson a,∗ , Pedro J. Gutiérrez b
a Department of Astronomy and Space Physics, Uppsala University, Box 515, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden
b Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía-CSIC, Aptd 3004, 18080 Granada, Spain

Received 23 February 2005; revised 11 July 2005

Available online 19 September 2005

Abstract
The nucleus of Comet 81P/Wild 2 is modeled by assuming various smooth triaxial ellipsoidal or irregular body shapes, having different
rotational periods, spin axis orientations, and thermophysical properties. For these model nuclei, a large number of surface activity patterns (e.g.,
maps of active and inactive areas) are studied, and in each case the resulting water production rate and non-gravitational force vector versus
time are calculated. By requiring that the model nuclei simultaneously reproduce certain properties of the empirical water production curve and
non-gravitational changes of the orbit (focusing on changes of the orbital period and in the longitude of perihelion), constraints are placed on
several properties of the nucleus. The simulations suggest that the mass of Comet 81P/Wild 2 is M
2.3 × 1013 kg, resulting in a rather low bulk
density, ρbulk
600–800 kg m−3 (depending on the assumed nucleus volume), and that the nucleus rotation is prograde rather than retrograde.
The active area fraction is difficult to constrain, but at most 60% of the nucleus is likely to have near-surface ice.
 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Comets; 81P/Wild 2; Dynamics; Bulk density

1. Introduction In a forthcoming paper, the rotational state of the nucleus is ad-

On January 2, 2004, the NASA/JPL spacecraft Stardust
made a successful flyby of Comet 81P/Wild 2 (henceforth, 81P)
at a minimum distance of 236 km. The dust coma environ-
ment was investigated and characterized (Kissel et al., 2004;
Tuzzolino et al., 2004), and the nucleus was imaged at high
resolution (Brownlee et al., 2004). Presently, Stardust is head-
ing for Earth, carrying with it invaluable samples of cometary
dust particles collected in situ, for ground laboratory analysis.
Certainly, the Stardust mission represents an important step for-
ward for our understanding of cometary nuclei, and thereby, the
processes which once formed the Solar System. However, many
questions remain unclear, and in the present paper we focus on
one of these issues—the nucleus mass and bulk density of 81P.
* Corresponding author. Fax: +46 (0)18 4715999.
E-mail addresses: bjorn.davidsson@astro.uu.se (B.J.R. Davidsson),
pedroj@iaa.es (P.J. Gutiérrez).
0019-1035/$ – see front matter  2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.07.023
dressed.
In the present work, 81P is modeled either as a smooth triax-
ial ellipsoid, or as a body with large-scale surface irregularities,
rotating around the shortest principal axis. A large number of
surface activity patterns (i.e., distributions of icy “active ar-
eas” and surrounding inactive dust mantles) are selected, based
on their capability of reproducing empirical water production
rate measurements, assuming certain thermophysical proper-
ties of the model nucleus material. For these activity patterns,
the corresponding time-dependent non-gravitational force vec-
tor, acting on the nucleus due to outgassing, is calculated. By
requiring that the empirical change of the orbital period per
apparition (caused by the non-gravitational force), P, is re-
produced by the model, the nucleus mass and bulk density can
be estimated. The quality of this estimate is evaluated by testing
if the suggested mass and non-gravitational force simultane-
ously are consistent with the empirical change in the longitude
of perihelion per apparition ( ). The change in the longitude
of the ascending node per apparition Ω is also calculated, al-
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2
though the large uncertainty in the empirical Ω prevents us
from using it as an observational constraint, except for a lim-
ited number of extreme cases. The effect on the density estimate
when varying the spin axis orientation (SAO) and rotational pe-
riod is also investigated.
In this work, two different thermophysical models are used
in order to investigate the model dependence of the results. The
first, called the layer energy absorption model (LEAM), applied
for the smooth triaxial body only, assumes the ice/dust mixture
of active areas to be modestly transparent to solar radiation, heat
conducting, and highly porous (e.g., sub-surface sublimation,
recondensation, and gas diffusion are taking place). The sec-
ond, called the heat conduction equation model (HECEM) is
applicable for solid and totally opaque ice/dust mixtures. This
model does not account for sub-surface sublimation and gas dif-
fusion, but considers solid-state heat conduction (used for all
studied nucleus shape models).
The observational data used in this study are presented in
Section 2. The thermophysical models and related technical
details are treated in Section 3. The results are presented in
Section 4 and are discussed in Section 5. Finally, a summary
is made in Section 6.
2. Observational data
2.1. Nucleus size, shape, rotational period, and spin axis
orientation
Stardust images reveal that 81P approximately is a triax-
ial ellipsoid, with semi-axes {a, b, c} = {2.75, 2.00, 1.65} ±
0.05 km (Brownlee et al., 2004; Duxbury et al., 2004). In the
following, these values are used to define the smooth triaxial
ellipsoid model nucleus applied in this work (and the irregu-
lar model bodies also roughly have these dimensions). After
submission of the current paper, a refined image analysis was
performed by Howington-Kraus et al. (2005), resulting in a new
triaxial shape model with {a, b, c} = {2.607, 2.002, 1.350} km,
with errors preliminarily estimated to be “on the 100 m level.”
We note that all our calculations and presentation of results are
made using the first shape model (although we later estimate
the effect the more recent shape model has on the bulk density
estimate).
The rotational period is presently unknown. Groundbased
observations of the nucleus have not revealed any obvious mag-
nitude variations (Farnham and Schleicher, 2005), which is un-
derstandable with hindsight, since a nucleus with the previously
mentioned dimensions, rotating around its shortest principal
axis, shows rather small cross section variations during rota-
tion. Sekanina et al. (2004) suggest that the rotational period
is P = 12–24 h, based on an empirical estimate of the product
P Vd (where Vd is the terminal velocity of dust jet particles),
and assuming plausible values for Vd . Therefore, we here adopt
two different rotational periods, P = 12.3 h and P = 25 h for
the LEAM, in order to investigate the sensitivity of our result
on the applied rotational period. These values were used in
previous investigations of other comets (Davidsson and Gutiér-
rez, 2004, 2005), which enables us to recycle thermophysical
225
model data (that are very time-consuming to produce; see Sec-
tion 3.2). The periods P = 12 h and P = 25 h are used for the
HECEM.
Prior to the Stardust flyby, three attempts were made to es-
timate the spin axis orientation of 81P, by studying the jet
morphology during the 1997 apparition. Expressing the spin
axis orientation in the Eulerian angles (obliquity I and ar-
gument Φ 1 ), and here arbitrarily assuming that the sub-solar
point was located on the northern hemisphere2 at perihe-
lion, Sekanina (2003) estimated (I, Φ) = (75◦ , 150◦ ), Vasund-
hara and Chakraborty (see Sekanina et al., 2004) obtained
(I, Φ) = (80◦ , 151◦ ), while Farnham and Schleicher (2005) re-
port (I, Φ) = (56 ± 7◦ , 167 ± 6◦ ). After the Stardust flyby,
Brownlee et al. (2004) (see also Duxbury et al., 2004) and
Sekanina et al. (2004) fitted triaxial ellipsoids to the imaged
nucleus, and by assuming simple rotation around the shortest
principal axis they obtained (I, Φ) = (57◦ , 156◦ ) and (I, Φ) =
(55◦ , 150◦ ), respectively.
Although the rotational axis appears to be fairly well con-
strained, the sense of rotation around this axis is somewhat
more problematic (the SAO could be similar to one of the val-
ues quoted above, or having the opposite direction). Sekanina
et al. (2004) suggest that the rotation of 81P is retrograde (i.e.,
I > 90◦ ), by comparing images of dust jets taken by Star-
dust just prior to the closest approach, with the activity burst
time-sequence detected with the Stardust Dust Flux Monitor In-
strument during later stages of the flyby. They therefore prefer
the SAO (I, Φ) = (125◦ , 330◦ ), i.e., their value quoted previ-
ously should correspond to the rotational south pole. However,
Farnham and Schleicher (2005) argue for a prograde rotation
(i.e., I < 90◦ ), based on the curvature of jets seen in images
taken during the 1997 apparition. In the following, we there-
fore study both prograde and retrograde orientations, focusing
on (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ), and its reverse, (I, Φ) = (124◦ , 333◦ ),
obtained by averaging the two estimates derived from Stardust
images.
2.2. Non-gravitational changes of the orbit
Due to conservation of linear momentum during outgassing,
a cometary nucleus is subjected to a so-called non-gravitational
force, which gradually changes the orbital elements with re-
spect to the purely gravitational orbit. In the Marsden et
1 The obliquity I ∈ [0◦ , 180◦ ] is the angle between the orbital and equato-
rial planes of the comet, or equivalently, the angle between the angular mo-
mentum vector of the orbit and the spin vector of the comet. The argument
Φ ∈ [0◦ , 360◦ [ is measured from the vernal equinox of the comet, counter-
clockwise, to its sub-solar meridian at perihelion (Sekanina, 1981), or equiv-
alently, is the angle measured clock-wise from the negative velocity vector of
the comet at perihelion, to the projection of the spin vector onto the orbital
plane.
2 We here apply the following nomenclature: The angular momentum vector
due to nucleus self-rotation defines the spin axis orientation (SAO), or equiv-
alently the “north pole” or “positive pole,” while the opposite direction is the
“south pole” or “negative pole.” An equatorial plane (perpendicular to the an-
gular momentum vector and passing through the center of mass) divides the
body in two—the “northern hemisphere” (containing the north pole) and the
“southern hemisphere” (containing the south pole).
226 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

al. (1973) formalism, this force is parameterized by F̄ = lently, P = 11 ± 6 min) is used here as an empirical con-
{Fr , Ft , Fn } = M{A1 , A2 , A3 }g(rh ), where Fr , Ft , and Fn are straint.
the radial, transverse, and normal force components, respec- Fig. 1 (middle panel) shows consistent evidence for a grad-
tively, M is the mass, A1 , A2 , and A3 are constants, and where ual decrease of the longitude of perihelion over time, and in
the force magnitude dependence on heliocentric distance rh is the following,  = −2.0 ± 0.5 is adopted. Unfortunately,
given by the estimates of Ω span a much wider range (as seen in
−2.15  5.093 −4.6142
Fig. 1, lower panel), taking both positive and negative values,



rh rh i.e., it is not even clear whether the longitude of the ascend-
g(rh ) = 0.111262 1+ . ing node increases or decreases with time. Averaging of the
2.808 2.808
(1) nine estimates shown in the figure yields Ω ≈ 0.1 , how-
ever, due to the possible change in the non-gravitational pa-
This activity function is symmetric around perihelion, which
rameters mentioned above, it may be motivated to focus on
limits its applicability for comets with a strong perihelion
estimates for which the observational arcs start not earlier than
force asymmetry. Therefore, Yeomans and Chodas (1989) in-
1988. This leaves us with five estimates with an average of
troduced a modified g-function which peaks τ days before or
Ω ≈ −1.0 . It should also be noted that the only estimates
after perihelion [rh (t) is replaced by rh (t − τ ) in Eq. (1)].
including astrometry from the Stardust optical navigation cam-
The non-gravitational constants {A1 , A2 , A3 , τ } are estimated
era yield Ω ≈ −4.2 and −0.6 , respectively. We therefore
by minimizing the residual between calculated positions and
suspect that Ω in fact is negative (at the time around the
observed astrometry, preferentially covering at least three ap-
1997 apparition). Although this is not used as an empirical con-
paritions.
straint in the present work, we feel that model nuclei yielding
With the empirical non-gravitational parameters at hand, the
Ω < 0 deserve some extra attention and discussion. In any
corresponding changes in the orbital period, longitude of peri-
case, model nuclei yielding a Ω which is substantially out-
helion, and longitude of the ascending node (per apparition) can
side the [−5 , 5 ] region are here considered rather unlikely
be calculated by using (Sekanina, 1993)
representations of 81P.
√  P P 
6π 1 − e2 H e Ft 2.3. The water production rate
P = Fr sin ν dt + dt , (2)
Mn2 q(1 + e) rh
0 0
Apart from three water production rate estimates from 1984
√  P

q(1 + e)H 1 q(1 + e) (not considered here), all available data are from the 1997 ap-
 = Fr 1 − dt parition. The data consists of three fairly large sets, derived
Mke e rh
0 from spectroscopy of the 630 nm OI1 D line (Fink et al., 1999),
P
  hydrogen Lyman-α observations at 121.6 nm made by the
rh SWAN instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft (Mäkinen
+ Ft 1 + sin ν dt , (3)
q(1 + e) et al., 2001), and narrowband photometry of OH at 309 nm
0 (Farnham and Schleicher, 2005). In addition, there is one data
P point obtained by Crovisier et al. (2002), derived from radio
H
Ω = √ Fn rh sin(ω + ν) dt. (4) observations of the 18 cm OH line. Note that the data from
Mk q(1 + e) sin i Mäkinen et al. (2001) recently has been re-calibrated (Mäki-
0
nen, 2004, personal communication), and that the updated rates
In these equations, e is the eccentricity, n [day−1 ] is the are used here.
mean motion, ν is the true anomaly, q [AU] is the perihelion Fig. 2 shows that large systematic differences exist between
distance, P = (q/(1 − e))3/2 [yr] is the orbital period (recal- the sets, e.g., rates based on narrowband photometry and SOHO
culated to days), i is the inclination, ω is the argument of per- data differ a factor 3. When considering one set at a time, this
ihelion, and k is the Gaussian gravitational constant. By using consistently reveals a strong perihelion asymmetry—the water
the conversion factor H = 0.049900175 AU s2 m−1 day−2 , SI production rate peaks several weeks before perihelion, which
units can be used for M and F̄ , while P is measured in days, is a tell-tale sign of a substantially non-spherical nucleus shape
whereas  and Ω are measured in radians (recalculated to and/or a strong concentration of ice-rich material to a few iso-
arc seconds throughout this paper). lated regions on the nucleus. Farnham and Schleicher (2005)
Fig. 1 shows estimates of P,  , and Ω based on estimate that the production rate peaks around T = −80 days
available sets of {A1 , A2 } marked as crosses, and on sets of (T denotes the number of days after perihelion), while Fink
{A1 , A2 , A3 , τ } marked as squares. As pointed out by Sekanina et al. (1999) obtain their highest rates for measurements made
(2003), a change in the non-gravitational parameters appears at T ≈ −65 and −37 days. In addition, the visual lightcurves
to have taken place around 1990, resulting in a reduction of in 1990 and 1997 peaked at T ≈ −63 and −21 days, respec-
P (upper panel). Since the water production rate data (Sec- tively (Sekanina, 2003), although the lightcurve may be more
tion 2.3) used in this study are from 1997, it is relevant to con- sensitive to the amount of dust currently in the coma, the dust
sider P estimates for which the observational arc is centered production rate, dust size distribution, and observational geom-
on that year, therefore P = 0.0076 ± 0.0045 days (equiva- etry (i.e., the phase angle), than to the water production rate.
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2 227

Fig. 1. Empirical estimates of P (change in the orbital period per apparition; upper panel),  (change in the longitude of perihelion per apparition; middle
panel), and Ω (change in the longitude of the ascending node per apparition; lower panel), calculated from sets of {A1 , A2 } (crosses) or sets of {A1 , A2 , A3 , τ }
(squares). Horizontal bars indicate the observational arc, where symbols mark the midpoint. Sources: MPC 40671, Nakano (OAA computing section circular
NK 716), Kinoshita (URL http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/comet/pcmtn/0081p.htm), Rocher (Cometary Notes of Bureau des Longitudes, No. 0008), JPL (#28, #J974/1,
#K033/7, #K033/47, #C197/1), S. Chesley (2003, 2004, personal communication), and S. Szutowicz (2005, personal communication).

The fact that the peaks in the measured water production rate,
and the visual lightcurve, both take place pre-perihelion may
therefore be a coincidence. The non-gravitational force (possi-
bly strongly correlated to the water production rate) may have
reached its maximum value around T = −66 days, based on
an average τ , obtained by considering nine estimates. Taken
together, this suggests a peak in the production rate at T

−40 days, which is used in the following as an empirical con-
straint.
The quality of a bulk density estimate depends strongly on
the empirical water production rates used in the analysis, since
these are necessary in order to evaluate the active area fraction
of the nucleus and, to some extent, constrain the latitudinal dis-
tribution of active areas. Due to the substantial uncertainties in
the observed water production rates for 81P, an accurate bulk
density estimate is difficult to make. However, as it turns out,
it is still possible to obtain a non-trivial upper limit on the bulk
density for the comet, by defining a production rate envelope
which encapsulates the available measurements with a rather
substantial margin. The envelope used in the present investiga-
tion is shown as dashed curves in Fig. 2.
3. Method
3.1. Thermophysical models
As mentioned previously, two thermophysical models are
applied in the current work. These are described briefly in the
following.
3.1.1. The layer energy absorption model, LEAM
The LEAM considers the nucleus material as a porous, par-
tially transparent and heat conducting mixture of crystalline
water ice and sub-µm dust grains. Thermal coupling between
ice and dust is assumed, i.e., the two substances have the same
temperature. Due to the structural, optical, and thermal proper-
ties of such a medium, a number of features must be taken into
account in the model. Solar energy is not absorbed merely at the
surface, but is deposited gradually inside a surface layer (hence
the name of the model). The existence of pore spaces and chan-
nels inside the material leads to sub-surface ice sublimation,
vapor recondensation and gas diffusion, processes which serve
as energy sources and sinks, as well as transport mechanisms
for heat and mass.
228 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

Fig. 2. The measured water production rate of Comet 81P/Wild 2 for the 1997 apparition (dashed curves show an envelope which approximately encapsulates the
observed data).

The LEAM has been described in a number of papers, there- t and depth x, solid-state heat conduction, convection (i.e.,
fore only a brief summary is given here. The first version of energy carried by diffusing gas molecules within the porous
the model was described in detail by Davidsson and Skorov medium), absorption of energy from the sub-surface solar ra-
(2002b), and preparatory work on light absorption in porous diation field, and net changes in energy content of the solid
media was presented by Davidsson and Skorov (2002a). The medium due to sublimation or condensation. The terms in the
model was extended to deal with a quasi-parallel simulation of mass conservation equation, Eq. (6), denote (again, from left to
the nucleus and the overlaying coma by Davidsson and Skorov right), the total change in gas number density ρg (x, T ) versus
(2004). The full model was also summarized by Davidsson and time and depth, change in number density due to gas diffusion,
Gutiérrez (2004, 2005). and change in number density due to net sublimation or con-
Two spatially one-dimensional and coupled differential densation. In these equations, ψ is the porosity, ρi and ρd are
equations describing energy and mass conservation govern the the densities of solid ice and dust, respectively, fi and fd are
thermophysical behavior of the model nucleus, the volumetric fractions of ice and dust in compacted mater-
   ∂T (x, t) ial, respectively, while the heat capacities are ci (T ) (ice), cd (T )
(1 − ψ) ρi fi ci (T ) + ρd fd cd (T ) (dust), and cg (vapor). The conductivity is denoted by κ(T ) [see
∂t

 Eq. (12)], while φg (ρg , T ) is the mass flux rate (i.e., the flux
=
∂
κ(T )
∂T (x, t)
− cg φg (ρg , T )
∂T (x, t) of mass [kg m−2 s−1 ] inside the medium due to gas diffusion),
∂x ∂x ∂x and qm (ρg , T ) is the volume mass production rate [kg m−3 s−1 ]
  ∂F (x) (i.e., the net amount of gas molecules being created or removed
− I A, rh , z(t) − qm (ρg , T )L(T ), (5) by sublimation and condensation, respectively). The solar flux
∂x
as function of depth below the surface is given by F(x) (here,
∂ρg (x, t) ∂φg (ρg , T ) Beer’s law is used, normalized to unity at the surface), and
ψ =− + qm (ρg , T ). (6)
∂t ∂x I(A, rh , z(t)) is the absorbed solar flux as function of albedo A,
The terms in the energy conservation equation, Eq. (5) (from heliocentric distance rh and zenith angle z (which varies with
left to right), account for changes in temperature T versus time time during nucleus rotation).
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2
The upper and lower boundary conditions for Eq. (5) are
given by
 
εσ Ts4 + (1 − ψ)fi 1 − B(Ts , T ) as (Ts )ρsat (Ts )
 where p(Ts , T ) is the pressure acting on the surface (recoil
k B Ts ∂T dIF and impact contributions from sublimating, recondensing, and
× L(Ts ) − κ(Ts ) = δx, (7a)
2πmH2 O ∂x x=0 dx x=0
∂T Explicit expressions for heat capacities, conductivity, la-
= 0. (7b)
∂x x=xb
Equation (7a) balances thermal reradiation into space, net sur-
face sublimation, heat conduction (generally from the warmer
interior to the surface, due to the solid-state greenhouse effect),
with the small amount of solar radiation absorbed in an infi-
nitely thin surface slab. Equation (7b) states that the energy
flux across an internal surface located at depth xb is negligible.
This is a reasonable assumption as long as the heliocentric dis-
tance is not larger than ∼3 AU (beyond this distance, heat losses
through conduction to the deep interior becomes more impor-
tant than losses due to near-surface sublimation). Typically, xb
is on the order of a few meters in the current work, since diurnal
temperature variations are non-existent at such depths. In these
equations, ε is the emissivity, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann con-
stant, B(Ts , T ) is the fraction of sublimated molecules which
return to the surface from the coma and condense (a function
of the surface temperature and the temperature difference T
over a thin surface slab), as (T ) is the sublimation coefficient (an
empirical correction to the classical Hertz–Knudsen formula),
ρsat (T ) is the saturation density, kB is the Boltzmann constant,
mH2 O is the water molecule mass, and L(T ) is the latent heat
of ice.
The upper and lower boundary conditions for Eq. (6) are
given by
ρg |x=0 = D(Ts , T ), (8a)
as (Tb )ρsat (Tb )
ρg |x=xb = , (8b)
ac (Tb )
where D(Ts , T ) is the gas density at the nucleus/coma bound-
ary, and ac (T ) is the condensation coefficient (the fraction of
impinging molecules that actually condense on an icy surface,
instead of being scattered).
Once the time-dependent temperature and gas density struc-
tures of the medium have been obtained by solving Eqs. (5)–
(10), the total backflux-corrected water production rate (from
the surface and the near-surface interior) is given by

  k B Ts
Z = 1 − B(Ts , T ) (1 − ψ)fi as (Ts )ρsat (Ts )
2πmH2 O
xb
3(1 − ψ)fi  
+ exp 2.0 × 10−3 (x/rg + 1)Ts
rg
0
  2πmH2 O
 kB T
− 0.92x/rg − 1 ρsat (T )as (T ) dx , (9)
2πmH2 O
where rg is the effective grain radius of the medium. The force
acting vertically on a surface element m with area am and sur-
229
face normal n̂m , due to outgassing, is given by
F̄m = −p(Ts , T )am n̂m , (10)
scattered molecules).
tent heat, and saturation density are given by Davidsson and
Skorov (2002b). The quantities B(Ts , T ), D(Ts , T ), and
p(Ts , T ) have been obtained by performing Direct Simu-
lation Monte Carlo modeling of the cometary Knudsen layer
vapor (Davidsson and Skorov, 2004), and that paper also con-
tains explicit expressions for the mass flux rate, volume mass
production rate, sublimation coefficient, and condensation co-
efficient. For a detailed discussion about F , see Davidsson and
Skorov (2002b) [the current treatment of F is furthermore iden-
tical to that by Davidsson and Gutiérrez (2004)]. The values of
all parameters used in the LEAM have been summarized in Ta-
ble 1.
3.1.2. The heat conduction equation model, HECEM
In this model, the (thermally coupled) ice/dust mixture is
assumed to be solid (but potentially containing small uncon-
nected void spaces), totally opaque, and heat conducting. The
HECEM is a modification of the EBEM (energy balance equa-
tion model) used by Davidsson and Gutiérrez (2005), since that
model did not take conductivity into account. Since no net sub-
surface sublimation or gas diffusion can take place in a solid
medium, and since all light absorption occurs at the very sur-
face, the single governing equation is given by


  ∂T (x, t) ∂ ∂T (x, t)
ρi fi ci (T ) + ρd fd cd (T ) = κ(T ) .
∂t ∂x ∂x
(11)
The conductivity is given by the same expression as for the
LEAM, i.e.,


567fi
κ(T ) = h + fd κd , (12)
T
where h is the Hertz factor, which is unity for a solid ice/dust
mixture, but may be substantially smaller if unconnected “bub-
bles” are present. The heat capacity of ice is given by
ci = 7.49T + 90 (13)
(note that SI units are used).
The upper boundary condition for Eq. (11) is given by
 
I A, rh , z(t) = εσ Ts4 + fi (1 − Bc )as (Ts )ρsat (Ts )
k B Ts ∂T
× L − κ(Ts ) , (14)
∂x x=0
where a constant molecular backflux Bc is assumed [see
Davidsson and Skorov (2004) for a discussion about the sub-
limation coefficient as (T )]. The lower boundary condition is
identical to Eq. (7b), with xb = 2.5 m.
230 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

Table 1
Summary of applied model parameters
Description Symbol Value Unit
Perihelion distance q 1.591 AU
Eccentricity e 0.539 –
Argument of perihelion ω 41.48 ◦
Longitude of the ascending node Ω 136.14 ◦
Inclination i 3.24 ◦
Orbital period P 6.41 yr
Gaussian gravitational constant k 0.017202099 AU3/2 day−1
Conversion factor H 0.049900175 AU s2 m−1 day−2
Change of orbital period P 0.0076 ± 0.0045 Days
Change in longitude of perihelion  −2.0 ± 0.5 arc sec
Rotational period P 12 (alt. 12.3) or 25 h
Nucleus dimensions 2.75 × 2.00 × 1.65 km
Stefan–Boltzmann constant σ 5.6705 × 10−5 W m−2 K−4
Boltzmann constant kB 1.38066 × 10−23 J K−1
Water molecule mass mH2 O 2.98897 × 10−26 kg
Volume fraction of ice (compact material) fi 0.731 –
Volume fraction of dust (compact material) fd 0.269 –
Emissivity ε 0.97 –
Plane albedo A 0.032 –
LEAM porosity ψ 0.7 –
LEAM compact ice density ρi 933 kg m−3
LEAM compact dust density ρd 2078 kg m−3
LEAM e-folding scale ζ 1.95 × 10−2 m
LEAM dust conductivity κd 3.1 W m−1 K−1
LEAM Hertz factor h 0.1 –
LEAM tortuosity ξ 1 –
LEAM channel length x 10−2 m
LEAM grain radius rg 10−2 m
LEAM pore radius rp 10−2 m
HECEM compact ice density ρi 917 kg m−3
HECEM compact dust density ρd 3500 kg m−3
HECEM latent heat of ice L 48600 J mol−1
HECEM dust heat capacity cd 1200 J kg−1 K−1
HECEM dust conductivity κd 4.2 W m−1 K−1
HECEM Hertz factors h 0, 0.01, or 0.5 –
HECEM backflux Bc 12 %
HECEM momentum transfer coefficient η 0.77 –
Note. Various parameters used in the modeling (common to both LEAM and HECEM if not stated otherwise). Orbital elements are given for Equinox J2000.0. Note
that the values of fi and fd are derived from the mass ratios of silicates, organics, ice, and carbon suggested by Greenberg and Hage (1990) as typical for comet
material.

Once the surface temperature has been calculated, the water are similar to the ones used by Gutiérrez et al. (2001), i.e., they
production rate is evaluated as have Gaussian random shapes, starting out with the same shape
 parameter values as used in that work. However, the princi-
Z = fi (1 − Bc )as (Ts )ρsat (Ts )
k B Ts
, (15) pal axes have subsequently been adjusted, so that a/b ≈ 1.38
2πmH2 O and a/c ≈ 1.67 (as for 81P), and then these bodies have been
slightly re-scaled to yield the same volume as for the smooth tri-
and the force acting on a surface element due to outgassing is
axial ellipsoid (so that the derived bulk densities become com-
approximated by
parable). We note that these irregular bodies are not intended as

8kB Ts accurate representations of the real shape of 81P—we merely
F̄m = −ηZV am n̂m = −ηZ am n̂m , (16) want to investigate the sensitivity of our results with respect to
πmH2 O
shape. Table 2 shows some characteristics of the irregular bod-
where η is the momentum transfer efficiency (see Table 1 for ies, compared to the smooth triaxial model nucleus. Drawings
further information). of the bodies can also be seen in Fig. 3.
The surface of an irregular body is divided into 1520 locally
3.2. Practical and technical details flat triangular facets, approximately extending 9◦ in longitude
and latitude. The surface of the smooth triaxial model body is
In this work, one smooth triaxial ellipsoid and three differ- divided into 3538 locally flat triangular facets, each extending
ent irregular model bodies are considered. The irregular bodies 5.9◦ in longitude and 6.0◦ in latitude.
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2 231

Fig. 3. Drawings of the smooth triaxial ellipsoid, and the three irregular nucleus shape models used in this study.

Table 2
Properties of irregular bodies
Body Highland (%) Mean height (m) Max height (m) Lowland (%) Mean depth (m) Max depth (m)
Irr#1 44 202 791 56 178 619
Irr#2 42 124 634 58 248 593
Irr#3 48 110 411 52 143 440
Note. Properties of three irregular bodies used in the study (see also Fig. 3). A smooth triaxial ellipsoid with semi-axes {a, b, c} = {2.75, 2.00, 1.65} km is used as a
zero-elevation surface. Column 2 shows the percentage of the irregular surface above zero-elevation, while columns 3 and 4 show the mean and maximum heights
of the “highlands.” Columns 5–7 show corresponding data for the “lowlands.”

In the present work, it is postulated that the comet nu-
cleus consists of two fundamentally different types of surface
materials—potentially active areas, which have exposed sur-
face ice mixed with dust (producing vapor according to the
thermophysical models both day and night, except when be-
ing in constant darkness during polar nights), and inactive areas
which lack surface ice, i.e., possible sub-surface icy material
is covered by a thick dust mantle (assumed not to emit vapor
under any illumination condition). Furthermore, these units are
assumed stable over time, e.g., dust mantling or mantle blow-
off has not been considered.
Each facet is considered either potentially active or inactive,
and a certain surface distribution of such facet types constitutes
a “surface activity pattern” (or trial map). A trial map is con-
structed by selecting an arbitrary number (1–10) of active areas,
and for each area generating a random position vector extending
from the body center to the surface. Next, cones with arbitrary
angular widths (60◦ ), centered on the position vectors are
formed, and all facets within a cone are considered potentially
active.
Calculations are performed for 131 points in the orbit, us-
ing a 10-day time step when 2 < rh  3 AU and a 3-day
time step when rh  2 AU (the total simulated time period
is 600 days, centered on perihelion). For each orbital posi-
tion, 12 discrete rotational phases are considered in order to
calculate daily averages of the water production rate and the
non-gravitational force vector (however, the marching time-step
during nucleus rotation, when actually solving the thermophys-
ical equations, is on the order of 1 s for the LEAM and 100 s
for the HECEM).
232 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

To solve the thermophysical equations presented in Sec-
tion 3.1 for a single surface facet on a model nucleus located in
a particular point in the orbit (having a certain SAO), in order
to obtain the temperature structure and water production rate
versus time during nucleus rotation, is a rather time-consuming
process. Doing this for thousands of facets, at a large number
of points in the orbit, is clearly infeasible if a head-on approach
is applied, especially given the number of surface activity pat-
terns and spin axis orientations considered here. Therefore, a
technique for optimizing calculations of this kind, while still
preserving accuracy, has been developed. The interested reader
may consult Davidsson and Gutiérrez (2004, 2005), where the
technique is described in detail. In short, the method consists of
fixing a certain rotational period and set of material parameters.
A large number of thermophysical models are then calculated,
to cover a wide range of time-dependent illumination condi-
tions. The collected data form a look-up table, which can be
used to accurately map surface temperatures, water production
rates, and non-gravitational force vectors onto nuclei of arbi-
trary size, shape, spin axis orientation, and orbital position, tak-
ing local illumination conditions and time of day into account
(including night-time activity). The “recycling” mentioned in
Section 2.1 therefore means that we here apply previously cal-
culated thermophysical look-up tables obtained for spin periods
P = 12.3 h and P = 25 h, for the material parameters shown in
Table 1.
Finally, we note that the HECEM, applied for the irregular
bodies, fully takes local shadowing due to surface topography
into account. However, self-heating (arising when parts of the
surface absorbs thermal radiation emitted by other regions) has
not been considered, since Gutiérrez et al. (2001) showed that
it generally has a very small effect on the energy budget of the
nucleus.
4. Results
Before presenting the results for spotted model nuclei, it is
important to mention some characteristics of the water pro-
duction curve of a fully active model nucleus (i.e., having no
inactive regions), since it facilitates the understanding of the
subsequent discussion. Fig. 4 shows the calculated daily mean
water production rate Qcalc (solid curve), as well as the mini-
mum and maximum daily production rates during nucleus rota-
tion (dashed curves), for a smooth triaxial model nucleus having

Fig. 4. The calculated water production rate of a fully active model nucleus (i.e., no inactive areas) with (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ) and P = 12.3 h, using the LEAM
for a smooth triaxial ellipsoid. The solid curve shows the daily mean production rate, while the dashed curves show the daily minimum and maximum productions,
depending on the rotational phase. The dots show the nominal water production rate measurements.
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2
(I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ) and P = 12.3 h, using the LEAM. The
nominal water production rate measurements from Fig. 2 are
also shown, as dots.
Pre-perihelion, the northern hemisphere is facing the Sun
(with this assumption regarding the SAO), and the water pro-
duction rate increases comparably steeply with time (Qcalc ∝
rh−5.02 ). This is not only due to the gradual solar flux intensi-
fication, but because the sub-solar point is climbing northward
(which increases the mean illuminated cross section of the non-
spherical nucleus). The summer solstice of the northern hemi-
sphere occurs about 120 days before perihelion, i.e., this is the
time when the largest fraction of the nucleus is illuminated (the
sub-solar point reaches the latitude 56◦ N). The water produc-
tion rate continues to rise beyond this point since the heliocen-
tric distance is decreasing, but as the sub-solar point steadily
creeps back towards the equator, the increase in the solar flux
is insufficient to compensate for the diminishing mean illumi-
nated cross section. This leads to a water production rate peak
around 45 days before perihelion (being 20% higher than at
the smallest heliocentric distance of the orbit). The subsequent
drop in Qcalc is rather steep at first, but around 45 days post-
perihelion, the sub-solar point is crossing the equator, entering
the southern hemisphere (note that equatorial illumination leads
to a substantial daily variation in the water production, as seen
in Fig. 4). The gradual increase of the mean illuminated cross
section following this event, as the southern hemisphere re-
ceives more light, works very efficiently against the decrease
in solar flux, hence the post-perihelion branch is less steep than
the pre-perihelion branch (Qcalc ∝ rh−2.43 ), and the water pro-
duction rate remains high for an extensive period. In fact, a fully
active model nucleus produces almost four times more water
3 AU post-perihelion, than at the same distance pre-perihelion
(solely due to differences in the nucleus orientation with respect
to the Sun).
The introduction of surface activity maps is expected to
modify the previously described water production rate curve
substantially. Since different hemispheres are illuminated pre-
and post-perihelion, the production rate asymmetry around per-
ihelion is expected to be highly dependent on the relative degree
of ice coverage of the hemispheres. For example, if ice is much
more abundant in the north than in the south, the asymmetry
seen in Fig. 4 could increase significantly. Alternatively, if the
southern hemisphere has more ice coverage, this could reduce
the pre-perihelion water production dominance, or even shift
the peak production to the post-perihelion branch.
Using the map generation method described in Section 3.2,
a large number of surface activity maps are constructed, and
those resulting in theoretical water production rate curves con-
fined within the envelope shown in Fig. 2 are selected for further
study. This is done for different combinations of rotational pe-
riods, spin axis orientations, thermophysical models and model
nucleus shape types. The corresponding non-gravitational force
vectors are calculated, and Eq. (2) is used in each case to es-
timate the mass and density (by applying the empirical P).
A second selection is made, so that only test nuclei with ρbulk >
100 kg m−3 are considered [equations derived by Davidsson
(2001) show that a less dense body with the size and shape of
233
81P cannot withstand rotational disruption, if the period of 81P
indeed is as short as 12 h, and if the body is nearly strengthless].
Given the mass, Eqs. (3) and (4) are used to estimate  and
Ω in each case (to be compared with empirical estimates).
A total of 103 surface activity patterns are selected for final
study (per combination of SAO, P , nucleus shape and thermo-
physical model).
4.1. Smooth triaxial model nuclei studied with the LEAM
Fig. 5 shows  versus the nucleus bulk density ρbulk , for
the case (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ) and P = 12.3 h, obtained for
103 surface activity patterns, using the LEAM for the smooth
triaxial body [note that the nucleus dimensions obtained by
Brownlee et al. (2004) and Duxbury et al. (2004) are used con-
sistently throughout Section 4]. Filled circles are used to denote
Ω < 0 (perhaps the most realistic cases), while open circles
denote Ω  0 .
A broad variety of theoretical water production rate curves
can be fitted within the envelope, hence the properties of the
surface activity maps and the corresponding non-gravitational
force vectors vary substantially, and the resulting bulk densities
cover a very wide range (Fig. 5 has been truncated at ρbulk =
2000 kg m−3 , but densities twice as high can be found). The
highly scattered empirical water production rates and the P
criterion are therefore not sufficient to constrain the density,
but the additional constraint  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ] leads to a
non-trivial upper limit on the density, ρbulk
540 kg m−3 . Si-
multaneous reproduction of P and  therefore rules out the
high-density tail of the distribution seen in Fig. 5, thereby show-
ing that both parameters are equally important in the analysis.
We note that the nominal P has been used to calculate the nu-
cleus mass and ρbulk for each model nucleus shown in Fig. 5,
but that variation of P within its error bars does not mod-
ify the shape of the distribution in that figure and hence not
the estimated upper limit on ρbulk . For the considered spin axis
orientation, Ω takes both positive and negative values (also
for the most interesting  region), depending on the sur-
face activity pattern (and ρbulk
540 kg m−3 holds also for the
Ω < 0 cases).
It is important to study the reasons why some model nuclei
manage to reproduce the empirical  , while others fail. The
former model nuclei may share some properties (e.g., in terms
of the surface activity maps and the resulting water production
rates), that the latter lack. By identifying these properties, addi-
tional information about 81P may be extracted.
For this purpose, the model nuclei have been divided into
four groups based on the  value: (1)  > −0.5 ,
(2) −1.5 <   −0.5 , (3) −2.5    −1.5 (i.e., the
empirical range), and (4)  < −2.5 . Relevant diagnostic
tools are the active area fraction of the northern and south-
ern hemispheres (AN and AS , respectively, both 100%), the
ratio AS /AN , the day when the water production rate peaks,
Tpeak , and the water production curve asymmetry Qasym . The
latter parameter is here defined as the ratio between the mean
production during the time intervals −100  T  0 days and
100  T  200 days. This definition has been chosen since
234 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

Fig. 5. Calculated change in the longitude of perihelion per apparition ( ) versus nucleus bulk density (ρbulk ) for smooth triaxial model nuclei with P = 12.3 h
and (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ), obtained by using the LEAM. Note that the nucleus volume consistent with the shape model by Brownlee et al. (2004) and Duxbury et al.
(2004) has been applied here. Filled circles indicate a decreasing longitude of the ascending node over time (Ω < 0 ), while open circles are used for Ω  0 .
The solid lines mark the adopted empirical  range.

different hemispheres are illuminated during these time in-
tervals (Qasym therefore partially reflects differences in ice
coverage between the hemispheres). For a fully active nu-
cleus, Qasym = 3.8, and Tpeak = −45 days. If AS /AN
1,
then Qasym  3.8 is expected, and if AS /AN  1 it is likely
that Qasym
3.8. However, this should be considered trends or
tendencies rather than rules, since Qasym is also affected by ad-
ditional factors (such as the individual values of AN and AS , as
well as the exact placement of the active areas).
Fig. 6 shows AS versus AN for the 103 model nuclei, and
Fig. 7 shows Qasym versus Tpeak . In both figures, the four
groups are distinguished by having different colors. In the fol-
lowing, the properties of the four groups are described.
Group 1 (red symbols)
Model nuclei classified as Group 1 have  > −0.5 , and
are responsible for the highest mass or density estimates in the
sample (see Fig. 5), although some ρbulk < 540 kg m−3 cases
also can be found. As all test nuclei in the sample, Group 1
nuclei have 15%
AN
60%, but as seen in Fig. 6, red sym-
bols are approximately separated from the others by a line
AS = 1.1AN , i.e., Group 1 has AS /AN  1.1. It means that
the active area fraction of the southern hemisphere is always
higher, or much higher, than that of the northern hemisphere,
for Group 1 nuclei. Since the sub-solar point enters the south-
ern hemisphere around T = 45 days, high production rates are
therefore expected post-perihelion. Indeed, Fig. 7 shows that
the production rate asymmetry is low, Qasym
2, and in some
cases even below unity—the high AS values creates a peak after
perihelion. As seen in Fig. 7, the water production peak takes
place more than 100 days after perihelion in extreme cases.
A large fraction of the surface activity patterns for Group 1
nuclei can therefore be considered unlikely, not only for their
inability to reproduce  , but also because the water produc-
tion rates are inconsistent with the observed rates, which seem
to peak around Tpeak
−40 days, as mentioned previously.
Group 2 (yellow symbols)
This group is defined by −1.5 <   −0.5 , and con-
tains model nuclei with bulk densities as high as ρbulk =
1500 kg m−3 . In Fig. 6, these cases are concentrated to the re-
gion 0.9
AS /AN
1.1, i.e., they represent model nuclei with
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2 235

Fig. 6. Active area fraction of the southern hemisphere plotted versus that of the northern hemisphere. Here, 103 surface activity maps are considered, covering a
smooth triaxial ellipsoidal nucleus with (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ) and P = 12.3 h. The LEAM was used in all cases.

small differences in ice coverage between the hemispheres.
Fig. 7 shows that Group 2 is clearly different from Group 1 in
the sense that the production rate asymmetry generally is some-
what higher (2
Qasym
4), and that the production rate peak
is restricted to the pre-perihelion branch.
Group 3 (black symbols)
Naturally, this is the most interesting group, since these
model nuclei fulfill the empirical constraint −2.5   
−1.5 . As stated previously, only cases with ρbulk  540 kg m−3
are found. Fig. 6 shows that the majority of the test nuclei are
located below the line AS = 0.9AN (in particular if Ω < 0 ),
i.e., the active area fraction of the southern hemisphere is gen-
crosses) have more asymmetric water production rate curves,
which peak closer to perihelion. Model nuclei with Ω < 0
and Tpeak  −40 days, have 3
Qasym
4, and a tightly con-
strained AS /AN ratio of about 0.7–0.8, further illustrating that
the northern active area fraction may be higher than the south-
ern one. But even for this sub-set of model nuclei, the sepa-
rate values of AN and AS are rather poorly constrained (e.g.,
20%  AN  60%).
Can anything be said about the probable (latitudinal) loca-
tion of active areas on the hemispheres? First, it must be noted
that the concept “location” only is relevant if AN and AS are
fairly small, therefore only cases with AN , AS  30% are con-
sidered in the following. Here, the mean latitude is defined as
erally lower than for the northern hemisphere. 15
i=1 Ai Li
Fig. 7 shows that Group 3 occupies a very narrow strip in
the {Tpeak , Qasym } plane, extending from Tpeak ≈ −50 days and
Qasym ≈ 2.5 to Tpeak ≈ −10 days and Qasym ≈ 6. The place-
ment of a model nucleus within this stretch is strongly corre-
lated with AS /AN ; this ratio decreases from around unity at the
lower left end of the distribution, to around AS /AN ≈ 0.5 at the
upper right end.
Furthermore, it is noticeable that Ω  0 cases (black
dots) all are characterized by comparably low Qasym values and
a rather early production rate peak, while Ω < 0 cases (black
LN  =  15
, (17)
i=1 Ai
where 15 latitudinal slabs are considered, for which the cen-
tral latitude is Li and Ai is the active area fraction of a slab
(a corresponding quantity LS  is defined for the southern hemi-
sphere). Note that this definition prevents slabs with a small |Li |
(and comparably large surface areas) to get a larger weight than
slabs close to the poles.
Considering model nuclei with  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ],
Tpeak < −40 days, and AN , AS  30%, we find 25◦  LN  
236 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242

Fig. 7. Water production rate asymmetry Qasym plotted versus the day of maximum water production rate Tpeak . Here, 103 surface activity maps are considered,
covering a smooth triaxial nucleus with (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ) and P = 12.3 h. The LEAM was used in all cases.

64◦ , and −63◦  LS   −21◦ , which must be considered very
wide ranges. The conclusion is therefore that nothing certain
can be said about the location of active areas on 81P (when
using the LEAM for a smooth triaxial body and the empiri-
cal constraints considered here), not even when these areas are
fairly small.
Group 4 (green symbols)
The fourth group is characterized by a low mass or density,
and a  < −2.5 which recedes rapidly from zero as ρbulk
decreases. In Fig. 7, this group consistently has a somewhat
higher production curve asymmetry Qasym for a certain Tpeak ,
compared with Group 3. However, Fig. 6 shows that Groups 3
and 4 are very similar in terms of the AS /AN ratio, although
the latter group tend to have a somewhat lower ratio, i.e., an
even stronger difference between the hemispheres in terms of
ice coverage.
Calculations have also been made for two other prograde
spin axis orientations, estimated by Farnham and Schleicher
(2005) and Sekanina (2003), plus the three reverse (retrograde)
orientations, considering both P = 12.3 h and P = 25 h. Re-
sults from these simulations are found in Tables 3 and 4.
The three prograde SAOs with P = 12.3 h (Table 3) do not
differ substantially from each other in terms of the upper den-
sity limit. The only significant differences are the following:
(1) The SAO (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 167◦ ) does not result in any ac-
tivity maps yielding a negative Ω when  ∈ [−2.5 ,
−1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days.
(2) For the SAO (I, Φ) = (75◦ , 150◦ ), nearly half of the model
nuclei with  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days
have Ω < 0 .
(3) For the latter SAO, several activity patterns yield AS /AN ≈
2, simultaneously fulfilling  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ], Tpeak <
−40 days, and even Ω < 0 .
The last observation raises some doubts regarding the pre-
vious statement, that the northern hemisphere possibly has
a larger active area fraction than the southern hemisphere.
Although the spin axis obliquity hardly could have been as
large as 75◦ during the Stardust flyby (if the spin axis in-
deed is aligned with the shortest principal axis), it cannot
be excluded that I ≈ 75◦ during the 1997 apparition, when
Sekanina (2003) made his analysis, since cometary spin axis
orientations may change over time, e.g., due to sublimation-
induced torques (e.g., Samarasinha et al., 1996; Jewitt, 1997;
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2 237

Table 3
Results obtained for prograde nucleus rotation
(I, Φ) P (h) Body TPM h 1
ρbulk A1N A1S Q1asym 2
ρbulk A2N A2S Q2asym
(56, 153) 12.3 Tri LEAM 0.1 540 22–54 20–49 2.3–3.4 540 24–54 20–47 3.1–3.4
(56, 167) 400 22–54 17–45 1.7–3.0
(75, 150) 500 14–50 27–57 1.7–2.4 500 14–50 27–57 1.7–2.4
(56, 153) 25 490 24–55 21–54 2.1–3.1 390 29–43 28–37 2.7–3.1
(56, 167) 440 20–56 16–47 1.8–2.6
(75, 150) 470 15–48 22–59 1.7–2.4 470 15–48 22–59 1.8–2.4
(56, 153) 12 HECEM 0 400 8–25 13–35 1.5
0.01 430 10–27 14–34 1.6–1.7
0.5 520 9–33 12–33 1.9–2.8 430 28–30 26–27 2.6–2.8
25 530 10–31 13–36 2.0–2.5
12 Irr#1 0 380 7–17 13–26 1.5–1.8
0.01 430 8–20 12–28 1.6–2.0
0.5 500 9–33 6–27 1.8–3.1 500 27–33 18–21 2.8–3.1
25 540 11–34 6–29 2.0–3.1 500 11–34 6–23 2.8–3.1
12 Irr#2 0 430 12–24 17–34 1.5
0.01 460 11–24 16–37 1.6–1.8
0.5 530 15–33 11–30 2.2–3.1 530 20–30 19–30 2.7–2.9
25 580 11–35 14–30 1.8–2.8 460 23–32 23–28 2.5–2.7
12 Irr#3 0 410 9–20 14–32 1.4
0.01 330 10–27 24–28 1.5–1.6
0.5 450 13–30 16–36 1.9–2.4
25 210 16–17 21–24 1.8–2.0
Note. Results obtained for prograde spin axis orientations. Columns 1–5 show the spin axis orientation (SAO), rotational period (P ), nucleus model (Body),
thermophysical model (TPM), and Hertz factor (h), respectively (note that slightly different κd are used for the LEAM and HECEM). Columns 6–9 show results
obtained by requiring  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days; upper limit on the density (ρbulk ) obtained by applying the nucleus volume suggested by
Brownlee et al. (2004) and Duxbury et al. (2004), active area fraction of the northern hemisphere (AN ), active area fraction of the southern hemisphere (AS ), and
the water production curve asymmetry (Qasym ), respectively (superscript “1”). Columns 10–13 show the same four quantities, requiring  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ],
Tpeak < −40 days, and Ω < 0 (superscript “2”).

Table 4
Results obtained for retrograde nucleus rotation
(I, Φ) P (h) Body TPM h 1
ρbulk A1N A1S Q1asym
(124, 333) 12.3 Tri LEAM 0.1 190 53–90 23–37 1.1–1.2
(124, 347)
(105, 330) 310 36–75 22–47 1.4–1.7
(124, 333) 25 290 40–85 15–35 1.1–1.2
(124, 347)
(105, 330) 330 27–71 23–49 1.5–1.7
(124, 333) 12 HECEM 0 400 8–25 13–35 1.5
0.01 300 20–39 11–26 1.4
0.5 290 27–64 8–30 1.1
25 420 25–62 10–33 1.1
12 Irr#1 0 160 20 17 1.4
0.01 460 17–40 7–26 1.4
0.5 130 35 14 1.1
25 120 19–26 9–19 1.1–1.2
12 Irr#2 0 460 14–35 7–20 1.5–1.6
0.01 360 14–39 7–25 1.3–1.5
0.5 290 23–63 8–22 1.0–1.1
25 400 23–63 8–25 1.1
12 Irr#3 0 250 18–26 14–18 1.5–1.7
0.01 310 19–37 10–22 1.5–1.6
0.5 210 33–37 10–18 1.1
25 320 18–53 7–31 1.2–1.3
Note. Results obtained for retrograde spin axis orientations. See caption of Table 3 for details. Notice that the criteria  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ], Tpeak < −40 days,
and Ω < 0 never are fulfilled simultaneously for these models.

Neishtadt et al., 2002; Gutiérrez et al., 2002, 2003; Mysen, A small but noticeable reduction of the estimated upper limit
2004). The AS /AN
0.9 result should therefore be treated with on the bulk density is seen when the spin period is increased to
caution. P = 25 h, demonstrating that ρbulk is somewhat more sensitive
238 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242
to P than to the spin axis orientation (within the considered
{I, Φ} range). The reason for the decrease in ρbulk is a reduc-
tion of the thermal lag angle taking place when the rotational
velocity is reduced.
Next, the retrograde SAOs are studied (Table 4). In this case,
it is the southern hemisphere which predominantly is illumi-
nated pre-perihelion, while the northern hemisphere is facing
the Sun post-perihelion (e.g., during the Stardust flyby). By
reversing the sense of rotation, the non-gravitational force vec-
tors change substantially compared to previously studied cases
(they are basically mirrored in the plane defined by the radius
vector and the SAO). The reason is that the strongest sublima-
tion always takes place during local afternoon, due to thermal
lag. Substantial differences in the properties and behavior of
the model nuclei compared to prograde rotators are therefore
expected, which is confirmed by studying Table 4.
(1) The estimated upper limit on the density, within the range
440  ρbulk  540 kg m−3 for prograde rotators, decrease
substantially, to 190  ρbulk  330 kg m−3 for retrograde
rotators.
(2) The density estimates tend to increase with P , contrary to
the behavior of prograde rotators.
(3) For (I, Φ) = (124◦ , 347◦ ), i.e., the retrograde version of
the Farnham and Schleicher (2005) estimate, it is impossi-
ble to find surface activity patterns resulting in both  ∈
[−2.5 , −1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days.
(4) AN reaches very high values in many cases, indicating that
up to 90% of the northern hemisphere may be covered by
ice.
(5) The production rate asymmetry takes comparably low val-
ues, 1.1  Qasym  1.7.
(6) In cases where  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days
are fulfilled, Ω takes very high positive values. The range
is 10  Ω  34 for P = 12.3 h and 8  Ω  27
for P = 25 h, depending on the SAO. None of the empirical
Ω estimates shown in Fig. 1 reach such high values.
4.2. Smooth and irregular model nuclei studied with the
HECEM
Tables 3 and 4 also summarize the results obtained by study-
ing a smooth triaxial body and three irregular bodies, using the
heat conduction equation model, HECEM.
First considering the smooth triaxial model body (prograde
rotation), it is interesting to see the effect of an increasing heat
conduction on the estimated upper density limit ρbulk . A body
with no heat conduction (h = 0) yields ρbulk
400 kg m−3 ,
while h = 0.5 (corresponding to κ ≈ 1.6 W m−1 K−1 at T =
200 K) results in a higher density, ρbulk ≈ 520 kg m−3 , due to
the larger thermal lag angle. The HECEM h = 0.5 result can
be compared with the LEAM h = 0.1 (κ ≈ 0.3 W m−1 K−1
at T = 200 K) estimate for the same SAO and P , which is
ρbulk
540 kg m−3 . Since κ is a factor 5 smaller for the LEAM
compared to the HECEM h = 0.5 case, one could expect that
the density estimate should be substantially smaller in the for-
mer model. The opposite is true, since the thermal lag angle
(and thereby ρbulk ) in fact is higher in the LEAM, due to layer
energy absorption and differences in the thermophysical prop-
erties, caused by high porosity and the resulting sub-surface
sublimation/recondensation and gas diffusion (leading to inter-
nal transport of both mass and heat). The different, but similar,
ρbulk estimates illustrate that the dependence on thermophysi-
cal model assumptions is not crucial for the ρbulk estimate for
the considered models.
A more substantial difference between LEAM and HECEM
is found when comparing AN and AS . A higher degree of
ice coverage is predicted by the LEAM (AN and AS are
both
50–60%), than by the HECEM (AN and AS are both

30–40%). This difference is caused by a more efficient sub-
surface heating in the former model (mainly due to layer energy
absorption). As a result, the water production rate per surface
unit area is lower in the LEAM than in the HECEM, which
means that the former model requires larger fractions of the nu-
cleus to be ice-covered in order to reach a certain total water
production rate.
Due to the smaller active area fraction obtained with the
HECEM, the investigation regarding LN  and LS  can be re-
peated, now with a considerably larger sample of model nuclei.
It is found that the mean latitudes are fairly well constrained
for individual model cases (i.e., a certain combination of shape,
SAO, P , and h), but that variations from case to case are large.
Considering the whole sample, the ranges 18◦  LN   64◦
and −62◦  LS   −13◦ are obtained, again illustrating that
the location of active areas on 81P cannot be constrained in the
present work.
The irregular bodies display a fairly wide range of density
estimates, however not dramatically different from that of the
smooth triaxial body, ρbulk
210–580 kg m−3 (depending on
nucleus shape model, P , and h). Although the real shape of
81P has not been studied here, this shows that a large differ-
ence between our density estimates and that of the real body is
not expected, unless the real thermophysical behavior of 81P is
fundamentally different from that assumed in our models. It is
interesting to note that ρbulk generally increases with h for the
irregular bodies, which indicates that the net thermal lag an-
gle is not erased by surface topography. It has been speculated
(Samarasinha et al., 1996) that irregular bodies do not display
net thermal lag even if the conductivity is substantial, due to
randomization of local surface normals (and thrust vectors),
compared to a smooth body. According to our simulations, this
does not seem to be the case, at least not under the conditions
studied here [the same conclusion was drawn by Davidsson and
Gutiérrez (2005)].
A final observation for prograde rotators, is that Ω < 0
cases only appear in the HECEM simulations when the conduc-
tivity reaches a certain level, κ  1.6 W m−1 K−1 , regardless of
the considered P and shape models (except Irr#3, for which no
Ω < 0 cases are found). If Ω indeed is negative, and if the
rotation is prograde, this would therefore be a possible observa-
tional evidence for a certain degree of heat conductivity in the
surface material of 81P.
The simulations of retrograde rotation shown in Table 4 con-
firm the results previously described for the LEAM.
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2
(1) Retrograde rotation generally implies lower density esti-
mates than prograde rotation, ρbulk
120–460 kg m−3 (de-
pending on shape, P , and h).
(2) If only surface activity patterns yielding  ∈ [−2.5 ,
−1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days are considered, they conse-
quently result in low water production curve asymmetries,
1.0  Qasym  1.7.
(3) In no cases is Ω < 0 obtained. The lowest value found
is Ω = 3.8 , obtained for the body Irr#2, when h = 0
and P = 12 h. Additional cases with Ω  5.0 (remem-
bering the highest empirical Ω estimate) are found for
the smooth triaxial body (h = 0, P = 12 h), and Irr#2
(h = 0.01, P = 12 h). If only h = 0.5 cases are considered,
the lower limit ranges from Ω = 9.6 –23.7 (depend-
ing on shape and P ), clearly showing that if the rotation
is retrograde, the conductivity needs to be very low to yield
consistency even with the highest empirical Ω estimates.
5. Discussion
5.1. The results
Considering all simulations performed here, it is reasonable
to conclude that a likely upper limit on the mass of 81P is
M
2.3 × 1013 kg. By assuming a nucleus volume as given by
Brownlee et al. (2004) and Duxbury et al. (2004), this results in
the nucleus bulk densities given in Tables 3 and 4, i.e., the upper
limit is ρbulk
600 kg m−3 . The slightly smaller nucleus pro-
posed by Howington-Kraus et al. (2005) leads to a somewhat
higher upper limit on the bulk density, ρbulk
800 kg m−3 . We
have tried to minimize the model assumption dependence of
these estimates by considering a variety of relevant model nu-
cleus shape types, spin axis orientations, rotational periods, and
thermophysical properties (i.e., in terms of the porosity, trans-
parency to optical radiation, and conductivity of the surface
material).
The density of fully compacted comet material is likely to
be in the range 1200
ρcompact
1650 kg m−3 . The lower
limit is obtained by assuming a 0.2:0.19:0.55:0.06 mixture (by
mass) of silicates, organics, volatiles, and carbon (Greenberg
and Hage, 1990), and the following densities for these com-
ponents; ρsilicate = 2950 kg m−3 (as for a mixture of 70%
pyroxene, here MgSiO3 , and 30% olivine, here MgFeSiO4 ),
ρorganics = 1600 kg m−3 , ρvolatiles = 933 kg m−3 (assuming pure
water ice), and ρcarbon = 2250 kg m−3 (as for graphite). The
upper limit was proposed by Greenberg (1998), using slightly
different mass fractions, and generally larger densities for the
constituent materials.
Combining the previously mentioned ranges for ρbulk and
ρcompact , this implies a lower limit on the nucleus bulk poros-
ity ψ of 0.3–0.6. The lower value is consistent with random
close packing of spheres (e.g., of the sub-µm grains which
presumably make up a comet nucleus). The higher value is
consistent with planetesimal growth by gradual agglomera-
tion of small fractal grain clusters, including a mild colli-
sion compaction (e.g., Blum, 2004). Note that the range in
ψ denotes a lower limit, i.e., it cannot be excluded that ψ
239
is much higher, i.e., macroscopic void spaces between con-
stituent cometesimals could be present. The results are also
consistent with the low or very low bulk density estimates ob-
tained for other comets, or theoretical investigations on come-
tesimal growth (Donn, 1963; Rickman, 1986, 1989; Greenberg,
1986; Samarasinha and Belton, 1995; Asphaug and Benz, 1996;
Farnham and Cochran, 2002; Davidsson and Gutiérrez, 2004,
2005).
For retrograde rotators, we consistently find that model nu-
clei fulfilling  ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ] and Tpeak < −40 days,
always have very low production rate asymmetries, 1.0 
Qasym  1.7, and substantial (positive) Ω values, regard-
less of the considered nucleus shape or thermophysical model.
A Qasym close to unity indicates that the water production rate
around T = 100 days and beyond should have been nearly as
high as during the pre-perihelion peak. Is this scenario at all
likely?
One could argue that the relatively low rates obtained by
Farnham and Schleicher (2005) around T ∼ 60 days post-
perihelion (a factor ∼4 lower than their largest pre-perihelion
measurement), rules out the high post-perihelion activity re-
quired to yield Qasym ≈ 1. However, several of our calculated
water production rate curves have a local depression around
T = 50 days, after which the production rate rises substantially,
yielding a second peak almost as high as the pre-perihelion
peak (which explains the Qasym ≈ 1 values). This occurs since
all these maps have a comparably high AN . The local mini-
mum in Qcalc is produced when the sub-solar point reaches
the equator (minimization of the mean illuminated cross sec-
tion), and the second peak forms as the sub-solar point starts
reaching the ice-rich northern hemisphere (again reminding that
retrograde rotation is assumed). Simulations performed with
the LEAM show that test nuclei with a substantially lower AN ,
which would yield a much larger Qasym (i.e., comparably low
production rates beyond T = 60 days), apparently have been
removed by the ρbulk > 100 kg m−3 criterion (and not by the
−2.5    −1.5 criterion). Is it therefore possible that
the empirical water production rate estimates, which do not ex-
tend beyond T ≈ 60 days, captured a broad local minimum in
the production rate, but fail to reveal a sub-sequent intensifica-
tion of the water production, i.e., that Qasym ≈ 1 could be a real
possibility?
Perhaps a clue to this problem is found in coma morphology
observations, which extend further in time than the water pro-
duction estimates. In July 1997 (T = 63 days), Farnham and
Schleicher (2005) made a clear detection of a coma jet, indi-
cating that the water production was fierce enough at the time
to carry away substantial amounts of dust. In October the same
year (T = 148 days), no well-defined coma features could be
seen. At an intermediate (post-perihelion) position in the or-
bit, at T = 101 days (but during the 2003/2004 apparition),
the coma showed no signs of jet structures either. The time se-
quence T = 63, 101, 148 days, corresponds to a change in the
sub-solar latitude of LN = 8◦ , 23◦ , 37◦ (remembering that ret-
rograde rotation is discussed here), i.e., the gradual switch-off
of comet activity hinted by the disappearance of the jet, appears
to support a comparably low AN . If the water production rate in-
240 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242
deed had increased a factor ∼3–4 between T ≈ 60 to 150 days,
it is somewhat surprising that this did not result in a rejuvena-
tion of the coma, e.g., in form of reappearing jet structures.
Another indication that Qasym ≈ 1 may be unreasonable
comes from the visual lightcurve from the 1990 apparition,
which covers the period −60  T  230 days (see, e.g.,
Sekanina, 2003). The intrinsic brightness peaks about three
weeks before perihelion, and the subsequent fading is rapid
at first, but slows down substantially around T ≈ 100 days, af-
ter which the brightness remains nearly constant for the next
∼100 days (incidentally, we note the qualitative similarity be-
tween the shapes of the lightcurve and the calculated mean
water production rate in Fig. 4—the latter changes rather lit-
tle in the T ≈ 100–200 day region, since the diminishing solar
flux is compensated by an increasing mean illuminated cross
section). The lightcurve peak and post-perihelion plateau dif-
fer about two magnitudes in brightness, which may exclude a
second high peak in the water production rate, although the
correlation between coma brightness and water production rate
certainly is not clear (keeping in mind the possibility that the
dust-to-gas mass ratio, dust size distribution, dust albedo, and
phase angle may vary substantially over time).
Although a production curve asymmetry as low as 1.0 
Qasym  1.7 cannot be excluded for the time being, we con-
sider it rather unlikely. The high positive Ω obtained for
retrograde rotators (in particular for bodies with at least some
degree of conductivity), constitutes an additional, possibly se-
rious, problem. We therefore consider a retrograde rotation of
81P inconsistent with the empirical constraints used in this
work, provided that our models are sufficiently accurate. We
note that this is contrary to the result obtained by Sekanina et
al. (2004), but that Farnham and Schleicher (2005) also favor a
prograde rotation.
5.2. The model assumptions
It is important to discuss a number of assumptions made in
our modeling, which potentially could limit the validity of our
results. Perhaps the most important of these are the assumption
that active areas exist (i.e., large-scale chemical surface hetero-
geneity), and that sublimation mainly takes place from exposed
surface ice (or from a near-surface layer).
All nucleus models considered here, which successfully re-
produce the empirical criteria, indicate that the gas production
of 81P is substantially lower than expected from a body uni-
formly covered by a thermally coupled ice/dust mixture (illus-
trated by AN , AS
60% or 40% for the LEAM and HECEM,
respectively). This apparently necessary reduction of the water
production rate is here achieved by postulating that certain areas
on 81P are inactive, i.e., do not emit vapor under any illumina-
tion condition. However, there are alternative ways to lower the
water production rate, also for surfaces which are globally ho-
mogeneous, e.g., if there is no thermal coupling between ice and
dust (Crifo, 1997). In such a case, large dust grains are much
hotter than the surrounding ice, and substantial amounts of en-
ergy is reradiated to space, which lowers the water production
rate per unit area (for a certain illumination condition). Another
possibility is that a thin porous dust mantle covers the entire
nucleus, through which vapor diffuses at a quenched rate. We
note that the existence of near-nucleus coma jet structures, as
observed by Stardust, do not necessarily rule out surface homo-
geneity of these kinds, since such features, in principle, can be
formed by surface topography (e.g., Crifo and Rodionov, 1997;
Crifo et al., 2003).
To crudely test the effect of large-scale chemical homogene-
ity of the surface layer (i.e., not necessarily the entire volume
of the nucleus), the LEAM is applied for the smooth triax-
ial body with (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ) and P = 12.3 h, assuming
that all surface facets are potentially active, but reducing the
local water production rate (and non-gravitational force mag-
nitude) a factor fscale for each facet on a trial nucleus. From
a large sample of trial nuclei (with 0.01  fscale  1), 103
cases are selected, requiring that the total water production rate
curves are confined to the envelope shown in Fig. 2, and that
ρbulk > 100 kg m−3 . Model nuclei fulfilling these criteria have
0.15  fscale  0.52, again illustrating that a fully active model
nucleus (i.e., fscale = 1) is an unlikely representation of 81P.
For the nominal P [and applying the nucleus volume con-
sistent with the shape model by Brownlee et al. (2004) and
Duxbury et al. (2004)], the resulting density estimates have
the range 100 < ρbulk  540 kg m−3 , while  ≈ −1.3 and
Ω ≈ 1.1 for all test nuclei. The invariant  and Ω can
be understood by inserting Eq. (1), solved for M, into Eqs. (2)
and (3)—the latter equations then only depend on the functional
form of the non-gravitational force F̄ , not on the absolute value
|F̄ | (and therefore not on fscale ). The crescent-shaped distribu-
tion seen in Fig. 5 is therefore caused by differences in the func-
tional form of the non-gravitational force (reflecting differences
in the surface activity patterns), whereas the homogeneous nu-
clei would show up on a horizontal line in that figure. By adjust-
ing P modestly upwards (still within its error bars, as defined
in Section 2.2), the  -value for the homogeneous nuclei can
be pushed into the empirical range ( ∈ [−2.5 , −1.5 ]).
This manoeuvre is accompanied by a slight reduction of the
density range, 100 < ρbulk  470 kg m−3 . It is therefore possi-
ble for a model nucleus, lacking inactive regions but having a
certain degree of overall water production quenching, to simul-
taneously fulfill the empirical P and  criteria, and having
its water production curve within the envelope. As for a fully
active model nucleus, all selected test nuclei yield Qasym ≈ 3.8
and Tpeak ≈ −45 days. In principle, a homogeneous model nu-
cleus therefore fulfills the considered empirical criteria just as
well as a model nucleus with active and inactive regions, and
there is no possibility to favor one of these models as a supe-
rior representation of 81P. One exception concerns Ω—if this
quantity indeed is negative, then surface heterogeneity is re-
quired, since homogeneous nuclei exclusively yield Ω > 0 .
However, and most importantly, the nucleus bulk density esti-
mate is very similar for homogeneous and heterogeneous model
bodies, i.e., ρbulk
600 (or 800) kg m−3 is indeed a plausi-
ble limit. Additional tests have also been made for the irregular
model nuclei, using a quenched HECEM, yielding very similar
results.
 The nucleus bulk density of Comet 81P/Wild 2
It should also be noted, that if the retrograde SAO (I, Φ) =
(124◦ , 333◦ ) is studied, then homogeneous model nuclei (as-
suming a quenched LEAM and a smooth triaxial nucleus shape
or a quenched HECEM for any of the bodies in this study) fail
to yield P > 0 days, which must be considered a particularly
strong empirical criterion. The plausibility of a retrograde ro-
tation, which is weak for heterogeneous bodies, therefore gets
even weaker if surface homogeneity is assumed.
A second objection that may be raised against our models,
is that sublimation of surface ice (or of a near-surface layer)
perhaps is not the principle outgassing mechanism. Yelle et al.
(2004) have suggested that sub-surface voids with sublimat-
ing walls produce most of the vapor, which exudes through
nozzle-like channels or cracks in an overlying dust mantle, pos-
sibly exerting a substantial thrust force on the nucleus. In such
a case, the non-gravitational force could be stronger than as-
sumed in the present work, which means that our suggested
density may be an underestimate. However, since local thrust
vectors can have virtually any orientation with respect to the
local surface normal, depending on the detailed geometry of
the nozzle axes, it is not certain that a such a “geyser mod-
el” indeed would yield a higher density estimate than obtained
here. We strongly encourage colleagues in the modeling com-
munity to investigate the properties of such vents, e.g., by
studying coupled thermophysical and gas kinetic models, to
see if or when the sub-surface temperature, vapor production
rate, and gas pressure reach levels at which vent thrusting be-
comes significantly stronger than surface sublimation thrust-
ing.
We finally note that it also has been assumed that the spin
axis orientation does not change substantially during a perihe-
lion passage. Since similar density estimates were obtained for
a number of SAOs separated by
20◦ , we do not expect this
assumption to be critical. As mentioned previously, the rota-
tional state of 81P and its possible evolution due to sublimation-
induced torques will be studied in a forthcoming paper.
6. Summary
The purpose of this work was to constrain a number of
nucleus parameters for Comet 81P/Wild 2, primarily its nu-
cleus bulk density, by considering a few smooth and irregular
model nuclei, having relevant dimensions, rotational periods,
(prograde and retrograde) spin axis orientations, and displaying
different thermophysical behavior.
Assuming that the nucleus surface consists of both ice-rich
and -poor regions, more than 4 × 104 surface activity patterns
have been studied for these model nuclei, in each case calcu-
lating the water production rate and non-gravitational force as
functions of time, the nucleus bulk density required to repro-
duce the empirical P, and the values of  and Ω. Four
conditions have been imposed before a model nucleus qualifies
as a possible representation of 81P.
(1) The water production curve should be within the envelope
shown in Fig. 2 at all times.
241
(2) The peak in the water production curve should take place
40 days before perihelion, or earlier.
(3) The nucleus bulk density (calculated by applying the em-
pirical P) should be in excess of 100 kg m−3 .
(4) The change in the longitude of perihelion should be within
the range −2.5    −1.5 .
Furthermore, test nuclei resulting in a water production rate
during the period 100  T  200 days which is nearly as high
as during the period −100  T  0 days, and/or having a
change in the longitude of the ascending node which is sub-
stantially larger than Ω ∼ 5 , have been considered unlikely
representations of 81P. Using these conditions, the results can
be summarized as follows:
(1) A likely upper limit on the nucleus mass is M
2.3 ×
1013 kg, which leads to an upper bulk density limit of
ρbulk
600 − 800 kg m−3 (all values reported in Tables 3
and 4 are smaller than this, but the value depends on the ap-
plied nucleus volume). The porosity limit is ψ  0.3–0.6.
(2) The nucleus most probably has a prograde rotation, im-
plying that Stardust primarily imaged the southern hemi-
sphere, and that the SAO (i.e., the positive rotational pole)
at the time was close to (I, Φ) = (56◦ , 153◦ ).
(3) The total ice coverage of the nucleus surface may be as
low as 6% and as high as 60%. This is admittedly a poor
constraint, caused by the size of the considered water pro-
duction envelope. The degree of ice coverage is probably
similar between the hemispheres, although the northern
part of the nucleus may be somewhat more ice-rich than
the southern, if the spin axis obliquity indeed was I ∼ 50◦
also in 1997.
(4) If Ω is negative, as many but not all empirical estimates
indicate, our modeling suggests that surface heterogeneity
(active versus inactive areas) most likely is present on 81P,
and that a certain degree of heat conduction of the surface
material is necessary (a Hertz factor h > 0.01).
(5) Smooth and irregular model nuclei with comparable di-
mensions and thermophysical properties result in similar
non-gravitational force vectors (leading to similar ρbulk es-
timates for the same P). This also implies that large-scale
surface topography does not erase the net thermal lag (at
least not for the shapes studied here).
Acknowledgments
We are very grateful to Steven Chesley and Sławomira Szu-
towicz for having provided us with several of their computa-
tions of non-gravitational parameters for Comet 81P/Wild 2.
We also thank Teemu Mäkinen for sharing his re-calibrated wa-
ter production rate data. The comments and suggestions made
by Tony Farnham and an anonymous referee were highly appre-
ciated, and helped us improving the presentation of the material.
Both authors acknowledge financial support from the European
Space Agency (ESA).
242 B.J.R. Davidsson, P.J. Gutiérrez / Icarus 180 (2006) 224–242
References
Asphaug, E., Benz, W., 1996. Size, density, and structure of Comet Shoemaker–
Levy 9 inferred from the physics of tidal breakup. Icarus 121, 225–248.
Blum, J., 2004. Grain growth and coagulation. In: Witt, A., Clayton, G., Draine,
B. (Eds.), Astrophysics of Dust. In: ASP Conf. Ser., vol. 309. The Astro-
nomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, pp. 369–391.
Brownlee, D.E., 11 colleagues, 2004. Surface of young Jupiter family Comet
81P/Wild 2: View from the Stardust spacecraft. Science 304, 1764–1769.
Crifo, J.F., 1997. The correct evaluation of the sublimation rate of dusty ices
under solar illumination, and its implication on the properties of P/Halley
nucleus. Icarus 130, 549–551.
Crifo, J.F., Rodionov, A.V., 1997. The dependence of the circumnuclear coma
structure on the properties of the nucleus. II. First investigation of the coma
surrounding a homogeneous, aspherical nucleus. Icarus 129, 72–93.
Crifo, J.F., Loukianov, G.A., Rodionov, A.V., Zakharov, V.V., 2003. Navier–
Stokes and direct Monte Carlo simulations of the cicumnuclear coma.
II. Homogeneous, aspherical sources. Icarus 163, 479–503.
Crovisier, J., Colom, P., Gérard, E., Bockelée-Morvan, D., Bourgois, G., 2002.
Observations at Nançay of the OH 18-cm lines in comets. The data base.
Observations made from 1982 to 1999. Astron. Astrophys. 393, 1053–1064.
Davidsson, B.J.R., 2001. Tidal splitting and rotational breakup of solid biaxial
ellipsoids. Icarus 149, 375–383.
Davidsson, B.J.R., Gutiérrez, P.J., 2004. Estimating the nucleus density of
Comet 19P/Borrelly. Icarus 168 (2), 392–408.
Davidsson, B.J.R., Gutiérrez, P.J., 2005. Nucleus properties of Comet
67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko estimated from non-gravitational force
modeling. Icarus 176 (2), 453–477.
Davidsson, B.J.R., Skorov, Y.V., 2002a. On the light-absorbing surface layer of
cometary nuclei. I. Radiative transfer. Icarus 156, 223–248.
Davidsson, B.J.R., Skorov, Y.V., 2002b. On the light-absorbing surface layer of
cometary nuclei. II. Thermal modeling. Icarus 159, 239–258.
Davidsson, B.J.R., Skorov, Y.V., 2004. A practical tool for simulating the
presence of gas comae in thermophysical modeling of cometary nuclei.
Icarus 168 (1), 163–185.
Donn, B., 1963. The origin and structure of icy cometary nuclei. Icarus 2, 396–
402.
Duxbury, T.C., Newburn, R.L., Brownlee, D.E., 2004. Comet 81P/Wild 2 size,
shape, and orientation. J. Geophys. Res. 109 (E12S02), 1–4.
Farnham, T.L., Cochran, A.L., 2002. A McDonald Observatory study of Comet
19P/Borrelly: Placing the Deep Space 1 observations into a broader context.
Icarus 160 (2), 398–418.
Farnham, T.L., Schleicher, D.G., 2005. Physical and compositional studies of
Comet 81P/Wild 2 at multiple apparitions. Icarus 173 (2), 533–558.
Fink, U., Hicks, M.P., Fevig, R.A., 1999. Production rates for the Stardust mis-
sion target: 81P/Wild 2. Icarus 141, 331–340.
Greenberg, J.M., 1986. Fluffy comets. In: Lagerkvist, C.-I., Lindblad, B.A.,
Lundstedt, H., Rickman, H. (Eds.), Asteroids, Comets, Meteors II. Uppsala
University, Uppsala, pp. 221–223.
Greenberg, J.M., 1998. Making a comet nucleus. Astron. Astrophys. 330, 375–
380.
Greenberg, J.M., Hage, J.I., 1990. From interstellar dust to comets: A unifica-
tion of observational constraints. Astrophys. J. 361, 260–274.
Gutiérrez, P.J., Ortiz, J.L., Rodrigo, R., López-Moreno, J.J., 2001. Effects of
irregular shape and topography in thermophysical models of heterogeneous
cometary nuclei. Astron. Astrophys. 374, 326–336.
Gutiérrez, P.J., Ortiz, J.L., Rodrigo, R., López-Moreno, J.J., Jorda, L., 2002.
Evolution of the rotational state of irregular cometary nuclei. Earth Moon
Planets 90 (1), 239–247.
Gutiérrez, P.J., Jorda, L., Ortiz, J.L., Rodrigo, R., 2003. Long-term simulations
of the rotational state of small irregular cometary nuclei. Astron. Astro-
phys. 406, 1123–1133.
Howington-Kraus, E., Kirk, R.L., Duxbury, T.C., Hörz, F., Brownlee, D.E.,
Newburn, R.L., Tsou, P., The Stardust Team, 2005. Topography of the
81P/Wild 2 nucleus from Stardust stereoimages. Asia–Oceania Geosciences
Society 2nd Annual Meeting, Singapore. Poster presentation, 58-PS-
A0956.
Jewitt, D., 1997. Cometary rotation: An overview. Earth Moon Planets 79 (1),
35–53.
Kissel, J., Krueger, F.R., Silén, J., Clark, B.C., 2004. The cometary and inter-
stellar dust analyzer at Comet 81P/Wild 2. Science 304, 1774–1776.
Mäkinen, J.T.T., Silén, J., Schmidt, W., Kyrölä, E., Summanen, T., Bertaux,
J.-L., Quémerais, E., Lallement, R., 2001. Water production of Comets
2P/Encke and 81P/Wild 2 derived from SWAN observations during the
1997 apparition. Icarus 152, 268–274.
Marsden, B.G., Sekanina, Z., Yeomans, D.K., 1973. Comets and nongravita-
tional forces. V. Astron. J. 78 (2), 211–225.
Mysen, E., 2004. Rotational dynamics of subsolar sublimating triaxial comets.
Planet. Space Sci. 52 (10), 897–907.
Neishtadt, A.I., Scheeres, D., Sidorenko, V.V., Vasiliev, A.A., 2002. The influ-
ence of reactive torques on comet nucleus rotation. Icarus 157 (1), 205–218.
Rickman, H., 1986. Masses and densities of Comets Halley and Kopff. In:
Melita, O. (Ed.), The Comet Nucleus Sample Return Mission. ESA Pub-
lications Division, ESTEC, Noordwijk, pp. 195–205.
Rickman, H., 1989. The nucleus of Comet Halley: Surface structure, mean den-
sity, gas and dust production. In: Gombosi, T.I., Atreya, S.K., Grün, E., Han-
ner, M.S. (Eds.), Cometary Environments. Adv. Space Res. 9 (3), 59–71.
Samarasinha, N.H., Belton, M.J.S., 1995. Long-term evolution of rota-
tional states and nongravitational effects for Halley-like cometary nuclei.
Icarus 116, 340–358.
Samarasinha, N.H., Mueller, B.E.A., Belton, M.J.S., 1996. Comments on the
rotational state and non-gravitational forces of Comet 46P/Wirtanen. Planet.
Space Sci. 44 (3), 275–281.
Sekanina, Z., 1981. Rotation and precession of cometary nuclei. Ann. Rev.
Earth Planet. Sci. 9, 113–145.
Sekanina, Z., 1993. Effects of discrete-source outgassing on motions of periodic
comets and discontinuous orbital anomalies. Astron. J. 105 (2), 702–735.
Sekanina, Z., 2003. A model for Comet 81P/Wild 2. J. Geophys. Res. 108
(E10). SRD2-1-SRD2-14.
Sekanina, Z., Brownlee, D.E., Economou, T.E., Tuzzolino, A.J., Green, S.F.,
2004. Modeling the nucleus and jets of Comet 81P/Wild 2 based on the
Stardust encounter data. Science 304, 1769–1774.
Tuzzolino, A.J., Economou, T.E., Clark, B.C., Tsou, P., Brownlee, D.E., Green,
S.F., McDonnell, J.A.M., McBride, N., Colwell, M.T.S.H., 2004. Dust mea-
surements in the coma of Comet 81P/Wild 2 by the Dust Flux Monitor
Instrument. Science 304, 1776–1780.
Yelle, R.V., Soderblom, L.A., Jokipii, J.R., 2004. Formation of jets in Comet
19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers. Icarus 167, 30–36.
Yeomans, D.K., Chodas, P.W., 1989. An asymmetric outgassing model for
cometary nongravitational accelerations. Astron. J. 98 (3), 1083–1093.