[derstander]

I'm not at all plugged into astronomy, though I have worked in radar for quite awhile.

Can you comment at all why a technique like Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) is not used? That relies on the rotation of an object to generate cross-range resolution through sampling a diverse set of aspect angles (and is certainly useful for non-uniform, non-planar surfaces). If the rotation rates of the asteroids are known, then that minimizes one of the main challenges in forming quality ISAR imagery. For the use-cases I'm familiar with, we need to estimate the rotational motion because vehicles do unfortunate things like accelerate and turn while we're trying to look at them -- the nerve! And ISAR has certainly existed before the paper you linked in another comment was written (and also before the previous study the paper itself references).

As a side note, that paper by Ostro et al. is very interesting to me; it's like being familiar with Leibniz's notation for calculus and seeing something written using Newton's notation (or vice-versa). I skimmed the references and all of the ones I saw seemed to be from astronomy / astrophysics sources. It's almost as though we have two fields using similar methodologies to look at different objects that don't seem to talk at all and have developed different dialects.

Edit: maybe delay-Doppler imaging is akin to ISAR, like medical tomography and SAR were shown to be mathematically related?

[mturmon]

I know something about SAR and InSAR because I use radar (Earth) remote sensing in my day job, and I have a signal processing background. But I’m not a serious radar expert.

ISAR sounds like its operating principle is the same as the radar imaging technique used for these asteroid results. In general, it’s all radar imaging so you get reflectances in delay/Doppler coordinates as your observable.

One possible difference is the poor SNR of the asteroid problem — you have to average many radar images to beat down the noise. The velocity of the scattering elements on the asteroid is assumed to be the same across all these images (as far as I know). (After correcting for a known offset due to the Earth’s changing motion.)

This seems to be a little different than the ISAR “swaying boat” type of application in which the body is indeed accelerating and your radar image must be adjusted for that, or else the mast of the swaying boat will smear across the image.

It may also be worth saying that there is no synthetic aperture in the OP - it’s a physical aperture.