us, we performed following test. Using the shape models of both components from Ostro et al. and the orbital parameters from Table \[tablePropKW4\], we generated a synthetic long-period component of the lightcurve. We then increased the size of the secondary until the depths of the secondary events (occultations and eclipses of the secondary) matched the observed event depths. We obtained a match when we increased the secondary axes by Ostro et al. (2006) to 130% of their original values. This is even slightly greater than $0.42/0.34 \doteq 124 \%$ because in this test the actual light scattering model was used for calculating the synthetic lightcurve, which models the scattering from non-spherical component shapes at the high solar phases and it is more precise than simply comparing the estimated mean cross-sections above. We note that replacing the parameters of the mutual orbit with those derived by Ostro et al. did not change the result.

We discussed this issue with Lance Benner and we received following information: “The dimensions of the secondary might be underestimated by Ostro et al. (2006) because the radar images were obtained at relatively coarse range and Doppler resolutions and at modest signal-to-noise ratios. Consequently, it is plausible 