where mp is the mass of the primary (the larger body), ms is the mass of the Sun,

ds is the distance between the smaller body and the Sun, and dp is the distance
between the smaller body and the primary.[9] The tug-of-war value does not rely on
the mass of the satellite (the smaller body).

This formula actually reflects the relation of the gravitational effects on the
smaller body from the larger body and from the Sun. The tug-of-war figure for
Saturn's moon Titan is 380, which means that Saturn's hold on Titan is 380 times as
strong as the Sun's hold on Titan. Titan's tug-of-war value may be compared with
that of Saturn's moon Phoebe, which has a tug-of-war value of just 3.5; that is,
Saturn's hold on Phoebe is only 3.5 times as strong as the Sun's hold on Phoebe.

Asimov calculated tug-of-war values for several satellites of the planets. He

showed that even the largest gas giant, Jupiter, had only a slightly better hold
than the Sun on its outer captured satellites, some with tug-of-war values not much
higher than one. In nearly every one of Asimov's calculations the tug-of-war value
was found to be greater than one, so in those cases the Sun loses the tug-of-war
with the planets. The one exception was Earth's Moon, where the Sun wins the tug-
of-war with a value of 0.46, which means that Earth's hold on the Moon is less than
half as strong as the Sun's. Asimov included this with his other arguments that
Earth and the Moon should be considered a binary planet.[9]

We might look upon the Moon, then, as neither a true satellite of the Earth nor a
captured one, but as a planet in its own right, moving about the Sun in careful
step with the Earth. From within the Earth–Moon system, the simplest way of
picturing the situation is to have the Moon revolve about the Earth; but if you
were to draw a picture of the orbits of the Earth and Moon about the Sun exactly to
scale, you would see that the Moon's orbit is everywhere concave toward the Sun. It
is always "falling toward" the Sun. All the other satellites, without exception,
"fall away" from the Sun through part of their orbits, caught as they are by the
superior pull of their primary planets – but not the Moon.[9][10][Footnote 1]

— Isaac Asimov
See the Path of Earth and Moon around Sun section in the "Orbit of the Moon"
article for a more detailed explanation.

This definition of double planet depends on the pair's distance from the Sun. If
the Earth–Moon system happened to orbit farther away from the Sun than it does now,
then Earth would win the tug of war. For example, at the orbit of Mars, the Moon's
tug-of-war value would be 1.05. Also, several tiny moons discovered since Asimov's
proposal would qualify as double planets by this argument. Neptune's small outer
moons Neso and Psamathe, for example, have tug-of-war values of 0.42 and 0.44, less
than that of Earth's Moon. Yet their masses are tiny compared to Neptune's, with an
estimated ratio of 1.5×10−9 (1⁄700,000,000) and 0.4×10−9 (1⁄2,500,000,000).

Formation of the system

A final consideration is the way in which the two bodies came to form a system.
Both the Earth–Moon and Pluto–Charon systems are thought to have been formed as a
result of giant impacts: one body was impacted by a second body, resulting in a
debris disk, and through accretion, either two new bodies formed or one new body
formed, with the larger body remaining (but changed). However, a giant impact is
not a sufficient condition for two bodies being "double planets" because such
impacts can also produce tiny satellites, such as the four small outer satellites
of Pluto.

A now-abandoned hypothesis for the origin of the Moon was actually called the
"double-planet hypothesis"; the idea was that the Earth and the Moon formed in the
same region of the Solar System's proto-planetary disk, forming a system under
gravitational interaction. This idea, too, is a problematic condition for defining
two bodies as "double planets" because planets can "capture" moons through
gravitational interaction. For example, the moons of Mars (Phobos and Deimos) are
thought to be asteroids captured long ago by Mars. Such a definition would also
deem Neptune–Triton a double planet, since Triton was a Kuiper belt body the same
size and of similar composition to Pluto, later captured by Neptune.

See also
2006 definition of planet
3753 Cruithne
Co-orbital configuration
Definition of a planet
Ecliptic
Hill sphere
Natural satellite
Orbit of the Moon
Quasi-satellite
Satellite system (astronomy)
References
Informational notes

Asimov uses the term "concave" to describe the Earth–Moon orbital pattern around
the Sun, whereas Aslaksen uses "convex" to describe the exact same pattern. Which
term one uses relies solely upon the perspective of the observer. From the point-
of-view of the Sun, the Moon's orbit is concave; from outside the Moon's orbit,
say, from planet Mars, it is convex.
Citations

Most Milky Way Stars Are Single, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Canup, Robin M.; Ward, William R. (June 2006). "A common mass scaling for
satellite systems of gaseous planets". Nature. 441 (7095): 834–839.
Bibcode:2006Natur.441..834C. doi:10.1038/nature04860. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID
16778883. S2CID 4327454.
"Welcome to the double planet". ESA. 2003-10-05. Retrieved 2009-11-12.
"The IAU draft definition of "planet" and "plutons"". International Astronomical
Union. 2006-08-16. Retrieved 2008-05-17.
Margot, J.L. (2015). "A Quantitative Criterion for Defining Planets". Astronomical
Journal. 150 (6): 185. arXiv:1507.06300. Bibcode:2015AJ....150..185M.
doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/185. S2CID 51684830.
"International Astronomical Union | IAU". [Link]. Retrieved 2021-09-11.
"The Public Communication Activities at the 2006 General Assembly (GA)" (PDF).
International Astronomical Union: 45. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-05-
01.
Herbst, T. M.; Rix, H.-W. (1999). "Star Formation and Extrasolar Planet Studies
with Near-Infrared Interferometry on the LBT". In Guenther, Eike; Stecklum,
Bringfried; Klose, Sylvio (eds.). Optical and Infrared Spectroscopy of
Circumstellar Matter, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 188. Vol. 188. San Francisco,
Calif.: Astronomical Society of the Pacific. pp. 341–350.
Bibcode:1999ASPC..188..341H. ISBN 1-58381-014-5. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored
(help)
Asimov, Isaac (1975). "Just Mooning Around", collected in Of Time and Space, and
Other Things Archived 2018-01-07 at the Wayback Machine. Avon. Formula derived on
p. 89 of book. p. 55 of .pdf file. Retrieved 2012-01-20.
Aslaksen, Helmer (2010). "The Orbit of the Moon around the Sun is Convex!".
National University of Singapore: Department of Mathematics. Archived from the
original on 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2012-01-23.
Bibliography

Stern, S. Alan (27 February 1997). "Clyde Tombaugh (1906–97) Astronomer who
discovered the Solar System's ninth planet". Nature. 385 (6619): 778.
Bibcode:1997Natur.385..778S. doi:10.1038/385778a0Pluto–Charon is "the only known
example of a true double planet".
Lissauer, Jack J. (25 September 1997). "It's not easy to make the Moon". Nature.
389 (6649): 327–328. Bibcode:1997Natur.389..327L. doi:10.1038/38596. S2CID
5416221Compares the double-planet theories of Earth–Moon and Pluto–Charon
formations.
Further reading

Asimov, Isaac (1960). The Double Planet. New York: Abelard-Schuman.

Asimov, Isaac (1990). Pluto: A Double Planet?. Milwaukee: G. Stevens. ISBN
9781555323738.
Cabrera, J.; Schneider, J. (2007). "Detecting companions to extrasolar planets
using mutual events". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 464 (3): 1133–1138. arXiv:astro-
ph/0703609. Bibcode:2007A&A...464.1133C. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066111. S2CID
14665906.s