Say that Makemake's day is known only to a factor of two, citing both readings

f655a4c kept Makemake's SBDB period, 22.83 hours, saying "nothing later overturns it", a reading
its author had not checked. The SBDB flags that period as Eris's was ("may be wrong by 30 percent
or so"). Hromakina et al. 2019 give 22.8266 h as the double-peaked period a "possible lightcurve
asymmetry suggests", of a light curve that repeats every 11.4 h. Kiss et al. 2024 (arXiv:2410.22544),
with TESS and Gaia, find the 11.401 +/- 0.076 h single peak again, "cannot confirm that the
double-peaked 22.8 h is Makemake's true rotation period", and take 11.4 h as their default.

Nothing is changed in what is drawn: the literature does not settle which it is, and 22.83 stays as
the SBDB's. The Makemake spec now cites both papers and says the drawn day may be twice the real
one, and the renderer's comment no longer calls the three dwarf planets' periods known.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

src/app/features/galaxy-system/system-orbits-renderer.ts

@@ -258,7 +258,8 @@ const HOURS_PER_DAY = 24;
 
 /**
  * How a body the IAU gives no rotational elements for is turned at a given date — Eris, Haumea
- * and Makemake, whose periods are known and whose poles are not: at its own sidereal rate, about
+ * and Makemake, whose periods are measured (Makemake's only to a factor of two, see its spec in
+ * `fetchSolarSystem.ts`) and whose poles are not: at its own sidereal rate, about
  * its orbit's normal, backwards for a negative period. None of them has an obliquity, so none is
  * applied. The phase is arbitrary: each body starts at its elements' epoch in the shortest
  * rotation of +Y onto its axis, and turns from there. Exoplanets have no published rotation at