I just noticed that I made one mistake with regard to TLP. I referred to the Kirkwood 3:2 Gap. There ain't no such thing. It should have been the Kirkwood 3:1 Gap. For a very revealing look at the profoundness of the Kirkwood Gaps, see the histogram at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_gap
The paper cited was written in 1990. The Wikipedia article on Kirkwood Gaps was last updated in April. My guess is that 19 years of further study has yielded more accurate results.
Interesting; I also used Wikipedia, but used the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Kirkwood_gaps; the paper I referenced was the one used to footnote the paragraph:
The gaps are not seen in a simple snapshot of the locations of the asteroids at any one time because asteroid orbits are elliptical, and many asteroids still cross through the radii corresponding to the gaps. The actual spatial density of asteroids in these gaps does not differ significantly from the neighboring regions.
I typically check and/or cite the references from Wikipedia (if I can check them), rather than the Wikipedia text itself.
As to the rest of my source, it was based on the notion that over millions of years, a sizeable quantity of small meteorites would get caught up and and collide with TLP. It could be a rare occurrance, but "back of the envelope" once every 500 years would result in 8,000,000 such hits in 4 billion years (4 billion picked as approximate age of Earth, assuming other solar planets roughly same age). The time factor is where the "large numbers" and statistics come in.
Given that TLP has little, if any natural atmosphere (since the "airskin" is required), I wouldn't expect much, if any, heat be built up, subsequent to the initial collision, for the orbiting material. As a result, I expect that much of it would be fairly intact, rather than having substantial fluid properties -- especially nearer the surface.
I was thinking, therefore of something as rough, or a bit rougher, in an absolute sense (not in scale) to Earth's moon. I wouldn't have described that as "round as a cue ball"; hence my comments.