* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Role of Comets in the Late Heavy Bombardment
Survey
Document related concepts
Planet Nine wikipedia , lookup
Sample-return mission wikipedia , lookup
History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses wikipedia , lookup
Kuiper belt wikipedia , lookup
Comet Hale–Bopp wikipedia , lookup
Scattered disc wikipedia , lookup
Formation and evolution of the Solar System wikipedia , lookup
Jumping-Jupiter scenario wikipedia , lookup
Near-Earth object wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
The Role of Comets in the Late Heavy Bombardment Hans Rickman* Uppsala Observatory Space Research Center, Warsaw * and G.B. Valsecchi, A. Morbidelli, T. Wisniowski, R. Gabryszewski, P. Wajer, K. Wojcikowski, S. Szutowicz The Late Heavy Bombardment The event is now pushed further back in >me (Morbidelli et al. 2012) Current es?mate ê • Source: Lunar crater counts, and radiometric da?ng of lunar surface strata connected with mare basin forma?on The Nice Model Disk mass es?mated at 20-‐50 ME Planet instability and migra?on (Gomes et al. 2005) Basic quesIons • Consider the trans-‐planetary disk as a source of impacts and cratering during the LHB: − How important was this source for the lunar cratering? − How did the amount of comet impacts vary between the terrestrial planets? − Did these impacts play a great role in the evolu>on of the Mar>an surface? Lunar bombardment issues • Comets should dominate (Morbidelli et al. 2010) • But HSE abundances in lunar impact melts resemble high-‐temperature meteorites (Kring & Cohen 2002) • Lunar craters share asteroid size distribuIon, different from giant planet satellites (Strom et al. 2005) But note Pluto/Charon impact crater record! • E-‐belt model for the LHB (BoXke et al. 2012) Where did all the comets go…? Monte Carlo simulaIons • Create a large sample of Jupiter Family comet orbital evolu?ons (model for LHB projecIles) • Calculate the planetary and lunar impact probabili?es for each orbit • Derive cumula?ve numbers of impacts on the planets and the Moon • InvesIgate the effects of physical life?me and size distribu?on of comet nuclei Aiming and Iming • The asteroid orbit has a minimum distance from the target orbit, called MOID • For “perfect” >ming of an encounter, the asteroid aims at the (MOID,0) point in the b-‐plane (perpendicular Bg = collisional radius to the relaIve velocity) • Otherwise, it aims at points displaced in the ζ direc>on due to the target’s mo>on This is like shoo?ng on a moving target! Planetary impact probability • We idenIfy orbits, where MOID < Rcoll (collisional radius) for a planetary target; these are called collisional orbits • For each collisional orbit, we find the range of encounter ?ming (ΔTo) that leads to impact and take the raIo with the orbital period of the target (Pt) (Wisniowski & Rickman 2013; Acta Astron. 63, 293) (Rickman et al. 2014: A&A 569, A47) Lunar impact probability • We treat the lunar orbit during the LHB as circular in the eclipIc plane with one half its present radius (i.e., aM = 182,000 km) • We look for all projecIle orbits with Earth MOID < aM + RM = 184,000 km, including all possible collisions with the Moon • For each such case, we evaluate the lunar impact probability for the actual orbit, using a bivariate >ming range (TE ,TM) Dynamical input • IniIal condiIons using elements of 6014 disk objects reaching perihelia with q < 3.9 AU in the Nice Model (Brož et al. 2013) • Down-‐selec>on (P < 20 yr and TJ > 2) ⇒ 5000 sets of elements, and (Ω,ω,M) cloning by P. Wajer ⇒ sample of 105 star?ng orbits for integra?ons • RA15 integra>ons of all orbits by R. Gabryszewski over a maximum of 105 revolu?ons, using four giant planets with post-‐LHB (current) orbits (neglecIng TP influences); elements are stored at each perihelion passage Collisional orbits From 100,000 iniIal condiIons, each integrated for a maximum of 100,000 orbits, we obtain the following numbers of potenIally collisional orbits (MOID < Rcoll): Mars is favored and Mercury disfavored by the typical paVern of JF orbital evolu?on Impact probability for collisional orbits Trend: impact probability goes as Rcoll/ap ScaVer: different MOIDs and encounter geometries Finite lifeImes • EROSION • SPLITTING • Mass loss by comet • Apparently random acIvity (shedding of events, observed quite material, mostly near frequently in SP comets the Sun) • The physical mechanism is not understood • Eventually, the comet shrinks away (perhaps, • Wide range of scales, 46P/Wirtanen) from fragmentaIon of • We model this mass loss the surface layer to bulk by H2O surface separaIon into a few sublima>on large pieces (3D/Biela) Our physical models • Infinite life?mes (reference model): No physical evoluIon occurs; the nuclear radius is constant • Erosional model: We tune the acIvity level to agree with observed gas producIon rates and comet dormancy • Di Sisto model: We use Model 4 of (Di Sisto et al 2009); best fit including very high split rate Dynamical heaIng in the JF Obs. Init. obs SS SS inf. SS ero. ini The Jupiter Family is dynamically quite “young” − cf. Levison & Duncan (1997) The lifeIme issue • Our disk is more puffed up than the one of Levison & Duncan • This would require the JF to be extremely young − probably, unreasonably young • A more realisIc model of physical evoluIon may be called for, including dormancy and rejuvenaIon (e.g., Rickman et al. 1991) • TentaIve consequences: longer lifeImes; low capture rate from the SD; low-‐acIve JF comets hiding with large perihelion distance CumulaIve LHB collision rates Expected number of collisions per million ini?al comets These values were obtained by summing impact probabili>es over the life>mes of the comets – either dynamical or limited by physical effects (depending on size distribu>on) The primordial disk Popula?on: total mass ~ 15-‐50 ME; uncertain CSD power-‐law index for comets Kinema?cs: significantly hoper than in the early Nice Model papers • We take a lower total mass of 18 ME and an upper one of 36 ME; in both cases 2 ME are added as Pluto-‐sized objects (too few to maper) • We take a shallow CSD with α = -‐1.5 and a steep one with α = -‐2.5 (bracke>ng the range of observed slopes for the Jupiter Family comets) α = -‐4 (Rickman et al. 2015) Our influx models • Maximum model: − High-‐mass disk with shallow CSD slope for small objects (max. number of large objects) − Prob. = 1/3 to reach the inner Solar System • Minimum model: − Low-‐mass disk with steep CSD slope for small objects (min. number of large objects) − Prob. = 1/10 to reach the inner Solar System The largest lunar impactor = max ✖ = min ∞ Subl. çTrojans Subl.+ Split. The minimum model works best! The largest impact basins Trus?ng the minimum model, the largest basins cannot be formed by comets! The total comet mass Crude es?mate LHB volaIle veneer • Consider the case of infinite life>me and the low-‐mass primordial disk! • The Earth acquired a total of M ≈ 3x1019 kg, much less than the ocean mass • Mars acquired a total of M ≈ 7x1018 kg • This is about 10 m Global Equivalent Layer of water (20%), much less than usually esImated • For 10% CO2/H2O by mass, we get about 30 mb CO2 surface pressure (insufficient to support liquid surface water) ImplicaIons • The LHB was asteroid dominated in support of the proposed E-‐belt as the main source • The Earth and Mars acquired their vola?les early, mainly as part of their formaIon process • There is no evidence against a late instability, since comets did not cause too much cratering • Is there posi>ve evidence that comets did contribute to the LHB in the way predicted by a late planet instability? (Marty et al. 2016: Earth’s Ar budget and 67P’s Ar abundance) Collisional evoluIon of 67P? • A low-‐mass disk seems OK, but it does not save comets from collisional destrucIon (Rickman et al. 2015) • And 67P does appear to be primordial! (highly porous, full of volaIles) … − Could the disk be slim enough to save the comets? − Can comets stay primordial in spite of collisions? Comet 67P (OSIRIS) An early instability might help…