Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a detailed calculation
Observed at a particular epoch. Practically constant over tens to
Not constant in time caused by hundreds of million of years
gravitational perturbations
Asteroid Family
Identification:
Get some knowledge about the collisional evolution
in the Main-belt
Obtain information about the internal structure of the
parent body
Satisfactory Methods
Hierarchical Clustering Method (HCM)
(Zappala et al. 1990, 1995)
Wavelet Analysis Method (WAM)
(Bendjoya et al. 1993, 1997)
Both methods:
Imply heavy computational time;
Require ad-hoc parameters or threshold
definitions
Decomposition
Families
Background
Asteroids
Bower Chloris
Ceres Veritas
1981 EO19
Vesta Rafita Dora
Flora Nocturna
0.1 Simpson Jerome Erigone 4945
Merxia
Sulamitis
Hoffmeister
Augusta
Amneris Bernes Hanko Ceplecha
Nemesis
Hygiea
1965 SB
Tsurugistan 1981 Vibilia Aeolia Liberatrix
Polana EO82 Henan Karin
Reginita
Taiyuan
Themis
Nysa Hestia Misa Lydia
1981 UC1 Massalia Astrid
Koronis
0
2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
Families are indicative of collisional
process between asteroids a [au]
The Age of Asteroid Family
Craters counting + production rate
(rare visits + unknown constrained factors)
Track the orbital evolution of the family members backwards
in time
(limited to families < 10 Myr)
Compare the evolution model of the size freq. distribution with
observations
(poorly unknown some parameters)
Deduce from the spin axis distribution of a family
(certain special circumstances)
Calculate the dispersing time via Yarkovsky thermal forces
(unknown initial ejection velocities)
Nesvorn et al. 2005
Asteroid
Families
Young Asteroid Families
Nesvorn et al. 2003
Collision:
Vesc from Ceres = 0.6 km s-1. Thus, most collisions
are eruptive or destructive
Families with similar a, e, and i
Dust bands
Asteroid Collision (1)
Nine estimates
Shallower slopes
than the background
2 2n
Spin-orbit Resonance (3)
Case when the orbit is non-circular and
small eccentricity
n 2 sin 2 nt 12 esin 2 nt 7 sin 2 nt e 2
Two new terms corresponding to the 1:2 and the
3:2 spin-orbit resonances
The width of the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance is a factor
(7e/2) smaller than the 1:1
Ex.: the 3:2 spin orbit resonance of Mercury
(88d:59d)
Orbital Resonances (1)
Three degrees of freedom: three angular variables
[1] the motion of the planet: the frequency revolution
around the Sun,
[2] orientation of the orbit in space: the slow
frequencies of precession of the direction of
perihelion and the pole of the orbit plane
For a multi-planet system: secular resonances
involves commensurabilities amongst [2]; mean
motion resonances are commensurabilities of [1]
Orbital Resonances (2)
Most cases: a clear separation of [1] & [2] time
scales
A coupling between [1] & [2] chaotic dynamics
First order
resonance
n / n ~ e 2
2 1
3
Second order
resonance
n / n ~ e
1
2 2
Malhotra 1998
MMR (2)
o Mean motion commensurabilities amongst the
Jovian and Saturnian satellites
o No exact resonance in the Uranian satellites
system
o The role of the small but significant splitting of
MMR and the interaction of neighboring
resonances
o Destabilize a previously established resonance
MMR lifetimes
MMR (3): Stability
Stable
Unstable
MMR (4): chaotic diffusion
Nesvorn et al. 2002
Koronis