Download - Celestial Mechanics of Asteroid Systems
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Celestial Mechanics of Asteroid Systems
D.J. ScheeresDepartment of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
The University of [email protected]
1
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Granular Mechanics and Asteroids
• Asteroid systems are best modeled as self-gravitating granular systems under self-attraction and cohesion
2
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Motivated by Observations
Muses Sea
TD1 Site
All images courtesy JAXA/ISAS
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Motivated by Observations
Muses Sea
TD1 Site
All images courtesy JAXA/ISAS
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Discrete Granular Mechanics and Celestial Mechanics
• The theoretical mechanics of few-body systems can shed light on more complex aggregations and their evolution
4
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Discrete Granular Mechanics and Celestial Mechanics
• The theoretical mechanics of few-body systems can shed light on more complex aggregations and their evolution
4Movies by S.A. Jacobson
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Fundamental and Simple Question:What are the expected configurations for
collections of self-gravitating grains?
5
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Fundamental Concepts:
• The N-body problem:
• Mass: – In the Newtonian N-Body Problem each particle has a total mass
mi modeled as a point mass of infinite density
6
rjk = rk � rj
rjk = |rk � rj |
miri = �@U
@ri
i = 1, 2, . . . N
U = �G2
NX
j=1
NX
k=1, 6=i
mjmk
rjk
0 =NX
j=1
mjrj
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
• Angular Momentum:
– Mechanical angular momentum is conserved for a closed system, independent of internal physical processes.
– The most fundamental conservation principle in Celestial Mechanics.
7
Fundamental Concepts:
H =NX
j=1
mjrj ⇥ rj
=1
2M
NX
j=1
NX
k=1
mjmkrjk ⇥ rjk M =NX
j=1
mj
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
• Energy:
– Not necessarily conserved for a closed system– Additional non-modeled physical effects internal to the system can
lead to dissipation of energy (e.g., tidal forces, surface friction)– Physically occurs whenever relative motion exists within a system
– motivates the study of relative equilibria8
Fundamental Concepts:
E = T + U
T =12
NX
j=1
mj rj · rj
=1
4M
NX
j=1
NX
k=1
mjmkrjk · rjk
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Leads to a more precise question ...
Q: What are the minimum energy configurations for the Newtonian N-body problem at a fixed Angular Momentum?
A: There are none for N ≥3.
A surprising and untenable result – all mechanical systems should have a minimum
energy state...
9
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
I =NX
i=1
mir2i =
12M
NX
j,k=1
mjmkr2jk
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Sundman’s Inequality
• To investigate this we start with Sundman’s Inequality– Apply Cauchy’s Inequality to the Angular Momentum
• Sundman’s Inequality is:
10
H2 2IT
Polar Moment of Inertia
H2 =1
4M2
������
NX
j,k=1
mjmkrjk ⇥ rjk
������
2
14M2
0
@NX
j,k=1
mjmkr2jk
1
A
0
@NX
j,k=1
mjmkr2jk
1
A = 2IT
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Minimum Energy Function and Relative Equilibrium
• Leads to a lower bound on the energy of an N-body system by defining the “minimum energy function” Em (also known as the Amended Potential).
– Em is only a function of the relative configuration Q of an N-body system
• Theorem: Stationary values of Em are relative equilibria of the N-body problem at a fixed value of angular momentum (Smale, Arnold)– Equality occurs at relative equilibrium– Can be used to find central configurations and determine energetic stability
11
H2 2IT T = E � U
Em(Q) =H2
2I(Q)+ U(Q) E
Q = {rij : i, j = 1, 2, . . . , N}
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Example: Point Mass 2-Body Minimum Energy Configurations
• Point Mass 2-Body Problem: Minimum is a circular orbit
12
Em =h2
2d2� 1
d
@Em
@d= �h2
d3+
1d2
= 0
d⇤ = h2
E⇤m = � 1
2h2
@2Em
@d2
����⇤
=3h2
d4� 2
d3=
1h6
> 0
Separation
Ener
gyAngular Momentum
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Point Mass N-Body Minimum Energy Configurations, N ≥ 3
• Point Mass 3-Body Problem:– Relative equilibria occur at the Lagrange and Euler Solutions– Euler solutions are always unstable ≠ minimum energy solutions– Lagrange solutions are never minimum energy solutions
• Point Mass N-Body Problem:– Central configurations are never minimum energy configurations,
c.f. proof by R. Moeckel. – For any Point Mass N ≥ 3 Problem, Em can always –> -∞ while
maintaining a constant level of angular momentum
For the Point Mass N ≥ 3 Problem there are no non-singular minimum energy configurations
... does our original question even make sense?
13
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Non-Definite Minimum of the Energy Function for N ≥ 3
• Consider the minimum energy function for N=3:
– Choose the distance and velocity between P1 and (P2 , P3) to maintain a constant value of H.
– Choose a zero-relative velocity between (P2 , P3) and let d23 –> 0, forcing Em –> -∞ while maintaining H.
– Under energy dissipation, there is no lower limit on the system-level energy until the limits of Newtonian physics are reached.
14
Em =H2
m3 [d2
12 + d223 + d2
31]� Gm2
1
d12+
1d23
+1
d31
�
P1P2P3
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Non-Definite Minimum of the Energy Function for N ≥ 3
• Consider the minimum energy function for N=3:
– Choose the distance and velocity between P1 and (P2 , P3) to maintain a constant value of H.
– Choose a zero-relative velocity between (P2 , P3) and let d23 –> 0, forcing Em –> -∞ while maintaining H.
– Under energy dissipation, there is no lower limit on the system-level energy until the limits of Newtonian physics are reached.
14
Em =H2
m3 [d2
12 + d223 + d2
31]� Gm2
1
d12+
1d23
+1
d31
�
d12 ⇠ d13 P1P2P3
d23 ! 0
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
The Role of Density
• The lack of minimum energy configurations in the Point Mass N-body problem arises due to the infinite density of Point Masses– The resolution of this problem is simple and physically well motivated – allow
for finite density – but has profound consequences:
– Bodies with a given mass must now have finite size, when in contact we assume they exert surface normal forces and frictional forces
– Moments of inertia, rotational angular momentum, rotational kinetic energy and mass distribution must now be tracked in I, H, T and U, even for spheres.
– For low enough angular momentum the minimum energy configurations of an N-body problem has them resting on each other and spinning at a constant rate
15
d! 0 d > 0⇢!1 ⇢ <1
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Finite Density (Full-Body) Considerations
• Energy, angular momentum and polar moment of inertia all generalize to the case of finite density, along with the Sundman Inequality (Scheeres, CMDA 2002):
16
H =1
2M
NX
j,k=1
mjmkrjk ⇥ rjk +NX
j=1
Ij · ⌦j
E = T + U +12
NX
j=1
⌦j · Ij · ⌦j
H2 2IT Em =H2
2I+ U E
I =1
2M
NX
j,k=1
mjmkr2jk +
12Trace
0
@NX
j=1
Ij
1
A
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Modified Sundman Inequality
• A sharper version of the Sundman Inequality can be derived for finite body distributions (Scheeres, CMDA 2012):– Define the total Inertia Dyadic of the Finite Density N-Body Problem:
– Define the angular momentum unit vector
– The modified Sundman Inequality is sharper and defines an updated Minimum Energy Function
17
H
IH = H · I · H
H2 2IHT 2IT Em Em =H2
2IH+ U E
I =NX
i=1
⇥mi
�r2i U� riri
�+ Ai · Ii · AT
i
⇤
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Minimum Energy Configurations
• Theorem: For finite density distributions, all N-body problems have minimum energy configurations.
• Proof (Scheeres, CMDA 2012): – Stationary values of are relative equilibria, and include (for
finite densities) resting configurations. – For a finite value of angular momentum H, the function is
compact and bounded. – By the Extreme Value Theorem, the minimum energy function
has a Global Minimum.
• Resolves the problem associated with minimum energy configurations of the Newtonian (Point Mass) N-Body Problem.
18
Em
Em
Em
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
... back to the original question
19
• Question: What is the Minimum Energy configuration of a finite density N-Body System at a specified value of Angular Momentum?
• Answer: The Minimum Value of across all stationary configurations, both resting and orbital.
QF = {rij |rij � (di + dj)/2, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , N}
Em(QF ) =H2
2I(QF )+ U(QF ) E
Em
�2E = �Q · @2E@Q2
· �Q > 0�E =@E@Q
· �Q � 0
8 Admissible �Q
Relative Equilibrium Stability
For Simple Spheres...
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
IH =110
NX
i=1
mid2i +
NX
i=1
mir2i
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Minimum Energy Configurations of the Spherical Full Body Problem
• For definiteness, consider the simplest change from point mass to finite spheres (then U is unchanged)– For a collection of N spheres of diameter di the only change in is to IH
• But this dramatically changes the structure of the minimum energy configurations... take the 2-body problem for example with equal size spheres, normalized to unity radius
20
Em =h2
2d2� 1
dversus Em =
h2
2(0.4 + d2)� 1
d
Em
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
2-Body Problem
21
Separation
Separation
Ener
gy
Ener
gy
Angular Momentum
Angular MomentumOnly one stationary orbit energy configuration
Zero or Two stationary orbit energy configurations per AM
Em =h2
2d2� 1
d
Separation
Em =h2
2(0.4 + d2)� 1
d
Point Mass Case Finite Density Case
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Reconfiguration and Fission
22
Reconfiguration: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Lagrange solution
Multiple resting configurations can exist at one angular momentum.Resting and orbital stable configurations can exist at one angular momentum.
• As a system’s AM is increased, there are two possible types of transitions between minimum energy states:– Reconfigurations, dynamically change the resting locations – Fissions, resting configurations split and enter orbit about each
other
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Reconfiguration and Fission
22
Reconfiguration: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Lagrange solution
Multiple resting configurations can exist at one angular momentum.Resting and orbital stable configurations can exist at one angular momentum.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Reconfiguration and Fission
22
Reconfiguration: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Lagrange solution
Multiple resting configurations can exist at one angular momentum.Resting and orbital stable configurations can exist at one angular momentum.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Reconfiguration and Fission
22
Reconfiguration: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Lagrange solution
Fission: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Euler solution
Multiple resting configurations can exist at one angular momentum.Resting and orbital stable configurations can exist at one angular momentum.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Reconfiguration and Fission
22
Reconfiguration: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Lagrange solution
Fission: Occurs once the relative resting configuration becomes unstable. For the 3BP occurs at a rotation rate beyond the Euler solution
Multiple resting configurations can exist at one angular momentum.Resting and orbital stable configurations can exist at one angular momentum.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Internal Degrees of Freedom for Spherical Grains
• 2-Body Results: – Contact case has 0 degrees of freedom– Orbit case has 1 degree of freedom
• 3-Body Results– Contact case has 1 degree of freedom– Contact + Orbit case has 2 degrees of freedom– Know all of the orbit configurations
• 4-Body Results – Contact case has 2 degrees of freedom, multiple topologies– Many more possible Orbit + Contact configurations– 3-dimensional configurations– Don’t even know precisely how many orbit configurations exist...
but they are all energetically unstable (Moeckel)!23
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Lagrange Resting
Static & Variable Resting Configurations
Euler Resting
V Resting
Lagrange Orbiting
Orbiting Configurations
Euler Orbiting
Mixed Configurations
Aligned Mixed
Transverse Mixed
Minimum Energy Configurations
All minimum energy states can be uniquely identified in the finite density 3 Body Problem
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
1.98375 4.002... 5.07
6.6125 ∞5.32417
0
5.07
H2
Bifurcation Chart
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8H2
E
∆E
∆E
∆E
∆E = Excess Energy Increasing AM Decreasing AM
∆E
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Static Resting Equilibrium Configurations
Mixed Equilibrium Configurations
0 1 2
43 5
Variable Resting Equilibrium Configurations
A
B
C
D
E
G
F
Finite Density 4 Body Problem
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
= 70.53°
= 180°
Static Rest Configurations 0 and 1
Static Rest Configurations 1, 2, 5
1
Static Rest Configurations 1, 3, 4
2
1
2
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
-6
-5.5
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
0 5 10 15 20 25
Configuration ABCD
E
H2
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Configuration ABCD
E
H2
∆E2,3
∆Ea
∆Eb
∆Ec,d
Detail
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder 31
Generalizations to Non-Spherical Bodies
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Slow rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Slow rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Slow rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Intermediate rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Fast rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Fast rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
Fast rotation
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Migration of Surface Material
• If an asteroid’s rotation rate changes the minimum energy resting points of particles will change (Guibout & Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics 2003)
For an ellipsoid, transition rotation rates are related to the Jacobi Sequence
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
From Miyamoto et al., Science, 2007
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Minimum Energy Configurations
As spin rate increases or decreases, an aggregate can be placed into a non minimum energy state.ω0
(K0,E0)
A perturbation can trigger a shape change, conserving AM, decreasing energy, and dissipating excess energy via friction and seismic waves.
ω1
(K1 = K0, E1 < E0)
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
ω ω
The theory of minimum energy configurations can be extended to arbitrary finite density shapes, e.g. an equal density ellipsoid/ellipsoid system
Minimum energy configuration for small Angular Momentum
Minimum energy configuration for large Angular Momentum
Generalization to Non-Spherical Bodies
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
ω
ω
ω
(Icarus 189: 370-385)Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Rubble pile partitions
As spin rate increases, the transition limit for each “mutual” set should be computed and compared with each other.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Fission Conditions
• For fission of an arbitrary rubble pile split into two collections I and J the general condition becomes:
– For mass distributions only a weak form of Euler’s Theorem of Homogenous functions applies which allows us to reduce this inequality to:
– where
• This is equivalent to “the two components with the largest separation between their centers of mass will fission first at the lowest spin rate”
38
TIJ + �UIJ � 0
RIJ · ! · ! · RIJ � �MI + MJ
MIMJ
@UIJ
@RIJ· RIJ
α >1
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
BODYHEAD
ω ∗∗
Asteroid Itokawa’s peculiar mass distribution will “fission” when its rotation period < 6 hours – spin period can change due to the “YORP Effect”, slowly changes total angular momentum...Body = 490 x 310 x 260 meters Head = 230 x 200 x 180 meters
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8H2
E
∆E
∆E
∆E
∆E = Excess Energy Increasing AM Decreasing AM
∆E
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder 41
Reconfigurations and Fission Events• When a Local Minimum reaches its reconfiguration or fission
state it cannot directly enter a different minimum energy state– Excess energy ensures a period of dynamics where dissipation may occur
Movie by S.A. Jacobson
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Fission
• Fission can be a smooth transition for a rubble pile• Energy and AM are ideally conserved, but are
decomposed:– Kinetic Energy
– Potential Energy
– The mutual potential energy is “liberated” and serves as a conduit to transfer rotational and translational KE
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Fission
Fission spin rate is the minimum rate for two partitions of the asteroid to enter orbit.
Corresponds to the maximum center of mass separation across all possible partitions
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Orbital Evolution
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Post-Fission Dynamics
• The problem changes to the dynamical motion of two arbitrary mass distributions orbiting about each other– Strong coupling between translational and rotational motion– Generalized version of a classical celestial mechanics problem
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Orbit Mechanics after Fission
• The relevant energy for orbital motion is the “free energy,” which is conserved under dynamical evolution:
• Energy transfer between orbit and rotation happen rapidly– If EFree > 0, system can “catastrophically disrupt”
– If EFree < 0, system cannot “catastrophically disrupt”
• Orbits with EFree > 0 are highly unstable and usually will send the components away on hyperbolic orbits
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder 47
E > 0
Unstable
“Ground State” Equilibrium
for initially touching bodies
Ideal Stability of a Sphere-Sphere System
– Fissioned binaries with a mass ratio < ~0.2 have sufficient energy to escape in a timescale of days to months (Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy 2009).
Stability of a fissioned system
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Fission Dynamics of a proto 1999 KW4 System
Initial conditions are chosen at the precise “fission limit” when the two components enter orbit about each other. Total movie duration is several days.
Movie by S. Jacobson
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.01
10
100
1000
104
105
106
Mass Ratio
SeparationDistance
�PrimaryRadius⇥ Zero Free
Energy for Two Spheres
Jacobson & Scheeres, Icarus 2011
Fissioned Asteroids with mass ratios < 0.2 eventually escape, the closer to the cutoff, the more energy is drawn from the
primary spin.Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Pravec et al., Nature 2010
Observation:The mass ratios and primary spin periods of Main Belt asteroid pairs match with our Asteroid Fission Theory
Prediction:The mass ratio between asteroid pairs should be < 0.2The primary spin period should grow long near the cut-off
Prim
ary
Spin
Per
iod
Asteroid Pair Primary Spin vs Mass Ratio
Comment:The theory matches two independent outcomes, mass ratio cut-off and primary spin period lengthening
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Energetics of a fissioned system
51
• When a body fissions, it’s components enter a chaotic dynamical phase:– Fissioned binaries with a mass ratio < ~0.2 have sufficient energy
to evolve to escape in a timescale of days to months (Scheeres, Celestial Mechanics & Dynamical Astronomy 2002).
– The theory makes specific predictions that are consistent with observations of Asteroid Pairs
– Prior to escape, a sizable fraction of the secondaries are spun fast enough to undergo fission again
• Inner satellite usually impacts the primary, should cause reshaping• Outer satellite is stabilized
– This sequence can repeat and, along with gravity, friction, and sunshine, can create the observed class of NEA asteroid systems (Jacobson & Scheeres, Icarus 2011).
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Tidal Process⇥ 106 � 107 yrs
Tidal Process⇥ 106 � 107 yrs
Tidal Process⇥ 104 � 106 yrs
Doubly SynchronousBinary
Asteroid
Chaotic Binary
Chaotic Binary
Chaotic Ternary
BYORP Process⇥ 105 � 106 yrs
Asteroid Pair
BYORP Process⇥ 105 � 106 yrs
Contact Binary
Asteroid Pair
YORP Process⇥ 105 � 106 yrs
YORP Process⇥ 105 � 106 yrs
q � 0.2
q � 0.2
Dynamic Processes� 1 yrs
DynamicProcesses� 1 yrs
Re-Shaped Asteroid
Stable Ternary1.1± 1.1%
Synchronous Binary8.6± 4.0%
Asteroid Pair64.2± 7.1%
Re-Shaped Asteroid28.3± 6.6%
Jacobson & Scheeres, Icarus 2011
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder 53
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Precise Modeling of the Mechanics of an Asteroid System
54
M1M2
M1 + M2r =
@U12
@rr = r2 � r1
H1 = H1 ⇥⌦1 + M1
H2 = H2 ⇥⌦1 + M2
⌦1 = I�11 · H1
⌦2 = I�12 · A · H2
A = A⇥⌦1 �⌦2 ⇥A
U12(r,A) = GZ
�1
Z
�2
dm1dm2
|r + ⇢1 �A · ⇢2|A1 = A1 ⇥⌦1
High dimensional system with coupled rotational and translational motions.Interest in both short-time dynamics and evolutionary dynamics.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
D.J. Scheeres, A. Richard Seebass Chair, University of Colorado at Boulder
Summary
• Study of asteroids leads directly to study of minimum energy configurations of self-gravitating grains– Only possible for bodies with finite density
• For finite density bodies, minimum energy and stable configurations are defined as a function of angular momentum by studying the minimum energy function:
– only a function of the system configuration– Globally minimum energy configurations are denumerable
• Simple few body systems can be fully explored– Need theories for polydisperse grains and N >> 1
55
Em =H2
2IH+ U
Tuesday, January 15, 2013