Arxiv:2004.02512V1 [Astro-Ph.EP] 6 Apr 2020

Draft version April 7, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX61

THE ORIGIN OF NEPTUNE’S UNUSUAL SATELLITES FROM A PLANETARY ENCOUNTER

Daohai Li1 and Apostolos A. Christou2

1Lund Observatory Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics Lund University, Box 43, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden 2Armagh Observatory and Planetarium College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG Northern Ireland, UK

Submitted to AJ

ABSTRACT The Neptunian satellite system is unusual, comprising Triton, a large (∼ 2700 km) moon on a close-in, circular, yet retrograde orbit, flanked by Nereid, the largest irregular satellite (∼300 km) on a highly eccentric orbit. Capture origins have been previously suggested for both moons. Here we explore an alternative in-situ formation model where the two satellites accreted in the circum-Neptunian disk and are imparted irregular and eccentric orbits by a deep planetary encounter with an ice giant (IG), like that predicted in the Nice scenario of early solar system development. We use N-body simulations of an IG approaching Neptune to 20 Neptunian radi (RNep), through a belt of circular prograde regular satellites at 10-30 RNep. We find that half of these primordial satellites remain bound to Neptune and that 0.4- 3% are scattered directly onto wide and eccentric orbits resembling that of Nereid. With better matches to the observed orbit, our model has a success rate comparable to or higher than capture of large Nereid-sized irregular satellites from heliocentric orbit. At the same time, the IG encounter injects a large primordial moon onto a retrograde orbit with specific angular momentum similar to Triton’s in 0.3-3% of our runs. While less efficient than capture scenarios (Agnor & Hamilton 2006), our model does indicate that an in-situ origin for Triton is dynamically possible. We also simulate the post-encounter collisional and tidal orbital evolution of Triton analogue satellites and find they are decoupled from Nereid on timescales of ∼104 years, in agreement with Cuk´ & Gladman(2005).

Keywords: Satellite formation — Neptunian satellites — Irregular satellites — Close encounters – Celestial mechanics arXiv:2004.02512v1 [astro-ph.EP] 6 Apr 2020

Corresponding author: Daohai Li [email protected], [email protected] 2 Li & Christou

180 bits on the equatorial plane of Neptune. This raises the 155 question of how they arrive at their current orbits. Harrington & Van Flandern(1979) originally postu- 130 lated an encounter between an ad hoc planetary body 50 of several earth masses and Neptune, ﬂipping Triton’s (deg)

i orbit and scattering Nereid outward. This scenario has 25 been criticized (Farinella et al. 1980; McKinnon et al. 0 1995) on the grounds that the encountering planet is not observed in the solar system and that the encounter 1 may have over-excited Neptune’s orbit. Also, compu- tational resources available at that time allowed only 0.1 one “successful” simulation run, making it diﬃcult to estimate the success rate of this particular evolutionary

e 0.01 path. In a subsequent model where Triton was assumed captured, Goldreich et al.(1989) suggested that Nereid 0.001 could be scattered onto a wide orbit by Triton, an outcome not reproduced in numerical simulations (Nogueira et al. 2011). 0.001 0.01 0.1 It is believed the giant planets radially migrated in a (RHill) the early solar system (Fernández& Ip 1984; Malhotra 1993) in the now widely-accepted framework of the Nice Figure 1. Distribution of giant planet moons in model. There, the planets formed at different heliocen- the (a, i) and (a, e) planes from Scott Sheppard’s web- site: https://sites.google.com/carnegiescience.edu/ tric distances from those where they are presently ob- sheppard/moons. Symbol size is proportional to the square served and, due to interactions with a primordial plan- root of that moon’s actual size. Grey symbols represent etesimal disk, they migrated to their current locations. moons around Neptune while Triton and Nereid are the large Since its introduction (Tsiganis et al. 2005), the Nice −4 and small black filled circles respectively. Small (5-10×10 ) model has evolved considerably to meet an enhanced vertical offsets have been added to allow moons with negli- set of constraints. Because of the difficulty to correctly gible orbital eccentricity to be displayed on a log-scale. excite the orbit of Jupiter (Morbidelli et al. 2009) and, at the same time, to avoid over-exciting the inner main 1. INTRODUCTION asteroid belt (Morbidelli et al. 2010; Minton & Malho- Observational biases notwithstanding, Neptune has tra 2011) and the terrestrial planets (Brasser et al. 2009; the least number of satellites among the four giant plan- Agnor & Lin 2012), Jupiter is thought to have impul- ets but perhaps with the most intriguing orbits. The sively “jumped” over the 2:1 mean motion resonance largest moon, Triton, is orbiting its host planet at 14 with Saturn, owing to close encounters with an ice giant. Neptunian radii (RNep) on a circular path but, oddly, As such, a five-planet variant of the Nice model, where in a retrograde direction. Nereid, > 200RNep further an additional ice giant planet (IG hereafter) was subse- out and the third largest moon in the system, has the quently ejected from the solar system, was introduced highest orbital eccentricity among solar system moons (Batygin et al. 2012; Nesvorný& Morbidelli 2012). The (Figure1). IG, before its ejection, probably encountered other plan- Mechanisms favouring capture of Triton from helio- ets as well, leading to the capture of Trojans and irreg- centric orbit include gas drag (McKinnon 1984; McKin- ular satellites (Nesvornýet al. 2013, 2014a) and the em- non & Leith 1995), collisions (Goldreich et al. 1989) and placement of the so-called “kernel” of the Kuiper Belt three-body gravitational interaction (Agnor & Hamilton (Nesvorný 2015). These planet-planet encounters may 2006; Nogueira et al. 2011; Vokrouhlickýet al. 2008). have been as close as 0.003 au (Nesvornýet al. 2014b), See Colombo & Franklin(1971); Heppenheimer & Porco penetrating to the satellite region. (1977); Pollack et al.(1979); Cuk´ & Burns(2004); The appearance of the Nice scenario mitigates the two Nicholson et al.(2008); Nesvornýet al.(2007, 2014a) major objections (Farinella et al. 1980; McKinnon et al. for discussions on satellite capture. 1995) to the in-situ formation of Triton (Harrington & In an alternative in situ formation scenario, the two Van Flandern 1979) since the encountering IG could moons have accreted in the circum-Neptunian disk (e.g., have been ejected from the solar system and thus be ren- Szulágyiet al. 2018) with initially circular, prograde or- dered unobservable while Neptune’s eccentricity, even if Origin of Neptune’s unusual satellites 3

(1) (2) imum separation denc between the IG and Neptune, we start with the Sun-IG-Neptune system at the moment Nereid Triton of the two planets’ closest approach (Cloutier et al. 2015), i.e., when the relative position vector satisfies Triton encounter Neptune Neptune |~rIG−N| = denc; we set denc =0.003 au (or 18 Neptunian IG radii Nesvornýet al. 2014b). At this moment, the rela- collision tive velocity vector is perpendicular to the relative position vector: ~vIG−N⊥~rIG−N. We further assume their rel- (3) (4) 2 ative kinetic energy |~vIG−N| to be uniformly distributed 2 Nereid Nereid within the range (0, 3vesc) where vesc is the two-body es- cape velocity between the IG and Neptune. The orien- Triton Triton tides tations of the two vectors are random in the solid angle. Neptune Neptune Then the IG-Neptune barycentre is assigned a heliocentric orbit parameterised by the set of orbital elements (aIG+N, eIG+N, iIG+N), with values within the ranges: ◦ Figure 2. Illustration of our origin scenario for Triton and aIG+N ∈ (10, 40) au, eIG+N ≤ 0.7 and iIG+N ≤ 10 ; Nereid. Before the encounter, several tens of pre-existing the angular elements are randomly drawn from a uni- moons orbit Neptune (1), all small (open circles) except one form distribution. We calculate the position and veloc- that is Triton-sized (black filled circle). After the IG encounter (2), the orbit of the large moon is flipped and a ity vectors ~rIG+N and ~vIG+N and combine them with small moon is emplaced onto a wide, eccentric orbit, turning ~rIG−N and ~vIG−N to fully define the heliocentric state into Nereid. Subsequently (3), collisions with Triton remove vectors of the IG and Neptune at the instant of closest the other small moons and decouple the orbit of Triton from approach. Next, we carry out a reference frame trans- Nereid’s. Finally (4), tides circularise Triton’s orbit. formation such that the z-axis is parallel to the total angular momentum of the three-body system. We re- excited, may be damped owing to the interaction with fer to this as the heliocentric frame. The IG mass is 18 the planetesimal disk (actually, the encounters consid- Earth masses (Nesvornýet al. 2014b), similar to that of ered here ensure that the orbit of Neptune is at most Neptune. mildly excited). Hence it is worthwhile to reexamine We integrate this system backwards and forwards for the in-situ formation model within the constraints of 10 years apiece using the general Bulirsch-Stoer algo- the Nice scenario, also providing statistics of success- rithm in MERCURY (Chambers 1999) with an error tol- ful vs unsuccessful simulations runs to estimate model erance of 10−14. At the end of these two integrations, efficiency and exploring the ensuing Neptunian system we check the planets’ mutual distance is larger than 0.8 evolution post-encounter. We focus on studying how au, Neptune’s current Hill radius (see below). Then the a close encounter between Neptune and the IG could heliocentric orbital elements of Neptune are used to de- bring about the unusual orbits of Triton and Nereid. termine whether an encounter is “realistic” in that its Our model consists of three parts. First (Section2), we semimajor axis is in the range 25 au< aN <30 au and check how the IG encounter scatters an initial popula- eccentricity is eN < 0.15; For the inclination, we only tion of Neptunian moons onto distant, eccentric orbits require that the change in the direction of the helio- as well as onto retrograde orbits. In Section3 we study centric angular momentum vector before and after the ◦ the system’s post-encounter evolution via collisions and encounter is ∆iN < 6 , for consistency with Nice sce- tidal dissipation. The implications and conclusions are nario simulations (Nesvorný& Morbidelli 2012; Gomes presented in Sections4 and5. et al. 2018) and with constraints derived from Neptune’s perturbation on the Cold Kuiper Belt Objects (CKBOs) 2. NEPTUNE-IG ENCOUNTER (Wolff et al. 2012; Dawson & Murray-Clay 2012). We Following Cloutier et al.(2015) and as detailed below, additionally require that the change in the Neptunian we first set up the ice giant (IG)-Neptune encounters; semimajor axis before and after the encounter is <1 then the satellites’ evolution under these encounters are au (Nesvorný 2015). While a more violent dynamical examined. See panels (1) and (2) of Figure2 for an history of Neptune is not necessarily inconsistent with illustration of this phase. the CKBOs (Morbidelli et al. 2014; Gomes et al. 2018), 2.1. Model the planets’ exact heliocentric orbits are irrelevant for the satellites’ evolution during the brief encounter. Fur- We consider a three-body system comprising the Sun, thermore, this encounter need not be the last one and the IG and Neptune. In order to fully control the min- 4 Li & Christou

12 180 3 8 10 % 4 135 0 102 135 90 (deg) i

(deg) 90 10 45 enc i 45 0 1 0 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 0 2 4 6 0.8 102 eenc % 0.6

Figure 3. Distribution of eccentricity and inclination of e the IG in the Neptune-centric frame, the latter measured 0.4 10 wrt Neptune’s equator. Histograms of the two quantities are 0.2 shown in the top and right panels. 0 1 4 10 30 100 300 1000 a (R ) subsequent encounters may additionally change the or- Nep bit of Neptune. Thus the Neptunian orbit in our sim- Figure 4. Density histogram of all 2.7 × 105 surviving test ulations may not define the starting point of ensuing particles in Phase 1 that remain bound to Neptune after outward migration and damping in e and i, upon which the IG flyby in the (a, i) and (a, e) planes. Warmer colours the constraints from CKBOs were imposed (Dawson & represent higher values. The red points & triangles respec- Murray-Clay 2012). tively mark Triton’s & Nereid’s present orbit and the error A total of 500 encounters are generated in this way. In bar shows Nereid’s inclination variational range. Note that Figure3, we show the distribution of the IG’s orbit with it is those orbits on the right of Triton’s (thus with larger a) that finally evolve towards it later, following equal-angular respect to Neptune at closest approach. As expected (cf. momentum level curves (black curve in bottom panel). Deienno et al. 2014), they are mostly near-parabolic due to strong gravitational focusing. The resemblance of the Moons remaining on bound orbits around Neptune are distribution of ienc (measured in the Neptunian-centric frame, see below) to a sine function suggests that the referred to in the following sections as survivors. encounters are nearly uniformly distributed in the solid angle. Hence, the direction of Neptune’s spin axis is 2.2. Results statistically unimportant. Then we generate 1000 test moons on prograde cir- Out of our 500×1000=500000 test moons, 53% survive cular orbits, all coplanar with respect to the Neptunian and their orbital distribution is shown in Figure4. Not equatorial plane (the Neptune-centric frame), with or- unexpectedly, most have acquired significant eccentrici- bits evenly distributed in the range (10RNep, 30RNep). ties and inclinations. A small fraction gain orbits with The orbital phase is again randomly drawn. Since the semimajor axes greater than about 100RNep, eccentrici- ◦ planetary spin axis is essentially unaffected by close en- ties up to unity and inclinations up to 180 . Specifically, counters (Lee et al. 2007), we assume that Neptune ac- we observe that the orbits of both Triton (red circle) and quires its current obliquity of ∼ 30◦ before the encounter Nereid (red triangle) lie within the distribution of sim- (by, for example, a giant impact, Morbidelli et al. 2012). ulated moons. The Sun, IG, Neptune and 1000 test moons are in- To determine how well the orbits of the two moons tegrated for 20 yr using MERCURY where the moons can be reproduced in Phase 1 simulations, we need to are treated as massless particles. During the integra- quantify how closely a test moon orbit from the sim- tion, a moon is removed if it collides with either the ulation should resemble the orbit of the actual satel- ◦ IG or Neptune. After the integration, we calculate the lite. For Nereid (a = 224RNep, e = 0.75 and i = 32 ) orbital elements of the moons in the Neptune-centric we consider those particles injected onto orbits with frame. A test moon is removed from the simulation if a ∈ (200RNep, 250RNep) as Nereid Analogues (NerAs). its semimajor axis exceeds half the Neptunian Hill radius The time evolution of a typical NerA is shown in col- 1/3 (Nesvornýet al. 2003) RHill = aN(MN/MSun) (MSun umn (1) of Figure5. During the encounter, the NerA is the solar mass) or if it achieves a hyperbolic orbit. is instantly scattered onto a wide, highly eccentric and inclined orbit, analogous to that of the observed satellite (black triangles on the right). Origin of Neptune’s unusual satellites 5

(1) (2) (3) (4) 180 180

135 Nereid 135 Triton

90 90 (deg) (deg) i i 45 45

0 0 0.9 0.9

0.6 0.6 e e 0.3 0.3

0 0

400 60 ) ) 300 Nep Nep 40 R R

( 200 ( a 100 a 20 0 0 −10 −5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10 0 40 80 120 0 5 10 15 20 time (yr) time (yr) time (yr) time (108 yr)

Figure 5. Time evolution of the orbital elements for a Nereid Analogue (NerA) and a Triton Analogue (TriA). At time zero (columns 1 and 2) the IG is closest to Neptune. During the encounter, the NerA is directly transferred to a Nereid-like wide and eccentric orbit (1) while, at the same time, the orbit of the TriA is ﬂipped and its eccentricity excited (column 2), causing it to intersect Nereid’s. Subsequently, collisions with the other surviving moons rapidly decrease the a and e of the TriA (column 3) while preserving the NerA. Finally, tides circularise the TriA’s orbit in ∼ Gyr (column 4). Large triangles and circles represent the actual Nereid and Triton.

From the simulations we obtain 1.8 × 103 such NerAs and circularise the orbit (Goldreich et al. 1989; McKin- or about 1.8×103/5×105 ∼ 0.4% of the initial prograde non & Leith 1995; Cuk´ & Gladman 2005; Correia 2009; satellite population. Because NerAs are defined through Rufu & Canup 2017). We explore these in the next Sec- a, we show their e and i distribution in the left panel of tion. Figure6. Here the red region marks the range of eccen- 3. AFTERMATH: EVOLUTION OF tricity variation for Nereid and Triton while the verti- CIRCUMNEPTUNIAN MATERIAL cal and horizontal lines are the median values obtained POST-ENCOUNTER from NerAs. While the agreement in eccentricity is ex- cellent, the obtained median inclination of the NerAs is Following Neptune’s encounter with the IG, the sur- somewhat higher but still brackets the observed value to viving satellites will undergo further evolution in the ◦ within 1 − σi (' 34 ). form of mutual gravitational interactions, collisions be- Next, we turn our attention to Triton. For reference, tween each other and with Neptune as well as tidal decay ◦ Triton has a = 14.4RNep, e ≈ 0 and i = 157 . We define of the orbits. The outcome of this phase must satisfy the test moons on orbits with i ∈ (150◦, 165◦) as Triton observational constraints i.e. the survival of one Triton- Analogues (TriAs). A typical time evolution of a TriA sized and one Nereid-sized moon. Gravitational per- is presented in column (2) of Figure5. turbations leading to planetary impact and, to a lesser We obtain 1.5×103 TriAs or about 1.5×103/5×105 ∼ extent, collisional elimination remove small satellites in 0.3% of the initial population. Their distribution in a Triton-crossing orbits over 104 − 105 yr (Cuk´ & Glad- and i is shown in the bottom right panel of Figure6. Un- man 2005; Nogueira et al. 2011), requiring an efficient like the NerAs matching the observed orbit fairly well, protection mechanism for Nereid. the TriAs immediately after the IG encounter, in gen- We begin to tackle this by considering the “soft” con- eral, have wider and more eccentric orbits than the real straint that, for all solar system giant planets, the ratio Triton. Thus, as with Triton’s post-capture evolution, of the satellites’ total mass to that of the host planet, is additional mechanisms must be invoked to both shrink . 0.024% (Canup & Ward 2006; Barr 2017). As Triton itself is already ∼ 0.02% of the mass of Neptune, it is rea- 6 Li & Christou

180 15

Nereid Triton 10 5 frac (%) 135 0 3 10 30 100 300 1000 2 G (RNep) 1 90 (deg)

i 0.8

0.6

45 e 0.4

0.2 Triton 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 10 30 100 300 1000

e a (RNep)

Figure 6. Orbital distribution of the Nereid Analogues (NerAs) and Triton Analogues (TriAs) obtained from the encounter simulations. Left: distribution of all the 1.8 × 103 NerAs in the (e, i) plane. The variations of Nereid’s actual i and e are shown as the red regions. Black vertical and horizontal lines represent the median e and i of all NerAs. Bottom right: distribution of all the 1.5 × 103 TriAs in the (a, e) plane. Triton is the red circle. A TriA in the blue region may collide with Nereid while one in the green region may collide with the other surviving small moons (see text). The red curves are level curves of angular momentum, with the thick one corresponding to that of Triton (red point). During collisional and tidal evolution, angular momentum and inclination are quasi-constant and TriAs evolve along the red curves. Top right: histogram of the square of 2 2 the normalised angular momentum G = a(1 − e ) of all TriAs. The median is 14.1 RNep, ∼2% away Triton’s value 14.4 RNep (black vertical line). sonable to expect exactly one large, Triton-sized moon the high end of the estimated non-Triton mass orbiting with the remaining mass of surviving moons (Other Sur- Neptune. However, the sole purpose of this exercise is viving Small Moons or OSSMs) being small enough so to find out the critical mass - hopefully much lower than that Triton survives the ensuing collisional evolution. It the threshold for disruption - of OSSMs needed for or- has been argued that a head-on impact with an impactor bital decoupling such that the apocentre distance of the mass of no more than a few % of Triton’s mass would not TriA becomes smaller than the pericentre distance of disrupt Triton (Rufu & Canup 2017). The total mass the NerA. And, as we will see, the model is not depen- of OSSMs must satisfy the constraint that ΣmOSSM . dent on this particular size frequency distribution of the mTriton which may be converted into a rough estimate OSSMs so long as their mass is at least a few percent of of their number. For instance, if each of the OSSMs Triton’s. is assumed to be of Nereid’s mass (∼0.14% of that of A TriA is assumed to be of Triton’s size and mass Triton; https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par), (Murray & Dermott 1999) and its starting orbit is taken there should be no more than several hundred. This is from the encounter simulations. Each OSSM, assumed discussed further in Section4. to be of Nereid’s size and mass, is assigned the median We now consider the effect of OSSM-Triton collisions of all prograde orbits from the encounter simulations, a on Triton’s orbit. We want to find out how Triton’s random orbital phase and a random orbit orientation. orbit is altered and at what rate. For this purpose, Mutual gravitational interactions as well as the solar a system comprised of Neptune, the TriA and a user- perturbation are omitted (Nogueira et al. 2011), leaving defined number of OSSMs is integrated with MERCURY. the Neptunian quadrupole term parameterised by the We run these simulations with 200 OSSMs per TriA, at J2 coefficient (Murray & Dermott 1999). Collisions are Origin of Neptune’s unusual satellites 7 treated as perfect mergers with the change in the TriA’s 1 × 107 orbit calculated via conservation of linear momentum. The integration is terminated as soon as the TriA is 1 × 106 decoupled from Nereid’s orbit or the simulation reaches 104 yr, irrespective of whether decoupling occurs or not. 100000 Not all TriAs need to be examined. As the bottom dynamical loss right panel of Figure6 shows, only TriAs in the green 10000 collisional loss region can collide with the OSSMs. An orbit outside the timescale (yr) decoupling green region has a pericentre distance larger than the 1000 apocentre distance of OSSMs while an orbit outside of the blue region does not pose a risk to the NerA since the 100 0 50 100 150 200 250 orbits do not intersect. Hence, only the 4.9 × 102 TriAs within the intersection of the blue and green regions a (RNep) need to be considered. Figure 7. Collisional (dotted line) and dynamical loss An example run is shown in column (3) of Figure5. (shaded region) timescale for Nereid compared to the de- In this case, orbit decoupling is achieved over 150 yr coupling timescale for Triton (solid line). For a sufficiently after 8 collisions. The timescale is irrelevant; for our small, the orbit of the TriA no longer crosses that of the purposes, the essential feature of the evolution is that NerA. the collisions reduce both a and e and leave i unchanged. From our numerical runs, we find that the TriA’s orbit is ´ collisionally decoupled from the NerA’s in 96% of cases, moons on wide orbits, Cuk & Gladman 2005) and elim- typically after after colliding with a mass of about 2.7% inate the OSSMs. As the typical total mass of OSSMs of Triton’s mass (or with about 19 of the OSSMs in the colliding with Triton is only a few % of Triton’s, this model). moon’s angular momentum and inclination remain ef- We calculate analytically the collisional timescale fectively unchanged. Our assumption that all OSSMs have the same mass TTriA,OSSM between an OSSM and a TriA using the approach of Kessler(1981). We estimate the time to as Nereid is not essential for collisional damping of Tri- collide with 2.7% of Triton’s mass in OSSMs using a ton’s orbit. Rather, our model requires that there are truncated harmonic series and find that the time to some other surviving moons after the IG encounter, and these moons amount to at least a few ∼ % the mass decouple Triton’s orbit is approximately 3.5TTriA,OSSM when there are about 20 OSSMs; this is the decoupling of Triton. Also, the OSSM orbits must be relatively timescale. The solid line in Figure7 shows this timescale close to Neptune (cf. Figure4) such that TTriA,OSSM is as a function of the TriA’s semimajor axis. Note that smaller than the dynamical lifetime of Nereid. this timescale is weakly dependent on the number of Following the depletion of the OSSM population, tidal bodies that the mass is divided into (i.e., ∝ log(N)) and dissipation within the satellites and within the planet further shrinks and circularises the orbits (panels 3 and varies from about 3.5TTriA,OSSM − 8.2TTriA,OSSM when the number of bodies is changed from 20 to 2000 while 4 of Figure2). Nereid’s orbit is too far from Neptune to be signif- keeping the total mass constant. Be it 3.5TTriA,OSSM icantly affected by tides and is not considered further or 8.2TTriA,OSSM, for semimajor axes less than about 4 in the following. Triton’s tidal evolution has been dis- 100RNep, it is not more than a few times 10 years (see also Cuk´ & Gladman 2005; Rufu & Canup 2017), cussed extensively in the literature (McKinnon 1984; ´ comparable to the loss timescale for dynamical inter- Chyba et al. 1989; Goldreich et al. 1989; Cuk & Glad- actions by Triton (∼ 104 − 105 yr, shaded region, Cuk´ man 2005; Correia 2009; Nogueira et al. 2011; McKinnon & Gladman 2005; Nogueira et al. 2011). Therefore, et al. 1995). Here we want to know specifically the ef- the conditions arising after the Neptune-IG encounter fect of tides on the orbit of the TriA following collisional favour the survival of Nereid against either dynamical evolution. For this purpose, we follow a recent imple- or collisional elimination as long as the TriA acquires mentation (Correia 2009) of the equilibrium tidal model (Hut 1981). Since the orbit of a TriA is now entirely an orbit . 100RNep. This is, in fact, true for the vast majority of TriA orbits arising from the encounter phase inside that of Nereid, orbital precession is controlled by (Figure6, bottom right panel). Neptune’s oblateness (Goldreich et al. 1989; Nogueira Therefore, collisions bring down Triton’s orbit effi- et al. 2011; Li & Christou 2016) and the solar pertur- ciently enough to preserve Nereid (as well as any other bation may be omitted. Actually, we can also disregard 8 Li & Christou the planetary oblateness, as it causes orbital precession and size resulting from a similarly deep encounter is −3 but not secular variations in a, e or i (Nogueira et al. PNerA ∼ 4 × 10 NR>RNereid , where NR>RNereid is the 2011). We consider the TriA as a rocky body with Love number of Nereid-sized moons (RNereid ' 170-km) in number kTri = 0.1 and tidal QTri = 100 (Goldreich et al. the initial satellite system. If there were a few tens

1989; Correia 2009; Nogueira et al. 2011); the solid body of these moons NR>RNereid ∼ 20 in the primordial sys- parameters for Neptune are taken from Correia(2009); tem, the probability of an encounter producing a NerA Hubbard et al.(1991). is about PNerA ∼ 0.1. Similarly, when examining the A typical TriA evolution is shown in column (4) of Fig- encounter results we find that 1.5 × 103 of the 5 × 105 ure5. As with collisions, i is unaffected while both a and initial prograde satellite particles are transferred to or- e decrease and the orbital angular momentum is quasi- bits with Triton-like retrograde orbits and are labelled conserved. Here the orbit of the TriA is circularised as TriAs. This suggests that the probability of an object within a Gyr, consistent with other studies (Goldreich with Triton’s inclination and size resulting from a deep −3 et al. 1989; Correia 2009; Nogueira et al. 2011). This encounter is about PTriA ∼ 3 × 10 NR>1000-km, where timescale is shorter if the TriA is molten or semi-molten NR>1000-km is the number of large (R > 1000-km) satel- (McKinnon 1984; Goldreich et al. 1989; Nogueira et al. lites in the initial prograde satellite population. Another 2011). In fact, for any TriA with pericentre distance factor, the chance of a 0.003 au encounter happening, q < 20RNep, tides circularise the orbit within the age of is ∼ 0.1 (Deienno et al. 2014; Nesvornýet al. 2014b). the solar system (Nogueira et al. 2011). Hence, the overall success rate of our model to account for both Triton and Nereid in this way is about 3×10−5. 4. DISCUSSION Clearly, how stringently we define TriAs and NerAs 4.1. Comparison with observations and model has a great impact on the model efficiency. If we only ◦ efficiency ask the TriAs to have an inclination i > 90 instead of i ∈ (150◦, 165◦), the chance for creating one such object We first examine how well our model matches the ob- increases by a factor of ten to 3%. Similarly, if all or- served orbits of Triton and Nereid. bits with a > 100R are recognised as NerAs rather Since its orbit is circular, Triton is defined by its or- Nep than requiring a ∈ (200R , 250R ), the correspond- bital i and a. In our model, both i and the normalised Nep Nep ing rate also rise by an order of magnitude, reaching also angular momentum G are quasi-conserved during colli- 3%. Combined, this suggests that if the analogues are sional as well as tidal evolution and are thus determined loosely defined, the overall efficiency reaches a few times solely from the IG-encounter phase. By definition, all 10−3. TriAs have inclinations close to Triton’s, therefore we only need to consider G. In the top right panel of Fig- ure6, we show that the median of G2 of our TriAs is 4.2. Comparison with capture models within 2% of the observed value, suggesting that our In-situ formation models for the two moons have been model reproduces the correct final orbit for Triton. discussed in Section1, so here we focus on capture mod- On the other hand, a NerA is directly placed onto a els. A leading mechanism for Triton’s capture is via wide, highly eccentric orbit during the encounter phase three-body encounter (Agnor & Hamilton 2006). In this and experiences no further evolution. By definition, model, Triton and a bound massive binary companion NerAs all have a similar to Nereid’s. As shown in the encounter Neptune. During this encounter the orbit of left panel of Figure6, the median e of the NerAs is 0.80, the binary is tidally disrupted and leaves the Triton- ∼ 6% from that observed. The dispersion in i of the mass object on a bound orbit around Neptune, while its NerAs is large and Nereid is within 1 − σi. companion escapes on a hyperbolic trajectory. The cap- The efficiency of our model is determined mainly by ture efficiency, examined in the context of the Nice sce- the Neptune-IG encounter phase because the outcome nario, has been estimated to be between 2% (Vokrouh- of subsequent evolution - producing a Triton-like object lickýet al. 2008) and 50% (Nogueira et al. 2011); though, with orbit circularised within the age of the solar system this exchange capture may have occurred before the Nice - is fairly deterministic and the NerA does not partici- scenario with a higher efficiency (Vokrouhlickýet al. pate in the latter phase. 2008). Hence, in terms of Triton’s procurement alone, The simulation results indicate that about 1.8 × 103 our model is less likely than capture via 3-body gravi- of the initial 5 × 105 prograde satellite particles ended tational encounters (Agnor & Hamilton 2006; Vokrouh- up on Nereid-like orbits after the encounter with the lickýet al. 2008; Nogueira et al. 2011). ice giant and are labelled as NerAs. This suggests However, Nereid’s acquirement is also non-trivial. that the probability of an object with Nereid’s orbit Nereid is the largest among the so-called irregular satel- Origin of Neptune’s unusual satellites 9 lites (Figure1) and larger than Trojan asteroids, popula- two work together? Timing is important. (1) If Triton tions genetically linked in that they were both captured predates Nereid: Upon capture, Triton gains a highly by the giant planets during the instability period from eccentric orbit of which the circularisation would prob- the primordial planetesimal disk (PPD, Nesvornýet al. ably have cleared any small moons, leaving no seeds for 2013, 2007, 2014a). The largest Jovian Trojan (624) Nereid anymore. Also, Triton itself may be excited or Hektor and irregular moon (J VI) Himalia have been even ejected by the encounter. (2) Or if Nereid pre- used to show the consistency between capture efficien- cedes Triton: During the encounter, Nereid was placed cies and the size frequency distribution (SFD) and the onto its current orbit with some other small moons sur- total mass of the PPD (Nesvorný& Vokrouhlický 2016). viving. Then when Triton is captured, it collides with However, Nereid does not readily fit into this picture. these other moons and Nereid is protected. So it seems For example, Hektor, the second largest object within that (2) may be viable but a careful modelling is needed. the two populations, is 230 km in diameter (Nesvorný & Vokrouhlický 2016) and its capture efficiency, as a 4.3. The primordial satellite population −7 Trojan at Jupiter, is (6 − 8) × 10 (Nesvornýet al. The scenario advocated here, operates with an effi- 2013), ∼ 20 times higher than the capture of irregular ciency of ∼ 10−5 in a self-contained and self-consistent satellites at Neptune (Nesvornýet al. 2014a). Further- way, reproducing the main orbital features of both Tri- more, the steep SFD (Nesvorný& Vokrouhlický 2016) ton and Nereid. Here we discuss its principal weak- implies Nereid-sized (or larger) objects are rarer than nesses. Hektor by almost an order of magnitude. These facts However, how realistic is the assumed size distribu- combined suggest that the capture of Nereid is ∼ 100 tion of the initial satellite population? This has been times as infrequent as that of Hektor: should captur- constructed based on the known inventory of solar sys- ing one Hektor-sized object on Jovian Trojan orbits be tem moons and our model efficiency (Section2). expected (Nesvorný& Vokrouhlický 2016), acquiring Currently, Jupiter and Uranus each has four large, one Nereid-sized body at Neptune must be unlikely. similar-sized moons plus smaller ones. 1 Perhaps the Indeed, following these works, the expected number of system most closely resembling our assumed config- such large objects captured at Neptune is < 0.006. uration is that of Saturn where the mass budget is In summary, the chance of capturing both Triton (Ag- dominated by Titan together with several intermediate- nor & Hamilton 2006) and Nereid (Nesvornýet al. 2007) sized moons (each of 0.5% − 1.7% of Titan’s mass; −4 is thus 10% × 0.6% ∼ 6 × 10 , higher than the average https://sites.google.com/carnegiescience.edu/ efficiency of our model by a factor of ten. We note, cap- sheppard/moons/saturnmoons) but only a few, hun- ture models do not strongly constrain the characteristics dred km-sized moons. So, small number statistics aside, of the capture orbit. Leaving Triton aside, Nereid has it seems that our assumption on the initial size distr- the largest orbital eccentricity and the smallest semima- bution of Neptune moons does not have concrete obser- jor axis (in units of the host planet’s Hill radius) among vational support. However, available to us are only the all irregular moons (Figure1). Indeed, Nereid is lo- satellites’ current configurations: e.g., moons exterior cated at the inner edge of the region where the capture to Uranus’ outermost moon Oberon could have been mechanism operates (Nesvornýet al. 2007, 2014a). As lost (Deienno et al. 2011) and may not necessarily be −3 discussed before, our efficiency reaches a few times 10 primordial. if we loosen the requirement on the orbital similarity While the assumption that one Triton-sized moon between the observation and the analogues and this is exists seems sensible at least mass-wise (Barr 2017; higher than that of the capture models by a factor of a Szulágyiet al. 2018), the number of smaller moons, a few few. tens, is estimated from the expectation that one Nereid However, the origin of the two moons may not be re- should be created during the best encounters (those fea- lated at all. For example, Triton may be captured long turing the highest occurrence rates of TriAs & NerAs). before that of Nereid and when the latter arrives, the A few tens of such moons, under these encounters, give orbit of the former has already been small enough – no rise to a NerA at an efficiency close to unity and, for- issue for the stability of Nereid. Then it is perhaps unfair tuitously, provide just the right amount of impacting to compare the overall efficiency between the in-situ and mass to shrink the orbit of the TriA (its creation still the capture models and only the individual rate should be confronted. As discussed before, the exchange capture model for Triton is probably better while our model 1 But we do note that such four-moon systems may turn into seems to work particularly well for Nereid. So can the ones containing a single large moon plus others (Asphaug & Reufer 2013). 10 Li & Christou a small-likelihood event) quickly enough to protect the lite system, flips the orbit of Triton and places Nereid NerA without disrupting the TriA. Nonetheless, when onto a wide and eccentric orbit. Nereid’s orbit imme- estimating the number of small moons using the over- diately following this event matches observations well, all creation efficiency for the NerA (∼0.1%), an initial but Triton’s is too large and eccentric. Then, collisions population of a few hundreds results. These moons, if between Triton and the other small moons shrink Tri- each of Nereid’s mass, total ∼ 10% of that of Triton. ton’s orbit on 104 yr timescales. This removes the small This population, while more efficiently decoupling Tri- moons and protects Nereid from elimination by Triton. ton from Nereid, its large total mass implies a consid- Finally, tides circularise Triton’s orbit over Gyrs. Our erable decrease in the normalised angular momentum G self-contained model explains the major orbital features of Triton. Then, our argument about the agreement be- of both Triton and Nereid. tween the observed value and simulations fails (top right We note that the only exomoon candidate known so panel of Figure6). On the other hand, if only a few far resides on an orbit tilted by ∼ (42±18)◦ with respect moons exist before the encounter it would be difficult to to that of its host planet (Teachey & Kipping 2018). create a NerA and its survival becomes problematic. While further observations are needed to confirm its or- Finally, we comment on the implications for Neptune’s bital parameters, the mechanism we propose here for so- remaining moons. The irregular satellites are omitted lar system moons suggests an evolutionary pathway for from our discussion as these moons may have been ac- such high-inclination satellites. Given the ubiquitous- quired by Neptune later on (Nesvornýet al. 2007). The ness of dynamical instability among exoplanets (Rasio inner regular moons, however, will be perturbed by the & Ford 1996; Gong et al. 2013), we predict a plethora IG. To quantify the maximum possible extent of the per- of exomoons on highly-excited orbits produced during turbation, we consider Proteus, the inner neighbour of planetary encounters. Similarly, planets are themselves Triton at 4.7 RNep. For each of our 500 encounters, we subject to the disturbance of stellar encounters so, as place 10 test moons at 5 RNep around Neptune and fol- shown here for Triton and Nereid, a planet can be in- low them through the encounter. We observe that all jected on a highly-eccentric, inclined and/or distant or- these 500 × 10 = 5000 moons are stable and their orbit by such events (Malmberg et al. 2011; Li et al. 2019). bital excitation is small, with a median eccentricity is . 0.04. Moreover, because this moon is prograde and Acknowledgment outside the synchronous orbit, it must have migrated The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for outwards in the past. Therefore, Proteus has been closer useful comments. The authors thank Dr Craig B. Agnor to Neptune during our encounter and should have been for discussions and comments as well as direct text edit- disturbed to an even smaller degree. This experiment ing of the manuscript; his remarks have led to changes represents a worst-case-scenario for the disturbance to to the paper structure and content, including a more the inner regular satellites. Yet, these moons may also comprehensive discussion on collisional evolution. be perturbed by Triton, gaining moderate eccentricities D.L. thanks Anders Johansen, Douglas Hamilton, which accelerates the rate of internal tidal dissipation David Nesvornýand Matija Cuk´ for useful discussions. (Rodr´ıguezet al. 2011) or leads to disruptive collisions D.L. acknowledges the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foun- between Proteus and others (Banfield & Murray 1992). dation through two grants (2014.0017, PI: Melvyn B. Davies and 2012.0150, PI: Anders Johansen). Com- 5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS putations were carried out at the center for scientific We have explored an in-situ combined formation sce- and technical computing at Lund University (LUNARC) nario for two peculiar moons in the Neptunian system: through the Swedish National Infrastructure for Com- Triton and Nereid. In our model, both moons formed puting (SNIC) via project 2018/3-314. Astronomical in a circum-Neptunian disk, together with another set research at the Armagh Observatory and Planetarium of tens of small moons. A close encounter between Nep- is funded by the Northern Ireland Department for Com- tune and an ice giant, penetrating down to the satel- munities (DfC).

REFERENCES

Agnor, C. B., & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, Nature, 441, 192, Asphaug, E., & Reufer, A. 2013, Icarus, 223, 544, doi: 10.1038/nature04792 doi: 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2012.12.009 Agnor, C. B., & Lin, D. N. C. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, Banﬁeld, D., & Murray, N. 1992, Icarus, 99, 390, 745, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/143 doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90155-Z Origin of Neptune’s unusual satellites 11

Barr, A. C. 2017, Astronomical Review, 12, 24, Heppenheimer, T. a., & Porco, C. 1977, Icarus, 30, 385, doi: 10.1080/21672857.2017.1279469 doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(77)90173-7 Batygin, K., Brown, M. E., & Betts, H. 2012, Astrophysical Hubbard, W. B., Nellis, W. J., Mitchell, A. C., et al. 1991, Journal Letters, 744, L3, Science, 253, 648, doi: 10.1126/science.253.5020.648 doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/744/1/L3 Hut, P. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126 Brasser, R., Morbidelli, A., Gomes, R., Tsiganis, K., & Kessler, D. J. 1981, Icarus, 48, 39, Levison, H. F. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 507, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(81)90151-2 1053, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912878 Lee, M. H., Peale, S. J., Pfahl, E., & Ward, W. R. 2007, Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2006, Nature, 441, 834, Icarus, 190, 103, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.03.005 doi: 10.1038/nature04860 Li, D., & Christou, A. A. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Chambers, J. E. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Dynamical Astronomy, 125, 133, Astronomical Society, 304, 793, doi: 10.1007/s10569-016-9676-1 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02379.x Li, D., Mustill, A. J., & Davies, M. B. 2019, Monthly Chyba, C. F., Jankowski, D. G., & Nicholson, P. D. 1989, Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 488, 1366, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 219, L23 doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1794 Cloutier, R., Tamayo, D., & Valencia, D. 2015, The Malhotra, R. 1993, Nature, 365, 819, Astrophysical Journal, 813, 8, doi: 10.1038/365819a0 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/8 Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., & Heggie, D. C. 2011, Colombo, G., & Franklin, F. 1971, Icarus, 15, 186, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(71)90073-X 859, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17730.x Correia, A. C. M. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 704, McKinnon, W. B. 1984, Nature, 311, 355, L1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/L1 doi: 10.1038/311355a0 Cuk,´ M., & Burns, J. A. 2004, Icarus, 167, 369, McKinnon, W. B., & Leith, A. C. 1995, Icarus, 118, 392, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2003.09.026 doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1199 Cuk,´ M., & Gladman, B. J. 2005, The Astrophysical McKinnon, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Banfield, D. 1995, in Journal, 626, L113, doi: 10.1086/431743 Neptune and Triton, ed. D. Cruikshank (Tucson: Univ. Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. 2012, Astrophysical Arizona Press), 807–877. Journal, 750, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/43 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995netr.conf..807M Deienno, R., Nesvorný,D., Vokrouhlický,D., & Yokoyama, Minton, D. a., & Malhotra, R. 2011, The Astrophysical T. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 25, Journal, 732, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/53 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/2/25 Morbidelli, A., Brasser, R., Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., & Deienno, R., Yokoyama, T., Nogueira, E. C., Callegari, N., Tsiganis, K. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 1391, & Santos, M. T. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 536, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/5/1391 A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014862 Morbidelli, A., Brasser, R., Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., & Farinella, P., Milani, A., Nobili, A. M., & Valsecchi, G. B. Levison, H. F. 2009, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 507, 1980, Icarus, 44, 810, 1041, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912876 doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(80)90148-7 Morbidelli, A., Gaspar, H. S., & Nesvorny, D. 2014, Icarus, Fernández,J. A., & Ip, W. H. 1984, Icarus, 58, 109, 232, 81, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.12.023 doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90101-5 Morbidelli, A., Tsiganis, K., Batygin, K., Crida, A., & Goldreich, P., Murray, N., Longaretti, P. Y., & Banfield, D. Gomes, R. 2012, Icarus, 219, 737, 1989, Science, 245, 500, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.03.025 doi: 10.1126/science.245.4917.500 Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar System Gomes, R., Nesvorný,D., Morbidelli, A., Deienno, R., & Dynamics (Cambridge University Press), 592, Nogueira, E. 2018, Icarus, 306, 319, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139174817. doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.10.018 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174817 Gong, Y.-X., Zhou, J.-L., Xie, J.-W., & Wu, X.-M. 2013, Nesvorný,D. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 68, The Astrophysical Journal, 769, L14, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/68 doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/1/L14 Nesvorný,D., Alvarellos, J. L. A., Dones, L., & Levison, Harrington, R. S., & Van Flandern, T. C. 1979, Icarus, 39, H. F. 2003, The Astronomical Journal, 126, 398, 131, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90106-4 doi: 10.1086/375461 12 Li & Christou

Nesvorný,D., & Morbidelli, A. 2012, The Astronomical Rasio, F. A., & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954, Journal, 144, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/117 doi: 10.1126/science.274.5289.954 Nesvorný,D., & Vokrouhlický,D. 2016, The Astrophysical Rodr´ıguez,A., Ferraz-Mello, S., Michtchenko, T. A., Journal, 825, 94, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/94 Beaugé,C., & Miloni, O. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Nesvorný,D., Vokrouhlický,D., & Deienno, R. 2014a, The Royal Astronomical Society, 415, 2349, Astrophysical Journal, 784, 22, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18861.x doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/22 Rufu, R., & Canup, R. M. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, Nesvorný,D., Vokrouhlický,D., Deienno, R., & Walsh, 154, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/AA9184 K. J. 2014b, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 52, Szulágyi,J., Cilibrasi, M., & Mayer, L. 2018, The doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/52 Astrophysical Journal, 868, L13, Nesvorný,D., Vokrouhlický,D., & Morbidelli, A. 2007, The doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaeed6 Astronomical Journal, 133, 1962, doi: 10.1086/512850 Teachey, A., & Kipping, D. M. 2018, Science Advances, 4, —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 45, eaav1784, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aav1784 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/45 Tsiganis, K., Gomes, R., Morbidelli, a., & Levison, H. F. ´ Nicholson, P. D., Cuk, M., Sheppard, S. S., Nesvorn, D., & 2005, Nature, 435, 459, doi: 10.1038/nature03539 Johnson, T. V. 2008, in The Solar System Beyond Vokrouhlický,D., Nesvorný,D., & Levison, H. F. 2008, The Neptune, ed. M. A. Barucci et al. (Tucson, AZ: Univ. Astronomical Journal, 136, 1463, Arizona Press), 411 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/4/1463 Nogueira, E., Brasser, R., & Gomes, R. 2011, Icarus, 214, Wolff, S., Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2012, 113, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.05.003 Astrophysical Journal, 746, 171, Pollack, J. B., Tauber, M. E., & Burns, J. a. 1979, Icarus, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/171 37, 587, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90016-2