Bottke W. F., Brož M., O’Brien D. P., Campo Bagatin A., Morbidelli A., and Marchi S. (2015) The collisional evolution of the main asteroid belt. In Asteroids IV (P. Michel et al., eds.), pp. 701–724. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, DOI: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816532131-ch036. The Collisional Evolution of the Main Asteroid Belt William F. Bottke Southwest Research Institute/Institute for the Science of Exploration Targets (ISET) Miroslav Brož Charles University David P. O’Brien Planetary Science Institute Adriano Campo Bagatin Universidad de Alicante Alessandro Morbidelli Lagrange Laboratory, Université Côte d’Azur, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, CNRS Simone Marchi Southwest Research Institute/Institute for the Science of Exploration Targets (ISET) Collisional and dynamical models of the main asteroid belt allow us to glean insights into planetesimal- and planet-formation scenarios as well as how the main belt reached its current state. Here we discuss many of the processes affecting asteroidal evolution and the constraints that can be used to test collisional model results. We argue the main belt’s wavy size-frequency distribution for diameter D < 100-km asteroids is increasingly a byproduct of comminution as one goes to smaller sizes, with its shape a fossil-like remnant of a violent early epoch. Most D > 100-km asteroids, however, are primordial, with their physical properties set by planetesimal formation and accretion processes. The main-belt size distribution as a whole has evolved into a collisional steady state, and it has possibly been in that state for billions of years. Asteroid families provide a critical historical record of main-belt collisions. The heavily depleted and largely dispersed “ghost families,” however, may hold the key to understanding what happened in the primordial days of the main belt. New asteroidal fragments are steadily created by both collisions and mass shedding events via YORP spinup processes. A fraction of this population, in the form of D < 30 km fragments, go on to escape the main belt via the Yarkovsky/YORP effects and gravitational resonances, thereby creating a quasi-steady-state population of planet- crossing and near-Earth asteroids. These populations go on to bombard all inner solar system worlds. By carefully interpreting the cratering records they produce, it is possible to constrain how portions of the main-belt population have evolved with time. 1. INTRODUCTION and mass of planetesimals inside Jupiter’s orbit, the timing of Jupiter’s formation, the distribution of volatiles in the inner The main asteroid belt is a living relic. It contains a record solar system, the size distribution produced during planetary of what happened to the solar system in terms of bombard- accretion, the presence of planetary embryos inside Jupiter’s ment since the planet-formation epoch. Ongoing collisional orbit, the migration of the giant planets and whether sweeping and dynamical evolution processes, however, are slowly resonance ever crossed the main belt, the degree of material obscuring the traces left behind. The goal of modeling efforts mixing that occurred between the feeding zones, etc. is to use all possible observational data to discern the initial The problem is that our uncertainties about planet-forma- conditions and evolution processes that occurred during and tion processes and giant planet migration feed back into the after the planet-formation epoch. For example, the questions assumptions made for our collisional-evolution models of one can probe with main-belt constraints include the nature the asteroid belt. If we do not know what happened when, it 701 702 Asteroids IV is often difficult to impossible to find unique solutions. On thereby naturally creating much of the main-belt mass deficit. the other hand, the main belt provides powerful constraints, In a second example, Jupiter gravitationally interacts with the and sometimes even order-of-magnitude solutions are use- gas disk and migrates across the main-belt region (Walsh et ful at testing planet-formation scenarios. As a result, many al., 2011). This so-called Grand Tack scenario allows Jupiter main-belt-evolution scenarios have been investigated over to do the job of scattering embryos and planetesimals out of the last several decades. The latest thinking on the primordial the main-belt region. The key similarity of both examples is dynamical evolution of the main belt is discussed in the that planetesimals dynamically excited out of the main belt chapter by Morbidelli et al. in this volume. have the opportunity to slam into the survivors left behind A key issue for many evolution models concerns the so- (along with leftover planetesimals already on planet-crossing called mass deficit of the main belt (e.g., Morbidelli et al., orbits) (Bottke et al., 2005b; O’Brien and Greenberg, 2005; 2009). Consider that the total mass of the main asteroid belt, O’Brien et al., 2006; Davidson et al., 2013). This allows which is dominated by the masses of the largest asteroids, is these dynamical models to be at least partially tested against ~5 × 10–4 M (Krasinsky et al., 2002; Somenzi et al., 2010; main-belt asteroid and meteoritical constraints. Kuchynka and Folkner, 2013). This value is tiny compared An alternative scenario is to assume that planetesimal and ⊕ to the mass of solids thought to exist in the same region at planet formation works differently than has been assumed in the time of planetesimal formation. For example, the mini- existing scenarios, and that the quantity of planetesimals in mum mass solar nebula (Weidenschilling, 1977) suggests that the main-belt region was never more than a few times the 1–2.5 M of solid material once existed between 2 and 3 AU. present-day population (e.g., Levison et al., 2015a,b). This If most of the solids ended up in planetesimals, the main-belt would remove the need for a mass deficit. This new scenario ⊕ region could potentially be deficient in mass by a factor of invokes a process called “pebble accretion” that describes >1000. These values have been used to argue that the asteroid how planetesimal growth rates are governed by the way in belt has lost more than 99.9% of its primordial mass (e.g., which small particles are affected by gas drag in the solar Morbidelli et al., 2009). The critical unknown here is the nebula near a growing body (see the chapter by Johansen efficiency and nature of planetesimal formation itself, which et al. in this volume). In brief, planetesimals embedded in a is discussed in the chapter by Johansen et al. in this volume. population of “pebbles,” whose sizes are debated, can grow If so much mass once existed in the primordial main-belt very quickly because of a newly discovered mode of accre- region, collisional evolution, dynamical removal processes, tion aided by aerodynamic drag on the pebbles themselves. or some combination of the two were needed to get rid of If a pebble’s aerodynamic drag stopping time is less than or it and ultimately produce the current main-belt population. comparable to the time for it to encounter a growing body, For some time, many attempts were made to account for the such as a planetary embryo, then it is decelerated with re- mass deficit by collisions alone; see Davis et al. (2002) for spect to the planetary embryo and becomes gravitationally a review of work up to the time of Asteroids III. Essentially, bound. After capture, the pebble spirals inward and is ac- there are two key problems with this scenario. First, it is creted. If pebble-accretion scenarios are found to be valid, difficult for collisions alone to grind away the main-belt size early collisional evolution in a low-mass main belt might distribution predicted by accretion models without blasting be dominated by leftover planetesimals that strike from away Vesta’s basaltic crust or producing size-frequency planet-crossing orbits. distributions (SFDs) that are inconsistent with the observed Beyond the earliest times, one must also consider whether main-belt SFD (e.g., Davis et al., 1985). Second, collisional the main-belt population was affected by giant planet mi- models employing disruption scaling laws based on numeri- gration taking place after the solar nebula had completely cal hydrocode simulations of asteroid collisions (e.g., Benz dissipated. In a popular suite of scenarios referred to as and Asphaug 1999) cannot break up enough D > 100-km the Nice model (see the chapter by Morbidelli et al. in this asteroids to reproduce the observed population; too many volume), the giant planets undergo a gravitational instability large objects are left behind (e.g., Bottke et al., 2005a,b). long after the formation of the first solids. Ice giants like Taken together, these outcomes suggest that either dynamical Uranus and Neptune migrate across a massive primordial removal of asteroids has played a powerful role in allowing disk of comets, scattering most across the solar system. the population to reach its current state (see the chapter by Some of these bodies will slam into main-belt asteroids (Brož Morbidelli et al. in this volume), or that the main-belt SFD et al., 2013). As the gas giants migrate to their current orbits, for the largest asteroids has not changed very much since secular resonances produced by the giant planets also jump planetesimal formation. to new positions, and some will interact with the primordial For the former, several dynamical scenarios have been main-belt population. This may cause the primordial main suggested to remove most of the primordial main belt’s belt to lose some of its mass (Gomes et al., 2005; Brasser mass (see the chapter by Morbidelli et al. in this volume). et al., 2009; Morbidelli et al., 2010; Minton and Malhotra, For example, planetary embryos may have initially formed 2009, 2011).