DOCSLIB.ORG

Tidal Evolution of the Pluto–Charon Binary Alexandre C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tidal Evolution of the Pluto–Charon Binary Alexandre C Astronomy & Astrophysics manuscript no. charon ©ESO 2020 December 7, 2020 Tidal evolution of the Pluto–Charon binary Alexandre C. M. Correia1; 2 1 CFisUC, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal 2 ASD, IMCCE, Observatoire de Paris, PSL Université, 77 Av. Denfert-Rochereau, 75014 Paris, France December 7, 2020; Received; accepted To be inserted later ABSTRACT A giant collision is believed to be at the origin of the Pluto–Charon system. As a result, the initial orbit and spins after impact may have substantially differed from those observed today. More precisely, the distance at periapse may have been shorter, subsequently expanding to its current separation by tides raised simultaneously on the two bodies. Here we provide a general 3D model to study the tidal evolution of a binary composed of two triaxial bodies orbiting a central star. We apply this model to the Pluto–Charon binary, and notice some interesting constraints on the initial system. We observe that when the eccentricity evolves to high values, the presence of the Sun prevents Charon from escaping because of Lidov-Kozai cycles. However, for a high initial obliquity for Pluto or a spin- orbit capture of Charon’s rotation, the binary eccentricity is damped very efficiently. As a result, the system can maintain a moderate eccentricity throughout its evolution, even for strong tidal dissipation on Pluto. Key words. planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability — minor planets, asteroids: individual (Pluto, Charon) 1. Introduction nation of the orbital plane of Charon, that is, 122˝. Indeed, maps of the surface have been created using HST images and “mutual In 1978, a regular series of astrometric observations of Pluto events” (e.g., Drish et al. 1995; Stern et al. 1997; Young et al. revealed that the images were consistently elongated, denounc- 1999; Buie et al. 2010), and although the authors assumed the ing the presence of Pluto’s moon, Charon (Christy & Harring- above obliquity in the creation of these maps, the solution would ton 1978). The orbital parameters determined for this system not have held together if the obliquity was completely incorrect. show that the two bodies evolve in an almost circular orbit with Assuming equal densities, the normalized angular momen- a 6.387-day period, and that the system also shows an impor- ˝ tum density of the Pluto–Charon pair is 0.45 (McKinnon 1989), tant inclination of about 122 with respect to the orbital plane exceeding the critical value 0.39, above which no stable rotating of Pluto around the Sun (e.g., Stern et al. 2018). Charon has an single object exists (e.g., Lin 1981; Durisen & Tohline 1985). important fraction of the mass of the system (about 12%), and The proto-planetary disk is not expected to produce such sys- therefore can be considered more as a binary planet rather than a tems, and so alternative theories have been proposed for their satellite. Indeed, the barycenter of the Pluto–Charon system lies origin. Harrington & van Flandern(1979) first suggested that outside the surface of Pluto. Later, it was found that four addi- Pluto and Charon could be escaped satellites of Neptune after tional tiny satellites move around the barycenter of the system, an encounter with another planet, an unlikely scenario because also in nearly circular and coplanar orbits (Weaver et al. 2006; Triton is on a retrograde orbit (McKinnon 1984). More reliable Brozovic´ et al. 2015). hypotheses were proposed that take into account the excess of The brightness of Pluto varies by some tens of percent with angular momentum in the system, such as binary fission of a a period of 6.387 days (e.g., Walker & Hardie 1955; Tholen & rapidly rotating body (e.g., Lin 1981; Nesvorný et al. 2010) or Tedesco 1994; Buie et al. 2010). Although this period coincides the accumulation process of planetesimals in heliocentric orbits with the orbital period of Charon, it has been identified as the (e.g., Tancredi & Fernández 1991; Schlichting & Sari 2008). rotation of Pluto, since Charon itself is too dim to account for the The above-mentioned theories have some limitations and it amplitude of the variation. Therefore, at present, the rotation of is more commonly accepted that Charon resulted from the giant Pluto is synchronous with the orbit of Charon, keeping the same collision of two proto-planets in the early inner Kuiper belt (e.g., arXiv:2012.02576v1 [astro-ph.EP] 4 Dec 2020 face toward its satellite. The present configuration likely resulted McKinnon 1989; Canup 2005; Rozner et al. 2020). This scenario from the action of tidal torques raised on Pluto by Charon. Tidal provides the system with its large angular momentum and can torques raised on Charon by Pluto are even stronger, and so the also explain the additional small moons in the system (Canup satellite is also assumed to be synchronous with Pluto, which 2011). The outward migration of Neptune may have instigated corresponds to a final equilibrium situation (e.g., Farinella et al. huge perturbations in previously stable zones of the Kuiper belt, 1979; Cheng et al. 2014). and oblique low-velocity collisions between similarly sized ob- From photometric observations, Andersson & Fix(1973) jects should have been frequent at the time (e.g., Malhotra 1993). found the angle between the spin of Pluto and its orbit around the Such a collision probably produced an intact Charon, although Sun to be approximately 90˝ ˘40˝. The uncertainty on this value it is also possible that a disk of debris orbited Pluto from which is significant, but it clearly suggests a high obliquity. Because of Charon later accumulated. The resulting system is a close binary the complete tidal evolution that is evident in the system, the in an eccentric orbit, with the separation at periapse not exceed- obliquity has usually been assumed to be the same as the incli- ing many Pluto radii (Canup 2005, 2011). Article number, page 1 of 14 A&A proofs: manuscript no. charon angular velocity and the rotational angular momentum vectors m1 Ω of the body are given by Ω “ pΩi; Ω j; Ωkq and L “ pLi; L j; Lkq, 1 respectively, which are related through the inertia tensor I as 1 r L “ I ¨ Ω ô Ω “ I´ ¨ L ; (1) Ω0 r 12 where I11 I12 I13 rS I “ » I12 I22 I23 fi ; (2) I I I m r m — 13 23 33 ffi 0 02 2 – fl Fig. 1. Jacobi coordinates, where r is the position of m1 relative to m0 2 I22I33 ´ I23 I13I23 ´ I12I33 I12I23 ´ I22I13 (inner orbit), and rs is the position of m2 relative to the center of mass 1 of m and m (outer orbit). The bodies with masses m and m are con- ´1 2 0 1 0 1 I “ » I13I23 ´ I12I33 I11I33 ´ I13 I12I13 ´ I11I23 fi ; sidered oblate ellipsoids with angular velocity Ω, and body m2 is con- ∆I 2 sidered a point-mass. — I12I23 ´ I22I13 I12I13 ´ I11I23 I11I22 ´ I ffi — 12 ffi – (3)fl Most previous studies on the past orbital evolution of the and Pluto–Charon system (Farinella et al. 1979; Lin 1981; Mignard 2 2 2 1981; Dobrovolskis et al. 1997; Cheng et al. 2014) assume that ∆I “ I11I22I33 ` 2I12I13I23 ´ I11I23 ´ I22I13 ´ I33I12 : (4) both spin axes are normal to the binary orbital plane (2D model), and therefore limit the evolution to the rotations. Although this The gravitational potential of the ellipsoidal body at a is the expected outcome of tidal evolution, after a large colli- generic position r relative to its center of mass is given by (e.g., sion the obliquity of Pluto can take any value (e.g., Dones & Goldstein 1950) Tremaine 1993; Kokubo & Ida 2007; Canup 2011). Previous Gm 3G 1 studies also assume that the Pluto–Charon binary is alone. How- Vpm; I; rq “ ´ ` rˆ ¨ I ¨ rˆ ´ trpIq ; (5) r 2r3 3 ever, the Sun exerts a torque on the system that causes both the „ obliquities and the orbital plane of the binary to precess (Do- where G is the gravitational constant, rˆ “ r{r “ pxˆ; yˆ; zˆq is brovolskis & Harris 1983). For the Earth–Moon system, Touma the unit vector, and trpIq “ I11 ` I22 ` I33. We neglect terms & Wisdom(1994, 1998) showed that the presence of the Sun is in pR{rq3, where R is the mean radius of the body (quadrupo- critical to understand its early evolution. Some preliminary work lar approximation). Adopting the Legendre polynomial P2pxq “ on the Pluto–Charon system (Carvalho 2016) suggests that the p3x2 ´ 1q{2, we can rewrite the previous potential as obliquity and the Sun may also play a role. Finally, Cheng et al. Gm G (2014) showed that the inclusion of the gravitational harmonic V m; I; r I I P y I I P z p q “ ´ ` 3 22 ´ 11 2pˆq ` 33 ´ 11 2pˆq coefficient C22 in the analysis allows smooth, self-consistent r r ” evolution to the synchronous state. It is therefore important to ` 3 I xˆyˆ˘` I xˆzˆ ``I yˆzˆ :˘ (6) simultaneously take into account the effect of the obliquity, the 12 13 23 Sun, and the residual C22, in order to obtain a more realistic de- ` ˘ı scription of the past history of the Pluto–Charon system. 2.2. Point-mass problem In Sect.2, we first derive a full 3D model (for the orbits and spins) that is suitable to describe the tidal evolution of a We now consider that the ellipsoidal body orbits a point-mass M hierarchical three-body system, where the inner two bodies are located at r. The force between the two bodies is easily obtained assumed to be triaxial ellipsoids.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Solar System
    5 The Solar System R. Lynne Jones, Steven R. Chesley, Paul A. Abell, Michael E. Brown, Josef Durech,ˇ Yanga R. Fern´andez,Alan W. Harris, Matt J. Holman, Zeljkoˇ Ivezi´c,R. Jedicke, Mikko Kaasalainen, Nathan A. Kaib, Zoran Kneˇzevi´c,Andrea Milani, Alex Parker, Stephen T. Ridgway, David E. Trilling, Bojan Vrˇsnak LSST will provide huge advances in our knowledge of millions of astronomical objects “close to home’”– the small bodies in our Solar System. Previous studies of these small bodies have led to dramatic changes in our understanding of the process of planet formation and evolution, and the relationship between our Solar System and other systems. Beyond providing asteroid targets for space missions or igniting popular interest in observing a new comet or learning about a new distant icy dwarf planet, these small bodies also serve as large populations of “test particles,” recording the dynamical history of the giant planets, revealing the nature of the Solar System impactor population over time, and illustrating the size distributions of planetesimals, which were the building blocks of planets. In this chapter, a brief introduction to the different populations of small bodies in the Solar System (§ 5.1) is followed by a summary of the number of objects of each population that LSST is expected to find (§ 5.2). Some of the Solar System science that LSST will address is presented through the rest of the chapter, starting with the insights into planetary formation and evolution gained through the small body population orbital distributions (§ 5.3). The effects of collisional evolution in the Main Belt and Kuiper Belt are discussed in the next two sections, along with the implications for the determination of the size distribution in the Main Belt (§ 5.4) and possibilities for identifying wide binaries and understanding the environment in the early outer Solar System in § 5.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical Orbits of Planets in Binary Star Systems 1
    Theoretical Orbits of Planets in Binary Star Systems 1 Theoretical Orbits of Planets in Binary Star Systems S.Edgeworth 2001 Table of Contents 1: Introduction 2: Large external orbits 3: Small external orbits 4: Eccentric external orbits 5: Complex external orbits 6: Internal orbits 7: Conclusion Theoretical Orbits of Planets in Binary Star Systems 2 1: Introduction A binary star system consists of two stars which orbit around their joint centre of mass. A large proportion of stars belong to such systems. What sorts of orbits can planets have in a binary star system? To examine this question we use a computer program called a multi-body gravitational simulator. This enables us to create accurate simulations of binary star systems with planets, and to analyse how planets would really behave in this complex environment. Initially we examine the simplest type of binary star system, which satisfies these conditions:- 1. The two stars are of equal mass. 2, The two stars share a common circular orbit. 3. Planets orbit on the same plane as the stars. 4. Planets are of negligible mass. 5. There are no tidal effects. We use the following units:- One time unit = the orbital period of the star system. One distance unit = the distance between the two stars. We can classify possible planetary orbits into two types. A planet may have an internal orbit, which means that it orbits around just one of the two stars. Alternatively, a planet may have an external orbit, which means that its orbit takes it around both stars. Also a planet's orbit may be prograde (in the same direction as the stars' orbits ), or retrograde (in the opposite direction to the stars' orbits).
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Body Trajectory Design Strategies Based on Periapsis Poincaré Maps
    MULTI-BODY TRAJECTORY DESIGN STRATEGIES BASED ON PERIAPSIS POINCARÉ MAPS A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Diane Elizabeth Craig Davis In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2011 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii To my husband and children iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Kathleen Howell, for her support and guidance. She has been an invaluable source of knowledge and ideas throughout my studies at Purdue, and I have truly enjoyed our collaborations. She is an inspiration to me. I appreciate the insight and support from my committee members, Professor James Longuski, Professor Martin Corless, and Professor Daniel DeLaurentis. I would like to thank the members of my research group, past and present, for their friendship and collaboration, including Geoff Wawrzyniak, Chris Patterson, Lindsay Millard, Dan Grebow, Marty Ozimek, Lucia Irrgang, Masaki Kakoi, Raoul Rausch, Matt Vavrina, Todd Brown, Amanda Haapala, Cody Short, Mar Vaquero, Tom Pavlak, Wayne Schlei, Aurelie Heritier, Amanda Knutson, and Jeff Stuart. I thank my parents, David and Jeanne Craig, for their encouragement and love throughout my academic career. They have cheered me on through many years of studies. I am grateful for the love and encouragement of my husband, Jonathan. His never-ending patience and friendship have been a constant source of support. Finally, I owe thanks to the organizations that have provided the funding opportunities that have supported me through my studies, including the Clare Booth Luce Foundation, Zonta International, and Purdue University and the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics through the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need and the Purdue Forever Fellowships.
    [Show full text]
  • Binary and Multiple Systems of Asteroids
    Binary and Multiple Systems Andrew Cheng1, Andrew Rivkin2, Patrick Michel3, Carey Lisse4, Kevin Walsh5, Keith Noll6, Darin Ragozzine7, Clark Chapman8, William Merline9, Lance Benner10, Daniel Scheeres11 1JHU/APL [[email protected]] 2JHU/APL [[email protected]] 3University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis/CNRS/Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur [[email protected]] 4JHU/APL [[email protected]] 5University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis/CNRS/Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur [[email protected]] 6STScI [[email protected]] 7Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [[email protected]] 8SwRI [[email protected]] 9SwRI [[email protected]] 10JPL [[email protected]] 11Univ Colorado [[email protected]] Abstract A sizable fraction of small bodies, including roughly 15% of NEOs, is found in binary or multiple systems. Understanding the formation processes of such systems is critical to understanding the collisional and dynamical evolution of small body systems, including even dwarf planets. Binary and multiple systems provide a means of determining critical physical properties (masses, densities, and rotations) with greater ease and higher precision than is available for single objects. Binaries and multiples provide a natural laboratory for dynamical and collisional investigations and may exhibit unique geologic processes such as mass transfer or even accretion disks. Missions to many classes of planetary bodies – asteroids, Trojans, TNOs, dwarf planets – can offer enhanced science return if they target binary or multiple systems. Introduction Asteroid lightcurves were often interpreted through the 1970s and 1980s as showing evidence for satellites, and occultations of stars by asteroids also provided tantalizing if inconclusive hints that asteroid satellites may exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Perturbation Theory in Celestial Mechanics
    Perturbation Theory in Celestial Mechanics Alessandra Celletti Dipartimento di Matematica Universit`adi Roma Tor Vergata Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, I-00133 Roma (Italy) ([email protected]) December 8, 2007 Contents 1 Glossary 2 2 Definition 2 3 Introduction 2 4 Classical perturbation theory 4 4.1 The classical theory . 4 4.2 The precession of the perihelion of Mercury . 6 4.2.1 Delaunay action–angle variables . 6 4.2.2 The restricted, planar, circular, three–body problem . 7 4.2.3 Expansion of the perturbing function . 7 4.2.4 Computation of the precession of the perihelion . 8 5 Resonant perturbation theory 9 5.1 The resonant theory . 9 5.2 Three–body resonance . 10 5.3 Degenerate perturbation theory . 11 5.4 The precession of the equinoxes . 12 6 Invariant tori 14 6.1 Invariant KAM surfaces . 14 6.2 Rotational tori for the spin–orbit problem . 15 6.3 Librational tori for the spin–orbit problem . 16 6.4 Rotational tori for the restricted three–body problem . 17 6.5 Planetary problem . 18 7 Periodic orbits 18 7.1 Construction of periodic orbits . 18 7.2 The libration in longitude of the Moon . 20 1 8 Future directions 20 9 Bibliography 21 9.1 Books and Reviews . 21 9.2 Primary Literature . 22 1 Glossary KAM theory: it provides the persistence of quasi–periodic motions under a small perturbation of an integrable system. KAM theory can be applied under quite general assumptions, i.e. a non– degeneracy of the integrable system and a diophantine condition of the frequency of motion.
    [Show full text]
  • On Optimal Two-Impulse Earth–Moon Transfers in a Four-Body Model
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) On Optimal Two-Impulse Earth–Moon Transfers in a Four-Body Model F. Topputo Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract In this paper two-impulse Earth–Moon transfers are treated in the restricted four-body problem with the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon as primaries. The problem is formulated with mathematical means and solved through direct transcription and multiple shooting strategy. Thousands of solutions are found, which make it possible to frame known cases as special points of a more general picture. Families of solutions are defined and characterized, and their features are discussed. The methodology described in this paper is useful to perform trade-off analyses, where many solutions have to be produced and assessed. Keywords Earth–Moon transfer low-energy transfer ballistic capture trajectory optimization · · · · restricted three-body problem restricted four-body problem · 1 Introduction The search for trajectories to transfer a spacecraft from the Earth to the Moon has been the subject of countless works. The Hohmann transfer represents the easiest way to perform an Earth–Moon transfer. This requires placing the spacecraft on an ellipse having the perigee on the Earth parking orbit and the apogee on the Moon orbit. By properly switching the gravitational attractions along the orbit, the spacecraft’s motion is governed by only the Earth for most of the transfer, and by only the Moon in the final part. More generally, the patched-conics approximation relies on a Keplerian decomposition of the solar system dynamics (Battin 1987). Although from a practical point of view it is desirable to deal with analytical solutions, the two-body problem being integrable, the patched-conics approximation inherently involves hyperbolic approaches upon arrival.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 on the Origin of the Pluto System Robin M. Canup Southwest Research Institute Kaitlin M. Kratter University of Arizona Marc Ne
    On the Origin of the Pluto System Robin M. Canup Southwest Research Institute Kaitlin M. Kratter University of Arizona Marc Neveu NASA Goddard Space Flight Center / University of Maryland The goal of this chapter is to review hypotheses for the origin of the Pluto system in light of observational constraints that have been considerably refined over the 85-year interval between the discovery of Pluto and its exploration by spacecraft. We focus on the giant impact hypothesis currently understood as the likeliest origin for the Pluto-Charon binary, and devote particular attention to new models of planet formation and migration in the outer Solar System. We discuss the origins conundrum posed by the system’s four small moons. We also elaborate on implications of these scenarios for the dynamical environment of the early transneptunian disk, the likelihood of finding a Pluto collisional family, and the origin of other binary systems in the Kuiper belt. Finally, we highlight outstanding open issues regarding the origin of the Pluto system and suggest areas of future progress. 1. INTRODUCTION For six decades following its discovery, Pluto was the only known Sun-orbiting world in the dynamical vicinity of Neptune. An early origin concept postulated that Neptune originally had two large moons – Pluto and Neptune’s current moon, Triton – and that a dynamical event had both reversed the sense of Triton’s orbit relative to Neptune’s rotation and ejected Pluto onto its current heliocentric orbit (Lyttleton, 1936). This scenario remained in contention following the discovery of Charon, as it was then established that Pluto’s mass was similar to that of a large giant planet moon (Christy and Harrington, 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • Wobbling Stars and Planets in This Activity, You
    Activity: Wobbling Stars and Planets In this activity, you will investigate the effect of the relative masses and distances of objects that are in orbit around a star or planet. The most common understanding of how the planets orbit around the Sun is that the Sun is stationary while the planets revolve around the Sun. That is not quite true and is a little more complicated. PBS An important parameter when considering orbits is the center of mass. The concept of the center of mass is that of an average of the masses factored by their distances from one another. This is also commonly referred to as the center of gravity. For example, the balancing of a ETIC seesaw about a pivot point demonstrates the center of mass of two objects of different masses. Another important parameter to consider is the barycenter. The barycenter is the center of mass of two or more bodies that are orbiting each other, and is the point around which both of them orbit. When the two bodies have similar masses, the barycenter may be located between NASA the two bodies (outside of either of bodies) and both objects will follow an orbit around the center of mass. This is the case for a system such as the Sun and Jupiter. In the case where the two objects have very different masses, the center of mass and barycenter may be located within the more massive body. This is the case for the Earth-Moon system. scienceprojectideasforkids.com Classroom Activity Part 1 Materials • Wooden skewers 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.04712V1 [Astro-Ph.EP] 8 Dec 2020 Direct Evidence of the Presence of Planets (E.G., ALMA Part- Nership Et Al
    DRAFT VERSION DECEMBER 10, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX63 First detection of orbital motion for HD 106906 b: A wide-separation exoplanet on a Planet Nine-like orbit MEIJI M. NGUYEN,1 ROBERT J. DE ROSA,2 AND PAUL KALAS1, 3, 4 1Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Cordova´ 3107, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile 3SETI Institute, Carl Sagan Center, 189 Bernardo Ave., Mountain View, CA 94043, USA 4Institute of Astrophysics, FORTH, GR-71110 Heraklion, Greece (Received August 26, 2020; Revised October 8, 2020; Accepted October 10, 2020) Submitted to AJ ABSTRACT HD 106906 is a 15 Myr old short-period (49 days) spectroscopic binary that hosts a wide-separation (737 au) planetary-mass ( 11 M ) common proper motion companion, HD 106906 b. Additionally, a circumbinary ∼ Jup debris disk is resolved at optical and near-infrared wavelengths that exhibits a significant asymmetry at wide separations that may be driven by gravitational perturbations from the planet. In this study we present the first detection of orbital motion of HD 106906 b using Hubble Space Telescope images spanning a 14 yr period. We achieve high astrometric precision by cross-registering the locations of background stars with the Gaia astromet- ric catalog, providing the subpixel location of HD 106906 that is either saturated or obscured by coronagraphic optical elements. We measure a statistically significant 31:8 7:0 mas eastward motion of the planet between ± the two most constraining measurements taken in 2004 and 2017. This motion enables a measurement of the +27 +27 inclination between the orbit of the planet and the inner debris disk of either 36 14 deg or 44 14 deg, depending on the true orientation of the orbit of the planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Pluto Is Not a Planet Anymore Or How Astronomical Objects Get Named
    3 Why Pluto Is Not a Planet Anymore or How Astronomical Objects Get Named Sethanne Howard USNO retired Abstract Everywhere I go people ask me why Pluto was kicked out of the Solar System. Poor Pluto, 76 years a planet and then summarily dismissed. The answer is not too complicated. It starts with the question how are astronomical objects named or classified; asks who is responsible for this; and ends with international treaties. Ultimately we learn that it makes sense to demote Pluto. Catalogs and Names WHO IS RESPONSIBLE for naming and classifying astronomical objects? The answer varies slightly with the object, and history plays an important part. Let us start with the stars. Most of the bright stars visible to the naked eye were named centuries ago. They generally have kept their old- fashioned names. Betelgeuse is just such an example. It is the eighth brightest star in the northern sky. The star’s name is thought to be derived ,”Yad al-Jauzā' meaning “the Hand of al-Jauzā يد الجوزاء from the Arabic i.e., Orion, with mistransliteration into Medieval Latin leading to the first character y being misread as a b. Betelgeuse is its historical name. The star is also known by its Bayer designation − ∝ Orionis. A Bayeri designation is a stellar designation in which a specific star is identified by a Greek letter followed by the genitive form of its parent constellation’s Latin name. The original list of Bayer designations contained 1,564 stars. The Bayer designation typically assigns the letter alpha to the brightest star in the constellation and moves through the Greek alphabet, with each letter representing the next fainter star.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BINARY COLLISION APPROXIMATION: Iliiilms BACKGROUND and INTRODUCTION Mark T
    O O i, j / O0NF-9208146--1 DE92 040887 Invited paper for Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Simulations of Radiation Effects in Solids, Hahn-Meitner Institute Berlin Berlin, Germany August 23-28 1992 The submitted manuscript has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under contract No. DE-AC05-84OR214O0. Accordingly, the U S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty* free licc-nc to publish or reproduce the published form of uiii contribution, or allow othen to do jo, for U.S. Government purposes." THE BINARY COLLISION APPROXIMATION: IliiilMS BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Mark T. Robinson >._« « " _>i 8 « g i. § 8 " E 1.2 .§ c « •o'c'lf.S8 ° °% as SOLID STATE DIVISION OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Managed by MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. Under Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400 § g With the ••g ^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE August 1992 'g | .11 DISTRIBUTION OP THIS COOL- ::.•:•! :•' !S Ui^l J^ THE BINARY COLLISION APPROXIMATION: BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Mark T. Robinson Solid State Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6032, U. S. A. ABSTRACT The binary collision approximation (BCA) has long been used in computer simulations of the interactions of energetic atoms with solid targets, as well as being the basis of most analytical theory in this area. While mainly a high-energy approximation, the BCA retains qualitative significance at low energies and, with proper formulation, gives useful quantitative information as well. Moreover, computer simulations based on the BCA can achieve good statistics in many situations where those based on full classical dynamical models require the most advanced computer hardware or are even impracticable.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Galaxies and Star Systems
    Chapter 5 Galaxies and Star Systems Section 5.1 Galaxies Terms: • Galaxy • Spiral Galaxy • Elliptical Galaxy • Irregular Galaxy • Milky Way Galaxy • Quasar • Black Hole Types of Galaxies A galaxy is a huge group of single stars, star systems, star clusters, dust, and gas bound together by gravity. There are billions of galaxies in the universe. The largest galaxies have more than a trillion stars! Astronomers classify most galaxies into the following types: spiral, elliptical, and irregular. Spiral galaxies are those that appear to have a bulge in the middle and arms that spiral outward, like pinwheels. The spiral arms contain many bright, young stars as well as gas and dust. Most new stars in the spiral galaxies form in theses spiral arms. Relatively few new stars form in the central bulge. Some spiral galaxies, called barred-spiral galaxies, have a huge bar-shaped region of stars and gas that passes through their center. Not all galaxies have spiral arms. Elliptical galaxies look like round or flattened balls. These galaxies contain billions of the stars but have little gas and dust between the stars. Because there is little gas or dust, stars are no longer forming. Most elliptical galaxies contain only old stars. Some galaxies do not have regular shapes, thus they are called irregular galaxies. These galaxies are typically smaller than other types of galaxies and generally have many bright, young stars. They contain a lot of gas a dust to from new stars. The Milky Way Galaxy Although it is difficult to know what the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy is because we are inside of it, astronomers have identified it as a typical spiral galaxy.
    [Show full text]