Planetary Magnetic Fields
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Exomoon Habitability Constrained by Illumination and Tidal Heating
submitted to Astrobiology: April 6, 2012 accepted by Astrobiology: September 8, 2012 published in Astrobiology: January 24, 2013 this updated draft: October 30, 2013 doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0859 Exomoon habitability constrained by illumination and tidal heating René HellerI , Rory BarnesII,III I Leibniz-Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany, [email protected] II Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Box 951580, Seattle, WA 98195, [email protected] III NASA Astrobiology Institute – Virtual Planetary Laboratory Lead Team, USA Abstract The detection of moons orbiting extrasolar planets (“exomoons”) has now become feasible. Once they are discovered in the circumstellar habitable zone, questions about their habitability will emerge. Exomoons are likely to be tidally locked to their planet and hence experience days much shorter than their orbital period around the star and have seasons, all of which works in favor of habitability. These satellites can receive more illumination per area than their host planets, as the planet reflects stellar light and emits thermal photons. On the contrary, eclipses can significantly alter local climates on exomoons by reducing stellar illumination. In addition to radiative heating, tidal heating can be very large on exomoons, possibly even large enough for sterilization. We identify combinations of physical and orbital parameters for which radiative and tidal heating are strong enough to trigger a runaway greenhouse. By analogy with the circumstellar habitable zone, these constraints define a circumplanetary “habitable edge”. We apply our model to hypothetical moons around the recently discovered exoplanet Kepler-22b and the giant planet candidate KOI211.01 and describe, for the first time, the orbits of habitable exomoons. -
Elliptical Instability in Terrestrial Planets and Moons
A&A 539, A78 (2012) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117741 & c ESO 2012 Astrophysics Elliptical instability in terrestrial planets and moons D. Cebron1,M.LeBars1, C. Moutou2,andP.LeGal1 1 Institut de Recherche sur les Phénomènes Hors Equilibre, UMR 6594, CNRS and Aix-Marseille Université, 49 rue F. Joliot-Curie, BP 146, 13384 Marseille Cedex 13, France e-mail: [email protected] 2 Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille-Provence, Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, 38 rue F. Joliot-Curie, 13388 Marseille Cedex 13, France Received 21 July 2011 / Accepted 16 January 2012 ABSTRACT Context. The presence of celestial companions means that any planet may be subject to three kinds of harmonic mechanical forcing: tides, precession/nutation, and libration. These forcings can generate flows in internal fluid layers, such as fluid cores and subsurface oceans, whose dynamics then significantly differ from solid body rotation. In particular, tides in non-synchronized bodies and libration in synchronized ones are known to be capable of exciting the so-called elliptical instability, i.e. a generic instability corresponding to the destabilization of two-dimensional flows with elliptical streamlines, leading to three-dimensional turbulence. Aims. We aim here at confirming the relevance of such an elliptical instability in terrestrial bodies by determining its growth rate, as well as its consequences on energy dissipation, on magnetic field induction, and on heat flux fluctuations on planetary scales. Methods. Previous studies and theoretical results for the elliptical instability are re-evaluated and extended to cope with an astro- physical context. In particular, generic analytical expressions of the elliptical instability growth rate are obtained using a local WKB approach, simultaneously considering for the first time (i) a local temperature gradient due to an imposed temperature contrast across the considered layer or to the presence of a volumic heat source and (ii) an imposed magnetic field along the rotation axis, coming from an external source. -
Giant Planet Effects on Terrestrial Planet Formation and System Architecture
MNRAS 485, 541–549 (2019) doi:10.1093/mnras/stz385 Advance Access publication 2019 February 8 Giant planet effects on terrestrial planet formation and system architecture 1‹ 2 2,3 1 Anna C. Childs, Elisa Quintana, Thomas Barclay and Jason H. Steffen Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/485/1/541/5309996 by NASA Goddard Space Flight Ctr user on 15 April 2020 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA 2NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Road, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 3University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Cir, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA Accepted 2019 February 4. Received 2019 January 16; in original form 2018 July 6 ABSTRACT Using an updated collision model, we conduct a suite of high-resolution N-body integrations to probe the relationship between giant planet mass and terrestrial planet formation and system architecture. We vary the mass of the planets that reside at Jupiter’s and Saturn’s orbit and examine the effects on the interior terrestrial system. We find that massive giant planets are more likely to eject material from the outer edge of the terrestrial disc and produce terrestrial planets that are on smaller, more circular orbits. We do not find a strong correlation between exterior giant planet mass and the number of Earth analogues (analogous in mass and semimajor axis) produced in the system. These results allow us to make predictions on the nature of terrestrial planets orbiting distant Sun-like star systems that harbour giant planet companions on long orbits – systems that will be a priority for NASA’s upcoming Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) mission. -
Outer Planets: the Ice Giants
Outer Planets: The Ice Giants A. P. Ingersoll, H. B. Hammel, T. R. Spilker, R. E. Young Exploring Uranus and Neptune satisfies NASA’s objectives, “investigation of the Earth, Moon, Mars and beyond with emphasis on understanding the history of the solar system” and “conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes.” The giant planet story is the story of the solar system (*). Earth and the other small objects are leftovers from the feast of giant planet formation. As they formed, the giant planets may have migrated inward or outward, ejecting some objects from the solar system and swallowing others. The giant planets most likely delivered water and other volatiles, in the form of icy planetesimals, to the inner solar system from the region around Neptune. The “gas giants” Jupiter and Saturn are mostly hydrogen and helium. These planets must have swallowed a portion of the solar nebula intact. The “ice giants” Uranus and Neptune are made primarily of heavier stuff, probably the next most abundant elements in the Sun – oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. For each giant planet the core is the “seed” around which it accreted nebular gas. The ice giants may be more seed than gas. Giant planets are laboratories in which to test our theories about geophysics, plasma physics, meteorology, and even oceanography in a larger context. Their bottomless atmospheres, with 1000 mph winds and 100 year-old storms, teach us about weather on Earth. The giant planets’ enormous magnetic fields and intense radiation belts test our theories of terrestrial and solar electromagnetic phenomena. -
Activity 16: Planets and Their Features Mercury Mercury Is an Extreme Planet
Activity 16: Planets And Their Features Mercury Mercury.is.an.extreme.planet..It.is.the.fastest.of.all.the.planets..It.is.one.of.the.hottest. planets,.and.it.is.also.one.of.the.coldest!.It.may.be.the.site.of.the.largest.crash.in.the. history.of.the.solar.system..Mercury.may.also.have.the.strangest.view.of.the.sun.in.the. whole.universe! Mercury.zooms.around.the.sun.at.a.speed.of.48.kilometres.per.second,.or.half.as.fast. again.as.the.Earth.travels. At.certain.times.and.places,.Mercury’s.surface.temperature.can.rise.to.twice.the. temperature.inside.an.oven.when.you.are.baking.a.cake..On.the.other.hand,.in.the. shadow.of.its.North.Pole.craters,.Mercury.has.ice.like.our.North.Pole.does. Since.Mercury.is.so.close.to.the.sun,.we.have.never.been.able.to.see.it.in.any.detail..Even. with.the.most.powerful.telescope,.Mercury.looks.like.a.blurry.white.ball..It.wasn’t.until.1974. that.we.really.began.to.learn.about.Mercury..In.1974.and.1975,.Mariner.10.flew.by.Mercury.three.times.and.sent.back. about.12,000.images. These.pictures.combined.to.give.a.map.of.about.45%.of.Mercury’s.surface,.and.what.they.show.us.is.a.planet.covered. with.craters,.much.like.our.moon..Mercury’s.largest.land.feature.is.the.Caloris.Basin,.a.crater.formed.by.a.collision.with.a. meteorite.long.ago..The.size.of.the.Caloris.Basin,.about.1350.kilometres.in.diameter,.suggests.that.this.may.have.been. -
The Composition of Planetary Atmospheres 1
The Composition of Planetary Atmospheres 1 All of the planets in our solar system, and some of its smaller bodies too, have an outer layer of gas we call the atmosphere. The atmosphere usually sits atop a denser, rocky crust or planetary core. Atmospheres can extend thousands of kilometers into space. The table below gives the name of the kind of gas found in each object’s atmosphere, and the total mass of the atmosphere in kilograms. The table also gives the percentage of the atmosphere composed of the gas. Object Mass Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Argon Methane Sodium Hydrogen Helium Other (kilograms) Dioxide Sun 3.0x1030 71% 26% 3% Mercury 1000 42% 22% 22% 6% 8% Venus 4.8x1020 96% 4% Earth 1.4x1021 78% 21% 1% <1% Moon 100,000 70% 1% 29% Mars 2.5x1016 95% 2.7% 1.6% 0.7% Jupiter 1.9x1027 89.8% 10.2% Saturn 5.4x1026 96.3% 3.2% 0.5% Titan 9.1x1018 97% 2% 1% Uranus 8.6x1025 2.3% 82.5% 15.2% Neptune 1.0x1026 1.0% 80% 19% Pluto 1.3x1014 8% 90% 2% Problem 1 – Draw a pie graph (circle graph) that shows the atmosphere constituents for Mars and Earth. Problem 2 – Draw a pie graph that shows the percentage of Nitrogen for Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Pluto. Problem 3 – Which planet has the atmosphere with the greatest percentage of Oxygen? Problem 4 – Which planet has the atmosphere with the greatest number of kilograms of oxygen? Problem 5 – Compare and contrast the objects with the greatest percentage of hydrogen, and the least percentage of hydrogen. -
Internal Constitution of Mars
Journalof GeophysicalResearch VOLUME 77 FEBRUARY 10., 1972 NUMBER 15 Internal Constitution of Mars Do• L. ANDERSON SeismologicalLaboratory, California Institute o/ Technology Pasadena, California 91109 Models for the internal structure of Mars that are consistentwith its mass, radius, and moment of inertia have been constructed.Mars cannot be homogeneousbut must have a core, the size of which dependson its density and, therefore, on its composition.A meteorite model for Mars implies an Fe-S-Ni core (12% by massof the planet) and an Fe- or FeO-rich mantle with a zero-pressuredensity of approximately 3.54 g/cm•. Mars has an iron content of 25 wt %, which is significantly less than the iron content of the earth, Mercury, or Venus but is close to the total iron content of ordinary and carbonaceouschondrites. A satisfactory model for Mars can be obtained by exposing ordinary chondrites to relatively modest temperatures. Core formation will start when temperaturesexceed the cutecftc temperature in the system Fe-FeS (•990øC) but will not go to completionunless temperatures exceed the liquidus through- out most of the planet. No high-temperature reduction stage is required. The size and density of the core and the density of the mantle indicate that approximately63% of the potential core-forming material (Fe-S-Ni) has entered the core. Therefore, Mars, in contrast to the earth, is an incompletely differentiated planet, and its core is substantially richer in sulfur than the earth's core. The thermal energy associated with core formation in Mars is negligible. The absenceof a magnetic field can be explained by lack of lunar precessional torques and by the small size and high resistivity of the Martian core. -
Simon Porter , Will Grundy
Post-Capture Evolution of Potentially Habitable Exomoons Simon Porter1,2, Will Grundy1 1Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona 2School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University [email protected] and spin vector were initially pointed at random di- Table 1: Relative fraction of end states for fully Abstract !"# $%& " '(" !"# $%& # '(# rections on the sky. The exoplanets had a ran- evolved exomoon systems dom obliquity < 5 deg and was at a stellarcentric The satellites of extrasolar planets (exomoons) Star Planet Moon Survived Retrograde Separated Impacted distance such that the equilibrium temperature was have been recently proposed as astrobiological tar- Earth 43% 52% 21% 35% equal to Earth. The simulations were run until they Jupiter Mars 44% 45% 18% 37% gets. Triton has been proposed to have been cap- 5 either reached an eccentricity below 10 or the pe- Titan 42% 47% 21% 36% tured through a momentum-exchange reaction [1], − Sun Earth 52% 44% 17% 30% riapse went below the Roche limit (impact) or the and it is possible that a similar event could allow Neptune Mars 44% 45% 18% 36% apoapse exceeded the Hill radius. Stars used were Titan 45% 47% 19% 35% a giant planet to capture a formerly binary terres- Earth 65% 47% 3% 31% the Sun (G2), a main-sequence F0 (1.7 MSun), trial planet or planetesimal. We therefore attempt to Jupiter Mars 59% 46% 4% 35% and a main-sequence M0 (0.47 MSun). Exoplan- Titan 61% 48% 3% 34% model the dynamical evolution of a terrestrial planet !"# $%& " !"# $%& " ' F0 ets used had the mass of either Jupiter or Neptune, Earth 77% 44% 4% 18% captured into orbit around a giant planet in the hab- and exomoons with the mass of Earth, Mars, and Neptune Mars 67% 44% 4% 28% itable zone of a star. -
Pplanetary Materials Research At
N. L. CHABOT ET AL . Planetary Materials Research at APL Nancy L. Chabot, Catherine M. Corrigan, Charles A. Hibbitts, and Jeffrey B. Plescia lanetary materials research offers a unique approach to understanding our solar system, one that enables numerous studies and provides insights that are not pos- sible from remote observations alone. APL scientists are actively involved in many aspects of planetary materials research, from the study of Martian meteorites, to field work on hot springs and craters on Earth, to examining compositional analogs for asteroids. Planetary materials research at APL also involves understanding the icy moons of the outer solar system using analog materials, conducting experiments to mimic the conditions of planetary evolution, and testing instruments for future space missions. The diversity of these research projects clearly illustrates the abundant and valuable scientific contributions that the study of planetary materials can make to Pspace science. INTRODUCTION In most space science and astronomy fields, one is When people think of planetary materials, they com- limited to remote observations, either from telescopes monly think of samples returned by space missions. Plan- or spacecraft, to gather data about celestial objects and etary materials available for study do include samples unravel their origins. However, for studying our solar returned by space missions, such as samples of the Moon system, we are less limited. We have samples of plan- returned by the Apollo and Luna missions, comet dust etary materials from multiple bodies in our solar system. collected by the Stardust mission, and implanted solar We can inspect these samples, examine them in detail wind ions collected by the Genesis mission. -
The Nature of the Giant Exomoon Candidate Kepler-1625 B-I René Heller
A&A 610, A39 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731760 Astronomy & © ESO 2018 Astrophysics The nature of the giant exomoon candidate Kepler-1625 b-i René Heller Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Received 11 August 2017 / Accepted 21 November 2017 ABSTRACT The recent announcement of a Neptune-sized exomoon candidate around the transiting Jupiter-sized object Kepler-1625 b could indi- cate the presence of a hitherto unknown kind of gas giant moon, if confirmed. Three transits of Kepler-1625 b have been observed, allowing estimates of the radii of both objects. Mass estimates, however, have not been backed up by radial velocity measurements of the host star. Here we investigate possible mass regimes of the transiting system that could produce the observed signatures and study them in the context of moon formation in the solar system, i.e., via impacts, capture, or in-situ accretion. The radius of Kepler-1625 b suggests it could be anything from a gas giant planet somewhat more massive than Saturn (0:4 MJup) to a brown dwarf (BD; up to 75 MJup) or even a very-low-mass star (VLMS; 112 MJup ≈ 0:11 M ). The proposed companion would certainly have a planetary mass. Possible extreme scenarios range from a highly inflated Earth-mass gas satellite to an atmosphere-free water–rock companion of about +19:2 180 M⊕. Furthermore, the planet–moon dynamics during the transits suggest a total system mass of 17:6−12:6 MJup. -
On the Detection of Exomoons in Photometric Time Series
On the Detection of Exomoons in Photometric Time Series Dissertation zur Erlangung des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Doktorgrades “Doctor rerum naturalium” der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen im Promotionsprogramm PROPHYS der Georg-August University School of Science (GAUSS) vorgelegt von Kai Oliver Rodenbeck aus Göttingen, Deutschland Göttingen, 2019 Betreuungsausschuss Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland und Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr. Warrick H. Ball School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, UK vormals Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Mitglieder der Prüfungskommision Referent: Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland und Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Deutschland Weitere Mitglieder der Prüfungskommission: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Christensen Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr.ir. Saskia Hekker Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Dr. René Heller Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Deutschland Prof. Dr. Wolfram Kollatschny Institut für Astrophysik, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, -
Accretion and Differentiation of the Terrestrial Planets with Implications for the Compositions of Early-Formed Solar
Accretion and differentiation of the terrestrial planets with implications for the compositions of early-formed Solar System bodies and accretion of water D.C. Rubie1*, S.A. Jacobson1,2, A. Morbidelli2, D.P. O’Brien3, E.D. Young4, J. de Vries1, F. Nimmo5, H. Palme6, D.J. Frost1 1Bayerisches Geoinstitut, University of Bayreuth, D-95490 Bayreuth, Germany ([email protected]) 2Observatoire de la Cote d’Azur, Nice, France 3Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona, USA 4Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA 5 Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, UC Santa Cruz, USA 6 Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany * Corresponding author Submitted to Icarus 8 April 2014; revised 19 August 2014; accepted 9 October 2014 Abstract. In order to test accretion simulations as well as planetary differentiation scenarios, we have integrated a multistage core-mantle differentiation model with N-body accretion simulations. Impacts between embryos and planetesimals are considered to result in magma ocean formation and episodes of core formation. The core formation model combines rigorous chemical mass balance with metal-silicate element partitioning data and requires that the bulk compositions of all starting embryos and planetesimals are defined as a function of their heliocentric distances of origin. To do this, we assume that non-volatile elements are present in Solar System (CI) relative abundances in all bodies and that oxygen and H2O contents are the main compositional variables. The primary constraint on the combined model is the composition of the Earth’s primitive mantle. In 1 addition, we aim to reproduce the composition of the Martian mantle and the mass fractions of the metallic cores of Earth and Mars.