DOCSLIB.ORG

© Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
© Cambridge University Press Cambridge Cambridge University Press 0521827647 - Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids Edited by Michael J. S. Belton, Thomas H. Morgan, Nalin H. Samarasinha and Donald K. Yeomans Index More information Index ablation 155–160 2000 RD53 43 Amelioration element 402 2000 SG344 369 Andromeda planetary environmental chamber 340 2000 UG11 144 anaerobic microorganisms 341 2000 WC1 193–194 antimatter see under mitigation techniques 2001 SL9 144 aphelion, distance 1, 16 2002 MN 185–195, 369 Apollo missions 236, 273 2002 NT7 370 Apollo 14 236, 237 2100 Ra-Shalom 149 Apollo 16 237 3671 Dionysus 144 Apollo 17 237 5407 1992 AX 144 attenuation coefficient 208 5587 (1990 SB) 149 Arecibo 39, 50, 56, 401 31345 1998 PG 144 asteroid 68–70 35107 1991 VH 144 albedo 147 Adonis 57 Apollo 1, 9, 18 Apollo 40, 60 Amor 1, 9, 18 Asclepius 366 Aten 1, 9, 16, 18 Castalia 92 binary 70, 142–144, 316, 321, 325 Dactyl 316 C-class 12, 109 Eros 68, 69, 73, 87, 90–91, 105–109, 314, 365 density 12, 56–59, 69, 86, 90, 91, 143 Gaspra 87, 109–110, 316 Earth-crossing 1, 3–4, 365 Geographos 60 main belt 2–6, 7, 12, 18 Icarus 39, 171 S-class 11–12, 109 Ida 87–90, 316 surface roughness 56–58 Ivar 293 asteroid, individual Mathilde 69, 75, 91–94 1950 DA 41, 48, 54–55 Toutatis 59, 60, 366 1987 OA 60 1989 UR 60 B612 Foundation 111, 397 1991 RB 300, 302, 308 basic research 402, 406 1992 QN 57 BepiColombo 284 1994 AW1 144 bolide see fireball 1994 AW7 50 Born approximation 212–226 1996 FG3 144 Brazil nut effect 106–107 1997 XF11 358, 362, 367 1998 ML14 41, 43–48 Canyon Diablo 104 1998 SF36 60, 314 capture cross-section 23 1999 AN10 368 catenae 78, 79 1999 AQ10 193–194 chaotic motion 314 1999 FN53 43–48 chemical propulsion see under mitigation 1999 HF1 144 techniques 1999 KW4 144 Chicxulub crater 1 2000 DP107 59, 60, 144 chondrules 350 2000 EE104 57 Clementine II 177, 274 411 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521827647 - Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids Edited by Michael J. S. Belton, Thomas H. Morgan, Nalin H. Samarasinha and Donald K. Yeomans Index More information 412 Index Close Proximity Operations 313, 333 Galileo spacecraft 105, 316, 337 Close Proximity Dynamics 319–320, 328 Geminids 155 cohesion 234, 239, 279 giggle factor 354 comet 5–6, 66–68, 110–111, 355 global climate change 356 albedo 67 Goldstone 39, 50, 56, 401 density 67, 80–81 gravity field 56 ecliptic 5 polygonal 315 Halley-type 5 polyhedron 319 Jupiter-family 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 18 surface 319 nearly isotropic 5, 7, 10–11 Green function 211, 212 comet, individual Gr¨uneisenconstant 124, 138, 245, 253 1P/Halley 67 Gurney formula 244 19P/Borrelly 67, 110 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko 285 Hayabusa 60, 267, 268, 276, 284, 314, 323, 328, 331, D/Shoemaker-Levy 9 67, 75, 77, 78–81, 95 332, 338 Lexell 364 hazard fraction 23 LINEAR (D/1999 S4) 6, 72, 75, 77 hazard identification 401 P/Brooks 2 77 hazard scales 357–362 CONSERT 202, 213–214, 217–218, 231, 285 Hera 267, 337 CRAF/Comet Nucleus Penetrator 284 Hidalgo 273 Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary 1 Hill Sphere 70 Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event 366 historical perspective on impacts 363–366 Hohmann transfer 293, 301, 303 debiased population 7, 8–10, 23 hopping 283–284, 313, 325 deflection 292, 305 hovering 268, 316, 334 Deep Impact 94, 177, 275 body-fixed 328–333 Deep Interior 284 near-inertial 328–331 Deep Space 1 110, 304, 305 human space flight 398 Deimos 316 Delta V 26, 60 IAU 1, 357, 359, 362 density Technical Review Committee 363 asteroid see under asteroid Working Group on NEOs 362 comet see under comet impact hazard 353–355, 371, 381, 383, 391 internal 319 IMPACT workshop 358 dielectric constant 207, 208, 212, 215, 219 impacts see under mitigation techniques disruption 118, 135–136 implementation phase 399, 405, 408 dispersion 118, 135–136 inclination 2–6 Don Quijote 274, 275 inhomogeneity 210, 213, 217, 319 Doppler frequency (radial velocity) 38 Innisfree 158 DS-2 Mars microprobes 274, 282 interception 292 dust 337 international cooperation 384 International Space Station 351 Earth-crossing objects 292 interior structure 234, 264, 317, 404 earthquakes 357 interior-to-the-Earth objects (IEOs) 1, 9, 14, 15–16, 18 eaters see under mitigation techniques inversion 224–228, 229 eccentricity 2–6 ion propulsion see under mitigation techniques electric and plasma propulsion see under mitigation IRAS 147, 156 techniques electrostatic environment 316 Johnson–Cook Constitutive Model 240, 242, 245, ellipsoidal harmonics 319 248, 251, 253 energy scaling 76 environmental catastrophe 355 KC-135 338, 349, 351 ESA 1 Kepler’s third law 142 escape velocity 120, 326 Kuiper belt 5 explosives 235, 239–246, 274 European Fireball Network (EN) 158–162 lander 236, 263, 266–268 European Global Navigation Satellite System least-squares fit 43 (Galileo) 164 Leonids 155 Libration points 322, 325 faunal mass extinction 365 lightcurve 317 fireball 154, 156 inversion 142 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521827647 - Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids Edited by Michael J. S. Belton, Thomas H. Morgan, Nalin H. Samarasinha and Donald K. Yeomans Index More information Index 413 LINEAR 10, 15, 29 super high energetic propulsion 174 experimental test site (ETS) 26 surface explosions 117–118, 123–124 longitude of the ascending node 9 utilization of Yarkovsky effect 181–182 loss tangent 207 mobility 283 lossy medium 207–211 moles 285 Lost City 158 Monte Carlo simulations 40 LSST 61–62, 396, 401 monoliths 73 Luna-Glob 284 Moon 57, 236, 274 Lunar-A 274, 282 Mount St. Helens 393, 398 Lunar Module 236 MUPUS 276, 280 Lyrids 155 MUSES-C see Hayabusa magnitude, absolute 49, 148 NASA 1, 13, 232, 354, 357, 359, 393, 398, 406, 407 Mars 57, 236, 282, 341 NEO ProgramOffice 363 Mars Global Surveyor 280 National Program 391, 392, 394, 400, 408 Mars Odyssey 280 natural particle beam see under mitigation techniques Mars Polar Lander 281 near-Earth objects (NEOs) 1, 234 MARSIS (Mars advanced radar for subsurface and albedo distribution 11–13 ionospheric sounding) 201–202, 228, 231 binary 58–59 mass drivers see under mitigation techniques Near Earth Asteroid Thermal Model 147 mass extinction event 356 NEAR Shoemaker 105, 276, 314, 331, 337, 397 measurement NEAT 8, 10 astrometric 317 NEODyS2 33, 363, 370 spectral 317, 318 Netlander 281 mechanical properties 235, 239, 253, 275–277 non-gravitational forces 5, 61 meteor non-linear programming 298 impacts on Moon 238 normal modes 254–263, 272 trains 157 Northridge earthquake 398 wakes (afterglow) 157 NRAO 62 Meteor Crater 73 nuclear explosives see under mitigation techniques meteoric fireball 156 nuclear propulsion see under mitigation techniques microgravity 339 nuclear pulse see under mitigation techniques Mie-Gr¨uneisenEquation of State 240, 242, 245, 248, 253 one-impulse interception 303 MINERVA 276, 284, 328 Oort cloud 5–6, 11, 18 mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion see under optical photometry 142–144 mitigation techniques optimal deflection 309 minimum orbital intersection distance (MOID) 10, 23, optimization problem 298 39 orbiting 313 Minor Planet Center (MPC) 33 orbits mission operations 337 optical only 40, 41, 43, 49–53 mitigation 337, 394, 396 radar + optical 40, 41, 43, 49–53 mitigation techniques orbital motion 321 antimatter 183 Organization for Economic Cooperation and chemical explosives 178 Development 371, 382, 383 chemical propulsion 173–174 eaters 183–184 Palermo Scale 35, 48, 362 electric and plasma propulsion (ion propulsion) Pan Starrs 32, 401, 406 175–176, 292, 310 particle size sorting 348 impacts 114–116, 119–123, 176–177 PBX-9010 244, 245 mass drivers 179 Peekskill 158 mini-magnetospheric plasma propulsion 182–183 penetration depth 208 natural particle beam 184 penetrator 266–268, 274, 276, 282–284, 286, 287 nuclear explosives 116–117, 124–134, 177–178, perihelion, distance 1, 4, 11 293 permeability 207 nuclear propulsion 174–175 permittivity 220, 221 nuclear pulse 175 Perseids 155 pulsed lasers and microwaves 179–181 Philae (formerly Rosetta Lander) 267, 276, 280, 282, solar concentrator 168, 182, 187, 397 285 solar sail 178–179 Phobos 316 subsurface explosions 117–118, 123–124 Phobos 1 and 2 missions 281, 283 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521827647 - Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids Edited by Michael J. S. Belton, Thomas H. Morgan, Nalin H. Samarasinha and Donald K. Yeomans Index More information 414 Index Poisson’s ratio 239, 242, 253 space weathering 148 Polar Night 284 spatial sampling 224 ponds 105, 108 sphere of influence 322 porosity 69–70, 210, 276, 402 Standard Thermal Model 147 potentially hazardous objects (PHOs) 10, 23, 39 strategic phase 399–400, 408 Pribram 158 strength–gravity transition 76 preparatory phase 399, 401–405, 408 subsurface explosions see under mitigation techniques projectiles, explosively formed (EFPs) 244 superbollide 156 PROP-F 276, 283 super high energetic propulsion see under mitigation public concern 395 techniques pulsed lasers and microwaves see under mitigation surface explosions see under mitigation techniques techniques surface motion 325–328 radar 38, 43, 150, 201–202, 204–207, 318 surface waves 272 astrometry 39 synchronous orbit 325 bistatic 213 radius 321 delay-Doppler 40, 55, 67, 150, 317 synthetic impactors 23 mono-static 213, 215 radiation pressure, solar 322, 323–324 Tagish Lake 104, 158 radio beacon 281–282 target characterization 402, 406 radio reflection tomography (RRT) 202, 221–231 tensile strength 76, 86, 250–253 radio transmission tomography (RTT)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 7 January 2005
    United Nations A/AC.105/839 General Assembly Distr.: General 7 January 2005 Original: English Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Scientific and Technical Subcommittee Forty-second session Vienna, 21 February-4 March 2004 Item 10 of the provisional agenda∗ Near-Earth objects Information on research in the field of near-Earth objects carried out by international organizations and other entities Note by the Secretariat Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 2 II. Replies received from international organizations and other entities ..................... 2 European Space Agency ......................................................... 2 The Spaceguard Foundation ...................................................... 17 __________________ ∗ A/AC.105/C.1/L.277. V.05-80067 (E) 010205 020205 *0580067* A/AC.105/839 I. Introduction In accordance with the agreement reached at the forty-first session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee (A/AC.105/823, annex II, para. 18) and endorsed by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space at its forty-seventh session (A/59/20, para. 140), the Secretariat invited international organizations, regional bodies and other entities active in the field of near-Earth object (NEO) research to submit reports on their activities relating to near-Earth object research for consideration by the Subcommittee. The present document contains reports received by 17 December 2004. II. Replies received from international organizations and other entities European Space Agency Overview of activities of the European Space Agency in the field of near-Earth object research: hazard mitigation Summary 1. Near-Earth objects (NEOs) pose a global threat. There exists overwhelming evidence showing that impacts of large objects with dimensions in the order of kilometres (km) have had catastrophic consequences in the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael W. Busch Updated June 27, 2019 Contact Information
    Curriculum Vitae: Michael W. Busch Updated June 27, 2019 Contact Information Email: [email protected] Telephone: 1-612-269-9998 Mailing Address: SETI Institute 189 Bernardo Ave, Suite 200 Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Academic & Employment History BS Physics & Astrophysics, University of Minnesota, awarded May 2005. PhD Planetary Science, Caltech, defended April 5, 2010. JPL Planetary Science Summer School, July 2006. Hertz Foundation Graduate Fellow, September 2007 to June 2010. Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California Los Angeles, August 2010 – August 2011. Jansky Fellow, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, August 2011 – August 2014. Visiting Scholar, University of Colorado Boulder, July – August 2012. Research Scientist, SETI Institute, August 2013 – present. Current Funding Sources: NASA Near Earth Object Observations. Research Interests: • Shapes, spin states, trajectories, internal structures, and histories of asteroids. • Identifying and characterizing targets for both robotic and human spacecraft missions. • Ruling out potential future asteroid-Earth impacts. • Radio and radar astronomy techniques. Selected Recent Papers: Marshall, S.E., and 24 colleagues, including Busch, M.W., 2019. Shape modeling of potentially hazardous asteroid (85989) 1999 JD6 from radar and lightcurve data, Icarus submitted. Reddy, V., and 69 colleagues, including Busch, M.W., 2019. Near-Earth asteroid 2012 TC4 campaign: results from global planetary defense exercise, Icarus 326, 133-150. Brozović, M., and 16 colleagues, including Busch, M.W., 2018. Goldstone and Arecibo radar observations of (99942) Apophis in 2012-2013, Icarus 300, 115-128. Brozović, M., and 19 colleagues, including Busch, M.W., 2017. Goldstone radar evidence for short-axis mode non-principal axis rotation of near-Earth asteroid (214869) 2007 PA8. Icarus 286, 314-329.
    [Show full text]
  • MHMP 2014 UPDATE PART 3 I D Natural Geological Hazards
    I. Natural Hazards D. Geological Hazards The following outline summarizes the significant geological hazards covered in this section: 1. Ground Movement a. Earthquakes b. Subsidence 2. Celestial Impacts Although some states recognize “landslides” as an additional hazard, Michigan’s geology and history tends to make it more prone to land subsidence instead. Michigan’s two main vulnerabilities to ground movement are therefore identified in the sections on earthquakes and subsidence hazards. Erosion is not in itself typically considered an emergency event, except in cases involving encroachment into shoreline developments near a river or lake, and these have been dealt with in the Hydrological Hazards section of this plan. A new section of this plan, celestial impacts, deals not only with the impact of physical objects on property, but also with the effects of solar storms on our modern infrastructure. It will be seen that the systemic technological impacts of this hazard involve greater expected risks than the more well-known impacts of a meteoritic type. Although meteorite impacts are quite easy to understand and visualize, and do have a small potential to be catastrophic, it is the seemingly abstract and mostly invisible effect of “space weather” that has the greatest probability of causing widespread disruption and harm in the near future. Overlap Between Geological Hazards and Other Sections of the Hazard Analysis The most serious Michigan earthquakes would be expected to damage some of the utilities infrastructure in the southern part of the state, and could contribute to the occurrence of an energy emergency. Some flooding could result from broken water mains.
    [Show full text]
  • A R T O F R E S I L I E N
    Art of Resilience NEO _Aster_2090-2092___2019-04-10-00-53-37-75 TITLE NEO_2034_2019-04-10-00-55-51-305 (NEO: Near Earth Object) APPROACH Visualizations of Big Data - data art as an emerging form of science communication: Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction; visualizing the risk posed by potential Earth impacts. WHAT Photographic 3D render from an artscience datavisualization dealing with the prediction of potential asteroid impacts on Earth. TECHNIQUE Custom predictive software and code made in openFrameworks in C++ (see addendum) to generate an accurate datavisualization and predictions of bolide events based on data from NASA and KAGGLE. The computation of Earth impact probabilities for near- Earth objects is a complex process requiring sophisticated mathematical techniques. PROCESS The datavisualizations resulted in svg. and obj. files which allows 3D model export, 3D printing and lasercutting techniques. For the Art of Resilience a photographic 3D render was selected by the artist for this exhibition. ART OF RESILIENCE On the 18th of december 2018 an asteroid some ten metres across detonated with an explosive energy ten times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The shock wave shattered windows of almost 7200 buildings. Nearly 1500 people were injured. Although astronomers have managed to locate 93% of the extremely dangerous asteroids, nobody saw it coming. Can art contribute to save the Earth from future threats the means of super forecasting and increase our resilience in regards to potential future asteroid impacts? ARTISTIC STATEMENT Artists often channel the future; seeing patterns before they form and putting them in their work, so that later, in hindsight, the work explodes like a time bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Near-Earth Object Resource
    NEO Resource Near-Earth Object Resource Compiled and edited by James M. Thomas for the Museum Astronomical Resource Society http://marsastro.org and the NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador Program http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/ambassador Updated July 15, 2006 Based upon material available through the NASA Near-Earth Object Program http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ 1 of 104 NEO Resource Table of Contents Section Page Introduction & Overview 5 Target Earth 6 • The Cretaceous/Tertiary (K-T) Extinction 9 • Chicxulub Crater 10 • Barringer Meteorite Crater 13 What Are Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)? 14 What Is The Purpose Of The Near-Earth Object Program? 14 How Many Near-Earth Objects Have Been Discovered So Far? 15 What Is A PHA? 16 What Are Asteroids And Comets? 17 What Are The Differences Between An Asteroid, Comet, Meteoroid, Meteor and 19 Meteorite? Why Study Asteroids? 21 Why Study Comets? 24 What Are Atens, Apollos and Amors? 27 NEO Groups 28 Near-Earth Objects And Life On Earth 29 Near-Earth Objects As Future Resources 31 Near-Earth Object Discovery Teams 32 2 of 104 NEO Resource • Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) 35 • Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking (NEAT) 37 • Spacewatch 39 • Lowell Observatory Near-Earth Object Search (LONEOS) 41 • Catalina Sky Surveys 42 • Japanese Spaceguard Association (JSGA) 44 • Asiago DLR Asteroid Survey (ADAS) 45 Spacecraft Missions to Comets and Asteroids 46 • Overview 46 • Mission Summaries 49 • Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) 49 • DEEP IMPACT 49 • DEEP SPACE 1 50 • STARDUST 50 • Hayabusa (MUSES-C) 51 • ROSETTA
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids
    Extended Abstracts from the NASA Workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids held in Arlington, VA September 3-6, 2002 Erik Asphaug and Nalin Samarasinha, eds. [email protected], [email protected] October 24, 2002 Workshop Poster (July 2002) NOTE: The abstracts contained herein are compiled as received from the authors, with no modification other than file conversion to PDF and concatenation into a single document. No effort has been made to rectify any aspect of any submission, other than to ensure that the proper author heading appears on the associated pages. This document may be freely transmitted in its entirety. Individual authors maintain copyright ownership to their submitted works. In September 2002, NASA’s Office of Space Science sponsored a workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids, attended by 70 scientists from around the world and 20 registered media participants. Peer reviewed invited proceedings from this workshop will be published by Cambridge University Press in late 2003; extended abstracts from both invited and contributed talks are included here. See http://www.noao.edu/meetings/mitigation for updates on the book publication and for other materials related to the workshop. This document will be archived at the above site, and may be updated in time with better formatting. In addition to NASA’s sponsorship, support from Ball Aerospace, NOAO, The University of Maryland, Lockheed Martin and SAIC helped make the workshop a success and is gratefully acknowledged. On the following pages you will find the consensus statement that was released to the press on the final day of the workshop, followed by contributed extended abstracts in alphabetical order.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Index to Volumes 1-45
    The Minor Planet Bulletin Cumulative Index 1 Table of Contents Tedesco, E. F. “Determination of the Index to Volume 1 (1974) Absolute Magnitude and Phase Index to Volume 1 (1974) ..................... 1 Coefficient of Minor Planet 887 Alinda” Index to Volume 2 (1975) ..................... 1 Chapman, C. R. “The Impossibility of 25-27. Index to Volume 3 (1976) ..................... 1 Observing Asteroid Surfaces” 17. Index to Volume 4 (1977) ..................... 2 Tedesco, E. F. “On the Brightnesses of Index to Volume 5 (1978) ..................... 2 Dunham, D. W. (Letter regarding 1 Ceres Asteroids” 3-9. Index to Volume 6 (1979) ..................... 3 occultation) 35. Index to Volume 7 (1980) ..................... 3 Wallentine, D. and Porter, A. Index to Volume 8 (1981) ..................... 3 Hodgson, R. G. “Useful Work on Minor “Opportunities for Visual Photometry of Index to Volume 9 (1982) ..................... 4 Planets” 1-4. Selected Minor Planets, April - June Index to Volume 10 (1983) ................... 4 1975” 31-33. Index to Volume 11 (1984) ................... 4 Hodgson, R. G. “Implications of Recent Index to Volume 12 (1985) ................... 4 Diameter and Mass Determinations of Welch, D., Binzel, R., and Patterson, J. Comprehensive Index to Volumes 1-12 5 Ceres” 24-28. “The Rotation Period of 18 Melpomene” Index to Volume 13 (1986) ................... 5 20-21. Hodgson, R. G. “Minor Planet Work for Index to Volume 14 (1987) ................... 5 Smaller Observatories” 30-35. Index to Volume 15 (1988) ................... 6 Index to Volume 3 (1976) Index to Volume 16 (1989) ................... 6 Hodgson, R. G. “Observations of 887 Index to Volume 17 (1990) ................... 6 Alinda” 36-37. Chapman, C. R. “Close Approach Index to Volume 18 (1991) ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Mn-Cr Isotope Systematics of the D'orbigny Angrite
    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 39, Nr 5, 693–700 (2004) Abstract available online at http://meteoritics.org Mn-Cr isotope systematics of the D’Orbigny angrite D. P. GLAVIN,1† A. KUBNY,1 E. JAGOUTZ,1 and G. W. LUGMAIR1, 2* 1Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, Cosmochemistry, P.O. Box 3060, 55020 Mainz, Germany 2Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA †Present address: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 915, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 24 September 2003; revision accepted 28 February 2004) Abstract–We have conducted a detailed study of the Mn-Cr systematics of the angrite D’Orbigny. Here, we report Cr isotopic abundances and Mn/Cr ratios in olivine, pyroxene, glass, chromite, and bulk rock samples from D’Orbigny. 53Cr excesses in these samples correlate well with their respective Mn/Cr ratios and define an isochron with a slope that corresponds to an initial 53Mn/55Mn ratio = (3.24 ± 0.04) × 10−6 and initial 53Cr/52Cr ratio of ε(53) = 0.30 ± 0.03 at the time of isotopic closure. The 53Mn/55Mn ratio of the D’Orbigny bulk rock is more than two-fold the 53Mn/55Mn ratio of the angrites Lewis Cliff 86010 (LEW) and Angra dos Reis (ADOR) and implies an older Mn-Cr age of 4562.9 ± 0.6 Ma for D’Orbigny relative to a Pb-Pb age of 4557.8 ± 0.5 Ma for LEW and ADOR. One of the most unusual aspects of D’Orbigny is the presence of glass, a phase that has not been identified in any of the other angrites.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Dissipation in Rubble-Pile Asteroids
    Tidal dissipation in rubble-pile asteroids Item Type Article Authors Nimmo, Francis; Matsuyama, Isamu Citation Nimmo, F., & Matsuyama, I. (2019). Tidal dissipation in rubble- pile asteroids. Icarus, 321, 715-721. DOI 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.012 Publisher ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE Journal ICARUS Rights © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Download date 24/09/2021 11:51:28 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final accepted manuscript Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/632093 Tidal dissipation in rubble-pile asteroids Francis Nimmo Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz Isamu Matsuyama Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona Abstract We develop a simple scaling argument for frictional dissipation in rubble- pile asteroids, parameterized as an effective dissipation factor Q. This scaling is combined with a prediction (Goldreich and Sari, 2009) for the tidal response amplitude, parameterized by the Love number k2. We compare the combined scaling with k2/Q values inferred from asteroid binaries in which the semi- major axis is determined by a balance between tidal dissipation and the binary YORP (or BYORP) effect (Jacobson and Scheeres, 2011). The k2/Q scaling matches the inferred values if dissipation is confined to a regolith layer of thickness ∼30 m, similar to the available asteroid regolith thickness estimates. The scaling suggests a regolith thickness that is independent of (or decreases slightly with) increasing asteroid radius; this result is consistent with at least one model of regolith generation via impacts. Keywords: 1 1. Introduction 2 The amplitude and phase of an object’s response to tides provide informa- 3 tion on its internal structure (Moore and Schubert, 2000, e.g.).
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Jun 2014 O.Nt .Ato.Soc
    A Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 1–14 () Printed 10 June 2014 (MN L TEX style file v2.2) Interacting supernovae and supernova impostors. SN 2007sv: the major eruption of a massive star in UGC 5979 L. Tartaglia1,2⋆, A. Pastorello2, S. Taubenberger3, E. Cappellaro1, J.R. Maund4, S. Benetti1, T. Boles5, F. Bufano6, G. Duszanowicz7, N. Elias-Rosa1,8, A. Harutyunyan9, L. Hermansson10, P. Höflich11, K. Maguire12, H. Navasardyan1, S.J. Smartt4, F. Taddia13, M. Turatto1. 1INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, I-35122 Padova, Italy 2Universitá degli Studi di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 2, I-35122 Padova, Italy 3Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany 4Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK 5Coddenham Astronomical Observatory, Suffolk IP6 9QY, UK 6Departamento Ciencias Fisicas, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago de Chile, Chile 7Moonbase Observatory, Otto Bondes vag 43, SE-18462 Akersberga, Sweden 8Institut de Ciències de l’Espai (CSIC - IEEC), Facultat de Ciències, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain. 9Fundación Galileo Galilei - INAF, Telescopio Nazionale Galileo, Rambla JoséAnaFernández Pérez 7, E-38712 Breña Baja, Tenerife, Spain 10Sandvretens Observatory, Linnégatan 5A, SE-75332 Uppsala, Sweden 11Department of Physics, Florida State University, 315 Keen Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4350, USA 12European Southern Observatory (ESO), Karl Schwarschild Strasse 2, D-85748, Garching bei München, Germany 13The Oskar Klein Centre, Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden 10 June 2014 ABSTRACT We report the results of the photometric and spectroscopic monitoring campaign of the transient SN 2007sv.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 04 Fall 2009 1
    Sample test Questions: Chaisson Chapter 04 Fall 2009 1. Density is defined as 9. The largest asteroid, and probably the only one A) mass times weight. to be a spherical "world" is B) weight per square inch. A) Eros. C) mass per unit volume. B) Vesta. D) weight divided by the planet's radius. C) Ida. E) size divided by weight. D) Gaspra. 2. Which of the following are the Jovian planets? E) Ceres. A) Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune only 10. How much advance warning did we have of the B) only Jupiter close approach of asteroid 2002 MN in June C) everything past Mars and the asteroid belt 2002? D) Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto A) None; it was found three days after its E) only Jupiter and Saturn closest approach. 3. Which planet by itself contains the majority of B) several weeks mass of all the planets? C) six years A) the earth D) three days B) Uranus E) four hours C) Saturn 11. The Kuiper Belt is found where in the solar D) Jupiter system? E) Venus A) beyond the orbit of Neptune 4. Planetary orbits B) between the orbits of Jupiter and Uranus A) are highly inclined to the ecliptic. C) among the orbits of the terrestrial planets B) have the Sun at their exact center. D) sixty degrees ahead or behind Jupiter C) are spaced more closely together as they get E) between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter further from the Sun. 12. The tail of a comet always points D) are evenly spaced throughout the solar A) away from the Sun and disappears at system.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Dissipation in Rubble-Pile Asteroids
    Tidal dissipation in rubble-pile asteroids Francis Nimmo Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz Isamu Matsuyama Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona Abstract We develop a simple scaling argument for frictional dissipation in rubble- pile asteroids, parameterized as an effective dissipation factor Q. This scaling is combined with a prediction (Goldreich and Sari, 2009) for the tidal response amplitude, parameterized by the Love number k2. We compare the combined scaling with k2/Q values inferred from asteroid binaries in which the semi- major axis is determined by a balance between tidal dissipation and the binary YORP (or BYORP) effect (Jacobson and Scheeres, 2011). The k2/Q scaling matches the inferred values if dissipation is confined to a regolith layer of thickness ∼30 m, similar to the available asteroid regolith thickness estimates. The scaling suggests a regolith thickness that is independent of (or decreases slightly with) increasing asteroid radius; this result is consistent with at least one model of regolith generation via impacts. Keywords: 1 1. Introduction 2 The amplitude and phase of an object’s response to tides provide informa- 3 tion on its internal structure (Moore and Schubert, 2000, e.g.). This response 4 is typically described by the Love numbers k2 and h2 (Munk and MacDonald, 5 1960). These dimensionless numbers quantify the amplitude of the response 6 to the perturbing tidal potential, where h2 describes the shape response and 7 k2 the gravity response. A uniform, strengthless body has h2=2.5 and k2=1.5. 8 A body with non-zero rigidity and/or mass concentrated towards its centre 9 will have smaller Love numbers.
    [Show full text]