DOCSLIB.ORG

A Model for Moon Formation Around Jupiter Like Planets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Model for Moon Formation Around Jupiter Like Planets Institute for Computational Science at the University of Zurich Bachelor thesis A model for moon formation around giant planets formed by gravitational instability Supervisors Author Dr. Judit Szul´agyi Cassandra Inderbitzi Prof. Dr. Lucio Mayer August 28, 2018 Contents 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Planets and their satellites in our Solar System...................4 1.1.1 Jupiter.....................................5 1.1.2 Saturn......................................6 1.1.3 Uranus.....................................6 1.1.4 Neptune.....................................7 1.1.5 Moons of the terrestrial planets........................7 1.2 Star formation.....................................7 1.2.1 Jeans criterion.................................8 1.3 Terrestrial planet formation..............................8 1.3.1 Goldreich-Ward mechanism..........................9 1.3.2 Streaming instabilities............................. 10 1.4 Giant planet formation................................. 11 1.4.1 Core accretion................................. 11 1.4.2 Disk instability................................. 12 1.4.3 Comparison of CPDs formed by core accretion and disk instability.... 13 1.5 Satellite formation................................... 13 2 Semianalytic model 14 2.1 Disk........................................... 14 2.2 Disk evolution...................................... 15 2.2.1 Gas and dust densities............................. 15 2.2.2 Temperature.................................. 16 2.3 Satellite formation................................... 16 2.3.1 Formation model................................ 17 2.4 Migration........................................ 17 2.4.1 Type I migration................................ 17 2.4.2 Type II migration............................... 18 2.4.3 Migration model................................ 19 2.5 Accretion........................................ 20 2.5.1 Accretion model................................ 21 2.5.2 Depletion.................................... 21 2.5.3 Dust refilling.................................. 21 2.6 Resonance trapping................................... 21 2.7 Collisions........................................ 22 2.8 Population synthesis.................................. 22 3 Results 23 3.1 Number of satellites.................................. 23 3.2 Mass distribution.................................... 24 3.3 Positions......................................... 28 3.4 Survival timescales................................... 32 3.5 Formation temperature................................ 35 3.6 Formation timescales.................................. 36 4 Discussion 36 4.1 Comparison to a Jupiter-analog model........................ 36 4.1.1 Number of satellites.............................. 37 4.1.2 Masses...................................... 38 4.1.3 Survival timescale............................... 39 4.1.4 Formation temperature............................ 40 4.1.5 Formation timescale.............................. 41 1 4.1.6 Summary of the comparison between the Jupiter-analog model and my model...................................... 41 5 Conclusion 42 5.1 Outlook......................................... 42 Bibliography 43 2 To my best friend, without whom I wouldn't be who I am today. 3 1 Introduction In the second millenium BC, the ancient Babylonians identified the first 6 planets of our Solar System [1]. This shows the longstanding interest of humanity in the mysteries of outer space. With the advance in technology, the telescope allowed for a continued study of the bodies in our solar system. In the 17th century, for the first time moons around other planets were observed, first the 4 big Jupiter satellites by Galileo Galilei [2] and later the largest of Saturn's moons, Titan, by Christiaan Huygens [3]. It took another century for Frederick William Herschel to discover Uranus [4] and another 30 years for Giuseppe Piazzi to discover Neptune [5] and finally, in the beginning of the 20th century, Clyde William Tombaugh discovered the then 9th planet, which was later reclassified as a dwarf planet, Pluto [6]. And while we are still discovering new objects within our solar system, our focus has mostly shifted to objects that aren't within our Sun's sphere of influence. Since the first discovery of an exoplanet in 1992, orbiting around the pulsar PSR B1257+12 [8], and the discovery of the first planet orbiting a main sequence star, Pegasi 51 [9] , we have since steadily expanded that number and as of June 5th, 2018, there are 3786 planets [10] orbiting various types of stars. With technology becoming ever better, it is only a matter of time until we start detecting moons around such planets. In fact, there is already work being done on this, and preliminary results suggest that we might have discovered one already [11]. 1.1 Planets and their satellites in our Solar System The International Astronomical Union divides the objects in a solar system broadly into 4 categories [12]: 1. \A 'planet' is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit. 2. \A 'dwarf planet' is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite. 3. \All other objects, except satellites, orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as 'Small Solar-System Bodies'." (The International Astronomical Union,[12]) 4. Satellites, which are objects whose orbit is around planets or asteroids. They are more colloquially called moons. This means that there are 8 planets, from Mercury to Neptune, a number of dwarf planets, such as Pluto and Ceres, and a host of small solar-system bodies, like in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, in the Kuiper-belt past Neptune, which Pluto is a part of, and in the spherical Oort-cloud, which is the source of comets. While this categorization is a good baseline, it still does not quite work in every case. Pluto in particular, as Charon is designated a satellite, even though the mass ratio is 8:1 and thus the two objects orbit a point that lies outside of either surface, which would make it more accurate to call it a twin system of two dwarf planets. The different types of planets in our Solar System are further subdivided into categories: 1. Terrestrial planets are planets whose mass is mostly compromised of solid material like silicates and metals. These are planets like Earth or Mars and at least in the solar system they all seem to be made up of three basic layers: a metallic core, a silicate inner mantel and a solid outer mantle. Many satellites also share this characteristic composition and in some cases even the sizes are comparable (for example, Mercury is slightly smaller than Jupiter moon Ganymede (see table1)) 2. Gas giants are planets whose mass is mostly made up of gaseous Hydrogen and Helium. Although we do not have a clear picture of their internal structure, the theory is that gas 4 giants have an outer layer made up of gas, which is kept in that state due to internal and external heating, a middle layer of metallic hydrogen, kept in that state by pressure and maybe some solid inner core. In our solar system Jupiter and Saturn are the gas giants. 3. Ice giants are planets whose mass is mostly made up by heavier elements (such as oxygen, hydrogen or carbon, as well as water ice) which is the main difference between them and gas giants. These planets are Neptune and Uranus. 1.1.1 Jupiter The largest planet in our solar system is Jupiter. It has so far 69 confirmed moons, although its four main moons (called the Galilean satellites, after their discoverer) make up the vast majority −4 of the combined satellite mass, which is around 2 · 10 MJupiter (as a comparison, the Moon is −2 about 10 MEarth. Name Diameter [km] Mass [Mjup] Orbital radius [Rjup] Io 3660 4:47 · 10−5 6 Europa 3121:6 2:4 · 10−5 9:6 Ganymede 5262:4 7:4 · 10−5 15:3 Callisto 4820:6 5:4 · 10−5 26:9 Table 1: Jupiter's moons [26] Io is the innermost of Jupiter's satellites and the second to lightest. Its density suggests that Io is 100% rocky, being mainly composed of silicates [27]. Models based on measurements taken by the Voyage and Galileo missions suggest that it is has a similar inner structure as Earth with a silicate/rocky crust, a mantle and an iron core [28]. Gravitational interactions with Jupiter and the outer Galilean satellites, called tidal heating, causes Io to be extremely geologically active, resulting in over 400 active volcanoes. Europa is the lightest Galilean satellite. It is in a 2:1 mean-motion resonance with Io, which means Europa completes one orbit in the same time that Io completes two. Europa's density suggests that it is about 90% rocky and 10% ice or water. The smooth surface, which is in fact the smoothest of any body in the Solar System, suggest not only that it has a crust of frozen water, but also a layer of liquid water beneath that. This is further supported by magnetic-field data from the Galileo mission, which shows that Jupiter induces a magnetic field in Europa. This could be explained by a conductive layer of salty water, which is kept liquid due to tidal heating, under the frozen surface [29]. This ocean is of great interest, as it could be a potentially
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Surrender Software
    Scientific image rendering for space scenes with the SurRender software Scientific image rendering for space scenes with the SurRender software R. Brochard, J. Lebreton*, C. Robin, K. Kanani, G. Jonniaux, A. Masson, N. Despré, A. Berjaoui Airbus Defence and Space, 31 rue des Cosmonautes, 31402 Toulouse Cedex, France [email protected] *Corresponding Author Abstract The autonomy of spacecrafts can advantageously be enhanced by vision-based navigation (VBN) techniques. Applications range from manoeuvers around Solar System objects and landing on planetary surfaces, to in -orbit servicing or space debris removal, and even ground imaging. The development and validation of VBN algorithms for space exploration missions relies on the availability of physically accurate relevant images. Yet archival data from past missions can rarely serve this purpose and acquiring new data is often costly. Airbus has developed the image rendering software SurRender, which addresses the specific challenges of realistic image simulation with high level of representativeness for space scenes. In this paper we introduce the software SurRender and how its unique capabilities have proved successful for a variety of applications. Images are rendered by raytracing, which implements the physical principles of geometrical light propagation. Images are rendered in physical units using a macroscopic instrument model and scene objects reflectance functions. It is specially optimized for space scenes, with huge distances between objects and scenes up to Solar System size. Raytracing conveniently tackles some important effects for VBN algorithms: image quality, eclipses, secondary illumination, subpixel limb imaging, etc. From a user standpoint, a simulation is easily setup using the available interfaces (MATLAB/Simulink, Python, and more) by specifying the position of the bodies (Sun, planets, satellites, …) over time, complex 3D shapes and material surface properties, before positioning the camera.
    [Show full text]
  • Monte Carlo Methods to Calculate Impact Probabilities⋆
    A&A 569, A47 (2014) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423966 & c ESO 2014 Astrophysics Monte Carlo methods to calculate impact probabilities? H. Rickman1;2, T. Wisniowski´ 1, P. Wajer1, R. Gabryszewski1, and G. B. Valsecchi3;4 1 P.A.S. Space Research Center, Bartycka 18A, 00-716 Warszawa, Poland e-mail: [email protected] 2 Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516, 75120 Uppsala, Sweden 3 IAPS-INAF, via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133 Roma, Italy 4 IFAC-CNR, via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy Received 9 April 2014 / Accepted 28 June 2014 ABSTRACT Context. Unraveling the events that took place in the solar system during the period known as the late heavy bombardment requires the interpretation of the cratered surfaces of the Moon and terrestrial planets. This, in turn, requires good estimates of the statistical impact probabilities for different source populations of projectiles, a subject that has received relatively little attention, since the works of Öpik(1951, Proc. R. Irish Acad. Sect. A, 54, 165) and Wetherill(1967, J. Geophys. Res., 72, 2429). Aims. We aim to work around the limitations of the Öpik and Wetherill formulae, which are caused by singularities due to zero denominators under special circumstances. Using modern computers, it is possible to make good estimates of impact probabilities by means of Monte Carlo simulations, and in this work, we explore the available options. Methods. We describe three basic methods to derive the average impact probability for a projectile with a given semi-major axis, eccentricity, and inclination with respect to a target planet on an elliptic orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Moons Have Moons?
    A MNRAS 000, 1–?? (2018) Preprint 23 January 2019 Compiled using MNRAS L TEX style file v3.0 Can Moons Have Moons? Juna A. Kollmeier1⋆ & Sean N. Raymond2† 1 Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101 2 Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Bordeaux, Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, B18N, all´eGeoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 33615 Pessac, France Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ ABSTRACT Each of the giant planets within the Solar System has large moons but none of these moons have their own moons (which we call submoons). By analogy with studies of moons around short-period exoplanets, we investigate the tidal-dynamical stability of submoons. We find that 10 km-scale submoons can only survive around large (1000 km-scale) moons on wide-separation orbits. Tidal dissipation destabilizes the orbits of submoons around moons that are small or too close to their host planet; this is the case for most of the Solar System’s moons. A handful of known moons are, however, capable of hosting long-lived submoons: Saturn’s moons Titan and Iapetus, Jupiter’s moon Callisto, and Earth’s Moon. Based on its inferred mass and orbital separation, the newly-discovered exomoon candidate Kepler-1625b-I can in principle host a large submoon, although its stability depends on a number of unknown parameters. We discuss the possible habitability of submoons and the potential for subsubmoons. The existence, or lack thereof, of submoons, may yield important constraints on satellite formation and evolution in planetary systems. Key words: planets and satellites – exoplanets – tides 1 INTRODUCTION the planet spins quickly or to shrink if the planet spins slowly (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • An Impacting Descent Probe for Europa and the Other Galilean Moons of Jupiter
    An Impacting Descent Probe for Europa and the other Galilean Moons of Jupiter P. Wurz1,*, D. Lasi1, N. Thomas1, D. Piazza1, A. Galli1, M. Jutzi1, S. Barabash2, M. Wieser2, W. Magnes3, H. Lammer3, U. Auster4, L.I. Gurvits5,6, and W. Hajdas7 1) Physikalisches Institut, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2) Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Kiruna, Sweden, 3) Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Graz, Austria, 4) Institut f. Geophysik u. Extraterrestrische Physik, Technische Universität, Braunschweig, Germany, 5) Joint Institute for VLBI ERIC, Dwingelo, The Netherlands, 6) Department of Astrodynamics and Space Missions, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands 7) Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland. *) Corresponding author, [email protected], Tel.: +41 31 631 44 26, FAX: +41 31 631 44 05 1 Abstract We present a study of an impacting descent probe that increases the science return of spacecraft orbiting or passing an atmosphere-less planetary bodies of the solar system, such as the Galilean moons of Jupiter. The descent probe is a carry-on small spacecraft (< 100 kg), to be deployed by the mother spacecraft, that brings itself onto a collisional trajectory with the targeted planetary body in a simple manner. A possible science payload includes instruments for surface imaging, characterisation of the neutral exosphere, and magnetic field and plasma measurement near the target body down to very low-altitudes (~1 km), during the probe’s fast (~km/s) descent to the surface until impact. The science goals and the concept of operation are discussed with particular reference to Europa, including options for flying through water plumes and after-impact retrieval of very-low altitude science data.
    [Show full text]
  • Constraints on the Habitability of Extrasolar Moons 3 ¯Glob Its Orbit-Averaged Global Energy flux Fs
    Formation, detection, and characterization of extrasolar habitable planets Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 293, 2012 c 2012 International Astronomical Union Nader Haghighipour DOI: 00.0000/X000000000000000X Constraints on the habitability of extrasolar moons Ren´eHeller1 and Rory Barnes2,3 1Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam email: [email protected] 2University of Washington, Dept. of Astronomy, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 3Virtual Planetary Laboratory, NASA, USA email: [email protected] Abstract. Detections of massive extrasolar moons are shown feasible with the Kepler space telescope. Kepler’s findings of about 50 exoplanets in the stellar habitable zone naturally make us wonder about the habitability of their hypothetical moons. Illumination from the planet, eclipses, tidal heating, and tidal locking distinguish remote characterization of exomoons from that of exoplanets. We show how evaluation of an exomoon’s habitability is possible based on the parameters accessible by current and near-future technology. Keywords. celestial mechanics – planets and satellites: general – astrobiology – eclipses 1. Introduction The possible discovery of inhabited exoplanets has motivated considerable efforts towards estimating planetary habitability. Effects of stellar radiation (Kasting et al. 1993; Selsis et al. 2007), planetary spin (Williams & Kasting 1997; Spiegel et al. 2009), tidal evolution (Jackson et al. 2008; Barnes et al. 2009; Heller et al. 2011), and composition (Raymond et al. 2006; Bond et al. 2010) have been studied. Meanwhile, Kepler’s high precision has opened the possibility of detecting extrasolar moons (Kipping et al. 2009; Tusnski & Valio 2011) and the first dedicated searches for moons in the Kepler data are underway (Kipping et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Detachment and Evaporation Following an Exoplanet-Star Collision
    MNRAS 000, 000–000 (0000) Preprint 24 June 2019 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0 Orphaned Exomoons: Tidal Detachment and Evaporation Following an Exoplanet-Star Collision Miguel Martinez1, Nicholas C. Stone1;2;3, Brian D. Metzger1 1Department of Physics and Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA 2Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel 3Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA 24 June 2019 ABSTRACT Gravitational perturbations on an exoplanet from a massive outer body, such as the Kozai- Lidov mechanism, can pump the exoplanet’s eccentricity up to values that will destroy it via a collision or strong interaction with its parent star. During the final stages of this process, any exomoons orbiting the exoplanet will be detached by the star’s tidal force and placed into orbit around the star. Using ensembles of three and four-body simulations, we demonstrate that while most of these detached bodies either collide with their star or are ejected from the system, a substantial fraction, ∼ 10%, of such "orphaned" exomoons (with initial properties similar to those of the Galilean satellites in our own solar system) will outlive their parent exoplanet. The detached exomoons generally orbit inside the ice line, so that strong radiative heating will evaporate any volatile-rich layers, producing a strong outgassing of gas and dust, analogous to a comet’s perihelion passage. Small dust grains ejected from the exomoon may help generate an opaque cloud surrounding the orbiting body but are quickly removed by radiation blow-out.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYS133 – Lab 4 the Revolution of the Moons of Jupiter
    PHYS133 – Lab 4 The Revolution of the Moons of Jupiter Goals: Use a simulated remotely controlled telescope to observe Jupiter and the position of its four largest moons. Plot their positions relative to the planet vs. time and fit a curve to them to determine their orbit characteristics (i.e., period and semi‐major axis). Employ Newton’s form of Kepler’s third law to determine the mass of Jupiter. What You Turn In: Graphs of your orbital data for each moon. Calculations of the mass of Jupiter for each moon’s orbit. Calculate the time required to go to Mars from Earth using the lowest possible energy. Background Reading: Background reading for this lab can be found in your text book (specifically, Chapters 3 and 4 and especially section 4.4) and the notes for the course. Equipment provided by the lab: Computer with Internet Connection • Project CLEA program “The Revolutions of the Moons of Jupiter” Equipment provided by the student: Pen Calculator Background: Astronomers cannot directly measure many of the things they study, such as the masses and distances of the planets and their moons. Nevertheless, we can deduce some properties of celestial bodies from their motions despite the fact that we cannot directly measure them. In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus hypothesized that the planets revolve in circular orbits around the sun. Tycho Brahe (1546‐1601) carefully observed the locations of the planets and 777 stars over a period of 20 years using a sextant and compass. These observations were used by Johannes Kepler, to deduce three empirical mathematical laws governing the orbit of one object around another.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Physics Special Topics an Undergraduate Physics Journal
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Leicester Open Journals Journal of Physics Special Topics An undergraduate physics journal P5 1 Conditions for Lunar-stationary Satellites Clear, H; Evan, D; McGilvray, G; Turner, E Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH November 5, 2018 Abstract This paper will explore what size and mass of a Moon-like body would have to be to have a Hill Sphere that would allow for lunar-stationary satellites to exist in a stable orbit. The radius of this body would have to be at least 2500 km, and the mass would have to be at least 2:1 × 1023 kg. Introduction orbital period of 27 days. We can calculate the Geostationary satellites are commonplace orbital radius of the satellite using the following around the Earth. They are useful in provid- equation [3]: ing line of sight over the entire planet, excluding p 3 the polar regions [1]. Due to the Earth's gravi- T = 2π r =GMm; (1) tational influence, lunar-stationary satellites are In equation 1, r is the orbital radius, G is impossible, as the Moon's smaller size means it the gravitational constant, MM is the mass of has a small Hill Sphere [2]. This paper will ex- the Moon, and T is the orbital period. Solving plore how big the Moon would have to be to allow for r gives a radius of around 88000 km. When for lunar-stationary satellites to orbit it.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Space Chronicle Deep Space Chronicle: a Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000 | Asifa
    dsc_cover (Converted)-1 8/6/02 10:33 AM Page 1 Deep Space Chronicle Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology ofDeep Space and Planetary Probes, 1958–2000 |Asif A.Siddiqi National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA SP-2002-4524 A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000 Asif A. Siddiqi NASA SP-2002-4524 Monographs in Aerospace History Number 24 dsc_cover (Converted)-1 8/6/02 10:33 AM Page 2 Cover photo: A montage of planetary images taken by Mariner 10, the Mars Global Surveyor Orbiter, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2, all managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Included (from top to bottom) are images of Mercury, Venus, Earth (and Moon), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and its Moon, and Mars) and the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) are roughly to scale to each other. NASA SP-2002-4524 Deep Space Chronicle A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000 ASIF A. SIDDIQI Monographs in Aerospace History Number 24 June 2002 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Office of External Relations NASA History Office Washington, DC 20546-0001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siddiqi, Asif A., 1966­ Deep space chronicle: a chronology of deep space and planetary probes, 1958-2000 / by Asif A. Siddiqi. p.cm. – (Monographs in aerospace history; no. 24) (NASA SP; 2002-4524) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Space flight—History—20th century. I. Title. II. Series. III. NASA SP; 4524 TL 790.S53 2002 629.4’1’0904—dc21 2001044012 Table of Contents Foreword by Roger D.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of a Terrestrial Multiple Moon System
    THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 117:603È620, 1999 January ( 1999. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. EVOLUTION OF A TERRESTRIAL MULTIPLE-MOON SYSTEM ROBIN M. CANUP AND HAROLD F. LEVISON Southwest Research Institute, 1050 Walnut Street, Suite 426, Boulder, CO 80302 AND GLEN R. STEWART Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Campus Box 392, Boulder, CO 80309-0392 Received 1998 March 30; accepted 1998 September 29 ABSTRACT The currently favored theory of lunar origin is the giant-impact hypothesis. Recent work that has modeled accretional growth in impact-generated disks has found that systems with one or two large moons and external debris are common outcomes. In this paper we investigate the evolution of terres- trial multiple-moon systems as they evolve due to mutual interactions (including mean motion resonances) and tidal interaction with Earth, using both analytical techniques and numerical integra- tions. We Ðnd that multiple-moon conÐgurations that form from impact-generated disks are typically unstable: these systems will likely evolve into a single-moon state as the moons mutually collide or as the inner moonlet crashes into Earth. Key words: Moon È planets and satellites: general È solar system: formation INTRODUCTION 1. 1000 orbits). This result was relatively independent of initial The ““ giant-impact ÏÏ scenario proposes that the impact of disk conditions and collisional parameterizations. Pertur- a Mars-sized body with early Earth ejects enough material bations by the largest moonlet(s) were very e†ective at clear- into EarthÏs orbit to form the Moon (Hartmann & Davis ing out inner disk materialÈin all of the ICS97 simulations, 1975; Cameron & Ward 1976).
    [Show full text]
  • Diagram for Question 1 the Cosmic Perspective by Bennett, Donahue, Schneider and Voit
    2017 Space Systems Qualifying Examination Question and Solutions Useful constants: G = 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 30 MSun = 1.989 × 10 kg 27 MJupiter = 1.898 × 10 kg 24 MEarth = 5.972 × 10 kg AU = 1.496 × 1011 m g = 9.80665 m/s2 NASA recently selected two Discovery missions to explore asteroids, teaching us about the early solar system. The mission names are Lucy and Psyche. The Lucy mission will fly by six Jupiter Trojan asteroids (visiting both “Trojans” and “Greeks”). The Psyche mission will fly to and orbit 16 Psyche, a giant metal asteroid in the main belt. 1) Draw a top-down perspective diagram of the solar system that includes the Sun, the Earth, and Jupiter; label it with distances in AU. If you do not know the distances exactly, make a reasonable guess. [Time estimate: 2 min] Answer: See diagram in Figure 1. Jupiter is approximately 5 AU from the Sun; its semi major axis is ~5.2 AU. Mars is ~1.5 AU, and Earth at 1 AU. 5.2 AU Figure 1: Diagram for question 1 The Cosmic Perspective by Bennett, Donahue, Schneider and Voit http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/1010/ 1 2) Update your diagram to include the approximate locations and distances to the Trojan asteroids. Your diagram should at minimum include the angle ahead/behind Jupiter of the Trojan asteroids. Qualitatively explain this geometry. [Time estimate: 3 min] Answer: See diagram in Figure 2. The diagram at minimum should show the L4 and L5 Sun-Jupiter Lagrange points.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity Book Level 4
    Space Place Education Team Activity booklet Level 4 This booklet contains: Teacher’s notes for Level 4 Level 4 assessment points Classroom activities Curriculum links Classroom Activities: Use these flexible activities to develop students awareness of abstract scientific concepts. Survival on the Moon Solar System Scale Model How Can We Navigate by the Sky? Seeing Clearly with Binoculars How to take Astronomical Measurements How do we Measure the Brightness of Stars and Planets? Curriculum Links: Use these ideas to link this science topic with Literacy, Mathematics and Craft sessions. Notes for Teachers Level 4 includes Exploring the Solar System, Telescopes and Hunting for Asteroids. These cover more about how seasons happen and if this could happen on other objects in space, features and affects of the Sun and builds on the knowledge of our galaxy and beyond as well as how to find asteroids. Our Solar System The Solar System is made up of the Sun and its planetary system of eight planets, their moons, and other non-stellar objects like comets and asteroids. It formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a massive molecular cloud. Most of the System's mass is in the Sun, with the rest of the remaining mass mostly contained within Jupiter. The four smaller inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, are also called terrestrial planets; are primarily made of metal and rock. The four outer planets, called the gas giants, are significantly more massive than the terrestrials. The two largest, Jupiter and Saturn, are made mainly of hydrogen and helium.
    [Show full text]