Rings Under Close Encounters with the Giant Planets: Chariklo Versus Chiron
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MNRAS 479, 4770–4777 (2018) doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1770 Advance Access publication 2018 July 5 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/479/4/4770/5049305 by UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho user on 18 September 2018 Rings under close encounters with the giant planets: Chariklo versus Chiron R. A. N. Araujo,‹ O. C. Winter‹ and R. Sfair‹ UNESP – Sao˜ Paulo State University, Grupo de Dinamicaˆ Orbital e Planetologia, CEP 12516-410, Guaratingueta,´ SP, Brazil Accepted 2018 June 28. Received 2018 June 25; in original form 2017 September 4 ABSTRACT In 2014, the discovery of two well-defined rings around the Centaur (10199) Chariklo was announced. This was the first time that such structures were found around a small body. In 2015, it was proposed that the Centaur (2060) Chiron may also have a ring. In a previous study, we analysed how close encounters with giant planets would affect the rings of Chariklo. The most likely result is the survival of the rings. In this work, we broaden our analysis to (2060) Chiron. In addition to Chariklo, Chiron is currently the only known Centaur with a presumed ring. By applying the same method as Araujo, Sfair and Winter, we performed numerical integrations of a system composed of 729 clones of Chiron, the Sun and the giant planets. The number of close encounters that disrupted the ring of Chiron during one half-life of the study period was computed. This number was then compared to the number of close encounters for Chariklo. We found that the probability of Chiron losing its ring due to close encounters with the giant planets is about six times higher than that for Chariklo. Our analysis showed that, unlike Chariklo, Chiron is more likely to remain in an orbit with a relatively low inclination and high eccentricity. Thus, we found that the bodies in Chiron-like orbits are less likely to retain rings than those in Chariklo-like orbits. Overall, for observational purposes, we conclude that the bigger bodies in orbits with high inclinations and low eccentricities should be prioritized. Key words: planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability – planets and satellites: rings. perturbations of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Throughout 1 INTRODUCTION these simulations, all the close encounters between Chariklo and A stellar occultation of (10199) Chariklo revealed the existence of each giant planet were recorded. Using a selection of the strongest an associated pair of narrow well-defined rings (Braga-Ribas et al. close encounters, a new set of numerical simulations was made con- 2014). This was the first detection of a ring system orbiting a minor sidering rings of massless particles orbiting Chariklo. As a result, body. The detection was confirmed in later occultations (Berard´ these studies identified the cases where the encounters were disrup- et al. 2017). tive, removing the ring, and those where the ring was not removed Chariklo is the largest body defined as a Centaur. Centaurs exist but suffered a significant change in its orbit around Chariklo. The in chaotic orbits among the giant planets and frequently have close conclusion of Araujo et al. (2016) was that the ring would survive encounters with them. The lifetime of a Centaur is of the order without any significant orbital change for more than 90 per cent of of 10 Myr (Tiscareno & Malhotra 2003, Horner, Evans & Bailey the clones. A similar result was later obtained by Wood et al. (2017). 2004a, b, Araujo, Sfair & Winter 2016). The possible existence of a ring around (2060) Chiron, another The existence of a ring system around a minor body in such a Centaur, was suggested by Ortiz et al. (2015). This indication, which wild orbital environment leads to the next question: Are the rings of has not yet been confirmed, raises the question of whether the results Chariklo stable during close encounters with the giant planets? In a found for Chariklo‘s rings (Araujo et al. 2016) are also valid for previous work, Araujo et al. (2016) addressed this question by per- Chiron‘s ring system since their present orbital elements and the forming numerical simulations with a set of 729 clones of Chariklo system configuration (i.e. the size of the Centaur and location of the with similar initial orbits around the Sun given the gravitational rings) are different. Therefore, in this work, we reproduce the study of the close encounters for a set of clones of Chiron, similar to what was done E-mail: [email protected] (RANA); [email protected] (OCW); for Chariklo. Then, we identify the differences in the results for [email protected] (RS) C 2018 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society Chariklo versus Chiron 4771 Chiron and those for Chariklo caused by the differences in Chiron’s results obtained for Chariklo. This approach will then allow us Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/479/4/4770/5049305 by UNESP-Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho user on 18 September 2018 ring system and by their distinct orbital evolutions. obtain statistical statements (subject to assumptions) for the possible The structure of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we discuss existence of rings around Centaurs as a general population. the physical and orbital differences between Chariklo, Chiron and their rings. In Section 3, we explain our experimental method; in 3 METHOD Section 4, we explain our results; and in Section 5, we summa- rize our main results giving a prospect for detecting rings around Araujo et al. (2016) considered 729 clones of Chariklo. The clones Centaurs. were defined from the osculating orbit of the Centaur (Table 1), where the semimajor axis, the eccentricity, and the orbital inclina- tion varied within the ranges presented in Table 2. In an analogous 2 CHIRON VERSUS CHARIKLO fashion, 729 clones of Chiron were also made from its osculating Chiron and Chariklo are dynamically classified as Centaurs. Al- orbit (Table 1) using the ranges presented in Table 2. They were though there is no consensus on the definition of Centaurs, it is considered nine values for the semimajor axis going from 13.620 generally well accepted that the Centaur population is made up au until 13.660 au (taken every a = 0.005 au), nine values for the of small bodies whose orbits mainly evolve in the region between eccentricity, going from 0.363 until 0.403 (taken every e = 0.005 Jupiter and Neptune (see the discussion in Araujo et al. 2016). au) and nine values for the orbital inclination going from 6.91 until The crossing of orbits of Centaurs with the giant planets and, 6.99 (taken every 0.01). The combination of these values resulted consequently, the close encounters experienced by them, are quite in the total number of 729 clones. frequent. This leads to a characteristic chaotic orbital evolution The number of clones and the intervals of variation of their os- of the Centaurs (see, e.g. Levison & Duncan 1997; Tiscareno & culating orbital elements for Chariklo and for Chiron were defined Malhotra 2003; Horner et al. 2004a, b; Bailey & Malhotra 2009). following Horner et al. (2004a). The authors justify the choice of Chiron was the first known object of the population of Centaurs these increments by arguing that they are ‘sufficiently small that the (Kowal, Liller & Marsden 1979). Chariklo was discovered later in clones can be considered as initially essentially identical to one an- 1997 by the SPACEWATCH program (Scotti, J.V.1997). The two exhibit other, yet they are large enough to ensure that the subsequent chaotic distinct orbital and physical characteristics. From Table 1,wesee dynamical evolution following close planetary encounters rapidly that Chariklo is almost twice as large as Chiron and that the orbit disperse their orbits through phase space’. The angular elements of Chariklo is less eccentric and more inclined than the orbit of (, ω,andM) were also obtained from JPL’s Horizons system for Chiron. the Epoch MJD 57664. For the size and mass of Chiron, we used the lower values pre- The orbits of these clones were numerically integrated for sented in NASA-PFS (2014). The lower values of the mass and size a period of 100 Myr using the adaptive time-step hybrid of Chiron were chosen to make them as different as possible from symplectic/Bulirsch–Stoer algorithm implemented within the MER- those of Chariklo. Despite being the first Centaur to be detected and CURY6 orbit integration package (Chambers 1999). The clones were the second largest Centaur in size, Chiron’s actual size is uncertain. only subject to the gravitational forces of the Sun and the planets, Several measurements of its radius using a variety of techniques can Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The orbital elements of the be found in the literature: 71 km (Groussin, Lamy & Jorda 2004), planets were obtained from JPL’s Horizons system for the same 74 km (Fernandez, Jewitt & Sheppard 2002), 84 km (Altenhoff & Epoch. Throughout the integration, the clones did not interact with Stumpff 1995), 90 km (Lebofsky et al. 1984 and Bus et al. 1996), each other, but they could collide with any of the massive bodies or and 100 km (Bauer, Grav & Blauvelt 2013). A follow-up campaign could be ejected from the system. A clone was considered to have using infrared observations by Campins et al. (1994) resulted in collided with a body if the encounter distance was smaller than the radius measurements ranging from 74 km to 94 km over the period body’s physical radius, and the ejection distance was assumed to be from 1991 to 1994.