forming protoplanets from planetesimals · forming protoplanets from planetesimals: the collisional...
TRANSCRIPT
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Forming Protoplanets from Planetesimals: The collisional evolution of planetary building blocks
Zoë Malka LeinhardtDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of CambridgeDepartment of Physics, University of Bristol
1
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Outline
The Context a. Observational Constraints - extrasolar planets, the solar system b. Planet Formation Story - “Once upon a time there was a cloud of gas ...” c. The Unknowns - planetesimal formation mechanism, initial conditions
Planetesimal Collisions a. Catastrophic Disruption Threshold - accretion or erosion? b. Velocity Dependent Collisional Response c. In Future - scaling laws
One Collisional Event in Detail (Haumea Family) a. Analytic determination of collisional regime b. Numerical confirmation
Discussion a. What does this all mean for planet formation?
2
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Observational Constraints: Exoplanets
• 464 planets outside our Solar System (29/06/10)
• Diverse: 68 hot Jupiters, 21 Super-Earths, 45 multiple systems, 69 around low mass stars (K & M), 4 around pulsars
• No exoplanet systems similar to the Solar System (yet)
• Planet formation is common: 5% of Sun-like stars have a Jupiter-mass planet (Marcy & Butler, 2000), 30% have a super-Earth (Lovis et al. 2009)
3
Data from exoplanet catalog (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php)
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Observational Constraints: Exoplanets
• 464 planets outside our Solar System (29/06/10)
• Diverse: 68 hot Jupiters, 21 Super-Earths, 45 multiple systems, 69 around low mass stars (K & M), 4 around pulsars
• No exoplanet systems similar to the Solar System (yet)
• Planet formation is common: 5% of Sun-like stars have a Jupiter-mass planet (Marcy & Butler, 2000), 30% have a super-Earth (Lovis et al. 2009)
3
Data from exoplanet catalog (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php)
The Solar System
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
The Problem
• Observations provide snapshots of early and late stages but cannot trace full history of planet formation
4
Young Disk around HD142527
Fukagawa et al. 2006C. Marois et al. 2008
Multi-planet System
• No existing complete numerical model of planet formation that can connect early and late stages due to numerical limitations and incomplete physical models
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory
Planetesimal theory described by “isolated” phases - influence from the previous phase by its end state only
Planetesimal Formation
Planetesimal to Protoplanet
Protoplanet to Planet (or core)
5
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory
Planetesimal theory described by “isolated” phases - influence from the previous phase by its end state only
Planetesimal Formation
Planetesimal to Protoplanet
Protoplanet to Planet (or core)
5
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Planetesimal Formation: Hypotheses• Coagulation: growth accretion dominated collisions of dust
pro: consistent with meteoritescon: typical velocity dispersion is too fast (Blum & Wurm 2008) slow - meter-size will spiral into sun before decoupling from gas (Weidenschilling 1977) weak - km-sized very fragile could be ground down by collisions (Leinhardt & Stewart 2009, Stewart & Leinhardt 2009)
• Gravitational Instability: collapse of dust layer (Goldreich & Ward 1973)pro: fast - avoids intermediate sizescon: turbulence heats up the dust layer reducing the density solutions: turbulence at small scales (Cuzzi et al 2008) turbulence + streaming instability (Johansen et al 2007)
6
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory
Planetesimal theory described by “isolated” phases - influence from the previous phase by its end state only
Planetesimal Formation
Planetesimal to Protoplanet
Protoplanet to Planet (or core)
7
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Idealized Story: Planetesimal Theory
Planetesimal theory described by “isolated” phases - influence from the previous phase by its end state only
Planetesimal Formation
Planetesimal to Protoplanet
Protoplanet to Planet (or core)
7
Isolation of phases is a simplification - phases should interact & overlap
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Multiple Generations: the Solar System
X-ray cross section of meteorite PCA 91082, chondrules in red (Mg), CAIs in blue (Al), Image from Krot Univ. of Hawaii
• Planetesimal formation occurs over long timescale (Hf/W chronology, Kleine 2009): differentiated planetesimals (iron meteorites) formed quickly after CAI + 1 Myr, ordinary chondrites (undifferentiated planetesimal) formed at least 1 Myr later.
• Chondrites formed slowly: Calcium aluminium rich inclusions (CAIs) oldest solar system material (4.56 Gyr), chondrules younger > 1 Myr find both in the same meteorite
8
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Planetesimal Evolution
Leinhardt et al. 2008
9
• Planetesimal composition: changes with time and distance from sun - initially porous planetesimals compact (& melt) into solid planetesimals. Solid planetesimal may be disrupted into rubble piles.
• Impact speed: increases from subsonic to supersonic as solar system evolves
• QD*: will change during planet formation
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Planetesimal Evolution
Leinhardt et al. 2008
9
• Planetesimal composition: changes with time and distance from sun - initially porous planetesimals compact (& melt) into solid planetesimals. Solid planetesimal may be disrupted into rubble piles.
• Impact speed: increases from subsonic to supersonic as solar system evolves
• QD*: will change during planet formation
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Numerical Method for Subsonic Collisions
• Modelled with N-body code pkdgrav
• Target and projectile are gravitational aggregates, similar mass & ρ = 0.5 - 3.0 g/cm3
• Rubble-pile particles cannot fracture, only gravity and collisions (no cohesion)
• Inelastic collisions between particles governed by εn = 0.2 - 0.8
10
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Numerical Method for Subsonic Collisions
• Modelled with N-body code pkdgrav
• Target and projectile are gravitational aggregates, similar mass & ρ = 0.5 - 3.0 g/cm3
• Rubble-pile particles cannot fracture, only gravity and collisions (no cohesion)
• Inelastic collisions between particles governed by εn = 0.2 - 0.8
10
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Numerical Method for Supersonic Collisions
• Hybrid shock hydro (CTH) to N-body gravity (pkdgrav) to model gravitational re-accumulation
• Impacts into non-porous basalt targets with material strength (weak - strong)
• Impact speed kms/s, target radius = 1 - 50 km, mass of target much larger than mass of projectile
1s
1s
20s
20s
60s
60s
50 km
109
107
60s 110s 160s
0.44h 4.44h 139h
1A
1A
1B 1C
2A 2B 2C
3A 3B 3C
4A 4B 4C
50 km
50 km
Leinhardt & Stewart, 200911
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
First Order Collision Outcomes: Example QD*
102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Target Radius (cm)
104
105
106
107
108
109
1010
Proj
ectil
e Ki
netic
Ene
rgy
/ Tar
get M
ass
Q* D (e
rg/g
)
Solid Basalt (3 km/s, 5 km/s, 45o) [BA99]Solid Ice (3 km/s, 45o) [BA99]
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.00VI (km/s)
Filled: solid target
Open: porous target
#: porosity in %vol
Impact speeds of 3 - 5 km/s
Catastrophic Disrpution Threshold (QD*):Projectile Kinetic Energy/Target Mass needed to
permanently remove 50% of the target mass
Strength Regime:dominated by
tensile strength Gravity Regime:dominated bygravitational
binding energy
QD (e
rg/g
)
Target Radius (cm)
12
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
100 102 104 106 108
RC1, Spherical Radius for Combined Mass at 1 g cm-3 (cm)
104
105
106
107
108
109
Q* RD
(e
rg/g
)
10-5 10-3 10-1 10 103RC1 (km)
<e>=0.001
<e>=0.01
Grav
itatio
nal b
indi
ng en
ergy
0.001
0.010
0.100
1.000
10.00VI (km/s)
Lab data:BasaltPorous glass
Modeling results:Strong Rock (Basalt) (3 km/s, 45o) [BA99]Weak Rock (1 km/s; 90o) [LS08]Rubble Piles (Mp<<Mtarg)Rubble Piles (Mp=Mtarg)Rubble Piles (Mp=1.5Mtarg)
Weak aggregates (Eq. 2)10 m/s
1 km/s
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Collision Outcome: Velocity dependent QRD*
13Stewart & Leinhardt, 2009
Q∗RD = qsR
9µ/(3−2φ)C1 V 2−3µ
i
+qgR3µC1V
2−3µi
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Q / Q*
D
0.00.5
1.0
1.5
2.02.5
Mlr /
Mta
rg
AMp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)
Mp < Mtarg slope = -0.47 (0.05)
Mp > Mtarg slope = -2.32 (0.22)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0QR / Q*
RD
0.00.2
0.4
0.6
0.81.0
Mlr /
(Mp+
Mta
rg) Bslope = -0.5 (0.05)
14
• Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact (universal law)
• Universal law is effectively independent of mass ratio and impact angle when normalising by Mtot and Q*RD
Head-on20o
Shapes = mass ratios
45o
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Q / Q*
D
0.00.5
1.0
1.5
2.02.5
Mlr /
Mta
rg
AMp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)
Mp < Mtarg slope = -0.47 (0.05)
Mp > Mtarg slope = -2.32 (0.22)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0QR / Q*
RD
0.00.2
0.4
0.6
0.81.0
Mlr /
(Mp+
Mta
rg) Bslope = -0.5 (0.05)
14
• Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact (universal law)
• Universal law is effectively independent of mass ratio and impact angle when normalising by Mtot and Q*RD
Head-on20o
Shapes = mass ratios
45o
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Collision Outcome: Universal Law for Mlr
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Q / Q*
D
0.00.5
1.0
1.5
2.02.5
Mlr /
Mta
rg
AMp = Mtarg slope = -1.45 (0.06)
Mp < Mtarg slope = -0.47 (0.05)
Mp > Mtarg slope = -2.32 (0.22)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0QR / Q*
RD
0.00.2
0.4
0.6
0.81.0
Mlr /
(Mp+
Mta
rg) Bslope = -0.5 (0.05)
14
Mlr/Mtot = −0.5(QR/Q∗RD
−1) + 0.5
• Mass of the largest remnant is correlated with energy of impact (universal law)
• Universal law is effectively independent of mass ratio and impact angle when normalising by Mtot and Q*RD
Head-on20o
Shapes = mass ratios
45o
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Size Distribution
• Cumulative size distribution for various impact speeds, impact parameters, and mass ratios
• Slope of fragment tail (~ -3.5) is independent of mass ratio and impact parameter
15
μ = 1 b = 0
b = 0.35 b = 0.70 b = 0.90
μ = 0.25
μ = 0.025
1 10 1 101 101
10
100
1031
10
100
103
1
10
100
103
Diameter (km)
Cum
ulat
ive
N (>
D)
Super-catastrophic (Mlr ~10%)
Catastrophic (Mlr ~ 25%)
Catastrophic (Mlr ~ 75%)
Merging (Mlr ~ 90%)
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Summary of Collision Outcome Model (to date)
• Q*RD varies by orders of magnitude during formation of solar system (Benz & Asphaug ‘99; Benz ‘00; Leinhardt & Stewart 2009; Stewart & Leinhardt 2009)
• Small gravity dominated bodies are weaker than previously assumed because of efficient energy coupling during low-speed collision events
• New variables define universal law for Mlr/Mtot vs QR/Q*RD that is relatively independent of impact parameter and mass ratio
• Size distribution of collisional tail independent of mass ratio and impact parameter (cumulative power-law index -3.5 differential -4.5)
• Leinhardt & Stewart (in prep) equations to fully characterise collision outcome as a function of mass ratio and impact parameter where relevant: universal law, catastrophic disruption curve, <v>, size distribution, transition to graze and run regime
16
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Haumea & Minions
• Large & elongated @ 43 AU: Radii ~1000 x 750 x 500 km
• Homogeneous surface & neutral colour
• Fast spin period ~ 4 hr
• 2 satellites + 8 family members (first “family” in the KB but many in the asteroid belt)
• Mass of Haumea satellites + family ~ 0.01 MH
• Family velocity dispersion low ~ 150 m/s(Refs: Rabinowitz 2006, Ragozzine & Brown 2007 & 2009, Schaller & Brown 2007 & 2008)
17
14/12/2009 13:59A dark red spot on KBO Haumea
Page 1 of 6http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~pl/drs.html
back to homepage
A dark, red spot on KBO Haumea
Haumea, a
large, fast-
spinning
KBO
The Kuiperbelt objectknown asHaumea isveryinterestingbecause of itslarge size andvery fastrotation.Given itslarge size,about 2000km indiameter, andif not rotating,Haumeashould benearlyspherical likethe Earth orthe Moon.This isbecause itsself-gravitywouldcompress itequally in alldirections andso force itinto a giantball. ButHaumea spins
Figure 1 — Lightcurve of KBO Haumea in two broadbands, blue B andred R. The regular, quasi-sinusoidal shape of the lightcurve, together withthe rapid rotation (period P=3.9 hr) are strong indication that this object iselongated like a rugby ball. Two other important pieces of informationare the different heights (and depths) of the 2 peaks (and the 2 troughs),and the misalignment of the red and blue data points between the phases2.7 and 3.9 hr, approximately.
Figure 2 — Three simple models for the Haumea spot. All thesereproduce the lightcurve data well (see Fig. 3). Although color is notshown, the darker the spot the redder it is.
Lacerda et al. 2008
Brown et al. 2006
Haumea
Hi’iaka
Namaka
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Slow Collision?
• Velocity dispersion of family members is small in comparison to escape speed from Haumea, Vdisp < Vesc from Haumea (900 m/s)
• Asteroid families have velocity dispersions ~ escape speed from largest remnant Mlr ~ 0.5 MTarg
18
Vi = Vesc
BOOM!
V’esc = 0.7 Vesc
M M/2
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
What about the Spin?
• Assume all L of projectile and target goes into Haumea
• Analytic prediction of impact parameters
• Parameter space to attain required spin is narrow
19
(Canup 2005)
MP/MTot
Imp
act
Par
amet
er, b
0.50.0
1
0.0
2.5
1.52.0
2.0 Vi = 1.25 Vesc
Bulk Density [g cm-3]
Leinhardt et al. 2010
b =L
Lcrit
k√2f(γ)
V
Vesc
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Numerical Method
• Numerically difficult problem - family members much smaller than Haumea (requiring high resolution), collision is slow (requiring long integration time), large amount of energy in impact (need equations of state)
• Refine parameter space: Low resolution numerical simulations (using a gravity code only) over a range of parameter space to locate best match to Haumea
• A few high resolution hybrid simulations (using two numerical methods) of the most promising scenarios to find the best match to entire family
20
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Graze and Merge
• Mproj = Mtarg
• R = 650 km
• Vi = 900 m/s
• b = 0.6
• Ice mantle over rock core (bulk density 2 g/cm3)
• Gadget + pkdgrav (hydrocode with EOS for ice & rock + N-body gravity code)
21
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Graze and Merge Cont.
22
• Icy mantles blue, rocky cores grey
• Little mass loss on first impact
• Cores merge quickly on second impact
• Mass loss of mantle due to fission -largest remnant is initially spinning above critical spin rate
• Satellites and family members released close to escape speed
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Results of Graze and Merge: Size Distribution
• Mass of observed family members derived assuming albedo of 0.7 and bulk density of 1.0
• Match mass, spin, and elongation of Haumea and mass largest family members
• Observed family is incomplete
23
Cum
ulat
ive
N(>
M)/
Tota
l N
Fragment Mass/Total Mass
Namaka
Hi’iaka
Haumea
0.0001 1
0.01
1
0.01
0.1
Leinhardt et al. 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
Results of Graze and Merge: Velocity Dispersion
• 35 stable satellites after 2000 spin orbits of largest remnant
• Family mass small (.07 Mlr)
• Satellites and family made of mantle material (.8 MF)
• Satellites have low velocity dispersion (Vinf < 0.5 Vesc)
Fragment Mass/Total Mass
Cum
ulat
ive
N(>
M)/T
otal
N
Haumea
Hi’iaka
Namaka
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
0.01
0.1
1
Observed family incomplete x10
V (km s-1)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(Mass of Fragm
ents > V
)/Mfrag
1.0
0
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
(Mas
s of
Fra
gmen
ts >
V)/
Mlr
V/Vesc_lr
0.20 0.8 1.00.60.4
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
24Leinhardt et al. 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
When and Where?
• If the collision scenario presented here is correct Haumea + family are old but not that old - the family could only have formed at the end Kuiper Belt excitation/sculpting event
• Dynamically hard to have the impact that is numerically the best fit --- still trying to figure out how to do it. Need two massive bodies for graze and merge collision modelled in this paper - not possible in recent past. Not clear that it is ever possible.
• Haumea is currently in classical belt but that could be the result of the impact: the impact could have occurred in scattered disk and the result ended up in classical belt (Levison et al. 2008) this collision is very slow though ...
25
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Heidelberg Colloquium 29.06.2010
What does this all mean for planet formation?
• km-size range is weak: 1) km size needs to be avoided; 2) protected; or 3) the 1 km planetesimals do get ground down but a few are spared and grow fast by accreting the debris of those that were not so lucky (Paardekooper & Leinhardt 2010)
• Phases must overlap and interact our theoretical model is still too simple - in order to connect directly with observations our models of planetesimal evolution must become more realistic
• The Haumea collisional family is an extreme example of a collisional family in the Kuiper Belt there must be more in the Kuiper Belt when found would constrain the collisional and dynamical evolution of the outer solar system
26
Wednesday, June 30, 2010