guy consolmagno sj specola vaticana meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Guy Consolmagno SJSpecola Vaticana
Meteoritical evidence and constraints on
impacts and disruption
Meteoritical evidence and constraints on
impacts and disruption
![Page 2: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Catastrophic Disruptionshave played a central role
in the life of meteorites
compacted/lithified the meteorites
produced shock minerals, shock blackening
turned their parent bodies into rubble
dispersed the pieces and sent them to Earth
1
3
2
4
![Page 3: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
compare McKinney to Rio Negro
• shock blackening• shock effects
1. Meteorites have seen Catastrophic
Disruptions…
![Page 4: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Shock Stage Pressure GPa T Increase
S1 < 4 - 5 10 - 20 K
S2 5 - 10 20 - 50 K
S3 15 - 20 100 - 150 K
S4 30-35 250 - 350 K
S5 45 - 55 600 - 850 K
S6 70 - 901500 - 1750
K
Stöffler, Keil, and Scott, GCA 55, 3845
![Page 5: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Shock Stage Pressure GPa % (N)
S1 < 4 - 5 11.6% (257)
S2 5 - 10 34.0% (753)
S3 15 - 20 34.8% (770)
S4 30-35 12.9% (286)
S5 45 - 55 4.2% (94)
S6 70 - 90 2.5% (55)
Statistics from Grady 2000 (Catalog of Meteorites)
![Page 6: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Galactic CRs (range of a few 10s of cm) produce 3He, 21Ne, 36Cl, etc.
Collisional breakup starts the clock (samples no longer buried and shielded)
Uncertainties: partial shielding, gas loss, GCR rate… addressed in recent years
2. Cosmic Ray Exposure Ages: evidence for breakup and orbital evolution
from Wasson 1985
![Page 7: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Meteorites spend most of their lives shielded in parent bodies
L, H ages not random, but indicate distinct collision times
Irons > stones; implies irons from asteroids, stones from the Moon!
Wood’s 1968 interpretation(a cautionary tale!):
From Wood, 1968
H
L
Irons
![Page 8: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Wasson (1985) interprets iron data:
IIIABs = 650 ± 100 MaIVAs = 400 ± 100 MaIAB, IVB ages scatterFew low ages; selection effectFew data, big error bars…
![Page 9: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
45% of all H chondrites were involved in collisional events around 7 Ma ago
Maybe two distinct parent objects/collisions 7.6 Ma and 7.0 Ma ago
A detailed look at H chondrites
Graf and Marti, 1995(JGR 100, 21247)
Graf et al., 2001 (Icarus 150, 181)
Alexeev, 2001(SoSysRes 35, 458)
![Page 10: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Correlates with time-of-day for meteorite fall
Suggestion: many H5’s were heated by the Sun at small perihelion distances
Hence they had a “distinct orbital evolution”
Implies nu-6 or 3:1 resonance orbits?
Comparing He- ages with Ne- ages suggests some meteorites
experienced heating after breakup
![Page 11: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Meteorites densities can be directly measured in the lab
Meteorite porosity can be modeled to look through effects of terrestrial weathering
Comparison with asteroids is striking…
3. Meteorite vs. asteroid densities: clues to asteroid collisional history
![Page 12: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Most meteorites have a bulk density of around 3 to 3.5 times the density of water. CI, CM, and CR meteorites are rich in water, but CRs also are rich in iron. (H, L and LL =ordinary
chondrites.)8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Densi
ty,
g/c
c
CI, C
M
CR
,CV
,CO H L LL
Ach
St-
Ir
Iron
![Page 13: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Epinal H5
Fell, September 13,
1822, in Vosges,
France
![Page 14: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
After correcting for weathering effects, a “model” porosity can be estimated.
For all ordinary chondrite types, the
average model porosity is ~10% ±
5%
100
80
60
40
20
0
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
![Page 15: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
This OC average
model porosity of
~10% is
independent of
petrographic
type or shock
state
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
3 4 5 6
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
![Page 16: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Mass from moons
To the right: AO images of Eugenia and Antiope from Merline et al.
Volume from radiometric diameters, lightcurves
Averages for C, S types from Mars perturbations
Asteroid densities
QuickTime™ and aGIF decompressorare needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aGIF decompressorare needed to see this picture.
![Page 17: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Estimated Macroporosity
1E+14
1E+16
1E+18
1E+20
1E+22
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Macroporosity
Mass in Kg (log scale)
45 Eugenia (C)
Phobos
Deimos
1 Ceres (G)
2 Pallas (B)4 Vesta (V)
253 Mathilde (C)243 Ida (S)
433 Eros (S)
Average CAverage S
16 Psyche (M)121 Hermione (C)
90 Antiope (C)762 Pulcova (F)
Loosely Consolidated"Rubble-Pile"
Asteroids
Transition ZoneFractured Asteroids
Coherent Asteroids
87 Sylvia (P)
22 Kalliope (M)11 Parthenope (S)
20 Massalia
![Page 18: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Most of the dark, low-density asteroids
measured to date have no water
bands…
if they are made of dry (high
density) material, they are very underdense!
![Page 19: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Dark Asteroid Macroporosity
1E+14
1E+16
1E+18
1E+20
1E+22
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Macroporosity, assuming CO ρ
( )Mass in Kg log scale
1 Ceres (G)
2 Pallas (B)
87 Sylvia (P)121 Hermione (C) 45 Eugenia (C)
762 Pulcova (F)90 Antiope (C)
Average C
253 Mathilde (C)
Phobos
DeimosTransition Zone
![Page 20: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The many large craters on the dark asteroid Mathilde, imaged by NEAR, imply that it must be made of soft material that can absorb heavy blows without flying
apart.
![Page 21: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
4. Did collisions form
well-compacted
meteorites in the
solar nebula?
How did dust in a vacuum become a low-porosity stony
meteorite?
![Page 22: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Epinal H5
Fell, September 13,
1822, in Vosges,
France
![Page 23: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
It takes many GigaPa to
squeeze pore space out of a
porous powder or sandstone.
Where, and how, did
meteorites lose their porosity?
Why aren’t meteorites fluffy?
results of shock experiments on sandstone (above, Menéndez et al. 1996, J.
Struct. Geol. 18, 1) and meteoritic powders (left, Hirata et al. 1998, LPSC XXIX)
![Page 24: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Lithification of sandstones on Earth requires either heat, water, or static pressures on the order of 500 Mpa – 1 Gpa
Ordinary chondrites have not experienced such heat or water; and you’d have to go to the center of Ceres to find such high static pressures.
Could collisions (impacts between porous parent bodies) be the source of the energy needed to compact meteorites?
Eccentricity of 0.05 ≈ collisional speed of 1 km/s ≈ 1 GPa shock pressure
Porous impact experiment described inHousen et al., Nature, 1999
![Page 25: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
from: De Carli, Bowden, and Seaman (2001) “Shock compaction and porosity in meteorites”
paper given at the
2001 Meteoritical
Society meeting,
Rome
“ ‘Natural’ shock compaction, via
impacts in space, will also
subsequently create porosity.”
10 km/s collision?P > 80 Gpa
Waste Heat >12000 J/gBut… rapid shock attenuation
![Page 26: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Model Porosity vs. ShockM
odel Poro
sity
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
![Page 27: Guy Consolmagno SJ Specola Vaticana Meteoritical evidence and constraints on impacts and disruption](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022081421/5697bf9e1a28abf838c94772/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Jupiter Forms in the Solar Nebula:
100-km planetesimals not near a major resonance perturbed to eccentricities fluctuating from 0 to 0.1
(resonant bodies attain much higher e’s, destroy targets on collision)
10-km bodies attain eccentricities of 0.05
smaller bodies damped to low eccentricity until nebular gas dissipated
Jupiter in nebula also induces shock waves that can form chondrules
Collisions Induced by Jupiter Perturbations:
perturbed bodies hit at speeds many times the target body’s escape velocity
similar-sized bodies disrupted
collisions with smaller impactors allow the target to survive.
A series of impacts produce lithified regions in porous unconsolidated matrix.
Subsequent disruptions dissipate this matrix
Lithified regions survive to the present.