Paper detail

Do Planetary Encounters Reset Surfaces of Near Earth Asteroids?

Processes such as the solar wind sputtering and micrometeorite impacts can modify optical properties of surfaces of airless bodies. This explains why spectra of the main belt asteroids, exposed to these `space weathering&#39; processes over eons, do not match the laboratory spectra of ordinary chondrite (OC) meteorites. In contrast, an important fraction of Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs), defined as Q-types in the asteroid taxonomy, display spectral attributes that are a good match to OCs. Here we study the possibility that the Q-type NEAs underwent recent encounters with the terrestrial planets and that the tidal gravity (or other effects) during these encounters exposed fresh OC material on the surface (thus giving it the Q-type spectral properties). We used numerical integrations to determine the statistics of encounters of NEAs to planets. The results were used to calculate the fraction and orbital distribution of Q-type asteroids expected in the model as a function of the space weathering timescale, t_sw (see main text for definition), and maximum distance, r*, at which planetary encounters can reset the surface. We found that t_sw ~ 1e6 yr (at 1 AU) and r* ~ 5 R_pl, where R_pl is the planetary radius, best fit the data. Values t_sw < 1e5 yr would require that r* > 20 R_pl, which is probably implausible because these very distant encounters should be irrelevant. Also, the fraction of Q-type NEAs would be probably much larger than the one observed if t_sw > 1e7 yr. We found that t_sw ~ q^2, where q is the perihelion distance, expected if the solar wind sputtering controls t_sw, provides a better match to the orbital distribution of Q-type NEAs than models with fixed t_sw. We also discuss how the Earth magnetosphere and radiation effects such as YORP can influence the spectral properties of NEAs.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.