Paper detail

Minimum Radii of Super-Earths: Constraints from Giant Impacts

The detailed interior structure models of super-Earth planets show that there is degeneracy in the possible bulk compositions of a super-Earth at a given mass and radius, determined via radial velocity and transit measurements, respectively. In addition, the upper and lower envelopes in the mass--radius relationship, corresponding to pure ice planets and pure iron planets, respectively, are not astrophysically well motivated with regard to the physical processes involved in planet formation. Here we apply the results of numerical simulations of giant impacts to constrain the lower bound in the mass--radius diagram that could arise from collisional mantle stripping of differentiated rocky/iron planets. We provide a very conservative estimate for the minimum radius boundary for the entire mass range of large terrestrial planets. This envelope is a readily testable prediction for the population of planets to be discovered by the Kepler mission.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.