Paper detail

Studying the nucleus of comet 9P/Tempel 1 using the structure of the Deep Impact ejecta cloud at the early stages of its development

We present an attempt to extract information about the comet 9P/Tempel 1 nucleus from the characteristics of the ejecta cloud produced by the impactor of the Deep Impact mission. For this purpose we use two techniques. We first study the shadow cast on the nucleus surface by the ejecta cloud and investigate how areas of different brightness are related to the varying optical thickness or albedo of the ejecta cloud. The shadow was seen during the first 2.0 seconds after the impact (afterward it became obscured by the ejecta cloud). We have found that all brightness variations in the shadow are the result of the surface inhomogeneities, indicating that during first 2.0 seconds the ejecta cloud was homogeneous within the MRI spatial resolution. Our second technique is to study the obscuration of the nucleus limb by the ejecta. This study covers the period 0.76- 68.8 seconds after impact and is based on comparison of the ejecta cloud brightness on the limb and just beyond the limb. At this stage we do see inhomogeneities in the ejecta cloud that relate to the albedo and optical thickness variations in the ejected dust. Specifically, we have found two distinct bands of low optical thickness and one band of a high optical thickness. Based on crater formation ideas we estimate the depth of excavation of the ejected material for the found inhomogeneities and, thus, define a potential layering structure for the comet nucleus, Our estimates suggest that the low-optical thickness material was excavated from a depth of 15-18 and 30-32 meters in the case the porous nucleus material and 37-46 and 87-93 meters in the case of a non-porous nucleus material, and a layer of high optical thickness originated from the depth 9-11 m for porous material or 20-23 m for non-porous material. Based on the crater diameter estimates, we expect that the real depth of the layers is between these two cases.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 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.