Tag Archives: Mercury

How rough is Mercury?

Hi there! Today I will tell you on the smoothness of the surface of Mercury. This is the opportunity for me to present The surface roughness of Mercury from the Mercury Laser Altimeter: Investigating the effects of volcanism, tectonism, and impact cratering by H.C.M. Susorney, O.S. Barnouin, C.M. Ernst and P.K. Byrne, which has recently been published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets. This paper uses laser altimeter data provided by the MESSENGER spacecraft, to measure the regularity of the surface in the northern hemisphere.

The surface of Mercury

I already had the opportunity to present Mercury on this blog. This is the innermost planet of the Solar System, about 3 times closer to the Sun than our Earth. This proximity makes space missions difficult, since they have to comply with the gravitational action of the Sun and with the heat of the environment. This is why Mercury has been visited only by 2 space missions: Mariner 10, which made 3 fly-bys in 1974-1975, and MESSENGER, which orbited Mercury during 4 years, between 2011 and 2015. The study of MESSENGER data is still on-going, the paper I present you today is part of this process.

Very few was known from Mercury before Mariner 10, in particular we just had no image of its surface. The 3 fly-bys of Mariner 10 gave us almost a full hemisphere, as you can see below. Only a small stripe was unknown.

Mercury seen by Mariner 10. © NASA.
Mercury seen by Mariner 10. © NASA.

And we see on this image many craters! The details have different resolutions, since this depends on the distance between Mercury and the spacecraft when a given image was taken. This map is actually a mosaic.
MESSENGER gave us full maps of Mercury (see below).

Mercury seen by MESSENGER. © USGS
Mercury seen by MESSENGER. © USGS

Something that may be not obvious on the image is a non-uniform distribution of the craters. So, Mercury is composed of cratered terrains and smooth plains, which have different roughnesses (you will understand before the end of this article).
Craters permit to date a terrain (see here), i.e. when you see an impact basin, this means that the surface has not been renewed since the impact. You can even be more accurate in dating the impact from the relaxation of the crater. However, volcanism brings new material at the surface, which covers and hides the craters.

This study focuses on the North Pole, i.e. latitudes between 45 and 90°N. This is enough to have the two kinds of terrains.

Three major geological processes

Three processes affect the surface of Mercury:

  1. Impact cratering: The early Solar System was very dangerous from this point of view, having several episodes of intense bombardments in its history. Mercury was particularly impacted because the Sun, as a big mass, tends to focus the impactors in its vicinity. It tends to rough the surface.
  2. Volcanism: In bringing new and hot material, it smoothes the surface,
  3. Tectonism: Deformation of the crust.

If Mercury had an atmosphere, then erosion would have tended to smooth the surface, as on Earth. Irrelevant here.

To measure the roughness, the authors used data from the Mercury Laser Altimeter (MLA), one of the instruments of MESSENGER.

The Mercury Laser Altimeter (MLA) instrument

This instrument measured the distance between the spacecraft and the surface of Mercury from the travel time of light emitted by MLA and reflected by the surface. Data acquired on the whole surface permitted to provide a complete topographic map of Mercury, i.e. to know the variations of its radius, detect basins and mountains,… The accuracy and the resolution of the measurements depend on the distance between the spacecraft and the surface, which had large variations, i.e. between 200 and 10,300 km. The most accurate altimeter data were for the North Pole, this is why the authors focused on it.

Roughness indicators

You need at least an indicator to quantify the roughness, i.e. a number. For that, the authors work on a given baseline on which they had data, removed a slope, and calculated the RMS (root mean square) deviation, i.e. the average squared deviation to a constant altitude, after removal of a slope. When you are on an inclined plane, then your altitude is not constant, but the plane is smooth anyway. This is why you remove the slope.

But wait a minute: if you are climbing a hill, and you calculate the slope over 10 meters, you have the slope you are climbing… But if you calculate it over 10 km, then you will go past the summit, and the slope will not be the same, while the summit will affect the RMS deviation, i.e. the roughness. This means that the roughness depends on the length of your baseline.

This is something interesting, which should be quantified as well. For this, the authors used the Hurst exponent H, such that ν(L) = ν0LH, where L is the length of the baseline, and ν the standard deviation. Of course, the data show that this relation is not exact, but we can say it works pretty well. H is determined in fitting the relation to the data.

Results

To summarize the results:

  • Smooth plains: H = 0.88±0.01,
  • Cratered terrains: H = 0.95±0.01.

The authors allowed the baseline to vary between 500 m and 250 km. The definition of the Hurst exponent works well for baselines up to 1.5 km. But for any baseline, the results show a bimodal distribution, i.e. two kinds of terrains, which are smooth plains and cratered terrains.

It is tempting to compare Mercury to the Moon, and actually the results are consistent for cratered terrains. However, the lunar Maria seem to have a slightly smaller Hurst exponent.

To know more

That’s it for today! The next mission to Mercury will be Bepi-Colombo, scheduled for launch in 2018 and for orbital insertion in 2025. Meanwhile, please do not forget to comment. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

Measuring the tides of Mercury

Hi there! I have already told you about the tides. If you follow me, you know that the tides are the deformations of a planet from the gravitational action of its parent star (the Sun for Mercury), and that a good way to detect them is to measure the variations of the gravity field of a planet from the deviations of a spacecraft orbiting it. From periodic variations we should infer a coefficient k2, known as the potential Love number, which represents the response of the planet to the tides…

That’s all for today! Please feel free to comment… blablabla…

Just kidding!

Today, I will tell you about another way to measure the tides, from the rotation of Mercury. For this, I will present you a study entitled Periodic and quasi-periodic attractors for the spin-orbit evolution of Mercury with a realistic tidal torque, which was recently published in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. This is a collaboration between English and Italian mathematicians, i.e. Michele Bartuccelli, Jonathan Deane, and Guido Gentile. In planetary sciences mathematics can lead to new discoveries. In this case, the idea is: tides slow down the rotation of a planetary body, which eventually reaches an equilibrium rotation (or spin). For the Moon, the equilibrium is the synchronous rotation, while for Mercury it is the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. Very well. A very good way to describe this final state is to describe the equilibrium rotation, i.e. in considering that the tides do not affect the spin anymore. But this is just an approximation. The tides are actually still active, and they affect the final state. In considering it, the authors show that the variations of the spin rate of Mercury should be composed of at least two sinusoids, i.e. two periodic effects, the superimposition of these two periods being quasi-periodic… you now understand the title.

The rotation of Mercury

I have already presented you Mercury here. Mercury is the innermost planet of the Solar System, with a semimajor axis which is about one third of the one of the Earth, i.e. some 58 million km, and a surprisingly large orbital eccentricity, which is 0.206. These two elements favor a spin-orbit resonance, i.e. the rotation rate of Mercury is commensurate with its orbital rate. Their ratio is 3/2, Mercury performing a revolution about the Sun in 88 days, while a rotation period is 58 days. You can notice a 3/2 ratio between these two numbers.

The 3:2 spin-orbit resonance of Mercury
The 3:2 spin-orbit resonance of Mercury

Why is this configuration possible as an equilibrium state? If you neglect the dissipation (the authors do not) and the obliquity (the authors do, and they are probably right to do it), you can write down a second-degree ODE (ordinary differential equation), which rules the spin. In this equation, the triaxiality of Mercury plays a major role, i.e. Mercury spins the way it spins because it is triaxial. Another reason is its orbital eccentricity. This ODE has equilibriums, i.e. stable spin rates, among them is the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance.

And what about the obliquity? It is actually an equilibrium as well, known as Cassini State 1, in which the angular momentum of Mercury is tilted from the normal to its orbit by 2 arcminutes. This tilt is a response to the slow precessing motion (period: 300,000 years) of the orbit of Mercury around the Sun.

Let us forget the obliquity. There are several possible spin-orbit ratios for Mercury.

Possible rotation states

If you went back to the ODE which rules the spin-rate of Mercury, you would see that there are actually several equilibrium spin rates, which correspond to p/2 spin-orbit resonances, p being an integer. Among them are the famous synchronous resonance 1:1 (p=2), the present resonance of Mercury (p=3), and other ones, which have never been observed yet.

If we imagine that Mercury initially rotated pretty fast, then it slowed down, and crossed several resonances, e.g. the 4:1, the 7:2, 3:1, 5:2, 2:1… and was trapped in none of them, before eventually being trapped in the present 3:2 one. Or we can imagine that Mercury has been trapped for instance in the 2:1 resonance, and that something (an impact?) destabilized the resonance…
And what if Mercury had been initially retrograde? Why not? Venus is retrograde… In that case, the tides would have accelerated Mercury, which would have been trapped in the synchronous resonance, which is the strongest one. This would mean that this synchronous resonance would have been destabilized, to allow trapping into the 3:2 resonance. Any worthwhile scenario of the spin evolution of Mercury must end up in the 3:2 resonance, since it is the current state. The scenario of an initially retrograde Mercury has been proposed to explain the hemispheric repartition of the observed impacts, which could be a signature of a past synchronous rotation. Could be, but is not necessarily. Another explanation is that the geophysical activity of Mercury would have renewed the surface of only one hemisphere, making the craters visible only on the other part.

Anyway, whatever the past of Mercury, it needed a dissipative process to end up in an equilibrium state. This dissipative process is the tides, assisted or not by core-mantle friction.

The tides

Because of the differential attraction of the Sun on Mercury, you have internal friction, i.e. stress and strains, which dissipate energy, and slow down the rotation. This dissipation is enforced by the orbital eccentricity (0.206), which induces periodic variations of the Sun-Mercury distance.
An interesting question is: how does the material constituting Mercury react to the tides? A critical parameter is the tidal frequency, i.e. the way you dissipates depends on the frequency you shake. A derivation of the tidal torque raised by the Sun proves to be a sum of periodic excitations, one of them being dominant in the vicinity of a resonance. This results in an enforcement of all the spin-orbit resonances, which means that a proper tidal model is critical for accurate simulations of the spin evolution.
A pretty common way to model the tides is the Maxwell model: you define a Maxwell time, which is to be compared with the period of the tidal excitation (the shaking). If your excitation is slow enough, then you will have an elastic deformation, i.e. Mercury will have the ability to recover its shape without loss of energy. However, a more rapid excitation will be dissipative. Then this model can be improved, or refined, in considering more dissipation at high frequencies (Andrade model), or grain-boundary slip (Burgers model)… There are several models in the literature, which are supported by theoretical considerations and lab experiments. Choosing the appropriate one depends on the material you consider, under which conditions, i.e. pressure and temperature, and the excitation frequencies. But in any case, these physically realistic tidal models will enforce the spin-orbit resonances.

Considering only the tides assumes that your body is (almost) homogeneous. Mercury has actually an at least partially molten outer core, i.e. a global fluid layer somewhere in its interior. This induces fluid-solid boundaries, the outer one being called CMB, for core-mantle boundary, and you can have friction there. The authors assumed that the CMB was formed after the trapping of Mercury into its present 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, which is supported by some studies. This is why they neglected the core-mantle friction.

This paper

This paper is part of a long-term study on the process of spin-orbit resonance. The authors studied the probabilities of capture (when you slow down until reaching a spin-orbit resonance, will you stay inside or leave it, still slowing down?), proposed numerical integrators adapted to this problem…
In this specific paper, they write down the ODE ruling the dynamics in considering the frequency-dependent tides (which they call realistic), and solve it analytically with a perturbation method, i.e. first in neglecting a perturbation, that they add incrementally, to eventually converge to the real solution. They checked their results with numerical integrations, and they also studied the stability of the solutions (the stable solutions being attractors), and the probabilities of capture.

In my opinion, the main result is: the stable attractor is not periodic but quasi-periodic. Fine, but what does that mean?

If we neglect the influence of the other planets, then the variations of the spin rate of Mercury is expected to be a periodic signal, with a period of 88 days. This is due to the periodic variations of the Sun-Mercury distance, because of the eccentricity. This results in longitudinal librations, which are analogous to the librations of the Moon (we do not see 50% of the surface of the Moon, but 59%, thanks to these librations). The authors say that this solution is not stable. However, a stable solution is the superimposition of these librations with a sinusoid, which period is close to 15 years, and an amplitude of a few arcminutes (to be compared to 15 arcminutes, which is the expected amplitude of the 88-d signal). So, it is not negligible, and this 15-y period is the one of the free (or proper) oscillations of Mercury. A pendulum has a natural frequency of oscillations, here this is exactly the same. But contrarily to a pendulum, the amplitude of these oscillations does not tend to 0. So, we could hope to detect it, which would be a direct observation of the tidal dissipation.

Measuring the rotation

What can we observe? We should first keep in mind that the authors addressed the early Mercury, when being trapped into the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, which was pretty homogeneous. The current Mercury has a global fluid layer, which means a larger (about twice) amplitude of the 88-d signal, and a different dissipative process, the tides being assisted by core-mantle friction. As a consequence, there is no guarantee that the 15-y oscillation (actually a little shorter, some 12 years, because of the fluid core) would still exist, and that would require a dedicated study. But measuring it would be an information anyway.

How to measure it? The first observations of the rotation of Mercury in 1965 and of the librations in 2007 were Earth-based, radar observations, which are sensitive to the velocity. This means that they are more likely to detect a rapid oscillation (88 d, e.g.) than a slow one (12 years…). Observations of the surface of Mercury by the spacecraft MESSENGER confirmed those measurements. In 2018 the ESA/JAXA (Europe / Japan) joint mission Bepi-Colombo will be sent to Mercury, for orbital insertion in 2025 and hopefully a 2-y mission, with a better accuracy than MESSENGER. So, we could hope a refinement of the measurements of the longitudinal motion.

Purple: The 88-d oscillation. Green: Superimposed with the 15-y one. Keep in mind that Bepi-Colombo will orbit Mercury during some 2 years.
Purple: The 88-d oscillation. Green: Superimposed with the 15-y one. Keep in mind that Bepi-Colombo will orbit Mercury during some 2 years.

To know more

That’s it for today! Please do not forget to comment. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

The contraction of Mercury

Hi there! Today’s post deals with the early evolution of Mercury, in particular its cooling. At the beginning of its life, a planet experiences variations of temperature, and then cooling, and while cooling, it contracts. The surface may present some signature of this contraction, and this is the object of the paper I present you today. It is entitled Timing and rate of global contraction of Mercury, by Kelsey T. Crane and Christian Klimczak, from the University of Georgia, and it has been recently accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. The idea is to infer the history of the contraction from the observation of the craters and the faults.

Mercury’s facts

Mercury is the innermost planet of the Solar System, with a mean distance to the Sun which is about one third of the Sun-Earth distance. It has an eccentric orbit, with an eccentricity of 0.206, and orbits the Sun in 88 days while the planet rotates around itself in 58 days. This is very long when compared to the terrestrial day, but it also means that there is a ratio 1.5 between the spin and the orbital frequencies. This is called a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance, which is a dynamical equilibrium favored by the proximity of the Sun and the orbital eccentricity.

Mercury seen by MESSENGER (Credit: NASA)

An interesting fact is the high density of Mercury, i.e. Mercury is too dense for a terrestrial planet. Usually, a large enough body is expected to have a stratified structure, in which the heaviest elements are concentrated in the core. Mercury is so dense than it is thought to be the core of a former and larger proto-Mercury.

Mercury’s early life

There is no agreement on the way Mercury lost its mantle of lighter elements. You can find the following scenarios in the literature:

  1. Slow volatilization of the mantle by the solar wind,
  2. Very large impact,
  3. Loss of the light elements by photophoresis,
  4. Magnetic erosion.

The scenario of the large impact was very popular until the arrival of MESSENGER, in particular because the models of formation of the Solar System and the observation of the surface of Mercury suggest that Mercury has been heavily impacted in its early life. However, the detection of volatiles elements, in particular potassium, on the surface of Mercury, is interpreted by some planetary scientists as inconsistent with the large impact scenario. The large impact would have induced extreme heating of the planet, and for some scientists the potassium would not have survived this episode. The other scenarios involve much slower processes, and less heating.

This raises the question: how hot was the early Mercury? We still do not know, but this is related to the study I present here.

The exploration of Mercury

The proximity of Mercury to the Sun makes it difficult to explore, because of the large gravitational action of the Sun which significantly perturbs the orbit of a spacecraft, and more importantly because of the large temperatures in this area of the Solar System.

Contrarily to Venus and Mars, which regularly host space programs, Mercury has been and will be the target of only 3 space missions so far:

  1. Mariner 10 (NASA): It has been launched in November 1973 to make flybys of Venus and Mercury. Three flybys of Mercury have been realized between March 1974 and March 1975. This mission gave us the first images of the surface of the planet, covering some 45% of it. It also discovered the magnetic field of Mercury.
  2. MESSENGER (Mercury Surface, Space Environment, Geochemistry, and Ranging) (NASA): This was the first human-made object to orbit Mercury. It was launched in August 2004 from Cape Canaveral and has been inserted around Mercury in March 2011, after one flyby of the Earth, two flybys of Venus, and three flybys of Mercury. These flybys permitted to use the gravity of the planets to reduce the velocity of the spacecraft, which was necessary for the orbital insertion. MESSENGER gave us invaluable data, like the gravity field of Mercury, a complete cartography with topographical features (craters, plains, faults,…), new information on the gravity field, it supplemented Earth-based radar measurements of the rotation, it revealed the chemical composition of the surface… The mission stopped in April 2015.
  3. Bepi-Colombo (ESA / JAXA): This is a joint mission of the European and Japanese space agencies, which is composed of two elements: the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter (MMO, JAXA), and the Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO, ESA). It should be launched in October 2018 and inserted into orbit in December 2025, after one flyby of the Earth, two flybys of Venus, and 6 flybys of Mercury. Beside the acquisition of new data on the planet with a better accuracy than MESSENGER, it will also perform a test of the theory of the general relativity, in giving new measurements of the post-newtonian parameters β and γ. β is associated with the non-linearities of the gravity field, while γ is related with the curvature of the spacetime. In the theory of the general relativity, these two parameters should be strictly equal to 1.

This paper

The idea of the paper is based on the competition between two processes for altering the surface of Mercury:

  1. Impacts, which are violent, rapid phenomena, creating craters,
  2. Tides, which is a much slower process that creates faults, appearing while the planet is contracting. The local stress tensor can be inferred from the direction of the faults.

Dating a crater is possible, from its preservation. And when a crater and a fault are located at the same place, there are two possibilities:

  1. either the fault cuts the crater (see Enheduanna, just below), or
  2. the crater interrupts the fault.

In the first case, the fault appeared after the impact, while in the second case, the fault was already present before Mercury was impacted. So, if you can constrain the age of the crater, you can constrain the apparition of the fault, and the contraction of the planet. From a global analysis of the age of the faults, the authors deduced the variation of the contraction rate over the ages.

A close up of Enheduanna Crater. Credit: IAU

The authors used a database of 3,112 craters ranging from 20 to 2,000 km, which were classified into 5 classes, depending on their degree of preservation. And the result are given below.

Class Name Age Craters Cut Superpose
1+2 Pre-Tolstojan + Tolstojan >3.9 Gy 2,310 1,192 4
3 Calorian 3.9 – 3.5 Gy 536 266 104
4 Mansurian 3.5 – 1 Gy 244 49 55
5 Kuiperian < 1 Gy 22 0 3

We can see that the eldest craters are very unlikely to superpose a fault, while the bombardment was very intense at that time. However, the authors have detected more superposition after. They deduced the following contraction rates:

Time Contraction (radius)
Pre-Tolstojan + Tolstojan 4.0 ± 1.6 km
Calorian 0.90 ± 0.35 km
Mansurian 0.17 ± 0.07 km
Kuiperian 0

This means that the contraction rate has decreased over the ages, which is not surprising, since the temperature of Mercury has slowly reached an equilibrium.

A perspective : constraining the early days of Mercury

In my opinion, such a study could permit to constrain the evolution of the temperature of Mercury over the ages, and thus date its stratification. Maybe this would also give new clues on the way Mercury lost its light elements (impact or not?).

To know more

That’s all for today! Please do not forget to comment. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

New clues on the interior of Mercury

Hi there! Thanks for coming on the Planetary Mechanics Blog.

Today I will tell you about new results on the interior of the planet Mercury, by Ashok Kumar Verma and Jean-Luc Margot.
Mercury has been orbited during 4 years by the spacecraft MESSENGER, and gravity data have been derived from the deviations of the spacecraft. These data tell us how the mass is distributed in the planet.

 

Planet Mercury facts

Mercury is the innermost planet of the Solar System. Its radius is about one third of the one of the Earth, and its closeness to the Sun associated with the absence of an atmosphere induces large temperature variations between the day and the night. Another consequence is its very slow rotation, i.e. a Hermean (Mercurian) day lasts 58 terrestrial days, while its revolution around the Sun lasts 88 days, which is exactly 50% longer! This phenomenon is called a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance state, it is a unique case in the Solar System but is somehow analogous to the spin-orbit synchronization of our Moon. It is a consequence of the Solar tides, which despin the planet.

A last interesting fact I would like to mention is that Mercury is too dense for a such a small planet. This suggests that in the early ages of the Solar System, the proto-Mercury was much bigger, and differentiated between a core of pretty heavy elements and a less dense mantle. And then, Mercury has been stripped from this mantle, either slowly, or because of a catastrophic event, i.e. an impact.

 

The missions to Mercury

Sending a spacecraft to Mercury is a challenge, once more because of the proximity of the Sun. Not only the spacecraft should be protected from the Solar radiations, heat,… but it also tends to fall on the Sun instead of visiting the planet. For these reasons, only two spacecrafts have visited the Mercury up to now:

  • the US spacecraft Mariner 10 made 3 flybys of Mercury in 1974-1975. It mapped 45% of the surface and measured a magnetic field,
  • the US spacecraft MESSENGER orbited Mercury during 4 years between March 2011 and April 2015. It gave us invaluable information on the planet, including the ones presented here,
  • and let me mention the European-Japanese mission Bepi-Colombo, which should be launched to Mercury in April 2018.

 

The rotation of Mercury

The rotation of Mercury is in a resonant state, known as 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. This is a dynamical equilibrium reached after dissipation of its rotational energy, in which

  • Mercury rotates about one axis,
  • this axis is nearly perpendicular to its orbit, the deviation, named obliquity, being a signature of the interior,
  • the rotation and orbital periods are commensurate, here with a ratio 3/2. Around this exact commensurability are small librations, due to the periodic variations of the Solar gravitational torque acting on Mercury. The main period of these librations is the orbital one, i.e. 88 days, which is a direct consequence of Mercury’s eccentric orbit. They are supplemented by smaller oscillations, at harmonics of the orbital period (44 d, 29 d, 22 d, etc…), and at the periods of the other planets, meaning that they result from the planetary perturbations on the orbit of Mercury. The largest of these perturbations is expected to be due to Jupiter, but it has not been measured yet.

 

What the rotation can tell us

An issue in the pre-MESSENGER era was: does Mercury have an at least partially molten (outer) core? We now know that it has, thanks to Peale’s experiment, due to the late Stan Peale. The idea was this: the viscous core responds like a fluid to short-period excitations, and like a rigid body for long-period (secular) excitations. And the good thing is that the librations (called longitudinal physical librations) are due to a 88 d-oscillations, while the obliquity is due to a secular one (actually an oscillation which is some 200 kyr periodic, i.e. the rotation of the orbital plane of Mercury). So, in measuring these 2 quantities, one should be able to invert for the size of the core. This was achieved in 2007 thanks to radar measurements of the rotation of Mercury, and confirmed from additional Earth-based measurements, and MESSENGER data, since.

We now know that Mercury has a large molten core, which does not rule out the presence of a solid inner core. For that, additional investigations should be conducted.

 

The gravity field

The most basic model of gravity is the point-mass, which just gives us a mean density of the planet. This can be obtained from planetary ephemerides, i.e. in studying how Mercury affects the motion of the other planets, and with more accuracy from the deviations of the spacecraft. We know since Mariner 10 that Mercury has a density of 5.43 g/cm3, while 1g/cm3 is expected for ice, 3.3 g/cm3 for silicates, and 8 g/cm3 for iron.

A more accurate model is to see Mercury has a triaxial ellipsoid. This requires to add two parameters in the gravity field: J2 and C22, also know as Stokes coefficients. A positive J2 means that the body is flattened at its poles, while C22 represents the equatorial ellipticity of the planet. A positive polar flattening is expected as a consequence of the rotation of the planet, while the equatorial ellipticity can result from differential gravitational action of the Sun, i.e. the tides.

Knowing these two Stokes coefficients is possible from gravity data, and this would give us the triaxility of the mass distribution in Mercury. But something is missing: we do not know its radial distribution, i.e. heavier elements are expected to be in the core. For that, we need the polar momentum C, which could be derived from the obliquity, knowing the Stokes coefficient.

For a spherical homogeneous body, C=2/5 MR2, M being the mass and R the radius, and is smaller when heavier elements are concentrated in the core.

 

The tidal Love coefficient k2

The tides tend to alter the shape of the planet. In addition to a mean shape, there are periodic variations, which are due to the variations of the distance between Mercury and the Sun.

The amplitude of these variations depend on the Love parameter k2, which characterizes the response of the material to the periodic excitations. Actually, k2 depends on the frequency of excitation, in the specific case of Mercury k2@88d and k2@44d affect the gravity field. But distinguishing these two quantities requires a too high accuracy in the data, this is why k2 is often mentioned without precising the frequency involved.

If Mercury were spherical and fluid, k2 would be 1.5, while it would be null if Mercury were fully rigid. Actually, all the natural bodies are somewhere between these two end-members.

The frequency-dependence of the tides is based on the assumption that if you impose a slow deformation of a viscous body, it will not loose any internal energy and slowly recover its shape after (elastic deformation). However, rapid solicitations induce permanent deformations. The numbers associated with these two different regimes depend on the interior of the planet.

 

In this paper

This study, Mercury’s gravity tides, and spin from MESSENGER radio data, by A.K. Verma and J.-L. Margot, has been accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research – Planets. It presents

  • an updated gravity field for Mercury,
  • an updated Love number,
  • an updated spin orientation.

These results are based on measurements of the instantaneous gravity field of Mercury. This is particularly interesting for the determination of the spin, since classical methods are based on the observation of the surface, while the gravity field is ruled by the whole planet. This means that here, the rotation of the whole planet is observed, not just its surface. This allows to constrain the possible differential rotation between the surface and the core.

For the gravity field of Mercury, a 40th order solution is considered, because Mercury is something more complicated than a triaxial ellipsoid. The second order Stokes coefficients are consistent with previous studies, which were also based on MESSENGER data. Some higher-order coefficients are identified as well.

This is the second determination of the Love number k2 = 0.464, which implies than the mantle of Mercury is pretty hot.

 

Some perspectives

We are some years away from the orbital insertion of the European / Japanese mission Bepi-Colombo, which is expected to be ten times more accurate than MESSENGER. So, results like the ones presented here are in some sense preparing the Bepi-Colombo’s measurements. This mission will also secure the results, and providing independent determinations.

Knowing Mercury is also a way to understand planetary formation. There are many discoveries of exoplanets, which orbit close to their parent star, but are so far from us that we cannot hope to send spacecrafts orbiting them. So, understand the way Mercury has been formed helps understanding the other planetary systems.

I hope that one day we will be able to measure the frequency-dependence of the Love numbers, this would be very helpful to constrain the tidal models.

 

To know more

 

Don’t forget to leave a comment!