Tag Archives: resonances

The dynamics of the Quasi-Satellites

Hi there! After reading this post, you will know all you need to know on the dynamics of quasi-satellites. This is the opportunity to present you On the co-orbital motion in the planar restricted three-body problem: the quasi-satellite motion revisited, by Alexandre Pousse, Philippe Robutel and Alain Vienne. This study has recently been published in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy.

The 1:1 mean-motion resonance at small eccentricity

(see also here)

Imagine a pretty simple case: the Sun, a planet with a keplerian motion around (remember: its orbit is a static ellipse), and a very small third body. So small that you can neglect its mass, i.e. it does not affect the motion of the Sun and the planet. You know that the planet has no orbital eccentricity, i.e. the static ellipse serving as an orbit is actually a circle, and that the third body (let us call it the particle) has none either. Moreover, we want the particle to orbit in the same plane than the planet, and to have the same revolution period around the Sun. These are many conditions.
Under these circumstances, mathematics (you can call that celestial mechanics) show us that, in the reference frame which is rotating with the planet, there are two stable equilibriums 60° ahead and astern the planet. These two points are called L4 and L5 respectively. But that does not mean that the particle is necessary there. It can have small oscillations, called librations around these points, the resulting orbits being called tadpole orbits. It is even possible to have orbits enshrouding L4 and L5, this results in large librations orbits, called horseshoe orbits.

All of these configurations are stable. But remember: the planet is much less massive than the Sun, the particle is massless, the orbits are planar and circular… Things become tougher when we relax one of these assumptions. And the authors assumed that the particle had a significant eccentricity.

At high eccentricities: Quasi-satellites

Usually, increasing the eccentricity destabilizes you. This is still true here, i.e. co-orbital orbits are less stable when eccentric. But increasing the eccentricity also affects the dynamical structure of your problem in such a way that other dynamical configurations may appear. And this is the case here: you have an equilibrium where your planet lies.

Ugh, what does that mean? If you are circular, then your particle is at the center of your planet… Nope, impossible. But wait a minute: if you oscillate around this position without being there… yes, that looks like a satellite of the planet. But a satellite is under the influence of the planet, not of the star… To be dominated by the star, you should be far enough from the planet.

I feel the picture is coming… yes, you have a particle on an eccentric orbit around the star, the planet being in the orbit. And from the star, this looks like a satellite. Funny, isn’t it? And such bodies exist in the Solar System.

Orbit of a quasi-satellite. It follows the planet, but orbits the star.
Orbit of a quasi-satellite. It follows the planet, but orbits the star.

Known quasi-satellites

Venus has one known quasi-satellite, 2002 VE68. This is a 0.4-km body, which has been discovered in 2002. Like Venus, it orbits the Sun in 225 days, but has an orbital eccentricity of 0.41, while the one of Venus is 0.007. It is thought to be a quasi-satellite of Venus since 7,000 years, and should leave this configuration in some 500 years.

The Earth currently has several known quasi-satellites, see the following table:

(277810) 2006 FV350.387.1°10,000 y2013 LX280.4550°40,000 y2014 OL3390.4610.2°1,000 y(469219) 2016 HO30.107.8°400 y

Known quasi-satellites of the Earth
Name Eccentricity Inclination Stability
(164207) 2004 GU9 0.14 13.6° 1,000 y

These bodies are all smaller than 500 meters. Because of their significant eccentricities, they might encounter a planet, which would then affect their orbits in such a way that the co-orbital resonance would be destabilized. However, significant inclinations limit the risk of encounters. Some bodies switch between quasi-satellite and horseshoe configurations.

Here are the known quasi-satellites of Jupiter:

Known quasi-satellites of Jupiter
Name Eccentricity Inclination Stability
2001 QQ199 0.43 42.5° > 12,000 y
2004 AE9 0.65 1.6° > 12,000 y
329P/LINEAR-Catalina 0.68 21.5° > 500 y
295P/LINEAR 0.61 21.1° > 2,000 y

329P/LINEAR-Catalina and 295P/LINEAR being comets.

Moreover, Saturn and Neptune both have a confirmed quasi-satellite. For Saturn, 2001 BL41 should leave this orbit in about 130 years. It has an eccentricity of 0.29 and an inclination of 12.5°. For Neptune, (309239) 2007 RW10 is in this state since about 12,500 years, and should stay in it for the same duration. It has an orbital eccentricity of 0.3, an inclination of 36°, and a diameter of 250 km.

Understanding the dynamics

Unveiling the dynamical/mathematical structure which makes the presence of quasi-satellites possible is the challenge accepted by the authors. And they succeeded. This is based on mathematical calculation, in which you write down the equations of the problem, you expand them to retain only what is relevant, in making sure that you do not skip something significant, and you manipulate what you have kept…

The averaging process

The first step is to write the Hamiltonian of the restricted planar 3-body problem, i.e. the total energy of a system constituted by the Sun, the planet, and the massless particle. The dynamics is described by so-called Hamiltonian variables, which allow interesting mathematical properties…
Then you expand and keep what you need. One of the pillars of this process is the averaging process. When things go easy, i.e. when your system is not chaotic, you can describe the dynamics of the system as a sum of sinusoidal contributions. This is straightforward to figure out if you remember that the motions of the planets are somehow periodic. Somehow means that these motions are not exactly sinusoidal, but close to it. So, you expand it in series, in which other sinusoids (harmonics) appear. And you are particularly interested in the one involving λ-λ’, i.e. the difference between the mean longitude of the planet and the particle. This makes sense since they are in the co-orbital configuration, that particular angle should librate with pretty small oscillations around a given value, which is 60° for tadpole orbits, 180° for horseshoes, and 0° for quasi-satellites. Beside this, you have many small oscillations, in which you are not interested. Usually you can drop them in truncating your series, but actually you just average them, since they average to 0. This is why you can drop them.
To expand in series, you should do it among a small parameter, which is usually the eccentricity. This means that your orbit looks pretty like a circle, and the other terms of the series represent the difference with the circle. But here there is a problem: to get quasi-satellite orbits, your eccentricity should be large enough, which makes the analytical calculation tougher. In particular, it is difficult to guarantee their convergence. The authors by-passed this problem in making numerical averaging, i.e. they computed numerically the integrals of the variables of the motion over an orbital period.

Once they have done this, they get a simplified system, based on one degree-of-freedom only. This is a pair of action-angle variables, which will characterize your quasi-satellite orbit. This study also requires to identify the equilibriums of the system, i.e. to identify the existing stable orbits.

Perspectives

So, this study is full of mathematical calculations, aiming at revisiting this problem. The authors mention as possible perspective the study of resonances between the planets, which disturb the system, and the proper frequency of the quasi-satellite orbit. This is the oscillating frequency of the angle characterizing the orbit, and if it is equal to a frequency already present in the system, it could have an even more interesting dynamics, e.g. transit between different states (quasi-satellite / horsehoe,…).

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 fate of the Alkyonides

Hello everybody! Today, I will tell you on the dynamics of the Alkyonides. You know the Alkyonides? No? OK… There are very small satellites of Saturn, i.e. kilometer-sized, which orbit pretty close to the rings, but outside. These very small bodies are known to us thanks to the Cassini spacecraft, and a recent study, which I present you today, has investigated their long-term evolution, in particular their stability. Are they doomed or not? How long can they survive? You will know this and more after reading this presentation of Long-term evolution and stability of Saturnian small satellites: Aegaeon, Methone, Anthe, and Pallene, by Marco Muñoz-Gutiérrez and Silvia Giuliatti Winter. This study has recently been accepted for publication in The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The Alkyonides

As usually in planetary sciences, bodies are named after the Greek mythology, which is the case of the four satellites discussed today. But I must admit that I cheat a little: I present them as Alkyonides, while Aegeon is actually a Hecatoncheires. The Alkyonides are the 7 daughters of Alcyoneus, among them are Anthe, Pallene, and Methone.

Here are some of there characteristics:

Methone Pallene Anthe Aegaeon
Semimajor axis 194,402 km 212,282 km 196,888 km 167,425 km
Eccentricity 0 0.004 0.0011 0.0002
Inclination 0.013° 0.001° 0.015° 0.001°
Diameter 2.9 km 4.4 km 2 km 0.66 km
Orbital period 24h14m 27h42m 24h52m 19h24m
Discovery 2004 2004 2007 2009

For comparison, Mimas orbits Saturn at 185,000 km, and the outer edge of the A Ring, i.e. of the main rings of Saturn, is at 137,000 km. So, we are in the close system of Saturn, but exterior to the rings.

Discovery of Anthe, aka S/2007 S4. Copyright: NASA.
Discovery of Anthe, aka S/2007 S4. Copyright: NASA.

These bodies are in mean-motion resonances with main satellites of Saturn, more specifically:

  • Methone orbits near the 15:14 MMR with Mimas,
  • Pallene is close to the 19:16 MMR with Enceladus,
  • Anthe orbits near the 11:10 MMR with Mimas,
  • Aegaeon is in the 7:6 MMR with Mimas.

As we will see, these resonances have a critical influence on the long-term stability.

Rings and arcs

Beside the main and well-known rings of Saturn, rings and arcs of dusty material orbit at other locations, but mostly in the inner system (with the exception of the Phoebe ring). In particular, the G Ring is a 9,000 km wide faint ring, which inner edge is at 166,000 km… Yep, you got it: Aegaeon is inside. Some even consider it is a G Ring object.

Methone and Anthe have dusty arcs associated with them. The difference between an arc and a ring is that an arc is longitudinally bounded, i.e. it is not extended enough to constitute a ring. The Methone arc extends over some 10°, against 20° for the Anthe arc. The material composing them is assumed to be ejecta from Methone and Anthe, respectively.

However, Pallene has a whole ring, constituted from ejecta as well.

Why sometimes a ring, and sometimes an arc? Well, it tell us something on the orbital stability of small particles in these areas. Imagine you are a particle: you are kicked from home, i.e. your satellite, but you remain close to it… for some time. Actually you drift slowly. While you drift, you are somehow shaken by the gravitational action of the other satellites, which disturb your Keplerian orbit around the planet. If you are shaken enough, then you may leave the system of Saturn. If you are not, then you can finally be anywhere on the orbit of your satellite, and since you are not the only one to have been ejected (you feel better, don’t you?), then you and your colleagues will constitute a whole ring. If you are lucky enough, you can end up on the satellite.

The longer the arc (a ring is a 360° arc), the more stable the region.

Frequency diffusion

The authors studied

  1. the stability of the dusty particles over 18 years
  2. the stability of the satellites in the system of Saturn over several hundreds of kilo-years (kyr).

For the stability of the particles, they computed the frequency diffusion index. It consists in:

  1. Simulating the motion of the particles over 18 years,
  2. Determining the main frequency of the dynamics over the first 9 years, and over the last 9 ones,
  3. Comparing these two numbers. The smaller the difference, the more stable you are.

The numerical simulations is something I have addressed in previous posts: you use a numerical integrator to simulate the motion of the particle, in considering an oblate Saturn, the oblateness being mostly due to the rings, and several satellites. Our four guys, and Janus, Epimetheus, Mimas, Enceladus, and Tethys.

How resonances destabilize an orbit

When a planetary body is trapped in a mean-motion resonance, there is an angle, which is an integer combination of angles present in its dynamics and in the dynamics of the other body, which librates. An example is the MMR Aegaeon-Mimas, which causes the angle 7λMimas-6λAegaeonMimas to librate. λ is the mean longitude, and ϖ is the longitude of the pericentre. Such a resonance is supposed to affect the dynamics of the two satellites but, given their huge mass ratio (Mimas is between 300 and 500 millions times heavier than Aegaeon), only Aegaeon is affected. The resonance is at a given location, and Aegaeon stays there.
But a given resonance has some width, and several resonant angles (we say arguments) are associated with a resonance ratio. As a consequence, several resonances may overlap, and in that case … my my my…
The small body is shaken between different locations, its eccentricity and / or inclination can be raised, until being dynamically unstable…
And in this particular region of the system of Saturn, there are many resonances, which means that the stability of the discovered body is not obvious. This is why the authors studied it.

Results

Stability of the dusty particles

The authors find that Pallene cannot clear its ring efficiently, despite its size. Actually, this zone is the most stable, wrt the dynamical environments of Anthe, Methone and Aegaeon. However, 25% of the particles constituting the G Ring should collide with Aegaeon in 18 years. This probably means that there is a mechanism, which refills the G Ring.

Stability of the satellites

From long-term numerical simulations over 400 kyr, i.e. more than one hundred millions of orbits, these 4 satellites are stable. For Pallene, the authors guarantee its stability over 64 Myr. Among the 4, this is the furthest satellite from Saturn, which makes it less affected by the resonances.

A perspective

The authors mention as a possible perspective the action of the non-gravitational forces, such as the solar radiation pressure and the plasma drag, which could affect the dynamics of such small bodies. I would like to add another one: the secular tides with Saturn, and the pull of the rings. They would induce drifts of the satellites, and of the resonances associated. The expected order of magnitude of these drifts would be an expansion of the orbits of a few km / tens of km per Myr. This seems pretty small, but not that small if we keep in mind that two resonances affecting Methone are separated by 4 km only.

This means that further results are to be expected in the upcoming years. The Cassini mission is close to its end, scheduled for 15 Sep 2017, but we are not done with exploiting its results!

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 dynamics of Saturn’s F Ring

Hi there! Today: a new post on the rings of Saturn. I will more specifically discuss the F Ring, in presenting you the study A simple model for the location of Saturn’s F ring, by Luis Benet and Àngel Jorba, which has recently been accepted for publication in Icarus.

The F Ring

The F Ring of Saturn is a narrow ring of particles. It orbits close to the Roche limit, which is the limit below which the satellites are not supposed to accrete because the differential gravitational action of Saturn on different parts of it prevents it. This is also the theoretical limit of the existence of the rings.

The F Ring seen by Cassini (Credit: NASA)
The F Ring seen by Cassini (Credit: NASA)

Its mean distance from the center of Saturn is 140,180 km, and its extent is some hundreds of kilometers. It is composed of a core ring, which width is some 50 km, and some particles which seem to be ejected in spiral strands.

Orbiting nearby are the two satellites Prometheus (inside) and Pandora (outside), which proximity involves strong gravitational perturbations, even if they are small.

The images of the F Ring, and in particular of its structures, are sometimes seen as an example of observed chaos in the Solar System. This motivates many planetary scientists to investigate its dynamics.

Mean-motion resonances in the rings

Imagine a planar configuration, in which we have a big planet (Saturn), a small particle orbiting around (the rings are composed of particles), and a third body which is very large with respect to the particle, but very small with respect to the planet (a satellite). The orbit of the particle is essentially an ellipse (Keplerian motion), but is also perturbed by the gravitational action of the satellite. This usually results in oscillating, periodic variations of its orbital elements, in particular the semimajor axis… except in some specific configurations: the mean motion resonances.

When the orbital periods of the particle and of the satellite are commensurate, i.e. when you can write the ratio of their orbital frequencies as a fraction of integers, then you have part of the gravitational action of the satellite on the particle which accumulates during the orbital history of the two bodies, instead of cancelling out. In such a case, you have a resonant interaction, which usually produces the most interesting effects in planetary systems.

There are resonances among planetary satellites as well, but here I will stick to the rings-satellites interactions, for which a specific formalism has been developed, itself inspired from the galactic dynamics. Actually, 4 angles should be considered, which are

  • the mean longitude of the particle λp, which locates the particle on its orbit,
  • the mean longitude of the satellite λs
  • the longitude of the pericentre of the particle ϖp, which locates the point of the orbit which is the closest to Saturn,

and

  • the longitude of the pericentre of the satellite ϖs.

The situation is a little more complicated when the orbits are not planar, please allow me to dismiss that question for this post.

You have a mean-motion resonance when you can write <pλp-(p+q)λs+q1ϖp+q2ϖs>=0, <> meaning on average. p, q, q1 and q2 are integer coefficients verifying q1+q2=q. The sum of the integer coefficients present in the resonant argument is null. This rule is sometimes called d’Alembert rule, and is justified by the fact that you do not change the physics of a system if you change the reference frame in which you describe it. The only way to preserve the resonant argument from a rotation of an angle α and axis z is that the sum of the coefficients is null.

It can be shown that the strongest resonances happen with |q|=1, meaning either |q1|=1 and q2=0, or
|q2|=1 and q1=0.

In the first case, pλp-(p+1)λsp is the argument of a Lindblad resonance, which pumps the eccentricity of the particle, while pλp-(p+1)λss is a corotation resonance, which is doped by the eccentricity of the satellite. Here I supposed a positive q, which means that the orbit of the satellite is exterior to the one of the particle. This is the case for the configurations F Ring – Pandora and F Ring – Titan. However, when the satellite is interior to the particle, like in the configuration F Ring Prometheus, then the argument of the Lindblad resonance should read pλs-(p+1)λpp, and the one of the corotation resonance is pλs-(p+1)λps.

As I said, these resonances have cumulative effects on the orbits. This means that we could expect that something happens, this something being possibly anything: a Lindblad resonance should pump the eccentricity of a particle and favor its ejection, but this also means that particle which would orbit nearby without being affected by the resonance would be more stable… chaotic effects might happen, which would be favored by the accumulation of resonances, the consideration of higher-order ones, the presence of several perturbers… This is basically what is observed in the F Ring.

The method: numerical integrations

The authors address this problem in running intensive numerical simulations of the behavior of the particles under the gravitational action of Saturn and some satellites. Let me specify that, usually, the rings are seen as clouds of interacting particles. They interact in colliding. In that specific study, the collisions are neglected. This allows the authors to simulate the trajectory of any individual particle, considered as independent of the other ones.

They considered that the particles are perturbed by the oblateness of Saturn expanded until the order 2 (actually this has been measured with a good accuracy until the order 6), Prometheus, Pandora, and Titan. Why these bodies? Because they wanted to consider the most significant ones on the dynamics of the F Ring. When you model so many particles (2.5 millions) over such a long time span (10,000 years), you are limited by the computation time. A way to reduce it is to remove negligible effects. Prometheus and Pandora are the two closest ones and Titan the largest one. The authors have detected that Titan slightly shifts the location of the resonances. However, they admit that they did not test the influence of Mimas, which is the closest of the mid-sized satellites, and which is known for having a strong influence on the main rings.

A critical point when you run numerical integrations, especially over long durations, is the accuracy, because you do not want to propagate errors. The authors use a symplectic scheme, based on a Hamiltonian formulation, i.e. on the conservation of the total energy, which can be expanded up to the order 28. The conservation of the total energy makes sense as long as the dissipation is neglected, which is the case here. The internal accuracy of the integrator was set to 10-21, which translated into a relative error on the angular momentum of Titan below 2.10-14 throughout the whole integration.

Measuring the stability

It might be tough to determine from a numerical integration whether a particle has a stable orbit or not. If you simulate its ejection, then you know, but if you do not see its ejection, you have to decide from the simulated trajectory whether the particle will be ejected one day or not, and possibly when.
For this, two kinds of indicator exists in the literature. The first kind addresses the chaos, or most specifically the hyperbolicity of the trajectory, while the second one addresses the variability of the fundamental frequencies of the system. From a rigorous mathematical point of view, these two notions are different. Anyway, the ensuing indicators are convenient ways to characterize non-periodic trajectories, and their use are commonly accepted as indicators of stability.
A hyperbolic point is an unstable equilibrium. For instance a rigid pendulum has a stable equilibrium down (when you perturb it, it will return down), but an unstable one up (it stays up until you perturb it). The up position is hyperbolic, while the down one is elliptic. The hyperbolicity of a trajectory implies a significant dependency on the initial conditions of the system: a slightly different initial position or different initial velocity will give you a very different trajectory. In systems having some complexity, this strongly suggests a chaotic behavior. The hyperbolicity can be measured with Lyapunov exponents. Different definitions of these exponents exist in the literature, but the idea is to measure the evolution of the norm of the vector which is tangent to the trajectory. Is this norm has an exponential growth, then you strongly depend on the initial conditions, i.e. you are hyperbolic, i.e. you are likely chaotic. Some indicators of stability are thus based on the evolution of the tangent vector.
The other way to estimate the stability is to focus on the fundamental frequencies of the trajectory. Each of the two angles which characterize the trajectory of the particle, i.e. its mean longitude λp and the longitude of its pericentre ϖp can be associated with a frequency of the problem. It is actually a little more complicated than just a time derivative of the relevant angle, because in that case you would have a contribution of the dynamics of the satellite. A more proper determination is made with a frequency analysis of the orbital elements, kind of Fourier. You are very stable when these frequencies do not drift with time. Here, the authors used first the relative variations of the orbital frequency as indicator of the stability. The most stable particles are the ones which present the smallest relative variations. In order to speed up the calculations, they also used the variations of the semimajor axis as an indicator, and considered that a particle was stable when the variations were smaller than 1.5 km.

Results

A study of stability necessarily focuses on the core of the rings, because the spiral strands are supposed to be doomed. And the authors get very confined zones of stability. A comparison between these zones of stability shows that several mean-motion resonances with Prometheus, Pandora and Titan are associated with them. This could be seen as consistent with the global aspect of the F Ring, but neither with the measured width of the core ring, nor with its exact location.

This problem emphasizes the difficulty to get accurate results with such a complex system. The study manages, with a simplified system of an oblate Saturn and 3 satellites, to render the qualitative dynamics of the F Ring, but this is not accurate enough to predict the future of the observed structures.

Some links

  • The study, also made freely available by the authors on arXiv. Thanks to them for sharing!
  • The web page of Luis Benet (UNAM, Mexico).
  • The web page of Àngel Jorba (University of Barcelona, Spain).

Thanks for having read all this. I wish you a Merry Christmas, and please feel free to share and comment!

On the dynamics of small bodies beyond Neptune

Hi there! Today I will present you a study on the possible dynamics of some Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs). This study, Study and application of the resonant secular dynamics beyond Neptune by M. Saillenfest, M. Fouchard, G. Tommei and G.B. Valsecchi, has recently been accepted for publication in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy.
This is a theoretical study, which presents some features of the dynamics that could one day be observed. This manuscript follows another one by the same authors, in which a theory of the “resonant secular dynamics” is presented. Here it is applied to small bodies, which are thought to be in mean-motion resonances with Neptune. This study results from a French-Italian collaboration.

The Kozai-Lidov mechanism

The dynamics that is presented here uses the so-called Kozai-Lidov mechanism. This is a mechanism which has been simultaneously and independently discovered in Russia (by Lidov) and in Japan (by Kozai), and which considers the following configuration: a massive central body, another massive one called the perturber, and a test-particle, i.e. a massless body, which orbits the central one. This problem is called the Restricted 3-body problem. Originally, the central body was the Earth, the perturber the Moon, and the test-particle an artificial satellite of the Earth. In such a case, the orbit of the test-particle is an ellipse, which is perturbed by the perturber; this results in variation of the elliptical elements, i.e. eccentricity, inclination… moreover, the orientation of the ellipse is moving…

To describe the problem, I need to introduce the following orbital elements:

  • The semimajor axis a, which is half the long axis of the orbit,
  • the mean anomaly M, which locates the satellite on the ellipse,
  • the eccentricity e, which is positive and smaller than 1. It tells us how eccentric the orbit is (e=0 means that the orbit is circular),
  • the pericentre ω, which is the point of the orbit which is the closest to the central body (undefined if the orbit is circular),
  • the inclination I, which is the angle between the orbital plane and the reference plane,
  • the ascending node Ω, which locates the intersection between the orbital plane and the reference plane.

The Kozai-Lidov mechanism allows a confinement of the pericentre with respect to the ascending node, and it can be shown that it results in a raise of the eccentricity of the inclination. Exploiting such a mechanism gives frozen orbits, i.e. configurations for which the orbit of an artificial orbiter, even inclined and eccentric, will keep the same spatial orientation.

These recent years, this mechanism has been extended for designing space missions around other objects than the Earth, but also to explain the dynamics of some exoplanetary systems, of small distant satellites of the giant planets, and of Trans-Neptunian Objects, as it is the case here. In this last problem, the central body is the Sun, the perturber is a giant planet (more specifically here, it is Neptune), and the test-particle is a TNO, with the hope to explain the inclined and eccentric orbit of some of them. A notable difference with the original Kozai-Lidov problem is that here, the test-particle orbits exterior to the perturber. Another difference is that its dynamics is also resonant.

Resonant and secular dynamics

The authors do not speak of resonant secular dynamics, but of dynamics that is both resonant and secular. The difference is that the involved resonance is not a secular one. Let me explain.

The authors consider that the TNO is in a mean-motion resonance with Neptune. This implies an integer commensurability between its orbital period around the Sun and the one of Neptune, with results in large variations of its semi-major axis. If we look at the orbital elements, this affects the mean anomaly M, while, when a resonance is secular, M is not affected.

So, these objects are in a mean-motion resonance with Neptune. Moreover, they have an interested secular dynamics. By secular, I mean that the mean anomaly is not affected, but something interesting involves the node and/or the pericentre. And this is where comes Kozai-Lidov. The paper studies the objects which are trapped into a mean-motion resonance with Neptune, and which are likely to present a confinement of the pericentre ω, which could explain a significant eccentricity and a high inclination.

For that, they make an analytical study, which theory had been developed in the first paper, and which is applied here.

Why an analytical study?

The modern computing facilities allow to simulate the motion of millions of test-particles over the age of the Solar System, in considering the gravitational interaction of the planets, the galactic tide, a star passing by… and this results in clusters of populations of fictitious TNOs. Very well. But when you do that, you do not know why this particular object behaves like that. However, an analytical study will give you zones of stability for the orbits, which are preferred final states. It will tell you: there will probably be some objects in this state, BECAUSE… and in the case of this study, the because has something to do with the Kozai-Lidov mechanism. Moreover, the because also gives you some confidence in your results, since you have an explanation why you get what you get.

To make things short, a numerical study shows you many things, while an analytical one proves you a few things. A comprehensive study of the problem requires combining the two approaches.

This paper

This paper specifically deals with fictitious objects, which are in mean-motion with Neptune, and are likely to be affected by the Kozai-Lidov mechanism. After many calculations presented in the first paper, the authors show that the problem can be reduced to one degree of freedom, in a Hamiltonian formalism.

The Hamiltonian formalism is a common and widely used way to treat problems of celestial mechanics. It consists in expressing the total energy of the problem, i.e. kinetic + potential energy, and transform it so that trajectories can be described. These trajectories conserve the total energy, which may seem weird for a physical problem. Actually there is some dissipation in the dynamics of TNOs, but so small that it can be neglected in many problems. The most recent numerical studies in this topic consider the migration of the planets, which is not a conservative process. In the paper I present you today, this migration is not considered. This is one of the approximations required by the analytical study.

The remaining degree of freedom is the one relevant to the Kozai-Lidov mechanism. The one associated with the mean-motion resonance is considered to be constant. For that it involves the area enshrouded by the libration of the resonant argument, which is constant (hypothesis of the adiabatic invariant). So, the authors get a one degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian, for which they draw phase spaces, showing the trajectory in the plane q vs. ω, q=a(1-e) being the distance between the Sun and the pericentre of the TNO, i.e. its closest distance to the Sun. These phase portraits depend on other parameters, like the mean-motion resonance with Neptune that is considered, and a parameter η, which combines the inclination and the eccentricity.

The results are a catalog of possible trajectories, some of them presenting a confinement of the pericentre &omega;. For a large cloud of objects, this would result in an accumulation of pericentres in a constrained zone. The authors try to find confirmation of their results with existing objects, but their limited number and the inaccuracy on their location make this comparison inconclusive. They also point out that the orbits of Sedna and 2012VP113 cannot be explained by this mechanism.

Perspectives

The future observations of TNOs will give us access to more objects and more accurate trajectories, and it is to be hoped that some of them will fit into the trajectories found by the authors. That would be a great success for that, and that would be deserved regarding the effort necessary to achieve such an analytical study.

As I said, such a problem needs analytical and numerical studies, but some of the authors (Marc Fouchard and Giovanni Valsecchi) are also involved in such a numerical exploration, which starts from a fictitious Oort cloud and simulates the excitation of the eccentricity and inclination of some of the objects.

For the two studies to meet, it should also be investigated how the planetary migration, which results from models of formation and evolution of the Solar System, affects the zones of stability due to the Kozai-Lidov mechanism.

Finally, we should not forget the quest for the Planet Nine. As the authors honestly point out, an additional planet could break down some of the conclusions.

To know more

Feel interested? Please leave a comment!

How Ceres and Vesta shape the asteroid belt

Hi! Today I will tell you about a recent study made in Serbia on the dynamical influence of the small planets Ceres and Vesta on the Asteroid Belt. This study, Secular resonances with Ceres and Vesta by G. Tsirvoulis and B. Novaković, has been accepted for publication in Icarus.

The Asteroid Main Belt

There are many small bodies in the Solar System, here we just focus on the so-called Main Belt, i.e. a zone “full” of asteroids, which lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. The word “full” should be taken with care, since there are many asteroids populating it, but if we cross it, we would be very unlikely to meet one. This zone is essentially void. It is estimated that the total mass of these asteroids is only 4% of the mass of the Moon.

It is called “Main Belt” since the first asteroids were discovered in this zone, and it was long thought that most of them were in this Main Belt. At this time, hundreds of thousands of them have been identified, but the Kuiper Belt, which lies behind the orbit of Neptune, might be even more populated.

The dynamics of these bodies is very interesting. It could contain clues on the early ages of the Solar System. Moreover, they are perturbed by the planets of the Solar System, especially the giant planets.

As a consequence, they have pretty complex dynamics. Their orbits can be approximated with ellipses, but these are not constant ellipses. They are precessing, i.e. their pericentres and nodes are moving, but their semi-major axes, eccentricities and inclinations are time-dependent as well. To represent their dynamics, so-called proper elements are used, which are kind of mean values of these orbital elements, and which are properties of these bodies.

Ceres and Vesta

Ceres and Vesta, or more precisely 1 Ceres and 4 Vesta, are the two largest objects of the Main Belt, with mean radii of 476 and 263 km, respectively. So large objects could present complex interior structures, this is one motivation for the US space mission Dawn, which has orbited Vesta between July 2011 and September 2012, and is currently in orbit around Ceres, since March 2015.

This space mission has given, and is still giving, us invaluable data on these two bodies, like a cartography of the craters of Vesta, and the recent proof that Ceres is differentiated, from the analysis of its gravity field.

The orbital resonances

The asteroids are so small bodies than they are subjected to the gravitational influence of the planets, in particular Jupiter. The most interesting dynamical effect is the orbital resonances, which occur when a proper frequency of the orbit of the asteroid (for instance its orbital frequency, or the frequency of precession of its orbital plane, known as nodal precession) is commensurate with a proper frequency of a planet. In such a case, orbital parameters are excited. In particular, an excitation of the eccentricity results in a destabilization of the orbit, since the asteroid is more likely to collide with another body, and/or to be finally ejected from the Main Belt.

This results in gaps in the Main Belt. The most famous of them are the Kirkwood Gaps, which correspond to mean-motion resonances between the asteroids and Jupiter. When the orbital frequency of the asteroid is exactly three times the one of Jupiter, i.e. when its orbital period is exactly one third of the one of Jupiter, then the asteroid is at the 3:1 resonance, its eccentricity is excited, and its orbit is less stable. We thus observe depletions of asteroids at the resonances 3:1, 5:2, 7:3, and 2:1.

Another type of resonance are the secular resonances, which involve the precession of the pericentres and / or of the node (precession of the orbital plane) of the asteroid. In such a case, this is a much slower phenomenon, since the periods involved are of the order of millions of years, while the orbital period of Jupiter is 11.86 years.

The asteroid families

An analysis of the dynamics (proper elements) and the physical properties of the asteroids shows that it is possible to classify them into families. The asteroids of these families are thought to originate from the same body, which has been destroyed by a collision. They are usually named among the largest of these bodies, for instance Vesta is also the name of a family.

This study

In this study, the authors investigate the dynamical influence of Vesta and Ceres on the Main Belt. They particularly focus on the secular resonances, in identifying four of them, i.e. resonances with the precessions of the pericentres and nodes of these two bodies.

For that, they perform numerical integrations of the motion of 20 test particles over 50 Myr, perturbed by the 4 giant planets, with and without Ceres and Vesta, and show significant influence of these bodies for some of the particles.

Finally, they show that some asteroid families do cross these resonances, like the Hoffmeister family.

Some links

  • The study, Secular resonances with Ceres and Vesta by G. Tsirvoulis and B. Novakovic, accepted for publication in Icarus, and made freely available by the authors on arXiv (thanks to them for sharing)
  • The web site of Georgios Tsirvoulis
  • The web site of Bojan Novaković
  • The mission DAWN