Tag Archives: Topography

Equatorial cavities due to fissions

Hi there! Today I present you a theoretical study, which explains why some asteroids present cavities in their equatorial plane. The related paper, Equatorial cavities on asteroids, an evidence of fission events, by Simon Tardivel, Paul Sánchez & Daniel J. Scheeres, has recently been accepted for publication in Icarus.

When you see a cavity, i.e. a hole at the surface of a planetary, you… OK, I usually assume it is due to an impact. Here we have another explanation, which is that it spun so fast that it ejected some material. These cavities have been observed on the two NEOs (Near-Earth Objects) 2008 EV5 and 2000 DP107 α,for which the authors describe the mechanism.

The 2 asteroids involved

The following table gives you orbital and physical data relevant to these two bodies:

2008 EV5 2000 DP107 α
Semimajor axis 0.958 AU 1.365 AU
Eccentricity 0.083 0.377
Inclination 7.437° 8.672°
Orbital period 343 d 583 d
Spin period 3.725 h 2.775 h
Diameter 450 m 950 m

And you can see the shape model of 2008 EV5 on this video, from James Richardson:

They both are small bodies, which orbit in the vicinity of the Earth, and they spin fast. You cannot see that 2000 DP 107 α has a small companion, so this is the largest component (the primary) of a binary asteroid. Their proximity to the Earth made possible the acquisition of enough radar data to model their shapes. We know that they are top-shaped asteroid, i.e. they can be seen as two cones joined by their base, giving an equatorial ridge. Moreover, they both have an equatorial cavity, of diameters 160 and 400 m, and depths 20 and 60 meters, respectively. The authors estimate that given the numbers of potential projectiles in the NEO population, the odds are very small, i.e. one chance over 600, that these two craters are both consequences of impacts. Such an impact should have occurred during the last millions of years, otherwise the craters would have relaxed. This is why it must be the signature of another mechanism, here fission is proposed.

To have fission, you must spin fast enough, and this fast spin cannot be primordial, otherwise the asteroid would not have formed. So, something has accelerated the spin. This something is YORP, for Yarkovsky-O’Keefe-Radzievskii-Paddack.

Yarkovsky and YORP

When you are close enough to the Sun, the side facing the Sun warms, and then radiates in cooling. This is the Yarkovsky effect, which is a non-gravitational force, which affect the orbit of a small body. When you have an irregular shape, which is common among asteroids (you need to reach a critical size > 100 km to be pretty spherical), your response to the Sun light may be the one of a windmill to the wind. And your spin accelerates. This is the YORP effect.

These Yarkovsky and YORP effects have actually been measured in the NEO population.

Asteroid fission

When you spin fast enough, you just split. This is easy to figure out: the shape of a planetary body is a balance between its own gravity, its spin, and if applicable the tidal action of a large perturber. For our asteroids, we can neglect this last effect. So, we have a balance between the own gravity, which tends to preserve the asteroid, and the centrifugal force, which tends to destroy it. When you accelerate the rotation, you endanger the body. But it actually does not explode, since once some material is ejected, enough angular momentum is lost, and the two newly created bodies may survive. This process of fission is assumed to be the main cause of the formation of binaries in the NEO population.
2000 DP107 α belongs to a binary, while 2008 EV5 does not. But that does not mean that it did not experience fission, since the ejecta may not have aggregated, or the formed binary may not have survived as a binary.

Now, let us see how this process created an equatorial cavity.

Ejecting a protrusion

The author imagined that there was initially a mass filling the cavity. This mass would have had the same density as the remaining body, and they considered its size to be a free parameter. They assumed the smallest possible mass to exactly fill the cavity, the other options creating protrusion. As a consequence, the radius of the asteroid would have been larger at that very place, while it is smaller now. And this is where it is getting very interesting.

In accelerating the rotation of the asteroid, you move the surface limit, which would correspond to the balance between gravitation and spin. More exactly, you diminish its radius, until it reaches the surface of the asteroid… the first contact being at the protrusion. The balance being different whether you are inside or outside the asteroid, this limit surface would go deeper at the location of the protrusion, permitting the ejection of the mass which lies outside, and thus creating an equatorial cavity. Easy, isn’t it?

But this raises another question: this would mean that the cohesion at the equatorial plane is not very strong, and weaker than expected for an asteroid. How to solve this paradox? Thanks to kinetic sieving!

The kinetic sieving

The authors simulated a phenomenon that is known by geologist as reverse grading. In granular avalanches, the separation of particles occurs according to size, involving that the largest particles are expelled where the spin is faster, i.e. at the equator, which would result in a lowest tensile strength, which would itself facilitate the ejection of the mass, and create an equatorial cavity. This phenomenon has been simulated, but not observed yet. So, this is a prediction which should be tested by future space missions.

By the way, the size of the companion of 2000 DP107 α is consistent with a protruder of height 60m.

Summary

  1. Initial state: a Near-Earth Object, with irregular shape. Probably spins fast enough to be top-shaped, i.e. having an equatorial ridge,
  2. YORP accelerates the rotation, favoring the accumulation of large particles at the equator, while tropics are more sandy,
  3. A mass is ejected at the equator, leaving a cavity,
  4. You get a binary, which may survive or not.

More will be known in the next future, thanks to the space mission Osiris-REx, which will visit the asteroid (101955) Bennu in 2018 and return samples to the Earth in 2023. Does it have sandy tropics?

The Near-Earth Asteroid Bennu. © NASA.
The Near-Earth Asteroid Bennu. © NASA.

The study and the authors

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.

Avalanches on the Moon

Hi there! Did you know that there could be avalanches on the Moon? Why not? You have slopes, you have boulders, so you can have avalanches! Not snow avalanches of course. This is the topic of Granular avalanches on the Moon: Mass-wasting conditions, processes and features, by B.P. Kokelaar, R.S. Bahia, K.H. Joy, S. Viroulet and J.M.N.T. Gray, which has recently been accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets.

The Moon vs. the Earth

On the Moon we have

  • No atmosphere: The wind cannot trigger an avalanche. Moreover, the erosion is much slower than on Earth, since it is only due to micrometeorites bombardment. The erosion tends to flatten the terrains. When you have no erosion, an steep terrain may remain steep for ages/
  • No liquid water: This means no snow! This is why you have no snow avalanche. Another consequence of this absence of fluid is that no rain can trigger an avalanche, and the regolith involved is necessarily dry. Wet sand does not behave like dry sand.
  • Less gravity: The gravity on the Moon is about one sixth of the gravity of the Earth, and as you can imagine, gravity assists the avalanches. It appears that a smaller gravity results in slower avalanches, but the final result remains pretty the same, i.e. you cannot infer the gravity from the final result of an avalanche.

The irregularity of the Moon’s topography is mainly due to the numerous impact craters. The steep edges of the craters are where avalanches happen.

Causes of the avalanches

For an avalanche to happen, you need a favorable terrain, and a triggering event.

A favorable terrain is first a slope. If you are flat enough, then the boulders would not be inclined to roll. The required limit inclination is called the dynamic angle of repose. On Earth, the dry sand has a dynamic angle of repose of 34°, while the wet sand remains stable up to 45°. This illustrates pretty well the influence of the water.

Triggering an avalanche requires to shake the terrain enough. A way is an impact occurring far enough to not alter the slope, but close enough to shake the terrain. Another way is a seismic phenomenon, due to geophysical activity of the Moon.

Datasets

The authors focused their efforts on the Kepler crater, before investigating 6 other ones. The impact craters have to be preserved enough, in particular from micrometeorite impacts. These craters are:

Crater Diameter Slope
Kepler 31 km ~32°
Gambart B 11 km ~30°
Bessel 16 km 31.5°
Censorinus 3.8 km 32°
Riccioli CA 14.2 km 34°
Virtanen F 11.8 km 32°
Tralles A 18 km 32°

The first 4 of these craters are situated in maria, while the last three are in highlands. These means that we have different types of regolith.

Kepler seen by LROC (© NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)
Kepler seen by LROC (© NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)

We need high-precision data to determine the shape of the avalanches. The space mission Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) furnishes such data. In particular the authors used:

  • Images from the LROC, for LRO Camera. This instrument is equipped of 3 cameras, two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs), with a resolution between 0.42 and 1.3 meter per pixel, and a WAC, for Wide Angle Camera, with a resolution of 100 m /pixel, but with a much wider field. The NAC data permitted to characterize the type of flow, while the WAC data gave their extent.
  • Digital Elevation Models (DEM), obtained from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA), mentioned here, and from the Terrain Camera of the Japanese mission SELENE / Kaguya. Knowing the variations of the topography permitted to estimate the slopes of the craters and the volume of flowing material.

Three flow types

And from the images, the authors determined 3 types of flows:

  • Multiple Channel and Lobe (MCL): these are accumulations of multiple small-volume flows. These flows are the most common in the study, and can be found on Earth too,
  • Single-Surge Polylobate (SSP): the flows have the structure of fingers,
  • Multiple Ribbon (MR): these are very elongated flows with respect to their widths, i.e. they are typically kilometer-long and meter-wide. These flows have been predicted by lab experiments, but this is their first observation on a planetary body. In particular, they are not present on the Earth. Lab experiments suggest that they are extremely sensitive to slope changes.
Debris flows observed on the northeast inner wall Kepler. This is NOT water! © NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University
Debris flows observed on the northeast inner wall Kepler. This is NOT water! © NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University

The word flow evokes a fluid phenomenon. Of course, there is no fluid at the surface of the Moon, but granular regolith may have a kind of fluid behavior. A true fluid would have a dynamic angle of repose of 0°. Regolith has a higher angle of repose because of friction, that prevents it from flowing. But it of course depends on the nature of the regolith. In particular, fine-grained material tends to reduce friction, and consequently increases the mobility of the material. This results in extended flows.

But this extension has some limitation. On Earth, we observe flows on adverse slopes, which are thought to be facilitated by the presence of liquid water. This statement is enforced by the fact that no such flow has been observed on the Moon.

The accuracy of data we dispose on the Moon has permitted the first observations of granular flows in dry and atmosphereless conditions. Such results could probably be extrapolated to other similar bodies (Mercury? Ceres? Pluto?).

Laboratory experiments

The multiple ribbon have been predicted by lab experiments. It is fascinating to realize that we can reproduce lunar condition in a room, and with accelerated timescales. This is made possible by the normalization of physical quantities.
If we write down the equations ruling the granular flows, we have a set of 3 partial derivative equations, involving the avalanche thickness, and the concentration and velocity of the particles. Mathematical manipulations on these equations permit to emphasize quantities, which have no physical dimension. For instance, the height of a mountain divided by the radius of the planet, or the time you need to read this article divided by the time I need to write it… In acting on all the quantities involved in such adimensional numbers, we can reduce an impact crater of the Moon evolving during millions of years, to a room evolving during a few days…
In this problem, a critical number is the Froude number, which depends on the gravity, the avalanche thickness, the velocity, and the slope.

The study and the authors

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.

Modeling the shape of a planetary body

Hi there! Do you know the shape of the Moon? You say yes of course! But up to which accuracy? The surface of the Moon has many irregularities, which prompted Christian Hirt and Michael Kuhn to study the limits of the mathematics, in modeling the shape of the Moon. Their study, entitled Convergence and divergence in spherical harmonic series of the gravitational field generated by high-resolution planetary topography — A case study for the Moon, has recently been accepted for publication in Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets.

The shape of planetary bodies

If you look at a planetary body from far away (look at a star, look at Jupiter,…), you just see a point mass. If you get closer, you would see a sphere, if the body is not too small. Small bodies, let us say smaller than 100 km, can have any shape (may I call them potatoids?) If they are larger, the material almost arranges as a sphere, which gives the same gravity field as the point mass, provided you are out of the body. But if you look closer, you would see some polar flattening, due to the rotation of the body. And for planetary satellites, you also have an equatorial ellipticity, the longest axis pointing to the parent planet. Well, in that case, you have a triaxial ellipsoid. You can say that the sphere is a degree 0 approximation of the shape, and that the triaxial ellipsoid is a degree 2 approximation… but still an approximation.

A planetary body has some relief, mountains, basins… there are explanations for that, you can have, or have had, tectonic activity, basins may have been created by impacts, you can have mass anomalies in the interior, etc. This means that the planetary body you consider (in our example, the Moon), is not exactly a triaxial ellipsoid. Being more accurate than that becomes complicated. A way to do it is with successive approximations, in the same way I presented you: first a sphere, then a triaxial ellipsoid, then something else… but when do you stop? And can you stop, i.e. does your approximation converge? This study addresses this problem.

The Brillouin sphere

This problem is pretty easy when you are far enough from the body. You just see it as a sphere, or an ellipsoid, since you do not have enough resolution to consider the irregularities in the topography… by the way, I am tempted to make a confusion between topography and gravity. The gravity field is the way the mass of your body will affect the trajectory of the body with which it interacts, i.e. the Earth, Lunar spacecrafts… If you are close enough, you will be sensitive to the mass distribution in the body, which is of course linked to the topography. So, the two notions are correlated, but not fully, since the gravity is more sensitive to the interior.

But let us go back to this problem of distance. If you are far enough, no problem. The Moon is either a sphere, or a triaxial ellipsoid. If you get closer, you should be more accurate. And if you are too close, then you cannot be accurate enough.

This limit is given by the radius of the Brillouin sphere. Named after the French-born American physicist Léon Brillouin, this is the circumscribing sphere of the body. If your planetary body is spherical, then it exactly fills its Brillouin sphere, and this problem is trivial… If you are a potatoidal asteroid, then your volume will be only a fraction of this sphere, and you can imagine having a spacecraft inside this sphere.

The asteroid Itokawa in its Brillouin-sphere. Credit: JAXA.
The asteroid Itokawa in its Brillouin-sphere. Credit: JAXA.

The Moon is actually pretty close to a sphere, of radius 1737.4±1 km. But many mass anomalies have been detected, which makes its gravity field not that close to the one of the sphere, and you can be inside the equivalent Brillouin sphere (if we translate gravity into topography), in flying over the surface at low altitude.

Why modeling it?

Why trying to be that accurate on the gravity field / topography of a planetary object? I see at least two good reasons, please pick the ones you prefer:

  • to be able to detect the time variations of the topography and / or the gravity field. This would give you the tidal response (see here) of the body, or the evolution of its polar caps,
  • because it’s fun,
  • to be able to control the motion of low-altitude spacecrafts. This is particularly relevant for asteroids, which are somehow potatoidal (am I coining this word?)

You can object that the Moon may be not the best body to test the gravity inside the Brillouin sphere. Actually we have an invaluable amount of data on the Moon, thanks to the various missions, the Lunar Laser Ranging, which accurately measures the Earth-Moon distance… Difficult to be more accurate than on the Moon…

The goal of the paper is actually not to find something new on the Moon, but to test different models of topography and gravity fields, before using them on other bodies.

Spherical harmonics expansion

Usually the gravity field (and the topography) is described as a spherical harmonics expansion, i.e. you model your body as a sum of waves with increasing frequencies, over two angles, which are the latitude and the longitude. This is why the order 0 is the exact sphere, the order 2 is the triaxial ellipsoid… and in raising the order, you introduce more and more peaks and depressions in your shape… In summing them, you should have the gravity field of your body… if your series converge. It is usually assume that you converge outside the Brillouin sphere… It is not that clear inside.

To test the convergence, you need to measure a distance between your series and something else, that you judge relevant. It could be an alternative gravitational model, or just the next approximation of the series. And to measure the distance, a common unit is the gal, which is an acceleration of 1 cm/s2 (you agree that gravity gives acceleration?). In this paper, the authors checked differences at the level of the μgal, i.e. 1 gal divided by 1 million.

Methodology

In this study, the authors used data from two sources:

  • high-resolution shape maps from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA),
  • gravity data from the mission GRAIL (Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory),

and they modeled 4 gravity fields:

  1. Topography of the surface,
  2. Positive topographic heights, i.e. for basins the mean radius was considered, while the exact topography was considered for mountains,
  3. “Brillouin-sphere”, at a mean altitude of 11 km,
  4. “GRAIL-sphere”, at a mean altitude of 23 km.

In each of these cases, the authors used series of spherical harmonics of orders between 90 (required spatial resolution: 60.6 km) and 2,160 (resolution: 2.5 km). In each case, the solution with spherical harmonics was compared with a direct integration of the potential of the body, for which the topography is discretized through an ensemble of regularly-shaped elements.

Results

And here are the results:

Not surprisingly, everything converges in the last two cases, i.e. altitudes of 11 and 23 km. However, closer to the surface the expansion in spherical harmonics fails from orders 720 (case 1) and 1,080 (case 2), respectively. This means that adding higher-order harmonics does not stabilize the global solution, which can be called divergence. The authors see from their calculations that this can be predicted from the evolution of the amplitude of the terms of the expansion, with respect to their orders. To be specific, their conclusion is summarized as follows:

A minimum in the degree variances of an external potential model foreshadows divergence of the spherical harmonic series expansions at points inside the Brillouin-sphere.

 

My feeling is that this study should be seen as a laboratory test of a mathematical method, i.e. testing the convergence of the spherical harmonics expansion, not on a piece of paper, but in modeling a real body, with real data. I wonder how the consideration of time variations of the potential would affect these calculations.

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.

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.

Enceladus lost its balance

Hi there! Today I will present you True polar wander of Enceladus from topographic data, by Tajeddine et al., which has recently been published in Icarus. The idea is this: Enceladus is a satellite of Saturn which has a pretty stable rotation axis. In the past, its rotation axis was already stable, but with a dramatically different orientation, i.e. 55° shifted from the present one! The authors proposed this scenario after having observed the distribution of impact basins at its surface.

Enceladus’s facts

Enceladus is one of the mid-sized satellites of Saturn, it is actually the second innermost of them. It has a mean radius of some 250 km, and orbits around Saturn in 1.37 day, at a distance of ~238,000 km. It is particularly interesting since it presents evidence of past and present geophysical activity. In particular, geysers have been observed by the Cassini spacecraft at its South Pole, and its southern hemisphere presents four pretty linear features known as tiger stripes, which are fractures.

Enceladus seen by Cassini (Credit: NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute).
Enceladus seen by Cassini (Credit: NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute).

Moreover, analyses of the gravity field of Enceladus, which is a signature of its interior, strongly suggest a global, subsurfacic ocean, and a North-South asymmetry. This asymmetry is consistent with a diapir of water at its South Pole, which would be the origin of the geysers. The presence of the global ocean has been confirmed by measurements of the amplitude of the longitudinal librations of its surface, which are consistent with a a crust, that a global ocean would have partially decoupled from the interior.

The rotation of a planetary satellite

Planetary satellites have a particularly interesting rotational dynamics. Alike our Moon, they show on average always the same face to a fictitious observer, which would observe the satellite from the surface of the parent planet (our Earth for the Moon, Saturn for Enceladus). This means that they have a synchronous rotation, i.e. a rotation which is synchronous with their orbit, but also that the orientation of their spin axis is pretty stable.
And this is the key point here: the spin axis is pretty orthogonal to the orbit (this orientation is called Cassini State 1), and it is very close to the polar axis, which is the axis of largest moment of inertia. This means that we have a condition on the orientation of the spin axis with respect to the orbit, AND with respect to the surface. The mass distribution in the satellite is not exactly spherical, actually masses tend to accumulate in the equatorial plane, more particularly in the satellite-planet direction, because of the combined actions of the rotation of the satellites and the tides raised by the parent planet. This implies a shorter polar axis. And the study I present today proposes that the polar axis has been tilted of 55° in the past. This tilt is called polar wander. This result is suggested by the distribution of the craters at the surface of Enceladus.

Relaxing a crater

The Solar System bodies are always impacted, this was especially true during the early ages of the Solar System. And the inner satellites of Saturn were more impacted than the outer ones, because the mass of Saturn tends to attract the impactors, focusing their trajectories.
As a consequence, Enceladus got heavily impacted, probably pretty homogeneously, i.e. craters were everywhere. And then, over the ages, the crust slowly went back to its original shape, relaxing the craters. The craters became then basins, and eventually some of them disappeared. Some of them, but not all of them.
The process of relaxation is all the more efficient when the material is hot. For material which properties strongly depend on the temperature, a stagnant lid can form below the surface, which would partly preserve it from the heating by convection, and could preserve the craters. This phenomenon appears preferably at equatorial latitudes.
This motivates the quest for basins. A way for that is to measure the topography of the surface.

Modeling the topography

The surface of planetary body can be written as a sum of trigonometric series, known as spherical harmonics, in which the radius would depend on 2 parameters, i.e. the latitude and the longitude. This way, you have the radius at any point of the surface. Classically, two terms are kept, which allow to represent the surface as a triaxial ellipsoid. This is the expected shape from the rotational and tidal deformations. If you want to look at mass anomalies, then you have to go further in the expansion of the formula. But to do that, you need data, i.e. measurements of the radius at given coordinates. And for that, the planetologists dispose of the Cassini spacecraft, which made several flybys of Enceladus, since 2005.
Two kinds of data have been used in this study: limb profiles, and control points.
Limb profiles are observations of the bright edge of an illuminated object, they result in very accurate measurements of limited areas. Control points are features on the surface, detected from images. They can be anywhere of the surface, and permit a global coverage. In this study, the authors used 41,780 points derived from 54 limb profiles, and 6,245 control points.
Measuring the shape is only one example of use of such data. They can also be used to measure the rotation of the body, in comparing several orientations of given features at different dates.
These data permitted the authors to model the topography up to the order 16.

The result

The authors identified a set of pretty aligned basins, which would happen for equatorial basins protected from relaxation by stagnant lid convection. But the problem is this: the orientation of this alignment would need a tilt of 55° of Enceladus to be equatorial! This is why the authors suggest that Enceladus has been tilted in the past.

The observations do not tell us anything on the cause of this tilt. Some blogs emphasize that it could be due to an impact. Why not? But less us be cautious.
Anyway, the orientation of the rotation axis is consistent with the current mass distribution, i.e. the polar axis has the largest moment of inertia. Actually, mid-sized planetary satellites like Enceladus are close to sphericity, in the sense that there is no huge difference between the moments of inertia of its principal axes. So, a redistribution of mass after a violent tilt seems to be possible.

To know more

And now the authors:

And 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.