Shortly after forming, Jupiter was slowly pulled toward the sun. Saturn was also pulled in and eventually, their fates became linked. When Jupiter was about where Mars is now, the pair turned and moved away from the sun. Scientists have referred to this as the "Grand Tack," a reference to the sailing maneuver. Credit: NASA/GSFC
[/caption]
Jupiter hasn’t always been in the same place in our solar system. Early in the history of our solar system, Jupiter moved inward towards the sun, almost to where Mars currently orbits now, and then back out to its current position.
The migration through our solar system of Jupiter had some major effects on our solar system. Some of the effects of Jupiter’s wanderings include effects on the asteroid belt and the stunted growth of Mars.
What other effects did Jupiter’s migration have on the early solar system and how did scientists make this discovery?
In a research paper published in the July 14th issue of Nature, First author Kevin Walsh and his team created a model of the early solar system which helps explain Jupiter’s migration. The team’s model shows that Jupiter formed at a distance of around 3.5 A.U (Jupiter is currently just over 5 A.U from the sun) and was pulled inward by currents in the gas clouds that still surrounded the sun at the time. Over time, Jupiter moved inward slowly, nearly reaching the same distance from the sun as the current orbit of Mars, which hadn’t formed yet.
“We theorize that Jupiter stopped migrating toward the sun because of Saturn,” said Avi Mandell, one of the paper’s co-authors. The team’s data showed that Jupiter and Saturn both migrated inward and then outward. In the case of Jupiter, the gas giant settled into its current orbit at just over 5 a.u. Saturn ended its initial outward movement at around 7 A.U, but later moved even further to its current position around 9.5 A.U.
Astronomers have had long-standing questions regarding the mixed composition of the asteroid belt, which includes rocky and icy bodies. One other puzzle of our solar system’s evolution is what caused Mars to not develop to a size comparable to Earth or Venus.
Artist's conception of early planetary formation from gas and dust around a young star. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Regarding the asteroid belt, Mandell explained, “Jupiter’s migration process was slow, so when it neared the asteroid belt, it was not a violent collision but more of a do-si-do, with Jupiter deflecting the objects and essentially switching places with the asteroid belt.”
Jupiter’s slow movement caused more of a gentle “nudging” of the asteroid belt when it passed through on its inward movement. When Jupiter moved back outward, the planet moved past the location it originally formed. One side-effect of caused by Jupiter moving further out from its original formation area is that it entered the region of our early solar system where icy objects were. Jupiter pushed many of the icy objects inward towards the sun, causing them to end up in the asteroid belt.
“With the Grand Tack model, we actually set out to explain the formation of a small Mars, and in doing so, we had to account for the asteroid belt,” said Walsh. “To our surprise, the model’s explanation of the asteroid belt became one of the nicest results and helps us understand that region better than we did before.”
With regards to Mars, in theory Mars should have had a larger supply gas and dust, having formed further from the sun than Earth. If the model Walsh and his team developed is correct, Jupiter foray into the inner solar system would have scattered the material around 1.5 A.U.
Mandell added, “Why Mars is so small has been the unsolvable problem in the formation of our solar system. It was the team’s initial motivation for developing a new model of the formation of the solar system.”
An interesting scenario unfolds with Jupiter scattering material between 1 and 1.5 AU. Instead of the higher concentration of planet-building materials being further out, the high concentration led to Earth and Venus forming in a material-rich region.
The model Walsh and his team developed brings new insight into the relationship between the inner planets, our asteroid belt and Jupiter. The knowledge learned not only will allow scientists to better understand our solar system, but helps explain the formation of planets in other star systems. Walsh also mentioned, “Knowing that our own planets moved around a lot in the past makes our solar system much more like our neighbors than we previously thought. We’re not an outlier anymore.”
One of 42 new proplyds discovered in the Orion Nebula, 177-341E is one of the bright proplyds that lies relatively close to the nebula’s brightest star, Theta 1 Orionis C. The tadpole-shaped tail is actually a jet of matter flowing away from the excited cusp. Credit:NASA/ESA and L. Ricci (ESO)
[/caption]
When it comes to solar systems, chances are good that we’re a lot more special than we thought. According to a German-British team led by Professor Pavel Kroupa of the University of Bonn, our orderly neighborhood of varied planet sizes quietly orbiting in a nearly circular path isn’t a standard affair. Their new models show that habitable planets might just get ejected in a violent scenario where forming solar systems mean highly inclined orbits where hot Jupiters rule.
Some 4600 million years ago, our local planetary system was surmised to have evolved from a blanket of dust surrounding a rather ordinary star. Its planets orbited the same direction as the solar spin and lined up neatly on a plane fairly close to the solar equator. We were good little children… But maybe other systems aren’t so hospitable. There could be systems where the planets cruise around in the opposite direction of their host star’s spin – and have highly inclined orbits. What could cause one protoplanetary disk to take on quiet properties while another is more radical? Try a cosmic crash.
This new study focuses on the theory of a protoplanetary disk colliding with another cloud of material… not unrealistic thinking since most stars form within a cluster. The results could mean the inclusion of up to thirty times the mass of Jupiter. This added “weight” of extra gas and dust could add a tilt to a forming system. Team member Dr Ingo Thies, also of the University of Bonn, has carried out computer simulations to test the new idea. What he has found is that adding extra material can not only incline a forming disk, but cause a reverse spin as well. It may even speed up the planetary formation, leaving the rogues in retrograde orbits. This inhospitable scenario means that smaller planets get ejected systematically, leaving only hot Jupiters to hug in close to the parent star. Thankfully our path was a bit less disturbing.
Says Dr Thies: “Like most stars, the Sun formed in a cluster, so probably did encounter another cloud of gas and dust soon after it formed. Fortunately for us, this was a gentle collision, so the effect on the disk that eventually became the planets was relatively benign. If things had been different, an unstable planetary system may have formed around the Sun, the Earth might have been ejected from the Solar System and none of us would be here to talk about it.”
Professor Kroupa sees the model as a big step forward. “We may be on the cusp of solving the mystery of why some planetary systems are tilted so much and lack places where life could thrive. The model helps to explain why our Solar System looks the way it does, with the Earth in a stable orbit and larger planets further out. Our work should help other scientists refine their search for life elsewhere in the Universe.”
This image from the Cassini spacecraft, shows a huge arrow-shaped storm measuring 1,500km in length. Image Credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
[/caption]
Titan is making news again, this time with Cassini images from 2010 showing a storm nearly as big as Texas. Jonathan Mitchell from UCLA and his research team have published their findings which help answer the question:
What could cause such large storms to develop on a freezing cold world?
For starters, the huge arrow isn’t a cosmic detour sign reminding us to “Attempt No Landings” on Jupiter’s moon Europa.
In the study by Mitchell and his team, a model of Titan’s global weather was created to understand how atmospheric waves affect weather patterns on Titan. During their research, the team discovered a “stenciling” effect that creates distinct cloud shapes, such as the arrow-shaped cloud shown in the Cassini image above.
“These atmospheric waves are somewhat like the natural, resonant vibration of a wine glass,” Mitchell said. “Individual clouds might ‘ring the bell,’ so to speak, and once the ringing starts, the clouds have to respond to that vibration.”
Titan is the only other body in the solar system (aside from Earth) known to have an active “liquid cycle”. Much like Titan’s warmer cousin Earth, the small moon has an atmosphere primarily composed of Nitrogen. Interestingly enough Titan’s atmosphere is roughly the same mass as Earth’s and has about 1.5 times the surface pressure. At the extremely low temperatures on Titan, hydrocarbons such as methane appear in liquid form, rather than the gaseous form found on Earth.
With an active liquid both on the surface and in the atmosphere of Titan, clouds form and create rain. In the case of Titan, the rain on the plain is mainly methane. Water on Titan is rock-hard, due to temperatures hovering around -200 c.
Studies of Titan show evidence of liquid runoff, rivers and lakes, further emphasizing Titan’s parallels to Earth. Researchers believe better understanding of Titan may offer clues to understanding Earth’s early atmosphere. In another parallel to earth, the weather patterns on Titan created by the atmospheric waves can create intense rainstorms, sometimes with more than 20 times Titan’s average seasonal rainfall. These intense storms may cause erosion patterns that help form the rivers seen on Titan’s surface. Mitchell described Titan’s climate as “all-tropics”, basically comparing the weather to what is usually found near Earth’s equator. Could these storms be Titan’s equivalent of monsoon season?
Mitchell stated “Titan is like Earth’s strange sibling — the only other rocky body in the solar system that currently experiences rain”. Mitchell also added, “In future work, we plan to extend our analysis to other Titan observations and make predictions of what clouds might be observed during the upcoming season”.
The research was published Aug. 14 in the online edition of the journal Nature Geoscience .
For 886 days between 2001 and 2004, a tiny spacecraft named Genesis sat parked at Lagrange Point L1 quietly collecting solar wind samples. On Sept. 8, 2004, the spacecraft released a sample return capsule which bashed its way onto the Utah desert carrying its little payload. Despite the disastrous crash, solar-wind ions were found buried beneath the surface of the collectors and what they have to tell us about the possible formation of our solar system is pretty amazing.
In March 2005 the international scientific community was given the collectors to study – and one of their prime targets was the evolution of our solar system. How could these tiny particles give us clues as to our origin? According the bulk of evidence, it is surmised the outer layer of the Sun hasn’t changed in several billion years. If we are to agree this is a good basis for modeling our solar nebula, we could begin to understand the chemical processes which formed our solar system. For most rock-forming elements, there appears to be little fractionation of either elements or isotopes between the sun and the solar wind. Or is there?
“The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the sun — just how and why remains to be discovered,” said Kevin McKeegan, a Genesis co-investigator from the University of California, Los Angeles and the lead author of one of two Science papers published this week.
Using the deposits found on the collector plates, scientists found a higher rate of common oxygen isotopes and a lowered rate of rare ones – different from Earth’s ratios. The same held true of nitrogen composition.
“These findings show that all solar system objects, including the terrestrial planets, meteorites and comets, are anomalous compared to the initial composition of the nebula from which the solar system formed,” said Bernard Marty, a Genesis co-investigator from Centre de Recherches Petrographiques et Geochimiques in Nancy, France and the lead author of the second new Science paper. “Understanding the cause of such a heterogeneity will impact our view on the formation of the solar system.”
While more studies are in the making, this new evidence provides vital information which may correct how we initially perceived our beginnings. While these elements are the most copious of all, even slight differences make them as distinctive as salt and pepper.
“The sun houses more than 99 percent of the material currently in our solar system so it’s a good idea to get to know it better,” said Genesis principal investigator Don Burnett of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, Calif. “While it was more challenging than expected we have answered some important questions, and like all successful missions, generated plenty more.”
New research reveals the possible cause of retrograde "hot Jupiters"
[/caption]
It was once thought that our planet was part of a “typical” solar system. Inner rocky worlds, outlying gas giants, some asteroids and comets sprinkled in for good measure. All rotating around a central star in more or less the same direction. Typical.
But after seeing what’s actually out there, it turns out ours may not be so typical after all…
Astronomers researching exoplanetary systems – many discovered with NASA’s Kepler Observatory – have found quite a few containing “hot Jupiters” that orbit their parent star very closely. (A hot Jupiter is the term used for a gas giant – like Jupiter – that resides in an orbit very close to its star, is usually tidally locked, and thus gets very, very hot.) These worlds are like nothing seen in our own solar system…and it’s now known that some actually have retrograde orbits – that is, orbiting their star in the opposite direction.
“That’s really weird, and it’s even weirder because the planet is so close to the star. How can one be spinning one way and the other orbiting exactly the other way? It’s crazy. It so obviously violates our most basic picture of planet and star formation.”
– Frederic A. Rasio, theoretical astrophysicist, Northwestern University
Now retrograde movement does exist in our solar system. Venus rotates in a retrograde direction, so the Sun rises in the west and sets in the east, and a few moons of the outer planets orbit “backwards” relative to the other moons. But none of the planets in our system have retrograde orbits; they all move around the Sun in the same direction that the Sun rotates. This is due to the principle of conservation of angular momentum, whereby the initial motion of the disk of gas that condensed to form our Sun and afterwards the planets is reflected in the current direction of orbital motions. Bottom line: the direction they moved when they were formed is (generally) the direction they move today, 4.6 billion years later. Newtonian physics is okay with this, and so are we. So why are we now finding planets that blatantly flaunt these rules?
The answer may be: peer pressure.
Or, more accurately, powerful tidal forces created by neighboring massive planets and the star itself.
By fine-tuning existing orbital mechanics calculations and creating computer simulations out of them, researchers have been able to show that large gas planets can be affected by a neighboring massive planet in such a way as to have their orbits drastically elongated, sending them spiraling closer in toward their star, making them very hot and, eventually, even flip them around. It’s just basic physics where energy is transferred between objects over time.
It just so happens that the objects in question are huge planets and the time scale is billions of years. Eventually something has to give. In this case it’s orbital direction.
“We had thought our solar system was typical in the universe, but from day one everything has looked weird in the extrasolar planetary systems. That makes us the oddball really. Learning about these other systems provides a context for how special our system is. We certainly seem to live in a special place.”
– Frederic A. Rasio
Yes, it certainly does seem that way.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation. Details of the discovery are published in the May 12th issue of the journal Nature.
Main image credit: Jason Major. Created from SDO (AIA 304) image of the Sun from October 17, 2010 (NASA/SDO and the AIA science team) and an image of Jupiter taken by the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft on October 23, 2000 (NASA/JPL/SSI).
It’s generally assumed that the Earth’s overall composition is similar to that of chondritic meteorites, the primitive, undifferentiated building blocks of the solar system. But a new study in Science Express led by Frederic Moynier, of the University of California at Davis, seems to suggest that Earth is a bit of an oddball.
Thin section of a chondritic meteorite. Credit: NASA
Moynier and his colleagues analyzed the isotope signature of chromium in a variety of meteorites, and found that it differed from chromium’s signature in the mantle.
“We show through high-precision measurements of Cr stable isotopes in a range of meteorites, which deviate by up to ~0.4‰ from the bulk silicate Earth, that Cr depletion resulted from its partitioning into Earth’s core with a preferential enrichment in light isotopes,” the authors write. “Ab-initio calculations suggest that the isotopic signature was established at mid-mantle magma ocean depth as Earth accreted planetary embryos and progressively became more oxidized.”
Chromium’s origins. New evidence suggests that, in the early solar nebula (A), chromium isotopes were divided into two components, one containing light isotopes, the other heavy isotopes. In the early Earth (B), these components formed a homogeneous mixture. During core partitioning (C), the core became enriched with lighter chromium isotopes, and the mantle with heavier isotopes. Courtesy of Science/AAAS
The results point to a process known as “core partitioning,” rather than an alternative process involving the volatilization of certain chromium isotopes so that they would have escaped from the Earth’s mantle. Core partitioning took place early on Earth at high temperatures, when the core separated from the silicate earth, leaving the core with a distinct composition that is enriched with lighter chromium isotopes, notes William McDonough, from the University of Maryland at College Park, in an accompanying Perspective piece.
McDonough writes that chromium, Earth’s 10th most abundant element, is named for the Greek word for color and “adds green to emeralds, red to rubies, brilliance to plated metals, and corrosion-proof quality to stainless steels.” It is distributed roughly equally throughout the planet.
He says the new result “adds another investigative tool for understanding and documenting past and present planetary processes. For the cosmochemistry and meteoritics communities, the findings further bolster the view that the solar nebula was a heterogeneous mixture of different components.”
Source: Science. The McDonough paper will be published online today by the journal Science, at the Science Express website.
SUBARU Telescope image of the protoplanetary disk around the young star LkCa 15. Credit: MPIA (C. Thalmann) & NAOJ
[/caption]
Chalk up a sizzling success for the HiCIAO planet-hunter camera on the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii: it’s captured this unprecedented image of a stellar disk similar in size to our own solar system, featuring rings and gaps that are associated with the formation of giant planets.
The lead image shows a bright arc of scattered light, in white, from the protoplanetary disk around the young star LkCa 15. LkCa 15 is in the center of the image, blacked out. The arc’s sharp inner edge traces the outline of a wide gap in the disk. The gap is decidedly lopsided – it is markedly wider on the left side – and has most likely been carved out of the disk by one or more newborn planets that orbit the star.
The disk gap is large enough to house the orbits of all the planets in our own Solar System. “We haven’t detected the planets themselves yet,” said Christian Thalmann, who led the LkCa 15 study while on staff at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy.”But that may change soon.”
LkCa 15, aged a few million years, is in the Taurus constellation about 450 light years away.
The observations are part of a systematic survey called SEEDS, or the Strategic Explorations of Exoplanets and Disks with Subaru Project, with a goal to search for planets and disks around young stars using HiCIAO, a state-of-the-art high-contrast camera designed specifically for this purpose. The lead investigator on the project is Motohide Tamura at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, but it’s a collaborative effort with international participation. Their first significant discovery — an exoplanet candidate around a sun-like star — was announced in December.
Besides LkCa 15, the researchers have also captured a sharp images of the protoplanetary disk around the very young star AB Aur in the constellation Auriga, “the Charioteer.” Lead researcher Jun Hashimoto, of the National Observatory of Japan, and his team report nested rings of material that are tilted with respect to the disk’s equatorial plane, and whose material, intriguingly, is not distributed symmetrically around the star – irregular features that indicate the presence of at least one very massive planet.
Recent images of AB Aur taken by HiCIAO (top left), compared with an image taken in 2004 by its predecessor instrument CIAO (top right). The new images give a much more detailed view of the inner regions (bottom left; with explanations bottom right): Intricate bright and dark patterns indicate the presence of different rings of matter. The fact that their centers do not coincide with the position of the star and the other irregularities point to the existence of a massive giant planet which is sweeping up the material between the rings. Credit: NAOJ/J. Hashimoto
The researchers point out that no other telescopes, whether ground-based or in space, have ever penetrated so close to a central star, showing the details of its disk.
Planetary systems like our own share a humble origin as mere by-products of star formation. A newborn star’s gravity gathers leftover gas and dust in a dense, flattened disk of matter orbiting the star. Clumps in the disk sweep up more and more material, until their own gravity becomes sufficiently strong to compress them into the dense bodies we know as planets.
The theorised evolution of the circumbinary planet PSR B1620?26 b. Credit: NASA.
[/caption]
Binary star systems can have planets – although these are generally assumed to be circumbinary (where the orbit encircles both stars). As well as the fictional examples of Tatooine and Gallifrey, there are real examples of PSR B1620-26 b and HW Virginis b and c – thought to be cool gas giants with several times the mass of Jupiter, orbiting several astronomical units out from their binary suns.
Planets in circumstellar orbits around a single star within a binary system are traditionally considered to be unlikely due to the mathematical implausibility of maintaining a stable orbit through the ‘forbidden’ zones – which result from gravitational resonances generated by the motion of the binary stars. The orbital dynamics involved should either fling a planet out of the system or send it crashing to its doom into one or other of the stars. However, there may be a number of windows of opportunity available for ‘next generation’ planets to form at later stages in the evolving life of a binary system.
A binary stellar evolution scenario might go something like this:
1) You start with two main sequence stars orbiting their common centre of mass. Circumstellar planets may only achieve stable orbits very close in to either star. If present at all, it’s unlikely these planets would be very large as neither star could sustain a large protoplanetary disk given their close proximity.
2) The more massive of the binaries evolves further to become an Asymptotic Giant Branch star (i.e. red giant) – potentially destroying any planets it may have had. Some mass is lost from the system as the red giant blows off its outer layers – which is likely to increase the separation of the two stars. But this also provides material for a protoplanetary disk to form around the red giant’s binary companion star.
3) The red giant evolves into white dwarf, while the other star (still in main sequence and now with extra fuel and a protoplanetary disk) can develop a system of orbiting ‘second generation’ planets. This new stellar system could remain stable for a billion years or more.
4) The remaining main sequence star eventually goes red giant, potentially destroying its planets and further widening the separation of the two stars – but it also may contribute material to form a protoplanetary disk around the distant white dwarf star, providing the opportunity for third generation planets to form there.
How a binary system might give birth to generations of planets: a) First generation planets - small and close-in - might be possible while both stars are on the main sequence (MS) and in close proximity to each other; b) Eventually one star evolves from the main sequence to the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) - in other words, it goes red giant. c) The two stars spread further apart while stellar material blown off from the red giant builds a protoplanetary disk around the other star and second generation planets form; d) the second star eventually goes red giant giving the first star (now a white dwarf - WD) a protoplanetary disk which could create a third generation of planets. Credit: Perets, H.B.
The development of the third generation planetary system depends on the white dwarf star sustaining a mass below its Chandrasekhar limit (being about 1.4 solar masses – depending on its rate of spin) despite it having received more material from the red giant. If it doesn’t stay below that limit, it will become a Type 1a supernova – potentially lobbing a small proportion of its mass back to the other star again, although by this stage that other star would be a very distant companion.
An interesting feature of this evolutionary story is that each generation of planets is built from stellar material with a sequentially increasing proportion of ‘metals’ (elements heavier than hydrogen and helium) as the material is cooked and re-cooked within each stars’ fusion processes. Under this scenario, it becomes feasible for old stars, even those which formed as low metal binaries, to develop rocky planets later in their lifetimes.
A huge impact may have formed the Moon, but other large impacts could have determined the makeup of Earth and other planetary bodies. Image Credit: Joe Tucciarone
[/caption]
One of the fundamental problems in planetary science is trying to determine how planetary bodies in the inner solar system formed and evolved. A new computer model suggests that huge objects – some as big as large Kuiper Belt Objects like Pluto and Eris — likely pummeled the Earth, Moon and Mars during the late stages of planetary formation, bringing heavy metals to the planetary surfaces. This model – created by various researchers from across the NASA Lunar Science Institute — surprisingly addresses many different puzzles across the Solar System, such as how Earth could retain metal-loving, elements like gold and platinum found in its mantle, how the interior of the Moon could actually be wet, and the strange distribution in the sizes of asteroids.
“Most of the evidence of what happened during the late stages of planetary formation has been erased over time,” said Bill Bottke from the Southwest Research Institute, who led the research team. “The trail we’ve been tracking on these worlds is pretty cold and to be able to dig more information out of what we have and be able answer some long standing problems is pretty exciting.”
Bottke told Universe Today that the story this new model tells “is not as complicated as it looks at first glance,” he said. “It includes a lot of concepts together, and some of the concepts have actually been around for awhile.”
Bottke and his team have published their results in the journal Science.
The researchers started with the widely accepted theory of how our Moon was created by a giant impact between the early Earth and another Mars-sized planetary body. “This was the most traumatic event the Earth probably ever went through, and that was the time when presumably the Earth and Moon both formed their cores,” Bottke said.
The heavy iron fell to the center of the two bodies, and so-called highly siderophile, or metal-loving, elements such as rhenium, osmium platinum, palladium, and gold should have followed the iron and other metals to the core in the aftermath of the Moon-forming event, leaving the rocky crusts and mantles of these bodies void of these elements.
“These elements love to follow the metal,” Bottke said, “so if the metal is draining to the core, these elements would want to drain with them. So if this is right, what we would expect that rocks derived from our mantle should have almost no highly siderophile elements, maybe 10 to the minus 5th level or so. But surprisingly, that is not what we see. They are only less abundant by a factor of less than 200, compared to what we would expect, a factor of 100,000 or so.”
Bottke said this problem has been argued about since the 1970’s, with various suggestions on how to answer the problem.
“The most viable answer is that after the Moon forming impact took place, there were also other things that hit the Earth during the late stages of planet formation, objects that were smaller, and these smaller objects replenished these elements and gave us the abundance we see today. This is what we refer to as late accretion,” he said.
On the Moon, the same thing was happening. But there was a problem with this scenario. The ratio of these elements on the Earth compared with rocks on the Moon is about 1000 to 1.
“The gravitational cross section of the Earth is about 20 times that of the Moon,” Bottke said, “So for every object that hit the Moon, about twenty should have hit the Earth. And if late accretion delivered these elements, you should have about a 20 to 1 ratio. But that is not what we see—we see a 1000 to 1 ratio.”
Bottke – a planetary dynamacist — discussed this with colleague David Nesvorny, also from SWRI, as well as geophysical-geochemical modelers, such as Richard Walker from the University of Maryland, James Day from the University of Maryland, and Linda Elkins-Tanton from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
They came up with a computer model that seemed to provide an answer.
“By playing roulette with these objects, I found that very often the Earth was getting hit by huge impactors that the Moon would never see,” Bottke said. “This result suggests that the things hitting the Earth and Moon at the end of the planet formation period was dominated by very large objects.”
The model predicted that the largest of the late impactors on Earth, at 2,400 – 3,200 km (1,500-2,000 miles) in diameter, while those for the Moon, at approximately 240 – 320 km.
Bottke called that a “cute” result – but they needed more supporting evidence. So, they took a look at the last surviving population of the things that built the planets, the inner asteroid belt. “You find large asteroids like Ceres, Vesta and Pallas” Bottke said, so there are the large ones at 500 to 900 km, but then your next largest asteroids are only about 250 km. This matched up with the sizes that our model came up with,” in which no asteroids with “in-between” sizes are observed in this region.
Maps of Mars' global topography. Credit: NASA
Next, they looked at Mars, which has some very large impact basins which are probably left over from the days of when the planet formed, including the Borealis Basin, which is so large it likely accounts for the differences in the northern and southern hemispheres on the Red Planet.
“We looked and projected the size of the impactors that would have created those impact basins and we saw the distribution of sizes was very much like what was predicted for the Earth and Moon, and also what is found in the inner asteroid belt.
So all those things together — the theoretical basis, the observational evidence from elements on the Earth and Moon, and impacts on Mars collectively says something about the distribution of sizes of objects towards the end of planetary formation.
And what are the implications?
“We could make predictions for what was hitting the Earth, Moon and Mars at that time, and they line up with what we see on the surfaces,” Bottke said. “On Mars we can play a game of what is the biggest projectiles that should have hit Mars, and it matches up well with the size that big basin that formed on Mars, and also produced the abundances of elements we see there.”
“For the Moon, the biggest impactors would be 250-300 km, which is about the size of the south pole Aiken basin,” Bottke continued. “For the Earth, these big impactors explain why some of these impacts managed to hit the Earth and not all the elements went to the core of the Earth.”
Bottke said that adding to the complications, some of the biggest impacts actually may have plowed through the Earth and actually came out the other side — in a very fragmented state — and rained back down on Earth. “If this is true, this provides a way to spread fragments all the way across the Earth,” he said, “but how the debris gets redistributed around the planetary body is a really interesting question. That part needs a lot more work and is simply at the edge right now of what we can do numerically.”
When it comes to water on the Moon’s interior – which was once thought to be dry, but recent sample measurements, however, suggest that the water content in the lunar mantle is between 200 and several thousand parts per billion — Bottke’s model could also address this issue.
“If true,” the team writes in their paper, “it is possible that the same projectile that delivered most of the Moon’s HSEs may have also have provided it with water….Late accretion provides an alternative explanation in case lunar mantle water cannot migrate from the post–giant impact Earth to a growing Moon through a hot and largely vaporized protolunar disk.”
As to why smaller projectiles hit the Moon as compared to Earth, Bottke said it is just a numbers game. “We start with a population which has a certain number of big things, middle sized things and small things,” he said. “And we randomly choose projectiles from that population and for every one big guy that hits the Moon, 20 hit the Earth. And we play that game, and if the number of projectiles is limited, if the Moon only gets hit once or twice from this population, that means the Earth gets hit 20-30 times, that is enough to give us – on most occasions – what we see.”
Bottke said this research gave him a chance to work with geochemists, “who have all sorts of interesting things to say which help constrain the processes that brought about planet formation. The problem is that sometimes they have great information but they don’t have a dynamical process that can work. So by working together I think we were able to come up with some interesting results.”
“The most exciting thing for me is that we should be able to use these abundances that we have on the Earth, Moon and Mars to really tell the story about planet formation,” Bottke said.
Well, not only may up to 25% of Sun-like stars have Earth-like planets – but if they are in the right temperature zone, apparently they are almost certain to have oceans. Current thinking is that Earth’s oceans formed from the accreted material that built the planet, rather than being delivered by comets at a later time. From this understanding, we can start to model the likelihood of a similar outcome occurring on rocky exoplanets around other stars.
Assuming terrestrial-like planets are indeed common – with a silicate mantle surrounding a metallic core – then we can expect that water may be exuded onto their surface during the final stages of magma cooling – or otherwise out-gassed as steam which then cools to fall back to the surface as rain. From there, if the planet is big enough to gravitationally retain a thick atmosphere and is in the temperature zone where water can remain fluid, then you’ve got yourself an exo-ocean.
We can assume that the dust cloud that became the Solar System had lots of water in it, given how much persists in the left-over ingredients of comets, asteroids and the like. When the Sun ignited some of this water may have been photodissociated – or otherwise blown out of the inner solar system. However, cool rocky materials seem to have a strong propensity to hold water – and in this manner, could have kept water available for planet formation.
Meteorites from differentiated objects (i.e. planets or smaller bodies that have differentiated such that, while in a molten state, their heavy elements have sunk to a core displacing lighter elements upwards) have around 3% water content – while some undifferentiated objects (like carbonaceous asteroids) may have more than 20% water content.
Mush these materials together in a planet formation scenario and materials compressed at the centre become hot, causing outgassing of volatiles like carbon dioxide and water. In the early stages of planet formation much of this outgassing may have been lost to space – but as the object approaches planet size, its gravity can hold the outgassed material in place as an atmosphere. And despite the outgassing, hot magma can still retain water content – only exuding it in the final stages of cooling and solidification to form a planet’s crust.
Mathematical modelling suggests that if planets accrete from materials with 1 to 3% water content, liquid water probably exudes onto their surface in the final stages of planet formation – having progressively moved upwards as the planet’s crust solidified from the bottom up.
Otherwise, and even starting with a water content as low as 0.01%, Earth-like planets would still generate an outgassed steam atmosphere that would later rain down as fluid water upon cooling.
As the Earth formed, water contained in rocky materials either 'outgassed' or just exuded onto the surface - as magma solidified, from the bottom up, to form the Earth's crust. And OK, this is just a nice image of a deep sea volcanic vent - but you get the idea. Credit: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
If this ocean formation model is correct, it can be expected that rocky exoplanets from 0.5 to 5 Earth masses, which form from a roughly equivalent set of ingredients, would be likely to form oceans within 100 millions years of primary accretion.
This model fits well with the finding of zircon crystals in Western Australia – which are dated at 4.4 billion years and are suggestive that liquid water was present that long ago – although this preceded the Late Heavy Bombardment (4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago) which may have sent all that water back into a steam atmosphere again.
Currently it’s not thought that ices from the outer solar system – that might have been transported to Earth as comets – could have contributed more than around 10% of Earth’s current water content – as measurements to date suggest that ices in the outer solar system have significantly higher levels of deuterium (i.e. heavy water) than we see on Earth.
