1 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 379 Regular and Chaotic Dynamics in the Mean-Motion Resonances: Implications for the Structure and Evolution of the Asteroid Belt D. esvorný Southwest Research Institute S. Ferraz-Mello Universidade de São Paulo M. Holman Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics A. Morbidelli Observatoire de la Côte d Azur This chapter summarizes the achievements over the last decade in understanding the effect of mean-motion resonances on asteroid orbits. The developments from the beginning of the 99s are many. They range from a complete theoretical description of the secular dynamics in the mean-motion resonances associated with the Kirwood gaps to the discovery of the threebody resonances and slow chaotic phenomena acting throughout the asteroid belt. Consequences arising from these results have required remodeling the process of asteroid delivery to the Earthcrossing orbits.. ITRODUCTIO It is evident from the plethora of studies of mean-motion resonances (MMRs) in the last decade that maor advances have been made in this area, and these advances have broad consequences for our understanding of asteroids. An attentive observer of this branch of dynamical astronomy would have noted the following progress. It was shown that bodies in the main MMRs with Jupiter (3:, 4:, 5:) can reach very high orbital eccentricities (Ferraz-Mello and Klafe, 99; Klafe et al., 99; Saha, 99). This result suggested that resonant bodies can be transported to Mars-, Earth-, and Venus-crossing orbits and then be efficiently extracted from the resonances due to the larger mass of the two latter planets. The cited wors confirmed the pioneering findings of Wisdom (98, 983, 985) on the Kirwood gap at the 3: MMR with Jupiter and showed that very high eccentricities are frequent outcomes of the dynamics in MMRs on million-year timescales. The progress in numerical modeling revealed another surprising alternative: Resonant asteroids can fall into the Sun (Farinella et al., 993, 994), as a consequence of their eccentricity approaching unity. The current state of our understanding of the removal of resonant bodies from the 3: MMR is that 65 7% are extracted by Earth and Venus, and 5 3% go directly into the Sun (Gladman et al., 997). The innovative seminumerical treatment of classical perturbation methods introduced by Henrard (99) later allowed a global and realistic description of the secular dynamics in the main MMRs with Jupiter, taing into account the precession of Jupiter s orbit (Moons and Morbidelli, 995). This supplied convincing evidence that the orbital evolution of simulated bodies toward the planet-crossing orbits is driven by chaotic secular resonances (Morbidelli and Moons, 995). A brief account of this new development is given in section 4. The : MMR with Jupiter at 3.7 AU is a unique case, because here the chaotic secular resonances are located at high eccentricities (Morbidelli and Moons, 993). Yet in the early 99s, only a few asteroids were nown to exist on resonant orbits, in contrast to the large nonresonant populations on either side of the : MMR. The studies devoted to the question of the long-term stability of the resonant orbits were mared by the evolution of the numerical methods (Wisdom and Holman, 99; Levison and Duncan, 994) and the computer speed. Important progress was made when the globally chaotic nature of orbits in the : MMR was demonstrated (Ferraz-Mello, 994b). Later wors (Morbidelli, 996; esvorný and Ferraz-Mello, 997; Ferraz-Mello et al., 998a) showed that this resonance is an intermediate case between the unstable MMRs and stable 3: MMR with Jupiter, the latter hosting the Hilda group. The : MMR possesses a core with dynamical lifetime comparable to the age of the solar system, where currently nearly 3 small asteroids are nown (the Zhongguo group). We devote section 5 to this subect. A maor breathrough, already signaled by the studies of the slow chaos in the : MMR, was made concerning 379
2 38 Asteroids III the phenomenon referred to as stable chaos. It was previously noted that a large number of asteroids have strongly chaotic orbits yet are stable on long intervals of time (Milani and obili, 99; Milani et al., 997). The main reason for such behavior was revealed by the discovery of the so-called three-body resonances, i.e., MMRs, where the commensurability of orbital periods occurs between an asteroid and two planets [mainly Jupiter and Saturn; (Murray et al., 998, esvorný and Morbidelli, 998)]. The subsequent modeling of these resonances showed that they represent narrow but strongly chaotic layers densely intersecting the asteroid belt (section 6.). The slow chaotic evolution observed in numerical simulations in the narrow MMRs in the outer asteroid belt was explored by Murray and Holman (997). This study correctly showed that the mechanism driving the chaotic diffusion lies in the multiplet structure of the narrow MMRs (section 6.). The study of the dynamics in the inner belt (..5 AU) revealed surprising instabilities of asteroid orbits. umerical simulations showed that many asteroids currently on nonplanet-crossing orbits with large eccentricities evolve to Mars-crossing orbits within the next m.y. (Migliorini et al., 998, Morbidelli and esvorný, 999). The responsible resonances in this case are the MMRs with Mars, previously thought unimportant because of the small mass of this planet. The MMRs with Mars were identified as a maor source of the large near-earth asteroids (EAs; section 6.3). They were also conectured to disperse the asteroid families in the inner asteroid belt (esvorný et al., ). After introducing basic notation (section ) and showing the global structure of MMRs in the asteroid belt (section 3), we follow the above historical overview. Section is directed toward the reader who wishes to gain some basic insight in the mathematical methods developed and utilized in studies of MMRs. Perspectives are given in the last section.. OTATIO AD BASIC TERMIOLOGY A mean-motion resonance (MMR) occurs when an asteroid has an orbital period commensurate with the orbital period of one or more of the planets. To fix the notation, we define = λ + λ +,,l,l,m,m = l ϖ + lϖ + mω + mω = = where, l, m and = (,, ), l = (l,, l ), m = (m,, m ) are integers with zero sum: + l + m + ( + l + m ) = (because of the invariance of interaction by rotation, only such combinations exist; this and other conditions on integer coefficients required by symmetries of the gravitational interaction are nown as D Alembert rules), and and (i.e., MMRs are related to the fast orbital frequencies, unlie the secular resonances). Here λ, () ϖ, Ω, λ, ϖ, Ω are orbital angles in the usual notation (index goes over planets). The MMR occurs when,,l,l,m,m =, where,,l,l,m,m is the time derivative of,,l,l,m,m given by equation (). In the case of asteroid motion, the secular frequencies ϖ, ϖ, Ω, Ω are small compared to the orbital frequencies λ, λ. For this reason,,,l,l,m,m = is approximately Σ λ + λ =, which can be solved for the resonant semimaor axis (a res ) in the Keplerian approximation. This means that resonant conditions,,l,l,m,m = with unique, but different l,l,m,m hold at about the same semimaor axis. Thus, each (,) MMR may be thought to be composed from several resonant terms with different l,l,m,m (this structure is called the resonant multiplet ). In practice, there are two important cases: () the twobody MMR, when index has only one nonzero integer where denotes, in the asteroid belt, either Jupiter or Mars (a few two-body resonances with Saturn and the Earth occur but they are of minor importance), and () the three-body MMR, when index has two nonzero integers, and, corresponding to two planets (mainly to pairs Jupiter Saturn and Mars Jupiter). Without loss of generality we assume that >. The notation of MMRs that we adopt in the following text is that a (,) two-body MMR with Jupiter ( = 5) is 5 J:, and with Mars ( = 4) is 4 M:, where 4, 5, and are integers defining the resonant angle in equation (). In this notation, J: is a MMR with Jupiter, where an asteroid has the orbital period of one-half that of Jupiter. Moreover, if it is clear from the text which planet is considered, we drop the letter indicating the planet (J: becomes : as frequently used in the literature). Concerning the threebody resonances we denote 5 J: 6 S: for the MMRs with Jupiter and Saturn, and 4 M: 5 J: for the MMRs with Mars and Jupiter. (This notation attempts to generalize the classical notation, i.e., the minus sign in : for two-body MMRs, to the case of three-body MMRs and MMRs with planets other than Jupiter.) The equations of motion of an asteroid in the presence of a MMR can be conveniently written in the Hamiltonian formalism. In such formalism, the equations of motion derive from a function of the canonical variables (the Hamiltonian). This formulation is useful because it allows us to use rigorous methods for treating problems where an integrable system is coupled with small perturbations (in the current context, the asteroid s motion about the Sun is perturbed by the planets). The classical expression for the Hamiltonian of a small body evolving under the gravitational force of the Sun and planets is = a = rr. = 3 r where = r r and r.r are the heliocentric positions of µ ()
3 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 38 the small body and planet respectively, and a is the semimaor axis of the small body. (We adopt units where the product of the gravitational constant and the mass of the Sun is.) Here, /a is the heliocentric Keplerian part and µ is the perturbation exerted by the planet having mass µ. Appropriate canonical variables of the Hamiltonian equation () are the so-called modified Delaunay variables λ Λ = L p = ϖ P = L G (3) q = Ω Q = G H where L = a, G = L e and H = G cos i are the usual Delaunay variables (e and i are the eccentricity and inclination of the small body respectively). The perturbation can be written as a function of the orbital elements of the small body and planet [see Moons (993) for such an expression with general validity]. The Hamiltonian equation () is then expressed in terms of variables defined in equation (3). To realistically account for the motion of the planets, the time evolution of the planetary orbital elements, provided by the planetary theory (Lasar, 988; Bretagnon and Simon, 99), must be substituted in. If we denote the planetary orbital elements by index o (as osculating) to distinguish them from the proper orbital elements (the latter being denoted by a, e, i, λ, ϖ, Ω ), the general form of the quasiperiodic evolution of the planetary elements is o o a = a + A cosψ λ o o v v v = λ + B cosψ v v v e exp ιϖ = e exp ιϖ + C cos Ψ o o v v v i exp ιω i exp ιω D cosψ = + v v v (4) where Ψ v = Σ (r λ + s ϖ + t Ω ), the multiindex v denoting different values of integers r, s, t, and ι =. By definition, the proper angles evolve linearly with time, with fixed frequencies provided by the planetary theory. We will denote by n, g, s the orbital, perihelion, and node frequencies respectively. In fact, because A v, B v, C v, D v in equation (4) are small, the new functions of the planetary proper elements are at the first approximation identical to the original functions. There will, however, appear important terms at second and higher orders in the planetary masses generated by the substitution of equation (4) in equation (). A number of approximations of equation (4) are used in the literature, varying from the planar model o o with one planet on the circular orbit [a = a, λ = λ = n t, e = i =, where n = ( +µ )/ 3 a and t is time] to more realistic ones. To summarize, it is understood at this point that although we do not explicitly show such an expression, the Hamiltonian equation () is a function of equation (3) and the planets proper elements (through the substitution in equation (4)). This is an autonomous Hamiltonian of 3( + ) degrees of freedom with the general form where = + µ + µ + ( µ 3 ) (5) = + n g g s s Λ + Λ + Λ (6) Λ = ( ) Here, µ denotes the largest of the masses of the involved planets, and Λ, Λ g, Λ s are the canonical momenta conugate to the proper angles λ, ϖ, Ω. To first order in µ, the elimination of the fast orbital angles by the Lie-series canonical transformation (see, e.g., Hori, 966) is equivalent to averaging equation (5) over λ, =,,, maintaining only the terms in which λ, λ, λ appear in resonant combinations,,l,l,m,m [corresponding to the (,) MMR in question]. This procedure is straightforward if one utilizes the resonant variables in equation (5) = ( ) λ + λ + λ p + + λ + λ + λ ν = + + z S = P + + = Λ + P + Q ( ) λ + λ + λ q = + + λ Λ = Λ Λ λ Λ = Λ Λ S z = Q λ,, Λ,, (7) where, in the case of a two-body MMR with the -th planet, =. The Hamiltonian equation () written in canonical variables defined by equation (7) is then simply averaged over λ, =,,. The resulting Hamiltonian of the twobody MMR is where BR = + n Λ + g g s ( Λ + Λs + ) Λ = µ (, SS,,, ν,, ϖ, Ω ) + ( µ ) µ z = π z (8) π µ dλ (9) = and ϖ = (ϖ,, ϖ ), Ω = (Ω,, Ω ). In the case of a three-body MMR, in equation (9) contains only terms dependent on ϖ = ν and/or Ω = z ν,
4 38 Asteroids III because depends solely on the variables of the small body and -th planet. The resonant terms of three-body MMRs appear at second- and higher-order terms in µ. These terms are generated by the substitution of the planetary orbital elements (equation (4)) (the so-called indirect contribution) and by iterating the Lie-series transformation elimination of fast orbital angles to higher orders in µ (the so-called direct contribution). This procedure was described in esvorný and Morbidelli (999). The resonant Hamiltonian of the three-body MMR is 3BR n + n = + Λ ( gλg + s Λs + ) = µ (, SS,, + ν, + νϖ,, Ω) + z Λ + µ (, SS, z,, ν, z, ϖ, Ω) + ( µ 3) z () ote that equations (8) and () have + 3 degrees of freedom (i.e., less than equation (5)). Thus, we learn an important difference between the twoand three-body MMRs, which is that the magnitudes of the resonant terms are proportional to the planetary mass and to the planetary mass squared respectively. As the planetary masses in our solar system are < 3 (in solar units), this shows that a typical two-body MMR is expected to have a larger effect on an asteroid s orbit than a typical three-body MMR would have. To document this fact, let us consider an Hamiltonian with only one,,l,l,m,m (i.e., fixing,,l,l, m,m, and ignoring terms in equations (8) and () with other than this multiindex). Such a Hamiltonian accounts for a single isolated multiplet term of the (,) MMR. The phase portrait of traectories of a single multiplet term is basically equivalent to the phase portrait of traectories of a pendulum. The width in semimaor axis, represented by the maximal extent of the pendulum separatrixes, is a = 8 a3/ res β 3 () where β is the coefficient in front of the cosine of the specific multiplet term in the Fourier expansion of the resonant parts in equations (8) and () (Murray et al., 998; esvorný and Morbidelli, 999). In the case of the two-body MMR, this coefficient is µ P(e, e, i, i ), where P is a polynomial in e, e, i, i with the total power of each term being at least ρ = + (called the resonant order). From equation (), the width of the two-body resonance is then µ a 3/ P res /. For the three-body MMR, ρ = + + and its width is µa3/ res P/. Consequently, the two-body MMR is generally larger than the three-body MMR due to the mass factor. On the other hand, there are typically more three-body MMRs than two-body MMRs within a semimaor axis interval, because three integers (,, ) allow for a larger number of combinations than two integers (, ). In some sense, the larger density of three-body MMRs in the orbital space compensates for their smaller widths, so that both two- and three-body MMRs are important for asteroid dynamics. 3. OVERLAPPIG MEA-MOTIO RESOACES AD THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE OF THE ASTEROID BELT Let us consider the two-body resonances only. Figure shows the structure of resonant traectories for the 3J: (Figs. a,b), 3J: (Fig. c), 5J: (Fig. d) and 5M:9 (Figs. e,f). The model used for the Jupiter s MMRs (Figs. a d) is an approximation of equation (8) assuming coplanar orbits and a circular orbit for Jupiter. In such case the first-order resonant Hamiltonian is PC 5 = ( S ) + n ( S) + µ ( S,, ) 5 5 () It does not depend on S z, z because of the coplanarity, and does not depend on ν because 5 in equation () is invariant by rotation around an axis perpendicular to the orbital plane. Consequently, = a e + const 5 + = and traectories can be obtained as level curves of the Hamiltonian in equation (). In Fig., two = const manifolds are shown for the 3J: (first-order MMR, a res = 3.97 AU) corresponding to eccentricities under (Fig. a) and above (Fig. b) the Jupitercrossing limit. The Jupiter-crossing limit is e =.3. Resonant orbits with e >.3 may intersect the orbit of Jupiter. The bold line in Fig. b is where collisions tae place. There are two equilibria in Fig. a: the stable one at = (libration center) and the unstable one at = π. The traectories connected to the unstable equilibrium are called separatrixes. The traectories enclosing the stable equilibrium are the resonant ones. They are characterized by oscillations of about (so-called libration ). Above the Jupiter-crossing limit (Fig. b), the traectories near the libration center are protected from collisions. This happens due to the so-called resonant phase-protection mechanism, which guarantees that conunctions with Jupiter occur when the resonant asteroid is near the perihelion of its orbit, i.e., far from Jupiter. The 3J: MMR (second order) has two libration centers at π/ and 3π/ (Fig. c) and occurs closer to the Sun (a res =.5 AU), where collisions with Jupiter cannot happen on elliptic heliocentric orbits. The 5J: MMR (third order) has, in addition to the libration center at, two other centers at π/3 and 4π/3 (Fig. d). In general, the two-body MMRs interior of the planet s orbit ( > ) have libration cen-
5 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 383 Semimaor Axis (AU) Semimaor Axis (AU) Semimaor Axis (AU) J:, e = M:9, e =.5, dvarpi = π (e) 5M:9, e =.5, dvarpi = (f).55 3J:, e =..5 (a) (c) 5J:, e = Fig.. Traectories at MMRs. (a,b) 3J: below (a) and above (b) the Jupiter-crossing limit; (c) 3J: MMR; (d) 5J: MMR; (e,f) 5M:9 MMR with ϖ ϖ 4 = π (e) and ϖ ϖ 4 = (f). On x- axis, is defined by equation (7). Semimaor Axis (AU) Semimaor Axis (AU) Semimaor Axis (AU) J:, e = (d) (b) 4 6 ters at c = π/ρ if ρ is odd and at c = ( + )π/ρ if ρ is even. The exterior resonances have the libration centers at c = ( + )π/ρ if. Conversely, if =, the structure of the exterior resonance is characterized by so-called asymmetric librations where none of the ρ libration centers is at π/ρ or ( + )π/ρ for most values of (Message, 958; Beaugé, 994). An interesting case is that of the two-body MMRs with Mars, due to the large modulation of their widths with the evolution of perihelion longitudes and eccentricities. Figures e and f show the traectories near the 5M:9 MMR (a res =.53 AU) in the coplanar model with Mars on a fixed elliptic orbit (e 4 =.65), assuming two values of perihelion longitudes: ϖ ϖ 4 = π in Fig. e and ϖ ϖ 4 = in Fig. f. In general, when ϖ ϖ = π, the MMRs have their maximum widths. For other phases of the secular angles, the sizes of resonant islands are smaller. The resonant width (i.e., the width of the libration island) can be conveniently estimated by measuring the distance between separatrixes for = (for interior resonances of odd order) or = π/ρ (for interior resonances of even order and exterior resonances with ). For the exterior resonances with =, the separatrix distance is measured at c, which must be determined beforehand as an extreme of equation (). Iterating the algorithm over levels of = const, the resonant width a can be determined as a function of e. Figure shows the MMRs in the asteroid belt. It is an extension of a similar result obtained by Dermott and Murray (983), but accounting for all MMRs with a > 4 AU. We also plot in this figure the asteroids with magnitudes up to the current level of completeness (Jedice and Metcalfe, 998). The orbital distribution of these bodies is thus unaffected by observational biases. In the region of the J:, the resonant orbital elements of all nown resonant obects, regardless of size, are shown. To correctly interpret this figure, one should be aware of the now-classical result of Chiriov (979) nown as the resonance overlap criterion. This criterion affirms that whenever two resonances with similar sizes overlap, the corresponding resonant orbits become chaotic. The same criterion was used by Wisdom (98) to show the onset of chaos in the vicinity of a planet because of the overlap of the first-order MMRs with Jupiter. This criterion can be used in the current context to explain why there are so few asteroids located above the threshold in e for the resonance overlap. Moreover, we now from the experience obtained in the last few years with the secular dynamics inside the MMRs that MMRs themselves are usually characterized by chaotic dynamics (see next section). In resonances lie the 3J: and 5J: MMRs (at.5 and.8 AU), and many others, the chaos causes large-scale instabilities: The resonant bodies evolve to high-e orbits and are removed from resonant orbits by encounters with Mars or Jupiter (Gladman et al., 997). Such resonances are associated with the Kirwood gaps in the asteroid distribution. Smaller MMRs, albeit strongly chaotic, do not generate strong instabilities whenever eccentricities are not near a planet-crossing limit. Large first-order MMRs are characterized by either marginal instabilities (lie J: at 3.7 AU) or possess cores in which orbital lifetimes exceed the solar system age (such as the 3J: MMR at 3.97 AU and the low-e region in the 4J:3 MMR at 4.9 AU, where 79 Thule is located). The basic impression one has from Fig. is that the MMRs delimit the orbital space inhabited by the observed asteroids in a and e. Due to chaos and instabilities generated by MMRs, this is quite intuitive. Most of the ob in removing the material from the belt was apparently done by several large MMRs with Jupiter (as 3J:, 5J:, 7J:3, 9J:4, 7J:4, 5J:3, etc.) and many narrow MMRs with Mars. It is not more than a curiosity that a few MMRs with Saturn and Earth also exist in the inner and central asteroid belts (6S: at.89 AU, 7S: at.6 AU, E:7 at.35 AU, E:9 at.73 AU, etc.). We have accounted solely for two-body MMRs in Fig.. This happens to be a good approximation when considering the gross structures of the asteroid belt in a and e, but becomes less acceptable when one s obective is to under-
6 384 Asteroids III Inner and Central Belts 4J: 7J: 8J:3 6S: 9J:4 5S: 3J: 5J: 7J:3.4 J: Eccentricity.3. Zhongguo S: Outer Belt 3S: 3J: 4J:3.4 Eccentricity.3. 7J:4 5J:3 Hildas. 3.5 Thule Semimaor Axis (AU) 5 Fig.. Global structure of the MMRs in the asteroid belt. There are four different gray shades denoting the regions of resonant motion with planets: light gray for Jupiter MMRs, intermediate for Saturn MMRs, and dar gray for Mars MMRs. Each resonance corresponds to one V-shaped region except the large first-order MMRs with Jupiter, which have particular shapes. Some of the resonances are labeled. For some Jupiter MMRs the proection of separatrixes on the a, e plane is shown by blac lines; for J:, 3J:, and 4J:3, these lines are bold. We also show the proper (dots; Milani and Knezevic, 994) or orbital elements (crosses; Bowell et al., 994) of asteroids with magnitudes up to the completeness level. In case of the group of small asteroids in the J: MMR (arrow indicates 3789 Zhongguo), the resonant elements are plotted (asteriss; Roig et al., ). Other resonant asteroids are the Hilda group in the 3J: MMR and 79 Thule in the 4J:3 MMR. The orbits above the dashed lines are planet-crossing. stand the dynamics of real bodies. The three-body resonances are usually as narrow as two-body resonances with Mars (< AU), but generally being of a low order, they have nonnegligible sizes down to small eccentricities. Moreover, the three-body MMRs are numerous. 4. CHAOTIC SECULAR DYAMICS I THE MEA-MOTIO RESOACES WITH JUPITER: THE KIRKWOOD GAPS The bodies inside the wide MMRs with Jupiter undergo important secular dynamics, in particular for what concerns the evolution of e (Wisdom, 98; Yoshiawa, 99, 99; Ferraz-Mello and Klafe, 99; Morbidelli and Moons, 995; Gladman et al., 997). We briefly review how this can be theoretically ustified, restricting for simplicity to the case where the asteroid and planets have coplanar orbits, although elliptic and precessing [see Morbidelli and Moons (993) for a discussion of the inclined case]. We start from the resonant Hamiltonian equation (8), that we rewrite as BR = PC + where PC is given in equation (), and = BR PC. The function can be considered as a perturbation of PC, because (for D Alembert rules) the former is proportional to the planetary eccentricities. Because PC is integrable, we introduce the Arnold action-angle variables in the MMR region where librates.
7 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 385 Following Henrard (99), the transformation has the form ψ π = T t J = π S d ψ ν = ν f(ψ, J, J ν ) J ν = (3) where the integral is done over a traectory of S, for = const (Fig. ), T is a period of the traectory, and f is a periodic function of ψ, with null average. We then write PC and as functions of these variables. By construction, PC now depends only on the new action variables J, J ν. By averaging over ψ, we obtain an Hamiltonian of the form SEC = g PC Λ g + ( J, J ) + ( J, J,, ) ν ν ψν ϖ (4) where ϖ = (ϖ,..., ϖ ). Because this Hamiltonian is independent of ψ, the action J is now a constant of motion. Thus, equation (4) describes the secular dynamics inside the MMR, namely the evolution of the eccentricity (through J ν ) due to the motion of the perihelia of the asteroid and the planets ( ν and ϖ respectively). The mean frequency of the longitude of perihelion can be computed as ψ ν = J SEC ν (5) A first-order perihelion secular resonance occurs when ψ ν + g =, where g is the frequency of ϖ [for numeric values of g see, e.g., Lasar (988)]. It often occurs in MMRs with Jupiter that the secular resonances associated with the g 5 and g 6 frequencies are located close to each other. To study the effects of the interaction between these two resonances, we construct a tworesonance model by retaining from equation (4) the har q q q q Fig. 3. Sections of the dynamics of equation (6) computed at 6 = for the 3J: MMR. The four panels correspond to increasing values of J, the latter being related to the amplitude of oscillation of a. The label q stands for ϖ ϖ 5, while = J ν = a( 3 e ). At the center of the 3J:, the values =.4,.5,.6,.7,.8,.9 correspond to e =.,.55,.7,.84,.9,.97 respectively. In each panel, the lower limit on the axis is the value that identifies the separatrix of the MMR. Consequently, all the curves that seem to exit from the bottom border of the panels correspond to traectories that hit the separatrix of the MMR during their secular evolution, and are therefore expected to be chaotic. From Moons and Morbidelli (995).
8 386 Asteroids III monic of with arguments 5 = ψ ν + ϖ 5 and/or 6 = ψ ν + ϖ 6. Thus, we consider the Hamiltonian PC 5,6 = g5λg + g6λg (6) ( J, J ) 5,6 ν + ( J, Jν, 5, 6) This is a nonintegrable Hamiltonian that must be studied numerically. The dynamics can be represented on the 5, J ν plane, for instance through a section at 6 =. The sections depend parametrically on J, roughly corresponding to the libration amplitude of a (A a ). In the case of the 3: MMR with Jupiter (Fig. 3), most of the phase space is covered by a chaotic region, which extends up to e = (top borders of the panels). Only the orbits with small A a and e (the smooth curves at the bottom of the two top panels of Fig. 3) still have regular dynamics. These orbits, however, periodically reach Mars-crossing eccentricities (e >.3); the encounters with Mars give impulsive changes to a and e, which, although generally very small, effectively modify A a. At large A a, the chaotic region generated by the overlap of the ν 5 and ν 6 resonances extends to all eccentricities (bottom panels of Fig. 3), and the asteroid can therefore rapidly and chaotically evolve to very large e. This combination of large-scale chaos of the secular dynamics and wea martian encounters explains the behavior of 3: resonant asteroids observed in numerical integrations of the full equations of motion (see Morbidelli et al., ), and explains the formation of a gap in the asteroid distribution. The same happens in many other maor MMRs with Jupiter that are associated with a Kirwood gap. Moons and Morbidelli (995) have shown that also the 4J:, 5J:, and 7J:3 MMRs are dominated by the chaotic region generated by the overlap of the ν 5 and ν 6 resonances, so that the asteroids in these MMRs can also reach very large e on a timescale of a few million years. Large evolutions of e in many MMRs are typically caused by the secular resonance ν 5 itself. The structure of the ν 5 resonance can be computed in models neglecting g 6 (Ferraz-Mello and Klafe, 99; Klafe et al., 99; Moons and Morbidelli, 995). These models show that by the effect of ν 5, the eccentricity suffers large variations, while ϖ ϖ 5 oscillates around or π. In such models, however, only bodies with certain initial orbits can evolve from low to very high eccentricities (Klafe et al., 99). Other parts of the orbital space are characterized by regular motion bounded at moderate e. This regular motion almost completely vanishes when g 6 is accounted for (as shown above; Fig. 3). Consequently, in a globally chaotic environment, orbits evolve according to the underlying structure of ν 5, and despite their initial location in the orbital space, reach very large e. This is usually accomplished by a series of small transitions because of the interaction of ν 5 and ν 6 and a few large events, when e increases due to the effect of ν 5 (Morbidelli and Moons, 995). 5. TRASIET AD STABLE POPULATIOS OF THE J: AD 3J: MEA-MOTIO RESOACES In the J: and 3J: MMRs, simple models with Jupiter s orbit fixed also show a high-e regime of motion associated with the ν 5 resonance. In this case, however, the high-e regime is separated from low e by regular orbits, which are robust and persist in the models that account for g 6 (Henrard and Lemaître, 987; Morbidelli and Moons, 993; Ferraz- Mello, 994b; Michtcheno and Ferraz-Mello, 995; Moons et al., 998). Consequently, unlie in the 3J:, 4J:, 5J:, and 7J:3 MMRs, the secular dynamics do not explain why the observed orbital distribution of asteroids should display a gap at the place of the J: MMR (the Hecuba gap, see Fig. ), where only a few tens of small resonant asteroids reside. Conversely, the 3J: MMR hosts some 6 resonant asteroids nown at the time of writing this text (the Hilda group), with about 3 bodies exceeding 5 m in diameter. This puzzling difference, nown as the : vs. 3: paradox, led some authors to investigate the possibility of opening the Hecuba gap during the primordial stages of the solar system formation by invoing effects that can mutually displace the resonances and amplitudes of asteroids (Henrard and Lemaître, 983). It became clear later that although plausible, such effects are not strictly required to explain the lac of asteroids in the J: MMR. An important difference between the J: and 3J: MMRs was noted by Ferraz-Mello (994a,b). He computed the maximum Lyapounov characteristic exponents (LCE) [the maximum LCE measures the rate of divergence of nearby orbits and is an indicator of chaos (Benettin et al., 976)] of a number of resonant orbits in both MMRs. It turned out that in the J: MMR, LCE ~ yr, while in the 3J: MMR, LCE < 5.5 yr. This indicated that orbits in the J: MMR are chaotic on short timescales (Morbidelli, 996), at variance with the 3J: MMR where most traectories are only wealy chaotic. The comparative study (esvorný and Ferraz-Mello, 997) of the MMRs employing frequency map analysis (Lasar, 988, 999) provided additional clues. Plate shows how the magnitude of the chaotic evolution varies in the orbital space of the J: and 3J: MMRs. The color coding represents the value of log δϖ, where δϖ is the relative change of the perihelion frequency per. m.y. This quantity is a powerful indicator of the rate of chaotic evolution (chaotic diffusion) suffered by orbits in the integration timespan. The results were extrapolated to larger time intervals assuming a chaotic random wal of orbits (see Ferraz-Mello et al., 998a). In regions corresponding to the smallest magnitudes of the chaotic diffusion (deep blue), the orbits evolve relatively by less than % on G.y. Such orbits should be stable over the age of the solar system. Conversely, in regions where log δϖ >.5 (red, yellow), the perihelion frequency of a resonant body should typically change by more than %
9 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 387 in less than G.y. Such an evolution should be enough to destabilize the orbit. Thus, the orbits with log δϖ >.5 are expected to be unstable. Despite the large uncertainties involved in the extrapolation from million-year to billionyear timescales, Plate provides a convincing argument suggesting at least orders in magnitude shorter lifetimes in the J: than in the 3J: MMR. The lifetimes in the most stable regions of the J: MMR were estimated to be on the order of 9 yr (Morbidelli, 996; esvorný and Ferraz- Mello, 997). Recently, these results has been put on firmer ground by direct simulation of 5 test bodies in the J: MMR over 4 G.y. (Roig et al., ). This simulation showed that the most stable region of the J: MMR is characterized by marginal instabilities: There is about a 5% probability that a body started at 3. < a < 3.3 AU,. < e <.4, small i, and ϖ ϖ J = = escapes from the resonance in 4 G.y. because of the diffusive chaos. Thus, the lac of a larger asteroid population in the J: MMR is at least partially due to the slow removal of primordial population in the last 4 G.y. The group of resonant asteroids, now accounting for some 3 small bodies nown as the Zhongguo group, is localized in a very small region in the resonance where lifetimes generally exceed 4 G.y. The origin of the Zhongguo group is unnown. This group has a steep size distribution, which would be expected from the collision inection at the breaup of the parent body of the Themis family (Morbidelli, 996). The large eection velocities needed for such inection, an offset in e between the Themis family and the Zhongguo group, and possibly incompatible spectral type of (3789) Zhongguo, however, suggest this to be an unliely origin (Roig et al., ). The Zhongguo group seems to be an order of magnitude more depleted than what would be expected from a dynamically eroded population similar to the Hilda group. Assuming Zhongguos to be dynamically primordial bodies in the J: MMR, their additional depletion could have been achieved by collision processes or during the primordial stages of the solar system formation. The slow diffusive chaos in the J: MMR is where the concept of a resonance between an asteroid and two perturbing planets first appeared. As originally pointed out (Ferraz-Mello, 997; Michtcheno and Ferraz-Mello, 997; Ferraz-Mello et al., 998b) the slow chaos in the J: MMR is probably generated by commensurabilities between the periods of the Great Inequality, i.e., the period of λ 5 5λ 6 ( 88 yr), and of = λ 5 λ ϖ (3 5 yr). Symplectic maps of the J: MMR found the central region less chaotic when the effect of the Great Inequality was switched off. The effect of this resonance was also put into evidence in direct numerical simulations by artificially changing the Great Inequality period to 44 yr. In such situation, which could have occurred when Jupiter and Saturn were slightly closer to each other during the primordial migration phase (Fernandez and Ip, 984), the beat between the periods of the Great Inequality and of was approximately :, and the instabilities in the J: MMR were significantly accelerated (inset in Plate ). The effect of the Great Inequality may be analytically modeled as overlap between the J: and 5S: MMRs (Morbidelli, ). 6. UMEROUS ARROW MEA-MOTIO RESOACES DRIVIG THE CHAOTIC DIFFUSIO The narrow MMRs (three-body, high-order two-body, and resonances with Mars) in the asteroid belt are usually not powerful enough to destabilize bodies continuously resupplied into them by the Yarovsy force (Botte et al., b) and collisions (Morbidelli et al., 995; Zappalà et al., ). Consequently, the narrow MMRs do not open gaps in the asteroid distribution and are populated by many asteroids at present. In the following three sections, we discuss the three-body MMRs (section 6.), narrow two-body MMRs (section 6.), and MMRs with Mars (section 6.3). 6.. Three-Body Mean-Motion Resonances The growing evidence that many asteroids move on chaotic orbits (Milani and obili, 99; Milani and Knezevic, 994; Holman and Murray, 996, Šidlichovsý and esvorný, 997; Knezevic and Milani, ) has challenged the view of the asteroid belt as an unchanging, fossil remnant of its primordial state. For example, the asteroid 49 Veritas at a = 3.74 AU has a Lyapunov time (defined as an inverse of the LCE), yr, showing unpredictability of the orbit over > 5 -yr intervals. It was moreover noted that e and i of this obect chaotically evolve outside the borders of the Veritas family (of which 49 Veritas is the largest fragment) in 5 m.y. Based on this fact, the age of the Veritas family was hypothesized to be of this order (Milani and obili, 99). In our current understanding, 49 Veritas is one among many obects in the asteroid belt residing in the three-body MMRs. Convincing demonstration of this fact was provided by estimates of the LCE for large samples of real and fictitious asteroids (esvorný and Morbidelli, 998; Murray et al., 998; Morbidelli and esvorný, 999). Figure 4 shows the profile of the LCE computed for test bodies initially at e =. and i =. The peas correspond to chaotic regions. Some of the main peas may be identified with two-body MMRs (3J: at.5 AU, 5J: at.8 AU, 7J:3 at.96 AU, etc.), while most of the narrow peas are related to threebody MMRs. Moreover, many two-body MMRs with Mars occur in the inner asteroid belt (..5 AU). It has been shown that a large fraction of real asteroids reside in narrow resonances (esvorný and Morbidelli, 998). 49 Veritas evolves in the 5J: S:, the angle 5,,,,,,,, having irregular oscillations about correlated with oscillations of semimaor axis about a res = 3.74 AU. This result raised questions concerning the implications of such a complex chaotic structure of the asteroid belt.
10 388 Asteroids III log(lce) (LCE in yr ) ν 6 8M:3 M:8 4M:3 5J: 3S: 3M:5 6M:7 M:7 J: 9S: 7M: M:9 M: J: 7 3M: 4J: U: M:J: 4M:7 4J: S: 9M:6 7J: 9J: 5S: 5M:9 6M: 7M:3 5J: 4S: 8M:5 J:3 9J: 6S: J:3S: 4J: S: 6J: 7S: M: (a) log(lce) (LCE in yr ) Semimaor Axis (AU) (b) J: 7J: S: 7J: 3S: J: 6S: 3 6J: S: J:4 9J: S: 3 7J: 4S: 8J:3 3J: S: J: S: 4 J: 6S: 3 5J: 9J: S: Semimaor Axis (AU) (c) log(lce) (LCE in yr ) J: 3S: 4 6S: J:S: J:5 4J: 4S: 7J:3 5J: S: 7J: 6S: 9J: S: 8J: 3S: 3 9J:4 J: S: 5 J:5 3J: S: 5J: 7S: 3J:6 J: 3S: 5 9J: S: 4 5J:7 8J 4S: 3 7J:8 3J:3S: 5J: S: 7J: 7S: 7J: S: 3 J: Semimaor Axis (AU) Fig. 4. The estimate of the LCE computed for test bodies initially placed on a regular grid in semimaor axis, with e =.. (a) The gravitational perturbations provided by the terrestrial planets were taen into account in addition to the perturbations of four giant planets. (b,c) Accounted only for four giant planets. The figure shows many peas that rise from a bacground level. The bacground value of about 5.3 yr is dictated by the limited integration timespan (. m.y.); increasing the latter, the bacground level generally decreases. The peas reveal the existence of narrow chaotic regions associated with MMRs. The main resonances are indicated above the corresponding peas. From Morbidelli and esvorný (999). Asteroids were shown to escape from the main belt to Marsand Jupiter-crossing orbits due to a slow chaotic evolution of eccentricities in narrow resonances. Realistic modeling including the Yarovsy effect demonstrated that the narrow resonances are an important source of the near-earth-obect population (Migliorini et al., 998; Morbidelli and esvorný, 999; Botte et al., a). Recently, narrow MMRs were also hypothesized to disperse the asteroid families in e and i, possibly creating their often asymmetric shapes (esvorný et al., ). If this process is as general as conectured, many asteroid families could have been created as small groupings and later were dynamically dispersed by chaotic diffusion in narrow MMRs and by the Yarovsy effect. This mechanism may eventually solve the paradox between hydrocode simulations of breaup events suggesting creation of tightly grouped collision swarms, and the observed, largely dispersed asteroid families. Theoretical modeling of the three-body MMRs revealed several clues to understanding the behavior of asteroids in numerical simulations. The resonant Hamiltonian of sev-
11 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 389 eral three-body MMRs with Jupiter and Saturn in the planar model has been computed by Murray et al. (998) and by esvorný and Morbidelli (999). Following the notation of the latter wor, the Hamiltonian of the 5 J: 6 S: MMRs (equation ()) can be written as a Fourier expansion amplitude librations (in years) is T = ares 3β (9) 5 6 s s s =, v( αres) e5e6e cos[ l5ϖ5 + l6ϖ6 l( + ν)] a 5 v s5 s6 s =, v( αres) e5e6e cos[,,( l5, l6), l,, ] a 5 v (7) where α res = a res /a 5, and the multiindex v denotes different values of integers s 5, s 6, s, l 5, l 6, l. The angle,,(l5,l 6 ),l,, in equation (7) is given in terms of and ν (equation (7)). Denoting µ β = a 5 5 v l5= l6= es, (8) v these coefficients, truncated at two lowest orders in e, are given in Table. Ignoring all but one resonant multiplet term in equation (7) (generically denoted by * ), the complete Hamiltonian equation () can be reduced to the Hamiltonian of a simple pendulum = α(s ) + β cos *, representing a constant parameter (esvorný and Morbidelli, 999; Murray et al., 998). The resonant full width can then be computed from equation (). Similarly, the period of small The position of the libration center c is determined by the signs of α and β. As α = 3λ /a res is always negative, the resonant center is at when β >, and at π when β <. Moreover, according to simple arguments, the Lyapunov time is on the order of the libration period, so that T provides a rough estimate of the LCE (Benettin and Gallavotti, 986; Holman and Murray, 996). Table shows a, T, and c for the most important threebody MMRs with e =.. The values computed from equations () and (9) are in good agreement with numerical results (Fig. 4). In particular, 49 Veritas was numerically found to evolve in the 5J: S: MMR with.4-au oscillations of a and the libration period of several 3 yr, both values being in agreement with the ones in Table. Understanding the chaos and the long-term evolution of asteroids in the three-body MMRs requires to account for more than one multiplet term in equation (7). Murray et al. (998) and esvorný and Morbidelli (999) showed that different multiplets of the three-body MMR generally overlap, thus creating a chaotic domain at the position of the MMR. Quantitative estimates of the LCE and diffusion timescales in this domain showed that significant chaotic evolutions of e and i of resonant bodies occur on long timespans (Murray and Holman, 997; Murray et al., 998). Conversely, the semimaor axis of resonant bodies remains TABLE. Analytic results on the three-body MMRs (from esvorný and Morbidelli, 999). Resonant Libration Period Libration Resonance Semimaor Axis Coefficient Resonance Width T ( 3 yr) Center Designation a res (AU) β ( 8 ) (e =.) (e =.) c 4J: S: e.e J: S: e 3.94e J: S: e 3.95e J: S: e 3 53.e J: 3S: e + 5.8e π J: S: e e 5.5 6J: S: e 3 +.3e π 4J: 3S: e.9 3 π 7J: 4S: e.356e J: S: e +.36e π 4J: 4S:.99.3e +.69e J: S: e.3e J: 3S: e + 4.e π 3J: S: e π 6J: S: e e 6. 3 π 8J: 4S: e.99e J: 3S: e e π 5J: S: e 3.3e J: S: e + 73e π
12 39 Asteroids III loced in the interval spanned by the resonant multiplet and although behaving stochastically on short timespans, never directly evolves outside the resonant borders, unless two or more different MMRs overlap (the case of high e in Fig. ). 6.. arrow Two-Body Mean-Motion Resonances with Jupiter As discussed above, the details of the multiplet structure of each two-body and three-body resonance affect the extent of the chaotic zone associated with the resonance, the typical Lyapunov time for a small body in that resonance, and the timescale on which such a body might chaotically diffuse in the space of orbital elements. Useful analytic models of these effects can be obtained using some simplifying assumptions (Holman and Murray, 996; Murray and Holman, 997; Murray et al., 998). We show an example of such modeling for a two-body resonance (see also Morbidelli, ). This modeling can be used with small modifications for the three-body (esvorný and Morbidelli, 999) and Mars MMRs. To most simply account for the multiplet structure of a two-body (,) MMR, we restrict ourselves to the planar elliptic three-body model. The resonant Hamiltonian of such model can be written = + n Λ + c P + c s P ( Λ, ) ( Λ, ) Λ s = cos λ + λ + sp + s ϖ + ( ) () where c is a part of µ in equation (8) independent of angles. In equation (), we retained only those terms of the Fourier expansion of equation (8) that are lowest order in the eccentricities of the planet and the small body. For simplicity, we arbitrarily set ϖ =, and drop it from equation (). The canonical variables we use in the following slightly differ from equation (7). We define them by ψ = λ + λ Ψ= ( Λ Λ ) φ = p I = P () λ Λ = Λ Λ where Λ = a res is the unperturbed MMR location. Keeping the lowest-order terms in Ψ and I in the Taylor expansion of first three terms of Hamiltonian equation (), we get + = βψ + εai + cs( I) cos( ψ + sφ) () s = where β and εa = c / I(Λ,) are the constants associated with the Taylor expansion, and c s (I) = c s (Λ,I). To apply the resonance overlap criterion to the Hamiltonian equation () we must compute the separation and widths of the individual multiplet terms in the resonance. The separation in Ψ between two such terms is given by βδψ = εa, while the width of each multiplet is Ψ = cs(, I P)/β. The stochasticity parameter (Chiriov, 979; Lichtenberg and Lieberman, 983) is then K eff = π Ψ = δψ cs β πβ εα (3) where c s is the coefficient of a representative multiplet term (Murray and Holman, 997). The orbits in the MMR will be chaotic if K eff > K crit, where K crit ~. The extent of the chaotic zone in Ψ (and therefore in semimaor axis) is roughly given by the Ψ range of those multiplet terms that overlap. The Lyapunov time in the chaotic zone is given by T L π Keff Keff Keff π /ln ~ εα 4 4 εα (4) which indicates that the Lyapunov time is comparable to the precession period. If K eff > K crit, the diffusion in Ψ and I, can be described by the Foer-Planc equation (Lichtenberg and Lieberman, 983; Murray and Holman, 997). The associated diffusion coefficients are D Ψ and K c eff εα s πβ = = c πβ β εα D I s = s D = c Ψ s π εα s π εα (5) (6) In the model of Murray and Holman (997) the resonant bodies execute random wals in Ψ (or semimaor axis) and I (or eccentricity). These random wal are subect to boundary conditions. The permissible values of Ψ lie within the range of values for which the resonant multiplet terms overlap (the chaotic zone). The values of I range from I = (circular orbit) to I = I max, where I max corresponds to planet crossing. The bounding values of Ψ and I = can be modeled as reflecting barriers, and the value of I = I max as an absorbing barrier. For a resonant asteroid at I, the solution of the Foer-Planc equation yields typical values of the removal time, T R, of I I T R ~ max D ( I ) D ( I ) I max I (7) Figure 5 shows removal times for outer-belt asteroids in a number of two-body MMRs. The solid symbols are the results of numerical integrations; the open symbols are analytic predictions from equation (7). The values of I were determined from short numerical integrations of resonant asteroids, hence the scatter in the predicted removal
13 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 39 T R (yr) 3: :6 9:5 3.5 a (Jupiter Units) times. In most cases the results of numerical experiments agree with the analytic predictions to an order of magnitude. The results of these calculations indicate that for highorder MMRs in the outer belt, removal times are in some MMRs substantially shorter than the age of the solar system (the case of the 7J:4, 5J:3, and 8J:5 MMRs) and in other resonances substantially longer than the age of the solar system (the 3J:7 and J:6 MMRs). Figure 5 shows that resonances lie the 7J:4, 5J:3, and 8J:5 MMR are expected to correspond to gaps in the asteroid distribution. Indeed, no large outer-belt asteroids are observed in them (Fig. ). The outer asteroid belt, however, seems more depleted than what would be expected from the effect of chaotic resonances. This led some authors to suggest that depletion occurred during the primordial radial migration of the planets (Holman and Murray, 996; Liou and Malhotra, 997). The same scenario can also nicely explain the presence of many asteroids in the 3J: MMR, which could have been captured by the resonance accompanying the inward migration of the Jupiter. Alternatively, the outer asteroid belt could have been depleted by the effect of large Jupiter-scattered planetesimals (Petit et al., 999) Mean-Motion Resonances with Mars 7:4 :7 It may seem surprising at a first glance that the MMRs with Mars are important in the asteroid belt because Mars 5: a (AU) 3:8 8:5 : Fig. 5. The removal times for outer-belt asteroids in a number of two-body MMRs with Jupiter. The solid symbols are the results of numerical integrations; the open symbols are analytic predictions from equation (7). The arrows represent lower limits obtained from numerical integration of bodies in MMRs characterized by extremely slow chaotic diffusion. Here, Jupiter units are 5. AU. From Murray and Holman (997). is a factor of 3 less massive than Jupiter. Thus, according to the discussion in section, the two-body MMRs with Mars should be in general a factor 3 ~55 smaller than the two-body MMRs with Jupiter. In the inner asteroid belt, however, this factor may be compensated for by the small distance between an asteroid and Mars. Indeed, the width of any MMRs near the planet-crossing limit becomes large. According to Fig. (see also Fig. 4), the MMRs with Mars provide a dominant source of chaos in the inner asteroid belt, overwhelming in size and number the MMRs with Jupiter. The dynamical interaction of asteroids with the MMRs with Mars is complex. As an example, Fig. 5 shows the evolution of a, = 9λ 4 λ + 3ϖ, and e 3/ of 4 Daphne. This asteroid is temporally captured in the 3M: MMR when e becomes large during the secular oscillations. The irregular behavior of a and witnesses the chaoticity of the orbit, which has a Lyapunov time of < 4 yr (Šidlichovsý, 999). Very little analytical wor has been done on the subect of the MMRs with Mars. Figures e f are apparently highly idealized approximations of the real dynamics (Fig. 6). To understand the real dynamics, it is important to account for the rich multiplet structure of the MMRs with Mars and the significant time-modulation of each multiplet s width with varying eccentricities (interesting MMRs with Mars are usually of a very high order). The chaotic diffusion in the MMRs with Mars provide transfer routes from the asteroid belt to Mars-crossing orbits. This source was hypothesized to be one of the maor sources of large EAs (Migliorini et al., 998; Morbidelli and esvorný, 999; Botte et al., a). The detailed mechanism of this transfer involves the complex interaction of the Yarovsy effect and MMRs. In particular, the Yarovsy effect is thought to be responsible for refilling MMRs by new obects; otherwise the space occupied by the active MMRs would be cleared of the asteroids, and gaps in the asteroid distribution at resonant semimaor axes would be created. Such gaps are not currently observed. 7. PERSPECTIVES In the last decade, we witnessed fascinating progress from studies of separate MMRs in simplest physical models to the global understanding of the structure and effects of MMRs throughout the asteroid belt. evertheless, we feel that many open problems await solution. The least developed is the modeling of narrow resonances, especially the three-body MMRs and the MMRs with Mars. The intricate interaction of MMRs and the Yarovsy effect is an interesting subect for future studies. Basically, one would lie to now how the probability of capture of a drifting body into narrow MMRs depends on the magnitude and direction of the semimaor axis drift, and whether the phase of secular angles plays any role in the capture process. Ideally, when capture occurs, one would also lie to statistically estimate the change of e and i of an asteroid during the time spent on a resonant orbit. Although some hints about these processes may be derived from re-
14 39 Asteroids III.7648 (a) Semimaor Axis (AU) Time (yr) (b) (degrees) Time (yr) (c) 3 e 3/ Time (yr) Fig. 6. The evolution of orbital elements of the asteroid 4 Daphne. The panels show (a) the semimaor axis, (b) = 9λ 4 λ + 3ϖ, and (c) e 3/. The evolution of 4 Daphne is characterized by the interaction with the 9M: MMR. The width of a MMR is proportional to e ρ/ (see equation () and related discussion), where here ρ = 3. Consequently, the resonant width seen by the asteroid is largely modulated with the parameter in (c). Resonant behavior occurs only when the eccentricity of 4 Daphne is large. Adapted from Šidlichovsý (999). cent numerical simulations, the general trends in the parameter space are unnown. Yet the interaction of narrow MMRs with the Yarovsy effect is important for such issues as the origin of EAs and the dynamical dispersion of the asteroid families. Also remaining are a few puzzles concerning the asteroid population of large MMRs in the asteroid belt, possibly related to the processes involved in the early stages of the solar system formation. We note that a large number of asteroids exist in the 3J: MMR, while both the J: and 4J:3 MMRs are substantially depleted. Although some depletion of latter resonances can be explained by the chaotic processes acting in the last 4 b.y., additional depopulation liely occurred during the formation of the asteroid belt. Is the resonant structure of the outer asteroid belt a natural outcome of the accretion itself (Petit et al., 999), or possibly a sign of the primor-
15 esvorný et al.: Dynamics in Mean Motion Resonances 393 dial planetary migration? We wonder if a unique answer to this question can be given. Apparently, detailed modeling of the primordial phases is required. Such quantitative modeling should also show whether the current depletion of the outer belt between the J: and 3J: MMRs ( AU) requires primordial migration (Holman and Murray, 996; Liou and Malhotra, 997). Moreover, what effect would planetary migration have in the primordial main asteroid belt? First attempts to quantify this effect by direct simulations (Gomes, 997; Levison et al., ) show that the sweeping ν 6 secular resonance is efficient at deleting the asteroid population. Our hope is that the increasingly detailed information about the current asteroid belt provided by observations, combined with future progress in theoretical modeling, will further reveal signatures that primordial processes imprinted on the orbital structure of the belt, and that have been preserved until now. Understanding the effects of MMRs will certainly be part of that story. REFERECES Beaugé C. (994) Asymmetric librations in exterior resonances. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 6, Benettin G. and Gallavotti G. (986) Stability of motions near resonances in quasi-integrable Hamiltonian systems. J. Stat. Phys., 44, Benettin G., Galgani L., and Strelcyn J. (976) Kolmogorov entropy and numerical experiments. Phys. Rev. A., 4, Bretagnon P. and Simon J.-L. (99) General theory of the Jupiter- Saturn pair using an iterative method. Astron. Astrophys., 39, Botte W. F., Morbidelli A., Jedice R., Petit J.-M., Levison H., Michel P., and Metcalfe T. S. (a) Debiased orbital and size distributions of the ear-earth Obects. Icarus, in press. Botte W. F. Jr., Vorouhlicý D., Rubincam D. P., and Broz M. (b) The effect of Yarovsy thermal forces on the dynamical evolution of asteroids and meteoroids. In Asteroids III (W. F. Botte Jr. et al., eds.), this volume. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson. Bowell E. K., Muinonen K., and Wasserman L. H. (994) A publicdomain asteroid orbit database. In Asteroids, Comets and Meteors (A. Milani et al., eds.), pp Kluwer, Dordrecht. Chiriov B. V. (979) A universal instability of many-dimensional oscillator systems. Phys. Rep., 5, Dermott S. F. and Murray C. D. (983) ature of the Kirwood gaps in the asteroid belt. ature, 3, 5. Farinella P., Froeschlé C., and Gonczi R. (993) Meteorites from the asteroid 6 Hebe. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 56, Farinella P., Froeschle C., Froeschle C., Gonczi R., Hahn G., Morbidelli A., and Valsecchi G. B. (994) Asteroids falling onto the Sun. ature, 37, Fernandez J. A. and Ip W.-H. (984) Some dynamical aspects of the accretion of Uranus and eptune The exchange of orbital angular momentum with planetesimals. Icarus, 58, 9. Ferraz-Mello S. (994a) Kirwood gaps and resonant groups. IAU Symp. 6, pp Ferraz-Mello S. (994b) The dynamics of the asteroidal : resonance. Astron. J., 8, Ferraz-Mello S. (997) A symplectic mapping approach to the study of the stochasticity in asteroidal resonances. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 65, Ferraz-Mello S. and Klafe J. C. (99) A model for the study of very-high-eccentricity asteroidal motion. The 3: resonance. In Predictability, Stability and Chaos in -Body Dynamical Systems (A. E. Roy, ed.), pp ATO Adv. Stud. Inst. Ser. B Phys. 7, Plenum, ew Yor. Ferraz-Mello S., esvorný D., and Michtcheno T. A. (998a) Chaos, diffusion, escape and permanence of resonant asteroids in gaps and groups. In Solar System Formation and Evolution (D. Lazzaro et al., eds.), pp ASP Conference Series 49. Ferraz-Mello S., Michtcheno T. A., and Roig F. (998b) The determinat role of Jupiter s Great Inequality in the depletion of the Hecuba gap. Astron. J., 6, Gladman B.J., Migliorini F., Morbidelli A., Zappalà V., Michel P., Cellino A., Froeschlé C., Levison H. F., Mailey M., and Duncan M. (997) Dynamical lifetimes of obects inected into asteroid belt resonances. Science, 77, 97. Gomes R. S. (997) Dynamical effects of planetary migration on the primordial asteroid belt. Astron.. J., 4, Henrard J. (99) A semi-numerical perturbation method for separable Hamiltonian systems. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 49, Henrard J. and Lemaître A. (983) A mechanism of formation for the Kirwood gaps. Icarus, 55, Henrard J. and Lemaître A. (987) A perturbative treatment of the / Jovian resonance. Icarus, 69, Henrard J., Watanabe., and Moons M. (995) A bridge between secondary and secular resonances inside the Hecuba gap. Icarus, 5, Holman M. J. and Murray. W. (996) Chaos in high-order mean resonances in the outer asteroid belt. Astron.. J.,, 78. Hori G. (966) Theory of general perturbation with unspecified canonical variable. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 8, 87. Jedice R. and Metcalfe T.S. (998) The orbital and absolute magnitude distributions of main belt asteroids. Icarus, 3, Klafe J. C., Ferraz-Mello S., and Michtcheno T. (99) Veryhigh-eccentricity librations at some higher-order resonances. IAU Symp. 5, pp Knezevic Z. and Milani A. () Synthetic proper elements for outer main belt asteroids. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 78, 7. Lasar J. (988) Secular evolution of the solar system over million years. Astron. Astrophys., 98, Lasar J. (999) Introduction to frequency map analysis. In Hamiltonian Systems with Three or More Degrees of Freedom (C. Simó, ed.), pp Kluwer, Dordrecht. Lecar M., Franlin F. A., Holman M. J., and Murray. W. () Chaos in the solar system. In Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 39, Levison H. F. and Duncan M. J. (994) The long-term dynamical behavior of short-period comets. Icarus, 8, Levison H. F., Dones L., Chapman C. R., Stern S. A., Duncan M. J., and Zahnle K. () Could the lunar Late Heavy Bombardment have been triggered by the formation of Uranus and eptune? Icarus, 5, Lichtenberg A. J. and Lieberman M. A. (983) Regular and Stochastic Motion: Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 38. Springer, ew Yor. Liou J. C. and Malhotra R. (997) Depletion of the outer asteroid belt. Science, 75,
16 394 Asteroids III Message P. J. (958) Proceedings of the Celestial Mechanics Conference: The search for asymmetric periodic orbits in the restricted problem of three bodies. Astron. J., 63, 443. Michtcheno T. A. and Ferraz-Mello S. (995) Comparative study of the asteroidal motion in the 3: and : resonances with Jupiter I. Astron. Astrophys., 33, Michtcheno T. A. and Ferraz-Mello S. (997) Escape of asteroids from the Hecuba gap. Planet. Space Sci., 45, Migliorini F., Michel P., Morbidelli A., esvorný D., and Zappalà V. (998) Origin of multiilometer Earth and Mars-crossing asteroids: A quantitative simulation. Science, 8, 4. Milani A. and Knezevic Z. (994) Asteroid proper elements and the dynamical structure of the asteroid main belt. Icarus, 7, Milani A. and obili A. M. (99) An example of stable chaos in the solar system. ature, 357, Milani A., obili A. M., and Knezevic Z. (997) Stable chaos in the asteroid belt. Icarus, 5, 3 3. Moons M. (993) On the resonant Hamiltonian in the restricted three-body problem. Internal Report, 9, Facultés Universitaires de amur, Belgique. Moons M. and Morbidelli A. (995) Secular resonances in meanmotion commensurabilities. The 4/, 3/, 5/ and 7/3 cases. Icarus, 4, Moons M., Morbidelli A., and Migliorini F. (998) Dynamical structure of the / commensurability with Jupiter and the origin of the resonant asteroids. Icarus, 35, Morbidelli A. (996) The Kirwood Gap at the / commensurability with Jupiter: ew numerical results. Astron. J.,, 453. Morbidelli A. () Modern Celestial Mechanics. Aspects of the Solar System Dynamics. Gordon and Breach, London, in press. Morbidelli A. and Moons M. (993) Secular resonances in meanmotion commensurabilities. The / and 3/ cases. Icarus,, Morbidelli A. and Moons M. (995) umerical evidences of the chaotic nature of the 3/ mean-motion commensurability. Icarus, 5, Morbidelli A. and esvorný D. (999) umerous wea resonances drive asteroids toward terrestrial planets orbits. Icarus, 39, Morbidelli A., Zappalà V., Moons M., Cellino A., and Gonczi R. (995) Asteroid families close to mean-motion resonances: Dynamical effects and physical implications. Icarus, 8, Morbidelli A., Botte W. F. Jr., Froeschlé Ch., and Michel P. () Origin and evolution of near-earth obects. In Asteroids III (W. F. Botte Jr. et al., eds.), this volume. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson. Murray. and Holman M. (997) Diffusive chaos in the outer belt. Astron. J., 4, Murray., Holman M., and Potter M. (998) On the origin of chaos in the solar system. Astron. J., 6, esvorný D. and Ferraz-Mello S. (997) On the asteroidal population of the first-order resonances. Icarus, 3, esvorný D. and Morbidelli A. (998) Three-body mean-motion resonances and the chaotic structure of the asteroid belt. Astron. J., 6, esvorný D. and Morbidelli A. (999) An analytic model of threebody mean motion resonances. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 7, esvorný D., Morbidelli A., and Vorouhlicý D., Botte W. F., Broz M. () The Flora family: A case of the dynamically dispersed collisional swarm? Icarus, 57, Petit J., Morbidelli A., and Valsecchi G. B. (999) Large scattered planetesimals and the excitation of the small body belts. Icarus, 4, Roig F., esvorný D., and Ferraz-Mello S. () Asteroids in the : resonance with Jupiter. Dynamics and size distribution. Mon. ot. R. Astron. Soc., in press. Saha P. (99) Simulating the 3: Kirwood gap. Icarus,, Šidlichovsý M. (999) On stable chaos in the asteroid belt. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 73, Šidlichovsý M. and esvorný D. (997) Frequency modified Fourier transform and its applications to asteroids. Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 65, Wisdom J. (98) The resonance overlap criterion and the onset of stochastic behavior in the restricted three-body problem. Astron.. J., 85, 33. Wisdom J. (98) The origin of Kirwood gaps: A mapping for asteroidal motion near the 3/ commensurability. Astron. J., 85, 33. Wisdom J. (983) Chaotic behaviour and the origin of the 3/ Kirwood gap. Icarus, 56, Wisdom J. (985) Meteorites may follow a chaotic route to earth. ature, 35, Wisdom J. and Holman M. (99) Symplectic maps for the - body problem. Astron. J.,, Yoshiawa M. (99) Motions of asteroids at the Kirwood gaps. I On the 3: resonance with Jupiter. Icarus, 87, 78. Yoshiawa M. (99) Motions of asteroids at the Kirwood Gaps. II On the 5:, 7:3, and : resonances with Jupiter. Icarus, 9, Zappalà V., Bendoya P., Cellino A., Di Martino M., Doressoundiram A., Manara A., and Migliorini F. () Fugitives from the Eos family: First spectroscopic confirmation. Icarus, 45, 4.
The dynamical structure of the Solar System Wilhelm Kley Institut für Astronomie & Astrophysik & Kepler Center for Astro and Particle Physics Tübingen March 2015 8. Solar System: Organisation Lecture overview:
Icarus 153, 338 347 (2001) doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6702, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on The Primordial Excitation and Clearing of the Asteroid Belt Jean-Marc Petit and Alessandro Morbidelli
Dynamics of Celestial Bodies, 103-107 Contributed paper PLANETARY PERTURBATIONS ON THE ROTATION OF MERCURY J. DUFEY 1, N. RAMBAUX 1,2, B. NOYELLES 1,2 and A. LEMAITRE 1 1 University of Namur, Rempart de
Monografías de la Real Academia de Ciencias de Zaragoza. 25: 115 120, (2004). Extra-solar massive planets with small semi-major axes? S. Fernández, D. Giuliodori and M. A. Nicotra Observatorio Astronómico.
Icarus 159, 284 299 (2002) doi:10.1006/icar.2002.6927 Stable Chaos versus Kirkwood Gaps in the Asteroid Belt: A Comparative Study of Mean Motion Resonances Kleomenis Tsiganis, Harry Varvoglis, and John
GEOLOGY 306 Laboratory Instructor: TERRY J. BOROUGHS NAME: Patterns in the Solar System (Chapter 18) For this assignment you will require: a calculator, colored pencils, a metric ruler, and meter stick.
Resonant Orbital Dynamics in Extrasolar Planetary Systems and the Pluto Satellite System Man Hoi Lee (UCSB) Introduction: Extrasolar Planetary Systems Extrasolar planet searches have yielded ~ 150 planetary
The Formation of Planetary Systems Astronomy 1-1 Lecture 20-1 Modeling Planet Formation Any model for solar system and planet formation must explain 1. Planets are relatively isolated in space 2. Planetary
On the dynamics of Extrasolar Planetary Systems under dissipation. Migration of planets John D. Hadjidemetriou and George Voyatzis Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece.
The Scattered Disk: Origins, Dynamics and End States Rodney S. Gomes Observatório Nacional, Rua General José Cristino 77, CEP 921-, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Julio A. Fernández, Tabaré Gallardo Departamento
Lecture 13 Gravity in the Solar System Guiding Questions 1. How was the heliocentric model established? What are monumental steps in the history of the heliocentric model? 2. How do Kepler s three laws
Earth Planets Space, 53, 1093 1097, 2001 Very early collisional evolution in the asteroid belt Stuart J. Weidenschilling 1, Donald R. Davis 1, and Francesco Marzari 2 1 Planetary Science Institute, 620
Planetesimal Dynamics Formation of Terrestrial Planets from Planetesimals Protoplanetary disk Gas/Dust Planetesimals...... 10 6 yr 10 5-6 yr Protoplanets 10 7-8 yr Terrestrial planets Eiichiro Kokubo National
The Origin of the Solar System and Other Planetary Systems Modeling Planet Formation Boundary Conditions Nebular Hypothesis Fixing Problems Role of Catastrophes Planets of Other Stars Modeling Planet Formation
USING MS EXCEL FOR DATA ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION Ian Cooper School of Physics The University of Sydney email@example.com Introduction The numerical calculations performed by scientists and engineers
Lecture Outlines Chapter 15 Astronomy Today 7th Edition Chaisson/McMillan Chapter 15 The Formation of Planetary Systems Units of Chapter 15 15.1 Modeling Planet Formation 15.2 Terrestrial and Jovian Planets
S. Widnall 16.07 Dynamics Fall 008 Version 1.0 Lecture L18 - Exploring the Neighborhood: the Restricted Three-Body Problem The Three-Body Problem In Lecture 15-17, we presented the solution to the two-body
AST1100 Lecture Notes 3 Extrasolar planets 1 Detecting extrasolar planets Most models of star formation tell us that the formation of planets is a common process. We expect most stars to have planets orbiting
1 DIRECT ORBITAL DYNAMICS: USING INDEPENDENT ORBITAL TERMS TO TREAT BODIES AS ORBITING EACH OTHER DIRECTLY WHILE IN MOTION Daniel S. Orton email: firstname.lastname@example.org Abstract: There are many longstanding
Lecture 19: Planet Formation I. Clues from the Solar System 1 Outline The Solar System:! Terrestrial planets! Jovian planets! Asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, Oort cloud Condensation and growth of solid bodies
Orbital Dynamics of Planetary Systems Melvyn B. Davies Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics Lund University How do planetary systems evolve? Planetary systems evolve due to the exchange of angular
Lecture #34: Solar System Origin II How did the solar system form? Chemical Condensation ("Lewis") Model. Formation of the Terrestrial Planets. Formation of the Giant Planets. Planetary Evolution. Reading:
Orbital Dynamics with Maple (sll --- v1.0, February 2012) Kepler s Laws of Orbital Motion Orbital theory is one of the great triumphs mathematical astronomy. The first understanding of orbits was published
O.C.Winter,2, R.A.N.Araujo, A.F.B.A.Prado, A.Sukhanov INPE- National Institute for Space Research, São José dos Campos,Brazil. 2 Sao Paulo State University, Guaratinguetá, Brazil. Abstract: The asteroid
Imperial College London BSc/MSci EXAMINATION June 2008 This paper is also taken for the relevant Examination for the Associateship SUN, STARS, PLANETS For Second Year Physics Students Wednesday, 4th June
The long-term stability of planetary systems Long-term stability of planetary systems The problem: A point mass is surrounded by N > 1 much smaller masses on nearly circular, nearly coplanar orbits. Is
1 Kepler s Laws of Planetary Motion 1.1 Introduction Johannes Kepler published three laws of planetary motion, the first two in 1609 and the third in 1619. The laws were made possible by planetary data
15.6 Planets Beyond the Solar System Planets orbiting other stars are called extrasolar planets. Until 1995, whether or not extrasolar planets existed was unknown. Since then more than 300 have been discovered.
Summer 2014 Astro 1 Lab Exercise Lab #4: ExoPlanet Detection Wednesday Aug 7,8 and 11 Room 200 in Wilder Lab reports are due by 5 pm on Friday August 15, 2013 Put it in the large ASTRO 1 Lab Box just inside
THE LEAP-FROG AND THE SOLAR SYSTEM A STABLE ORBIT IN THE 3-BODY PROBLEM Practical Numerical Simulations Assignment 1 Michælmas Term 2011 Fionn Fitzmaurice email@example.com 1 Introduction In this code,
The orbit of Halley s Comet Given this information Orbital period = 76 yrs Aphelion distance = 35.3 AU Observed comet in 1682 and predicted return 1758 Questions: How close does HC approach the Sun? What
Lesson 3: Isothermal Hydrostatic Spheres B68: a self-gravitating stable cloud Bok Globule Relatively isolated, hence not many external disturbances Though not main mode of star formation, their isolation
Chapter 5. Determining Masses of Astronomical Objects One of the most fundamental and important properties of an object is its mass. On Earth we can easily weigh objects, essentially measuring how much
Astron. Astrophys. 341, 318 327 (1999) ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS Solar system planetary motion to third order of the masses X. Moisson Bureau des Longitudes, URA 707 du CNRS, 77, avenue Denfert-Rochereau,
We Can Early Learning Curriculum PreK Grades 8 12 INSIDE ALGEBRA, GRADES 8 12 CORRELATED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA COLLEGE AND CAREER-READY FOUNDATIONS IN ALGEBRA April 2016 www.voyagersopris.com Mathematical
The Origin of the Solar System Questions: How did the various constituents of Solar System form? What were the physical processes involved? When did they form? Did they all form more-or less simultaneously?
ARTICLE DE FOND RESONANCE DYNAMICS IN THE KUIPER BELT BY BRETT GLADMAN AND J.J. KAVELAARS Celestial mechanics is the queen of physics, being the longest-studied quantitative subject. The desire to predict
Orbital Mechanics The objects that orbit earth have only a few forces acting on them, the largest being the gravitational pull from the earth. The trajectories that satellites or rockets follow are largely
Open Research Online The Open University s repository of research publications and other research outputs Jupiter friend or foe? II: the Centaurs Journal Article How to cite: Horner, J. and Jones, B. W.
S. Widnall, J. Peraire 16.07 Dynamics Fall 008 Version.0 Lecture L17 - Orbit Transfers and Interplanetary Trajectories In this lecture, we will consider how to transfer from one orbit, to another or to
Attitude and Orbit Dynamics of High Area-to-Mass Ratio (HAMR) Objects and Carolin Früh National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellow, AFRL, firstname.lastname@example.org Orbital Evolution of Space Debris Objects Main
Class 14 Patterns & diversity in our Solar System Kinematics of the solar system Comparative planetology I : The kinematics of the Solar System We have learned about the laws of physics (motion and gravity)
Center of Mass/Momentum 1. 2. An L-shaped piece, represented by the shaded area on the figure, is cut from a metal plate of uniform thickness. The point that corresponds to the center of mass of the L-shaped
Solar System 1. The diagram below represents a simple geocentric model. Which object is represented by the letter X? A) Earth B) Sun C) Moon D) Polaris 2. Which object orbits Earth in both the Earth-centered
Dynamics of Iain M. Banks Orbitals Richard Kennaway 12 October 2005 Note This is a draft in progress, and as such may contain errors. Please do not cite this without permission. 1 The problem An Orbital
ASTR 115: Introduction to Astronomy Stephen Kane ASTR 115: The Second Mid-Term Exam What will be covered? - Everything from chapters 6-10 of the textbook. What will be the format of the exam? - It will
Dynamics of the Milky Way Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: Part 4: I. Introduction Formation of Disk Galaxies II. Fundamentals of Stellar Dynamics Stellar Orbits and Jeans Theorem The Galactic Bulge and Bar The
Interaction of Energy and Matter Gravity Measurement: Using Doppler Shifts to Measure Mass Concentration TEACHER GUIDE EMR and the Dawn Mission Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) will play a major role in
Exponentially small splitting of separatrices for1 1 2 degrees of freedom Hamiltonian Systems close to a resonance Marcel Guardia 1 1 1 2 degrees of freedom Hamiltonian systems We consider close to completely
Section 4: The Basics of Satellite Orbits MOTION IN SPACE VS. MOTION IN THE ATMOSPHERE The motion of objects in the atmosphere differs in three important ways from the motion of objects in space. First,
EVOLUTION OF PLANETARY SYSTEMS Alessandro Morbidelli CNRS/Obs. De la Cote d Azur, Nice, France With inputs from: B. Bitsch, C. Cossou, A. Izidoro, A. Johansen, M. Lambrechts, S. Raymond The Big Questions
Monografías de la Real Academia de Ciencias de Zaragoza. 28: 1 8, (2006). Central configuration in the planar n + 1 body problem with generalized forces. M. Arribas, A. Elipe Grupo de Mecánica Espacial.
Chapter 12 Remnants of Rock and Ice Asteroids, Comets, and the Kuiper Belt 12.1 Asteroids and Meteorites Our goals for learning What are asteroids like? Why is there an asteroid belt? Where do meteorites
Solar System Fundamentals What is a Planet? Planetary orbits Planetary temperatures Planetary Atmospheres Origin of the Solar System Properties of Planets What is a planet? Defined finally in August 2006!
3. Reaction Diffusion Equations Consider the following ODE model for population growth u t a u t u t, u 0 u 0 where u t denotes the population size at time t, and a u plays the role of the population dependent
Spectroscopy, the Doppler Shift and Masses of Binary Stars http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Doppler Shift At each point the emitter is at the center of a circular wavefront extending out from its
Study Guide: Solar System 1. How many planets are there in the solar system? 2. What is the correct order of all the planets in the solar system? 3. Where can a comet be located in the solar system? 4.
Sample Questions for the AP Physics 1 Exam Sample Questions for the AP Physics 1 Exam Multiple-choice Questions Note: To simplify calculations, you may use g 5 10 m/s 2 in all problems. Directions: Each
Exercises 131 The Falling Apple (page 233) 1 Describe the legend of Newton s discovery that gravity extends throughout the universe According to legend, Newton saw an apple fall from a tree and realized
VOLATILITY AND DEVIATION OF DISTRIBUTED SOLAR Andrew Goldstein Yale University 68 High Street New Haven, CT 06511 email@example.com Alexander Thornton Shawn Kerrigan Locus Energy 657 Mission St.
Chapter 12 Remnants of Rock and Ice Asteroids, Comets, and the Kuiper Belt What are asteroids like? Asteroid Facts Asteroids are rocky leftovers of planet formation. Largest is Ceres, diameter ~1,000 km
DYNAMICS OF GALAXIES 2. and stellar orbits Piet van der Kruit Kapteyn Astronomical Institute University of Groningen the Netherlands Winter 2008/9 and stellar orbits Contents Range of timescales Two-body
Name: Astronomy 103: First Exam Stephen Lepp October 25, 2010 Each question is worth 2 points. Write your name on this exam and on the scantron. 1 Short Answer A. What is the largest of the terrestrial
Chapter 9 Asteroids, Comets, and Dwarf Planets Their Nature, Orbits, and Impacts Asteroid Facts Asteroids are rocky leftovers of planet formation. The largest is Ceres, diameter ~1,000 km. There are 150,000
State of Stress at Point Einstein Notation The basic idea of Einstein notation is that a covector and a vector can form a scalar: This is typically written as an explicit sum: According to this convention,
Acoustics 8 Paris Plate waves in phononic crystals slabs J.-J. Chen and B. Bonello CNRS and Paris VI University, INSP - 14 rue de Lourmel, 7515 Paris, France firstname.lastname@example.org 41 Acoustics 8 Paris We
hapter 14 Homework Due: 9:00am on Thursday November 19 2009 Note: To understand how points are awarded read your instructor's Grading Policy. [Return to Standard Assignment View] Good Vibes: Introduction
Kepler, Newton, and laws of motion !! " The only history in this course:!!!geocentric vs. heliocentric model (sec. 2.2-2.4)" The important historical progression is the following:!! Ptolemy (~140 AD) Copernicus
Physics 53 Oscillations You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there. Yogi Berra Overview Many natural phenomena exhibit motion in which particles
Solving Simultaneous Equations and Matrices The following represents a systematic investigation for the steps used to solve two simultaneous linear equations in two unknowns. The motivation for considering
Building Planetary Orbits (the Feynman way) Using a method of computing known as finite differences we can quickly calculate the geometry of any planetary orbit. All we need are a starting position and
The Calculus of Functions of Several Variables Section. Introduction to R n Calculus is the study of functional relationships and how related quantities change with each other. In your first exposure to
lecture 20 Topics: Precession of tops Nutation Vectors in the body frame The free symmetric top in the body frame Euler s equations The free symmetric top ala Euler s The tennis racket theorem As you know,
Name: Planetary Orbit Simulator Student Guide Background Material Answer the following questions after reviewing the Kepler's Laws and Planetary Motion and Newton and Planetary Motion background pages.
Astrodynamics (AERO0024) 6. Interplanetary Trajectories Gaëtan Kerschen Space Structures & Systems Lab (S3L) Course Outline THEMATIC UNIT 1: ORBITAL DYNAMICS Lecture 02: The Two-Body Problem Lecture 03:
Main Belt Comets Asteroid belt s new class of objects and possible source of water and volatiles for the Earth A science white paper submitted to Astro2010 Decadal Survey (Planetary Systems and Star Formation)
Summary: Four Major Features of our Solar System How did the solar system form? According to the nebular theory, our solar system formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant cloud of interstellar
Formation of the Solar System Any theory of formation of the Solar System must explain all of the basic facts that we have learned so far. 1 The Solar System The Sun contains 99.9% of the mass. The Solar
Version PREVIEW Practice 8 carroll 11108 1 This print-out should have 12 questions. Multiple-choice questions may continue on the net column or page find all choices before answering. Inertia of Solids
The Layout of the Solar System Planets fall into two main categories Terrestrial (i.e. Earth-like) Jovian (i.e. Jupiter-like or gaseous) [~5000 kg/m 3 ] [~1300 kg/m 3 ] What is density? Average density
LESSON 3 THE SOLAR SYSTEM Chapter 8, Astronomy OBJECTIVES Identify planets by observing their movement against background stars. Explain that the solar system consists of many bodies held together by gravity.