Origin of Phobos and Deimos, Where did these guys come from? |
Origin of Phobos and Deimos, Where did these guys come from? |
Mar 25 2006, 02:49 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 154 Joined: 17-March 05 Member No.: 206 |
So what is everyone's thoughts on the origin of Mars' moons Phobos and Deimos? They are a bit of a mystery.
Here are the different theories: 1. They formed along with Mars when it accreted out of the plantary nebula. Pros: explains how both are in the same circular, equatorial orbit around Mars. Cons: Seems a strange coincidence that we are around to witness Phobos in such a low orbit that it is about (in a couple million years) to crash out of orbit. Also this would be the only case in the solar system where such small "asteroid-like" moons formed around such a large body. 2. They were captured into orbit around Mars. Pros: This would explain their similarity to asteroids out in the Belt. Cons: The probability that they would be both be captured into circular and equatorial orbits is virtually zero. Also, there is no know mechanism for asteroids to be captured by such a small body like Mars (after all the moons didn’t do perigee burns to brake them into orbit) 3. They were once part of a larger moon that that broke up into several pieces. Phobos and Deimos are the last remnants of it. Pros: This would explain how both moons have circular and equaltorial orbits (since they started from the same body). Theoretically, there would have been many more moons at one time, but they have crashed into Mars one by one, as Phobos is on course to do. Cons: Phobos and Deimos do not appear to be very similar compositionally, which is strange if they came from the same moon. Of course it was large enough, the large proto-moon may have been differentiated. 4. The moons were formed from a large impact early in Mars history, perhaps from the impact that created the Hellas basin or the northern lowlands. This impact formed a small debris field around Mars which accreted into the moons. Pros: Explains the circular orbits of the moons and Moons created from early gigantic impacts seems to be a re-occurring theme we see in the rest of the solar system (i.e. Earth's Moon and likely Pluto's moons) Cons: While it explains the circular orbits, it does not explain how they are equatorial. I believe the favored theory this decade is number 3, where a large body was present, but was broken up. What is everyone's thoughts? |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 27 2006, 02:23 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
In this connection, there's an extremely interesting new LPSC abstract ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2195.pdf ) claiming that Mars Express' new full-surface photography of Phobos has solved the problem of the surface grooves -- which are definitely NOT cracks or ejecta trails from Stickney, but ejecta trails from several giant impacts on Mars itself that tossed debris upward to hit Phobos in various places! If so, then the idea that Phobos and Deimos themselves are composed of accreted debris tossed into Mars orbit by really giant impacts becomes more plausible.
Also, there's one tantalizing new EGU abstract ( http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/05330/EGU06-J-05330.pdf ) announcing that the results of the first MARSIS examination of Phobos (from only 239 km distance) will be revealed at the EGU meeting. They got very high-quality data, but there's not a hint given as to what it will show. 4. The moons were formed from a large impact early in Mars history, perhaps from the impact that created the Hellas basin or the northern lowlands. This impact formed a small debris field around Mars which accreted into the moons. Pros: Explains the circular orbits of the moons and Moons created from early gigantic impacts seems to be a re-occurring theme we see in the rest of the solar system (i.e. Earth's Moon and likely Pluto's moons) Cons: While it explains the circular orbits, it does not explain how they are equatorial. Actually, I think it would mesh very well with equatorial orbits for them. If the debris from the impacts was originally tossed into inclined orbits (as it certainly would be), the orbits of the different pieces of debris would precess around the planet relative to each other -- so the paths of the various debris pieces would then cross at the equator, which is where collision would be most likely. There would then be exactly the same kind of process that gradually flattened out Saturn's rings into a near-perfect plane around its equator -- the difference being that Mars' equatorial ring of debris, being beyond the planet's Roche limit, would then continue accreting into a couple of lumps. In fact, this theory is the only one that explains really well why their orbits are so close to the equator. |
|
|
Mar 27 2006, 12:17 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
There would then be exactly the same kind of process that gradually flattened out Saturn's rings into a near-perfect plane around its equator -- the difference being that Mars' equatorial ring of debris, being beyond the planet's Roche limit, would then continue accreting into a couple of lumps. In fact, this theory is the only one that explains really well why their orbits are so close to the equator. Bruce: And, to answer the question of why the Earth doesn't have rings (the planetary norm, rather than the exception!) we only have to look at (1) the Moon's gravitational effects and, in the case of very fine debris, perhaps (2) the Earth's magnetosphere. Plus (3) the effects of the Sun's tides etc, although on a lesser scale than with regard to the other inner planets. Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 06:26 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |