Origin of Phobos and Deimos, Where did these guys come from? Options

[Chmee]

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_AlexBlackwell_*]

To keep this thread active, I've copied my above-mentioned post.

==========================

I've always thought the main question regarding Phobos and Deimos is: What is their origin? The two main models are (1) the two moons are captured asteroids or (2) they co-accreted with Mars. Not surprisingly, there is evidence to support both. While both models have attractive components, however, they also have some rather glaring holes.

For a more rigorous treatment of the subject, I would refer the reader to Joe Burns's chapter in the classic reference work Mars [H.H. Kieffer et al., Eds. (Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1992)], which, while a little of out date being published in 1992, is still de rigueur reading on anything related to Mars.

At first glance, the "captured asteroids" model seems to be the more attractive of the two. The two moons, for all intents and purposes, do "look" like asteroids. And the close proximity of the asteroidal main belt offers a convenient source. That said, though, even first order observations supporting this view are somewhat puzzling. For example, the spectra of the leading hemisphere of Phobos (i.e., the Stickney-dominated region) best fit the curves for T-class asteroids, while Phobos' trailing hemisphere (and, incidentally, Deimos' leading hemisphere) match spectra from D-class asteroids.

Even assuming these spectral observations are truly indicative of captured asteroids, as Burns points out there are problems in the capture mechanism. With aerocapture, presumably by the primordial Martian nebula or proto-Mars atmosphere, the problem is not so much with its mechanics, which, though problematical, can be made to work, but rather with its timing. Moreover, capture scenarios should, ideally, show a good fit to the observables.

For example, tidal evolution theory vis-à-vis Phobos's secular acceleration needs to account for the timing of the Sun's putative T-Tauri stage and associated stage solar wind, which narrows the window for aerocapture and prevention of rapid orbital decay. In short, if the T-Tauri stage came first, then the captures most probably would not have happened (i.e., no extended atmosphere). If the T-Tauri stage came afterwards, then the moons should have decayed a long, long time ago. This is a true puzzle.

Looking for a way out, Burns modelled the particular case of a planetesimal that was captured by the proto-Mars nebula and subsequently evolved down to areosynchronous orbit. At this position, orbital decay would virtually cease due to the low relative velocities between the planetesimal and the Martian nebula. Subsequently, the planetesimal was shattered by another, resulting in two or more fragments that resulted in Phobos ending up below areosynchronous orbit and Deimos above. The former would undergo secular acceleration (i.e., orbital decay), which has been documented and is well known. The latter, Deimos, would undergo relatively little orbital evolution, which is consistent with the observables. Indeed, given the nature of orbital dynamics, it is possible to integrate Phobos' orbital history backwards in time to infer that the moon, even under an accretionary origin model, originated at ~5.7 Martian radii (Rm). This, of course, assumes that its orbit has always been roughly circular and conveniently ignores chaotic evolution, resonances, etc.

Of course, one will note that the above model relies on a series of rather unique events to account for what we see today. Mainly, such a model contains rather precise timing, and I'm not sure it does not avoid the dreaded "Tooth Fairy" hurdles (i.e., one is allowed to invoke "miraculous" events only once per model). That said, it still does not mean it did not happen.

It's obvious that highly detailed in situ and/or sample return studies are needed to progress further, else the "modellers" will continue to dominate the literature. To approach a resolution, especially on the co-accretionary model, one needs a dedicated mission(s). Hopefully, a sample return concept such as Gulliver: Deimos Sample Return Mission or something similar to the Aladdin mission concept (for details click here and here), which was proposed a couple of times for the Discovery Program, gets approved. The Russians have also made noises with their PHOBOS-GRUNT mission concept but, as I mentioned elsewhere, I'll believe in this mission when I see it.

[nprev]

Of course, one will note that the above model relies on a series of rather unique events to account for what we see today. Mainly, such a model contains rather precise timing, and I'm not sure it does not avoid the dreaded "Tooth Fairy" hurdles (i.e., one is allowed to invoke "miraculous" events only once per model). That said, it still does not mean it did not happen.

I understand your reluctance in this regard, but evidence seems to be mounting that the early Solar System was an extraordinarily dynamic environment, and collisional processes are the best explanation for its current configuration.

To put Phobos & Deimos in context, we also must consider the Earth's Moon and the entire Saturnian system as well as those of Uranus and Neptune as "fossils" from a far more active era in terms of orbital dynamics. Even Pluto and other KBOs are now beginning to reveal additional satellites that presumably arose from collision events. The absence of satellites, anomalous or otherwise, for Mercury & Venus has been well explained by their proximity to the Sun, but the rotation period of Venus is yet another piece of the puzzle that might be best understood as an artifact from an early collision or other interaction with another massive body. Jupiter seems to be the odd man out in many ways as far as peculiar dynamical behavior or origins for its satellite system, and I suspect that this is a direct consequence of both its position in the Solar System and its mass. In fact, from a causal perspective, Jupiter probably originated rather than 'suffered' from collisions throughout its history by disturbing the orbits of passing bodies so that they interacted with the other planets or merely absorbing them whole al a Shoemaker-Levy 9.

The whole point here may be that the number of unaccreted large planetisimals in the early system may well have been much larger than currently thought, and/or the T-Tauri phase of the Sun may not have been energetic enough to purge the system of 'debris' as efficiently as is currently believed. In either case, enough wandering bodies were apparently present to produce a profound influence on the modern layout of the Solar System. Didactic views of key events may be misleading; some of these assumptions should be reassessed against emerging evidence.