Strange Asteroids Baffle Scientists

[MeteorWayne]

This SDC article slipped by me during the post Perseid, SDC FUBAR'd period.<br /><br /> link <br /><br />Strange Asteroids Baffle Scientists <br />By Ker Than<br />Staff Writer <br />posted: 21 August 2007<br />08:21 pm ET<br /><br />Two space rocks in our solar system's outer asteroid belt might contain mineral evidence for a new class of asteroids or long eroded mini-worlds. <br /><br /> <br />The asteroids, (7472) Kumakiri and (10537) 1991 RY16, were found to contain basalt, a grey-black mineral that forms much of the crust on Earth and the other inner planets. <br /><br /><br />Basalt has also been found in space rocks shed by Vesta, the third largest object in the asteroid belt, located between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. The presence of basalt is evidence that an object was once large enough to sustain internal heating. <br /><br /><br />"We need now to observe both objects in the near-infrared range to confirm whether they have a basaltic surface," said study leader Rene Duffard of the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia in Grenada, Spain. "If they do, we will need to try to work out where they came from and the fate of their parent objects. If they do not, we will have to come up with a new class of asteroid."<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

Would it be churlish of me to say that this fits very neatly with the exploded planet hypothesis? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[h2ouniverse]

hi MW,<br /><br />To me that is just another indication (again) that heat reserves are more common than thought. In particular any collision shoud store huge amounts of joules in the remnants. <br />Ceres is differentiated. Another Ceres-like dwarf impacted in its core should release blocks of basalt.<br />Isn't there a possibility that those asteroids are related to Vesta?<br />Also like the 2003EL61 collisional family found in KB?

 

[h2ouniverse]

Well, Vesta is already clearly a big remnant of something bigger that has been destroyed. But that does not necessarily mean a single planet was there.<br />Ceres is one-third of the asteroid belt mass. If there had been an exploded planet, Ceres would be its biggest remnant. Hard to imagine it could have kept ice while releasing blocks of basalt...

 

[jaxtraw]

Unless Ceres was a moon... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'm not promoting the hypothesis, just mentioning it. As I've said elsewhere tho, I think it's possible Ceres isn't an asteroid at all. In an EPH model (and I add here that I agree it's not a likely hypothesis, not least due to lack of plausible mechanism) Ceres, and possibly Mars, would be former moons of now deceased parent bodies. Possibly also Vesta. The asteroids are the remnant fraction of the planet's crust.<br /><br />Whatever, I still think Ceres is going to be a whole little bag of surprises. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[3488]

Thanks MeteorWayne.<br /><br />When I have time later, I will take a proper look.<br /><br />Having technical probs again right now.<br /><br />Could they not be pieces knocked of 4 Vesta, & pumped up to a larger orbit through <br />resonances from Jupiter?<br /><br />They are clearly of volcanic materials, will be interesting to see if they are poor in <br />metals AKA Andesitic??<br /><br />If so this will reveal much as though would have been part of a larger object & <br />molten for quite some time<br />to allow metals to settle out, leaving behind<br />a metal poor lava (we see it on <br />Earth particularly with subduction <br />volcanism & the Andes it is quite common, hence the term Andesites, although <br />subduction is not the only source of Andesites / metal poor lavas).<br /><br />Asteroid 7472 Kumakiri basalt asteroid.<br /><br />Perihelion: 2.689 AU.<br /><br />Semimajor: 3.011 AU.<br /><br />Aphelion: 3.334 AU.<br /><br />Orbital Period: 5 years & 84 Days.<br /><br />Orbital Inclination 9 degress, 54' & 6".<br /><br />Cannot seem to find size & rotation period. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Speculation has been voiced regarding Vesta being the surviving remnant of the 'lost planet's' original satellite.<br /><br />Isaac Asimov explored this idea in one of his excellent essays.<br /><br /><br /><br />I note here that Vesta has a south polar crater so big we can see it from earth with the HST. The fragmental anomalous asteroids might be excavated debris from this enormous crater.<br /><br /><br />BTW, the flloor of that crater might be a very interesting place to explore, it should reveal core materials we would not ever be able to examine otherwise.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[ashish27]

Talking baout Vesta, Nasa has its eye on it with the Dawn mission. And as far as classification a new way clasifying heavenly bodies is required now that we are discovering new type objects almost everyday

 

[exoscientist]

If the evidence they are "basaltic" is that they had internal heating, then it may have come from radiogenic heating as has already been proposed for comets and several bodies in the Kuiper belt.<br /><br /><br /> Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

Thank you very much Bob.<br /><br />I am hoping that further details will be released. I suspect that radiogenic heating has<br />played a major role here, also if the metallic content is very low, then I would suggest that these two<br />asteroids are definately splinters <br />from a much larger object, that has differentiated.<br /><br />I could not even find out their sizes, but I suspect a few kilometres at the very most.<br /><br />As vogon13 correctly pointed out, the crater floor on 4 Vesta, would be a very interesting<br />place to scout out.<br /><br />Hopefully DAWN will launch on schedule & we will get a fantastic look at 4 Vesta.<br /><br />This will throw light onto the nature of these two asteroids that MeteorWayne was so<br />kindly to inform us about & see if there are correlations between 4 Vesta & 7472 Kumakiri?<br /><br />I do not see a problem with their orbits, although both do appear to be exiled to the<br />outer belt, but if they were part of 4 Vesta, the energ from the impact that liberated them, <br />together with resonances from Jupiter, may have put them there.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

In reply to:<br />"Ceres, and possibly Mars, would be former moons of now deceased parent bodies"<br />-------------------------------------------<br />Mmm, why not but I find it hard to believe a planetary destruction could leave moons more or less intact.

 

[jaxtraw]

Well, without a mechanism, it's hard to characterise what precisely would happen. But with the pressure released, most of the internals of the planet would presumably vapourise, leaving the outer crust of solid debris to pummel the moons. Bodies can take a surprising amount of punishment; look at the size of that crater on Vesta! And at the distance of an orbiting moon, only a small proportion of the crust will actually hit it (thing of the angular diameter of the Moon from Earth).<br /><br />What we might expect to see is the debris impacting one side of the (former) satellite and piling up as highlands... with a perimeter approximating a great circle... a bit like Mars... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[trumptor]

Doesn't this sort of point at there being a hospitable planet sometime in the distant past in the orbit where the asteroid belt is now, where intelligent beings once lived?<br /><br /> They may have been experimenting with fusion power or some other power that we don't even know about yet. And then some cocky scientist attempted to start the new reactor in secret before it was ready and blew up the planet. <br /><br />And maybe one spaceship was far enough away to escape the explosion. And then they flew to earth because it was a planet they were terraforming (which is the REAL reason the dinosaurs died off). <br /><br />Since the planet wasn't completely terraformed they had to mix their DNA with a former species of ape to get an offspring that could live here without those big clumsy space helmets they used. And viola! millions of years later their offspring find reminents of their home planet!<br /><br /><br /><br />Come on, you all know you were thinking the same thing at some point, I just put it in writing! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

No it doesn't<br /><br />What evidence can you present that any life, much less intelligent life existed on a planet that did not exist?<br /><br />You are dooming this thread the Phenomena if the discussion takes this silly path. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

No, I wasn't thinking any of that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[trumptor]

Lol, I wasn't very serious...especially about their helmets being clunky, they must've been rather comfortable.<br /><br />Seriously though, doesn't this make it more likely that there was a single planet in this location? Even with the ice on Ceres, couldn't this ice have accumulated over the millenia from small bombardments from icy comets? Couldn't Ceres and the rest of the asteroids be the leftover remnants? Or would Jupiter's gravitational influence somehow prevent this area from allowing a stable planet?<br /><br />Also, if there is support for there having been a much larger planet in this orbit, would it have been destroyed when it was still a proto-planet considering that remnants such as Ceres and Vesta have been around for long enough to become spherical? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Actually there is not much support of any kind for the suggestion that there was a planet that formed here and was later disrupted.<br /><br />If you have some, please enlighten us! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

"Strange Asteroids [which] Baffle Scientists" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[trumptor]

"Actually there is not much support of any kind for the suggestion that there was a planet that formed here and was later disrupted. <br /><br />If you have some, please enlighten us!"<br /><br />I have no idea if there is support or not. It has just always seemed strange that it goes planet, planet, planet, planet, asteroid belt, planet, planet, etc. Naturally, you'd think it peculiar. Aren't the rings around the gas giants attributed to collisions involving ancient moons? I'd kind of always considered the astroid belt as Sol's ring.<br /><br />Anyway, what would be the simplest answer as to why there are basalts found in the asteroid belt? Is it that the asteroids were once large enough to sustain internal heating like the article states? And if that's the case, why did this particular distance from the sun yield a completely different outcome from the matter contained in it than all the other matter out to the kuiper belt? I honestly don't know the answer to any of this, that's why I'm asking all of you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, it really goes planet,planet,planet,planet, asteroids belt w dwarf planet, PLANET!!!!, PLANET,PLANET,PLANET, rubble w dwarf planets.<br /><br />The key is Jupiter which contains ~72% of the mass of the solar system other than the sun. It's gravitational influence causes exteme stresses in the nearby asteroid belt, and actually causes locations in there where asteroids (or proto-planets) cannot remain. This would have prevented sufficient material from gathering together to create a planet with substantial mass.<br />Much of the material there was spiraled toward the sun, ejected to the Oort cloud, or ejected from the solar system entirely.<br /><br />There just wasn't enough mass left to build a decent sized planet, and what was there was too spread out to accumulate it into one object.<br /><br />Obviously some objects did get large enough to differentiate, due to gravitational and radioactive heating, (since heat creating radionucleotides from the pre solar envirinment were more common then), but only a small percentage of the objects got large enough to do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[schmack]

now this is what i call interesting RUBBLE <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> pardon the pun <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

 

[signalhill]

Basalt typically implies volcanism. Whatever created the "baffling" objects baffled it's way into volcanic activity, perhaps even tectonic activity. <br /><br />In my humble opinion, the matter remaining in the asteroid belt may as well be left over remains from a much larger debris field that over the aeons has migrated elsewhere or become part of other worlds. <br /><br />What remains in the asteroid belt that is observable today may only be a tiny fraction of what originally existed. To say another world could not have been there is impossible to determine as a yes or no answer as what is observed may only be the tip of the iceberg. <br /><br />The solar system itself more than likely looked much different aeons and aeons ago than what it appears today. Orbits, positions, entire planets and moon systems, may not have even existed next to each other in what is currently observed today during earlier solar evolutionary stages. <br /><br />In my humble opinion, the baffling basaltic objects that are seen only within the context of a static and unchanging solar system will only remain baffling. <br /><br />