Why Mars is a lightweight (From Science News)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... ightweight

Two teams of researchers who presented their models of the early solar system on October 4 at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences in Pasadena, Calif., began their work by trying to address a long-standing mystery. According to the standard model of planet formation, Mars ought to be five to 10 times as massive as it actually is.

The standard model assumes that the swirling disk of gas, dust and ice that circled the young sun and out of which the planets condensed had a continuous, relatively smooth distribution of material. David Minton and Hal Levison of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo., challenged that assumption with a model in which the planet-forming disk had a gap in it at about the distance from the sun where Mars now resides...

Simulations by the team show that as grains of dust run into each other and coalesce in the disk, the region closest to the sun forms moon-sized planetary embryos faster than the outer regions do. The density of grains is higher in the inner regions and material there orbits the sun faster, so it is more likely to collide and stick to make bigger bodies.

The gravitational interactions among moon-sized embryos near Earth and Venus stirred up and gravitationally scattered grains, or planetesimals, in the disk. The grains in turn exerted forces back on the planetary embryos. The forces from stirred-up grains on either side of most embryos cancelled out, and those planetary embryos stayed put.

However, for the outermost embryo in the group, the forces did not cancel out. With more stirred-up grains on one side of the embryo, toward the sun, than on the side facing the outer solar system, this embryo was pushed out through the grains of the disk in just a few hundred thousand years, packing on mass as it journeyed. At about 1.5 times the Earth-sun distance, where Minton and Levison believe a gap had opened up in the planet-forming disk, the traveling embryo came to a halt and could no longer accumulate any more mass because the material simply wasn’t there.

Stranded, the embryo became as massive as Mars, but then stopped growing...

In a different model, Kevin Walsh of the Southwest Research Institute and his colleagues, including Alessandro Morbidelli of the Observatoire de la Côte D’Azur in Nice, France, explain Mars’ slimness by calling on the action of giant Jupiter. According to the researchers, Mars initially had plenty of material to pack on — until Jupiter forced its way into the inner solar system, dragged there as gas in the disk spiraled inward towards the sun. Jupiter then got thrown back into the outer solar system as its nearest large neighbor, Saturn, formed. Jupiter’s gravitational influence might also explain the origin of the gap in the disk proposed by Minton and Levison...
 
Z

ZenGalacticore

Guest
Interesting stuff. And so many variables. I wonder what Mars would be like if it did manage to accrete 9x more mass. A colder, slushier version of Earth, perhaps?

What about the outer planets? Why was so much mass able to accrete into Jupiter? Did Jupiter form as rapidly as the inner planets, except with ice and more H and He way out there? And my memory fails me, but how come all that primordial H and He that became the future Jupiter wasn't sucked into the center of the nucleic Sun? Is it because of the orbital momentum created once the mass that created the Sun got big enough to drag everything along with it?

Or maybe, once the Sun "ignited", did the solar wind blow any remaining inwardly cascading H back out into the realms of Jupiter and Saturn's orbits?
 
K

kg

Guest
I don't see how these models hold up to observation. Results from the Stardust comet sample and return mission shows that there was alot of mixing of material from the inner to outer solar system. How does this happen from a "relatively smooth distribution of material" model of the early solar system?


http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html
....Because the rocky materials in comet Wild 2 formed at such high temperatures, we believe that they formed in the hot inner regions of the young solar system and were then transported all the way to beyond the orbit of Neptune. There had been several theories that suggested that such large scale mixing might have occurred and the Stardust results appear to be proof that this large scale mixing did occur and that many of the large rocky particles formed close to the Sun. This implies that while the comets contain ices that formed at the edge of the solar system, the rocky materials that actually make up the bulk of a comet's mass actually formed in the hottest possible conditions. The inner solar system can be thought of as a factory producing rocky materials that were distributed outwards to all the bodies and regions of the solar system.....
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi kg,

The massive ruch of the solar wind from the Sun's T Tauri stage could well have thrown the heavy elements from the innermost regions of the solar system to the outermost parts. At this point the planetary formative period all but came to an end, so I think Stardust samples from Wild 2 do not necessarily contradict anything.

I had heard before that Jupiter had certainly stunted the growth of Mars, but this is the forst time I had seen that Venus & Earth had too.

Mars's relatively small size & mass does seem odd, but now it does not, it makes more sense.

Andrew Brown.
 
E

exoscientist

Guest
The common explanation for the formation of our Moon is that a "Mars-sized" body crashed into the Earth and the Moon was formed from the debris. Has there been some studies done on the possibility that it was Mars itself that collided into the Earth early in the Solar System's history when the planets were closer together?

Bob Clark
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
If it was Mars, Mars wouldn't be there, since the impactor became the moon and part of the earth.
 
S

Space_pioneer

Guest
exoscientist":31y25p9e said:
The common explanation for the formation of our Moon is that a "Mars-sized" body crashed into the Earth and the Moon was formed from the debris. Has there been some studies done on the possibility that it was Mars itself that collided into the Earth early in the Solar System's history when the planets were closer together?

Bob Clark

Impossible. They just used it as a size comparison. Mars itself was untouched.
 
E

exoscientist

Guest
Space_pioneer":3fi7xc4s said:
exoscientist":3fi7xc4s said:
The common explanation for the formation of our Moon is that a "Mars-sized" body crashed into the Earth and the Moon was formed from the debris. Has there been some studies done on the possibility that it was Mars itself that collided into the Earth early in the Solar System's history when the planets were closer together?

Bob Clark
Impossible. They just used it as a size comparison. Mars itself was untouched.

Mars was effected by at least one huge impact: the Hellas basin.
Another possibility might be the entire northern hemisphere. One explanation for why the northern hemisphere is generally of lower elevation than the south is because of a gigantic impact.


Bob Clark
 
S

Space_pioneer

Guest
exoscientist":3ppibm8x said:
Space_pioneer":3ppibm8x said:
exoscientist":3ppibm8x said:
The common explanation for the formation of our Moon is that a "Mars-sized" body crashed into the Earth and the Moon was formed from the debris. Has there been some studies done on the possibility that it was Mars itself that collided into the Earth early in the Solar System's history when the planets were closer together?

Bob Clark
Impossible. They just used it as a size comparison. Mars itself was untouched.

Mars was effected by at least one huge impact: the Hellas basin.
Another possibility might be the entire northern hemisphere. One explanation for why the northern hemisphere is generally of lower elevation than the south is because of a gigantic impact.


Bob Clark

I agree with the Basin, but I'm pretty sure that the northern hemisphere is the bottom of a primordial sea. Any impact large enough to that would pretty much pulverize Mars, and when it got back together, the north would probably look like Miranda.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
exoscientist":2nh89xx2 said:
Mars was effected by at least one huge impact: the Hellas basin.
Another possibility might be the entire northern hemisphere. One explanation for why the northern hemisphere is generally of lower elevation than the south is because of a gigantic impact.
Bob Clark

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the post you were replying to...which concerened a "Mars-sized" Earth impactor that created the Moon.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
So this paper is implying that Jupiter formed further out, then moved in and then moved out again? Not to go off topic, but if Jupiter moved in and out, would it not have 'eaten' up all the inner planets in its path?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Gravity_Ray":1k5ideqg said:
So this paper is implying that Jupiter formed further out, then moved in and then moved out again? Not to go off topic, but if Jupiter moved in and out, would it not have 'eaten' up all the inner planets in its path?

It doesn't say that at all. It's Jupiter's gravity that affected the solar system further in...it didn;t have to move at all.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
"explain Mars’ slimness by calling on the action of giant Jupiter. According to the researchers, Mars initially had plenty of material to pack on — until Jupiter forced its way into the inner solar system, dragged there as gas in the disk spiraled inward towards the sun. Jupiter then got thrown back into the outer solar system as its nearest large neighbor, Saturn, formed. Jupiter’s gravitational influence might also explain the origin of the gap in the disk proposed by Minton and Levison."

Seems like they saying that Jupiter physically moved in and out. I may be mis-understanding it.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Sorry, I misread it- my bad.

I'd like to see the details on the full theory...
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
http://www.skyandtelescope.com : Our "New, Improved" Solar System
...
The stage for this revolution was actually set last year, when Brad Hansen (University of California, Los Angeles) tried assembling the inner solar system an entirely new way. He took a cue from the one other place known to have close-in, Earth-size planets: the system surrounding the millisecond pulsar B1257+12. Discovered in 1991, these pulsar planets are often overlooked because their host "star" is so extreme.

Prior computer simulations assumed that the inner planets accreted from a dense, massive belt of mile-wide planetesimals extending almost out to Jupiter. But invariably the outcome was a too-massive Mars and jumbled mess in the asteroid belt. However, Hansen realized that PSR B1257+12's planets must have assembled from a limited disk of hot material closely surrounding the pulsar.
..
Hansen_planet_simulation.jpg

By assembling the terrestrial planets from a narrowly confined disk (gray band), simulations yield a distribution of inner planets (open circles from 23 computer runs) that closely matches the actual arrangement (colored dots). Mercury's upper value assumes the planet formed with the same iron abundance as other terrestrial planets'.
Brad Hansen / Astrophysical Journal
...
When he tried that approach with our solar system, starting with a disk confined to just 0.7 to 1.0 astronomical unit from the Sun, voilà! — his computer runs routinely coughed up sets of planets with bigger ones (think "Earth" and "Venus") in the middle and smaller ones ("Mercury" and "Mars") near the inner and outer edges.
...
Walsh_planet_simulation.jpg

This simplified sequence shows how the in-and-out migration of Jupiter and Saturn early in solar-system history could have created a truncated disk of material from which the inner planets formed. Their movement also created overlapping zones of rocky (S) and carbonaceous (C) bodies in the asteroid belt.
Kevin Walsh / SWRI
...
The amazing answers came to light at last week's meeting. Kevin Walsh, who'd worked this problem with Alessandro Morbidelli while post-docing at Côte d'Azur Observatory in France, ran computer simulations that put Jupiter initially 3½ a.u. from the Sun and allowed it to creep inward to 1½ a.u. (about where Mars orbits now). The results were remarkable in their breadth and significance.

First, Jupiter's gravity would have forced the small stuff in its path inward too, creating a perturbation-driven snowplow that piled all the rocky planetesimals into a mini-disk with an outer edge 1 a.u. from the Sun. According to presenter David O'Brien (Planetary Science Institute), a member of Walsh's team, Jupiter took only 100,000 years to drive inward to 1½ a.u.and another 500,000 years to reach its current orbit, 5.2 a.u. from the Sun.

Second, the new computer runs confirmed what Hansen had already shown: a mini-disk of rocky material extending only to 1 a.u. provided just what's needed to assemble four terrestrial planets — and a Mars that's not too big.
...
 
E

exoscientist

Guest
Space_pioneer":n0muqgb0 said:
I agree with the Basin, but I'm pretty sure that the northern hemisphere is the bottom of a primordial sea. Any impact large enough to that would pretty much pulverize Mars, and when it got back together, the north would probably look like Miranda.

One theory of how it could have happened is if it were a glancing impact:

Did a giant impact create the two faces of Mars?
16:29 15 March 2007 by David Shiga, Houston
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -mars.html


Bob Clark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts