Dynamical configuration of binary near-earth asteroid (66391) 1999 KW4

Science

Volumn 314, Issue 5803, 2006, Pages 1280-1283

  Scheeres, D J ^a   Fahnestock, E G ^a   Ostro, S J ^b   Margot, J L ^c   Benner, L A M ^b   Broschart, S B ^a   Bellerose, J ^a   Giorgini, J D ^b   Nolan, M C ^d   Magri, C ^e   Pravec, P ^f   Scheirich, P ^f   Rose, R ^b   Jurgens, R F ^b   De Jong, E M ^b   Suzuki, S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^d Arecibo Observatory   (Puerto Rico)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MAINE AT FARMINGTON   (United States)

^f ASTRONOMICAL INSTITUTE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; ORBITS; PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES; SOLAR SYSTEM;

BINARY NEAR EARTH ASTEROID; PERIHELION PASSAGES; ROTATIONAL STABILITY;

ASTRONOMY;

ASTEROID; ASTROPHYSICS; SIMULATION;

ACCELERATION; ARTICLE; ASTRONOMY; COSMOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; ENERGY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; SUN;

EID: 33751558414     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1133599     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. J. L. Margot et al., Science 296, 1445 (2002).
2. H. Kinoshita, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 24, 423 (1972).
3. S. J. Ostro et al., Science 314, 1276 (2006); published online 12 October 2006, 10.1126/science.1133622.
4. A. J. Maciejewski, Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron. 63, 1 (1995).
5. R. A. Werner, D. J. Scheeres, Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron. 91, 337 (2005).
6. E. G. Fahnestock, D. J. Scheeres, Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron., in press.
7. This polyhedral formulation reduces the mutual potential to a series of joint summations over the facets of each model, 9108 for Alpha and 2292 for Beta. The number of operations for each evaluation of the mutual potential, force, and moment is on the order of the product of those numbers, or 21 million.
8. T. Lee, M. Leok, N. H. McClamroch, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/ math.NA/0508365
9. The complete equations of motion, model, and an animation are available as supporting material on Science Online.
10. Over time scales of 77,000 years, N-body gravitational perturbations cause KW4's argument of perihelion to circulate and its eccentricity, inclination, and perihelion distance to oscillate significantly, while its semimajor axis remains approximately constant as a result of a Kozai resonance (34). KW4's heliocentric eccentricity and perihelion vary between current values of e = 0.68 and q = 0.20 AU to e = 0.81 and q = 0.12 AU, and its heliocentric inclination varies from 39° (currently) to 14°.
11. P. Farinella, Icarus 96, 284 (1992).
12. W. F. Bottke Jr., H. J. Melosh, Icarus 124, 372 (1996).
13. J. A. Burns, V. S. Safronov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 165, 403 (1973).
14. G. Colombo, Astron. J. 71, 891 (1966).
15. A more detailed description is provided in the supplemental material.
16. V. Guibout, D. J. Scheeres, Celestial Mech. Dyn. Astron. 87, 263 (2003).
17. A. Fujiwara et al., Science 312, 1330 (2006).
18. D. J. Scheeres, Stability of Binary Asteroids Formed Through Fission [#1632], abstract presented at the 37th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2006).
19. C. D. Murray, S. F. Dermott, Solar System Dynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999), pp. 160-174.
20. -2 and Q = 100.
21. H. He, T. J. Ahrens, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. 31, 52S (1994).
22. The supporting material provides additional details on this calculation.
23. D. P. Rubincam, Icarus 148, 2 (2000).
24. The effect of solar radiation forces on Beta may also influence orbital evolution via the Binary YORP effect (35). Applying the theory in (35) to the KW4 system predicts that the orbit is shrinking at a rate of 0.8 m per year. Such rapid collapse seems inconsistent with the existence of the system unless it formed very recently.
25. The YORP rotational acceleration is found by applying Rubincam's method (24) to the Alpha model and averaging over one heliocentric orbit period.
26. D. J. Scheeres, J. Bellerose, Dyn. Syst. Int. J. 20, 23 (2005).
27. J. K. Miller et al., Icarus 155, 3 (2002).
28. K. J. Walsh, D. C. Richardson, Icarus 180, 201 (2006).
29. D. C. Richardson, K. J. Walsh, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 34, 47 (2006).
30. F. Roig, R. Duffard, P. Penteado, D. Lazzaro, T. Kodama, Icarus 165, 355 (2003).
31. D. G. Korycansky, Astrophys. Space Sci. 291, 57 (2004).
32. W. F. Bottke Jr., D. Vokrouhlický, D. P. Rubincam, M. Broz, Asteroids III, Bottke et al., Eds. (Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, 2002), p. 405.
33. P. Pravec et al., Icarus 181, 63 (2006).
34. G. F. Gronchi 2006. NEODys Web site. http://newton.dm.unipi.it/cgi-bin/ neodys/neoibo?objects:1999KW4;main.
35. M. Ćuk, J. A. Burns, Icarus 176, 418 (2005).
36. Research at the University of Michigan was supported by NASA's Planetary Geology and Geophysics Program, by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) California Institute of Technology (Caltech) Director's Research and Development Fund, and by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Some of this work was performed at JPL Caltech under contract with NASA. The supercomputers used in this investigation were provided by funding from JPL Institutional Computing and Information Services and NASA Directorates of Aeronautics Research, Science, Exploration Systems, and Space Operations. This material is based in part on work supported by NASA under the Science Mission Directorate Research and Analysis Programs. C.M. was partially supported by NSF grant AST-0205975. J.L.M. was supported in part by NASA grant NNG04GN31G. P.P. and P.S. were supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, Grant 205/05/0604.