4.5 Article

In situ observation of penetration process in silica aerogel: Deceleration mechanism of hard spherical projectiles

Journal

ICARUS
Volume 211, Issue 2, Pages 986-992

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.11.005

Keywords

Impact processes; Comet Wild-2; Comets, Dust

Funding

  1. Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [19104012]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19104012] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A large number of cometary dust particles were captured with low-density silica aerogels by NASA's Stardust Mission. Knowledge of the details of the capture mechanism of hypervelocity particles in silica aerogel is needed in order to correctly derive the original particle features from impact tracks. However, the mechanism has not been fully understood yet. We shot hard spherical projectiles of several different materials into silica aerogel of density 60 mg cm(-3) and observed their penetration processes using an image converter or a high-speed video camera. In order to observe the deceleration of projectiles clearly, we carried out impact experiments at two velocity ranges; similar to 4 km s(-1) and similar to 200 m s(-1). From the movies we took, it was indicated that the projectiles were decelerated by hydrodynamic force which was proportional to v(2) (v. projectile velocity) during the faster penetration process (similar to 4 km s(-1)) and they were merely overcoming the aerogel crushing strength during the slower penetration process (similar to 200 m s(-1)). We applied these deceleration mechanisms for whole capture process to calculate the track length. Our model well explains the track length in the experimental data set by Burchell et al. (Burchell, M.J., Creighton, J.A., Cole, M.J., Mann, J., Kearsley, A.T. [2001]. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 36, 209-221). (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available