4.5 Article

The shape distribution of boulders on Asteroid 25143 Itokawa: Comparison with fragments from impact experiments

期刊

ICARUS
卷 207, 期 1, 页码 277-284

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.10.008

关键词

Asteroids; Asteroid Itokawa; Asteroid Eros; Asteroids, Surfaces; Regoliths

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Laboratory impact experiments have found that the shape of fragments over a broad size range is distributed around the mean value of the axial ratio 2:root 2:1, which is independent of a wide range of experimental conditions. We report the shape statistics of boulders with size of 0.1-30 m on the surface of Asteroid 25143 Itokawa based on high-resolution images obtained by the Hayabusa spacecraft in order to investigate whether their shape distribution is similar to the distribution obtained for fragments (smaller than 0.1 m) in laboratory impact experiments. We also investigated the shapes of boulders with size of 0.1-150 m on Asteroid 433 Eros using a few arbitrary selected images by the NEAR spacecraft, in order to compare those with the shapes on Asteroid ltokawa. In addition, the shapes of small- and fast-rotating asteroids (diameter <200 m and rotation period <1 h), which are natural fragments from past impact events among asteroids, were inferred from archived light curve data taken by ground-based telescopes. The results show that the shape distributions of laboratory fragments are similar to those of the boulders on Eros and of the small- and fast-rotating asteroids, but are different from those on ltokawa. However, we propose that the apparent difference between the boulders of Itokawa and the laboratory fragments is due to the migration of boulders. Therefore, we suggest that the shape distributions of the boulders ranging from 0.1 to 150 m in size and the small- and fast-rotating asteroids are similar to those obtained for the fragments generated in laboratory impact experiments. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据