4.7 Article

Atmospheric mass-loss due to giant impacts: the importance of the thermal component for hydrogen-helium envelopes

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz738

关键词

planets and satellites: atmospheres; planets and satellites: formation

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [17-XRP17 2-0055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Systems of super-Earths and mini-Neptunes display striking variety in planetary bulk density and composition. Giant impacts are expected to play a role in the formation of many of these worlds. Previousworks, focused on themechanical shock caused by a giant impact, showed that these impacts can eject large fractions of the planetary envelope, offering a partial explanation for the observed compositional diversity. Here, we examine the thermal consequences of giant impacts, and show that the atmospheric loss caused by these effects can significantly exceed that caused by mechanical shocks for hydrogen-helium (H/He) envelopes. During a giant impact, part of the impact energy is converted into thermal energy, heating the rocky core and envelope. We find that the ensuing thermal expansion of the envelope can lead to a period of sustained, rapid mass-loss through a Parker wind, partly or completely eroding the H/He envelope. The degree of atmospheric loss depends on the planet's orbital distance from its host star and its initial thermal state, and hence age. Close-in planets and younger planets are more susceptible to impact-triggered atmospheric loss. For planets where the heat capacity of the core is much greater than the envelope's heat capacity (envelope mass fractions less than or similar to 4 per cent), the impactor mass required for significant atmospheric removal is M-imp/M-p similar to mu/mu(c) similar to 0.1, approximately the ratio of the heat capacities of the envelope and core. Conversely, when the envelope dominates the planet's heat capacity, complete loss occurs when the impactor mass is comparable to the envelope mass.

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

4.7
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