4.5 Article

An improved model for interplanetary dust fluxes in the outer Solar System

期刊

ICARUS
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 369-386

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.10.001

关键词

Interplanetary dust; Debris disks; Kuiper belt; Atmospheres, composition; Photochemistry

资金

  1. NASA's Planetary Atmospheres Program [NNX13AG55G]
  2. NASA [473901, NNX13AG55G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present an improved model for interplanetary dust grain fluxes in the outer Solar System constrained by in situ dust density observations. A dynamical dust grain tracing code is used to establish relative dust grain densities and three-dimensional velocity distributions in the outer Solar System for four main sources of dust grains: Jupiter-family comets, Halley-type comets, fort-Cloud comets, and Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt objects. Model densities are constrained by in situ dust measurements by the New Horizons Student Dust Counter, the Pioneer 10 meteoroid detector, and the Galileo Dust Detection System (DDS). The model predicts that Jupiter-family comet grains dominate the interplanetary dust grain mass flux inside approximately 10 AU, Oort-Cloud cometary grains may dominate between 10 and 25 AU, and Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt grains are dominant outside 25 AU. The model also predicts that while the total interplanetary mass flux at Jupiter roughly matches that inferred by the analysis of the Galileo DDS measurements, mass fluxes to Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are at least one order-of-magnitude lower than that predicted by extrapolations of dust grain flux models from 1 AU. Finally, we compare the model predictions of interplanetary dust oxygen influx to the giant planet atmospheres with various observational and photochemical constraints and generally find good agreement, with the exception of Jupiter, which suggests the possibility of additional chemical pathways for exogenous oxygen in Jupiter's atmosphere. (C) 2015 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