1 / 23

Planetary Radar Imaging of Binary Asteroids

Michael C. Nolan, Ellen S. Howell, (Arecibo Observatory), Lance A. M. Benner, Steven J. Ostro, Jon D. Giorgini (JPL/Caltech), Chris Magri (U. Maine, Farmington), Jean-Luc Margot (Cornell), Michael Shepard (Bloomsburg U.). Planetary Radar Imaging of Binary Asteroids.

reed-gamble
Télécharger la présentation

Planetary Radar Imaging of Binary Asteroids

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michael C. Nolan, Ellen S. Howell, (Arecibo Observatory), Lance A. M. Benner, Steven J. Ostro, Jon D. Giorgini (JPL/Caltech), Chris Magri (U. Maine, Farmington), Jean-Luc Margot (Cornell), Michael Shepard (Bloomsburg U.) Planetary Radar Imaging of Binary Asteroids

  2. 1999 KW4 viewed in orbit plane

  3. Radar Imaging of Binaries • Absolute ranges and radial velocities • Scaled by sin i, but no reflectivity assumptions for scales or sizes. • Geometry not very important for detection. • Pathological cases exist, but mutual events are not required. • Unambiguous detection in a single night. • Common trend for slowly-rotating secondaries makes detection likely. • Rapidly rotating secondaries would be harder to detect. • Fairly easy to quantify detection limits.

  4. Radar Imaging of Binaries • Absolute ranges and radial velocities • Scaled by sin i, but no reflectivity assumptions for scales or sizes. • Geometry not very important for detection. • Pathological cases exist, but mutual events are not required. • Unambiguous detection in a single night. • Common trend for slowly-rotating secondaries makes detection likely. • Rapidly rotating secondaries would be harder to detect. • Fairly easy to quantify detection limits.

  5. 7494.8114500000 m 10.31765 m/s Absolute size and velocity • No scale uncertainty • sin i (velocity) • SNR matters

  6. Radar Imaging of Binaries • Absolute ranges and radial velocities • Scaled by sin i, but no reflectivity assumptions for scales or sizes. • Geometry not very important for detection. • Pathological cases exist, but mutual events are not required. • Unambiguous detection in a single night. • Common trend for slowly-rotating secondaries makes detection likely. • Rapidly rotating secondaries would be harder to detect. • Fairly easy to quantify detection limits.

  7. 7494.81145 m 10.31765 m/s Geometry not very Important • Radar beam is 4000 km across at 0.1 AU. • A satellite in the plane of sky would be invisible. • Mutual event could hide satellite (low measure)

  8. Radar Imaging of Binaries • Absolute ranges and radial velocities • Scaled by sin i, but no reflectivity assumptions for scales or sizes. • Geometry not very important for detection. • Pathological cases exist, but mutual events are not required. • Unambiguous detection in a single night. • Common trend for slowly-rotating secondaries makes detection likely. • Rapidly rotating secondaries would be harder to detect. • Fairly easy to quantify detection limits.

  9. 7494.81145 m 10.31765 m/s Unambiguous Detection • Don’t need to wait for mutual event. • SNR • Shape • Uncertain if at same range, but that’s when it’s moving fast.

  10. Unambiguous Detection? • Is this an object with a satellite, or a weird-shaped object?

  11. Unambiguous Detection? • Is this an object with secondaries, or a weird-shaped object? • 73P/Schwachmann-Wachmann 3 (B)

  12. Radar Imaging of Binaries • Absolute ranges and radial velocities • Scaled by sin i, but no reflectivity assumptions for scales or sizes. • Geometry not very important for detection. • Pathological cases exist, but mutual events are not required. • Unambiguous detection in a single night. • Common trend for slowly-rotating secondaries makes detection likely. • Rapidly rotating secondaries would be harder to detect. • Fairly easy to quantify detection limits.

  13. Slowly rotating secondaries • Secondaries typically rotate slowly, giving narrow Doppler width and high brightness.

  14. Very Fast Rotator

  15. Changing Frequency Resolution • Can rescale frequency to increase SNR of fast rotator. • Eye is pretty good at picking out linear structure anyway.

  16. Radar Imaging of Binaries • Must come near the Earth (~0.1 AU) for sufficient SNR. • Relatively short observing windows • 2001 SN263 had 14 days, but that’s unusual. • Only Arecibo and Goldstone, difficult to get long windows on short notice. • Goldstone’s primary missions is spacecraft communications. • Arecibo heavily oversubscribed. I can occasionally say “We need this one” (2000 DP107 and 2001 SN263).

  17. Detectability • Radar “Matched” SNR  D3/2P1/2R-4 • SNR reduced (linearly) if object is resolved in range. • SNR reduced (sqrt) if object is over- or under-resolved in Doppler.

  18. 2001 SN263 • We chose near-Earth asteroid 2001 SN263 for an extensive campaign because of it’s large size (~2km) and long Arecibo view window. • Got lucky with schedule: only conflict was very flexible. • Discovery of first near-Earth triple asteroid system, the only one where we have images of the components • Orbits will reveal density of primitive material (near-IR spectrum suggests carbonaceous chondrite-like) • Is this a stable system, or is it young and evolving? How common are multiple systems?

  19. 2001 SN263 12 13 14 18 21 23 24 26 Date in February 2008

  20. 2001 SN263 12 13 14 18 21 23 24 26

  21. 2001 SN263

  22. 2001 SN263

  23. 2001 SN263 • These values give density 0.7 to 1.0 for a sphere • Fairly uncertain • KW4-like shape volume < sphere • Size consistent with albedo of 0.04 from thermal model (E. Howell)

More Related