What we Know (and Don’t Know) about Asteroid Surfaces

What we Know (and Don’t Know) about Asteroid Surfaces

Clark R. ChapmanClark R. Chapman

Southwest Research Institute Boulder, Colorado, USA

Workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids

Arlington VA Rosslyn Hyatt, 3 Sept. 2002

Surfaces: Aspects Relevant for Mitigation Issues

There is much of scientific interest about asteroid surfaces, but here I concentrate on aspects relevant to mitigation and other human-scale interactions with asteroids. Are surfaces solid so we could anchor to them? Are regoliths deep or thin, patchy or ubiquitous? Are surfaces covered with huge boulders? Dusty? How reliably do remote-sensing observations and pictures

tell us about interior properties? Are asteroid surfaces likely to be similar or the same, or

must we study the particular body to be deflected? In particular, is our knowledge from Eros relevant to NEOs

maybe a million times less massive?

Deflection Options

Attach a thrusting device: e.g. powerful rocket, ion engine, solar sail, mass driver Practical issues: e.g. how to you get through regolith to

“bedrock”? Is there real bedrock, so that if you try to drag or push

the asteroid while anchored at one place, the whole thing will move? (What is internal structure?)

Make the object thrust itself: e.g. stand-off neutron bomb evaporates surface, vaporize ice within a comet so it develops a strong, “nongravitational” thrust, Yarkovsky effect What is surface layer like? How will it respond? What is structure of surface/interior layers that will

shape the body’s own thrust?

Sources of Information about Asteroid Surfaces

Telescopes. Hemispherically averaged, ambiguous info on particle size, mineralogy, and not much else

Radar. Roughness on a human-scale and reflectivity (ice, metal, rock…), especially for NEAs that pass close

Inferences from Meteorites. Better than nothing, but meteorites are not regolith samples

Spacecraft. Only a few studied to date; best data by far for Eros (NEAR)

“Ponds” from Low-Altitude Flyover

“Ponds”, “Beaches” & Debris Flows

“Ponds” are flat, level, and are sharply bounded

“Beaches” (not always seen) surround some ponds and are relatively lacking in either craters or boulders

Although stratigraphically younger, ponds may have more small craters than typical terrains, suggesting that boulders may armor crater production

How are ponds formed? Electrostatic levitation, seismic shaking? If mass-wasting, why don’t lunar ponds exist?

“Ponds” are flat, level, and are sharply bounded

“Beaches” (not always seen) surround some ponds and are relatively lacking in either craters or boulders

Although stratigraphically younger, ponds may have more small craters than typical terrains, suggesting that boulders may armor crater production

How are ponds formed? Electrostatic levitation, seismic shaking? If mass-wasting, why don’t lunar ponds exist?

Upper smooth area may be shaped by “debris flow” mechanics (Cheng et al., Aug. 2002 MAPS)

NEAR-Shoemaker’s Landing Spot on Eros

How typical is the edge of Himeros of Eros?How typical is the edge of Himeros of Eros?

How typical is Eros of other asteroids?How typical is Eros of other asteroids?

Inset shows Himeros

Estimated positions of last images end within a 50 meter diameter crater, which may have a “pond” on its floor

Fifth Last Image (largest boulders are 3 meters across)

Measuring (Big) Craters and (Small) Boulders

Sparse craters, tens to hundreds of meters across, are measured in whole image

Boulders, mostly less than 15 meters across, are more-than-well sampled in one-quarter of image

This image is from NEAR-Shoemaker Low Altitude Flyover (10/00)

Eros is Covered with Rocks

Final Landing Mosaic

Closest Image of Eros

The Relative Plot (R Plot)

Shows spatial densities of craters as function of size relative to saturation

R Plot: Eros Craters & Boulders

Eros is NOT Like the Moon!

The Moon has craters.

Eros has rocks.

Eros/MoonComparisons

Ejecta is very widespread on Eros, much lost to space, few generations of churning Lunar ejecta is repeatedly churned in situ, becomes very

mature

Rocks (ejecta blocks from far-away large impacts and exhumed from below) remain in place, cover the surface of Eros Lunar rocks are fragmented and eroded; surface is covered by craters

Flat, pond-like deposits (of fines) common in depressions -- few rocks or craters Electrostatically levitated dust on Moon does not form ponds, at least

not commonly

The Surface of Eros is NOT like the Lunar Regolith!

Other Asteroids and Inexact Asteroid Analogs (Mars Moons)

Phobos and Deimos

IdaIda

GaspraGaspra

MathildeMathilde

(Eros)(Eros)

Mathilde and Its Huge Craters

C-type asteroids may be very different places, at all scales, compared with what we have found at Eros

“Steep”, Undersaturated Size Distribution for Gaspra Craters

Ida Craters Saturated < 1 km Diameter

Ida Looks Much Like the Moon (and Eros)...

…at scales of 100’s of meters and larger, but it may be just like Eros (and not like the Moon) at human scales

Dactyl: Best Analog for an NEO we May Want to Deflect?

Dactyl: 1.6 km diam.

1st asteroidal moon

Sub-spherical shape: broke up, reaccreted?

Up to 29 craters: satur-ated? Crater chain?

We can’t tell what Dactyl’s surface is really like, even if it were relevant!

False color imageFalse color image

Asteroid Surfaces: Comparisons

GASPRA Big craters absent (except “facets”?); small craters undersaturated. Young and/or made of strong metal, not rockstrong metal, not rock.

IDA Saturated with large craters. Old, lunar-like megaregolith (2-chunk rubble pile?); small-scale surface like Eros. Anchor to what?Anchor to what?

MATHILDE Supersaturated by giant craters (small scales unknown). Low-density materials and/or voids, perhaps compressible or loosely bound. Analogs: mud, sand, styrofoam?Analogs: mud, sand, styrofoam?

EROS Shattered shard, only source of data at hi-res scales. Amazing! Surface character still not understood. Consolidated within?

Conclusions: We Need to Learn More About Asteroids!

Are surfaces solid so we could anchor to them? Not for those Not for those we’ve seen, but small NEAs could well be “bare rocks”.we’ve seen, but small NEAs could well be “bare rocks”.

Are regoliths deep or thin, patchy or ubiquitous? Interiors could be Interiors could be megaregoliths; surface regoliths (if they exist) could be rocky or megaregoliths; surface regoliths (if they exist) could be rocky or dusty, but lunar regolith is a poor analog.dusty, but lunar regolith is a poor analog.

Are surfaces covered with huge boulders? Dusty? Probably.Probably. How reliably do remote-sensing observations and pictures tell us

about interior properties? Better than nothing, but very poorly.Better than nothing, but very poorly. Are asteroid surfaces likely to be similar or the same, or must we

study the particular body to be deflected? Great diversity; Great diversity; studying them helps us prepare for the unexpected, but we studying them helps us prepare for the unexpected, but we mustmust study the particular body, if at all possible.study the particular body, if at all possible.

In particular, is our knowledge from Eros relevant to NEOs maybe a million times less massive? Not very. NEOs are smaller than Eros Not very. NEOs are smaller than Eros just as much as Eros is smaller than the Moon.just as much as Eros is smaller than the Moon.

We must study: (a) diversity of surfaces; (b) interiorsWe must study: (a) diversity of surfaces; (b) interiorsWe must study: (a) diversity of surfaces; (b) interiorsWe must study: (a) diversity of surfaces; (b) interiors