Experiments & numerical models provide ...

7 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
MOTIVATION context setup results synthesis. Prettyman et al. (2012); McCord et al. (2012); Goodrich et al. (2015); meteorite image by Peter Jenniskens. 20 km ...
Bridging the Gap III September 2015

Experiments & numerical models provide complementary information about projectile survival & delivery R. Terik Daly 1 , Megan Bruck Syal 2 & Peter H. Schultz 1 1 Brown University, 2 Lawrence Livermore National Lab

OUTLINE 1. Context and driving questions 2. Setup: experiments and models

3. Results 4. Synthesis

context

setup

results

synthesis

MOTIVATION

20 km Prettyman et al. (2012); McCord et al. (2012); Goodrich et al. (2015); meteorite image by Peter Jenniskens

context

setup

results

synthesis

DRIVING QUESTIONS How much of the projectile remains? What is its spatial distribution? What is its physical state?

What do experiments and shock physics codes each contribute?

context

setup

results

synthesis

DRIVING QUESTIONS How much of the projectile remains? What is its spatial distribution? What is its physical state? What do experiments and shock physics codes each contribute? Strategy: direct comparisons

context

setup

results

synthesis

EXPERIMENTS AT NASA AVGR Projectile: ¼” Al, basalt Targets: pumice, snow Speeds: 4.5 – 5 km s-1 Angle: 30° to 90°

Image credit: Wired magazine

context

setup

results

synthesis

AVGR EXPERIMENTS (CONT.) PUMICE TARGETS

SNOW TARGETS

 Recover breccias

 Melt

 Composition

 Sieve

 Mixing model

 Sort

 Mass retained

 Weigh

context

setup

results

synthesis

CTH MODELS Projectiles: ¼” ANEOS Al and ANEOS basalt

Targets: ANEOS SiO2 and ANEOS water ice (density reduced using p-α porosity) Impact speed: 5 km s-1 Angle: 30° to 90°

Track mass remaining below escape speed

context

setup

results

synthesis

DRIVING QUESTIONS How much of the projectile remains? What is its spatial distribution? What is its physical state?

context

Delivered Fraction

100%

setup

results

synthesis

Porous ice

80%

Porous SiO 2

60% 40%

20% 0% 0

30 60 Impact Angle (°)

90

context

setup

results

synthesis

Fraction Delivered Retained Fraction

100%

A→P

80%

A→S

60% 40%

B→P

20%

B→S

0% 0

30 60 Impact Angle (°)

90

context

setup

results

synthesis

DRIVING QUESTIONS How much of the projectile remains? What is its spatial distribution? What is its physical state?

context

setup

results

synthesis

Fraction Retention DeliveredEfficiency

Linked to fraction deposited far away? Ceres 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0 0

30 60 Impact 30 Angle 60(°)

Impact Angle (°)

90

90

context

Beyond Rim

Inside Crater

90°

setup

results

synthesis

45°

Increasing amounts of projectile retained downrange

Scale bars = 5 mm

context

setup

results

synthesis

DRIVING QUESTIONS How much of the projectile remains? What is its spatial distribution? What is its physical state?

context

Melt Fraction

20%

setup

results

synthesis

Al in SiO 2

15% 10% B in SiO 2

5%

B in ice

0%

0

30 60 Impact Angle (°)

90

context

setup

results

synthesis

Basalt into pumice @ 90°, 4.5 km s-1 High Mg,Fe

200 µm

200 µm

Pure pumice

context

setup

results

synthesis

Basalt into pumice @ 30°, 4.5 km s-1

Pure pumice

Compressed zone

Melt zone 200 µm

200 µm

Relict feldspar

High Fe, Mg, Ti, Ca

context

setup

results

synthesis

Relics from snow targets did not melt

5 mm

1 mm

500 μm

context

experiments

code

synthesis

COMPLEMENTARY INFORMATION v < v esc

Experiments: Local

CTH: Global

context

experiments

code

synthesis

SCALING UP TO PLANETS EXPERIMENTS

CTH

Gravity-dominated ejecta scaling

Directly simulate large-scale events

context

experiments

code

synthesis

IMPLICATIONS Low target temperatures suppress melting

Greatly strengthens case for impactor contamination (in melts and as relics) on asteroids/dwarf planets Larger-scale CTH calculations support For impacts at 5 km s-1 and below, impactor retention is the expectation, not the exception Daly and Schultz (2015a, 2015b)

Bridging the Gap III September 2015

Experiments & numerical models provide complementary information about projectile survival & delivery With gratitude toward: the Barringer Crater Company, Paul. G. Benedum Graduate Travel & Research Fund for Geological Sciences, and the crew of the NASA AVGR.

context

setup

results

synthesis

PRIOR WORK Experiments: Schultz & Gault (1990); Burchell & Wickham-Eade (this session); Ebert et al. (2013); Daly and Schultz (2013, 2014, 2015)

Numerical models: Pierazzo and Melosh (2000); Pierazzo and Chyba (2002); Bland et al. (2008); Svetsov (2011); Yue et al. (2013); Bruck Syal et al. (2015)

Suggest Documents