Large retrograde Centaurs: visitors from the Oort cloud?

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


<ul><li><p>Astrophys Space SciDOI 10.1007/s10509-014-1993-9</p><p>O R I G I NA L A RT I C L E</p><p>Large retrograde Centaurs: visitors from the Oort cloud?</p><p>C. de la Fuente Marcos R. de la Fuente Marcos</p><p>Received: 5 May 2014 / Accepted: 30 May 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</p><p>Abstract Among all the asteroid dynamical groups, Cen-taurs have the highest fraction of objects moving in ret-rograde orbits. The distribution in absolute magnitude, H ,of known retrograde Centaurs with semi-major axes in therange 634 AU exhibits a remarkable trend: 10 % haveH &lt; 10 mag, the rest have H &gt; 12 mag. The largest objects,namely (342842) 2008 YB3, 2011 MM4 and 2013 LU28,move in almost polar, very eccentric paths; their nodal pointsare currently located near perihelion and aphelion. In thegroup of retrograde Centaurs, they are obvious outliers bothin terms of dynamics and size. Here, we show that theseobjects are also trapped in retrograde resonances that makethem unstable. Asteroid 2013 LU28, the largest, is a candi-date transient co-orbital to Uranus and it may be a recent vis-itor from the trans-Neptunian region. Asteroids 342842 and2011 MM4 are temporarily submitted to various high-orderretrograde resonances with the Jovian planets but 342842may be ejected towards the trans-Neptunian region withinthe next few hundred kyr. Asteroid 2011 MM4 is far morestable. Our analysis shows that the large retrograde Centaursform an heterogeneous group that may include objects fromvarious sources. Asteroid 2011 MM4 could be a visitor fromthe Oort cloud but an origin in a relatively stable closer reser-voir cannot be ruled out. Minor bodies like 2011 MM4 mayrepresent the remnants of the primordial planetesimals andsignal the size threshold for catastrophic collisions in theearly Solar System.</p><p>Keywords Celestial mechanics Minor planets, asteroids:general Minor planets, asteroids: individual: (342842)2008 YB3 Minor planets, asteroids: individual:</p><p>C. de la Fuente Marcos (B) R. de la Fuente MarcosUniversidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spaine-mail:</p><p>2011 MM4 Minor planets, asteroids: individual:2013 LU28 Planets and satellites: individual: Uranus</p><p>1 Introduction</p><p>In our planetary system, most objects go around the Sun fol-lowing counterclockwise (prograde) orbits as viewed fromabove the north pole of our star. However, a large number ofcomets orbit the Sun clockwise (retrograde) and a substan-tial percentage of these objects have highly inclined orbits.They are believed to have their origin in the Oort cloud (seee.g. Duncan 2008), a vast and remote spherical reservoir ofcometary material tens of thousands of astronomical units indiameter that completely surrounds the Solar System.</p><p>Out of 3265 objects currently classified by the Jet Propul-sion Laboratory (JPL) Small-Body Database1 as comets,1918 move in retrograde orbits (58.7 %). For long-periodcomets the retrograde fraction is 49.7 %, for Halley-typecomets is 35.7 % and for Jupiter-family comets is 16.7 %.In contrast, only 53 of the 641502 currently catalogued as-teroids orbit the Sun clockwise (0.008 %). For asteroids inthe outer Solar System (catalogued as Centaurs or trans-Neptunian objects) the fraction of retrograde objects is 2.7 %(48 out of 1804). Therefore, most retrograde asteroids havebeen found in the region of the giant planets and beyond. At11.0 % (30 out of 272 catalogued objects in the JPL Small-Body Database), Centaurs have the highest retrograde frac-tion among all the dynamical groups or asteroid families.</p><p>Centaurs are a transient asteroidal population whose or-bits cross those of the outer planets (see e.g. Di Sisto andBrunini 2007). Most Centaurs may have their origin in the</p><p>1</p><p>mailto:nbplanet@fis.ucm.es</p></li><li><p>Astrophys Space Sci</p><p>trans-Neptunian belt, some may have come from the Oortcloud. The main source of Centaurs remains to be discov-ered. They are probably an heterogeneous population withmultiple sources (see e.g. Di Sisto et al. 2010), perhaps nonebeing dominant (but see Horner and Lykawka 2010).</p><p>The most intriguing of the known Centaurs are thosemoving in retrograde orbits. The study of retrograde Cen-taurs, especially those following high inclination trajecto-ries, may represent a rare opportunity to look at objectsthat have suffered little surface alteration over the age ofthe Solar System (Sheppard 2010). The three largest known(in terms of absolute magnitude, H ) retrograde Centaursare (342842) 2008 YB3 (H = 9.3 mag), 2011 MM4 (H =9.3 mag) and 2013 LU28 (H = 8.1 mag); they all move innear-polar orbits. Minor bodies following eccentric, high-inclination paths spend most of the time well beyond theplane of the Solar System and away from the destabiliz-ing influence of the giant planets, although close encounterswith these planets are still possible at the nodes.</p><p>Here, we show that, far from being just dynamical cu-riosities, the three largest retrograde Centaurs may be thekey to identify the size threshold for catastrophic collisionsin the early Solar System. On the other hand, they are alsosubmitted to retrograde mean motion resonances that make</p><p>them dynamically unstable, emphasizing the fact that theseobjects have not remained in their current orbits for long.This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we present acomparative statistical analysis of the properties of knownprograde and retrograde Centaurs that reveals compellingreasons to single out the largest retrograde objects. The cur-rent dynamical status of these large retrograde Centaurs isstudied in Sect. 3, where the numerical model used in ourN -body simulations is also briefly discussed. In Sect. 4, weconsider the implications of our results and in Sect. 5 wesummarize our conclusions.</p><p>2 Retrograde centaurs</p><p>Following Alexandersen et al. (2013), let us consider thegroup of minor bodies whose semi-major axes are between6 and 34 AU. There are 266 such asteroids currently (as of2014 May 5) in the JPL Small-Body Database. This num-ber is slightly less than the total number of known Centaursquoted above. Out of them, 236 (88.7 %) follow progradeorbits and 30 (11.3 %) follow retrograde orbits. Figure 1shows the distribution in orbital parameter space and H ofprograde (left-hand panels) and retrograde (right-hand pan-</p><p>Fig. 1 Distributions insemi-major axis, a,eccentricity, e, inclination, i,longitude of the ascendingnode, , argument ofperihelion, , and absolutemagnitude, H , of observedCentaurs following prograde(left-hand panels) andretrograde orbits (right-handpanels)</p></li><li><p>Astrophys Space Sci</p><p>els) Centaurs. Even if the number of known retrograde Cen-taurs is small, it is highly improbable that the two Centaurpopulations have a common origin. The distribution in abso-lute magnitude, which is a proxy for size, clearly shows thatretrograde Centaurs are unlikely to be the result of gravita-tional scattering of originally prograde Centaurs, unless weassume that smaller objects are more efficiently scattered tobecome retrograde than larger ones (see the e- and i-panels)or that smaller retrograde objects are easier to identify thantheir prograde counterparts.</p><p>Most prograde orbits have eccentricities in the range0.20.6 and relatively low inclinations, 12 mag(73.3 % have H &gt; 14 mag). Although the number of knownretrograde Centaurs is small, this result can be seen as a dra-matic confirmation of the existence of a break in the size</p><p>Fig. 2 The distribution in the (a, e) plane of prograde (top panel)and retrograde (bottom panel) Centaurs and comets with semi-majoraxes in the range 634 AU. There are 145 prograde and 20 retro-grade comets in that semi-major axis range. See also Fig. 3. The threelargest retrograde Centaurs, namely (342842) 2008 YB3, 2011 MM4and 2013 LU28, are clear dynamical outliers; they have the largest per-ihelia</p><p>distribution as predicted by e.g. Fraser (2009). There is anobvious deficit of objects with H in the range 1014 mag al-though they must be significantly easier to detect, if they doindeed exist, than fainter objects of a size below 10 km. Al-though the available sample is far from complete and likelybiased, it should not be biased in favour of 1-km objectsagainst those in the size range 10100 km. The scarcity ofintermediate-size objects must be real and it may have a col-lisional, dynamical or even primordial origin (or a combina-tion of the three). In principle, and following Fraser (2009),Schlichting et al. (2013) or Shankman et al. (2013), someor all the large retrograde Centaurs may represent a remnantpopulation of primordial planetesimals.</p><p>In addition, the distribution in H of retrograde Centaurssuggests that at least two distinct populations of rather dif-ferent dynamical origin are present. In support of this in-terpretation, Fig. 2 (see also Fig. 3) shows the distributionin the (a, e) plane of both groups and comets in the samesemi-major axis range: the three largest retrograde Centaursclearly stand out (bottom panel). The brightest (largest) ob-jects also appear to be dynamically different. The distribu-tion of semi-major axes and eccentricities of retrograde ob-jects with H &gt; 12 resembles that of members of the de-tached or scattered disk populations (Levison and Duncan</p></li><li><p>Astrophys Space Sci</p><p>Fig. 3 Positions of the group of present-day Centaurs discussed inSect. 2 in the (e, a) plane. The dark gray area represents the eccentric-ity/semi-major axis combination with periapsis between the perihelionand aphelion of Jupiter, the light gray area shows the equivalent pa-rameter domain if Saturn is considered instead of Jupiter. The orangearea corresponds to the (e, a) combination with apoapsis between theperihelion and aphelion of Uranus and the brown area shows the coun-terpart for Neptune</p><p>1997; Gomes 2011). In terms of the size of their members,these trans-Neptunian populations appear to be of collisionalorigin and, dynamically, they may have reached their cur-rent state after suffering strong gravitational perturbations.The surprising abundance of retrograde minor bodies atH 14 mag may signal a high density of objects with size1 km as predicted by Fraser (2009) or, more recently, Bel-ton (2014).</p><p>It may be argued that we unfoundedly invoked the ob-served decrease in the number of prograde Centaurs atmagnitude H 9 to implicitly justify the division intotwo groups (H &lt; 10 mag and H &gt; 10 mag) in Fig. 2.However, such concern is completely unjustified as Fig. 2clearly shows. It is rather obvious from the figure that thethree largest retrograde Centaurs are clear dynamical out-liers because they have the largest perihelia. Out of the threelargest retrograde Centaurs, only 342842 is a relatively well-studied object (Sheppard 2010; Pinilla-Alonso et al. 2013;Bauer et al. 2013). But, what is special or unique about theseobjects? Both 342842 and 2013 LU28 can suffer close en-counters with Jupiter; 2011 MM4 may be considerably morestable.</p><p>Brasser et al. (2012) and Volk and Malhotra (2013) havefound that retrograde or very high inclination Centaurs can-not have evolved from the trans-Neptunian belt due to closeencounters with the Jovian planets. Instead, they favour asource in the Oort cloud for these objects. In the Solar Sys-</p><p>tem, near-polar orbits are almost dynamically frozen in timeand, potentially, they could be stable for hundreds of Myr.This is particularly true if the nodes of the orbits of theobjects remain relatively far from the paths of the planets.However, if the objects following these unusual trajectoriesare also submitted to mean motion resonances, their dynam-ical stability could be compromised even if they do not un-dergo close encounters with planetary bodies because theymay experience chaotic diffusion.</p><p>Morais and Namouni (2013a) have brought to the atten-tion of the astronomical community that minor bodies fol-lowing retrograde orbits around the Sun may also be trappedin a mean motion resonance with a planet. The same au-thors have identified several asteroids currently moving inretrograde resonance with Jupiter and Saturn (Morais andNamouni 2013b). This discovery is of considerable practicalinterest because of its potential impact on our understand-ing of the early stages of the evolution of the Solar Systemand also on the dynamics of transient populations like theCentaurs. Are the largest retrograde Centaurs perhaps sub-mitted to retrograde mean motion resonances with the giantplanets?</p><p>3 Dynamical evolution of large resonant retrogradeCentaurs</p><p>The dynamics of resonant retrograde minor bodies has beenstudied by Morais and Namouni (2013a, 2013b). For anobject in retrograde resonance with a planet that moves ina prograde orbit, the resonant argument can be written as = qpP (q+p2k) +2k , where and P arethe mean longitudes of the retrograde object and the pro-grade planet, respectively, is the longitude of perihelionof the retrograde object, = , is the longitudeof the ascending node and is the argument of perihe-lion. The mean longitude of a prograde object is given byM + + , where M is the mean anomaly, but the onefor a retrograde object is written as M + . The num-bers p, q and k are integers with p + q 2k. If the twoobjects are in resonance, T/TP = p/q , where T and TP arethe orbital periods of the retrograde object and the progradeplanet, respectively. If, over a given period of time, the res-onant argument, , can take any value in the range 0360,then it circulates but if it exhibits oscillations (symmetricor asymmetric) around a certain value (usually 0 or 180),then we say that it librates. If the resonant argument librates,then the object is trapped in a p : q retrograde (or p : q)mean motion resonance with the planet. Retrograde reso-nances are weaker than their prograde counterparts (Moraisand Namouni 2013a, 2013b).</p><p>In this work, the orbital evolution of the three largest ret-rograde Centaurs is computed using the Hermite integration</p></li><li><p>Astrophys Space Sci</p><p>Table 1 Heliocentric eclipticKeplerian orbital elements oflarge retrograde Centaurs(342842) 2008 YB3, 2011 MM4and 2013 LU28. Values includethe 1 uncertainty (Epoch =JD2456800.5, 2014-May-23.0;J2000.0 ecliptic and equinox.Data for 2013 LU28 are referredto epoch 2456455.5,2013-Jun-12.0. Source: JPLSmall-Body Database.)</p><p>(342842) 2008 YB3 2011 MM4 2013 LU28</p><p>Semi-major axis, a (AU) = 11.61769 0.00007 21.183 0.011 19 18Eccentricity, e = 0.440962 0.000003 0.4739 0.0004 0.6 0.5Inclination, i () = 105.02980 0.00002 100.4457 0.0002 117 6Longitude of the ascending node, () = 112.498683 0.000010 282.6016 0.0005 266 7Argument of perihelion, () = 330.70350 0.00009 7.07 0.02 179 38Mean anomaly, M () = 29.3043 0.0003 34.75 0.03 298 142Perihelion, q (AU) = 6.494734 0.000003 11.144 0.004 7 4Aphelion, Q (AU) = 16.74064 0.00011 31.22 0.02 31 30Absolute magnitude, H (mag) = 9.3 9.3 8.1</p><p>scheme described by Makino (1991) and implemented byAarseth (2003). The standard version of this N -body se-quential code is publicly available fr...</p></li></ul>