Abstract
NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft is planned to impact the natural satellite of (65803) Didymos, Dimorphos, at around 23:14 UTC on 2022 September 26, causing a reduction in its orbital period that will be measurable with ground-based observations. This test of kinetic impactor technology will provide the first estimate of the momentum transfer enhancement factor
Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
![](https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/2632-3338/3/7/157/revision1/psjac76c9license.gif)
Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
1. Introduction
The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) is a NASA mission that will demonstrate the use of a kinetic impactor for defense against objects on a collision course with Earth (Cheng et al. 2018; Rivkin et al. 2021). Following its successful launch on 2021 November 24, at 06:21:02 UTC, the DART spacecraft is planned to impact (65803) Didymos I Dimorphos, the satellite of the (65803) Didymos binary system, on 2022 September 26, at approximately 23:14 UTC, causing a minimum 73 s change in the binary orbital period that will be measurable with Earth-based observations. The impact-induced change in period will be determined by the momentum of the spacecraft and the fate of any resulting ejecta; the momentum transfer enhancement factor "Beta" (
In this paper, predictions for the dynamical states of Didymos before and after the DART impact are presented, as these will be needed for the interpretation of the
2. The Didymos System's Current Dynamical State
The current dynamical state of the Didymos system is informed by both the observations conducted to date and the numerical simulations based on those observations. The simplest characterization of the system is to treat it as a classic gravitational two-body problem. This approach, augmented by a secular term to account for radiation-induced acceleration (BYORP—see Section 6), is sufficient to predict the location of Dimorphos on its orbit around Didymos with the required precision for spacecraft targeting (Rivkin et al. 2021). However, Didymos has an irregular top-like shape, Dimorphos is assumed to have a slightly elongated shape, and both bodies are in close proximity to one another, making non-Keplerian terms in the equations of motion significant, both with respect to predicting any possible excited dynamical states prior to the DART impact and for the development of any excited modes post-impact. Since this complication may have a bearing on the pre-impact configuration and the post-impact measurements, it is necessary to model these effects to assess their importance. The most straightforward approach is to assume rigid shapes for the components, based on the best-available measurements, and to model the coupled rigid-body motion using a numerical integrator. This approach is described in this section. In later sections, the rigid-body assumption is relaxed, since Didymos or Dimorphos or both may be rubble piles (e.g., Walsh & Jacobson 2015), but since many-body simulations are far more expensive to compute, those studies are presently limited in scope.
2.1. Origin
Didymos is a near-Earth asteroid (NEA) with semimajor axis, eccentricity, and inclination (a, e, i) values of (1.64 au, 0.384, 3.4°). It has an orbit that just crosses the Earth's path at perihelion. Such values are common for bodies that have recently escaped the main asteroid belt via a resonance (e.g., Bottke et al. 2002). Using the NEA population models from Bottke et al. (2002), Granvik et al. (2016), and Granvik & Brown (2018), combined with the dynamical calculations used in Bottke et al. (2015), it is possible to make predictions of where Didymos may have come from in the main belt.
The NEA model from Bottke et al. (2002) assumes that objects with a < 7.4 au and absolute magnitude H < 22 primarily come from the main asteroid belt or the trans-Neptunian region. More specifically, in this model, NEAs are derived from one of five primary source regions: the
In both models, the dynamical pathways taken by test bodies from the source regions are tracked across a network of cells in (a, e, i) space. The length of time spent by a particle in each cell is tabulated, yielding a residence time probability distribution for each source. These sources are then combined with weighting functions and observational selection effects in order to fit the net function to the observed NEAs. This yields an estimate of the present-day steady-state orbital distribution of the NEA population. The probability that an NEA came from a given source region can then be estimated using its (a, e, i) values, with that information provided by the model results within each cell.
Starting with the more advanced NEA model from Granvik et al. (2016) and Granvik & Brown (2018), Didymos likely reached its current orbit by exiting the inner main belt near or within the
Another way to gain more specificity about the origin location of Didymos is to use the method of Bottke et al. (2015). They tracked the orbital evolutions of test asteroids that evolved into the
Remote observations show that Didymos is an S-type asteroid that is spectroscopically most consistent with ordinary chondrites, with an affinity for L/LL-type meteorites (Dunn et al. 2013). Didymos also originated from a relatively high-albedo parent asteroid or parent family, with its geometric albedo being 0.15 ± 0.04 (Naidu et al. 2020). This value is consistent with the mean albedo of the prominent Baptistina family in the inner main-belt region, 0.16 (Nesvorný et al. 2015). However, additional family candidates may also be plausible parent families, such as Flora (mean albedo 0.30), Nysa/Hertha (mean albedo 0.28), Massalia (mean albedo 0.22), and Lucienne (mean albedo 0.22) (Nesvorný et al. 2015). It is also possible that Didymos was derived from a smaller family or an immediate precursor that was not associated with a family. More work will be needed to explore these possibilities.
Using the predicted semimajor axis and inclination values that Didymos had when it left the main belt, a few candidate families can potentially be ruled out. For example, Lucienne family members have a mean inclination of 12° (Nesvorný et al. 2015). Objects in a family will drift inward and outward by Yarkovsky thermal drift, with some reaching resonances that can transport them out of the asteroid belt. The inclinations they have when they enter those resonances, however, should be similar to those they had in the family. This implies that Lucienne family members are unlikely to reach the current orbit of Didymos (with 1° < i < 6°), and therefore this family can be ruled out as a plausible source of the DART target. As a second example, the Massalia family formed less than 200 Myr ago (Vokrouhlický et al. 2006), and Didymos-sized family members have only drifted far enough by the Yarkovsky effect in that time to escape the main belt via the 3:1 resonance. This source region is not favored by any of the models and is inconsistent with the favored departure semimajor axis values of a ≤ 2.2 au.
Escaping members from the Baptistina, Flora, and Nysa/Hertha families can plausibly reproduce the predicted semimajor axis and inclination values of Didymos. All must be considered potential source families. However, the mean inclination of the Nysa/Hertha members is 2.5°, while those of Baptistina and Flora are 5.6° and 5.1°, respectively. Given that the most favored inclination values for Didymos when departing the main belt are 4° < i < 5°, Baptistina/Flora family members would more easily hit this dynamical "sweet spot" than Nysa/Hertha.
Finally, when the mean albedos of Baptistina/Flora are included with the above constraints, it seems that Baptistina is the most likely source of all of the inner main-belt families considered here. The DART and Hera investigations of Didymos will hopefully provide additional diagnostic data that can be used to further test the origin of Didymos.
2.2. Measured and Inferred Dynamical Parameters
Table 1 summarizes the important dynamical parameters of the Didymos system from (Rivkin et al. 2021, Appendix A), updated with the latest values as of this writing from the Design Reference Asteroid v. 3.2 (DRA; DART mission internal document). These parameters are either measured or inferred from ground-based observations. The most uncertain parameters are the eccentricity and inclination of the binary orbit, the shape of Dimorphos, and the amplitudes of any excited dynamical modes, such as libration (assumed to be zero in the table). The shape uncertainty in particular leads to a wide parameter space of possible dynamical states both before and after impact, as discussed below. The values from the table and other sources, including the adopted shape models (Naidu et al. 2020), are used to set the initial conditions for the numerical simulations of the system, discussed next.
Table 1. Selected Dynamical Parameters from Rivkin et al. (2021) a
Parameter | Value |
---|---|
Volume-equivalent Diameter of Primary DP | 780 ± 30 m |
Volume-equivalent Diameter of Secondary DS | 164 ± 18 m |
Bulk Densities of Components | 2170 ± 350 kg m−3 |
Mean Separation of Component Centers aorb | 1.20 ± 0.03 km |
Secondary Shape Elongation aS /bS , bS /cS | 1.3 ± 0.2, 1.2 |
Total Mass of System M | (5.55 ± 0.42) × 1011 kg |
Secondary Orbital Period Porb | 11.921 628 9 ± 0.0000028 hr |
Secondary Orbital Eccentricity eorb | <0.03 |
Primary Rotation Period PP | 2.260 0 ± 0.0001 hr |
Secondary Rotation Period PS | Porb (assumed to be tidally locked) |
Secondary Orbital Inclination iorb | 0° (assumed) |
Note.
a Updated with the latest values as of this writing (DRA v. 3.2).Download table as: ASCIITypeset image
2.3. Full Rigid Two-body Modeling
Due to the close proximity and nonspherical shapes of Didymos and Dimorphos, their translational and rotational states are highly coupled, leading to non-Keplerian motion. Full Two-body Problem (F2BP) codes can be used to capture the evolution of the mutual orbit and body spin states (Fahnestock & Scheeres 2006) under the assumption that the bodies are rigid. The F2BP approach was applied to the Didymos system by Agrusa et al. (2020) to identify the degree of spin–orbit coupling between the bodies, to understand the system's sensitivity to initial conditions, and to select the best-suited F2BP code for the DART investigation. Due to the asymmetric shape of Didymos, they found that the simulated mutual orbit period was sufficiently sensitive to Didymos's initial rotation phase that predictions of Dimorphos's true anomaly at later times were impractical to obtain with numerical methods. They also found that the libration amplitude of Dimorphos is highly dependent on changes to its velocity; that is, small perturbations (i.e., the DART impact) should strongly affect the resulting libration state of Dimorphos. Finally, they determined that the General Use Binary Asteroid Simulator (gubas) was the best choice in terms of both accuracy and speed for studying the Didymos binary, making it the adopted simulation code for DART-related rigid-body studies of the Didymos system. The simulations described in this section below use gubas exclusively. The code is available as a free download 25 —it is a simple, fast, and open-source tool for modeling the coupled rotational and translational dynamics of two bodies with arbitrary mass distributions (Davis & Scheeres 2020). The code has since been modified to include third-body perturbations (Meyer & Scheeres 2021) and tidal dissipation (Ö. Karatekin 2022, in preparation).
2.4. Relaxed-state Assumption
Ground-based observations indicate that the eccentricity of Didymos's mutual orbit is consistent with zero, i.e., a circular orbit, although an upper limit as high as 0.05 has been reported (Scheirich & Pravec 2009; Fang & Margot 2012; Naidu et al. 2020); the adopted upper limit is 0.03 (Table 1). Furthermore, Didymos's fast rotation and top-like shape are indicative of a possible rubble-pile structure (Richardson & Walsh 2006)—this motivates the rubble-pile studies discussed later in this paper, but treating the bodies as rigid for the purpose of integrating the dynamics from a relaxed state is a good first approximation. Due to the highly dissipative nature of rubble-pile asteroids, it is likely that mutual tides will have damped the system to an equilibrium state with Dimorphos, in synchronous rotation and a near-circular mutual orbit (Goldreich & Sari 2009). For these reasons, it is assumed that the pre-impact state of the system is relaxed, and that the DART impact will instantaneously alter Dimorphos's orbital velocity, leading to excitement of both the mutual orbit and Dimorphos's spin state. If, upon DART's arrival, it is found that the system is already dynamically excited, then this assumption will need to be reevaluated. Effectively, the "relaxed-state assumption" provides a lower bound on the expected changes to the Didymos system resulting from DART.
Due to the non-Keplerian nature of the Didymos system's binary dynamics, initializing a dynamically relaxed state for simulations is nontrivial. The best-constrained parameters for the system from observations are the mutual orbit period and the component separation or orbital semimajor axis (Table 1). Therefore, the priority is generating initial conditions that yield a circular orbit with Dimorphos in synchronous rotation that also match the measured orbit period and semimajor axis. The approach is to assume that both Didymos and Dimorphos have the same density—which is plausible if they have the same origin—and then the total mass M is adjusted in gubas simulations until the mutual orbit period matches within some specified level of precision (M in Table 1 assumes a Keplerian orbit). The adopted algorithm uses a secant search method and converges within a few short gubas runs. Because the mutual orbit period is so sensitive to the mass distribution, this procedure must be redone whenever the shape of Didymos or Dimorphos is refined, or whenever any other initial condition parameters are changed. The details of the algorithm are discussed in Agrusa et al. (2021).
It is possible that Didymos and Dimorphos have different bulk densities, which this relaxation algorithm overlooks. If Dimorphos formed through YORP spin-up, followed by mass loss and subsequent gravitational accumulation in orbit, then it likely has a similar bulk density to that of Didymos. However, there is also the possibility that Dimorphos formed as a monolith from a single fission event, in which case its bulk density may be different from that of Didymos (Walsh & Jacobson 2015). For now, to keep the simulation parameter space manageable, we assume that both bodies have the same bulk density. Following DART's arrival, it will be possible to place better constraints on Dimorphos's bulk density via some combination of direct images taken with DART and through impact simulations (Daly et al. 2022; Stickle et al. 2022). However, strong constraints on Dimorphos's bulk density, as well as its origin, will not be available until the arrival of Hera (Michel et al. 2022).
2.5. Possible Sources of Pre–DART impact Excitation
Although the relaxed-state assumption is well motivated (Pravec et al. 2016 found that out of 29 close binary systems, only five were asynchronous), there are several possible sources of the dynamical excitation of the system that could result in a perturbation that is not fully damped by the time of DART's arrival. For example, Meyer & Scheeres (2021) demonstrated that a relaxed binary system can be pushed into a chaotic state by a close planetary flyby, which could lead to the tumbling of one or both of the components. Quillen et al. (2022) predict that out-of-plane rotation in the secondary can be long lasting, and Ćuk et al. (2021) also show that out-of-plane rotation can have significant effects on the dynamics. Other methods of excitation include solar tides, such as in the case of 66391 Moshup (provisional designation 1999 KW4; Scheeres et al. 2006), and previous natural impacts on the secondary (Yanagisawa 2002).
As a brief analysis of the likelihood of finding Didymos in an excited state resulting from a planetary encounter, the findings in Meyer & Scheeres (2021) can be applied to Didymos. From the analytic formulae, a flyby that induces a 30° libration will also excite the eccentricity by about 0.1, on average. Considering the mean variation in eccentricity during a flyby, the heliocentric orbit of Didymos can be propagated, while keeping track of how often these flybys occur. Figure 1 shows that the probability of recently having experienced such a flyby is low. Per the propagation of 1000 virtual Didymos systems using the model of Fuentes-Muñoz et al. (2022; also see Fuentes-Muñoz & Scheeres 2020), there is less than a 5% chance of such a flyby having occurred in the last 100,000 yr.
Figure 1. Left: potentially exciting flybys of 1000 virtual Didymos clones over the last 500,000 yr. Planetary flybys are recorded with Mars (orange) and Earth (blue), with their respective thresholds for excitation in the space of the closest approach distance and relative speed of the flyby. Right: estimated probability of experiencing a close flyby that excites Didymos, as characterized by a variation in eccentricity of
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageUsing the dissipation model in Goldreich & Sari (2009) and the tidal quality model for rubble piles in Nimmo & Matsuyama (2019; giving Q/k ≈ 106 for the primary and Q/k ≈ 25,000 for the secondary), an eccentricity of 0.1 is estimated to dissipate within 20,000 yr. This relatively fast dissipation time is due to the close proximity between Didymos and Dimorphos, as well as the highly dissipative nature of rubble piles. Note that there is considerable uncertainty around the tidal quality factor, so this estimate is only a first approximation. Also, if Dimorphos is a rigid body, the dissipation times will be much longer. Nevertheless, the combination of infrequent energetic flybys with fast dissipation times indicates that Didymos is unlikely to be in a perturbed state from planetary encounters.
Using the same modified gubas code as Meyer & Scheeres (2021), a perihelion passage of Didymos can be simulated simply by substituting the Sun in place of a planet. Given the relatively distant perihelion distance (≈1.01 au), perihelion passage provides negligible excitation to the mutual orbit, eliminating this as a possible source of pre-impact excitation.
Another possible source of system excitation is meteorite impacts. As Didymos has an eccentric orbit that crosses the inner main belt (beyond 2.1 au from the Sun) for approximately 250 days out of its 770 day orbital period, a mixed-impactor population model was adopted, which includes both near-Earth objects (NEOs) and main-belt asteroids (MBAs), to estimate the impact rate on the binary system from natural impacts. While the number of potential impactors in the main asteroid belt is higher than in near-Earth space, the encounter speeds in the main belt are generally lower by a factor of approximately 4. For NEO impacts, the impactor flux model of Brown et al. (2002) is used, scaling for target size and neglecting gravitational focusing. For MBA impacts, the impact flux model of Bottke et al. (2005) is used; note, however, that the MBA population of impactors in the size range of interest (a few centimeters to decameters) is poorly constrained. Indeed, considering main-belt population models that show a depletion in small m-scale impactors (Cibulková et al. 2014; Zain et al. 2020), the NEO impact flux would dominate over the MBA flux. This is further complicated by the fact that NEA orbits are chaotic. Nevertheless, it is found that the time interval between the impacts of a given energy can be constrained by considering the NEO impact flux model of Brown et al. (2002) and the MBA impact flux model of Bottke et al. (2005).
A simplifying assumption is made in the model that the encounter speeds in the NEO region and the inner main belt occur at 18.5 km s−1 and 5.2 km s−1, respectively. The encounter speeds by NEAs in the inner main belt may in fact be larger (Michel et al. 1998; Dell'Oro et al. 2011). Therefore, the calculated time intervals for impacts on the Didymos system in near-Earth space are considered to be conservative. The time intervals for impacts of a given energy are shown in Figure 2 for Didymos and Dimorphos using this mixed-impactor population model (the solid and dashed black curves) and for an NEO impact–only model (the solid and dashed blue curves). Considering the aforementioned uncertainty in the population of meter-scale MBAs, the black and blue curves for each asteroid bracket the possible time intervals between the impacts of a given energy. The largest-impact energy event that Dimorphos experiences at least as frequently as the ∼20,000 yr damping timescale is 5 × 105 to 8 × 106 J. Given that this is less than 0.01% of the DART impact energy, which is predicted to increase the eccentricity of the system ≪0.1 (Section 3.1), the effects of such a meteorite impact would damp out long before the next comparable impact. Thus, accounting for both planetary encounters and impacts, it is likely that the system is currently in a low-excitation state.
Figure 2. Time intervals between the impacts of a given energy for Didymos and Dimorphos. The blue and red lines show the impact intervals if Didymos were impacted by only the NEO and MBA populations, respectively. The black solid line shows the impact interval on Didymos for a mixed-population model that takes into account the system's current orbit, which crosses the inner main belt. The black dashed line shows the equivalent impact timescales for Dimorphos in the mixed-population model. The dotted magenta lines give the estimated damping timescale for a binary eccentricity of 0.1 (bottom line) and the median dynamical NEA lifetime (top line). The vertical dotted lines indicate the different impact energies of interest. The range of specific catastrophic disruption energies for Dimorphos is represented by the gray area.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageThe DART impact energy is expected to be about 1010 J (Rivkin et al. 2021). An impact on Didymos of this energy is expected once every 0.33 to 7 Myr, so Didymos may have been hit many times at the DART impact energy within its median dynamical lifetime of 107 yr (Gladman et al. 2000). For Dimorphos, the impact interval is much longer, due to its smaller size (8 to 159 Myr), experiencing up to one impact with an energy equivalent to DART over its lifetime. Dimorphos's specific catastrophic disruption energy () is roughly 200 J kg−1 if the asteroid is a monolithic object with a significant tensile strength (⪆1 MPa; Jutzi et al. 2010). On the other hand, if Dimorphos has a low tensile strength,
is roughly 20 J kg−1 (Jutzi 2015; Raducan & Jutzi 2022). This implies an impact energy at catastrophic disruption in the range of ∼1011–1012 J. The DART impact energy is therefore only a factor of 10–100 smaller than Dimorphos's specific catastrophic disruption energy, so the DART impact can represent a major shattering event. At the size scale of Didymos, the effect of tensile strength on
is negligible (Jutzi 2015). For Didymos,
J kg−1 for a catastrophic disruption energy of nearly 3 × 1014 J, many orders of magnitude above the DART impact energy.
The DART impact on Dimorphos could cause seismic accelerations that greatly exceed the local surface gravity globally (Cheng et al. 2002). If the impact creates a crater greater than ∼0.1 times the size of Dimorphos, it may cause erasure of all pre-existing craters of its size or smaller (Asphaug 2008). In order to obtain an estimate of the seismic accelerations expected by the impact, the model of Richardson et al. (2005) was used, with a seismic efficiency factor,
![Equation (1)](https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/2632-3338/3/7/157/revision1/psjac76c9eqn1.gif)
where f is the characteristic seismic frequency of the bodies, which is taken to be on the order of 1
2.6. Simulation Pipeline
The version of gubas used for mission data analysis is based on the public version (Section 2.3), but has been modified in several ways and is maintained at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). It has been augmented to handle nonconvex shape models, updated to use python 3, paired with a bash shell script system, enabling parallel processing of multiple simulation scenarios, and modified to output only binary data files, in order to the improve overall processing speed. Furthermore, the dynamical relaxation algorithm (Section 2.4) has been added to the scripts, so that the initial conditions can be modified to be dynamically relaxed prior to simulation execution, when necessary. This version has been augmented to allow for the primary and secondary bodies to have different bulk densities.
The Didymos system DRA data products (Section 2.2) include shape model files for both Didymos and Dimorphos, as well as ephemeris data files describing the mutual translational motion of Didymos and Dimorphos about their barycenter. The shape model for Didymos is derived from resolved radar observations (Naidu et al. 2020). However, such radar-derived shape information for Dimorphos is not available and so an ellipsoidal shape model is used, which conforms to the observational constraints on the Dimorphos/Didymos diameter ratio and observations of ellipsoidal semi-axis ratios for other binary asteroid system members. The Dimorphos shape model volume also yields a mass that conforms to the barycentric positions at the impact epoch from the ephemeris data files and the associated system mass parameters and body bulk densities shown in Table 1.
The heliocentric motion ephemeris for the Didymos system barycenter and the relative motion ephemeris for Didymos and Dimorphos relative to the system barycenter are provided by NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 26 The ephemeris for the Didymos system barycenter is produced using high-fidelity dynamics modeling that includes point-mass gravity and relativistic perturbations from appropriate solar system bodies. The Yarkovsky effect is also included, in which thermal energy from the Sun is absorbed by the rotating asteroid and then emitted anisotropically, producing net forces on the asteroid. For the motion of the bodies relative to their barycenter, Dimorphos is treated as a point mass and modified Keplerian dynamics are used that include a model for mean-motion drift due to BYORP. The model is appropriately constrained to agree with observational data.
The DRA is generally updated when observations (prior to or during the mission) yield new or updated information about the Didymos system. In response to such DRA updates for parameters that affect the dynamics simulations, a pipeline procedure for updating the dynamics simulations is executed, described next. The following items are obtained from the DRA data set maintained on the DART Science Operations Center (SOC): Dimorphos and Didymos shape model files; system mass parameters; and Didymos system ephemeris data files. The impact epoch associated with the date on which DART launched is utilized as the initial epoch for the simulation. The Didymos and Dimorphos barycentric-state vectors at that epoch are retrieved from the ephemeris data files and combined with the shape model files (after some necessary file format conversions and principal axis frame transformations) in the dynamical-state relaxation algorithm. This produces dynamically relaxed initial conditions for the system at the chosen initial epoch. Those initial conditions are then documented in the SOC. Simulations of the unperturbed system may then be performed. For simulations of the DART impact effects, changes are superimposed onto the aforementioned relaxed initial conditions, using the DART spacecraft's mass at impact, the impact's relative velocity vector, and the impact's location on the surface of Dimorphos.
The dynamics simulations performed at GSFC are currently executed on a 192-thread system (96 Intel Xeon Gold 6252 CPUs at 2.1 GHz, two threads per core). On that system, simulating the translational and rotational motion of the Didymos system for one day at a 40 s step size requires approximately 30 to 60 s of run time. The results from a nominal simulation execution are presented in Section 3.1.
3. Prediction of Post-impact Dynamical State (Rigid-body Model)
The fundamental idea behind using a kinetic impactor to mitigate a small-body hazard is to modify the target orbit by imparting momentum. A key uncertainty is that an unknown amount of ejecta may be liberated from the target by the impact, enhancing the momentum transfer by a factor of magnitude
3.1. The Nominal Case
The NASA/GSFC gubas simulation software was used to model the post-impact dynamical evolution of the Didymos system using dynamically relaxed initial conditions representing the nominal pre-impact state. Three values of
Table 2. Post-impact Dynamics Simulation Results for 2 Months after Impact
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(mm s−1) | (s) | |||
1.0 | 0.734 3 | −529.2 | 0.007 4 | 0![]() |
1.2 | 0.880 7 | −630.0 | 0.008 9 | 0![]() |
2.0 | 1.466 9 | −1033.2 | 0.014 8 | 0![]() |
Note.
represents the mean orbit period change,
represents the mean post-impact orbit eccentricity, and
represents the mean orbit plane change.
Download table as: ASCIITypeset image
As shown in Table 2, DART impacts in a retrograde sense, which serves to reduce the binary system orbit period by approximately 500 to 1000 s, depending on
Figure 3. gubas simulation results showing the orbit period and libration angle behavior, pre-impact and post-impact. The behaviors of these quantities remain consistent over longer time spans, e.g., out to 1 yr. Only 10 days of propagation are shown here for the libration angle, so that the behavior is more readily discernible.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageFigure 4.
gubas simulation results showing the orbit eccentricity behavior over 60 days post-impact (
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageSimulations of off-nominal impacts were also performed using a previous version of the DRA in combination with a set of nine irregular shape models for Dimorphos that are not DRA compliant (plus one spherical shape model), off-center impact locations, ranging from only somewhat off the center to near the edge of the body, and a range of
The imparted
3.2. Induced Libration and Other Excited States
For a circular orbit, the free libration frequency of a satellite is given by Murray & Dermott (2000)
![Equation (2)](https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/2632-3338/3/7/157/revision1/psjac76c9eqn2.gif)
where n is the mean motion and A, B, and C are the satellite's three principal moments of inertia (C > B > A). At present, the shape of Dimorphos (and, therefore, its moments of inertia) is poorly constrained, and will likely not be known to significantly higher precision until the DART spacecraft arrives. Since Dimorphos's spin dynamics depend strongly on its moments of inertia, this represents a major source of uncertainty when estimating the system's post-impact dynamical state.
Agrusa et al. (2021) studied Dimorphos's post-impact attitude stability as a function of target body shape and the momentum transfer enhancement factor,
Agrusa et al. (2021) then simulated the mutual orbit with a numerical model that accounts for Didymos's J2 moment, representing its shape oblateness, and that integrates the mutual orbit in 2D and Dimorphos's attitude in 3D. This confirmed that Dimorphos's spin state becomes highly excited near the resonance locations. In addition, a fast Lyapunov indicator analysis showed that the secondary's attitude evolved chaotically near resonance locations.
Finally, Agrusa et al. (2021) ran fully coupled F2BP gubas simulations over the parameter spaces of 1.0 ≤ a/b ≤ 1.5 and 1.0 ≤ b/c ≤ 1.5, with values for
However, the real DART impact will not be an idealized head-on impact, and DART's momentum will have nonplanar components. To address this, the work of Agrusa et al. (2021) was extended to include a more realistic impact geometry. DART's current trajectory nominally results in an impact angle of ∼−9.25° relative to the orbit plane, meaning that DART will have a small component of its momentum coming "up" from below the orbit plane. 28 For this trajectory, DART must also have an in-plane impact angle of ∼−10° in order to improve the communication with ground stations. 29 Figure 5 shows the expected impact geometry. In the idealized head-on impact case, all momentum is transferred in the instantaneous tangential direction in a radial–tangential–normal (RTN) coordinate system sense. However, the realistic case will have small components of momentum transferred in the normal (due to the nonplanar impact angle) and radial (due to the in-plane impact angle) directions.
Figure 5. A schematic showing DART's expected impacting momentum vector, based on the latest flight trajectory consistent with the 2021 launch. The impact will be nearly head on, opposite the instantaneous orbital velocity of Dimorphos. In an RTN coordinate system, DART's momentum vector will have small components in both the radial and normal directions. DART will be coming from below the Didymos–Dimorphos mutual orbit plane, with an angle of ∼−9.25° (the normal component), and it will also have an in-plane angle of ∼−10° (the radial component).
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageFigure 6 shows the maximum Euler angles (roll, pitch, and yaw) achieved by Dimorphos over a 1 yr simulation, for
Figure 6. Comparisons of the attitude of Dimorphos resulting from (a) an idealized planar impact versus (b) the expected impact geometry for the current DART trajectory. Since the nonplanar components of DART's velocity vector are relatively small, the realistic impact geometry closely matches the idealized planar case.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image3.3. Variations in the Orbit Period
The libration in Dimorphos following the DART impact will cause the mutual orbit period to fluctuate, as angular momentum is transferred between Dimorphos's rotation and the orbit. This nonconstant orbit period is discussed in detail by Meyer et al. (2021). Those results are expanded upon here by using fully coupled gubas simulations and the actual 3D impact geometry for an ellipsoidal secondary with axis ratios a/b = 1.3 and b/c = 1.2 (the nominal values from the DRA). The primary is modeled using the polyhedron radar shape model from the DRA.
Generally, the orbit period variations are driven by short-period and long-period modes. The short-period oscillations repeat once every several days, while the long period repeats on the order of several months. Both modes carry significant amplitudes, ranging from tens of seconds to a few minutes. Meyer et al. (2021) point out that the orbit period variations share the same frequencies as the eccentricity vector oscillations and the apsidal precession of the Keplerian orbit. The libration amplitude and variation in the orbit period are shown in Figure 7 as a function of
Figure 7. The libration amplitude and orbit period variation for Didymos using the full 3D impact geometry simulated in gubas for the case a/b = 1.3, b/c = 1.2. The libration amplitude, shown as the solid green curve, corresponds to the left axis while the orbit period variation, shown as the dashed blue curve, corresponds to the right axis.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageWhile orbit period variations may pose a challenge for characterizing the post-impact system, they may also provide an opportunity. With a more accurate Dimorphos shape model obtained from DART and LICIACube images, observations of orbit period variations may help constrain the libration amplitude and possibly provide a supplemental estimate of
3.4. Didymos System Heliocentric Orbit Changes
The DART impact will change the heliocentric orbit of the Didymos system by a small amount, which may be measurable through a combination of ground-based, DART, and Hera measurements. While measuring the change in Didymos' heliocentric orbit is not required to complete DART mission objectives, it can yield additional insights into the physical properties of the system. To quantify the heliocentric push, numerical simulations of the DART impact and the resulting ejecta were carried out in Stickle et al. (2020) and Fahnestock et al. (2022). The simulations track the states of the ejecta particles coming off Dimorphos as a result of the impact. That data is used to quantify the changes in the system's heliocentric orbit.
The momentum carried by the ejecta leaving the system contributes to the overall change in the heliocentric orbit. The cumulative momentum of all the particles that escape the Didymos system for the nominal F2BP case, normalized by the DART impact momentum, was calculated from gubas ejecta dynamics simulations. For this specific case, 95% of the ejecta mass escapes the system, carrying 88% of the ejecta momentum. The escape criterion for the particles is defined as the moment when they cross the system's Hill sphere, the approximate radius of which is
![Equation (3)](https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/2632-3338/3/7/157/revision1/psjac76c9eqn3.gif)
where r is the distance between the Sun and the Didymos barycenter at the time of impact, m is the mass of the Didymos system, and M⊙ is the mass of the Sun. The contribution of the ejecta to the overall momentum transport for a head-on impact can then be expressed as a corresponding heliocentric momentum enhancement parameter,
![Equation (4)](https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/2632-3338/3/7/157/revision1/psjac76c9eqn4.gif)
where pDART is the momentum of the DART spacecraft at impact and pejecta is the cumulative momentum of the simulated system-escaping ejecta particles at their corresponding time of escape. The corresponding heliocentric
The proportion of ejecta mass and momentum that ends up leaving the system is highly dependent on the surface strength and internal friction of Dimorphos. A measurement of both
Observations of the ejecta cloud combined with lightcurve measurements of the Didymos system right after impact will help determine the change in the mutual orbit period and the local system's
To determine which observation strategy, if any, would result in accurate and well-constrained estimates for
Table 3. Estimated Accuracy for Retrieved
Observation Campaign |
| 1 |
---|---|---|
2 Hera | failed | failed |
12 Radar + 2 Hera | failed | failed |
2 Occultations + 2 Hera | 1.793 | 0.130 |
3 Occultations + 2 Hera | 1.798 | 0.104 |
12 Radar + 2 Occultations + 2 Hera | 1.798 | 0.104 |
12 Radar + 3 Occultations + 2 Hera | 1.796 | 0.102 |
Note.
a The correct value to be retrieved isDownload table as: ASCIITypeset image
3.5. The Instantaneity Assumption
The cratering process on a large body is typically fast in relation to the dynamics of its system. On a small body like Dimorphos, with low strength and low gravity, and as part of a binary, the finite time that it takes to form a crater and produce ejecta can become significant in comparison to its dynamical environment. A complete and precise determination of
Although the momentum transfer and cratering process takes a finite amount of time, post-impact dynamics simulations of the Didymos system to date have treated the DART impact as an instantaneous perturbation to Dimorphos's velocity and rotation state (Section 3.1). In addition, the mass of Dimorphos is unchanged in dynamics simulations, which ignores mass loss due to crater formation and ejecta production. As long as the crater size and ejected mass are small compared to Dimorphos and the momentum transfer time is significantly less than the system's orbit period of ∼12 hr, this latter approximation is valid. Recent studies have shown that if Dimorphos has a cohesive strength ≳10 Pa, the crater size and ejected mass should be small compared to Dimorphos's diameter and mass (Stickle et al. 2017; Raducan et al. 2019). However, if Dimorphos is a weak target, non-negligible shape changes may occur; this possibility is discussed in further detail in Section 5 (Raducan & Jutzi 2022). To account for finite crater formation and ejecta production times, momentum transfer processes that last up to 30 minutes have been tested in gubas F2BP simulations, assuming a center-of-mass impact, an impact vector aligned with the surface normal, and ejecta that readily leave the system. These simulations show a negligible difference between instant and time-dependent momentum transfer, which implies, given these assumptions, that the system dynamics (i.e., the change in orbital period) is not sensitive to the ejecta production time, per se, for reasonable transient crater formation times. If the important contributions to
An ejected particle's contribution to
Ejection velocities steadily decrease as the transient crater expands. For much of its excavation, the crater ejects material with a velocity profile described by a power-law flow. At later stages, this power-law relationship breaks down. The material properties of the target and the speed of the launching ejecta at this point in time, vbreak, are enough to provide an effective description of the velocity profile of the ejecta, from which the analytical correction to
For DART, in the case of a rubble-pile Dimorphos, vbreak may be comparable to or exceed vesc, which makes understanding the ejecta profile and the finite time span of the crater formation an important topic of ongoing study. There is also the added complication of Didymos's gravitational influence (the Dimorphos Hill sphere, Equation (3), with respect to Didymos, is only about twice the size of Dimorphos itself). In addition, the fact that the binary orbital phase will change during the evolution of low-speed ejecta further complicates the situation.
One approach to going beyond idealized analytical estimates to account for the temporal variation in ejecta production as well as the spatial extent of the launch position is to take the outputs from hydrodynamic impact codes as the inputs—or initial conditions—of a granular dynamics code for computing all but the earliest stages of the ejecta production, evolution, and the formation of the transient crater. The DART Science Team is at work on producing such a procedure; preliminary efforts include Schwartz et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2021), and Ferrari et al. (2022). The DART mission provides a unique opportunity to understand the time-dependent nature of the cratering and momentum transfer process.
4. Contributions of Internal Structure to Dynamics
Rigid-body simulations (Agrusa et al. 2021, and see Section 3) show that, depending on its shape/inertia moments, Dimorphos can become attitude-unstable and its spin state may evolve chaotically as a result of the DART impact. However, according to the current understanding of binary formation and evolution history, Dimorphos may be a rubble pile (Richardson et al. 2002; Walsh et al. 2008; Walsh & Jacobson 2015; Tardivel et al. 2018). In this context, the nonrigid, deformable internal structure of Dimorphos may alter its dynamical response to DART's impact, compared to the rigid-body case. To assess whether this makes an important difference on the post-impact dynamics, two cases were selected from the study by Agrusa et al. (2021) and replicated with an N-body discrete element method (DEM) code: one case where Dimorphos becomes attitude-unstable in the rigid-body simulations, and one where it remains in a stable libration state. Since rubble-pile simulations are far more computationally expensive than rigid-body simulations, they are necessarily more limited in scope. This section focuses mainly on changes to the rotational motion of Dimorphos and its attitude stability that result from a change in the mutual orbit (Section 5 discusses shape changes to Didymos and Dimorphos that could result directly from the DART impact). The results are summarized below; we refer the reader to Agrusa et al. (2022) for further details.
Overall, the results show that a DEM model of Dimorphos does not appreciably alter its stability properties for the cases studied thus far. This implies that, for the same shape of Dimorphos, rigid F2BP simulations should largely agree with corresponding higher-fidelity DEM models, with minor disagreements attributable to small (and unavoidable) differences among the simulation setups and the numerical routines of the respective codes.
4.1. The Rubble-pile Model
The dynamics of the Didymos binary system were studied with rubble-pile, self-gravitating models of the system components, using the N-body DEM code pkdgrav (Richardson et al. 2000; Stadel 2001). Contact interactions between particles are handled using the soft-sphere discrete element method (SSDEM; Schwartz et al. 2012). pkdgrav has already been used and validated in rigid F2BP studies of the Didymos system (Agrusa et al. 2020); here, the analysis is extended by enabling the code's SSDEM option to model Dimorphos as a rubble pile, rather than a rigid aggregate body.
Table 4 summarizes the parameter ranges considered for the Didymos system for this study. Guided by Agrusa et al. (2021), two simulation cases were considered, representing two possible shapes of Dimorphos. Dimorphos is assumed to be a triaxial ellipsoid (Naidu et al. 2020), with semi-axis (a > b > c) ratios and values as follows:
- 1.Stable case: a/b = 1.2, b/c = 1.1; (95.00, 79.17, 71.97) m.
- 2.Unstable case: a/b = 1.3, b/c = 1.2; (103.16, 79.35, 66.13) m.
The rubble-pile models are built to closely match the semi-axis lengths and moments of inertia of the equivalent rigid-body cases, using ∼4000 randomly packed spherical particles. The physical properties and overall shape of the rubble-pile model are evaluated using its dynamically equivalent equal-volume ellipsoid (DEEVE), and are set to match a uniform-density ellipsoid, with the same volume and inertia as the ideal, rigid, triaxial ellipsoid. Due to its discrete nature, the inertial and geometrical properties of the rubble-pile model can never exactly match those of an ideal, homogeneous ellipsoid. The external surface of a rubble-pile model is not precisely defined and has uncertainties on the order of the size of a single fragment, which, in this case, is a few meters, compared to the overall ∼200 m long ellipsoid. Although this discrepancy is small, it is enough to perturb the rigid-body equilibrium condition, which is not reproduced exactly. This structural limitation due to DEM discretization, alongside the high sensitivity of the problem to initial conditions, challenges the precise reconstruction of the dynamical state of the system. However, this is shown not to affect the ultimate fate of the simulation, i.e., whether the system evolves toward a stable, bounded behavior or an unstable behavior.
Table 4. Range of Parameters Considered in Rubble-pile Simulations around the Nominal Values in Table 1
Body | Parameter | Value Range |
---|---|---|
Didymos | Mass (kg) | (5.350–5.355) × 1011 |
Bulk density (kg m−3) | 2155–2182 | |
Rotation period (hr) | 2.26 | |
Shape | Point mass | |
Dimorphos | Mass (kg) | (4.887–4.923) × 109 |
Bulk density (kg m−3) | 2155–2182 | |
Rotation period (hr) | 11.921 7 | |
Shape | Triaxial ellipsoid |
Note. The shape and bulk density of the rubble-pile model are evaluated by using its DEEVE, an ellipsoid with a uniform density and the same volume and moments of inertia as the rubble-pile aggregate.
Download table as: ASCIITypeset image
Both the unperturbed dynamics of Didymos, with asteroids on a mutual circular orbit about the barycenter of the system, and the post-impact case, where the orbital velocity of Dimorphos is instantaneously perturbed as a proxy for a
Figures 8(a) and (b) show a top-down view of the two rubble-pile models of Dimorphos. The stable and unstable shapes look relatively similar, with their longest axes differing by ∼15 m relative to their total length of ∼200 m. This small difference in shape (and therefore moments of inertia) nonetheless leads to a significant difference in their respective attitude evolutions, as found for the rigid models.
Figure 8. Top-down views of the rubble-pile models of Dimorphos in pkdgrav. (a) is the stable case, with a/b = 1.2 and b/c = 1.1, while (b) is the unstable case, with a/b = 1.3 and b/c = 1.2. Despite the small apparent difference in their respective shapes, the resulting spin evolutions of these two rubble piles will differ significantly. Didymos is not included in this visualization, since it is just a point mass in these simulations.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image4.2. Spin Motion of Dimorphos
The spin motion of Dimorphos can be quantified by studying the time evolution of Dimorphos's three Euler angles that describe its attitude: roll, pitch, and yaw. In the idealized, tidally locked equilibrium configuration, these angles are zero. But since the discrete model cannot reproduce exactly the same shape and axis ratios of an ideal rigid body, the system achieves at best a nonperfect, tidally locked equilibrium, even in the stable case (a/b = 1.2, b/c = 1.1). In this case, the amplitude of the libration is not zero, but always remains bounded and never becomes unstable.
Figures 9(a) and (b) show the long-term evolution of Dimorphos's attitude, with a comparison between the gubas rigid-body case and the pkdgrav rubble-pile case. The difference between the "rigid" and SSDEM pkdgrav cases is that the particles making Dimorphos are locked into a rigid aggregate, meaning that it has nearly the exact same shape and moments as the SSDEM case, making it useful for direct comparisons. Figure 9(a) shows the stable case, when Dimorphos has a shape of a/b = 1.2 and b/c = 1.1. This plot is consistent with the Agrusa et al. (2021) prediction when Dimorphos is modeled both as a rigid body and as a rubble pile (with the SSDEM option) in pkdgrav. The rigid and SSDEM cases show very similar behaviors, with the roll and pitch angles remaining near zero as the body steadily librates (yaw motion) with an amplitude of ∼20°. However, when an expected attitude-unstable case is simulated, the rigid and SSDEM models begin to diverge. Figure 9(b) shows Dimorphos's attitude when the body shape is changed to a/b = 1.3 and b/c = 1.2. All three simulations show Dimorphos becoming attitude-unstable. However, both of the pkdgrav simulations (both rigid and SSDEM) become unstable before the equivalent gubas simulation. This is likely due to a combination of the two codes using different numerical integrators and Dimorphos's shape in pkdgrav differing slightly from the idealized gubas case, as discussed previously.
Figure 9. Time-series plots of Dimorphos's Euler angles (roll, pitch, and yaw) in the rotating orbital frame for the two body shapes under consideration. Figure 9(a) shows the expected stable case, which indeed remains stable when simulated both as a rubble pile (the SSDEM case) and as a rigid body, matching the gubas prediction. The only difference is that there are larger (but still small) oscillations in the roll and pitch angles in the pkdgrav cases, which is likely due to the slightly different body shapes (and therefore different inertia moments) compared to the idealized ellipsoid used in the gubas simulation. Figure 9(b) shows the predicted unstable case, where both pkdgrav cases show general agreement. The main difference between the two pkdgrav cases and the gubas case is that the pkdgrav cases become attitude-unstable sooner, likely owing to a combination of slightly different shapes compared to the idealized ellipsoid and a different numerical integrator.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageQualitatively, the two codes show broad agreement, indicating that the faster gubas code is adequate for capturing the system dynamics on timescales relevant for the DART mission. However, it may be possible that Dimorphos could reshape, either due to the DART impact directly or due to longer-term dynamical effects, in which case a DEM code like pkdgrav would be necessary. A forthcoming detailed rubble-pile-focused study (H. Argusa 2022, in preparation) simulates Dimorphos with pkdgrav under a wider range of body shapes, material parameters, and
Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that a nonzero libration results in a change of the spin rate of Dimorphos, and, by conservation of angular momentum, any change in the spin rate of Dimorphos produces a change in its orbital motion around the barycenter of the system. This effect has been quantified for the rigid-body Dimorphos case by Meyer et al. (2021). The periodic variations closely follow the libration oscillation and are due to the instantaneous change of the asteroid's spin motion. In principle, for a rubble-pile object, secular variations might appear over long timescales as a result of the intrinsic dissipation between the rubble-pile constituents—friction between the aggregate building blocks—driven by tidal stresses (Nimmo & Matsuyama 2019). However, the extremely long timescale of this phenomenon is such that it is not practical for it to be studied using DEM models. A more detailed discussion on secular effects is provided in Section 6.
5. Implications of Possible Didymos and Dimorphos Shape Changes
Section 4 shows that dynamical perturbations due to continuous deformation driven by mutual tides may negligibly affect the dynamical evolution over a short time period. In this case, the rigid-body assumption may suffice to characterize the system's dynamical behavior. On the other hand, the coupling behavior between deformation and dynamics may be enhanced, to cause energy dissipation due to tidal interactions between Didymos and Dimorphos. Such mutual tide-driven interactions, as well as other nongravitational effects, significantly influence the mutual orbit evolution (Section 6). In addition to these processes, there is a possibility that the instantaneous deformation processes occurring in either Didymos or Dimorphos will permanently change the mutual dynamics, affecting the inferred
Potential causes of reshaping include the following. First, Dimorphos experiences the DART impact, which generates a crater on its surface. Depending on the target surface and the impact conditions, the shape change from crater formation may perturb the mutual dynamics sufficiently to be detected by telescopic observations. This perturbation process results from changes in the mutual gravity interaction due to the reshaping. Second, Didymos is currently rotating at a spin period of 2.26 hr, while its bulk density is estimated to be 2170 ±350 kg m−3 (Table 1). This condition implies that the asteroid's rotation is close to its critical spin limit. Thus, loose particles at the equator would barely remain on the surface, implying that Didymos may at present be sensitive to structural failure (Zhang et al. 2017; Naidu et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2021). This suggests that there is a chance that Didymos may experience non-negligible reshaping as a consequence of the DART impact event (Hirabayashi et al. 2017, 2019), triggered when DART-driven ejecta (e.g., Richardson & O'Brien 2016; Yu et al. 2017; Yu & Michel 2018; Cheng et al. 2020; Raducan & Jutzi 2022) impart energy to Didymos's surface on contact. This reshaping process may also change the mutual dynamics.
Early numerical work has revealed the possibility of such scenarios, although, given the uncertainties of the geophysical conditions, whether such an incident is likely to occur and how it is likely to affect the mutual dynamics are poorly constrained. This section briefly summarizes recent efforts to investigate this issue, the details of which are given by Hirabayashi et al. (2022) and Nakano et al. (2022). The discussions below consist of two parts: the first part concerns the DART impact's influence on reshaping Dimorphos and any resulting dynamical changes, while the second explores Didymos's sensitivity to structural failure, along with any changes to the mutual orbit that result from a reshaped Didymos.
5.1. Dimorphos
5.1.1. Influence of the DART Impact on the Structure
The kinetic energy imparted by the DART impact will affect Dimorphos's morphology locally or even globally, depending on the impact and target surface conditions. Supposing that the DART spacecraft (∼563 kg at impact) is an ideal sphere, with a radius of 0.41 m, and that it approaches Dimorphos with a speed of ∼6.14 km s−1 at an impact angle of ∼−9.25° (Cheng et al. 2020), the
5.1.2. Reshaping-induced Mutual Orbit Perturbation
The reshaping of Dimorphos may induce perturbations to the mutual orbit. To investigate this possibility, a finite element method (FEM) approach was used to simulate the mutual dynamics of the Didymos system, by accounting for the reshaping of Dimorphos during the DART impact (Nakano et al. 2022). The model uses the shape models from the Didymos system DRA data (Section 2). The simulations assume that the Dimorphos shape change that is driven by the DART impact occurs on Dimorphos's leading side, 30 without considering the out-of-plane velocity component of the DART impact, given that such a component does not contribute to the in-plane motion significantly (Section 3.2). Also, each reshaping is modeled under the assumption that the volume and density distributions are constant before and after the DART impact (i.e., the ejecta volume is negligible compared to the volume of Dimorphos)—see Figure 10(a). The results show that the change to the mutual orbit period is linearly proportional to the reshaping magnitude (Figure 10(b)). For example, when the shape changes 8 m along the intermediate axis (see L0 − L in Figure 10(a)), the mutual orbit period, which is currently 11.9216 hr (Table 1), may become about 30 s shorter. On the other hand, if Dimorphos experiences a 4 m change along the same axis, the orbital period becomes 15 s shorter. From these conditions, because the observed orbital period change is linear, the derived relationship predicts that if the reshaping is larger than 2 m along the intermediate axis, the resulting orbital period change becomes larger than the DART measurement requirement, which is 7.3 s (Rivkin et al. 2021).
Figure 10. Dimorphos's deformed shape and the resulting orbit period change as a function of the reshaping magnitude. (a) An example of the reshaping, where the horizontal axis (the y direction along the intermediate principal axis, in contrast to the z-axis along the maximum principal axis) corresponds to the leading side. (b) Orbital period change as a function of deformation along the leading direction. This change is in addition to any change in Dimorphos's momentum due to the impact itself. The blue dots are derived from the FEM approach and the black line gives a linear approximation.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image5.2. Didymos
5.2.1. Structural Stability and Possible Internal Structure
As detailed above, Didymos, with its current spin and estimated bulk density, is close to its stability limit, unless it has mechanical strength or structural layers keeping the interior and surface structurally static. Recent efforts using DEM codes (Zhang et al. 2017, 2021; Ferrari & Tanga 2022) have shown two possibilities for Didymos's interior structure providing structural stability at fast spin rates: core mechanical strength or global weak cohesion.
Zhang et al. (2017) show that, with a bulk density close to the upper limit of the observed range, i.e., ≥ 2380 kg m−3, Didymos's structure can remain intact if the asteroid has the mechanical strength of a simulated crystallized structure with high friction. Ferrari & Tanga (2022) estimate that a very large rigid-core fraction (>50%) can keep the current structural configuration stable, with its nominal bulk density at the current fast spin, even when the external layer is made of cohesionless discrete materials. The rigid core does not have to be a single monolith, but it should be supported by some mechanical strength. The granular medium that constitutes the external layer can attain high angles of friction due to geometrical interlocking, as demonstrated in DEM simulations using angular particles (Hirabayashi et al. 2015; Sánchez & Scheeres 2018; Ferrari & Tanga 2020).
Alternatively, if there exists a substantial amount of dust or small grains in Didymos, the van der Waals forces between them could be strong enough to "cement" large particles and boulders, supplying adequate cohesive strength to discrete elements (Scheeres et al. 2010; Sánchez & Scheeres 2014). If this is the case, a rubble-pile structure with a low-strength interior could also remain intact. Recent studies predict that at Didymos's present spin, and with the nominal bulk density, cohesive strength higher than 10–20 Pa can enable Didymos's structure to remain intact (Naidu et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2021). This prediction implies the existence of many fine grains with sizes of ∼2–5
5.2.2. Structural Sensitivity and Possible Failure Behaviors
If Didymos's structural properties are close to the stability requirement discussed above, Didymos would fail structurally when subject to an external destabilizing effect, e.g., YORP-induced spin-up and/or meteoroid impacts. There are likely three failure modes: internal structural deformation, fission of an asteroid body into components, and surface-mass shedding, where the latter two modes could be at the origin of the formation of Dimorphos (Walsh et al. 2008; Tardivel et al. 2018). The fission mode results from global crack propagation in the body, inducing body separation, while cohesion still binds grains together to form smaller coherent pieces. The presence of boulders up to the size of Dimorphos on the asteroid Ryugu (Watanabe et al. 2019) suggests that if such large boulders exist at Didymos's equator, they could detach from the surface in the absence of cohesion (Campo Bagatin et al. 2020). The mass-shedding mode may occur when Didymos has a relatively strong or denser core (Hirabayashi et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2017; Sánchez & Scheeres 2018; Ferrari & Tanga 2022) or has a bulk density ≳2170 kg m−3 with moderate cohesion (Zhang et al. 2021). Figure 11 shows one case with the internal deformation and mass-shedding failure modes, where Didymos is modeled as a polydisperse rubble pile with a bulk density of ∼2170 kg m−3 and interparticle cohesion of ∼320 Pa (Zhang et al. 2021).
Figure 11. Didymos's deformation process, based on DEM simulations, where the interior is modeled as a dense polydisperse packing of grains with a particle diameter distribution ranging between ∼4 m and ∼16 m. The bulk density is ∼2170 kg m−3 and the interparticle strength is ∼320 Pa (Zhang et al. 2021). The colors show the particle speeds. (a) The original shape at a spin period of 2.26 hr. (b) The deformed shape.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageThe key finding from these efforts is that Didymos's failure mode strongly depends on its structural and material properties. While such a response is poorly constrained for Didymos, when subject to an external destabilizing effect, this possibly sensitive body may experience material flows on its surface and/or in the interior on various scales. For the DART impact, such an external effect may result from the falling of the DART impact–driven ejecta from Dimorphos, if the ejecta cloud carries enough kinetic energy to surface materials on Didymos.
Whether the falling ejecta could indeed cause Didymos's reshaping on any scales is another issue. Because of uncertainties about the system's geophysical properties and the DART impact conditions, it is difficult to predict the probabilities. Earlier work using a DEM model predicts that if Didymos's surface cohesive strength is greater than 5 Pa, collisions of ejecta particles with diameters of 10 cm and speeds of 1 m s−1 do not change Didymos's surface conditions; therefore, no significant reshaping may be expected (Sánchez & Scheeres 2018). Since Didymos's escape speed due to gravity is only about 1.0 m s−1, only a limited amount of fast ejecta particles would travel directly to Didymos and have an effect. However, the net effect of falling ejecta on surface disturbance is not well understood.
Furthermore, Didymos may have experienced an impact event with the DART impact energy every 0.4 Myr (Section 2.5). Impact events exceeding for Didymos may occur every >10 Gyr. If this is the case, Didymos's surface and structure should possess proper conditions that can resist disturbance by the falling of DART-driven ejecta to avoid complete collapse. The key issue, however, is that granular behaviors and slow impact processes in microgravity are likely different from those observed on a terrestrial surface (Garcia et al. 2015; Murdoch et al. 2017; Brisset et al. 2019; Sánchez & Scheeres 2021). Therefore, such disturbing processes could act differently on Didymos, which needs further quantitative assessment.
Next, there is a question of how to measure the reshaping magnitudes. Didymos reshaping as driven by DART-driven falling ejecta can be inferred by using Earth-based telescopes to measure Didymos's spin change. With an anticipated timing precision of <0.1 s by the end of 2023 (Pravec & Scheirich 2018), measurement of shape changes as small as ∼1 cm will be possible (Rivkin et al. 2021). Additional evidence of perturbation to Didymos could include the development of relatively large dust clouds after the DART impact, compared to the DART impact–driven ejecta alone, implying mass shedding from Didymos. If this happens, Didymos's rapid spin may be lessened, as ejected particles may take away some of the asteroid's angular momentum. Dimorphos reshaping may also be determined by measuring the total mass of ejecta from optical measurements by Earth-based telescopes and LICIACube. The determined ejecta mass will be converted to the crater cavity volume. Combining this volume with information about Dimorphos's pre-impact shape and the impact site location from proximity imaging can constrain its post-impact shape.
Finally, also note the possibility that accretion of ejecta onto Didymos and Dimorphos may change the bodies' spin states directly. Low-speed ejecta do not immediately escape from the system—previous work shows that the impact speeds of these trapped particles range from ∼10 cm s−1 at Dimorphos to ∼60 cm s−1 at Didymos (Yu & Michel 2018; Rossi et al. 2022). The momentum carried by the ejecta, while tiny compared to the rotational angular momenta of the main bodies, may have a non-negligible cumulative effect on the asteroids' spins. Preliminary work indicates that Didymos may experience a spin period change of up to a few seconds via ejecta accretion.
Recent efforts to analyze this effect (Rossi et al. 2022) indicate that the uncertainties on the total excavated mass from the impact crater—and, hence, the total reimpacting mass—make it challenging to estimate how secondary impacts will affect the asteroids' spin states. Should the effect be non-negligible, it would be necessary to find a way to distinguish the spin change due to ejecta accretion alone from that due to any subsequent reshaping process. Thus, it is necessary to quantify the minimum ejecta mass landing on either body that will induce a non-negligible change in the period. A detailed evaluation is underway.
5.2.3. Reshaping-induced Mutual Orbit Perturbation
When the DART spacecraft collides with Dimorphos, surface particles will be ejected from the impact site with various speeds, and some of them may reach Didymos (e.g., Richardson & O'Brien 2016; Yu et al. 2017; Yu & Michel 2018; Raducan & Jutzi 2022). While the amount of ejecta and the total energy input to this body are not well constrained, if such a physical perturbation on the surface is strong enough, a reshaping process may occur on Didymos, due to its short spin period. If this is the case, this process will change the gravity field, leading to a non-negligible perturbation in the mutual interactions between Didymos and Dimorphos (Hirabayashi et al. 2017, 2019).
If any reshaping of Didymos is large enough, the resulting changes to the mutual orbit may be measurable. Due to Didymos's fast rotation, the shape change will likely lead to a more oblate shape and a larger J2 moment. Increasing it without changing Didymos's mass will shorten the orbital period. Thus, assessments without accounting for this effect could underestimate
Figure 12. Didymos's deformed shape and the resulting orbit period change as a function of the reshaping magnitude. (a) An example of reshaping making the shape more oblate along the maximum principal axis (corresponding to the spin axis, here the z-axis). The y-axis corresponds to the intermediate axis. (b) Orbital period change as a function of deformation along the leading direction. The blue dots are derived from the FEM approach and the black line gives a linear approximation.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageDART impact outcomes could help constrain Didymos's surface/internal structure. If DART-driven reshaping happens to Didymos and is not negligible, then it also induces a non-negligible mutual orbit perturbation. This would imply that Didymos has a relatively weak structure (either on the surface or in the interior) and frequently experiences reshaping processes driven by meteoroid impacts and other disturbances, controlling the magnitude of the reshaping. Such processes induce mass shedding, which could contribute to the formation and evolution of Dimorphos (e.g., Walsh et al. 2008). On the other hand, if the DART impact–driven ejecta do not cause reshaping of Didymos, a possible interpretation is that Didymos has a relatively strong mechanical structure and lacks weak material layers; otherwise, the surface should fail structurally because of the 2.26 hr spin period. In this case, any weak materials would have been depleted during the system's early formation stage, and thus the evolution process would be less dynamic at present.
6. Secular Evolutionary Effects
The dynamical state of binary systems evolves due to gravitational and nongravitational perturbations, such as tides and BYORP. BYORP is the binary-YORP effect, whereby a tidally locked satellite's thermal emission contributes to a net torque on the mutual orbit, leading to secular changes in the mutual orbit's semimajor axis and eccentricity (Ćuk & Burns 2005). The BYORP coefficient depends only on the secondary's shape, but the overall evolution of the system is tightly coupled with the attitude state of the secondary and the tidal strength (Ćuk & Burns 2004; Ćuk & Nesvorný 2010; McMahon & Scheeres 2010a, 2010b; McMahon 2014, 2016). The effects of tides on a binary system mainly cause a change in the semimajor axis through the transfer of angular momentum between the bodies. Further, energy dissipation inside both bodies leads to the circularization of the orbit and the damping of free modes. These secular effects of tides are characterized by the ratio of the quality factor Q, accounting for the energy dissipation, to the Love number k2, associated with the additional potential due to tidal deformation (Goldreich & Soter 1966; Murray & Dermott 2000), which depends on the internal structure and rheology of the asteroid.
The parameters of BYORP and the tides affecting the Didymos system are currently poorly constrained. The shape of the secondary, necessary for determining the BYORP coefficient, is currently unknown (the DRA assumes an ellipsoidal shape—see Section 2.2). The internal structures and rheologies of the asteroids are not known either, and the resulting estimations of tidal parameters of other asteroids vary by orders of magnitude. McMahon et al. (2016) simulated the possible dynamical evolution of Didymos based on the modeled (not observed) BYORP coefficient for the 66391 Moshup–Squannit (formerly 1999 KW4) secondary shape model (Ostro et al. 2006). When scaled to the Didymos–Dimorphos size and state, this resulted in a possible orbit semimajor axis expansion/contraction rate of ±1.66 cm yr−1, where the sign can be changed by flipping the secondary orientation 180° around its spin axis. This semimajor axis rate translates to a quadratic mean anomaly drift rate of ∓2.8° yr−2, or a period drift of 0.91 s yr−1.
The estimation of the secular changes in the semimajor axis of the Didymos system due to the combined effect of BYORP and tides, using historical observations, yields a mean anomaly drift with 3
The DART mission is expected to provide the shapes and hence the BYORP coefficient for the Didymos system, which will later be improved by the Hera mission. After the DART impact, how the secular evolution of the Didymos system may progress is highly uncertain. Until the arrival of Hera, secular changes to the semimajor axis are expected to be rather small, based on the abovementioned estimate, unless the BYORP effect is shut off by the barrel instability triggered following the DART impact (Section 3.2). However, if the attitude is simply excited, the BYORP effect can continue to act. Furthermore, the shape of Dimorphos will necessarily change, as discussed in Section 5, which will directly change the BYORP coefficient. The DART impact could also impart some small inclination change to the binary orbit, which would further complicate the BYORP predictions, since current models typically assume zero inclination. For k2/Q ≈ 10−5, and without the BYORP effect acting, the change of the semimajor axis due to tides will be on the order of a few cm over 5 yr, which is challenging but not impossible to detect with ground-based observations. Hera will constrain the mass as well as the dynamics of the binary system, with the aim of the submeter determination of the semimajor axis (Hera Internal Mission Requirements Document ESA-HERA-TECSH-RS-022793, v. 2.10). In addition, Hera instruments will help to reveal the interior structure, composition, and surface thermal properties, as well as the past and future evolution of the Didymos system.
7. Conclusions and Future Outlook
The DART spacecraft is on its way to impact Dimorphos—the satellite of the binary near-Earth asteroid system Didymos—at around 23:14 UTC on 2022 September 26. LICIACube will detach from DART several days before impact to image the crater, ejecta, and unseen hemisphere of the moon. Dimorphos's orbital period change will be measured by ground-based assets over subsequent weeks, providing an estimate of the momentum transfer enhancement factor,
This paper collects the current understanding of the dynamics of the Didymos system and the best-informed expectations of how the dynamics will be affected by the DART impact.
- 1.Didymos is an S-class asteroid that is likely an escaped member of the Baptistina family (Section 2.1). Observations of the Didymos binary system are consistent with a low-eccentricity, dynamically relaxed state (Section 2), but high-order gravity potential terms are significant at the 1% level, leading to the expectation of low-amplitude orbital and attitudinal oscillations (Section 2.6). Observations to date also cannot rule out a recent impact or gravitational perturbation that could put the system into an excited state at encounter (Section 2.5), including Dimorphos's nonsynchronous rotation, but this is considered unlikely. An accurate prediction of the system's orbital phase at encounter is not possible from dynamics modeling alone, due to uncertain initial conditions, but observations do constrain the target location within mission requirements (Agrusa et al. 2020).
- 2.The value of
β resulting from the DART impact is expected to lie in the range from 1 to 5, based on impact modeling (Stickle et al. 2022), and it will be estimated using Equation (1) from Rivkin et al. (2021).β is most sensitive to the measured change in Dimorphos's orbital period, but it will have an uncertainty dominated by the poorly constrained mass of the target. An independent measure of its heliocentric counterpart,β ⊙, may be achievable via occultation observations and could aid in constrainingβ and/or the physical properties of Dimorphos (Section 3.4). - 3.The Didymos system is sensitive to dynamical instabilities that depend on Dimorphos's poorly constrained shape (Section 3.2). These may be triggered prior to encounter (see the earlier point) or by the DART impact, leading to libration, with amplitude dependent on
β . A rolling or "barrel" instability may also be present prior to impact or be triggered by the impact. Regardless of Dimorphos's shape, libration must be induced if Dimorphos is tidally locked, since the post-impact orbital period will be less than the moon's rotation period. In addition, the post-impact orbital period will fluctuate by anywhere on the order of tens of seconds to several minutes, on timescales ranging from a few days to months, depending on the target shape andβ , as a result of a periodic exchange of angular momentum between Dimorphos's spin state and the mutual orbit (Section 3.3). Given a more accurate shape model of Dimorphos post-impact, if observations are able to characterize the orbit period variations, an additional constraint onβ and the libration amplitude may be obtainable. - 4.The pre- and post-impact dynamics presented in this paper were modeled using the rigid-body integrator gubas (Davis & Scheeres 2020). The dynamical state most consistent with observations and a relaxed initial condition is generated any time there is a change in the Didymos DRA. Post-impact steady-state models are also generated for a range of assumed
β values (Sections 2.6 and 3.1). This modeling makes the well-supported assumption that the momentum transfer is short compared to the orbital period (Section 3.5). - 5.Models in which either component of Didymos is treated as a rubble pile are broadly consistent with the rigid-body modeling (Section 4; H. Agrusa 2022, in preparation), but they do reveal the sensitivity of the primary to shape deformation due to its near- or supercritical rotation state (Section 5, Hirabayashi et al. 2022). A change of shape of either body due to the impact has implications for the final orbital period and, therefore,
β . In the case of an ejecta-induced shape change to Didymos, the effect onβ can in principle be constrained by measuring a change in the primary rotation period, although how to distinguish this from spin-up due to accretion alone remains to be investigated. Dimorphos's shape change effect will be constrained by converting the measured total ejecta mass to the crater size. Estimations of the impact histories of both bodies suggest that the primary at least is robust against DART-scale impacts, however (Section 2.5). - 6.Although observations constrain any secular effects on the system's orbital period to be small on the timescale of the DART mission, both the BYORP effect and mutual gravity tides are likely play a role in the long-term evolution of the system (Section 6). The relevant BYORP and tide parameters are poorly known at present, but the upper bounds on secular acceleration from observations to date are consistent with a fairly symmetric secondary shape, stronger tidal dissipation than expected from current models, and/or the possibility that the system is close to a BYORP–tide equilibrium. Post-impact observations from the ground and by Hera may help distinguish between these possibilities.
For reference, Table 5 summarizes the principal dynamical effects discussed that may be triggered by the DART impact. The motion of each excitation is shown schematically in Figure 13, for ease of understanding each of the particular motions described in the paper. The range of each excited motion is also provided either in the table directly, for a modest range of
Figure 13. Summary cartoons of dynamical excitation due to the DART impact. Panels (a) and (c) show a representation of the relaxed dynamics of the Didymos–Dimorphos system from a view above the orbit plane (a) and a view in the orbit plane (c). The DART impact is expected to excite the mutual orbit directly (b), causing the orbital period to change both in an average sense (by shrinking the orbit, in this case) and with fluctuations about the average (eccentric motion). It will likely also excite the libration of Dimorphos about different rotation axes, including: (d) yaw excitation, oriented along the rotation axis of Dimorphos—fluctuations in the rate of rotation during a given rotation and/or a change in the average rotation rate; (e) pitch excitation, oriented in and out of the orbit plane—a nodding of the face of Dimorphos from the perspective of Didymos; and (f) roll excitation, oriented about the axis connecting Dimorphos and Didymos—a rocking of the face of Dimorphos from the perspective of Didymos.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution imageTable 5. Post–DART Impact Dynamical Effects with Predicted Ranges and Observables
Excitation | Motion | Range ( | Observable |
---|---|---|---|
Mutual orbit | Orbit period change (see Figure 13(b)) | −8.8 min to −17 min (see Table 2) | Mean anomaly drift |
Orbit period variation | Orbit period fluctuations (see Figure 13(b)) | Tens of seconds to several minutes (see Figures 3(a) and 4) | Nonconstant orbit period/mean anomaly drift |
Dimorphos libration state, aligned | Yaw excitation (see Figure 13(d)) and eccentricity (see Figure 13(b)) | Depends on Dimorphos's shape (see Figure 6) | Dimorphos's lightcurve and, possibly, comparisons between DART and Hera imaging |
Dimorphos libration state, nonaligned | Roll and pitch excitation (see Figures 13(e) and 13(f)) | Depends on Dimorphos's shape (see Figure 6) | Dimorphos's lightcurve and, possibly, comparisons between DART and Hera imaging |
Dimorphos shape modification | Orbit period change (see Figure 13(b)) and Dimorphos spin excitation (see Figure 13(d)) | Depends on Dimorphos's shape (up to ∼200 s; see Figure 10) | Dimorphos's lightcurve and, possibly, comparisons between DART and Hera imaging |
Didymos shape modification | Orbit period change (see Figure 13(b)) and Didymos spin change | Depends on Didymos's shape (see Figure 12) | Didymos's lightcurve and, possibly, comparisons between DART and Hera imaging |
Download table as: ASCIITypeset image
The true aftermath of the DART impact will be determined in the weeks, months, and then years following the event, leading to new research assessing the kinetic impactor deflection experiment. No doubt there will be surprises!
We thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments improved the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the DART mission, NASA Contract #80MSFC20D0004 to JHU/APL. F.F. acknowledges funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Ambizione grant No. 193346. O.K., A.C.B., I.G., M.J., P.M., S.D.R., K.T., and Y.Z. acknowledge funding support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 870377 (project NEO-MAPP). J.W.M. acknowledges support from the DART Participating Scientist Program (#80NSSC21K1048). S.R.S. acknowledges support from the DART Participating Scientist Program (#80NSSC22K0318). A.C.B. acknowledges funding from the Spanish MICINN RTI2018-099464-B-I00. E.D. and A.R. acknowledge financial support from Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI, contract No. 2019-31-HH.0 CUP F84I190012600). E.G.F. acknowledges that some of this work was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA (#80NM0018D0004). P.M. acknowledges support from the French space agency CNES. R.N. acknowledges support from NASA/FINESST (NNH20ZDA001N).
Footnotes
- 25
- 26
- 27
For a uniform triaxial ellipsoid, the moments of inertia A, B, and C are related to the respective semi-axis lengths a, b, and c through the following relations:
,
, and
, where m is the ellipsoid mass.
- 28
In fact, the binary's obliquity to its heliocentric orbit is nearly 180°, but for ease of discussion, the two-body angular momentum is taken to be oriented "upward," both here and in Figure 5.
- 29
This means that DART will impact ∼20 minutes before the moment when the impact would have been head on. In other words, a small amount of momentum will also be transferred in the instantaneous radial direction.
- 30
This condition assumes that the system is in its dynamically relaxed state and that Dimorphos is in synchronous rotation (Section 2). Thus, the leading direction corresponds to the intermediate principal axis.