A&A 413, 1163-1175 (2004)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031564
O. Groussin - P. Lamy - L. Jorda
Laboratoire d'Astronomie Spatiale, BP 8, 13376 Marseille Cedex 12, France
Received 12 February 2003 / Accepted 30 September 2003
Abstract
We analyze visible, infrared, radio and spectroscopic
observations of 2060 Chiron in a synthetic way to determine the
physical properties of its nucleus. From visible observations
performed from 1969 to 2001, we determine an absolute V magnitude
for the nucleus of
with an amplitude of
,
implying a nearly spherical nucleus with a ratio of semi-axes
.
Infrared observations at 25, 60, 100 and 160
m (i.e., covering the broad maximum of the spectral energy
distribution) obtained with the Infrared Space Observatory Photometer
(ISOPHOT) in June 1996 when Chiron was near its perihelion are
analyzed with a thermal model which considers an intimate mixture of
water ice and refractory materials and includes heat conduction into
the interior of the nucleus. We find a very low thermal inertia of
3+5-3 J K-1 m-2 s-1/2 and a radius of
km. Combining the visible and infrared observations, we
derive a geometric albedo of
.
We find that the observed
spectra of Chiron can be fitted by a mixture of water ice (
30%) and refractory (
70%) grains, and that this surface model
has a geometric albedo consistent with the above value. We also
analyze the visible, infrared and radio observations of Chariklo (1997
CU26) and derive a radius of
km, a geometric albedo of
and a thermal inertia of 0
+2-0 J K-1 m-2 s-1/2. A mixture of water ice (
20%)
and refractory (
80%) grains is compatible with the
near-infrared spectrum and the above albedo.
Key words: minor planets, asteroids
2060 Chiron (hereafter Chiron) is a transition object between the
Kuiper belt objects and the Jupiter family comets (Kowall
1996). Its semimajor axis a=13.620 AU classifies it
in the Centaur family, with an orbit between Jupiter (a=5 AU) and
Neptune (a=30 AU). Chiron is actually one of the few Centaurs
which displays activity (Tholen et al. 1988) together with,
for example, P/Oterma, P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1 and C/NEAT (2001 T4)
(Bauer et al. 2003). It has therefore attracted
considerable interest, in particular during its perihelion passage (15
Feb. 1996, at q=8.45 AU), because it was anticipated that its
activity would increase. From the numerous observations carried out
so far and which will be later discussed in detail, it emerges the
picture of a body having the following properties. The radius
determinations vary from 74 to 104 km. The synodic rotation period
is well determined and was equal to 5.917813 0.000007 h on
January 1991 (Marcialis & Buratti 1993). The short
period lightcurve patterns detected by Marcialis & Buratti
(1993) "probably are due to an irregular or
faceted body, and they offer evidence that Chiron currently presents
an approximately equatorial aspect to the Earth''. Moreover, the
amplitude of the lightcurve indicates a quasi-spherical body. The
geometric albedo of the nucleus is
0.14-0.03+0.06 (Campins et al. 1994) which is larger than the range of
0.04
0.02 found for other cometary nuclei (Lamy et al.
2004). The spectrum of Chiron is featureless and quite
flat in the 0.5-0.9
m range, although variations of a few
percents in the slope of the spectral reflectivity can occur (Lazzaro
et al. 1997). Recent publications by Foster et al.
(1999) and Luu et al. (2000) reported the
detection of water ice on the basis of absorption features near 2.0
m. A similar result already obtained on
Pholus and
Chariklo(1997 CU26) suggests that water ice is probably ubiquitous on the
surface of Centaurs (Brown 2000). During the 1987 to 1990 interval,
when Chiron was beyond 11 AU from the Sun, a large brightening was
observed which is not yet very well understood. At such a
heliocentric distance, the activity is believed to be dominated by the
sublimation of CO (Capria et al. 1996).
In this paper, we analyze visible, infrared, radio and spectroscopic
observations of 2060 Chiron in a synthetic way to determined the
physical properties of its nucleus. In Sect. 2, we first summarize
observations of Chiron at visible, infrared (including unique ISOPHOT
observations at 25, 60, 100 and 160 m) and radio wavelengths
and by stellar occultation, discussing the results of each approach
and their limitations. In Sect. 3, we explain in detail our thermal
model used to interpret the infrared observations, which includes
dust, water ice and heat conduction into the interior of the nucleus.
In Sect. 4, we discuss the results: thermal inertia, radius,
geometric albedo, reflectance of the nucleus, composition of the
surface, contribution of the coma to the visible and infrared fluxes,
and comparison of our model with previous infrared observations. In
Sect. 5, we extend our analysis to the Centaur Chariklo (1997 CU26).
Figure 1 summarizes measurements of the magnitude of
Chiron performed between September 1969 and August 2001. We favored
the V magnitudes when available, otherwise we converted the Rmagnitudes using V-R=0.37 (Hartmann et al. 1990).
This quasi-solar color correction is justified by the neutral spectrum
of Chiron obtained in June 1996 by Lazzaro et al.
(1997). Our observation was performed with the Danish
1.54 m telescope at ESO, La Silla, in support of the ISOPHOT
observations performed 10 days before. Several images were acquired
through the R filter on 1996 June 25.02 UT, when the comet was at
a helicentric distance of 8.468 AU and a geocentric distance of
8.326 AU. Standard stars from the Landolt field PG1323-086
(Landholt 1992) were used to perform an absolute
calibration of the images. We obtained a magnitude
which we converted to
with the above color index.
![]() |
Figure 1: Absolute magnitudes Hv of Chiron as a function of heliocentric distance and time. |
Open with DEXTER |
The derivation of the absolute magnitude
Hv=V(1,1,0) requires
a correction for the phase effect. From their observations of
December 1986 which covered a very small range of phase angles
(1.05
to 1.62
)
and using the (H,G) formalism,
Bus et al. (1989) derived a value G=0.7. But later in
1996, when Chiron was at a comparable level of activity, Lazzaro et al. (1997) determined a very different value, G=0.42.
We do concur with Lazzaro et al. (1996) that the
correction for the phase effect poses a problem because of the
activity of Chiron resulting in a variable coma and that the (H,G)formalism may not be appropriate in this case. In view of this
situation, we decided to adopt the simple linear phase function with a
coefficient
mag deg-1, typical of
cometary nuclei and also consistent with the data of Bus et al.
(1989). We applied this phase correction to the whole set
of observations plotted in Fig. 1. In this present
study, the above problem is alleviated by the fact that we focus our
attention to the faintest magnitudes of Chiron, hopefully reflecting a
situation where the coma was negligibly faint. Moreover, the
difference between Hv calculated with G=0.7 or
mag/deg is lower than 2% for Chiron as the phase
angle is always
.
As illustrated by the variations of Hv with heliocentric
distance (Fig. 1), Chiron underwent considerable
variations of its activity, with a general trend totally uncorrelated
with its heliocentric distance. A long phase of activity took place
before 1978, fully documented by Bus et al. (2001).
Beginning at some unknown time prior to the earliest observations in
1969, the brightness of Chiron reached a peak by late 1972, about two
years after aphelion and was then 0.4 mag brighter than at
the second outburst of 1989. Following the 1972 peak, the activity
gradually decreased so that a minimum was reached between 14 and 16 AU. It then resumed quite rapidly to reach a maximum at 12.5 AU in
September 1988 and then progressively decayed. Chiron was still
active at perihelion (8.45 AU). Post-perihelion, the decrease of
activity continued and Chiron reached what appears to be its absolute
minimum of activity in June 1997 with
Hv=7.28, i.e. 0.5
magnitude lower than the minimum of 6.8 reached at 14-16 AU
pre-perihelion. This therefore yields the best estimate of the
magnitude of the nucleus. Next, the activity increased again very
rapidly and the magnitude reached 5.75 on April 2001. The whole set
of data displays conspicuous "short-term'' variations of the activity
which can reach 0.3-0.4 mag over a few months.
The large outbursts which culminated at 12.5 AU pre-perihelion and
10.5 AU post-perihelion as well as the aphelion outburst are not
well understood. Water ice does not sublimate beyond 6 AU and CO
and/or CO2 must probably be invoked to explain such an activity
at large heliocentric distances (Capria et al. 1996).
CO has indeed been marginally detected in June 1995 when Chiron was at
8.50 AU from the Sun by Womack & Stern (1997) who
derived a production rate of
s-1.
Rauer et al. (1997) derived an upper limit of
s-1 for the CO production rate near
perihelion. Different mechanisms have been proposed: a heat wave
reaching the CO sublimation front (Schmitt et al.
1991), shape and/or albedo effects on the surface of the
nucleus and mantle disruption (Johnson 1991). The most
comprehensive work to explain the activity variations of Chiron was
performed by Duffard et al. (2002): using a model for
the coma developed by Meech & Belton (1990) and assuming
a long lifetime of 1400 days for the particules in the coma, they
could fit all the photometric data over 30 yr. According to this
model, outbursts could be produced by the gas outflow of CO, CO2,
or another element of similar volatility from an active region.
The question of the detection of the nucleus of Chiron can also be
approached by considering its rotational lightcurve, as its variation
with a period of 5.92 h is correctly attributed to a spinning,
non-spherical solid body. Since the direction of the spin axis is not
expected to change, the long-term change in the amplitude
of the lightcurve of Chiron (nucleus+coma) can be
unambiguously attributed to the varying level of the coma. This can
be verified by the excellent anti-correlation between
and Hv as summarized in Table 1, with the
exceptions of the 29 February 1988 and 20 February 1993 observations.
The first observation (19 January 1985) gave a lower limit as it
missed the extrema of the lightcurve. The formal method to analyze
was presented by Luu & Jewitt (1990)
who derived a formula relating
,
Hv, the
absolute magnitude H0 of the nucleus and the amplitude of its
lightcurve
:
Table 1:
Absolute magnitudes Hv and magnitude variations
of the lightcurve of Chiron.
![]() |
Figure 2:
The amplitude of the lightcurve
![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
Table 2: Infrared and radio observations of Chiron
Table 2 summarizes the infrared and radio observations of Chiron. The results are separated in three different wavelength intervals: 10-25 m for the mid-infrared, 25-160
m for the far-infrared and 800-1200
m for the radio (submillimetric and millimetric) domains. There is no observations between 160 and 800
m.
The first interval 10-25 m is in the Wien region of the spectral energy distribution (SED) for an expected color temperature of 120 K (Campins et al. 1994).
Observations in this range were first performed by Lebofsky et al. (1984) at 22.5
m, later by Campins et al. (1994) between 10.6 and 20.0
m, and recently by Fernandez et al. (2002) at 12.5 and 17.9
m. Altogether, these observations lead to a large range of radius values, between 70 and 104 km (Table 3).
The second interval 25-160 m contains the maximum of the SED. The IRAS observations performed in 1983 at 25 and 60
m (Sykes & Walker 1991) did not detect Chiron but allow to set an upper limit for the radius of 186 km.
Chiron was later unambigously detected thanks to observations performed with the ISOPHOT photometer aboard the ISO satellite from 8 to 15 June 1996 (Peschke 1997). Chiron was then near perihelion at a heliocentric distance of 8.46 AU, thus maximizing its thermal emission. Four filters centered at 25, 60, 100 and 160
m were used. We calculated the average of the infrared fluxes over the three nights of observation, weighted by the error on the flux for each wavelength and normalized to
AU (the difference on
and
is marginal), and we obtained
mJy,
mJy,
mJy and
mJy at 25
m, 60
m, 100
m and 160
m respectively. The error-bars reflect the statistical errors derived with the ISOPHOT Interactive Analysis software (PIA) and the current absolute calibration accuracy of 30% of the detectors.
The fluxes at 160
m must be considered with caution. Measurements of faint point sources with ISOPHOT at this wavelength were exceedingly difficult because of the sky confusion noise (Kiss et al. 2001). The real uncertainty on those measurements is therefore larger than the formal values given in Table 2. The ISOPHOT observations at 25, 60 and 100
m are particulary well suited to determine the radius of Chiron, as they cover the maximum of the SED. The interpretation of these ISOPHOT observations, which has not yet been done, is presented in Sect. 4.
The last wavelength interval 800-1200 m corresponds to the Rayleigh-Jeans regime where the flux is proportional to
.
The observations are very difficult to perform, because the expected signal is very low. The main advantage of these measurements resides in their low sensitivity to the color temperature of the body, that is to the thermal model. Jewitt & Luu (1992) could not detect Chiron at 800
m, and they gave a
upper limit of 150 km for the radius. The successful detection of Chiron later performed by Altenhoff & Stumpff (1995) at 1200
m led to a radius of 84 km.
Table 3: Radius and geometric albedo determination of Chiron.
The past infrared and radio observations were interpreted using either a standard thermal model (STM) which assumes no thermal inertia, or an isothermal-latitude model (ILM) which assumes an infinite thermal inertia (Lebofsky & Spencer 1989), or a modified STM which includes thermal inertia (Jewitt & Luu 1992).
The strong influence of the thermal inertia I is highlighted in Fig. 3 where the surface temperature at the equator is plotted as a function of longitude.
When I increases, the profile becomes smoother as more energy is transfered by conduction from the day side into the nucleus to heat the night side. In other words, when I increases, the temperature decreases on the day side and increases on the night side. In the extreme case of an infinite thermal inertia, the temperature is constant across the nucleus for a given latitude.
Note that Chiron was always observed with a phase angle
.
![]() |
Figure 3:
Equatorial temperature profiles over the nucleus surface for thermal inertia I=0, 10, 100 J K-1 m-2 s-1/2 and ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
When using the infrared or radio observations alone, the size of the nucleus is determined assuming a geometric albedo. Adding visible observations allows to independently determine the size and the geometric albedo. This method, extensively used on asteroids, can give excellent results as recently demonstrated for 433 Eros: the combination of the visible and infrared ground-based observations performed in 1974/75 by Morrison (1976) led to a radius of 22 km and a geometric albedo of 0.18, a result in very good agreement with the recent in-situ observations performed by the NEAR spacecraft which led to a
km nucleus and a geometric albedo of 0.16.
Table 3 summarizes the radius and geometric albedo determinations obtained by different authors for Chiron. Depending upon the observation and the model, the values vary from 71 km to 104 km with a mean value of
88 km. Values of the geometric albedo range from 0.10 to 0.17, with a mean value of
0.14.
The determination of the radius and the geometric albedo of the nucleus of Chiron faces two kinds of difficulties. First, it is model-dependent as a thermal model is required to interpret the infrared and radio observations. It is important to assess this dependence and, in particular, the impact of the thermal inertia. Second, the nucleus is often active and its coma, even too faint to be detected, may affect the results.
The occultation of a star by a solid body is in principle a powerful method to determine its size. Such an event took place for Chiron in November 1993 and observations were attempted from five different sites in California. Only one site was successful in recording a useful lightcurve, although a second site had a marginal detection of the extinction of the starlight, and a preliminary value of the size of Chiron was reported by Buie et al. (1993). There are many problems involved in the analysis of an occulation, amplified in this case by the very small apparent size of Chiron (0.03 arcsec) and by the presence of a coma. Moreover the sampling of the lightcurve is somewhat sparse, only eight points, and its interpretation is not unique, especially if a coma is introduced. The detailed analysis performed by Bus et al. (1996) led to two slightly different values (Table 3) depending upon whether the marginal detection is considered. Their analysis convincingly shows that the star track was nearly diametral and that a dust coma was indeed present (and possibly jets) consistent with an absolute magnitude
Hv=6.41 at the time of the occultation. Taking into account the marginal detection, they determined a radius of 89.6
6.8 km.
In order to interpret the ISOPHOT observations as well as all other thermal observations in a coherent way, we considered a thermal model as well as appropriate assumptions. We assumed a spherical nucleus rotating with a period of 5.92 h with its spin axis perpendicular to the comet orbital plane, in good agreement with the observations discussed in the previous section.
The parameter
introduced by Spencer et al. (1989) is useful to estimate the influence of the heat conduction and to choose the appropriate thermal model. It is defined as:
![]() |
(2) |
The mixed model (MM) has already been introduced by Lamy et al. (2002) to interpret the infrared observations of the nucleus of 22P/Kopff. It assumes an intimate, microscopic mixture of dust and water ice grains, so that the thermal coupling between the grains is perfect and there is only one temperature for the mixture. As the ice is "dirty'', the geometric albedo can be low (Clark & Lucey 1984) and this is further discussed in Sect. 4.2 below. As explained by Jewitt & Luu (1992), the sublimation of water ice can be neglected for Chiron, and in this case, our MM is equivalent to their thermal model: a STM with heat conduction.
Thermal balance on the surface between the solar flux received by the nucleus on the one hand, the reradiated flux and the heat conduction on the other hand is expressed as:
We considered the one-dimensional time-dependent equation for the heat conduction:
The boundary conditions are given by Eq. (6) at the surface, and by Eq. (7) at a depth d:
In Eq. (6), all thermal parameters of the nucleus are regrouped into a single quantity, the thermal inertia
[J K-1 m-2 s-1/2]. This is now the only parameter that we will consider when solving the system of Eqs. (5)+(6)+(7). Table 4 gives estimates of the thermal inertia for different bodies of the Solar System.
The nucleus is divided in several layers of thickness dx' where dx'=0.25 is enough for Chiron to ensure a good convergence. The longitude is represented by the time parameter t. As t increases, the nucleus rotates and the longitude, reckoned from the sub-solar point, changes. We took a step d
,
which correponds to
21 s for a period
h and which is enough to reach the convergence. Tests were performed with lower values of dx' and dt and led to marginal differences.
We calculated the temperature T at each point
of the surface to obtain a temperature map
,
where
is the latitude and
is the longitude. For illustration, the temperature profile along the equator (
)
is displayed in Fig. 3 for different thermal inertia.
Table 4: Estimated thermal inertia I for different bodies of the Solar System.
The thermal flux
of an unresolved nucleus measured by an observer located at geocentric distance
is the integral over the nucleus of
where
is the Planck function and
is given by the MM:
The various parameters involved in the thermal models are not known for cometary nuclei. We discuss below how we selected their respective values.
The infrared emissivity
is taken equal to 0.95, the middle point of the interval 0.9-1.0 always quoted in the literature. As the interval is very small and the value near 1.0, this uncertainty has a negligible influence on the calculated thermal flux.
The beaming factor
reflects the influence of surface roughness which produces an anisotropic thermal emission, and theorically ranges from 0 to 1. For physical reasons,
is higher than 0.7, otherwise it implies a very high, unrealistic, roughness, with a rms slope higher than 1 (Lagerros 1998). We adopted the value of
,
derived from observations of 1 Ceres and 2 Pallas by Lebofsky et al. (1986), as those objects have a geometric albedo (0.10 and 0.14 respectively) similar to that of Chiron. Note that, on the basis of the work of Lagerros (1998), Lamy et al. (2002) used a slightly larger value
for the nucleus of 22P/Kopff as this body has a lower geometric albedo
pv=0.04. As the temperature varies as
,
the beaming factor may have an important effect on thermal flux and, in turn, on the radius determination of the nucleus.
The Bond albedo A requires a knowledge of the phase integral q, which measures the angular dependence of the scattered radiation. We choose q=0.4, the value found for 2 Pallas (Lebofsky et al. 1986) since its geometric albedo pv=0.14 is comparable to that of Chiron. We note that this value of q is significantly different from the value q=0.28 chosen for 22P/Kopff (Lamy et al. 2002) since those two objects have quite difference surface properties. However q has little influence and the above values yielded similar results.
For the geometric albedo, we took pv=0.11, which is the value derived from the ISOPHOT observations and which will be discussed in the next section. It will then be shown that the results are almost independent of the geometric albedo in the range 0.01-0.15.
The determination of the thermal inertia I and the radius
of the nucleus is performed by minimizing the
expression defined as:
![]() |
(11) |
Figure 5 displays the SED of Chiron from 10 m to 200
m for the mixed model (MM), for the above values and the 1
uncertainty. The fit to the data points is excellent, except at 160
m for reasons already discussed.
![]() |
Figure 4:
Value of the ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 5:
The SED of the nucleus of Chiron for the mixed model (MM) with a radius
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
The value of 71 5 km for the radius is lower than the bulk of
the previous estimates (Table 3), but in excellent
agreement with the recent determination of 74
4 km by Fernandez
et al. (2002). The value of
3+5-3 MKS for
the thermal inertia is very low, but coherent with our present
understanding of primitive bodies. Indeed, Fernandez et al.
(2002) determined a thermal inertia <10.5 MKS for
Asbolus, and Spencer et al. (1989) suggested a thermal
inertia <15 MKS for asteroids Ceres and Pallas, lower than that
of the Moon (50 MKS). The low thermal inertia of Chiron indicates
a low thermal conductivity for the surface material, and probably a
porous surface as supposed for the majority of cometary nuclei (e.g.
Klinger et al. 1996; Skorov et al. 1999).
As pointed out above, the only parameter on which the thermal model
and consequently the results are sensitive is the beaming factor
,
which ranges from 0.7-1.0 (see Sect. 3.4). For
,
as justified in Sect. 3.4, we obtained the best fit
with a radius
km and a thermal inertia I=3 MKS.
For the extreme, unrealistic value of
,
the best fit is
obtained with
km and I=0 MKS, and for
with
km and I=5 MKS. For
,
the value used for 22P/Kopff (Lamy et al.
2002), we obtained
km and I=0 MKS.
Consequently, the choice of
,
in the range 0.7-0.85, has
practically no influence on the determination of the radius and the
thermal inertia.
In order to determine the size and the geometric albedo of Chiron
without any assumptions, we need two independent relationships. The
first one is given by the visible observations and we used the value
discussed in Sect. 2.1,
,
for the absolute Vmagnitude of the nucleus. The nucleus radius
and the
geometric albedo pv are linked to H0 using the
relationship of Bowell et al. (1989):
The second relationship between
and pv is given by the thermal flux via
Eq. (8) where the surface temperature T depends on
pv through A=pvq. We used I=3 MKS, as
determined previously, and the ISOPHOT fluxes at 25, 60 and 100
m. We graphically combined the visible and the infrared
constraints, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The
curves represents the infrared and visible constraints which cross
themselves nearly orthogonally; this minimizes the error on the
determination of
and pv. Moreover, the infrared
constraint is almost independent of the geometric albedo in the range
0.01-0.15, yielding a quasi constant value for the radius in this
range (variation <3%). The geometric albedo is only constrained by
the absolute magnitude of the nucleus H0.
![]() |
Figure 6:
The albedo-radius diagram for Chiron. The infrared constraints come from the ISOPHOT observations with the models presented in Fig. 3. The visible constraint is given by the visible absolute magnitude of the nucleus of Chiron
![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
For our solution, a MM with a thermal inertia of 3 MKS and a radius
of 71 km, we obtained a geometric albedo of 0.11 0.02, the
uncertainty coming from the error affecting H0. This value is in
excellent agreement with the determination of Campins et al.
(1994). Fernandez et al. (2002)
obtained a higher geometric albedo of 0.17
0.02 assuming
H0=6.96. Using H0=7.28 instead yields 0.13
0.02, in
excellent agreeement with our determination. The geometric albedo
cannot be used to constrain the thermal inertia. This shows the
importance of combining infrared AND visible observations to estimate
altogether pv,
and I.
The geometric albedo of 0.11 is higher than the typical range
0.02-0.06 found for the nucleus of short period comets (Lamy et al.
2004) and this probably results from the presence of water
ice at the surface of Chiron, a question discussed in the following
section.
![]() |
Figure 7: Observed spectra of Chiron compared to laboratory experiments with mixtures of charcoal and water ice. |
Open with DEXTER |
We now consider the spectrum of Chiron to characterize its surface.
We assembled a composite spectrum by combining the results of Lebofsky
et al. (1984), Foster et al. (1999) and
Luu et al. (2000) in Figs. 7-10. We normalized the spectrum of Foster et al.
and Luu et al. at 2.2 m, and we applied a scaling factor of
0.95 to the spectrum of Lebofsky et al. (originally normalized at
0.55
m) in order to insure continuity at 1
m. Each
spectrum was sampled and then interpolated using cubic splines.
There are obvious problems with the infrared spectra, in particular
with that of Luu et al. (2000): the 1.5
m band
appears misplaced and the apparent absorption longward of 2.2
m is probably spurious. However, the composite spectrum exhibit
well-defined features, an almost flat part extending from 0.5 to
1.1
m and the two aborption band of water ice at 1.5 and
2.0
m. These features, and particulary the contrast of the
bands, can be used to set limits on the fractional coverage of ice.
![]() |
Figure 8:
Observed spectra of Chiron compared to two mixtures
of astronomical silicate and water ice grains in different proportions.
The grain size is 10 ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 9:
Observed spectra of Chiron compared to two mixtures
of astronomical silicate and water ice grains, with grain sizes of 1 and
100 ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 10:
Observed spectra of Chiron compared to three different mixtures of 30% of water ice +70% of refractory grains (silicate, glassy carbon or kerogen). The grain size is 10 ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
We start by comparing the spectrum of Chiron with laboratory results
on different samples which are intimate, microscopic mixtures of
different grains. The main advantage of using spectra obtained
with laboratory experiments is that they are far more realistic than
computed spectrum, which further involve many unknown parameters.
Figure 7 diplays the reflectance of two
mixtures of water ice and charcoal measured by Clark & Lucey
(1984) using the experiment chamber of Clark
(1981). Mixture A (50% charcoal +50% water ice)
exhibits a 2.0 m band approximately similar to the observed
one but unfortunately a steep gradient in the visible. Mixture B
(70% charcoal +30% water ice) alleviates this problem at the
expense of producing too low a reflectance in the visible and too low
a contrast of the 2.0
m band. None of the two mixtures
exhibits the 1.5
m aborption band. It is tempting to use a
linear combination of the A and B spectra to better reproduce the
observations. Figure 7 displays the solution
"0.25 A + 0.75 B'' which indeed offers a better fit to the
observations than any of the two individual mixtures. Applying the
above linear scaling, this solution contains approximately 65% of
charcoal and 35% of water ice. The fit is not perfect but gives
a rough idea of the amount of water ice on the surface of Chiron,
35%. Unfortunately, the geometric albedo of a body having
a surface composed of such a mixture is not known but is probably low
owing to the large percentage of refractory material, a result
justified in the next section.
We now calculate the reflectance of simple areal mixtures of water ice and other refractory materials. The advantage of this approach is twofold, first the parameters may be varied at will, and second the reflectance and the geometric albedo of a body covered with the considered mixture can be simultaneously calculated. The drawback of this approach is the large number of (unknown) parameters such as the optical properties of the materials and the distribution function of the grain size, and the solutions are no means unique. The model considers macroscopic mixtures so that there is no interaction between the components, and the resulting reflectance spectrum is a linear combination of the individual spectra according to the selected fractional coverage of each component. It has already been applied to Chiron: Foster et al. (1999) combined 20% of water ice with 80% of a spectrally neutral material while Luu et al. (2000) combined water ice and olivine in unspecified proportion to interpret their observations.
For the present study, we used the numerical code of Roush (1994), based on the Hapke formalism (Hapke 1993) and considered mixtures of water ice with three different refractory materials. First, a silicate, known as "astronomical silicate'' in the literature; its optical constants come from Draine & Lee (1984). Second, glassy carbon, an amorphous form of carbon; its optical constants come from Edoh (1983). Third, a kerogen, a highly processed organic residue; its optical constants come from Khare et al. (1990). The optical constants of water ice come from Warren (1984).
Figure 8 displays our results obtained for
a mixture of water ice + silicate with a unique grain size
of 10 m. The percentage of water ice was tuned to produce the
observed contrast of the 2.0
m band. It amounts to 15%
to match the spectrum of Foster et al. (1999) and to
30% to match that of Luu et al. (2000). The fits are
quite satisfactory in the interval 1.4 to 2.1
m in spite of a
slight mismatch of the 1.5
m band, but this may comes
from the spectrum of Luu et al. (2000) as discussed above.
However, the amount of water ice strongly depends upon the grain size.
Figure 9 displays the same fit but, for
two different grain sizes, 1
m and 100
m. In order to
match the observed spectrum and especially the contrast of the 2.0
m band, the amount of water ice must be less than 3% for a grain
size of 100
m, and larger than 80% for a grain size of 1
m.
In order to test whether the above mixtures are compatible with
the albedo of 0.11 0.02 determined in Sect. 4.2, we used a
numerical code written by Roush (1994) to calculate the
geometric albedo of a spherical body in the framework of the Hapke
formalism. The results for the four mixtures water ice + astronomical
silicate considered in Figs. 8 and 9 are represented in Table 5. We obtained similar results for the
other refractory materials, glassy carbon and kerogen. The solution
which best matches both the observed reflectance and albedo of Chiron
corresponds to a mixture of 30% of water ice +70% of refractory
material and a common grain size of
10
m. The resulting
spectra are displayed in Fig. 10. Smaller grain
sizes would require larger water ice fractions resulting in very large
albedos while larger grain sizes result in the opposite situation.
None of the mixture exhibits the observed visible spectrum of Chiron
althougth the discrepancies are not that large and much reduced
compared to the previous solution (Fig. 7).
One cannot reasonably hope that any of the selected material precisely
corresponds to the refractory component of Chiron. For the three
cases of surface composition introduced above (Fig.
10), we found geometric albedos of respectively
0.11 (silicate), 0.13 (glassy carbon) and 0.10 (kerogen), all in
excellent agreement with our result of 0.11
0.02.
Table 5: Calculated geometric albedos for different mixtures of water ice + astronomical silicates and different grain sizes.
In summary, the spectrum of the nucleus of Chiron and its relatively high geometric albedo are both consistent with a surface approximately composed of 30% of water ice and 70% of a refractory material.
We now systematically apply our thermal model, i.e., the mixed model
with the parameters given in Sect. 3.4, a geometric albedo of 0.11
and a thermal inertia of 3 MKS, to all past infrared and radio
observations. This is the first time that this set of observations is
homogeneously analyzed with the same model, thus allowing a meaningful
comparison of the resulting sizes of the nucleus of Chiron. Table 6 summarizes the different radius determinations
which may differ from those found by the authors (cf. Table 3) since they used different thermal models and/or different
parameters. Figure 11 displays the radius
determination versus wavelength for all observations listed in
Table 6. Our result
km
given by our mixed model is in excellent agreement with all
observations above 20
m, including the submillimetric
observations of Altenhoff & Stumpff (1995) at
1200
m. Our result is also consistent with the observations
of Fernandez et al. (2002) at 17.9
m and one
observation of Campins et al. (1994) at 19
m.
The other observations of Campins et al. (1994) tend to
suggest a larger radius. This trend is more pronounced at
10
m, and the observations of Campins et al. (1994)
and Fernandez et al. (2002) yield a radius of
87-112 km. A radius of
km is not compatible with the
occultation performed by Bus et al. (1996), unless taking
into account their error bars at the 3
level. The question of
reconciling thermal infrared observations with results from
occultations has already been addressed by Fernandez et al.
(2002).
Table 6: Nucleus radius from IR and radio observations of Chiron.
![]() |
Figure 11:
Determination of the radius of Chiron from the infrared and radio observations of Table 2, using a mixed model (MM) with a geometric albedo of 0.11 and a thermal inertia of 3 MKS. The solid bold line and the hatched band represent our determination of ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
We address the question of a possible contamination of the ISOPHOT observations by the coma by noting that our visible observation performed 10 days later (25 June 1996) yielded
Hv=6.57.
Assuming an absolute V magnitude of the nucleus of 7.28, we derived a coma contribution of 48% using:
![]() |
(13) |
![]() |
Figure 12:
Determination of the radius of Chariklo from the 20.3 ![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
Chariklo (1997 CU26) was discovered in 1997 with the Spacewatch
telescope (Scotti 1997). It has a perihelion of 13.07 AU, an aphelion of 18.35 AU, an excentricity of 0.31 and an
inclination of 30.1,
which classifies it in the Centaur
family. Several observations were attempted in order to characterize
its physical properties. The visible observations of Davies et al.
(1998) gave an absolute V magnitude
,
using a linear phase function with
mag deg-1. Combining this result with the infrared flux
obtained at 20.3
m, Jewitt & Kalas (1998)
derived a radius of 151 km and a geometric albedo of 0.045.
Altenhoff et al. (2001) performed radio observations
at 1.2 mm and determined a radius of 137 km and a geometric
albedo of 0.055. The infrared and radio observations are presented in
Table 7. The recent observations of
Peixinho et al. (2001) present evidences for
variations of the absolute magnitude of Chariklo over a few months.
Using these data with a linear phase function correction
(
mag deg-1), we determined a range for Hv from 6.52 to 6.90, well within the error bars. We applied our
model used for Chiron to those visible, infrared and radio
observations, in order to determine altogether the radius, the
geometric albedo and the thermal inertia of Chariklo. We adopted a
rotation period of 24 h (Davies et al. 1998).
Table 7: Infrared and radio observations of Chariklo.
As done for Chiron, we minimized the
expression, using the infrared (Jewitt & Kalas 1998) and radio (Altenhoff et al. 2001) constraints, and we derived a radius of 118
6 km and a thermal inertia of 0
+2-0 MKS. As noted previously, this results depend on
.
For
in the range 0.7-1.0, the
expression is minimum for a radius in the range 115-126 km and a thermal inertia of 0 MKS. Consequently, the influence of
is null on the thermal inertia and <10% on the radius. For Chariklo, I must be less than 2 MKS, otherwise the infrared and radio observations are not compatible. This is illustrated in Fig. 12, where we represented the radius determination for different thermal inertia in the range 0-100 MKS, as a function of wavelength. The infrared observations lead to a range of radius of 124 to 266 km, while the radio observations lead to a much narrower range of 116 to 128 km, thus giving a stringent constraint on the nucleus. This large difference of range between the two spectral domains has already been addressed (Sect. 2.2). Using Eq. (12) with the values of
km and
,
we derived a geometric albedo of 0.07
0.01.
In order to complete the analysis of Chariklo, we considered its
reflectance using the spectrum obtained by Brown et al.
(1998), which we normalized at 2.2 m. We favored
this spectrum over that obtained more recently by Brown
(2000) as this latter is of lower quality. Likewise that
of Chiron, it exhibits the water ice absorption bands at 1.5 and
2.0
m with approximatively the same contrast (compare Figs. 13 and 10). We
know from Sect. 5.1 that the geometric albedo of Chariklo
(
)
is slightly lower than that of Chiron (
),
and this requires that the fractional coverage of ice be reduced
in comparison to that of Chiron. In view of the previous discussion
in Sect. 4.3.2, we adopted a grain size of 10
m and found
that the solution which best matches the observed spectrum is composed
of 20% of water ice +80% of refractory materials (either kerogen,
silicate or glassy carbon). As illustrated in Fig. 13, these mixtures give excellent fits to the
spectrum of Chariklo. The corresponding geometric albedos are 0.07
(silicate), 0.09 (glassy carbon) and 0.07 (kerogen), in good agreement
with the above determination of
.
In summary, the spectrum of the nucleus of Chariklo and its
geometric albedo of 0.07 0.01 are both consistent with a surface
approximately composed of 20% of water ice and 80% of a refractory
material.
![]() |
Figure 13:
The observed spectrum of Chariklo compared to four different mixtures of water ice and refractory grains (silicate, glassy carbon or kerogen). The grain size is 10 ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
We have analyzed visible, infrared, radio and spectroscopic observations of 2060 Chiron and 1997 CU26 Chariklo in a synthetic way to determine the physical properties of its nucleus. Our main results are summarized below:
As Centaurs will eventually become ecliptic comets, it is quite interesting to compare the properties of these two families. A major difference is that water ice has been detected at the surface of several Centaurs on the basis of the 1.5 and 2.0 m absorption bands, while it has never been detected on any ecliptic comet nucleus. From the few determinations presently available and clearly on the basis on the above results, several Centaurs have a geometric albedo distinctly larger than that of short period comets. Our calculation suggests that the large fraction of water ice present on the surface of these Centaurs also explain these large albedo values. This would indicate that sublimation is quite effective in weathering the cometary surfaces and decreasing their albedo.
Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to T.L. Roush, who kindly made his program to calculate the reflectance and the geometric albedo available to us and for his helpful comments. We thank the referee, D.P. Cruikshank, for many helpful comments.