All Figures

$\begin{figure} \par\includegraphics[width=9cm]{6532fi1a.eps}\par\includegraphics[width=9cm]{6532fi1b.eps}\end{figure}$ Figure 1: The stability of the proper elements in the MB (we plot a vs. e ( upper panel) and a vs. $\sin i$ ( lower panel)). As in the original Astdys figures the black dots are the bodies with stable proper elements; in some cases the proper element undergo some not negligible oscillations (here represented by stars; we used the rms deviation, maximum between e and i, for sake of homogeneity with the above quoted figures presented in the Astdys site). In other cases the chaotic behaviour is suggested by a Lyapounov time smaller than a given threshold ( $\tau_{\rm L} <20~000~\rm{y}$ , here represented by diamonds).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} \mbox{ \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fi2a.ps}\hspace*{2mm} \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fi2b.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 2: The figure in the left panel represents the spectral slope of the numbered MB asteroids vs. the Lyapounov exponent (in $~\rm{My^{-1}}$ , logarithmic scale) obtained by Astdys database. Note that only the cases for which the exponent is larger than 5 have been included (see text). The curve represents the best linear fit. The figure in the right panel represents the slope vs. the maximum rms deviation (in logarithmic scale), concerning proper eccentricity or inclination, obtained during the computation of synthetic proper elements. The curve represents the best linear fit.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig3.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 3: The combination of Papers I and II: the exposure-corrected slope (see text) vs. the perihelion. The symbols have a size which is proportional to the physical size of the corresponding body. Different symbols are used for S and Q types (see Paper II for a detailed discussion). The slope-perihelion relation is confirmed, but the Mars Crossers have a systematically smaller ECS in comparison to NEOs. See the text for discussion. The vertical dotted lines correspond to the semimajor axes of the planets.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig4.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 4: The slope-exposure relation for the MB asteroids (+) allows to obtain a linear fit. The mean slope-exposure value corresponding to Mars crossers is well below the best fit line. We adjusted the age (and thus the exposure) of Mars crossers to have their mean value consistent with the MBAs best fit line. With this correction the Mars crossers are represented in the figure. The exposure correction correspond to the distance between the two vertical lines.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig5.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 5: The slope-exposure plot including MBAs, MC and NEOs. A linear fit is plotted, as done in Paper I. A logarithmic plot is also represented (see the text for comparison and discussion).
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig6.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 6: Using the logarithmic fit presented in the previous figure, we have corrected the observed slope. We plot the residual slope value (i.e. the difference between the real and the fit values) as function of the perihelion. The existence of a significant relation between the residual slope and the perihelion is apparent at least for semimajor axis smaller than 1 AU. The features in the region between the Earth and Mars are discussed in the text.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig7.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 7: Slope final plot. In the right panel we represent the distribution of the slope of ordinary chondrites. Note that the slope is on the ordinate, while the number of objects is in abscissa. The mean slope for ordinary chondrites is represented by the horizontal line, which continues also in the left panel. In this latter, we represent the slope-exposure for all asteroids in our sample. The exposure is now represented in a logarithmic scale, thus the logarithmic fit is given by a line. We compare the "nominal'' fit (represented in Fig. 5) and the perihelion-corrected one (solid line). We represent also the slope-exposure relation which can be obtained from the photometric data on family asteroids presented by Nesvorny et al. (2005). See text for discussion.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig8.ps} } \end{figure}$ Figure 8: We represent the deviation of the mean slope from the fitted relation as a function of the semimajor axis in the region of Main Belt. For comparison, we represent also the location of dynamical families, with different properties (the dots correspond to strongly fractured families, for which the estimated mass of the largest fragment is less than $30\%$ of the parent body mass. The comparison shows no evident correlation between the structure of the deviation plot and the presence of families. See text for discussion.
Open with DEXTER

In the text

$\begin{figure} { \includegraphics[angle=270,width=9cm,clip]{6532fig5.ps} } \end{figure}$	Figure 5: The slope-exposure plot including MBAs, MC and NEOs. A linear fit is plotted, as done in Paper I. A logarithmic plot is also represented (see the text for comparison and discussion).
Open with DEXTER