A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LHB - Last Heavy Bombardment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 15th 04, 04:48 PM
Zague
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LHB - Last Heavy Bombardment

I trying to figure the level of cometary/asteroid activity, again for -
100 MY. I found one article that tells about the "Last Heavy
Bombardment", LHB, that ended around -3.8 BY, not long (all things
relative in this domain) before life appears on Earth.

I can't find any other period of LHB after that, or any other definite
level of bombardment for that matter. The asteroid/comet that hit Earth
-65 MY and contributed to the end of dinosaurs wouldn't have been part
of a noticeably more active period in that regard.

So, the model I'm building in my head is that when Earth is forming,
all sorts of planetoids, comets and asteroids are
aggregating/impacting. Once the planets and moons are formed, it gets
more or less quiet on that front.

From then on (-3.8 BY), it's relatively stable. The solar system's

various bodies exert tidal forces on the asteroid belt, the Kuiper belt
and the Oort cloud, and, with more or less regularity, new comets
detach from the Oort Cloud, new asteroids leave their old orbit, and
eventually or never impact some planet, moon or the Sun itself. There
is no lenghty gradual pattern of diminishing impacts.

Thus, I can't say that around -100 MY, there is more comets or
asteroids on a potential collision course with Earth. It's not
scientifically defendable that, let's say, the solar system gets safer
in that regard as time passes. Is that heresy ?

Does anyone know of some graphic that would show the impact/time ratio
since the birth of our planet ? I haven't found any.

Thanks!

Zague

  #2  
Old December 16th 04, 01:13 AM
Glenn Holliday
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Zague wrote:

Thus, I can't say that around -100 MY, there is more comets or
asteroids on a potential collision course with Earth. It's not
scientifically defendable that, let's say, the solar system gets safer
in that regard as time passes. Is that heresy ?


I haven't looked up references, so I'm replying from memory of
various articles I've read over the year.

The conventional view is that the solar system did get safer compared
to its early life. The disk around the sun from which the planets
formed was originally denser. As the material in the disk
accreted into planets and smaller bodies, that material came
out of the disk, so the space between planets, and especially
in the planetary orbits, became less dense. There were fewer
bodies to crash into Earth because they had already crashed
into Earth in the first few billion years. The forming planets
swept the dust and particles that were in their path, adding
them to the planetary mass.

So, just as I expect to find less dirt on my kitchen floor
after I've been sweeping it a while, I expect to find fewer
impacts on Earth after Earth has been sweeping its space
for a while. The impacts we see today are mostly from
objects in eccentric orbits that originate from further out
in the solar system.

--
Glenn Holliday


  #3  
Old December 16th 04, 09:18 PM
Zague
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Glen. It seems that after the planets formed, impacts are high
for still some time and then we get into a rather stable state that
could only be changed by major events like a close encounter with
another star.

It could correspond to some inverse exponential curve where the number
of impacts will diminish rapidly and the system will cruise for a long
time on a somewhat asymptotic line.

I've read somewhere that there's a little more activity every 100 MY or
so, but I don't have more than that. It might as well be some confusion
with the probability of a Chicxulub size collision which is also in the
order or one every 100 MY.

Zague

  #4  
Old December 16th 04, 09:18 PM
Zague
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Glen. It seems that after the planets formed, impacts are high
for still some time and then we get into a rather stable state that
could only be changed by a major event like a close encounter with
another star.

It could correspond to some inverse exponential curve where the number
of impacts will diminish rapidly and the system will cruise for a long
time on a somewhat asymptotic line.

I've read somewhere that there's a little more activity every 100 MY or
so, but I don't have more than that. It might as well be some confusion
with the probability of a Chicxulub size collision which is also in the
order or one every 100 MY.

Zague

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers Cris Fitch Technology 40 March 24th 04 04:28 PM
High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers Cris Fitch Policy 82 March 24th 04 04:28 PM
Delta V Heavy as a manned launch vehicle? Ruediger Klaehn Policy 23 January 29th 04 06:23 PM
Stars Rich In Heavy Metals Tend To Harbor Planets, Astronomers Report Ron Baalke Misc 5 August 10th 03 10:58 PM
Stars rich in heavy metals tend to harbor planets, astronomers report(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 21st 03 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.