Asteroid Density & Impact Rate - Earth vs Mars

  • Thread starter Thread starter mersecske
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Asteroid Density
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the comparison of asteroid impact rates between Earth and Mars, highlighting that the impact rate may depend on factors such as planetary diameter, mass, and asteroid density. Earth benefits from its larger size and stronger gravity, which increases its effective radius for attracting asteroids, making it more likely to experience impacts. Conversely, Mars, being closer to the asteroid belt, may encounter more frequent impacts due to its role in sweeping up asteroids with intersecting orbits. The thinner atmosphere of Mars could also contribute to a higher impact rate, although this requires further quantitative analysis. Overall, while Earth has a greater impact potential due to its mass, Mars's proximity to the asteroid belt complicates the comparison.
mersecske
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
What is the ratio of asteroid impacts on the Mars to the same rate on the Earth?
I think it depends on the diameter of the planets (~ diameter^2),
and on the density of asteroids.
Ca we say something about this second factor?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
mersecske said:
What is the ratio of asteroid impacts on the Mars to the same rate on the Earth?
I think it depends on the diameter of the planets (~ diameter^2),
and on the density of asteroids.
Ca we say something about this second factor?

Are you allowed to just assume that the meteor flux (i.e. the number arriving per unit area and per unit time) is the same for both planets? If so, does this factor matter when computing a ratio?
 
Yes, but this is true? This is my question. This is a good estimation?
I don't think so,
I think, it depends on the asteroid belt dynamics, and the orbit of the planet.

But what is the observation?
For example which planet suffers the most asteroid impact?
 
In Earth's favor is not only its larger diameter, but its higher mass. Asteroids that would have otherwise made a near hit to Earth or Mars will be pulled closer due to gravity. Earth has stronger gravity than Mars. The formula is Effective Radius = True Radius * sqrt(1+2GMv^2/True Radius), where M is the mass of the planet, and v is the asteroid's velocity at infinity. So to an asteroid traveling at 10 km/s, Earth's effective radius grows by 50%, while Mars' only by 12%.

But Mars is closer to the asteroid belt. It pretty-much defines the inner edge of the asteroid belt, and it does this by getting hit enough to sweep up any asteriods whose orbits cross Mars' orbit. So I imagine Mars gets hit a lot more often than Earth.
 
tony873004 said:
But Mars is closer to the asteroid belt. It pretty-much defines the inner edge of the asteroid belt, and it does this by getting hit enough to sweep up any asteriods whose orbits cross Mars' orbit. So I imagine Mars gets hit a lot more often than Earth.

Sorry to the OP -- I don't have the answer to your question about how the meteor flux varies between the two locations. To add to what tony873004 said, I would also point out that Mars has a thinner atmosphere. Whether this makes a different or not, well I guess we'd have to be more quantitative to find out. But it is another point seemingly in favour of a higher impact rate on Mars.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top