2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2021.104147
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of the projectile geometry on the momentum transfer from a kinetic impactor and implications for the DART mission

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For plume images obtained near or after the cone crossing, the ejection angle α does not need to be inferred simultaneously with the inference of target material cases, but an observed value of α can be used to discriminate target cases. However, at earlier times, the ejection angle may differ by 10°f rom the α value measured near or after cone crossing (Luther et al 2018;Raducan et al 2022). This variation in α should be considered to infer target physical properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For plume images obtained near or after the cone crossing, the ejection angle α does not need to be inferred simultaneously with the inference of target material cases, but an observed value of α can be used to discriminate target cases. However, at earlier times, the ejection angle may differ by 10°f rom the α value measured near or after cone crossing (Luther et al 2018;Raducan et al 2022). This variation in α should be considered to infer target physical properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With target cases C2 and C7, where the target strength is much larger at 30 MPa and 4 kPA, respectively, the DART impact crater would be strength-controlled and much smaller than the Dimorphos radius. The impact outcomes given in Table 3 differ slightly from those in Cheng et al (2020), because of projectile parameter updates, most importantly a larger value for the projectile radius better describing the spacecraft structure (Raducan et al 2022). Finally Table 3 shows the crater growth timescale for the three target cases, as given by point-source scaling (O'Keefe & Ahrens 1993; see Appendix B).…”
Section: Fovmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study was motivated by the DART impact on Dimorphos; therefore, here we simulate DART-like impacts on small, Dimorphos-like targets (Naidu et al 2020). Recent studies (e.g., Owen et al 2022, this focus issue; Raducan et al 2022b) showed that a low-density spherical projectile is a reasonable approximation for a DARTlike impact. Therefore, in all simulations, we modeled the projectile as a low-density (ρ = 1000 kg m −3 ), ≈500 kg aluminum sphere at 6 km s −1 .…”
Section: Shock Physics Code Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The target was simulated using the Tillotson EoS for basalt (Benz & Asphaug 1999) with a modified initial bulk modulus (see next section). The Tillotson EoS is suitable for the impact scenarios investigated here, as only a very small proportion of the target material experiences peak shock pressures higher than the incipient or complete melting pressure (Raducan et al 2022b).…”
Section: Shock Physics Code Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many numerical simulations of the DART impact have been performed in recent years analyzing the effect of different projectile and target characteristics. (e.g., Stickle et al 2020;Raducan et al 2021Raducan et al , 2022Zhang et al 2021). Initially, for this study, the results of iSALE-2D simulations of head-on impacts of an aluminum projectile on a basalt target with an internal friction coefficient of 0.6, cohesive strength of 10 KPa, and porosity of 20% were used (provided by Raducan et al 2019).…”
Section: Initial Conditions For the Ejectamentioning
confidence: 99%