Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Dynamical evidence for Phobos and Deimos as remnants of a disrupted common progenitor

Abstract

The origin of the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos, remains elusive. While the morphology and their cratered surfaces suggest an asteroidal origin1,2,3, capture has been questioned because of potential dynamical difficulties in achieving the current near-circular, near-equatorial orbits4,5. To circumvent this, in situ formation models have been proposed as alternatives6,7,8,9. Yet, explaining the present location of the moons on opposite sides of the synchronous radius, their small sizes and apparent compositional differences with Mars2 has proved challenging. Here, we combine geophysical and tidal-evolution modelling of a Mars–satellite system to propose that Phobos and Deimos originated from disintegration of a common progenitor that was possibly formed in situ. We show that tidal dissipation within a Mars–satellite system, enhanced by the physical libration of the satellite, circularizes the post-disrupted eccentric orbits in <2.7 Gyr and makes Phobos descend to its present orbit from its point of origin close to or above the synchronous orbit. Our estimate for Phobos’s maximal tidal lifetime is considerably less than the age of Mars, indicating that it is unlikely to have originated alongside Mars. Deimos initially moved inwards, but never transcended the co-rotation radius because of insufficient eccentricity and therefore insufficient tidal dissipation. Whereas Deimos is very slowly receding from Mars, Phobos will continue to spiral towards and either impact with Mars or become tidally disrupted on reaching the Roche limit in 39 Myr.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The orbital history of Phobos and Deimos.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.

Code availability

The code for computing the orbital evolution is available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. 1.

    Rosenblatt, P. The origin of the Martian moons revisited. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 19, 44 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pajola, M. et al. Phobos as a D-type captured asteroid, spectral modeling from 0.25 to 4.0 μm. Astron. J. 777, 127 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Fraeman, A. et al. Spectral absorptions on Phobos and Deimos in the visible/near infrared wavelengths and their compositional constraints. Icarus 229, 196–205 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lambeck, K. On the orbital evolution of the Martian satellites. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 84, 5651–5658 (1979).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Szeto, A. M. Orbital evolution and origin of the Martian satellites. Icarus 55, 133–168 (1983).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Craddock, R. A. Are Phobos and Deimos the result of a giant impact? Icarus 211, 1150–1161 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Citron, R. I., Genda, H. & Ida, S. Formation of Phobos and Deimos via a giant impact. Icarus 252, 334–338 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Canup, R. & Salmon, J. Origin of Phobos and Deimos by the impact of a Vesta-to-Ceres sized body with Mars. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar6887 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rosenblatt, P. et al. Accretion of Phobos and Deimos in an extended debris disc stirred by transient moons. Nat. Geosci. 9, 581–583 (2016).

  10. 10.

    Efroimsky, M. & Lainey, V. Physics of bodily tides in terrestrial planets and the appropriate scales of dynamical evolution. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 112, E12003 (2007).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lognonné, P. et al. Constraints on the shallow elastic and anelastic structure of Mars from InSight seismic data. Nat. Geosci. 13, 213–220 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Giardini, D. et al. The seismicity of Mars. Nat. Geosci. 13, 205–212 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jackson, I. & Faul, U. H. Grainsize-sensitive viscoelastic relaxation in olivine: towards a robust laboratory-based model for seismological application. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 183, 151–163 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bagheri, A., Khan, A., Al-Attar, D., Crawford, O. & Giardini, D. Tidal response of Mars constrained from laboratory-based viscoelastic dissipation models and geophysical data. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 124, 2703–2727 (2019).

  15. 15.

    Efroimsky, M. Bodily tides near spin–orbit resonances. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 112, 283–330 (2012).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rambaux, N., Castillo-Rogez, J., Le Maistre, S. & Rosenblatt, P. Rotational motion of Phobos. Astron. Astrophys. 548, A14 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Yoder, C. F. Tidal rigidity of Phobos. Icarus 49, 327–346 (1982).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Khan, A. et al. A geophysical perspective on the bulk composition of Mars. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 123, 575–611 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pätzold, M. et al. Phobos mass determination from the very close flyby of Mars Express in 2010. Icarus 229, 92–98 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Brasser, R. Efficient tidal dissipation in Deimos. Icarus 347, 113791 (2020).

  21. 21.

    Hurford, T. et al. Tidal disruption of Phobos as the cause of surface fractures. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 121, 1054–1065 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Asphaug, E., Ostro, S. J., Hudson, R., Scheeres, D. J. & Benz, W. Disruption of kilometre-sized asteroids by energetic collisions. Nature 393, 437–440 (1998).

  23. 23.

    Nimmo, F. & Matsuyama, I. Tidal dissipation in rubble-pile asteroids. Icarus 321, 715–721 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wisdom, J. Rotational dynamics of irregularly shaped natural satellites. Astron. J. 94, 1350–1360 (1987).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Quillen, A. C., Lane, M., Nakajima, M. & Wright, E. Excitation of tumbling in Phobos and Deimos. Icarus 340, 113641 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Simioni, E., Pajola, M., Massironi, M. & Cremonese, G. Phobos grooves and impact craters: a stereographic analysis. Icarus 256, 90–100 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jutzi, M. & Benz, W. Formation of bi-lobed shapes by sub-catastrophic collisions—a late origin of comet 67P’s structure. Astron. Astrophys. 597, A62 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Singer, S. F. Origin of the Martian satellites Phobos and Deimos. In Proc. 1st International Conference on the Exploration of Phobos and Deimos LPI Contribution No. 1377, 36 (Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2007).

  29. 29.

    Hesselbrock, A. J. & Minton, D. A. An ongoing satellite–ring cycle of Mars and the origins of Phobos and Deimos. Nat. Geosci. 10, 266–269 (2017).

  30. 30.

    Samuel, H., Lognonné, P., Panning, M. & Lainey, V. The rheology and thermal history of Mars revealed by the orbital evolution of Phobos. Nature 569, 523–527 (2019).

  31. 31.

    Black, B. & Mittal, T. The demise of Phobos and development of a Martian ring system. Nat. Geosci. 8, 913–917 (2015).

  32. 32.

    Boué, G. & Efroimsky, M. Tidal evolution of the Keplerian elements. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 131, 30 (2019).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Kaplan for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and M. Jutzi for informed discussion on the topic of impact disruption. This work was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF project 172508 ‘Mapping the internal structure of Mars’). This is InSight contribution number 96.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.B., A.K. and M.E. discussed the original idea; A.B. derived and implemented the orbital evolution model, with input from M.E. and A.K.; M.K. helped with implementation of the numerical time-stepping scheme in the orbital evolution model; A.B. performed the simulations and data analysis and produced the figures; the manuscript was written by A.K., A.B., M.E. and M.K., with input from D.G.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amirhossein Bagheri.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review informationNature Astronomy thanks Gwenaël Boué, Hidenori Genda and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Sections 1–13, Figs. 1–10 and Tables 1–8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagheri, A., Khan, A., Efroimsky, M. et al. Dynamical evidence for Phobos and Deimos as remnants of a disrupted common progenitor. Nat Astron (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-021-01306-2

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing