Mazar Haim
In the division of asteroids according to different criteria, there are those defined as Earth Crossing Asteroids.
These are very small asteroids, the largest of which has a diameter of 5 km and the smallest of which has a diameter of 200 m.1 In astronomical terms, these are nothing more than rock fragments. Among these asteroids, there are some that are perihelion partners or the distance between their perihelions is very small. Examining their data will show that these are pairs of asteroids with a common perihelion or that the distance between their perihelion is at most 0.002 astronomical units as described in the following table:
Name Perihelion Epihelion Time Angle of inclination
Routes
(in years)
1982 Tx 0.523 4.076 3.487 12.19
1984 KB 0.523 3.910 3.299 4.85
PI6743 0.821 2.418 2.061 7.29
Orthos 0.821 3.988 3.729 24.39
1987 QA 0.875 2.419 2.114 40.71
1989 AZ 0.875 2.422 2.116 11.78
0.589 1.530 1.091 11.17
1987 KF 0.590 3.082 2.488 11.87
0.986 1.841 1.681 58.55
198 DA 0.987 3.346 3.189 6.45
Olijato 0.626 3.721 3.204 2.52
0.628 4.289 3.855 22.02
Apollo 0.647 2.295 1.784 6.35
1979 XB 0.649 3.876 3.403 24.87
1988 TA 0.803 2.279 1.913 2.54
1983 VA 0.805 4.416 4.218 16.24
There are 3 groups here. One group of asteroids have the same perihelion. A second group of asteroids whose perihelion distance is 0.001 astronomical units, that is, 150,000 km and a third group of asteroids whose perihelion distance is 300,000 km. In astronomical terms, these are very short distances - "neighbors". The following conclusions emerge from the data analysis:
1. The distance between the ephelions of each pair of asteroids is overall small. The minimum distance is 0.003 astronomical units and they have almost the same cycle time and the maximum distance is 2.137 2
2. With the exception of one pair of asteroids, with the rest of the asteroids, one has a small orbital inclination angle and the other a large one.
What do these conclusions mean?
The resulting impression is that each pair was originally one asteroid colliding with another. From the force of the impact, it broke as each of the pieces entered an independent orbit around the sun. Since the power was not strong enough, they remained in orbits close to each other, but with different inclination angles. The lighter one between the two fragments enters the orbit with the greater angle of inclination. If this scenario is true, then they should have a similar chemical structure. There is a possibility that these events took place recently (meaning in geological time terms). If this is still the case and they are not crushed by additional injuries, and one day they will be photographed, it will be possible to locate their fracture lines and in the photos you will "unite" them.
It may be possible to use this technique already today regarding the moon of Jupiter - Amalthea. In one of the photographs of the moon taken by the Galileo spacecraft, one can clearly see its fracture line. 3 It is possible that through a careful search for additional moons in Jupiter, either with the Hubble telescope or with the Galileo spacecraft, another moon smaller than it will be found close to Amalthea's orbit, although it is worth noting that Amalthea is larger than the asteroids listed in the table.
Sources
1. Chapman Clark R. – Asteroids in: Beatly Kelly J. Chaiki Andria (Eds) – The New Solar System 3rd edition Sky publishing Corporation 1990, p. 294.
2. Ibid.
3. Small Jovian Inner Satellites – Astronomy Now, 1998, p. 7.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~328026758~~~98&SiteName=hayadan
