![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-161ba9d6-638c-4c47-a333-fdc23295ee25.jpg)

## Nitrogen Loss from Pluto s Birth to the Present Day via Atmospheric Escape, ' Photochemical Destruction, and Impact Erosion

Perianne E. Johnson 1,2 , Leslie A. Young 3 , David Nesvorný 3 , and Xi Zhang 4 1 University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA; perianne.johnson@jsg.utexas.edu 2 University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, Austin, TX, USA 3 Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA 4 University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA Received 2024 February 1; revised 2024 June 28; accepted 2024 June 28; published 2024 August 1

## Abstract

We estimate the loss of nitrogen from Pluto over its lifetime, including the giant planet instability period, which we term the ' Wild Years. ' We analyze the orbital migration of 53 simulated Plutinos, which are Kuiper Belt Objects ( KBOs ) captured into 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune during the instability. This orbital migration brought the Plutinos from 20 to 30 au to their present-day orbits near 40 au along a nonlinear path that includes orbits with semimajor axes from 10 to 100 au. We model the thermal history that results from this migration and estimate the volatile loss rates due to the ever-changing thermal environment. Due to the early Sun s enhanced ' ultraviolet radiation, the photochemical destruction rate during the Wild Years was a factor of 100 higher than the present-day rate, but this only results in a loss of ∼ 10 m global equivalent layer ( GEL . The enhanced Jeans escape ) rate varies wildly with time, and a net loss of ∼ 100 cm GEL is predicted. Additionally, we model the impact history during the migration and /uniFB01 nd that impacts are a net source, not loss, of N , contributing 2 ∼ 100 cm GEL. The 100 cm GEL is 0.1% of the amount of N2 in Sputnik Planitia. We therefore conclude that Pluto did not lose an excessive amount of volatiles during the Wild Years, and its primordial volatile inventory can be approximated as its present-day inventory. However, signi /uniFB01 cant fractions of this small total loss of N2 occurred during the Wild Years, so estimates made using present-day rates will be underestimates.

Uni /uniFB01 ed Astronomy Thesaurus concepts: Pluto ( 1267 ; Plutinos ) ( 1266 ; Planetary migration ) ( 2206 ; Atmospheric ) evolution ( 2301 ; Planetary atmospheres ) ( 1244 )

## 1. Introduction

Pluto s atmosphere is more than 99% nitrogen ' ( Stern et al. 2015 , ) and much of the observed surface is covered with nitrogen ice, most notably the 1000 km wide ice sheet known as Sputnik Planitia. Observations from the New Horizons mission provide estimates of the present-day nitrogen inventory, which is dominated by the ice in Sputnik Planitia. However, over the course of Pluto s 4.5 Gyr lifetime, various ' loss mechanisms have been active, and thus Pluto s primordial ' inventory may have been very different from its present-day inventory.

for understanding when there were or were not signi /uniFB01 cant deposits of N2 on the surface available to form an atmosphere and be subject to loss mechanisms. In this section, these topics are summarized as they relate to our model of volatile loss from early Pluto.

Modeling the loss of volatiles, speci /uniFB01 cally N2, from Pluto s ' surface over the age of the solar system allows estimation of its primordial volatile inventory by calculating the amount lost via escape, impact erosion, and photochemical destruction. These models must account for the formation location and subsequent orbital evolution of Pluto. Pluto is thought to have formed not at 40 au but instead likely closer to the Sun and was pushed outward by interactions with Neptune during giant planet migration, ultimately being captured into the 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune. Models of volatile loss must also account for the variable behavior of the Sun over its lifetime. When the Sun entered the main sequence, its output in ultraviolet ( UV wavelengths, which are important for escape, ) was orders of magnitude larger than the present-day value. Additionally, the timing of Pluto s differentiation is important '

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-4ba2ffe5-9ce4-4ec5-904d-f34ee7d7ab7d.jpg)

Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author s ( ) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

Pluto likely formed closer to the Sun than its current orbit ( Canup et al. 2021, and references therein . Its location in the ) 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune ( meaning Pluto completes two orbits about the Sun for every three that Neptune completes ) is evidence for this. As Neptune s orbit ' expanded, the heliocentric distance corresponding to resonances with its orbit swept out through the solar system as well. Objects originally on orbits unrelated to Neptune could have been ' picked up ' into the resonance and then continued to evolve in step with Neptune such that they remained in the resonance as it expanded outward from the Sun ( Malhotra 1993 . ) The discovery of other objects in Neptune s ' 3:2 resonance ( the so-called ' Plutinos ' ) has strengthened this argument ( e.g., Yu &amp; Tremaine 1999 . ) Many authors have modeled the giant planet migration. For this work, we use the output from the model of Nesvorný ( 2015 , which constrained ) the migration of giant planet Neptune speci /uniFB01 cally based on orbital properties of the Kuiper Belt. From Nesvorný ( 2015 , ) we have orbital evolution paths for 53 Plutinos, covering a period of 100 Myr in the early part of the solar system. These paths start at the time of the giant planet instability, which probably occurred within the /uniFB01 rst few tens of millions of years after the protoplanetary disk dispersed. We discuss the exact timing further below.

The Sun is thought to have formed in a giant molecular cloud around 4.6 Gyr ago. The proto-Sun grew in mass as it

gained material from the surrounding cloud. Once the proto-Sun stopped gaining mass, it transitioned into what is called a ' pre-main-sequence ' star. During this stage, the Sun s ' luminosity was powered by gravitational collapse. For the /uniFB01 rst part of the stage, known as the T Tauri phase, there was a thick protoplanetary gas disk and strong stellar winds. Sometime later, the Sun condensed enough under its own gravity for hydrogen burning to begin. This point is known as the zero-age main sequence ( ZAMS , as it is the beginning of the Sun s time ) ' on the main sequence of the H-R diagram. According to the solar evolution model we use here, the pre-main-sequence stage lasted for approximately 40 Myr ( Bressan et al. 2012 . )

When the Sun was only a few tens of Myr old, its radiation output was very different from present-day values; 4.6 Gyr ago, the bolometric luminosity of the ' faint young Sun ' was just 70% of the present-day value ( Bressan et al. 2012 . However, ) at UV wavelengths, the young Sun was actually signi /uniFB01 cantly brighter than it is today. Ribas et al. ( 2005 ) measured UV /uniFB02 uxes from six solar analogs of various ages ( 0.1 -7 Gyr ) and created a solar evolution model for wavelengths between 1 and 1200 Å , as well as various line /uniFB02 uxes, including Ly α at 1216 Å . Ly α contributed 20% of the total /uniFB02 ux between 1 and 1700 Å when the Sun was 0.1 Myr old. Considering the combination of the 1 -1200 Å /uniFB02 ux plus the Ly α /uniFB02 ux, the Sun was 50 times brighter in the UV at 0.1 Gyr old than it is currently at 4.56 Gyr old.

While the early Sun was evolving as described above, the solar system was forming as well. Calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions ( CAIs ) are small inclusions found inside of chondritic meteorites. They are thought to be among the oldest solid materials in the solar system and are commonly used to determine the solar system s age. Four CAIs from meteorites ' have been radiometrically dated, yielding an age of 4567.30 ± 0.16 Myr ( Connelly et al. 2012 . ) CAIs are likely to have condensed around the time the proto-Sun was transitioning into its pre-main-sequence stage, so we assume these two events were concurrent in this work.

The lifetime of protoplanetary disks is needed in order to pin down when the giant planet instability occurred relative to the age of the Sun. In their observational L -band study of young to intermediate-age ( 0.3 -30 Myr ) stellar clusters, Haisch et al. ( 2001 ) found an overall disk lifetime for stars in the clusters they studied of 6 Myr ( meaning all of the stars older than 6 Myr did not have disks ) and found that half of the stars lost their disks by an age of 3 Myr. The review by Williams &amp; Cieza ( 2011 ) establishes an upper limit of 10 Myr for disk lifetimes based on a variety of Spitzer observation programs. Weiss et al. ( 2021 ) constrain the lifetime of the Sun s solar nebula, in the ' outer solar system speci /uniFB01 cally, to less than 5 Myr based on paleomagnetism arguments. Thus, the Sun s protoplanetary gas ' disk had likely dissipated fully by 4.557 Ga ( 10 Myr after CAI condensation , perhaps even earlier. Lisse et al. ) ( 2021 ) discuss the shadowing and therefore cooling effect that the protoplanetary disk had on the Kuiper Belt early in solar system history, but given that the disk disperses before the time period relevant to this work, we do not need to account for this effect.

When originally proposed, a late giant planet instability, occurring ∼ 700 Myr after the solar system formed, was favored in order to explain the Late Heavy Bombardment suggested by large lunar impact basins ( Gomes et al. 2005 . However, more ) recent work argues that the instability occurred much earlier, within 100 Myr of solar system formation. In order to prevent dynamically overexciting the terrestrial planet orbits, the giant planet instability needs to occur within 50 Myr of solar system formation ( Nesvorný 2018 . For this work, we assume the giant ) planet instability occurred 30 Myr after solar system formation, de /uniFB01 ned as the condensation time of CAIs. After the onset of the instability, Neptune s migration over the subsequent ' ∼ 100 Myr in /uniFB02 uenced the orbits of the objects in the proto-Kuiper Belt, eventually capturing some into the 3:2 resonance.

Finally, we need to know when Pluto s N2 ' inventory reached the surface and became available to loss mechanisms. Differentiation would bring the lighter volatiles to the surface while the heavier rocky material forms a core. Based on the composition and formation models for Charon, it is likely that the Pluto and Charon progenitors were at least partially differentiated at the time of the Charon-forming impact, if not fully differentiated ( Canup et al. 2021 . Heat from the impact or ) subsequent tidal heating from the newly formed Charon could /uniFB01 nish differentiating Pluto and bring its volatiles, including N , 2 to the surface ( McKinnon et al. 2016 . In this work, we assume ) that either Pluto s nitrogen was originally present as N ' 2 ( rather than other chemical species ) or the original chemical form of nitrogen was processed into N2 by the start of the Wild Years. This assumption means that the maximum amount of N2 was present and exposed to loss mechanisms at the surface for the maximum amount of time. Tidal heating would be limited to within 1 -10 Myr of the Charon-forming impact, after which the orbits would have been circularized ( Canup et al. 2021; McKinnon et al. 2021 . In order to form Charon from a mostly ) intact progenitor, as is suggested, the impact velocity needs to be slow, roughly less than 1.2 times the escape velocity. This constraint is best met after the dispersal of the protoplanetary gas disk but before the onset of Neptune migration. Thus, we can conclude that Pluto s N2 ' inventory was at the surface and subjected to loss mechanisms during the time of Neptune migration.

Figure 1 summarizes the preceding discussion about the relative and absolute timing of events in the early solar system and indicates the assumptions made for this work.

Section 2 goes into more detail about the models of the early Sun, solar system, and Pluto. In Section 3, we present results about the orbital migration itself and the general climates experienced by migrating Plutinos. Sections 4 -6 present /uniFB01 rst our models for each loss mechanism and then the results from volatile loss due to photochemical destruction, impact erosion, and atmospheric escape, respectively. Finally, in Section 7, we discuss what these results imply for Pluto s ' formation and hypothesized epochs of ancient glaciation.

## 2. Early Solar System, Sun, and Pluto Models

## 2.1. Orbital Migration

As an input to the model, we use the output Plutino orbital evolutions from the dynamical model presented in Nesvorný ( 2015 . ) In this model, Neptune begins on an orbit with a semimajor axis between 20 and 30 au, and a disk of planetesimals extends from the orbit of Neptune to 30 au. As Neptune migrates, some of the planetesimals are swept up into the 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune, forming the Plutino population. For an ensemble of 53 of these simulated Plutinos, we have the semimajor axis, orbital eccentricity, and inclination at 10,000 yr time steps for a total run time of 100 Myr, covering a period of time we term the ' Wild Years. '

## Protoplanetary gas disk lifetime

Figure 1. Timeline of the early solar system. The CAI condensation time of 4.5673 ± 0.00016 Ga ( boxed ) is well known via radiometric dating ( Connelly et al. 2012 . ) The other times shown on the timeline are more uncertain and represent our assumptions based on the arguments presented in the text. The times shown in the lower row represent time since CAI condensation, which we use throughout the text and /uniFB01 gures of this work.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-23157735-8fc4-4ae5-8c91-e0ed7177e496.jpg)

For more details on the creation of these orbits, see Nesvorný ( 2015 . ) It is important to note that we use these Plutino migrations as a proxy for the possible migration that Pluto speci /uniFB01 cally underwent, and we use the physical properties of Pluto throughout this work. Figure 2 shows the eccentricity versus semimajor axis migration for all 53 of the Plutinos in our sample. The Plutino labeled 47 is used as an example throughout this paper.

## 2.2. Solar Luminosity and UV Flux

The Sun was less bright overall when it was young. At the time of the Wild Years, the Sun s luminosity was about 70% of ' the present-day value, and it has steadily increased since then. We use the PARSEC model from Bressan et al. ( 2012 ) and the updates from Chen et al. ( 2014 ) to calculate the Sun s ' bolometric luminosity as a function of time, shown in the top panel of Figure 3. The PARSEC model includes the Sun s ' luminosity behavior during its pre-main-sequence phase, which we assume begins concurrently with CAI condensation and lasts for around 44 Myr. At the ZAMS ( 44 Myr after CAI condensation , the solar luminosity predicted by the model is ) 2.7 × 10 26 W, which is 70% of the present-day value of 3.828 × 10 26 W.

While the Sun was bolometrically fainter during the Wild Years, the UV /uniFB02 ux of the Sun was far stronger during this time period relative to the present day. We use the solar evolution model of Ribas et al. ( 2005 ) to estimate the UV /uniFB02 ux from the early Sun. The Ribas et al. ( 2005 ) model uses observations of seven solar-type stars ( including the Sun ) of varying ages to create power-law model /uniFB01 ts of the stellar /uniFB02 ux in various wavelength bands as a function of time.

For part of this work, we are interested in photochemical destruction of N2 molecules in the atmosphere by UV radiation. Radiation at wavelengths between roughly 100 and 1000 Å is capable of breaking the N2 triple bond. We use three model /uniFB01 ts from Ribas et al. ( 2005 ) in order to cover this wavelength range:

$$F _ { 1 } ( t ) = 1 3. 5 t ^ { - 1. 2 } \ \ 1 0 0 { - 3 6 0 } \ \AA, \quad \ \ ( 1 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

$$F _ { 2 } ( t ) = 4. 5 6 t ^ { - 1 } \ 3 6 0 { - 9 2 0 } \, \hat { A }, \quad \ \ ( 2 ) \quad \ \ c h \$$

$$F _ { 3 } ( t ) = 2. 5 3 t ^ { - 0. 8 5 } \ \ 9 2 0 - 1 1 8 0 \ \AA. \quad \quad ( 3 )$$

The time t is the solar age in Gyr relative to the ZAMS, and the resulting /uniFB02 uxes F 1,2,3 ( at 1 au ) are in units of mW m -2 . We calculate the UV /uniFB02 ux enhancement relative to the present-day solar UV /uniFB02 ux at a given time with the following:

$$E _ { U V } ( t ) = \frac { F _ { 1 } ( t ) + F _ { 2 } ( t ) + F _ { 3 } ( t ) } { F _ { 1 } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) + F _ { 2 } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) + F _ { 3 } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) }. \quad ( 4 )$$

Additionally, for the energy-limited escape discussed in Section 6.1.1, the early Sun s Ly ' α /uniFB02 ux is also needed. From Ribas et al. ( 2005 , the Sun s Ly ) ' α /uniFB02 ux as a function of time can be estimated using

$$F _ { \text{Ly} \alpha } = 1 9. 2 t ^ { - 0. 7 2 },$$

where once again t is in Gyr and the resulting /uniFB02 ux at 1 au is in mWm 2 . -The corresponding enhancement, due to both 100 1180 -Å and Ly α radiation, is shown in the middle panel of Figure 3 and given by

$$\begin{smallmatrix} \begin{matrix} \\ \text{is} \\ \text{of} \end{matrix} & E _ { \text{UV+Ly} \alpha } \\ & = \frac { F _ { 1 } ( t ) + F _ { 2 } ( t ) + F _ { 3 } ( t ) + F _ { \text{Ly} \alpha } ( t ) } { F _ { 1 } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) + F _ { 2 } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) + F _ { 3 } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) + F _ { \text{Ly} \alpha } ( t _ { \text{present} } ) }. \\ \text{ne} \\ \text{in} \end{smallmatrix}$$

## 2.3. Radiogenic Internal Heat

Pluto s radiogenic internal heat ' /uniFB02 ux was also different during the time period of the Wild Years. We implement the model of Hussmann et al. ( 2010 ) to calculate radiogenic heat production rates as a function of time t :

$$F _ { \text{internal} } = \frac { M _ { \text{core} } } { 4 \pi R _ { \text{Pluto} } ^ { 2 } } \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 4 } C _ { i } \mathcal { H } _ { i } e ^ { - \ln ( 2 ) \imath / \gamma _ { i } },$$

where M core = 8.89 × 10 21 kg is the mass of Pluto s ' core ( assuming a radius of 858 km and a density of 3360 kg m -3 ; Keane et al. 2016 , ) R Pluto = 1189 km is the radius of Pluto, Ci is the abundance of the given isotope based on carbonaceous chondrites,  i is the heat release, and τ i is the half-life for each

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-666619ea-d252-4eb9-87e6-0badad1f8771.jpg)

## Semi-Major Axis [AU]

Figure 2. Eccentricity vs. semimajor axis evolution for all 53 of the Plutinos in the sample. The color scale indicates time since CAI condensation.

isotope. The values we assume for this work are shown in Table 1.

of Figure 3 shows the resulting surface heat /uniFB02 ux as a function of time, which varies from 15 mW m -2 at the start of the Wild Years to 12 mW m -2 at the end. The present-day surface heat /uniFB02 ux is estimated to be a few mW m -2 ( McKinnon et al. 2016 . )

## 2.4. Climate Model

To calculate the surface temperature as a function of time, we use the VT3D model ( Young 2012, 2017 . ) Here we

In Equation ( 7 , we divide by the total surface area of Pluto ) and multiply by the mass of Pluto s core because we assume ' that all of the heat produced from radioactive decay in the core exits the body as a surface heat /uniFB02 ux and none of the heat remains in the body to change its temperature. In this way, the surface heat /uniFB02 ux we use is an upper limit to the true heat /uniFB02 ux that could result from this radioactive decay. The bottom panel

Figure 3. ( Top ) Bolometric luminosity of the Sun during the orbital migration period relative to the present-day luminosity. ( Middle ) UV and Ly α /uniFB02 ux of the Sun during the orbital migration period relative to the present-day UV and Ly α /uniFB02 uxes. ( Bottom ) Radiogenic internal heat /uniFB02 ux of Pluto during the orbital migration period relative to the present-day rate.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-78f505d0-d52b-4759-9f9a-5970395e5ad9.jpg)

summarize the relevant parts of VT3D to this work. VT3D is an energy balance model, /uniFB01 nding the temperature that results from the balance between thermal emission, solar insolation, internal heat, thermal conduction, and latent heat of sublimation. For this work, we assume that Pluto is in a ' snowball ' state: uniformly covered by N2 ice for the duration of the Wild Years. The timing is highly uncertain for the impact that created Sputnik Planitia, and by assuming uniform N2 ice coverage, we

Table 1 Values for the Abundance C , Heat Release H , and Half-life τ of Each of the Seven Isotopes Used to Calculate Radiogenic Internal Heating

| Isotope              |        |   C ( ppb ) |  ( Wkg - 1 )   | τ ( Myr )   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------|-----------------|-------------|
| Long-lived isotopes  | 238 U  |        19.9 | 94.65 × 10 - 6  | 4468        |
|                      | 235 U  |         5.4 | 568.7 × 10 - 6  | 703.81      |
|                      | 232 Th |        38.7 | 26.38 × 10 - 6  | 14,030      |
|                      | 40 K   |       738   | 29.17 × 10 - 6  | 1277        |
| Short-lived isotopes | 26 Al  |       600   | 0.146           | 0.73        |
|                      | 60 Fe  |       225   | 0.074           | 1.5         |
|                      | 53 Mn  |        25.7 | 0.027           | 3.7         |

Note. The long-lived isotope values are from Robuchon &amp; Nimmo ( 2011 , and ) the short-lived isotope values are from Castillo-Rogez et al. ( 2007 . )

implicitly assume it occurred after the Wild Years ended. We assume the ice has an albedo of 0.8, a thermal inertia of 1225 ' thermal inertia units ' ( tiu; equivalent to J m -2 K -1 s 1 2 / ) , and an emissivity of 0.6 ( these values are similar to Reference Case A from Johnson et al. 2021b . ) Sputnik Planitia has a Bond albedo of 0.8 -1 ( Buratti et al. 2017 , which we took to be a ) typical albedo for thick N2 ice deposits. The orbital migrations from Nesvorný ( 2015 ) are spaced every 10,000 yr. We use the analytic form of VT3D to calculate the nitrogen ice temperature at 20 equally spaced time steps in each of these distinct orbits. We found that 20 time steps was suf /uniFB01 cient to resolve the extrema of the orbit while minimizing computation time. Using the current orbit s semimajor axis and eccentricity, we calculate ' the absorbed solar insolation at each time step, subject to the ' faint young Sun ' behavior discussed above, as well as the internal heat /uniFB02 ux at the given time. This annual temperature behavior is repeated for as many orbits as can be completed in the 10,000 yr macro time step, given the current orbital period.

## 3. Migration and Climate Results

## 3.1. Orbital Migration during the Wild Years

Figure 4 shows a typical Plutino s path throughout the solar ' system during the Wild Years, both in eccentricity versus semimajor axis space ( left panel ) and in semimajor axis, perihelion, and aphelion distances as a function of time ( right . ) This Plutino is shown as # 47 in Figure 2. Typical Plutinos reach minimum heliocentric distances of 15 au and maximum heliocentric distances of 80 au, although distances greater than 150 au are possible for certain Plutinos for short periods of time ( &lt; 50,000 yr . ) This period of rapid orbital evolution is shortlived, typically lasting only 30 Myr or so, before the Plutino settles down into an orbit near Pluto s ' present-day orbit. Figure 5 shows a whisker plot of the time spent in each heliocentric distance bin, showing that the bulk of the time ( 80 Myr out of the total 100 Myr simulation ) is spent in heliocentric distances between 30 and 50 au ( Pluto s present-' day heliocentric distance range . ) For the remainder of the simulation time that the average Plutino spends outside of the 30 50 au -range, most of it is spent closer to the Sun. The average Plutino spends 9 Myr at heliocentric distances less than 30 au and 1.5 Myr at heliocentric distances larger than 50 au.

Figure 4. Orbital migration for an example Plutino. ( Left ) Eccentricity vs. semimajor axis, with color indicating the time since simulation start ( see the right panel for color scale . Several lines of constant perihelion ) q and aphelion Q are labeled. ( Right ) Aphelion and perihelion distances vs. time since simulation start.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-37e0f048-a29d-4a0d-a138-c29112c7755f.jpg)

Figure 5. Whisker plot showing the time spent at a given heliocentric distance for the ensemble of Plutinos. The red lines are the median value, the boxes encompass the 25th -75th percentiles, and the whiskers are the 5th and 95th percentiles. For the average Plutino, 80 Myr out of the 100 Myr simulation is spent at heliocentric distances between 30 and 50 au ( shaded region , which is Pluto s present-day orbital range. ) '

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-d445c82e-1a0f-48ee-ba4b-43aa10d5200d.jpg)

## 3.2. Climate during the Wild Years

Before discussing volatile loss rates, we start by showing the surface temperature and surface atmospheric pressure experienced by the Plutinos during their orbital migration to give an idea of the range in general climate characteristics. Figure 6 B ( ) shows the temperature evolution of an example Plutino ( the same Plutino from Figure 4 . The surface temperature of the ) Plutino is calculated using the VT3D model ( as discussed in Section 2.4 ) with uniform spatial coverage of nitrogen ice with an albedo of 0.8, a thermal inertia of 1225 tiu, and an emissivity of 0.6. This particular Plutino begins in an orbit with a semimajor axis of 24 au, but its orbit quickly expands to a semimajor axis near 60 au and an eccentricity as high as 0.65, leading to aphelion values near 100 au. As this orbit expansion occurs, the surface temperature falls from initial values as high as 53 K to minimum values of 32 K. Subsequently, this Plutino s orbit slowly recontracts to a ' /uniFB01 nal semimajor axis of 39.5 au ( after overshooting slightly , ) and the surface warms accordingly to a /uniFB01 nal surface temperature of 35 -36 K. This /uniFB01 nal surface temperature is roughly 1 K cooler than the presentday surface temperature of a Pluto-like object in this orbit with these thermal parameters would be, due primarily to the faint young Sun luminosity ( see Figure 3 . ) The internal heat is higher during this time period relative to the present day, but the solar luminosity has a larger effect on temperature because the absorbed insolation at the present day is 57 mW m -2 versus the present-day internal heat /uniFB02 ux of only 2 mW m -2 .

The lowest temperature reached is ∼ 28 K, typically for less than 10,000 yr. The surface pressure in equilibrium with nitrogen ice at 28 K is 4.4 nbar ( Fray &amp; Schmitt 2009 . Johnson et al. ) ( 2015 ) calculated that for a nitrogen atmosphere to have an optical depth of 1 in UV wavelengths, a minimum column abundance N C = 2 × 10 18 cm -2 is required. This column abundance implies a surface pressure of N C × m N2 × g surf = 5.8 nbar ( implying a surface temperature of 28.2 K, assuming vapor pressure equilibrium , shown as the blue dotted line in Figure 7. So at the very ) lowest temperatures, it is possible for UV rays to reach all the way to the surface of the Plutinos, albeit only for 10,000 or fewer years cumulative during the Wild Years period. This calculation of a

Figure 7 shows histograms of the time spent at each temperature for the suite of Plutinos. The red lines indicate the median time spent at that temperature, the boxes encompass the 25th -75th percentiles, and the whiskers indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The shaded region ( 35 -36 K ) highlights the temperature range of the Plutinos once they reach their /uniFB01 nal orbit near 40 au; all the Plutinos spend the majority of the simulation time ( tens of Myr ) in this temperature range. For context, models suggest that Pluto s mean surface temperature ' might seasonally vary between 33 and 37 K in its present-day orbit, depending on assumptions about its present-day nitrogen distribution ( Johnson et al. 2021b . If Pluto is assumed to be ) uniformly covered in N2 ice in order to match the assumption made here, its surface temperature would vary between 36 and 37 K over its present-day orbit.

Figure 6. Panel ( A : heliocentric distance as a function of time for the example Plutino during its orbital migration. See Figure 4 for the orbital parameters of this ) Plutino as a function of time. Panel ( B : temperature vs. time for an example Plutino during its orbital migration. By ) ∼ 50 Myr after CAI condensation, the Plutino has been captured into resonance with Neptune and the subsequent orbit changes are minimal, so the surface temperature is nearly constant in time. Seasonal temperature changes are on the order of 1 K and contribute to the apparent thickness of the line. Panel ( C : photochemical destruction rate as a function of time for the example ) Plutino. The present-day photochemical destruction rate from Krasnopolsky ( 2020 ) is shown as the horizontal blue line. We attribute the general decreasing trend to the decrease in solar UV output over time, which falls from 250 times the present-day value to only 50 times the present-day value over this time period ( Ribas et al. 2005 . Panel ) ( D : escape rate as a function of time for the example Plutino. The red line shows the energy-limited escape rate. The enhanced Jeans escape rate ) ( gray ) exceeds the energy-limited value near the start of the Wild Years, and only barely ( see inset for zoomed-in view . The present-day escape rate ) ( Strobel 2021 ) is shown in blue.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-8968202c-e59f-4915-b96d-5f257ce1c0c3.jpg)

Figure 7. Histograms of the time spent at a given temperature during the 100 Myr Wild Years period. The x -axis spans the full range of temperatures experienced by the ensemble of Plutinos during the Wild Years. The red lines are the median value, the boxes encompass the 25th -75th percentiles, and the whiskers are the 5th and 95th percentiles. For temperatures with no red median line shown in the /uniFB01 gure, the median Plutino spends zero time at that temperature. The shaded region ( 35 -36 K ) indicates the temperatures that Plutinos experience once they reach their /uniFB01 nal orbits near 40 au. The top axis shows the vapor pressure that is in equilibrium with nitrogen ice at the given temperature. All the Plutinos spend the bulk of their time ( tens of Myr ) at 35 -36 K.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-dc5c9c23-cdce-4c7a-894f-0ba68ea839ed.jpg)

UV-transparency limit assumes that the CH4 mixing ratio in Pluto s atmosphere is constant throughout time. If the CH ' 4 mixing ratio is lower at lower temperatures ( Tan 2022 , then the integrated ) duration could be higher, but likely still small.

The highest temperature reached by the median Plutino is around 48 K, corresponding to a Mars-like surface pressure of 2.1 mbar. The Plutinos are at this temperature for less than 10 5 yr, typically. The triple point for N2 is 63 K ( Fray &amp; Schmitt 2009 , so liquid N2 ) is never stable on Pluto s surface ' even at the hottest points during the Wild Years. Stern et al. ( 2017 ) proposed that the observed dendritic valleys on Pluto could have been carved by liquids and identi /uniFB01 ed Alconis Lacus as a potential paleo-lake, but our results show that temperatures likely do not get high enough to support these hypotheses. We discuss the alternative possibility that glaciers could have carved the valleys in Section 7.

## 4. Photochemical Destruction

One loss mechanism for nitrogen from Pluto s atmosphere is ' the irreversible photochemical destruction of N2 in the atmosphere, which primarily creates solid-phase daughter products that fall out of the atmosphere onto the surface, although some escape to space is possible as well. Krasnopolsky ( 2020 ) used a photochemical model to calculate the loss of atmospheric N2 due to photochemical destruction at the time of the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby of 37 g cm -2 Gyr -1 , equivalent to 5 × 10 24 N2 s -1 , which is roughly 100 times greater than the atmospheric escape rate at the time of the /uniFB02 yby ( Strobel 2021 . ) The dominant daughter product is HCN.

lighter CH4 at high altitudes. Pluto s CH4 ' mixing ratio at the surface is controlled by vapor pressure equilibrium with the surface ices in a manner not yet completely understood ( Young et al. 2021 , which may be related to warm areas of methane-) rich ices. On an iceball Pluto, as we model here, the CH4 mixing ratio at the surface may well be lower than that of present-day Pluto. Regardless, since Pluto has so much more CH4 than Triton, in this work, we make the assumption that vapor pressure equilibrium and diffusive separation lead to plentiful CH4 at the altitudes of N 2 dissociation throughout the Wild Years and all of Pluto s history. This assumption could be ' revisited once the problem of Pluto s high surface CH4 ' mixing ratio has been explained for the present-day atmosphere. If instead there is not always suf /uniFB01 cient CH4 in Pluto s ' atmosphere, the N2 photochemical destruction rates presented here will likely be upper limits. If the lack of CH4 is due to a complete removal of CH4 ice from the surface, then it is possible that the atmosphere may cool signi /uniFB01 cantly and collapse, reducing the N2 photodestruction rate. An alternate option for a lack of atmospheric CH4 is due to the Hunten limiting /uniFB02 ux preventing suf /uniFB01 cient CH4 from reaching the upper atmosphere altitudes ( Hunten 1973 . In this case, CH4 ) could still be photolyzed near the surface, and the N2 photodestruction rate may drop, but likely not as much as the /uniFB01 rst case. We do not treat either of these scenarios carefully in the following analysis and instead make the assumption that there is always suf /uniFB01 cient CH4 for N2 photodestruction to occur, such that the photodestruction rate is dependent on the incident solar radiation alone.

In present-day Pluto, the majority of the photochemical loss of N2 is in the form of nitriles such as HCN, so the loss rate is dependent on having suf /uniFB01 cient CH4 in the atmosphere as well to provide CH and CH3 radicals ( Krasnopolsky 2020 . ) As observed by New Horizons, there is copious CH4 available in Pluto s ' upper atmosphere ( roughly 1% at the altitudes of N2 dissociation; Young et al. 2018 . ) Unlike Triton during the Voyager 2 /uniFB02 yby, where photochemical destruction removed CH4 at high altitudes, the CH4 mixing ratio is large in Pluto s ' current atmosphere because diffusive separation enhances the

## 4.1. Photochemical Destruction Model

In order to estimate the photochemical destruction rate during the Wild Years, we scale the present-day rate from Krasnopolsky ( 2020 ) based on both solar output and heliocentric distance. The ' present-day ' rate is based on the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby conditions, which occurred when Pluto was at a heliocentric distance of 32.9 au. The photochemical destruction rate F photochem should depend on the inverse square

Table 2 Summary of the Nitrogen Loss, in cm GEL, Resulting from Each of the Loss Mechanisms Investigated Here

| Loss Mechanism              |                                             | During Wild Years ( 30 - 130 Myr after CAIs )                 | Age of Solar System ( 130 Myr after CAIs - present )   | Total                                                          |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Photochemical destruction a | Baseline size: Variable size:               | - + - + 385 cm GEL 44 cm GEL 23 13 9 47                       | 885 cm GEL 180 cm GEL                                  | - + - + 1270 cm GEL 224 cm GEL 23 13 9 47                      |
| Impact delivery b           |                                             | - ( 74 - + 8 45 ) cm GEL                                      | - ( 74 - + 8 45 ) cm GEL                               | - ( 168 - + 28 83 ) cm GEL                                     |
| Impact removal b            | - Hot atmo.: Present day atmo.: Cold atmo.: | - + - + - + 100 cm GEL 10 cm GEL 1.8 cm GEL 37 19 4 5 0.8 0.7 | - + 10 4 5 cm GEL                                      | - + - + - + 110 cm GEL 22 cm GEL 12.5 cm GEL 37 25 6 6 4.1 4.7 |
| Jeans escape a              |                                             | - + 98 97 773 cm GEL                                          | 2.35 cm GEL                                            | - + 100.35 97 773 cm GEL                                       |

## Notes.

a The subscript and superscript values represent the 25th and 75th percentile ranges based on the ensemble of 53 Plutinos for the photochemical destruction and Jeans escape rows. The values for the age of the solar system column do not have reported uncertainties because we use Pluto s present-day orbit for that time period. ' b The subscript and superscript values represent the 25th and 75th percentile ranges based on the 100 random samples drawn for the impact delivery and removal rows. The apparent discrepancy between the sum of the ' During Wild Years ' and ' Age of Solar System ' columns and the value reported in the ' Total ' column is due to the random draw of impactors. The medians and 25th and 75th percentiles cannot be simply added as they were for the photochemical and escape rows.

of heliocentric distance h ; thus, we can write the relation

$$F _ { \text{photochem} } ( t, h ) \in \left ( \frac { 3 2. 9 \, a u } { h } \right ) ^ { 2 }. \quad \ \ ( 8 ) \quad \ \frac { \Pr } { \partial } \| _ { \text{wil} }$$

Additionally, the photochemical destruction rate will depend on the solar output at the given time. As discussed above, the solar output was very different during the Wild Years as compared to the present-day output. N2 is photochemically destroyed by radiation at UV wavelengths, so we scale the present-day rate based on the Ribas et al. ( 2005 ) model of early stellar output. For the dependence on solar output, we can write the following relation:

Years is always at least an order of magnitude higher than the present-day rate, primarily due to the enhanced early solar UV output. The photochemical destruction rate generally decreases with time, following the decreasing trend of the solar UV /uniFB02 ux. The solar UV output falls from over 250 times the present-day value to just 50 times the present-day value during the Wild Years. The photochemical destruction rate is near 3 × 10 27 N2 s -1 at the start of the simulation time and falls by an order of magnitude to 2 × 10 26 N2 s -1 by the end of the simulation due to the decreasing solar UV output and the orbital migration from an orbit with a semimajor axis of 24 au to one with a semimajor axis of 39 au.

$$F _ { \text{photochem} } ( t, h ) \in E _ { \text{UV} } ( t ), \quad \ \ ( 9 ) \quad Y _ { \text{ } }$$

where E UV ( ) t is the UV enhancement at a given time ( relative to the present-day solar output ) and is calculated using Equation ( 4 ) from Section 2. Ly α is not energetic enough to break the bond in a molecule of N2, so we do not account for the early Sun enhancement in Ly α for the photochemical destruction.

By combining the two preceding relationships, we can write an equation for the photochemical destruction rate of N2 in Pluto s atmosphere as a function of both time and heliocentric ' distance during the Wild Years:

$$& F _ { \text{photochem} } ( t, h ) \\ & = E _ { \text{UV} } ( t ) \left ( \frac { 3 2. 9 \, \text{au} } { h } \right ) ^ { 2 } F _ { \text{photochem} } ( t _ { \text{present} }, \, 3 2. 9 \, \text{au} ), \quad ( 1 0 ) \quad \text{et a} \\ & \quad \lambda \quad, \quad \text{the}$$

where F photochem ( t present , 32.9 au ) = 5 × 10 24 N2 s -1 is the photochemical destruction rate calculated for Pluto s conditions ' at the time of the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby in 2015 ( Krasnopolsky 2020 . )

## 4.2. Photochemical Destruction Results

Panel ( C ) in Figure 6 shows the calculated photochemical destruction rate as a function of time for the example Plutino. For reference, the present-day photochemical destruction rate ( Krasnopolsky 2020 ) is shown as the blue line; note that the calculated photochemical destruction rate during the Wild

The total photochemical destruction of N2 during the Wild Years for the example Plutino amounts to 387 cm global equivalent layer ( GEL , and the remainder of the age of the ) solar system adds another 857 cm GEL. The median values for the entire ensemble are shown in Table 2, which are very similar to this example Plutino s amounts. The Wild Years are ' only 100 Myr long, accounting for only 2% of the age of the solar system, but we calculate that roughly 30% of the total photochemical destruction of N2 occurred during the Wild Years. This can primarily be attributed to the highly enhanced solar UV output early in solar system history. Pluto s present-' day atmosphere, if condensed onto the surface, amounts to 0.2 cm GEL, and the ice sheet inside of Sputnik Planitia basin is estimated to contain 44 -440 m GEL of nitrogen ice ( McKinnon et al. 2016; Trowbridge et al. 2016; Johnson et al. 2021a . ) The photochemical destruction amounts we calculate here fall in between these two values, equivalent to the destruction of more than 6000 present-day Pluto atmospheres worth of N2, which is 3% 30% of the -amount of nitrogen contained within Sputnik Planitia.

## 4.3. Photochemical Destruction with a Variable Atmosphere Size

In the above treatment of photochemical destruction of N2 in Pluto s atmosphere, we neglected the variable radial extent of ' the atmosphere throughout the orbit evolution. The radial extent determines how much of the incoming solar /uniFB02 ux is absorbed by Pluto s ' atmosphere by changing the cross-

sectional size of the ' target. ' We present one method for parameterizing the radial extent of Pluto s ancient atmosphere, ' but the large number of unknowns prevents us from making de /uniFB01 nitive conclusions as to the effect of a variable atmosphere s size ' on the loss of N2 through this mechanism. We instead draw our conclusions from the photochemical destruction methodology presented in Section 4.1, in which the radial extent of the atmosphere is held constant.

The radial extent of Pluto s atmosphere controls the effective ' cross section, which in turn determines how much incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. The absorbed radiation is proportional to p r max 2 . We use the radius where the line-of-sight optical depth of N2 τ LOS = 1 for the maximum radial extent r max of the atmosphere, although arguments could be made for the use of different radii. To calculate the line-ofsight optical depth, we use a brute-force approach as follows. At every radius above the surface, we sum up the N2 density ( using Equation ( 24 , ) assuming the atmosphere is isothermal with an altitude-dependent gravitational acceleration ) in each grid box along the line of sight to yield a line-of-sight column density, N LOS. This is converted to an optical depth via

$$\tau _ { \text{LOS} } ( r ) = N _ { \text{LOS} } ( r ) \sigma _ { \text{photo} }, \quad \ \ ( 1 1 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

where σ photo is the photochemical absorption cross section for N2, 1 × 10 -22 m 2 from the PHIDRATES database ( Huebner &amp; Mukherjee 2015 . The radius ) r at which τ LOS ( r ) = 1 is then taken to be the maximum radial extent r max of the atmosphere for that particular point in time.

For some combinations of atmospheric parameters experienced by the ensemble of Plutinos, the line-of-sight optical depth never equals 1 at any altitude due to our assumption of an isothermal atmosphere. Essentially, in a hypothetical atmosphere that is isothermal from the surface to in /uniFB01 nity, the density does not fall off quickly enough, and the line-of-sight optical depth minimizes at a value larger than 1. For these cases, we adjust the radial density pro /uniFB01 le to one that decreases faster with altitude at a certain height. Low in the atmosphere, the density is calculated as normal using Equation ( 24 , ) in which the atmospheric temperature is held constant with radius, but gravity is allowed to vary. This is equivalent to using a density scale height of

$$H _ { i s o } ( r < \ r _ { 2 - \text{level} } ) = \frac { k _ { \text{B} } T } { m _ { \text{N} _ { 2 } } g ( r ) }. \quad \quad ( 1 2 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

At a given radius r 2-level , we switch to an atmospheric structure in which density drops off as r -2 , which yields a scale height of

$$H _ { r { \text{squared} } } ( r > \, r _ { 2 - \text{level} } ) = \frac { r } { 2 }. \quad \quad ( 1 3 ) \quad \, \lim _ { \text{ap} | } ^ { \bullet \, \text{ir} }$$

The radius at which these two scale heights are equivalent, r 2-level , is taken to be the transition between the lower atmosphere with the isothermal structure and the upper atmosphere with pressure dropping off as r -2 . Using this two-level structure, we calculate the atmospheric density pro /uniFB01 le, the resulting optical depth pro /uniFB01 le using Equation ( 11 , ) and, /uniFB01 nally, the radius at which the optical depth equals 1, r max.

Once we calculate the radius r max, we can use this to scale the photochemical destruction rate with atmospheric size. We adjust Equation ( 10 ) to add this dependence on r max 2 :

$$\L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \L _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cd.. \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \lambda } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ { \nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu} \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \vdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots
 \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\
\Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamra _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _N } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ {nu } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n} \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n} \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _ n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n} \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \Gamma _n } \cdots \\ \$$

We calculate that ( ) t r max present , the present-day radial extent of Pluto s atmosphere, is 1714 km. '

Using the adjusted photochemical destruction rate equation, we /uniFB01 nd that the net loss of N 2 during the Wild Years is reduced by an order of magnitude. The dependence on atmospheric size means that the photochemical destruction rate is higher than we previously calculated when a Plutino has a hot and extended atmosphere. However, for the bulk of the Wild Years, the radial extent of most Plutinos is actually less than Pluto s present-day ' atmospheric size, so the photochemical destruction rate is lower than we previously calculated. The net effect is a reduction in the photochemical loss of N2 from an average of 385 cm GEL to 44 cm GEL. We also /uniFB01 nd that the range of possible loss amounts varies signi /uniFB01 cantly more between Plutinos when we include the variable atmospheric size, compared to the previous results. The 25th and 75th percentile range increased from 36 cm GEL to 56 cm GEL ( see Table 2 for details . )

## 5. Impact Delivery and Erosion

The next loss mechanism for nitrogen that we investigate here is impact delivery and removal. Impacts can deliver volatiles to Pluto s ' surface ( or Plutinos ' surfaces ) if the impactors contain volatiles and those volatiles are retained after the impact, either as fragments on the surface or as gas in the atmosphere. However, impacts can also remove volatiles by injecting energy into the atmosphere, which allows particles to escape. The size and frequency of the impactors determines which of these processes dominates and if impactors are a net source or a net loss of volatiles from a body.

Planetary surfaces record their impact history in the form of craters. There are complications, including that new craters can ' erase ' or overprint old craters on heavily cratered surfaces; geologic activity, such as volcanism, can obscure existing craters by resurfacing; and impacts can occur before a planetary surface has solidi /uniFB01 ed and become capable of recording craters. Morbidelli et al. ( 2021 ) combine crater-counting techniques and a dynamical model of the solar system in order to estimate the total number of impacts onto Pluto throughout its history, accounting for these complicating factors. They de /uniFB01 ne one ' integrated current impact rate ' ( ICR ) to be the total number of impactors calculated assuming the present-day impact rate applied for the past 4.5 Gyr. However, the impact rate was higher in the past, such that Pluto actually experienced four ICRs worth of impactors in the past 4.5 Gyr according to Morbidelli et al. ( 2021 . Assuming a size ) -frequency distribution of N ( &gt; d ) ∝ d -2.1 ( as in Morbidelli et al. 2021 , where ) d is the impactor diameter, and an impactor density of 1000 kg m -3 , four ICRs corresponds to 1.16 × 10 18 kg of material delivered to Pluto. There is some evidence that large KBOs ( &gt; 50 km ) may follow a steeper size -frequency distribution ( e.g., Fraser et al. 2014 . However, as seen in the ) bottom panel of Figure 8, impacts that large are already rare in our random sample; a steeper slope would reduce the

Figure 8. ( Top ) Mass delivered ( dotted line ) or removed ( solid lines ) by a single impactor as a function of impactor size. The red line corresponds to the amount removed from a hot atmosphere ( Tu = 124 K, H surf = 60 km, ρ surf = 10 -2 kg m -3 ) , black to Pluto s ' present-day atmosphere ( Tu = 65 K, H surf = 20 km, ρ surf = 10 -4 kg m -3 ) , and blue to a cold atmosphere ( Tu = 27 K, H surf = 13 km, ρ surf = 10 -6 kg m -3 ) . ( Bottom ) Histogram showing the number of impactors of a given size in a random sample equivalent to one ICR.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-16555290-318e-4a10-8cf7-deafa8ebf02f.jpg)

likelihood of one occurring even further. Additionally, as seen in the top panel, impacts of that size contribute a net delivery of volatiles but remove the same amount as a smaller impactor, since all impactors with r cap &lt; r &lt; r gi remove the same amount of atmosphere ( see Equations ( 16 ) and ( 17 ) for de /uniFB01 nitions of r cap and r gi ) . Thus, the exact size -frequency distribution slope used for large KBOs does not have a signi /uniFB01 cant impact on the results discussed here.

We assume that all of the impactor mass is retained by Pluto after the impact as an upper limit estimate of the amount of N2 delivered by impacts. Considering only nitrogen, and assuming that each impactor is 2% nitrogen in all forms by mass ( Mumma &amp; Charnley 2011; Singer &amp; Stern 2015 , the total ) delivery of nitrogen is 2.32 × 10 16 kg, equivalent to 1000 times the mass of Pluto s present-day atmosphere or 1% of the mass ' of nitrogen thought to be contained in Sputnik Planitia. Our assumption that impactors are 2% nitrogen by mass may be an overestimate; in that case, our estimation of the amount of nitrogen delivered by impactors is also an overestimate. However, this assumption does not affect the amount of atmospheric nitrogen removed during the impact, which we calculate below.

There are many models of how impacts remove gas from an atmosphere. In this work, we follow the framework of Schlichting et al. ( 2015 ) but adapt their models from Earth to Pluto parameters. Schlichting et al. ( 2015 ) de /uniFB01 ne four impactor size regimes.

- 1. r &lt; r min : impactors that are too small to remove any atmosphere.
- 3. r cap  r &lt; r gi : impactors that remove all of the atmosphere local to the impact site, meaning all of the atmosphere above the tangent plane to the impact site.
- 2. r min  r &lt; r cap : impactors that can remove some of the atmosphere local to the impact site.
- 4. r r gi : giant impactors capable of removing all of the local atmosphere and some ( or all ) of the nonlocal atmosphere material through ground shocks.

The equations for the impactor radii r min , r cap , and r gi are given below:

$$r _ { \min } = \left ( \frac { 3 \rho _ { \text{atmo} } } { \rho _ { \text{imp} } } \right ) ^ { 1 / 3 } H,$$

$$r _ { \text{cap} } = \left ( \frac { 3 \sqrt { 2 \pi } \rho _ { \text{atmo} } } { 4 \rho _ { \text{imp} } } \right ) ^ { 1 / 3 } \sqrt { H R _ { \text{Pluto} } } \,, \quad \quad ( 1 6 )$$

$$r _ { \text{gi} } = ( 2 H R _ { \text{Pluto} } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 1 / 3 },$$

where ρ atmo is the density of Pluto s atmosphere at the surface, ' ρ imp = 1000 kg m -3 is the impactor density, H is the atmosphere scale height at the surface, and R Pluto = 1189 km is Pluto s radius. For Pluto s present-day atmosphere, where ' ' ρ atmo is 10 -4 kg m -3 , H = 20 km, and Tu = 65 K, these impactor size regimes are r min = 0.13 km, r cap = 0.88 km, and r gi = 384 km.

## 5.1. Impact Delivery and Erosion Model

In order to calculate the net delivery ( or removal ) of N2 from impacts, we perform the following steps.

- 1. Generate an impactor with a randomly distributed radius r , following a size -frequency distribution proportional to r -2.1 .
- 2. Calculate the N2 mass delivered by the impactor,

$$m _ { \text{deliv} } = \frac { 4 } { 3 } \pi r ^ { 3 } \rho _ { \text{imp} } f _ { N 2 } \,,$$

where f N2 is the N2 mass fraction of the impactor, assumed to be 2%. There is an implicit assumption that all of the N2 is retained on Pluto s ' surface after the impact.

- 3. Calculate the atmospheric N2 mass removed by the impactor, which is dependent on its size r and also the parameters of Pluto s ' atmosphere at the given time,

following Schlichting et al. ( 2015 : )

$$m _ { \text{remov} } = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \text{if $r<r_{min}$} \\ \frac { m _ { \text{imp} } r_{min} } { r } \left ( 1 - \left ( \frac { r _ { \text{min} } } { r } \right ) ^ { 2 } \right ) & \text{if $r_{min} \leqslant r<r_{cap}$} \\ 2 \pi \rho _ { \text{atmo} } H ^ { 2 } R \text{Pluto} & \text{if $r_{cap} \leqslant r<r_{gi}$} \\ ( 0. 4 x + 1. 4 x ^ { 2 } - 0. 8 x ^ { 3 } ) M _ { \text{atmo} } & \text{if $r\geqslant r_{gi}$} \\ ( 0. 4 x + 1. 4 x ^ { 2 } - 0. 8 x ^ { 3 } ) M _ { \text{atmo} } & \text{if $r\geqslant r_{gi}$} \\ \end{pmatrix} ^ { \text{in} } \begin{pmatrix} \text{occu} \\ \text{time} \\ \text{limit} \\ \text{the} \\ \text{ence} \\ \text{$H=1$} \\ \text{exper} \\ \text{start} \\ \text{start} \\ \text{end} \\ \text{end} \\ \end{pmatrix} ^ { \text{in} }$$

$$\text{where} \quad x = \frac { v _ { \text{imp} } m _ { \text{imp} } } { v _ { \text{esc} } M _ { \text{Pluto} } }, \quad \quad ( 2 0 ) \quad \text{its}$$

where v imp and v esc are the impact velocity and Pluto s ' escape velocity and m imp , M Pluto , and M atmo are the impactor mass, Pluto s mass, and the mass of the atmosphere. We use ' an impactor velocity of 2 km s -1 ( Zahnle et al. 2003; Dell Oro ' et al. 2013 . ) The escape velocity from Pluto s ' surface can be calculated as = = v gR 2 esc Pluto 1.2 kms -1 . The mass of Pluto is 1.31 × 10 22 kg.

We then repeat this process of generating randomly sized impactors and track the amount of N2 they deliver and remove until the total mass of the impactors reaches two ICRs. Given the random nature of the impactor sizes, we repeat this entire process 100 times and analyze the resulting distribution.

## 5.2. Impact Delivery and Erosion Results

According to Morbidelli et al. ( 2021 , Pluto ) should have received two ICRs worth of impacting material in the past 4 Gyr, during which time Pluto was in its current orbit and its atmosphere was likely approximately equivalent to the present-day atmosphere. At 4 Ga, the Sun s ' bolometric luminosity was roughly 75% of the present-day value ( Bressan et al. 2012 , so Pluto s atmosphere would have been ) ' slightly cooler and more compact during this time period, but we assume the atmosphere was constant from 4 Ga to the present. Using Pluto s ' present-day atmospheric parameters ( ρ atmo = 10 -4 kg m -3 and H = 20 km , ) we estimate that two ICRs ( equivalent to 5.8 × 10 17 kg of impacting material ) will deliver -74 cm GEL, but they will also remove 10 cm GEL of atmosphere, resulting in a net delivery of -64 cm GEL of N2. Note that, throughout this section, a negative sign means a net delivery of N2, while a positive sign is reserved for a net removal or loss of N2, to be consistent with the loss mechanisms discussed elsewhere in the paper.

Figure 8 shows the mass of N2 delivered and removed by an impactor of a given size. From this, one can see that there is only a narrow size range in which an impactor is capable of removing more N2 than it delivers. For an atmosphere like Pluto s present-day one, impactors between roughly 100 m and ' 2 km remove more atmospheric N2 than they deliver. Impactors larger than 2 km, although signi /uniFB01 cantly less likely to hit Pluto, deliver orders of magnitude more N2 than they remove. The net effect is that impact delivery outstrips impact removal of N2, resulting in a net delivery of -29 cm GEL per ICR, for a present-day Pluto-like atmosphere.

For the time period between the start of the giant planet instability and 4 Ga, Morbidelli et al. ( 2021 ) estimate that the Pluto system received two ICRs of impacting material as well, for a total of four ICRs between the start of the instability and the present day. This is a cumulative, integrated estimation, and the exact timing of when an impact of a given size would have occurred is not known. Thus, the atmospheric parameters at the time of each impact are also not known. Instead, we analyze three limiting cases of possible atmospheres during this time period: ( 1 ) the present-day atmosphere; ( 2 ) the coldest atmosphere experienced by the example Plutino, with ρ atmo = 10 -6 kg m -3 , H = 13 km, and Tu = 27 K; and ( 3 ) the warmest atmosphere experienced by the example Plutino, with ρ atmo = 10 -2 kg m -3 , H = 60 km, and Tu = 124 K. We assume that these atmosphere parameters are constant during the entire time period between the start of the giant planet instability and 4 Ga.

In scenario 1, Pluto experiences four ICRs of impacts with its present-day atmosphere. According to our model, these impacts deliver -168 cm GEL of N2 and remove 22 cm GEL, for a net change of -146 cm GEL. A total of 30% of this amount occurs in the past 4 Gyr, with the remainder being delivered in the much shorter period of time between the start of the instability 4.537 Gyr ago and 4 Gyr ago.

In scenario 2, we assume that Pluto had a colder, more compact atmosphere between 4.537 and 4 Gyr ago and received two ICRs and then had its present-day atmosphere from 4 Gyr ago to the present and received two ICRs of impacts, for a total of four ICRs. We predict a net change of about -155 cm GEL of N2, split into -72 cm GEL during the cold period and -64 cm GEL during the present-day atmosphere period. As shown by the blue curve in Figure 8, impactors greater than ∼ 0.3 km radius will deliver more N2 than they remove. In fact, two ICRs worth of impactors only remove a few cm GEL of atmospheric material. In the presentday atmosphere and in the cold, compact atmosphere, impact delivery always exceeds impact removal.

In scenario 3, in which we assume that Pluto had a very warm extended atmosphere between 4.537 and 4 Gyr ago, we predict a net change of -58 cm GEL N2 delivered between 4.537 Gyr ago and the present. In the warm, extended atmosphere, it is relatively easier for impacts to remove more atmosphere than they deliver, compared to the colder atmospheres discussed above. It is possible for there to be a net removal ( rather than a net delivery ) for the time period immediately after the giant planet instability in the hot atmosphere case, with the median value being 26 cm GEL removed. However, over the full time range, the net effect is still a delivery of N2 of -58 cm GEL.

Due to the higher rate of impacts in the aftermath of the giant planet instability, a signi /uniFB01 cant fraction of the impact delivery and erosion occurs during the relatively short 100 Myr Wild Years. Estimates of volatile delivery or related quantities that use the present-day impact rate on Pluto and ignore the Wild Years time period will be signi /uniFB01 cant underestimates as a result.

## 6. Atmospheric Jeans Escape

The /uniFB01 nal loss mechanism for N2 investigated here is atmospheric escape via an enhanced Jeans escape process. At the time of the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby, Pluto s atmospheric structure ' implied an escape rate for N2 of 3 -8 × 10 22 molecules s -1 , while CH4 escaped faster at 4 8 -× 10 25 molecules s -1 ( Young et al. 2018 . These escape rates were orders of magnitude lower than ) pre/uniFB02 yby estimates.

Particles escape from a level of the atmosphere known as the exobase. Below the exobase, the atmosphere can be treated as a /uniFB02 uid, but above a transition region near the exobase, the atmosphere becomes collisionless, and the mean free path of a particle exceeds the scale height. This means that if a particle is

traveling upward at the escape velocity from the body, then at the exobase, it is as likely to escape from the atmosphere as it is to collide with another particle. In the following section, we describe our scheme for estimating the atmospheric structure, including the height of the exobase, of Pluto s ' atmosphere during the Wild Years in order to estimate the escape rate.

## 6.1. Enhanced Jeans Escape Model

We use an enhanced Jeans escape framework ( Zhu et al. 2014; Strobel 2021 ) as follows.

- 1. Webegin by estimating the upper atmospheric temperature as a function of heliocentric distance and solar age. During the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby when Pluto was at 32.9 au, the upper atmosphere, above the 10 -5 Pa level, was at T upper = 65 K. To estimate how T upper varies with heliocentric distance, we create a scaling from Titan, which also has a hazy, nitrogen-dominated atmosphere. Using Titan s ' atmospheric temperature of 160 K at the 10 -5 Pa level ( Fulchignoni et al. 2005 ) and its semimajor axis of 9.5 au in addition to the values for Pluto, we derive a power law of T upper ∝ h -0.725 , where h is the heliocentric distance.
- 2. The relation for T upper and heliocentric distance derived above needs to be adjusted to account for the variable output of the early Sun. Incident solar /uniFB02 ux drops off as heliocentric distance to the inverse square power. This is equivalent to saying that the heliocentric distance is proportional to the incident /uniFB02 ux to the -1 2 / power. Thus, we can relate T upper to the incident solar /uniFB02 ux as

$$T _ { \text{upper} } \in h ^ { - 0. 7 2 5 } = ( F _ { b o l o } ^ { - 1 / 2 } ) ^ { - 0. 7 2 5 } = F _ { b o l o } ^ { \quad 0. 3 6 2 5 }, \quad ( 2 1 )$$

where F bolo is incident bolometric solar /uniFB02 ux at a given heliocentric distance. In using the bolometric /uniFB02 ux here, we are assuming that the atmospheric heating, namely, the haze heating and cooling, is dominated by visible-wavelength solar radiation. In the present-day Sun s ' output, the bolometric /uniFB02 ux is 13,000 times higher than the UV /uniFB02 ux ( 100 1180 -Å ) alone, so any UV haze heating is negligible. During the Wild Years, this drops to only 100 times higher, so UV heating could be nonnegligible. However, laboratory studies of Pluto s haze do not extend into UV wavelengths, ' so rather than make an unconstrained guess as to the haze absorption in UV wavelengths, we assume that haze UV heating and cooling are negligible even during the enhanced early Sun. Thus, we estimate T upper at any time and heliocentric distance as follows:

$$\text{remove instance as 1080s}. & \\ T _ { \text{upper} } ( t, h ) = T _ { \text{upper}, \text{present} } \left ( \frac { F _ { \text{bolo} } ( t, h ) } { F _ { \text{bolo} } ( t _ { \text{present} }, \, 3 2. 9 \, \text{au} ) } \right ) ^ { 0. 3 6 2 5 }, & \\ & ( 2 2 )$$

where F bolo ( t , h ) is calculated using the PARSEC model described in Section 2.

- 3. The next step is to estimate the altitude z upper of the 10 -5 Pa level. To do so, we assume that the atmosphere is isothermal and hydrostatic. During the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby, the atmosphere above the 10 -5 Pa level was roughly isothermal at T upper = 65 K due to ef /uniFB01 cient thermal conduction. Additionally, below the 10 -5 Pa pressure level in Pluto s ʼ current atmosphere, it was proposed that haze radiative heating and cooling dominate the energy balance and control the temperature pro /uniFB01 le ( Zhang et al. 2017; Wan et al. 2021 . ) For simplicity, we assume the haze particles in the

atmosphere also control the temperature below this pressure level throughout Pluto s history. We further assume that both ' haze heating and cooling rates roughly scale with the haze mixing ratio; thus, the temperature in the haze-dominant lower region is not very sensitive to the haze mixing ratio or the surface methane mixing ratio. Thus, in our escape model, we approximate the atmosphere as fully isothermal, from just above the surface through to the exobase. However, the gravitational acceleration is not constant with altitude ( it varies by a factor of 2 or more between the surface and the upper atmosphere . Thus, the altitude ) z of a given pressure level P and temperature T is

$$& \text{level $P$ and temperature $T$ is} \\ & z = R _ { \text{Pluto} } \left ( \frac { k _ { \text{B} } T } { m _ { \text{N2} } g _ { \text{surf} } R _ { \text{Pluto} } } \log \left ( \frac { P } { P _ { \text{surf} } } \right ) + 1 \right ) ^ { - 1 } - R _ { \text{Pluto} },$$

where g surf and P surf are the gravitational acceleration and atmospheric pressure at the surface, k B is Boltzmann s ' constant, and m N2 is the mass of a nitrogen molecule. For the atmospheric conditions at the time of the /uniFB02 yby, assuming an isothermal atmosphere leads to a prediction of 630 km altitude for z u , compared with the observed altitude of 700 km for the 10 -5 Pa level.

- 4. Given P upper and T upper , we use the ideal gas law to calculate the particle density N upper at altitude z upper . Then, we /uniFB01 nd the density pro /uniFB01 le at z &gt; z upper assuming the atmosphere is isothermal above this altitude and again including an altitude-dependent gravitational acceleration g z ( upper ) :

( ) N z

$$& \ast \cdot \cdot / \\ & = N _ { \text{upper} } \exp \left ( \frac { m _ { N 2 } g ( z _ { \text{upper} } ) ( R _ { \text{Pluto} } + z _ { \text{upper} } ) } { k _ { B } T _ { \text{upper} } } \frac { z - z _ { \text{upper} } } { R _ { \text{Pluto} } + z } \right ), \\ & z > z _ { \text{upper} }.$$

Using this density, we calculate the mean free path of a nitrogen molecule,

$$l _ { \text{mfp} } ( z ) = \frac { 1 } { N ( z ) \sigma }, \quad \text{(25)}$$

where σ is the collisional cross section of a nitrogen molecule. We use σ = 3 × 10 -19 m 2 ( Strobel 2021 . ) The exobase is classically de /uniFB01 ned as the altitude where the mean free path and the scale height are equal ( Strobel 2021 . The ) scale height is given by

$$H ( z ) = \frac { k _ { \text{B} } T _ { \text{upper} } } { m _ { \text{N} 2 } g ( z ) }.$$

To /uniFB01 nd the exobase altitude z exo , we set l mfp ( z exo ) = H z ( exo ) . 5. Next, we calculate the Jeans escape rate at the exobase,

$$F _ { \text{Jeans} } & = 4 \pi ( R _ { \text{Pluto} } + z _ { \text{exo} } ) ^ { 2 } N ( z _ { \text{exo} } ) \\ & \quad \times \sqrt { \frac { k _ { \text{B} } T _ { \text{upper} } } { 2 \pi m _ { N 2 } } } \, e ^ { - \lambda _ { \text{exo} } } ( 1 + \lambda _ { \text{exo} } ), \quad \quad ( 2 7 )$$

where λ exo is the Jeans parameter at the exobase, given by

$$\lambda _ { \text{exo} } = \frac { G M _ { \text{Pluto} } m _ { \text{N2} } } { k _ { \text{B} } T _ { \text{upper} } ( R _ { \text{Pluto} } + z _ { \text{exo} } ) },$$

where G is the universal gravitational constant and M Pluto = 1.31 × 10 22 kg is the mass of Pluto. Recent numerical models have shown that molecules actually escape at a slightly different rate relative to the Jeans rate at

Figure 9. Whisker plot showing the amount of N2 in Sputnik Planitia; the amount of N2 lost during the Wild Years via photochemical destruction, atmospheric Jeans escape, and impact erosion; and the amount delivered by impacts. The red lines are the median values from the ensemble of 53 Plutinos for photochemical destruction and atmospheric escape and the 100 random samples drawn for the impact escape and delivery. The boxes encompass the 25th -75th percentiles, and the whiskers are the 5th and 95th percentiles.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00625v1-figure-8234d0e7-a1b0-4e93-a143-58dc0481582c.jpg)

the exobase. We adopt the enhancement model presented in Strobel ( 2021 ) based on the work of Zhu et al. ( 2014 : )

$$\Gamma ( \lambda _ { e x o } ) & = e ^ { 4. 0 8 6 4 4 6 9 1 6 - 0. 8 7 0 0 1 8 7 4 3 \lambda _ { e x o } } \\ & \quad + e ^ { 0. 6 3 5 5 4 4 6 3 - 0. 0 1 9 9 2 2 3 1 3 \lambda _ { e x o } }, \quad \quad ( 2 9 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

energy-limited escape rate from Pluto, 2.6 × 10 27 N2 s -1 ( Johnson et al. 2015 . The 0.09 term in the brackets is due to ) the background /uniFB02 ux from other stars.

where we have corrected a small typo in the equation from Strobel ( 2021 . ) For the range of Jeans parameters experienced by the Plutinos ( λ exo ∼ 9 37 , the enhancement -) factor Γ ranges from 1.6 to 0.9. The net escape rate is then

$$F _ { \text{esc} } = \Gamma ( \lambda _ { \text{exo} } ) F _ { \text{leans} }. \quad \text{(30)} \quad \text{as}$$

## 6.1.1. Energy-limited Escape Model

Particles cannot escape at a rate faster than the incident energy driving their escape arrives at the atmosphere. The incident UV energy ranges from 0.85 to 0.2 mW m -2 at 40 au from the start to the end of the Wild Years ( Ribas et al. 2005 . ) Conduction of heat up from the lower atmosphere into the exobase region is much smaller than the incident solar UV /uniFB02 ux, on the order of 10 -3 mWm 2 , assuming -κ ( ) t ≈ 0.006 W m -1 K ( Span et al. 2000 ) in the broad altitude range of decreasing temperature from 40 to 400 km. Thus, the maximum realistic escape rate is limited by the incident UV energy. To estimate this energy-limited escape rate, we use the model of Johnson et al. ( 2015 . While it was developed to estimate escape rates ) from various KBOs by scaling from Pluto, we modify it to calculate escape rates from Pluto ( or Plutinos ) at various times throughout the history of the solar system. The relationship we use is as follows:

$$F _ { \text{esc} } ( h, t ) = E _ { \text{UV} + L y \alpha } \left [ \left ( \frac { 3 2. 9 \, \text{au} } { h } \right ) ^ { 2 } + 0. 0 9 \right ] F _ { \text{esc}, \text{present} }, \ ( 3 1 ) \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \text{($see$\}$} \quad \end{cases}$$

where E UV + Ly α is the /uniFB02 ux enhancement, accounting for both 100 -1180 Å UV radiation and Ly α radiation; h is the heliocentric distance in au; and F esc,present is the present-day

For each Plutino migration from Nesvorný ( 2015 , we know ) the orbital parameters at time steps of 10,000 yr. For each of these unique sets of orbital parameters, we calculate the heliocentric distance at 20 points per period, which is enough time steps to resolve the perihelion and aphelion. We then repeat this heliocentric distance as a function of time array for as many orbits as the Plutino completes in 10,000 yr. We assume that the Plutino restarts at perihelion each time the orbital parameters change. This technique gives us heliocentric distance as a function of time ( albeit unevenly spaced in time ) for the Plutino during its 100 Myr migration ( the Wild Years . ) Using this and the solar evolution model, we can calculate the escape rate as a function of time or the total amount of N2 that escapes during the Wild Years and throughout the entire 4.56 Gyr history of the solar system.

## 6.2. Atmospheric Jeans Escape Results

Figure 6 D ( ) shows the estimated escape rate as a function of time for the example Plutino. At times when the calculated enhanced Jeans escape rate is greater than the energy-limited escape rate, we cap the escape rate at the energy-limited value ( red line , ) although this rarely occurs. Integrating this capped escape rate over the length of the Wild Years yields a total nitrogen loss of 757 cm GEL for this Plutino, and the median loss of nitrogen from the ensemble of 53 Plutinos is 98 cm GEL ( see Table 2 . The range of escape losses is much larger than ) the range for the other loss mechanisms studied here. The middle 50% of the ensemble of Plutinos loses between 1 and 1000 cm GEL of N2, as shown in Figure 9. The enhanced Jeans escape rate is highly dependent on the incident /uniFB02 ux, so even a short period of time spent closer to the Sun than the average Plutino can have a large effect on the total N2 loss.

In Figure 6, it is clear that at the end of the simulated time period, the escape rate is still far lower than the present-day rate. The solar luminosity is 71% of the present-day value at the end of the Wild Years, resulting in an atmosphere that is colder and more compact than Pluto s present-day atmosphere. The ' upper atmosphere temperature Tu is 47 K, versus 65 K for present-day Pluto, and the exobase altitude z exo is 550 km, compared with 1700 km at present. As a result, the Jeans parameter ( that is, the ratio of gravitational potential energy to thermal kinetic energy ) at the exobase is 35 at the end of the Wild Years versus 16 for present-day Pluto, meaning that the atmosphere is much more tightly bound to Pluto and thus escape is much slower.

Using this same framework for estimating atmospheric escape, we calculate that the total nitrogen loss during the time from the end of the Wild Years to the present day is 2.35 cm GEL. Thus, the total nitrogen loss due to atmospheric Jeans escape is on the order of 100 cm GEL, which is a negligible amount relative to the observed nitrogen inventory on Pluto in the present day ( i.e., the 44 -440 m GEL of nitrogen contained within Sputnik Planitia . ) Thus, atmospheric escape via the enhanced Jeans regime is not a signi /uniFB01 cant loss mechanism for nitrogen from Pluto at the present time or during the Wild Years.

Assuming instead that escape proceeded at the energylimited rate throughout the entire simulation time or the age of the solar system gives an upper limit to the total amount of N2 loss via atmospheric escape. During the Wild Years, we estimate that 1.2 km GEL would escape, using the energylimited escape rate rather than the enhanced Jeans rate. Over the age of the solar system ( including the Wild Years , the total ) amount lost would be 3.9 km GEL, which is about 10 times larger than the amount of N2 ice contained within Sputnik Planitia. Only in this extreme case could atmospheric escape be a signi /uniFB01 cant loss of N2 from Pluto relative to the known present-day inventory.

## 7. Discussion

## 7.1. Comparison of Photochemical Destruction, Impact Erosion, and Jeans Escape

Sections 4 ( Photochemical Destruction , 5 ) ( Impact Erosion and Delivery , ) and 6 ( Atmospheric Jeans Escape ) are presented in order of decreasing signi /uniFB01 cance to the nitrogen budget on Pluto. Photochemical destruction could remove up to 1270 cm GEL of N2, the net effect from impacts could deliver up to -155 cm GEL of N2, and atmospheric Jeans escape could remove up to 100 cm GEL over the age of the solar system. These values are summarized in Table 2 and shown graphically in Figure 9. During the Wild Years, photochemical destruction is the largest loss of N , 2 followed by atmospheric escape and then impact erosion.

Sputnik Planitia, which likely contains the bulk of Pluto s ' present-day nitrogen inventory, amounts to 44 -440 m GEL. In total, the three loss mechanisms analyzed here account for a net loss of 1270 -155 + 100 = 1215 cm GEL, or just over 12 m GEL. Thus, Pluto s primordial nitrogen inventory could have ' been 3% -30% higher than the present-day value.

## 7.2. Implications for Pluto s Composition '

Glein &amp; Waite ( 2018 ) also estimated Pluto s primordial N2 ' inventory and concluded that unless Pluto s atmospheric escape ' rate was signi /uniFB01 cantly higher in the past, the inventory would be dominated by the N2 ice contained within Sputnik Planitia. In their ' Large Loss ' model, they assumed an energy-limited escape rate of 10 27 -10 28 N2 s -1 for Pluto, active over the age of the solar system ( but they did not include any orbital migration; Pluto s orbital parameters were held constant at their present-' day values , and calculated a net amount of N2 ) lost via escape of 1.5 -15 km GEL, which dwarfs the amount of N2 in Sputnik Planitia ( 0.044 -0.44 km GEL . In this scenario, Pluto s large ) ' N2 inventory is most consistent with a solar-like composition. In their alternative scenario using the present-day escape rate over the age of the solar system ( ' Past Like Present ' ) , Pluto s ' smaller N2 inventory is consistent with a cometary composition. This means that the icy planetesimals that accreted together to form Pluto, which are assumed to have compositions similar to comets such as 67P / Churyumov Gerasimenko -( Rubin et al. 2015 , ) could have delivered suf /uniFB01 cient N2 to explain Pluto s ' present-day inventory. In the ' Large Loss ' scenario, the comet explanation fails to deliver suf /uniFB01 cient nitrogen to account for the observed amount of N2 in Sputnik Planitia and the 1.5 -15 km GEL lost via atmospheric escape.

The enhanced Jeans escape model that we use here predicts a slightly larger amount of N2 lost to space than the ' Past Like Present ' scenario from Glein &amp; Waite ( 2018 , ) 100 cm GEL versus 8 cm GEL, but both are small relative to the amount in Sputnik Planitia. Our estimates of photochemical destruction and impact erosion / delivery are also small relative to the amount of N2 contained within Sputnik Planitia. Thus, although this work uses a time-dependent escape rate based on the early Sun s output ' and incorporates Pluto s early orbital migration, we ' /uniFB01 nd that the loss of N2 from Pluto over the age of the solar system is small. This is consistent with a cometary composition for Pluto, based on the work of Glein &amp; Waite ( 2018 . )

Our escape analysis also has implications for the isotopic ratio of Pluto s nitrogen. Rayleigh fractionation in atmospheres occurs ' because molecules containing the heavier 15 N atom are less likely to escape than those with 14 N. However, a detectable change to the isotopic ratio 15 N 14 / N occurs only if substantial escape occurs, which we do not /uniFB01 nd here. Thus, Pluto s present-day isotopic ratio ' is likely indicative of the primordial isotopic ratio and therefore the isotopic ratio of the source of Pluto s nitrogen. New Horizons was ' not able to constrain the 15 N 14 / N ratio, but subsequent observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter / submillimeter Array have placed upper limits ( Lellouch et al. 2017, 2022 . Based ) on those upper limits, Glein ( 2023 ) concluded that NH3 cannot be the sole primordial source of Pluto s N2, and instead some initial ' N2 and or organic N is needed. Given our conclusion that escape / was not signi /uniFB01 cant ( relative to the total inventory of N 2 on Pluto today , the ) ' escape unimportant ' case presented in Glein ( 2023 ) would apply ( see their Figure 2 a ( )) . While this case provides looser constraints than the case in which escape was important, it still constrains the initial source of Pluto s nitrogen to be at least 45% ' primordial N2, organic N, or a mix of the two. If the isotope ratio 15 N 14 / N of Pluto s atmospheric or surface N2 ' can be measured in the future, the primordial source and therefore the formation mechanism of Pluto could be determined with more certainty.

## 7.3. Consideration of Nonthermal Escape Processes

In Section 6, we discussed thermal escape from the atmosphere, in particular modi /uniFB01 ed Jeans escape. However, there are other, nonthermal escape mechanisms that can contribute to atmospheric loss, which we will now brie /uniFB02 y discuss. Escape process are categorized into /uniFB01 ve general

groups: ( 1 ) thermal Jeans escape, ( 2 ) hydrodynamic escape, ( 3 ) photochemical escape ( different but related to the photochemical destruction discussed in Section 4 , ) ( 4 ) sputtering, and ( 5 ) ion escape.

Historically, Pluto s ' atmosphere was thought to be in the hydrodynamic escape regime ( e.g., Trafton et al. 1997; Tian &amp; Toon 2005; Strobel 2008 , meaning that the escaping material ) can be treated as a /uniFB02 uid or bulk out /uniFB02 ow moving at a single velocity. Models predicted N2 escape rates of the order of 10 28 N2 s -1 and were subject to the same energy-limit rate used in this work. They assumed an upper atmosphere temperature of 97 K for Pluto, but New Horizons observations indicate a much cooler atmosphere of only 65 -68 K ( Young et al. 2018 , ) contributing to the lower estimation of Pluto s ' escape rate ( 10 22 N2 s -1 ) post/uniFB02 yby. Post/uniFB02 yby atmosphere models include cooling mechanisms such as water vapor ( Strobel &amp; Zhu 2017 ) or haze particles ( Zhang et al. 2017; Lavvas et al. 2021; Wan et al. 2021 . In our simple model here, we adopted the haze ) cooling scenario, resulting in a cooler temperature in the upper atmosphere and an enhanced Jeans regime for thermal escape instead of the hydrodynamic regime. Direct simulation Monte Carlo models have shown that Pluto s ' atmospheric escape remains in an enhanced Jeans regime and does not reach the hydrodynamic regime even with increased solar heating ( Erwin et al. 2013; Zhu et al. 2014 . )

When N2 is photochemically destroyed in the upper atmosphere, the constituent N atoms or ions can receive enough energy to escape directly. According to the photochemical model of Krasnopolsky ( 2020 , most of the N2 ) that gets destroyed combines with hydrocarbon radicals to form nitriles, predominantly HCN. Due to the strong triple bond, any HCN formed cannot be photochemically destroyed and thus precipitates to the surface ( see Lavvas et al. 2021 for another, independent photochemical model of Pluto s atmosphere that ' includes deposition of HCN . The N atoms that do not get ) incorporated into other species can escape to space, and Krasnopolsky ( 2020 ) calculates that N will be lost to escape at a rate of 1.2 × 10 23 s -1 , 50 times lower than the present-day N2 photochemical destruction rate. We do not account for the direct escape of N during the Wild Years in this work.

Ion escape and sputtering both involve interactions between particles in Pluto s ' atmosphere and the solar wind. These interactions were not well studied prior to the New Horizons /uniFB02 yby, but Trafton et al. ( 1997 ) argued that nonradiative effects such as these could be signi /uniFB01 cant at Pluto, due to its large distance from the Sun. However, New Horizons observations revealed that Pluto does not have strong interactions with the solar wind ( Bagenal et al. 2016 , at least at present. The early ) Sun had a stronger solar wind, with a mass-loss rate as much as 1000 times higher during the Wild Years relative to the presentday rate ( Wood et al. 2002 . ) Thus, during the Wild Years, sputtering may have been a signi /uniFB01 cant loss mechanism of atmospheric volatiles, although quantifying the loss rate due to solar wind interactions is beyond the scope of this work.

## 7.4. Implications for Hypothesized Ancient Glaciation on Pluto

Pluto shows evidence for present-day glaciers and glacial processes. Sputnik Planitia is interpreted to be a large glacial ice sheet, and glacial /uniFB02 ow is needed to maintain the level, crater-free surface that was observed by New Horizons ( Bertrand et al. 2018 . ) Additionally, /uniFB02 ow features from the east of Sputnik Planitia that appear to empty into the basin are also interpreted to be active glaciation in the present day ( Howard et al. 2017 . )

There is geologic evidence that implies that glacial processes were active in certain regions during ancient times as well. Howard et al. ( 2017 ) identify dissected terrains, containing a multitude of valleys with various morphologies, to the west, north, and northeast of Sputnik Planitia and favor an ancient glaciation interpretation for their formation. If the glaciers purportedly responsible for sculpting these valleys are suf /uniFB01 ciently thick ( 1 -4 km; McKinnon et al. 2016 , they could ) exhibit basal melting, which increases the erosive ability of a glacier. Increased ice temperatures also would increase /uniFB02 ow rates and reduce the thickness needed to induce basal melting.

Additionally, Howard et al. ( 2017 ) hypothesize that ancient glaciation could be responsible for dislodging the water-ice blocks from the bedrock surrounding Sputnik Planitia and emplacing them into the ice sheet itself, forming the observed mountain ranges, such as al-Idrisi Montes, near the edge of Sputnik Planitia. Sometime in the past, deep glacial /uniFB02 ows from the surrounding highlands could have displaced the 10 km -sized blocks ( perhaps created by fracturing of the ice crust during the impact that created Sputnik Planitia ) and transported them to their present location 100 km from the edge of Sputnik Planitia. The timing of this transport is uncertain but could potentially be even more ancient than the glaciation that produced the highland valleys.

The loss mechanisms studied in this work, taken together, imply a total loss of N2 on the order of 10 m GEL over the age of the solar system, which is mostly due to photochemical destruction of N2. This potential loss of N2 ice is far less than the kilometer thickness necessary to explain glacial carving of highland valleys or transport of water-ice blocks into Sputnik Planitia if the kilometer-thick ice mantle covered the entire globe of Pluto. If instead the kilometer-thick mantle of N2 ice was restricted to only the latitude band where ancient glaciation is hypothesized ( -30 S ° to 60 N, ° ≈ 70% of Pluto s ' surface area , the global layer of 10 m could explain a 14 m thick layer ) in this latitude band. If the N2 ice mantle was restricted even further to only the localized regions of hypothesized ancient glaciation ( ≈ 5% of Pluto s surface , then a global loss of 10 m ' ) GEL would form a 200 m thick layer. Even in this very restricted region, the loss mechanisms analyzed here are insuf /uniFB01 cient to explain a kilometer-thick glacial layer, capable of carving valleys or transporting blocks. An alternative explanation would be stipulating that this ancient glacial activity occurred before essentially all of Pluto s ' volatile inventory became sequestered in the Sputnik Planitia basin and / or invoking a past climate epoch in which N2 ice was restricted to the latitude band where the dissected valley terrains are observed. If escape proceeded at the energy-limited rate over the age of the solar system, Pluto could have lost close to 4 km GEL of N2, which would be suf /uniFB01 cient to explain the proposed ancient glaciation. As observed by New Horizons, the N2 in Pluto s atmosphere is currently escaping at a rate 5 orders ' of magnitude lower than the energy-limited rate, so for this explanation to work, Pluto would need to be in a period of unusually low levels of escape at the time of the /uniFB02 yby.

## 8. Conclusions

The main conclusions of this work are summarized below.

- 1. During the Wild Years ( 30 -130 Myr after the condensation of CAIs , Pluto likely spent ) &lt; 10 Myr closer to the

Sun than its present-day orbit and therefore &lt; 10 Myr at temperatures higher than the present-day 37 K. This likelihood is based on the median Plutino from our sample, which spent 9 Myr at heliocentric distances of less than 30 au. Typical heliocentric distances are between 15 and 80 au. Surface temperatures never exceed 63 K ( the triple point for N , so liquid N 2 2 is never stable at the surface. )

- 2. The photochemical destruction rate of N2 in Pluto s ' atmosphere was higher in the past due to the early Sun s ' enhanced UV /uniFB02 ux, and we estimate a total loss of about 10 m GEL over the age of the solar system. This is the largest loss out of the three mechanisms studied here ( photochemical destruction, impact delivery / erosion, and atmospheric escape . ) As much as 30% of the total photochemical destruction over the age of the solar system probably occurred during the short, 100 Myr Wild Years period due to the enhanced UV output from the young Sun.
- 3. Impacts are a net source of N2 for Pluto, and impact erosion of the atmosphere is minimal in contrast. Impacts could have delivered up to -155 cm GEL of N2 between the start of the giant planet instability and the present time. As much as 50% of the total impact delivery and removal likely occurred in the aftermath of the giant planet instability, when impact rates were higher than the present-day impact rate.
- 4. Atmospheric escape, calculated using an enhanced Jeans framework, is not a signi /uniFB01 cant loss mechanism for nitrogen, during the Wild Years or otherwise. Over the age of the solar system, 100 cm GEL could have escaped, the large majority of which occurs during the Wild Years, when Pluto was closer to the Sun. If Pluto s atmosphere ' escaped at the energy-limited rate for the bulk of its history, then escape on the order of 4 km GEL is possible.
- 5. Sputnik Planitia alone contains 44 -440 m GEL of N2 ice, which dwarfs the potential loss due to photochemical destruction / escape or potential delivery by impacts. Thus, Pluto s ' primordial nitrogen inventory was likely very similar to its observed present-day inventory.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NASA SSW grant NNX15AH35G. X.Z. was supported by NASA SSW grant 80NSSC19K0791. We would like to thank Randy Gladstone and Bill McKinnon for helpful conversations and their expert feedback on this work, as well as the participants of the New Horizons Summer Science Workshop in 2021 July for their early interest, encouragement, and advice for this work.

## ORCID iDs

Perianne E. Johnson https: / / orcid.org / 0000-0001-6255-8526 Leslie A. Young https: / / orcid.org / 0000-0002-7547-3967 David Nesvorný https: / / orcid.org / 0000-0002-4547-4301 Xi Zhang https: / / orcid.org / 0000-0002-8706-6963

## References

- Bagenal, F., Horányi, M., McComas, D. J., et al. 2016, Sci, 351, aad9045

Bertrand, T., Forget, F., Umurhan, O. M., et al. 2018, Icar, 309, 277 Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

- Buratti, B. J., Hofgartner, J. D., Hicks, M. D., et al. 2017, Icar, 287, 207
- Canup, R. M., Kratter, K. M., &amp; Neveu, M. 2021, in The Pluto System After

New Horizons, ed. S. A. Stern et al.

(

Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press , 475

)

Castillo-Rogez, J. C., Matson, D. L., Sotin, C., et al. 2007, Icar, 190, 179

Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525

- Connelly, J. N., Bizzarro, M., Krot, A. N., et al. 2012, Sci, 338, 651
- Dell Oro, A., Campo Bagatin, A., Benavidez, P. G., &amp; Alemañ, R. A. 2013, ' A&amp;A, 558, A95
- Erwin, J., Tucker, O. J., &amp; Johnson, R. E. 2013, Icar, 226, 375
- Fraser, W. C., Brown, M. E., Morbidelli, A., Parker, A., &amp; Batygin, K. 2014, ApJ, 782, 100
- Fray, N., &amp; Schmitt, B. 2009, P&amp;SS, 57, 2053
- Fulchignoni, M., Ferri, F., Angrilli, F., et al. 2005, Natur, 438, 785
- Glein, C. R. 2023, Icar, 404, 115651
- Glein, C. R., &amp; Waite, J. H. 2018, Icar, 313, 79
- Gomes, R., Levison, H. F., Tsiganis, K., &amp; Morbidelli, A. 2005, Natur, 435, 466
- Haisch, K. E. J., Lada, E. A., &amp; Lada, C. J. 2001, ApJL, 553, L153
- Howard, A. D., Moore, J. M., Umurhan, O. M., et al. 2017, Icar, 287, 287
- Huebner, W. F., &amp; Mukherjee, J. 2015, P&amp;SS, 106, 11
- Hunten, D. M. 1973, JAtS, 30, 1481
- Hussmann, H., Choblet, G., Lainey, V., et al. 2010, SSRv, 153, 317
- Johnson, P. E., Keane, J. T., Young, L. A., &amp; Matsuyama, I. 2021a, PSJ, 2, 194
- Johnson, P. E., Young, L. A., Protopapa, S., et al. 2021b, Icar, 356, 114070
- Johnson, R. E., Oza, A., Young, L. A., Volkov, A. N., &amp; Schmidt, C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 43
- Keane, J. T., Matsuyama, I., Kamata, S., &amp; Steckloff, J. K. 2016, Natur, 540, 90
- Krasnopolsky, V. A. 2020, Icar, 335, 113374
- Lavvas, P., Lellouch, E., Strobel, D. F., et al. 2021, NatAs, 5, 289
- Lellouch, E., Butler, B., Moreno, R., et al. 2022, Icar, 372, 114722
- Lellouch, E., Gurwell, M., Butler, B., et al. 2017, Icar, 286, 289
- Lisse, C. M., Young, L. A., Cruikshank, D. P., et al. 2021, Icar, 356, 114072 Malhotra, R. 1993, Icar, 106, 264
- McKinnon, W. B., Glein, C. R., Bertrand, T., &amp; Rhoden, A. R. 2021, in The Pluto System After New Horizons, ed. S. A. Stern et al. ( Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press , 507 )
- McKinnon, W. B., Nimmo, F., Wong, T., et al. 2016, Natur, 534, 82
- Morbidelli, A., Nesvorny, D., Bottke, W. F., &amp; Marchi, S. 2021, Icar, 356, 114256
- Mumma, M. J., &amp; Charnley, S. B. 2011, ARA&amp;A, 49, 471
- Nesvorný, D. 2015, AJ, 150, 73
- Nesvorný, D. 2018, ARA&amp;A, 56, 137
- Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., Güdel, M., &amp; Audard, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 680 Robuchon, G., &amp; Nimmo, F. 2011, Icar, 216, 426
- Rubin, M., Altwegg, K., Balsiger, H., et al. 2015, Sci, 348, 232
- Schlichting, H. E., Sari, R., &amp; Yalinewich, A. 2015, Icar, 247, 81
- Singer, K. N., &amp; Stern, S. A. 2015, ApJL, 808, L50
- Span, R., Lemmon, E. W., Jacobsen, R. T., Wagner, W., &amp; Yokozeki, A. 2000, JPCRD, 29, 1361
- Stern, S. A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al. 2015, Sci, 350, aad1815
- Stern, S. A., Binzel, R. P., Earle, A. M., et al. 2017, Icar, 287, 47
- Strobel, D. F. 2008, Icar, 193, 612
- Strobel, D. F. 2021, in The Pluto System After New Horizons, ed. S. A. Stern et al. ( Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press , 363 )
- Strobel, D. F., &amp; Zhu, X. 2017, Icar, 291, 55
- Tan, S. P. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1690
- Tian, F., &amp; Toon, O. B. 2005, GeoRL, 32, L18201
- Trafton, L. M., Hunten, D. M., Zahnle, K. J., &amp; McNutt, R. L. J. 1997, in Pluto and Charon, ed. S. A. Stern &amp; D. J. Tholen ( Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press , 475 )
- Trowbridge, A. J., Melosh, H. J., Steckloff, J. K., &amp; Freed, A. M. 2016, Natur, 534, 79
- Wan, L., Zhang, X., &amp; Bertrand, T. 2021, ApJ, 922, 244
- Weiss, B. P., Bai, X.-N., &amp; Fu, R. R. 2021, SciA, 7, eaba5967
- Williams, J. P., &amp; Cieza, L. A. 2011, ARA&amp;A, 49, 67
- Wood, B. E., Müller, H.-R., Zank, G. P., &amp; Linsky, J. L. 2002, ApJ, 574, 412
- Young, L. A. 2012, Icar, 221, 80
- Young, L. A. 2017, Icar, 284, 443
- Young, L. A., Bertrand, T., Trafton, L. M., et al. 2021, in The Pluto System After New Horizons, ed. S. A. Stern et al. ( Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press , 321 )
- Young, L. A., Kammer, J. A., Stef /uniFB02 , A. J., et al. 2018, Icar, 300, 174 Yu, Q., &amp; Tremaine, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 1873
- Zahnle, K., Schenk, P., Levison, H., &amp; Dones, L. 2003, Icar, 163, 263
- Zhang, X., Strobel, D. F., &amp; Imanaka, H. 2017, Natur, 551, 352
- Zhu, X., Strobel, D. F., &amp; Erwin, J. T. 2014, Icar, 228, 301
Perianne E. Johnson Leslie A. Young David Nesvorny Xi Zhang
Nitrogen Loss from Pluto's Birth to the Present Day via Atmospheric Escape, Photochemical Destruction, and Impact Erosion
We estimate the loss of nitrogen from Pluto over its lifetime, including the
giant planet instability period, which we term the "Wild Years." We analyze the
orbital migration of 53 simulated Plutinos, which are Kuiper Belt Objects
(KBOs) captured into 3:2 mean-motion resonance with Neptune during the
instability. This orbital migration brought the Plutinos from 20 to 30 au to
their present-day orbits near 40 au along a nonlinear path that includes orbits
with semimajor axes from 10 to 100 au. We model the thermal history that
results from this migration and estimate the volatile loss rates due to the
ever-changing thermal environment. Due to the early Sun's enhanced ultraviolet
radiation, the photochemical destruction rate during the Wild Years was a
factor of 100 higher than the present-day rate, but this only results in a loss
of ~10 m global equivalent layer (GEL). The enhanced Jeans escape rate varies
wildly with time, and a net loss of ~100 cm GEL is predicted. Additionally, we
model the impact history during the migration and find that impacts are a net
source, not loss, of N2, contributing ~100 cm GEL. The 100 cm GEL is 0.1% of
the amount of N2 in Sputnik Planitia. We therefore conclude that Pluto did not
lose an excessive amount of volatiles during the Wild Years, and its primordial
volatile inventory can be approximated as its present-day inventory. However,
significant fractions of this small total loss of N2 occurred during the Wild
Years, so estimates made using present-day rates will be underestimates.