Letter | Published:

Saturn’s F ring and shepherd satellites a natural outcome of satellite system formation

Nature Geoscience volume 8, pages 686689 (2015) | Download Citation

Abstract

Saturn’s F ring is a narrow ring of icy particles, located 3,400 km beyond the outer edge of the main ring system. Enigmatically, the F ring is accompanied on either side by two small satellites, Prometheus and Pandora, which are called shepherd satellites1,2,3. The inner regular satellites of giant planets are thought to form by the accretion of particles from an ancient massive ring and subsequent outward migration4,5,6,7. However, the origin of a system consisting of a narrow ring and shepherd satellites remains poorly understood. Here we present N-body numerical simulations to show that a collision of two of the small satellites that are thought to accumulate near the main ring’s outer edge can produce a system similar to the F ring and its shepherd satellites. We find that if the two rubble-pile satellites have denser cores, such an impact results in only partial disruption of the satellites and the formation of a narrow ring of particles between two remnant satellites. Our simulations suggest that the seemingly unusual F ring system is a natural outcome at the final stage of the formation process of the ring–satellite system of giant planets.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Imaging photopolarimeter on Pioneer Saturn. Science 207, 434–439 (1980).

  2. 2.

    et al. Encounter with Saturn: Voyager 1 imaging science results. Science 212, 163–191 (1981).

  3. 3.

    et al. A new look at the Saturn system: The Voyager 2 images. Science 215, 504–537 (1982).

  4. 4.

    , & The recent formation of Saturn’s moonlets from viscous spreading of the main rings. Nature 465, 752–754 (2010).

  5. 5.

    Origin of Saturn’s rings and inner moons by mass removal from a lost Titan-sized satellite. Nature 468, 943–946 (2010).

  6. 6.

    & Formation of regular satellites from ancient massive rings in the Solar System. Science 338, 1196–1199 (2012).

  7. 7.

    , & Formation of multiple-satellite systems from low-mass circumplanetary particle disks. Astrophys. J. 799, 40 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Planetary Rings: A Post-Equinox View (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  9. 9.

    et al. Observations of Saturn’s ring-plane crossing in August and November 1995. Science 272, 509–516 (1996).

  10. 10.

    , , & Saturn’s F ring: Kinematics and particle sizes from stellar occultation studies. Icarus 157, 57–75 (2002).

  11. 11.

    et al. Cassini imaging science: Initial results on Saturn’s rings and small satellites. Science 307, 1226–1236 (2005).

  12. 12.

    et al. Cassini discovers a kinematic spiral ring around Saturn. Science 310, 1300–1304 (2005).

  13. 13.

    et al. The determination of the structure of Saturn’s F ring by nearby moonlets. Nature 453, 739–744 (2008).

  14. 14.

    Capture probability of colliding planetesimals: Dynamical constraints on accretion of planets, satellites, and ring particles. Icarus 106, 228–246 (1993).

  15. 15.

    & Accretion in the Roche zone: Coexistence of rings and ring moons. Icarus 113, 331–352 (1995).

  16. 16.

    Aggregate impacts in Saturn’s rings. Icarus 189, 523–537 (2007).

  17. 17.

    & Collisional disruption of gravitational aggregates in the tidal environment. Astrophys. J. 787, 56 (2014).

  18. 18.

    , , , & Moonlets and clumps in Saturn’s F ring. Icarus 194, 278–289 (2008).

  19. 19.

    et al. Direct evidence for gravitational instability and moonlet formation in Saturn’s rings. Astrophys. J. 718, L176–L180 (2010).

  20. 20.

    , , & Detection of low-velocity collisions in Saturn’s F ring. Astrophys. J. 755, L27 (2012).

  21. 21.

    & Charged particle depletion surrounding Saturn’s F ring: Evidence for a moonlet belt? Icarus 74, 284–324 (1988).

  22. 22.

    & Moonlet collisions and the effects of tidally modified accretion in Saturn’s F ring. Icarus 160, 161–171 (2002).

  23. 23.

    , , , & A photometric study of Saturn’s F ring. Icarus 100, 394–411 (1992).

  24. 24.

    & A common mass scaling for satellite systems of gaseous planets. Nature 411, 834–839 (2006).

  25. 25.

    , , & Physical characteristics of Saturn’s small satellites provide clues to their origins. Science 318, 1602–1607 (2007).

  26. 26.

    et al. An evolving view of Saturn’s dynamic rings. Science 327, 1470–1475 (2010).

  27. 27.

    et al. Accretion of Saturn’s mid-sized moons during the viscous spreading of young massive rings: Solving the paradox of silicate-poor rings versus silicate-rich moons. Icarus 216, 535–550 (2011).

  28. 28.

    , , & Tidal disruption of satellites and formation of narrow rings. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 424, 1419–1431 (2012).

  29. 29.

    , & Unraveling the strands of Saturn’s F ring. Icarus 129, 304–316 (1997).

  30. 30.

    & Dynamical evolution of the Prometheus-Pandora system. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 322, 343–355 (2001).

  31. 31.

    , & Collisional probability of planetesimals revolving in the Solar gravitational field I. Basic formulation. Astron. Astrophys. 220, 293–300 (1989).

  32. 32.

    Collisions and gravitational interactions between particles in planetary rings. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 195, 29–47 (2012).

  33. 33.

    , , & A symplectic integrator for Hill’s equations. Astron. J. 139, 803–807 (2010).

  34. 34.

    & REBOUND: An open-source multi-purpose N-body code for collisional dynamics. Astron. Astrophys. 537, A128 (2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows (15J02110) and for Scientific Research (15H03716). R.H. is grateful for support from the UnivEarthS Labex program at Sorbonne Paris Cité (ANR-10-LABX-0023 and ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02) and IPGP. Part of the numerical simulations were performed using the GRAPE system at the Center for Computational Astrophysics of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and visualization of simulation results was performed in part using Zindaiji 3. We thank L. W. Esposito for comments on the manuscript and H. Daisaka for support in simulations.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Planetology, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan

    • Ryuki Hyodo
    •  & Keiji Ohtsuki
  2. Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Paris 75005, France

    • Ryuki Hyodo

Authors

  1. Search for Ryuki Hyodo in:

  2. Search for Keiji Ohtsuki in:

Contributions

Both R.H. and K.O. designed the study, discussed the results, and wrote the paper; R.H. performed simulations, analysed results, and produced the figures.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ryuki Hyodo or Keiji Ohtsuki.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

Text files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2508

Further reading