Skip to main content

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

A diffuse core in Saturn revealed by ring seismology


The best constraints on the internal structures of giant planets have historically originated from measurements of their gravity fields1,2,3. These data are inherently mostly sensitive to a planet’s outer regions, stymieing efforts to measure the mass and compactness of the cores of Jupiter2,4,5 and Saturn6,7. However, studies of Saturn’s rings have detected waves driven by pulsation modes within the planet8,9,10,11, offering independent seismic probes of Saturn’s interior12,13,14. The observations reveal gravity-mode pulsations, which indicate that part of Saturn’s deep interior is stable against convection13. Here, we compare structural models with gravity and seismic measurements from Cassini to show that the data can only be explained by a diffuse, stably stratified core–envelope transition region in Saturn extending to approximately 60% of the planet’s radius and containing approximately 17 Earth masses of ice and rock. This gradual distribution of heavy elements constrains mixing processes at work in Saturn, and it may reflect the planet’s primordial structure and accretion history.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Ring seismology constrains Saturn’s core–envelope interface.
Fig. 2: Saturn’s internal structure deduced from ring seismology and the gravity field.
Fig. 3: Saturn’s core mass and core radius from gravity and ring seismology.
Fig. 4: Saturn m = −2 mode spectra and gravity harmonics.

Data availability

A representative subset of the interior models generated in the course of this work is available upon request.

Code availability

The planetary structure and ToF code used to create the planetary models is available at The oscillation code and ancillary code related to the analysis are available upon request.


  1. 1.

    Kaspi, Y. et al. Jupiter’s atmospheric jet streams extend thousands of kilometres deep. Nature 555, 223–226 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Guillot, T. et al. A suppression of differential rotation in Jupiter’s deep interior. Nature 555, 227–230 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Iess, L. et al. Measurement and implications of Saturn’s gravity field and ring mass. Science 364, aat2965 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wahl, S. M. et al. Comparing Jupiter interior structure models to Juno gravity measurements and the role of a dilute core. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4649–4659 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nettelmann, N. Low- and high-order gravitational harmonics of rigidly rotating Jupiter. Astron. Astrophys. 606, A139 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Militzer, B., Wahl, S. & Hubbard, W. B. Models of Saturn’s interior constructed with an accelerated concentric Maclaurin spheroid method. Astrophys. J. 879, 78 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Movshovitz, N., Fortney, J. J., Mankovich, C., Thorngren, D. & Helled, R. Saturn’s probable interior: an exploration of Saturn’s potential interior density structures. Astrophys. J. 891, 109 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hedman, M. M. & Nicholson, P. D. Kronoseismology: using density waves in Saturn’s C ring to probe the planet’s interior. Astron. J. 146, 12 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hedman, M. M. & Nicholson, P. D. More Kronoseismology with Saturn’s rings. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 444, 1369–1388 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    French, R. G., McGhee-French, C. A., Nicholson, P. D. & Hedman, M. M. Kronoseismology III: waves in Saturn’s inner C ring. Icarus 319, 599–626 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hedman, M. M., Nicholson, P. D. & French, R. G. Kronoseismology. IV. Six previously unidentified waves in Saturn’s middle C ring. Astron. J. 157, 18 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Marley, M. S. & Porco, C. C. Planetary acoustic mode seismology: Saturn’s rings. Icarus 106, 508–524 (1993).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fuller, J. Saturn ring seismology: evidence for stable stratification in the deep interior of Saturn. Icarus 242, 283–296 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mankovich, C., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J. & Movshovitz, N. Cassini ring seismology as a probe of Saturn’s interior. I. Rigid rotation. Astrophys. J. 871, 1 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Stevenson, D. J. Jupiter’s interior as revealed by Juno. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 465–489 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Galanti, E. et al. Saturn’s deep atmospheric flows revealed by the Cassini Grand Finale gravity measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 616–624 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Galanti, E. & Kaspi, Y. Combined magnetic and gravity measurements probe the deep zonal flows of the gas giants. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501, 2352–2362 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Guillot, T. The interiors of giant planets: models and outstanding questions. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 33, 493–530 (2005).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hubbard, W. B. Thermal structure of Jupiter. Astrophys. J. 152, 745–754 (1968).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    French, R. G. et al. Deciphering the embedded wave in Saturn’s Maxwell ringlet. Icarus 279, 62–77 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Marley, M. S. Nonradial oscillations of Saturn. Icarus 94, 420–435 (1991).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mankovich, C. R. Saturn’s rings as a seismograph to probe Saturn’s internal structure. AGU Adv. 1, e00142 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gudkova, T. V. & Zharkov, V. N. Models of Jupiter and Saturn after Galileo mission. Planet Space Sci. 47, 1201–1210 (1999).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Guillot, T. A comparison of the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn. Planet Space Sci. 47, 1183–1200 (1999).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Saumon, D. & Guillot, T. Shock compression of deuterium and the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn. Astrophys. J. 609, 1170–1180 (2004).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Nettelmann, N., Püstow, R. & Redmer, R. Saturn layered structure and homogeneous evolution models with different EOSs. Icarus 225, 548–557 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hubbard, W. B. & Militzer, B. A preliminary Jupiter model. Astrophys. J. 820, 80 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Leconte, J. & Chabrier, G. A new vision of giant planet interiors: impact of double diffusive convection. Astron. Astrophys. 540, A20 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Leconte, J. & Chabrier, G. Layered convection as the origin of Saturn’s luminosity anomaly. Nat. Geosci. 6, 347–350 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Nettelmann, N., Fortney, J. J., Moore, K. & Mankovich, C. An exploration of double diffusive convection in Jupiter as a result of hydrogen–helium phase separation. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 447, 3422–3441 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Vazan, A., Helled, R., Podolak, M. & Kovetz, A. The evolution and internal structure of Jupiter and Saturn with compositional gradients. Astrophys. J. 829, 118 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Debras, F. & Chabrier, G. New models of Jupiter in the context of Juno and Galileo. Astrophys. J. 872, 100 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Baillié, K., Colwell, J. E., Lissauer, J. J., Esposito, L. W. & Sremčević, M. Waves in Cassini UVIS stellar occultations. 2. The C ring. Icarus 216, 292–308 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Schöttler, M. & Redmer, R. Ab initio calculation of the miscibility diagram for hydrogen–helium mixtures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 115703 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Fletcher, L. N. et al. Saturn’s tropospheric composition and clouds from Cassini/VIMS 4.6–5.1 μm nightside spectroscopy. Icarus 214, 510–533 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Fletcher, L. N., Orton, G. S., Teanby, N. A., Irwin, P. G. J. & Bjoraker, G. L. Methane and its isotopologues on Saturn from Cassini/CIRS observations. Icarus 199, 351–367 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Helled, R. & Guillot, T. Interior models of Saturn: including the uncertainties in shape and rotation. Astrophys. J. 767, 113 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pollack, J. B. et al. Formation of the giant planets by concurrent accretion of solids and gas. Icarus 124, 62–85 (1996).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lozovsky, M., Helled, R., Rosenberg, E. D. & Bodenheimer, P. Jupiter’s formation and its primordial internal structure. Astrophys. J. 836, 227 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Helled, R. & Stevenson, D. The fuzziness of giant planets’ cores. Astrophys. J. Lett. 840, L4 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ormel, C., Vazan, A. & Brouwers, M. How planets grow by pebble accretion. III. Emergence of an interior composition gradient. Astron. Astrophys. 647, A175 (2021).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Müller, S., Helled, R. & Cumming, A. The challenge of forming a fuzzy core in Jupiter. Astron. Astrophys. 638, A121 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Solubility of water ice in metallic hydrogen: consequences for core erosion in gas giant planets. Astrophys. J. 745, 54 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Rocky core solubility in Jupiter and giant exoplanets. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111101 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Wahl, S. M., Wilson, H. F. & Militzer, B. Solubility of iron in metallic hydrogen and stability of dense cores in giant planets. Astrophys. J. 773, 95 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Moll, R., Garaud, P., Mankovich, C. & Fortney, J. J. Double-diffusive erosion of the core of Jupiter. Astrophys. J. 849, 24 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Liu, S.-F. et al. The formation of Jupiter’s diluted core by a giant impact. Nature 572, 355–357 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Mirouh, G. M., Garaud, P., Stellmach, S., Traxler, A. L. & Wood, T. S. A new model for mixing by double-diffusive convection (semi-convection). I. The conditions for layer formation. Astrophys. J. 750, 61 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wood, T. S., Garaud, P. & Stellmach, S. A new model for mixing by double-diffusive convection (semi-convection). II. The transport of heat and composition through layers. Astrophys. J. 768, 157 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Liu, J., Schneider, T. & Fletcher, L. N. Constraining the depth of Saturn’s zonal winds by measuring thermal and gravitational signals. Icarus 239, 260–272 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Stevenson, D. J. Reducing the non-axisymmetry of a planetary dynamo and an application to Saturn. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 21, 113–127 (1982).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Stanley, S. A dynamo model for axisymmetrizing Saturn’s magnetic field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L05201 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cao, H. et al. The landscape of Saturn’s internal magnetic field from the Cassini Grand Finale. Icarus 344, 113541 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Zharkov, V. N. & Trubitsyn, V. P. Physics of Planetary Interiors (Pachart, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Militzer, B. & Hubbard, W. B. Ab initio equation of state for hydrogen–helium mixtures with recalibration of the giant-planet mass–radius relation. Astrophys. J. 774, 148 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Saumon, D., Chabrier, G. & van Horn, H. M. An equation of state for low-mass stars and giant planets. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 99, 713 (1995).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Miguel, Y., Guillot, T. & Fayon, L. Jupiter internal structure: the effect of different equations of state. Astron. Astrophys. 596, A114 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Thompson, S. L. ANEOS Analytic Equations of State for Shock Physics Codes Report sand89-2951 (Sandia National Laboratories, 1990);

  59. 59.

    Lindal, G. F., Sweetnam, D. N. & Eshleman, V. R. The atmosphere of Saturn—an analysis of the Voyager radio occultation measurements. Astron. J. 90, 1136–1146 (1985).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lindal, G. F. The atmosphere of Neptune: an analysis of radio occultation data acquired with Voyager 2. Astron. J. 103, 967 (1992).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Brassard, P., Fontaine, G., Wesemael, F., Kawaler, S. D. & Tassoul, M. Adiabatic properties of pulsating DA white dwarfs. I. The treatment of the Brunt–Vaeisaelae frequency and the region of period formation. Astrophys. J. 367, 601 (1991).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Salpeter, E. E. On convection and gravitational layering in Jupiter and in stars of low mass. Astrophys. J. Lett. 181, L83 (1973).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Stevenson, D. J. & Salpeter, E. E. The phase diagram and transport properties for hydrogen–helium fluid planets. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 35, 221–237 (1977).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Morales, M. A. et al. Phase separation in hydrogen–helium mixtures at mbar pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1324–1329 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Morales, M. A., Hamel, S., Caspersen, K. & Schwegler, E. Hydrogen–helium demixing from first principles: from diamond anvil cells to planetary interiors. Phys. Rev. B 87, 174105 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Lorenzen, W., Holst, B. & Redmer, R. Demixing of hydrogen and helium at megabar pressures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 115701 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Lorenzen, W., Holst, B. & Redmer, R. Metallization in hydrogen–helium mixtures. Phys. Rev. B 84, 235109 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Orton, G. S. & Ingersoll, A. P. Saturn’s atmospheric temperature structure and heat budget. J. Geophys. Res. 85, 5871–5881 (1980).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Conrath, B. J., Gautier, D., Hanel, R. A. & Hornstein, J. S. The helium abundance of Saturn from Voyager measurements. Astrophys. J. 282, 807–815 (1984).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Conrath, B. J. & Gautier, D. Saturn helium abundance: a reanalysis of Voyager measurements. Icarus 144, 124–134 (2000).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Sromovsky, L. A., Baines, K. H., Fry, P. M. & Momary, T. W. Cloud clearing in the wake of Saturn’s Great Storm of 2010–2011 and suggested new constraints on Saturn’s He/H2 ratio. Icarus 276, 141–162 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Koskinen, T. T. & Guerlet, S. Atmospheric structure and helium abundance on Saturn from Cassini/UVIS and CIRS observations. Icarus 307, 161–171 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Püstow, R., Nettelmann, N., Lorenzen, W. & Redmer, R. H/He demixing and the cooling behavior of Saturn. Icarus 267, 323–333 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Mankovich, C. R. & Fortney, J. J. Evidence for a dichotomy in the interior structures of Jupiter and Saturn from helium phase separation. Astrophys. J. 889, 51 (2020).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J. & Scott, P. The chemical composition of the Sun. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 47, 481–522 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Chaplin, W. J. & Miglio, A. Asteroseismology of solar-type and red-giant stars. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 51, 353–392 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Ledoux, P. The nonradial oscillations of gaseous stars and the problem of Beta Canis Majoris. Astrophys. J. 114, 373 (1951).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Dahlen, F. & Tromp, J. Theoretical Global Seismology (Princeton University Press, 1998);

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Hubbard, W. B. Concentric Maclaurin spheroid models of rotating liquid planets. Astrophys. J. 768, 43 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: the MCMC hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306–312 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716–723 (1974).

    ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


C.R.M. thanks D. Stevenson for comments and the Juno Interiors Working Group for helpful discussions, and acknowledges support from the Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences at Caltech. J.F. is grateful for support through an Innovator Grant from The Rose Hills Foundation and through grant FG-2018-10515 from the Sloan Foundation.

Author information




C.R.M. developed the planetary models, performed the calculations and analysis and led the preparation of the manuscript. J.F. developed the original oscillation code, contributed to the interpretation of the results and helped to write the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R. Mankovich.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Astronomy thanks Mark Marley and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Comparison of assumed shapes for Saturn’s composition gradient.

Helium distributions for our baseline linear composition profiles from Eq. (1) (a) are compared with those assuming sigmoid Z(r) and \(Y^{\prime} (r)\) in the transition region (b). The corresponding profiles of the heavy element mass fraction (c-d), mass density (e-f), and Brunt–Väisälä frequency (g-h) are also shown. 1,024 randomly selected models are shown for each sample, colored by log likelihood.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Eigenfunctions of m = − 2, l = 2 pseudomodes in Saturn.

a, Poloidal component of the horizontal displacement perturbation as a function of radius. b, Gravitational potential perturbation as a function of radius. Vertical line segments mark the outer boundary of the g mode cavity.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Eigenfunctions of m = − 2, l = 2 pseudomodes as a function of the width of the g mode cavity.

This is the sequence of interior models from Fig. 1, with our most likely model from the sample of Figs. 2-4 plotted in black. a, Brunt–Väisälä frequency as a function of radius. b-d, Gravitational potential perturbations associated with the three highest frequency pseudomodes in descending order. The identifications 2−2f and 2−2g2 hold for the best model (heavy black curves) but not necessarily others: moderate g mode cavity widths bring the modes in (c) and (d) farther away from an avoided crossing, causing the mode in (d) to become more like an f mode and (c) more like a g mode.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Relationship between ice to rock mass fraction, fice, and predicted central heavy element mass fraction (ice plus rock), Zin.

The red histogram shows the distribution of Zin in models with fice < 1/3; the blue histogram shows the same for models with fice > 2/3. Models are from the baseline case and colored by log likelihood as in Figs. 2-3. For models with predominantly icy cores, the preferred value of Zin is near unity, and vice versa.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Effect of superadiabatic thermal stratification.

Heavy element distributions for our baseline case (a) are compared with those for our superadiabatic case (b). (c-d) show profiles of Brunt–Väisälä frequency and mass density, and (e-f) show temperature profiles. 1,024 randomly selected models are shown for each sample, colored by log likelihood.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Results of seismology/gravity retrievals for different parameterizations of Saturn’s interior structure.

Physical properties are reported in terms of their means and standard deviations. In cases where distributions are significantly non-Gaussian, ranges corresponding to 5% and 95% quantiles are reported instead. Blank entries take the same values as in the baseline case.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Effect of deep zonal winds on sectoral mode frequencies.

a, two rotation laws of the form (S3) as a function of spherical radius inside Saturn. b, the same as a function of latitude at the cloud level. Observed winds are shown in dashed grey. For the nontrivial expansion labeled ‘Order 28 polynomial’ radial profiles (a) are shown at three latitudes marked with filled circles in (b). c, first-order perturbations to l = − m mode pattern speeds induced by the differential rotation.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Saturn’s m = − 2 mode spectrum including coupling across pseudomodes of different l.

Predicted semi-amplitude of optical depth variations near outer Lindblad resonances of density waves in Saturn’s rings is plotted as a function of frequency Ωp and resonance radius in the ring plane. Colors indicate interior model likelihood with the same mapping as in Figs. 2-3. Red diamond symbols mark the frequencies and approximate amplitudes of spiral density waves observed at m = − 2 outer Lindblad resonances. From left to right these are the Maxwell ringlet wave20, W87.199, W84.6411, and W76.4410.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Discussion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mankovich, C.R., Fuller, J. A diffuse core in Saturn revealed by ring seismology. Nat Astron (2021).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

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