# The dynamics of Saturn’s F Ring

Hi there! Today: a new post on the rings of Saturn. I will more specifically discuss the F Ring, in presenting you the study A simple model for the location of Saturn’s F ring, by Luis Benet and Àngel Jorba, which has recently been accepted for publication in Icarus.

## The F Ring

The F Ring of Saturn is a narrow ring of particles. It orbits close to the Roche limit, which is the limit below which the satellites are not supposed to accrete because the differential gravitational action of Saturn on different parts of it prevents it. This is also the theoretical limit of the existence of the rings.

Its mean distance from the center of Saturn is 140,180 km, and its extent is some hundreds of kilometers. It is composed of a core ring, which width is some 50 km, and some particles which seem to be ejected in spiral strands.

Orbiting nearby are the two satellites Prometheus (inside) and Pandora (outside), which proximity involves strong gravitational perturbations, even if they are small.

The images of the F Ring, and in particular of its structures, are sometimes seen as an example of observed chaos in the Solar System. This motivates many planetary scientists to investigate its dynamics.

## Mean-motion resonances in the rings

Imagine a planar configuration, in which we have a big planet (Saturn), a small particle orbiting around (the rings are composed of particles), and a third body which is very large with respect to the particle, but very small with respect to the planet (a satellite). The orbit of the particle is essentially an ellipse (Keplerian motion), but is also perturbed by the gravitational action of the satellite. This usually results in oscillating, periodic variations of its orbital elements, in particular the semimajor axis… except in some specific configurations: the mean motion resonances.

When the orbital periods of the particle and of the satellite are commensurate, i.e. when you can write the ratio of their orbital frequencies as a fraction of integers, then you have part of the gravitational action of the satellite on the particle which accumulates during the orbital history of the two bodies, instead of cancelling out. In such a case, you have a resonant interaction, which usually produces the most interesting effects in planetary systems.

There are resonances among planetary satellites as well, but here I will stick to the rings-satellites interactions, for which a specific formalism has been developed, itself inspired from the galactic dynamics. Actually, 4 angles should be considered, which are

• the mean longitude of the particle λp, which locates the particle on its orbit,
• the mean longitude of the satellite λs
• the longitude of the pericentre of the particle ϖp, which locates the point of the orbit which is the closest to Saturn,

and

• the longitude of the pericentre of the satellite ϖs.

The situation is a little more complicated when the orbits are not planar, please allow me to dismiss that question for this post.

You have a mean-motion resonance when you can write <pλp-(p+q)λs+q1ϖp+q2ϖs>=0, <> meaning on average. p, q, q1 and q2 are integer coefficients verifying q1+q2=q. The sum of the integer coefficients present in the resonant argument is null. This rule is sometimes called d’Alembert rule, and is justified by the fact that you do not change the physics of a system if you change the reference frame in which you describe it. The only way to preserve the resonant argument from a rotation of an angle α and axis z is that the sum of the coefficients is null.

It can be shown that the strongest resonances happen with |q|=1, meaning either |q1|=1 and q2=0, or
|q2|=1 and q1=0.

In the first case, pλp-(p+1)λsp is the argument of a Lindblad resonance, which pumps the eccentricity of the particle, while pλp-(p+1)λss is a corotation resonance, which is doped by the eccentricity of the satellite. Here I supposed a positive q, which means that the orbit of the satellite is exterior to the one of the particle. This is the case for the configurations F Ring – Pandora and F Ring – Titan. However, when the satellite is interior to the particle, like in the configuration F Ring Prometheus, then the argument of the Lindblad resonance should read pλs-(p+1)λpp, and the one of the corotation resonance is pλs-(p+1)λps.

As I said, these resonances have cumulative effects on the orbits. This means that we could expect that something happens, this something being possibly anything: a Lindblad resonance should pump the eccentricity of a particle and favor its ejection, but this also means that particle which would orbit nearby without being affected by the resonance would be more stable… chaotic effects might happen, which would be favored by the accumulation of resonances, the consideration of higher-order ones, the presence of several perturbers… This is basically what is observed in the F Ring.

## The method: numerical integrations

The authors address this problem in running intensive numerical simulations of the behavior of the particles under the gravitational action of Saturn and some satellites. Let me specify that, usually, the rings are seen as clouds of interacting particles. They interact in colliding. In that specific study, the collisions are neglected. This allows the authors to simulate the trajectory of any individual particle, considered as independent of the other ones.

They considered that the particles are perturbed by the oblateness of Saturn expanded until the order 2 (actually this has been measured with a good accuracy until the order 6), Prometheus, Pandora, and Titan. Why these bodies? Because they wanted to consider the most significant ones on the dynamics of the F Ring. When you model so many particles (2.5 millions) over such a long time span (10,000 years), you are limited by the computation time. A way to reduce it is to remove negligible effects. Prometheus and Pandora are the two closest ones and Titan the largest one. The authors have detected that Titan slightly shifts the location of the resonances. However, they admit that they did not test the influence of Mimas, which is the closest of the mid-sized satellites, and which is known for having a strong influence on the main rings.

A critical point when you run numerical integrations, especially over long durations, is the accuracy, because you do not want to propagate errors. The authors use a symplectic scheme, based on a Hamiltonian formulation, i.e. on the conservation of the total energy, which can be expanded up to the order 28. The conservation of the total energy makes sense as long as the dissipation is neglected, which is the case here. The internal accuracy of the integrator was set to 10-21, which translated into a relative error on the angular momentum of Titan below 2.10-14 throughout the whole integration.

## Measuring the stability

It might be tough to determine from a numerical integration whether a particle has a stable orbit or not. If you simulate its ejection, then you know, but if you do not see its ejection, you have to decide from the simulated trajectory whether the particle will be ejected one day or not, and possibly when.
For this, two kinds of indicator exists in the literature. The first kind addresses the chaos, or most specifically the hyperbolicity of the trajectory, while the second one addresses the variability of the fundamental frequencies of the system. From a rigorous mathematical point of view, these two notions are different. Anyway, the ensuing indicators are convenient ways to characterize non-periodic trajectories, and their use are commonly accepted as indicators of stability.
A hyperbolic point is an unstable equilibrium. For instance a rigid pendulum has a stable equilibrium down (when you perturb it, it will return down), but an unstable one up (it stays up until you perturb it). The up position is hyperbolic, while the down one is elliptic. The hyperbolicity of a trajectory implies a significant dependency on the initial conditions of the system: a slightly different initial position or different initial velocity will give you a very different trajectory. In systems having some complexity, this strongly suggests a chaotic behavior. The hyperbolicity can be measured with Lyapunov exponents. Different definitions of these exponents exist in the literature, but the idea is to measure the evolution of the norm of the vector which is tangent to the trajectory. Is this norm has an exponential growth, then you strongly depend on the initial conditions, i.e. you are hyperbolic, i.e. you are likely chaotic. Some indicators of stability are thus based on the evolution of the tangent vector.
The other way to estimate the stability is to focus on the fundamental frequencies of the trajectory. Each of the two angles which characterize the trajectory of the particle, i.e. its mean longitude λp and the longitude of its pericentre ϖp can be associated with a frequency of the problem. It is actually a little more complicated than just a time derivative of the relevant angle, because in that case you would have a contribution of the dynamics of the satellite. A more proper determination is made with a frequency analysis of the orbital elements, kind of Fourier. You are very stable when these frequencies do not drift with time. Here, the authors used first the relative variations of the orbital frequency as indicator of the stability. The most stable particles are the ones which present the smallest relative variations. In order to speed up the calculations, they also used the variations of the semimajor axis as an indicator, and considered that a particle was stable when the variations were smaller than 1.5 km.

## Results

A study of stability necessarily focuses on the core of the rings, because the spiral strands are supposed to be doomed. And the authors get very confined zones of stability. A comparison between these zones of stability shows that several mean-motion resonances with Prometheus, Pandora and Titan are associated with them. This could be seen as consistent with the global aspect of the F Ring, but neither with the measured width of the core ring, nor with its exact location.

This problem emphasizes the difficulty to get accurate results with such a complex system. The study manages, with a simplified system of an oblate Saturn and 3 satellites, to render the qualitative dynamics of the F Ring, but this is not accurate enough to predict the future of the observed structures.

• The study, also made freely available by the authors on arXiv. Thanks to them for sharing!
• The web page of Luis Benet (UNAM, Mexico).
• The web page of Àngel Jorba (University of Barcelona, Spain).

Thanks for having read all this. I wish you a Merry Christmas, and please feel free to share and comment!

# A quest for sources of meteor showers

Hi there! Today I will present you a study entitled Dynamical modeling validation of parent bodies associated with newly discovered CMN meteor showers, by D. Šegon, J. Vaubaillon, P. Gural, D. Vida, Ž. Andreić, K. Korlević & I. Skokić, which has recently been accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics. It addresses the following question: when you see meteors, where do they come from?

## The meteor showers

Imagine you have a comet, i.e. a small body, which wanders in the Solar System with a large eccentricity. This means that it orbits around the Sun, but with large variations of its distance with the Sun. The consequence is that it experiences large variations of temperature during its journey. In particular, when it reaches the perihelion, i.e. when its distance to the Sun is the smallest, the temperature is so hot that it outgasses. The result is the ejection of a cloud of small particles, which itself wanders in the Solar System, on its own orbit.

When the Earth meets it, then these particles are burnt in our atmosphere. This results in meteor showers. Such showers can be sporadic, or happen every year if the cloud is pretty static with respect to the orbit of the Earth. The body from which the particles originate is called the parent body. The study I present you today aims at identifying the parent body of some of these meteor showers.

## How to observe them

Understanding the meteor showers is an issue for the safety of the Earth environment, particularly our artificial satellites. Some meteors can even impact the surface of the Earth. This is why numerous observation programs exist, and for that amateurs are very helpful!

The first way to observe meteor showers is visually. When you know that meteor showers are likely to happen, you look at the sky and take note of the meteors you see: when you saw it, from where, where it came from, its magnitude (~its brightness), etc. The point from where the meteor seems to come is called the radiant. It is written as a set of two angles α and δ, i.e. right ascension and declination, which localize it on the celestial sphere.

For unpredicted showers, we can use cameras, which continually observe and record the sky. Then, algorithms of image processing can detect the meteor. Meteors can also be detected in the radio wavelengths.

## Dynamical modeling

If you want to simulate the orbit of a particle, you have to consider:

• the location of the parent body when the particle was ejected (initial position),
• the ejection velocity,
• the ejection time, likely when the parent body was close to its perihelion. The question how close? cannot be accurately answered,
• the gravitational action of the Sun and the planets of the Solar System,
• the non-gravitational forces, which might have a strong effect on such small bodies.

These non-gravitational forces, here the Poynting-Robertson drag, are due to the Solar radiation, which causes a loss of angular momentum of the particle during its orbital journey around the Sun. It is significant for particles smaller than the centimeter, which is often the case for such ejecta.

You cannot simulate the orbit of a specific particle that you would have identified before, just because they are too small to be observed as individuals. However, you can simulate a cloud, composed of a synthetic population of fictitious particles, with various sizes, ejection times, initial velocities… in such a way that your resulting cloud will have global properties which are close to the real cloud of ejecta. Then you can simulate the evolution of the cloud with time, and in particular determine the time, duration, direction, and intensity of a meteor shower.

Simulating such a cloud reveals interesting dynamical features. It presents an initial size, because of the variations in the ejection times of the particles. But it also widens with time, since the particles present different ejection velocities. This usually (but not always!) results in a kind of a tire which enshrouds the whole orbit of the parent body. Unfortunately, it can be observed only when the Earth crosses it. So, simulating the behavior of the cloud will tell you when the Earth crosses it, how long the crossing lasts, and the density of the cloud during the crossing.
It should be kept in mind that a cloud is composed of a hyue number of particles. For this reason, dedicated computation means are required.

## This study

This study aims at identifying the parent body of meteor showers, which were detected by the Croatian Meteor Network (CMN in the title). For that, the first step is to make sure that a shower is a shower.
The detected meteors should resemble enough, which can be measured with the D-criteria, that are a measurement of a distance, in a given space, between the orbits of two objects. Once a meteor shower is identified, the same D-criteria can be used to try to identify the parent body, from its orbit. The parent bodies are comets or asteroids, they are usually known enough for candidates to be determined. And once candidates are identified, then their outgassing is simulated, to predict the meteor showers associated. If a calculated meteor shower is close enough to an observed one, then it is considered that the parent body has been successfully identified. This last close enough is related to the time and duration of the showers, and the location of the radiants.

The authors analyzed 13 meteor showers, and successfully identified the parent body for 7 of them. Here is their list, the showers are identified under their IAU denominations:

• #549FAN – 49 Andromedids comes from the comet 2001 W2 Batters,
• #533 JXA – July ξ Arietids comes from the comet 1964 N1 Ikeya,
• #539 ACP – α Cepheids comes from the comet 255P Levy,
• #541 SSD – 66 Draconids comes from the asteroid 2001 XQ,
• #751 KCE – κ Cepheids comes from the asteroid 2009 SG18,
• #753 NED – November Draconids comes from the asteroid 2009 WN25,
• #754 POD – ψ Draconids comes from the asteroid 2008 GV.

For this last stream, the authors acknowledge that another candidate parent body has not been investigated: the asteroid 2015 FA118.

For the 6 other cases, either the identification of a parent body is speculated but not assessed enough, or just no candidate has been hinted, possibly because it is an asteroid or a comet which has not discovered yet, and / or because data are missing on the meteor shower.

That’s it for today! As usual, I accept any comment, feel free to post!

# On the dynamics of small bodies beyond Neptune

Hi there! Today I will present you a study on the possible dynamics of some Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs). This study, Study and application of the resonant secular dynamics beyond Neptune by M. Saillenfest, M. Fouchard, G. Tommei and G.B. Valsecchi, has recently been accepted for publication in Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy.
This is a theoretical study, which presents some features of the dynamics that could one day be observed. This manuscript follows another one by the same authors, in which a theory of the “resonant secular dynamics” is presented. Here it is applied to small bodies, which are thought to be in mean-motion resonances with Neptune. This study results from a French-Italian collaboration.

## The Kozai-Lidov mechanism

The dynamics that is presented here uses the so-called Kozai-Lidov mechanism. This is a mechanism which has been simultaneously and independently discovered in Russia (by Lidov) and in Japan (by Kozai), and which considers the following configuration: a massive central body, another massive one called the perturber, and a test-particle, i.e. a massless body, which orbits the central one. This problem is called the Restricted 3-body problem. Originally, the central body was the Earth, the perturber the Moon, and the test-particle an artificial satellite of the Earth. In such a case, the orbit of the test-particle is an ellipse, which is perturbed by the perturber; this results in variation of the elliptical elements, i.e. eccentricity, inclination… moreover, the orientation of the ellipse is moving…

To describe the problem, I need to introduce the following orbital elements:

• The semimajor axis a, which is half the long axis of the orbit,
• the mean anomaly M, which locates the satellite on the ellipse,
• the eccentricity e, which is positive and smaller than 1. It tells us how eccentric the orbit is (e=0 means that the orbit is circular),
• the pericentre ω, which is the point of the orbit which is the closest to the central body (undefined if the orbit is circular),
• the inclination I, which is the angle between the orbital plane and the reference plane,
• the ascending node Ω, which locates the intersection between the orbital plane and the reference plane.

The Kozai-Lidov mechanism allows a confinement of the pericentre with respect to the ascending node, and it can be shown that it results in a raise of the eccentricity of the inclination. Exploiting such a mechanism gives frozen orbits, i.e. configurations for which the orbit of an artificial orbiter, even inclined and eccentric, will keep the same spatial orientation.

These recent years, this mechanism has been extended for designing space missions around other objects than the Earth, but also to explain the dynamics of some exoplanetary systems, of small distant satellites of the giant planets, and of Trans-Neptunian Objects, as it is the case here. In this last problem, the central body is the Sun, the perturber is a giant planet (more specifically here, it is Neptune), and the test-particle is a TNO, with the hope to explain the inclined and eccentric orbit of some of them. A notable difference with the original Kozai-Lidov problem is that here, the test-particle orbits exterior to the perturber. Another difference is that its dynamics is also resonant.

## Resonant and secular dynamics

The authors do not speak of resonant secular dynamics, but of dynamics that is both resonant and secular. The difference is that the involved resonance is not a secular one. Let me explain.

The authors consider that the TNO is in a mean-motion resonance with Neptune. This implies an integer commensurability between its orbital period around the Sun and the one of Neptune, with results in large variations of its semi-major axis. If we look at the orbital elements, this affects the mean anomaly M, while, when a resonance is secular, M is not affected.

So, these objects are in a mean-motion resonance with Neptune. Moreover, they have an interested secular dynamics. By secular, I mean that the mean anomaly is not affected, but something interesting involves the node and/or the pericentre. And this is where comes Kozai-Lidov. The paper studies the objects which are trapped into a mean-motion resonance with Neptune, and which are likely to present a confinement of the pericentre ω, which could explain a significant eccentricity and a high inclination.

For that, they make an analytical study, which theory had been developed in the first paper, and which is applied here.

## Why an analytical study?

The modern computing facilities allow to simulate the motion of millions of test-particles over the age of the Solar System, in considering the gravitational interaction of the planets, the galactic tide, a star passing by… and this results in clusters of populations of fictitious TNOs. Very well. But when you do that, you do not know why this particular object behaves like that. However, an analytical study will give you zones of stability for the orbits, which are preferred final states. It will tell you: there will probably be some objects in this state, BECAUSE… and in the case of this study, the because has something to do with the Kozai-Lidov mechanism. Moreover, the because also gives you some confidence in your results, since you have an explanation why you get what you get.

To make things short, a numerical study shows you many things, while an analytical one proves you a few things. A comprehensive study of the problem requires combining the two approaches.

## This paper

This paper specifically deals with fictitious objects, which are in mean-motion with Neptune, and are likely to be affected by the Kozai-Lidov mechanism. After many calculations presented in the first paper, the authors show that the problem can be reduced to one degree of freedom, in a Hamiltonian formalism.

The Hamiltonian formalism is a common and widely used way to treat problems of celestial mechanics. It consists in expressing the total energy of the problem, i.e. kinetic + potential energy, and transform it so that trajectories can be described. These trajectories conserve the total energy, which may seem weird for a physical problem. Actually there is some dissipation in the dynamics of TNOs, but so small that it can be neglected in many problems. The most recent numerical studies in this topic consider the migration of the planets, which is not a conservative process. In the paper I present you today, this migration is not considered. This is one of the approximations required by the analytical study.

The remaining degree of freedom is the one relevant to the Kozai-Lidov mechanism. The one associated with the mean-motion resonance is considered to be constant. For that it involves the area enshrouded by the libration of the resonant argument, which is constant (hypothesis of the adiabatic invariant). So, the authors get a one degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian, for which they draw phase spaces, showing the trajectory in the plane q vs. ω, q=a(1-e) being the distance between the Sun and the pericentre of the TNO, i.e. its closest distance to the Sun. These phase portraits depend on other parameters, like the mean-motion resonance with Neptune that is considered, and a parameter η, which combines the inclination and the eccentricity.

The results are a catalog of possible trajectories, some of them presenting a confinement of the pericentre &omega;. For a large cloud of objects, this would result in an accumulation of pericentres in a constrained zone. The authors try to find confirmation of their results with existing objects, but their limited number and the inaccuracy on their location make this comparison inconclusive. They also point out that the orbits of Sedna and 2012VP113 cannot be explained by this mechanism.

## Perspectives

The future observations of TNOs will give us access to more objects and more accurate trajectories, and it is to be hoped that some of them will fit into the trajectories found by the authors. That would be a great success for that, and that would be deserved regarding the effort necessary to achieve such an analytical study.

As I said, such a problem needs analytical and numerical studies, but some of the authors (Marc Fouchard and Giovanni Valsecchi) are also involved in such a numerical exploration, which starts from a fictitious Oort cloud and simulates the excitation of the eccentricity and inclination of some of the objects.

For the two studies to meet, it should also be investigated how the planetary migration, which results from models of formation and evolution of the Solar System, affects the zones of stability due to the Kozai-Lidov mechanism.

Finally, we should not forget the quest for the Planet Nine. As the authors honestly point out, an additional planet could break down some of the conclusions.