A comparison of the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn

Interior models of Jupiter and Saturn are calculated and compared in the framework of the three-layer assumption, which rely on the perception that both planets consist of three globally homogeneous regions: a dense core, a metallic hydrogen envelope, and a molecular hydrogen envelope. Within this framework, constraints on the core mass and abundance of heavy elements (i.e. elements other than hydrogen and helium) are given by accounting for uncertainties on the measured gravitational moments, surface temperature, surface helium abundance, and on the inferred protosolar helium abundance, equations of state, temperature profile and solid/differential interior rotation. Results obtained solely from static models matching the measured gravitational fields indicate that the mass of Jupiter’s dense core is less than 14 M_⊕ (Earth masses), but that models with no core are possible given the current uncertainties on the hydrogen–helium equation of state. Similarly, Saturn’s core mass is less than 22 M_⊕ but no lower limit can be inferred. The total mass of heavy elements (including that in the core) is constrained to lie between 11 and 42 M_⊕ in Jupiter, and between 19 and 31 M_⊕ in Saturn. The enrichment in heavy elements of their molecular envelopes is 1–6.5, and 0.5–12 times the solar value, respectively. Additional constraints from evolution models accounting for the progressive differentiation of helium (Hubbard WB, Guillot T, Marley MS, Burrows A, Lunine JI, Saumon D, 1999. Comparative evolution of Jupiter and Saturn. Planet. Space Sci. 47, 1175–1182) are used to obtain tighter, albeit less robust, constraints. The resulting core masses are then expected to be in the range 0–10 M_⊕, and 6–17 M_⊕ for Jupiter and Saturn, respectively. Furthermore, it is shown that Saturn’s atmospheric helium mass mixing ratio, as derived from Voyager, Y=0.06±0.05, is probably too low. Static and evolution models favor a value of Y=0.11−0.25. Using, Y=0.16±0.05, Saturn’s molecular region is found to be enriched in heavy elements by 3.5 to 10 times the solar value, in relatively good agreement with the measured methane abundance. Finally, in all cases, the gravitational moment J₆ of models matching all the constraints are found to lie between 0.35 and 0.38×10⁻⁴ for Jupiter, and between 0.90 and 0.98×10⁻⁴ for Saturn, assuming solid rotation. For comparison, the uncertainties on the measured J₆ are about 10 times larger. More accurate measurements of J₆ (as expected from the Cassini orbiter for Saturn) will therefore permit to test the validity of interior models calculations and the magnitude of differential rotation in the planetary interior.     

Models and theoretical spectrum for the free oscillations of Saturn

We constructed new models of Saturn with an allowance made for a helium mass fraction of ～0.18–0.25 in its atmosphere. Our modeling shows that the composition of Saturn differs markedly from the solar composition; more specifically, during its formation, the planet was ～11–15 planetary masses short of the hydrogen-helium component. Saturn, as well as the other giant planets, must have been formed according to Schmidt’s scenario, through the formation of embryonic nuclei, rather than according to Laplace’s scenario. The masses of the embryonic nuclei themselves lie within the range (3.5–8) M_⊕. We calculated a theoretical free-oscillation spectrum for our models of Saturn, each of which fits all of the available observational data. The results of our calculations are presented graphically and in tables. Of particular interest are the diagnostic potentialities of the discontinuity gravitational modes related to density jumps in the molecular envelope of Saturn and at the interface between its molecular and metallic envelopes. When observational data appear, our results can be used both to identify the observed modes and to improve the models themselves. We discuss some of the cosmogonical aspects associated with the formation of the giant planets.     

The structure of the planets Jupiter and Saturn

Planetary models for Jupiter and Saturn are computed using a fourth-order theory and a new molecular equation of state. The equation of state for the molecular hydrogen and helium planetary envelopes is taken from the Monte Carlo calculations of Slattery and Hubbard [Icarus 29, 187–192 (1976)]. Models for Jupiter are found that have a small amount of heavy elements either mixed with hydrogen and helium throughout the interior of the planet or concentrated in a small dense core. Saturn is modeled with a solar-composition hydrogen and helium envelope and a small derse core. We conclude that the molecular equation of state linked with suitable interior equations of state can produce Jovian models which satisfy the observational data. The planetary models show that the enrichment of heavy elements (relative to solar composition) is approximately 3 times for Jupiter and 10 times for Saturn.     

The free oscillations of Jupiter

The spectrum of free oscillations of Jupiter is calculated for a set of models, each of them fitting all available observational data. Diagnostic capabilities of the spectrum are studied. They could be used, as soon as relevant observations are performed, for both the identification of the observed modes and the improvement of the models themselves. The calculations were made for five-layer models. They differ in the core mass (2–10 M_⊕) and in the molecular-metallic phase transition pressure of hydrogen (1.5–3 Mbar). The spectrum of Jupiter consists of gravitational modes related to density jumps in the planetary interiors and of acoustic modes. The periods of the acoustic modes are calculated for degree up to l=30 and overtone number up to n=20. The investigated models have a characteristic frequency of ≈152–155 μHz. Two outer gravitational modes related to density jumps in the molecular envelope and at the interface with the metallic envelope have nonzero displacements at the planetary surface. These modes have good diagnostic properties. The values of the kinetic energy averaged over the period of oscillation are calculated for a 1-m amplitude of the displacement at the planetary surface. The influence of all effects of rotation on the spectrum is discussed.     

New Constraints on the Composition of Jupiter from Galileo Measurements and Interior Models

Using the helium abundance measured by Galileo in the atmosphere of Jupiter and interior models reproducing the observed external gravitational field, we derive new constraints on the composition and structure of the planet. We conclude that, except for helium which must be more abundant in the metallic interior than in the molecular envelope, Jupiter could be homogeneous (no core) or could have a central dense core up to 12M_⊕. The mass fraction of heavy elements is less than 7.5 times the solar value in the metallic envelope and between 1 and 7.2 times solar in the molecular envelope. The total amount of elements other than hydrogen and helium in the planet is between 11 and 45M_⊕.     

Computation of Jupiter interior models from gravitational inversion theory

A method for deriving a planetary interior model which exactly satisfies a set of N gravitational constraints is implemented. For Jupiter, recent spacecraft measurements provide the mass, radius at a standard pressure level, rotation law, multipole moments of the internal mass distribution, and constraints on the internal composition and temperature distribution. By appropriate iterations, interior models are found which exactly satisfy these constraints. The models are assumed to have constant chemical composition and constant specific entropy in the hydrogenic envelope. The derived pressure-density relation in the outer envelope depends sensitively on the observational uncertainty in the mass multipole moment J₄. Models are not forced to fit the more indirectly derived constraints, which are instead used as consistency checks. For a helium mass fraction in the envelope (Y) equal to 0.20, the inferred pressure at a mass density ≈ 0.2 g/cm³ is about a factor of 2 higher than would be indicated by experimental hydrogen shock compression data in the relevant pressure range of 10⁵ to 10⁶ bar. The inferred pressure distribution is in much better agreement with the shock data for a nominal Y = 0.30 ± 0.05. This value of Y is interpreted in terms of an enhancement in the envelope, by a factor of order 5 over solar abundance, of species primarily consisting of CH₄, NH₃, and possibly H₂O. The same method is applied to Saturn, but existing uncertainties in Saturn's gravitational parameters are still too large to allow useful conclusions about the composition of its envelope.     

The atmospheric composition and structure of Jupiter and Saturn from ISO observations: a preliminary review

Infrared spectra of Jupiter and Saturn have been recorded with the two spectrometers of the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) in 1995–1998, in the 2.3–180 μm range. Both the grating modes (R=150–2000) and the Fabry-Pérot modes (R=8000–30,000) of the two instruments were used. The main results of these observations are (1) the detection of water vapour in the deep troposphere of Saturn; (2) the detection of new hydrocarbons (CH₃C₂H, C₄H₂, C₆H₆, CH₃) in Saturn’s stratosphere; (3) the detection of water vapour and carbon dioxide in the stratospheres of Jupiter and Saturn; (4) a new determination of the D/H ratio from the detection of HD rotational lines. The origin of the external oxygen source on Jupiter and Saturn (also found in the other giant planets and Titan in comparable amounts) may be either interplanetary (micrometeoritic flux) or local (rings and/or satellites). The D/H determination in Jupiter, comparable to Saturn’s result, is in agreement with the recent measurement by the Galileo probe (Mahaffy, P.R., Donahue, T.M., Atreya, S.K., Owen, T.C., Niemann, H.B., 1998. Galileo probe measurements of D/H and ³He/⁴He in Jupiters atmosphere. Space Science Rev. 84 251–263); the D/H values on Uranus and Neptune are significantly higher, as expected from current models of planetary formation.     

Seasonal changes on Jupiter: 1. Factor of activity of the hemispheres

To identify temporal variations of the characteristics of Jupiter’s cloud layer, we take into account the geometric modulation caused by the rotation of the planet and planetary orbital motion. Inclination of the rotation axis to the orbital plane of Jupiter is 3.13°, and the angle between the magnetic axis and the rotation axis is β ≈ 10°. Therefore, over a Jovian year, the jovicentric magnetic declination of the Earth φ _m varies from–13.13° to +13.13°, and the subsolar point on Jupiter’s magnetosphere is shifted by 26.26° per orbital period. In this connection, variations of the Earth’s jovimagnetic latitude on Jupiter will have a prevailing influence in the solar-driven changes of reflective properties of the cloud cover and overcloud haze on Jupiter. Because of the orbit eccentricity (e = 0.048450), the northern hemisphere receives 21% greater solar energy inflow to the atmosphere, because Jupiter is at perihelion near the time of the summer solstice. The results of our studies have shown that the brightness ratio A _j of northern to southern tropical and temperate regions is an evident factor of photometric activity of Jupiter’s atmospheric processes. The analysis of observational data for the period from 1962 to 2015 reveals the existence of cyclic variations of the activity factor A _j of the planetary hemispheres with a period of 11.86 years, which allows us to talk about the seasonal rearrangement of Jupiter’s atmosphere.     

The effect of dense cores on the structure and evolution of Jupiter and Saturn

We have calculated evolutionary and static models of Jupiter and Saturn with homogeneous solar composition mantles and dense cores of material consisting of solar abundances of SiO₂, MgO, Fe, and Ni. Evolutionary sequences for Jupiter were calculated with cores of mass 2, 4, 6, and 8% of the Jovian mass. Evolutionary sequences for Saturn were calculated with cores of mass 16, 18, 20, and 22% of total mass. Two envelope mixtures, representative of the solar abundances were used: X (mass fraction of hydrogen) = 0.74, Y (mass fraction of helium) = 0.24 and X = 0.77 and Y = 0.21. For Jupiter, the observations of the temperature at 1 bar pressure (T_1bar), radius and internal luminosity were best fit by evolutionary models with a core mass of ～6.5% and chemical composition of X = 0.77, Y = 0.21. The calculated cooling time for Jupiter is approximately 4.9 × 10⁹ years, which is consistent, within our error bars, with the known age of the solar system. For Saturn, the observations of the radius, internal luminosity and T_1BAR can be best fit by evolutionary models with a core mass of ～21% and chemical composition of X = 0.77, Y = 0.21. The cooling time calculated for Saturn is approximately 2.6 × 10⁹ years, almost a factor 2 less than the present age of the solar system. Static models of Jupiter and Saturn were calculated for the above chemical compositions in order to investigate the sensitivity of the calculated gravitational moments, J₂ and J₄, to the mass of the dense core, T_1BAR and hydrogen/helium ratio. We find for Jupiter that a model having a core mass of approximately 7% gives values of J₂, J₄, and T_1BAR that are within observational limits, for the mixture X = 0.77, Y = 0.21. The static Jupiter models are completely consistent with the evolutionary results. For Saturn, the quantities J₂, J₄, and J₆ determined from the static models with the most probable T_1BAR of 140°K, using modeling procedures which result in consistent models for Jupiter, are considerably below the observed values.     

On the origin and initial temperature of Jupiter and Saturn

A two-stage growth of the giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn, is considered, which is different from the model of contraction of large gaseous protoplanets. In the first stage, within a time of ～3 × 10⁷ years in Jupiter's zone and ～2 × 10⁸ years in Saturn's zone, a nucleus forms from condensed (solid) material having the mass, ～10²⁸ g, necessary for the beginning of acceleration. The second stage may gravitating body, and a relatively slow accretion begins until the mass of the planet reaches ～10 m_⊕. Then a rapid accretion begins with the critical radius less than the radius of the Hill lobe, so that the classical formulae for the rate of accretion may be applied. At a mass m > m₁ ≈ 50 m_⊕ accretion proceeds slower than it would according to these formulae. When the planet sweeps out all the gas from its nearest zone of feeding (m = m₂ ≈ 130 m_⊕), the width of the exhausted zone being $\text{～}\text{built1}\text{3}$ of the whole zone of the planet) growth is provided the slow diffusion of gas from the rest of the zone (time scale increases to 10⁵?10⁶ years and more). The process is terminated by the dissipation of the remnants of gas. In Saturn's zone m₁ > m₂ ≈ 30 m_⊕. The initial mass of the gas in Jupiter's zone is estimated. Before the beginning of the rapid accretion about 90% of the gas should have been lost from the solar system, and in the planet's zone less than two Jupiter masses remain. The highest temperature of Jupiter's surface, ≈5000°K, is reached at the stage of rapid accretion, m < 100 m_⊕, when the luminosity of the planet reaches 3 × 10^?3 L_⊙. This favors an effective heating of the inner parts of the accretionary disk and the dissipation of gas from the disk. The accretion of Saturn produced a temperature rise up to 2000?2400° K (at m ≈ 20?25 m_⊕) and a luminosity up to 10^?4 L_⊙.     

Models of the giant planets

Models of the giant planets were constructed based on the assumption that the hydrogen to helium ratio is solar in these planets. This assumption, together with arguments about the condensation sequence in the primitive solar nebula, yields models with a central core of rock and possibly ice surrounded by an envelope of hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, and water. These last three volatiles may be individually enhanced due to condensation at the period of core formation. Jupiter was found to have a core of about 40 earth masses and a water enhancement in the atmosphere of about 7.5 times the solar value. Saturn was found to have a core of 20 earth masses and a water enhancement in the atmosphere of about 25 times the solar value. Rock plus ice constitute 75–85% of the mass of Uranus and Neptune. Temperatures in the interiors of these planets are probably above the melting points, if there is an adiabatic relation throughout the interiors. Some aspects of the sensitivities of these results to uncertainties in rotational flattening are discussed.     

Core formation in giant gaseous protoplanets

Sedimentation rates of silicate grains in gas giant protoplanets formed by disk instability are calculated for protoplanetary masses between 1 MSaturn to 10 MJupiter. Giant protoplanets with masses of 5 MJupiter or larger are found to be too hot for grain sedimentation to form a silicate core. Smaller protoplanets are cold enough to allow grain settling and core formation. Grain sedimentation and core formation occur in the low mass protoplanets because of their slow contraction rate and low internal temperature. It is predicted that massive giant planets will not have cores, while smaller planets will have small rocky cores whose masses depend on the planetary mass, the amount of solids within the body, and the disk environment. The protoplanets are found to be too hot to allow the existence of icy grains, and therefore the cores are predicted not to contain any ices. It is suggested that the atmospheres of low mass giant planets are depleted in refractory elements compared with the atmospheres of more massive planets. These predictions provide a test of the disk instability model of gas giant planet formation. The core masses of Jupiter and Saturn were found to be ∼0.25 M_⊕ and ∼0.5 M_⊕, respectively. The core masses of Jupiter and Saturn can be substantially larger if planetesimal accretion is included. The final core mass will depend on planetesimal size, the time at which planetesimals are formed, and the size distribution of the material added to the protoplanet. Jupiter's core mass can vary from 2 to 12 M_⊕. Saturn's core mass is found to be ∼8 M_⊕.     

On the stability of Earth-like planets in multi-planet systems

We present a continuation of our numerical study on planetary systems with similar characteristics to the Solar System. This time we examine the influence of three giant planets on the motion of terrestrial-like planets in the habitable zone (HZ). Using the Jupiter–Saturn–Uranus configuration we create similar fictitious systems by varying Saturn’s semi-major axis from 8 to 11 AU and increasing its mass by factors of 2–30. The analysis of the different systems shows the following interesting results: (i) Using the masses of the Solar System for the three giant planets, our study indicates a maximum eccentricity (max-e) of nearly 0.3 for a test-planet placed at the position of Venus. Such a high eccentricity was already found in our previous study of Jupiter–Saturn systems. Perturbations associated with the secular frequency g ₅ are again responsible for this high eccentricity. (ii) An increase of the Saturn-mass causes stronger perturbations around the position of the Earth and in the outer HZ. The latter is certainly due to gravitational interaction between Saturn and Uranus. (iii) The Saturn-mass increased by a factor 5 or higher indicates high eccentricities for a test-planet placed at the position of Mars. So that a crossing of the Earth’ orbit might occur in some cases. Furthermore, we present the maximum eccentricity of a test-planet placed in the Earth’ orbit for all positions (from 8 to 11 AU) and masses (increased up to a factor of 30) of Saturn. It can be seen that already a double-mass Saturn moving in its actual orbit causes an increase of the eccentricity up to 0.2 of a test-planet placed at Earth’s position. A more massive Saturn orbiting the Sun outside the 5:2 mean motion resonance (a _S  ≥9.7 AU) increases the eccentricity of a test-planet up to 0.4.     

Comparative evolution of Jupiter and Saturn

We present evolutionary sequences for Jupiter and Saturn, based on new non-gray model atmospheres, which take into account the evolution of the solar luminosity and partitioning of dense components to deeper layers. The results are used to set limits on the extent to which possible interior phase separation of hydrogen and helium may have progressed in the two planets. When combined with static models constrained by the gravity field, our evolutionary calculations constrain the helium mass fraction in Jupiter to be between 0.20 and 0.27, relative to total hydrogen and helium. This is consistent with the Galileo determination. The helium mass fraction in Saturn’s atmosphere lies between 0.11 and 0.21, higher than the Voyager determination. Based on the discrepancy between the Galileo and Voyager results for Jupiter, and our models, we predict that revised observational results for Saturn will yield a higher atmospheric helium mass fraction relative to the Voyager value.     

Empirical models of pressure and density in Saturn's interior: Implications for the helium concentration, its depth dependence, and Saturn's precession rate

We present ‘empirical’ models (pressure vs. density) of Saturn's interior constrained by the gravitational coefficients J₂, J₄, and J₆ for different assumed rotation rates of the planet. The empirical pressure-density profile is interpreted in terms of a hydrogen and helium physical equation of state to deduce the hydrogen to helium ratio in Saturn and to constrain the depth dependence of helium and heavy element abundances. The planet's internal structure (pressure vs. density) and composition are found to be insensitive to the assumed rotation rate for periods between 10h:32m:35s and 10h:41m:35s. We find that helium is depleted in the upper envelope, while in the high pressure region (P?1 Mbar) either the helium abundance or the concentration of heavier elements is significantly enhanced. Taking the ratio of hydrogen to helium in Saturn to be solar, we find that the maximum mass of heavy elements in Saturn's interior ranges from ∼6 to 20 M_⊕. The empirical models of Saturn's interior yield a moment of inertia factor varying from 0.22271 to 0.22599 for rotation periods between 10h:32m:35s and 10h:41m:35s, respectively. A long-term precession rate of about ^0.754″ yr⁻¹ is found to be consistent with the derived moment of inertia values and assumed rotation rates over the entire range of investigated rotation rates. This suggests that the long-term precession period of Saturn is somewhat shorter than the generally assumed value of 1.77×¹⁰⁶ years inferred from modeling and observations.     

Generation of equatorial jets by large-scale latent heating on the giant planets

Three-dimensional numerical simulations show that large-scale latent heating resulting from condensation of water vapor can produce multiple zonal jets similar to those on the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn) and ice giants (Uranus and Neptune). For plausible water abundances (3-5 times solar on Jupiter/Saturn and 30 times solar on Uranus/Neptune), our simulations produce ∼20 zonal jets for Jupiter and Saturn and 3 zonal jets on Uranus and Neptune, similar to the number of jets observed on these planets. Moreover, these Jupiter/Saturn cases produce equatorial superrotation whereas the Uranus/Neptune cases produce equatorial subrotation, consistent with the observed equatorial-jet direction on these planets. Sensitivity tests show that water abundance, planetary rotation rate, and planetary radius are all controlling factors, with water playing the most important role; modest water abundances, large planetary radii, and fast rotation rates favor equatorial superrotation, whereas large water abundances favor equatorial subrotation regardless of the planetary radius and rotation rate. Given the larger radii, faster rotation rates, and probable lower water abundances of Jupiter and Saturn relative to Uranus and Neptune, our simulations therefore provide a possible mechanism for the existence of equatorial superrotation on Jupiter and Saturn and the lack of superrotation on Uranus and Neptune. Nevertheless, Saturn poses a possible difficulty, as our simulations were unable to explain the unusually high speed (∼) of that planet’s superrotating jet. The zonal jets in our simulations exhibit modest violations of the barotropic and Charney-Stern stability criteria. Overall, our simulations, while idealized, support the idea that latent heating plays an important role in generating the jets on the giant planets.     

Precession of the orbital nodes of Jupiter and Saturn triggered by the mutual perturbation: A model of two rings

The problem of the precession of the orbital planes of Jupiter and Saturn under the influence of mutual gravitational perturbations was formulated and solved using a simple dynamical model. Using the Gauss method, the planetary orbits are modeled by material circular rings, intersecting along the diameter at a small angle α. The planet masses, semimajor axes and inclination angles of orbits correspond to the rings. What is new is that each ring has an angular momentum equal to the orbital angular momentum of the planet. Contrary to popular belief, it was proved that the orbital resonance 5: 2 does not preclude the use of the ring model. Moreover, the period of averaging of the disturbing force (T ≈ 1332 yr) proves to be appreciably greater than a conventionally used period (≈900 yr). The mutual potential energy of rings and the torque of gravitational forces between the rings were calculated. We compiled and solved the system of differential equations for the spatial motion of rings. It was established that a perturbing torque causes the precession and simultaneous rotation of the orbital planes of Jupiter and Saturn. Moreover, the opposite orbit nodes on the Laplace plane coincide and perform a secular movement in retrograde direction with the same velocity of 25.6″/yr and the period T _J = T _S ≈ 50687 yr. These results are close to those obtained in the general theory (25.93″/yr), which confirms the adequacy of the developed model. It was found that the vectors of the angular velocity of orbital rings move counterclockwise over circular cones and describe circles on the celestial sphere with radii β₁ ≈ 0.8403504° (Saturn) and β₂ ≈ 0.3409296° (Jupiter) around the point which is located at an angular distance of 1.647607° from the ecliptic pole.     

Unsteady mass outflow from Wolf-Rayet stars

We show that hydrostatically equilibrium models for the thin photospheres of helium stars based on new opacities κ_R (OPAL and OP) can be constructed only for masses M<5M _⊙. The parameter Г=κL/4πGMc, defined as the ratio of light pressure to gravity, exceeds a critical value of 1.0 for larger masses, which must result in mass outflow under light pressure. This mass limit matches the observed lower limit for the masses of Wolf-Rayet stars (M _WR>5M _⊙)), which is an additional argument that the Wolf-Rayet stellar cores are actually helium stars. By solving the equation of radiative transfer in extended atmospheres, we construct a semiempirical model for a WN5 star (M _WN5=10M _⊙)) with a helium core and an expanding envelope, whose physical and geometric parameters are known mainly from light-curve solution for the eclipsing binary V444 Cyg (WN5+06): outflow rate $\dot M \approx 1.0 \times 10^{ - 5} M_ \odot yr^{ - 1} $ , terminal velocity V _∞≈2000 km s^?1, and expanding-envelope optical depth τ_env≈25. The temperature at the outer boundary of the photosphere of a helium star surrounded by such an envelope is approximately 130 kK higher than that in the absence of an envelope, being T _ph≈240 kK. Because of the high temperatures, the absorption coefficients at the corresponding photospheric levels are smaller than those in models with no envelope; therefore, the photosphere turns out to be in hydrostatic equilibrium and stable against light pressure (Г_max≈0.9). As a way out of this conflicting situation (an expanding envelope together with a hydrostatically equilibrium photosphere), we propose a model of discrete mass outflow, which is also supported by the observed cloudy structure of the envelopes in this type of stars. To quantitatively estimate parameters of the nonuniform outflow model requires detailed gas-dynamical calculations.     

Solar Cycle Effects on the Dynamics of Jupiter’s and Saturn’s Magnetospheres

The giant planetary magnetospheres surrounding Jupiter and Saturn respond in quite different ways, compared to Earth, to changes in upstream solar wind conditions. Spacecraft have visited Jupiter and Saturn during both solar cycle minima and maxima. In this paper we explore the large-scale structure of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) upstream of Saturn and Jupiter as a function of solar cycle, deduced from solar wind observations by spacecraft and from models. We show the distributions of solar wind dynamic pressure and IMF azimuthal and meridional angles over the changing solar cycle conditions, detailing how they compare to Parker predictions and to our general understanding of expected heliospheric structure at 5 and 9 AU. We explore how Jupiter’s and Saturn’s magnetospheric dynamics respond to varying solar wind driving over a solar cycle under varying Mach number regimes, and consider how changing dayside coupling can have a direct effect on the nightside magnetospheric response. We also address how solar UV flux variability over a solar cycle influences the plasma and neutral tori in the inner magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn, and estimate the solar cycle effects on internally driven magnetospheric dynamics. We conclude by commenting on the effects of the solar cycle in the release of heavy ion plasma into the heliosphere, ultimately derived from the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.     

For infrared spectrophotometry of Jupiter and Saturn

Infrared spectral observations of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were made from 100 to 470 cm^?1 using NASA's G. P. Kuiper Airborne Observatory. Taking Mars as a calibration source, we determined brightness temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn with approximately 5 cm^?1 resolution. The data are used to determine the internal luminosities of the giant planets, for which more than 75% of the thermally emitted power is estimated to be in the measured bandpass: for Jupiter L_J = (8.0 ± 2.0) × 10^?10L_⊙ and for Saturn L_S = (3.6 ± 0.9) × 10^?10. The ratio R of thermally emitted power to solar power absorbed was estimated to be R_J = 1.6 ± 0.2, and R_S = 2.7 ± 0.8 from the observations when both planets were near perihelion. The Jupiter spectrum clearly shows the presence of the rotational ammonia transitions which strongly influence the opacity at frequencies ?250 cm^?1. Comparison of the data with spectra predicted from current models of Jupiter and Saturn permits inferences regarding the structure of the planetary atmospheres below the temperature inversion. In particular, an opacity source in addition to gaseous hydrogen and ammonia, such as ammonia ice crystals as suggested by Orton, may be necessary to explain the observed Jupiter spectrum in the vicinity of 250 cm^?1.