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 of Jupiter and Saturn after Galileo mission

New models of Jupiter are based on observational data provided by the Galileo spaceprobe, which considerably improved previously existing estimates of the helium abundance in the atmosphere of Jupiter. These data yield for Jupiter’s atmosphere 20% of the solar oxygen abundance and do not agree with the results of the analysis of the collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter (10 times the solar value). Therefore, both the models of Jupiter with water-depleted and water-enriched atmosphere are considered. By analogy with Jupiter, trial models of Saturn with a water-depleted external envelope are also developed. The molecular-metallic phase transition pressure of hydrogen P_m was taken to be 1.5, 2 and 3 Mbar. Since Saturn’s internal molecular envelope is noticeably enriched in the IR-component (its weight concentration, 0.25–0.30, being by a factor of 3–4 higher than in Jupiter), the phase transition pressure in Saturn can be lower than in Jupiter. In the constructed models, the IR-core masses are 3–3.5 M_⊕ for Jupiter and 3–5.5 M_⊕ for Saturn. Jupiter’s and Saturn’s IR-cores can be considered embryos onto which the accretion of the gas occurred during the formation of the planets. The mass of the hydrogen–helium component dispersed in the zone of planetary formation constitutes ≈2–5 planetary masses for Jupiter and ≈11–14 planetary masses for Saturn.     

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_⊕.     

Phase separation in giant planets: inhomogeneous evolution of Saturn

We present the first models of Jupiter and Saturn to couple their evolution to both a radiative-atmosphere grid and to high-pressure phase diagrams of hydrogen with helium and other admixtures. We find that prior calculated phase diagrams in which Saturn's interior reaches a region of predicted helium immiscibility do not allow enough energy release to prolong Saturn's cooling to its known age and effective temperature. We explore modifications to published phase diagrams that would lead to greater energy release, and propose a modified H-He phase diagram that is physically reasonable, leads to the correct extension of Saturn's cooling, and predicts an atmospheric helium mass fraction Y_atmos=0.185, in agreement with recent estimates. We also explore the possibility of internal separation of elements heavier than helium, and find that, alternatively, such separation could prolong Saturn's cooling to its known age and effective temperature under a realistic phase diagram and heavy element abundance (in which case Saturn's Y_atmos would be solar but heavier elements would be depleted). In none of these scenarios does Jupiter's interior evolve to any region of helium or heavy-element immiscibility: Jupiter evolves homogeneously to the present day. We discuss the implications of our calculations for Saturn's primordial core mass.     

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.     

Astrophysical Implications of the Recent Shocked Deuterium Experiments

In the last few years, deuterium has been the focus of a high level of laboratory activity that was sparked by a disagreement on the experimental value of the maximum compression along the Hugoniot. Astrophysically, the uncertainty in the EOS of hydrogen is most consequential in models of the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn since a significant fraction of their mass falls in the region where the EOS uncertainty is largest. We present a study of the range of interior structures allowed by the shock-compression experiments on deuterium and constrained by astrophysical observations of the two planets. We find that the EOS uncertainty must be reduced to less than 3% along the planet’s isentrope to get good interior models of Jupiter. These models provide values for the mass of a core of heavy elements (other than H and He) and the total mass of heavy elements in these planets. The amount and distribution of heavy elements are quite sensitive to the EOS of hydrogen and constitute important clues to their formation process.     

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.     

The phase diagram of water and the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune

The interior of giant planets can give valuable information on formation and evolution processes of planetary systems. However, the interior and evolution of Uranus and Neptune is still largely unknown. In this paper, we compare water-rich three-layer structure models of these planets with predictions of shell structures derived from magnetic field models. Uranus and Neptune have unusual non-dipolar magnetic fields contrary to that of the Earth. Extensive three-dimensional simulations of Stanley and Bloxham (Stanley, S., Bloxham, J. [2004]. Nature 428, 151-153) have indicated that such a magnetic field is generated in a rather thin shell of at most 0.3 planetary radii located below the H/He rich outer envelope and a conducting core that is fluid but stably stratified. Interior models rely on equation of state data for the planetary materials which have usually considerable uncertainties in the high-pressure domain. We present interior models for Uranus and Neptune that are based on ab initio equation of state data for hydrogen, helium, and water as the representative of all heavier elements or ices. Based on a detailed high-pressure phase diagram of water we can specify the region where superionic water should occur in the inner envelope. This superionic region correlates well with the location of the stably-stratified region as found in the dynamo models. Hence we suggest a significant impact of the phase diagram of water on the generation of the magnetic fields in Uranus and Neptune.     

A calculation of Saturn's gravitational contraction history

A calculation has been made of the gravitational contraction of a homogeneous, quasi-equilibrium Saturn model of solar composition. The calculations begin at a time when the planet's radius is ten times larger than its present size, and the subsequent gravitational contraction is followed for 4.5 × 10⁹ years. For the first million years of evolution, the Saturn model contracts rapidly like a pre-main sequence star and has a much higher luminosity and effective temperature than at present. Later stages of contraction occur more slowly and are analogous to the cooling phase of a degenerate white dwarf star.Examination of the interior structure of the models indicates the presence of a metallic hydrogen region near the center of the planet. Differences in the size of this region for Jupiter and Saturn may, in part, be responsible for Saturn having a weaker magnetic field. While the interior temperatures are much too high for the fluids in the molecular and metallic regions to become solids by the current epoch, the temperature in the outer portion of the metallic zone falls below Stevenson's [Phys. Rev. J. (1975)] phase separation curve for helium after 1.2 billion years of evolution. This would lead to a sinking of helium from the outer to the inner portion of the metallic region, as described by Salpeter [Astrophys. J.181, L83–L86 (1973)].At the current epoch, the radius of the model is about 9% larger, while its excess luminosity is comparable to the observed value of Rieke [Icarus26, 37–44 (1975)], as refined by Wright [Harvard College Obs. Preprint No. 480 (1976)]. This behavior of the Saturn model may be compared to the good agreement with both Jupiter's observed radius and excess luminosity shown by an analogous model of Jupiter [Graboske et al., Astrophys. J.199, 255–264 (1975)]. The discrepancy in radius of our Saturn model may be due to errors in the equations of state and/or our neglect of a rocky core. However, arguments are presented which indicate that helium separation may cause an expansion of the model and thus lead to an even bigger discrepancy in radius. Improvement in the radius may also foster a somewhat larger predicted luminosity. At least part and perhaps most of Saturn's excess luminosity is due to the loss of internal thermal energy that was built up during the early rapid contraction, with a minor contribution coming from Saturn's present rate of contraction. These two sources dominate Jupiter's excess luminosity. If helium separation makes an important contribution to Saturn's excess luminosity, then planetwide segregation is required.Finally, because Saturn's early high luminosity was about an order of magnitude smaller than Jupiter's, water-ice satellites may have been able to form closer to Saturn to Jupiter.     

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.     

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.     

Planetary dynamos: effects of electrically conducting flows overlying turbulent regions of magnetic field generation

A fully three-dimensional, nonlinear, time-dependent, multi-layered spherical kinematic dynamo model is used to study the effect on the observable external magnetic field of flow in an electrically conducting layer above a spherical turbulent dynamo region in which the α effect generates the magnetic field. It is shown that the amplitude and structure of an observable planetary magnetic field are largely determined by the magnitude and structure of the flow in the overlying layer. It is also shown that a strong-field planetary dynamo can be readily produced by the effect of an electrically conducting flow layer at the top of a convective core. The overlying layer and the underlying convective region constitute a magnetically strongly coupled system. Such overlying layers might exist at the top of the Earth's core due to chemical or thermal causes, in the cores of other terrestrial planets for similar reasons, and in Saturn due to the differentiation of helium from hydrogen. An electrically conducting and differentially rotating layer could exist above the metallic hydrogen region in Jupiter and affect the jovian magnetic field similar to the overlying layers in other planets. Lateral temperature gradients resulting in thermal winds drive the flow in the overlying layers. All planetary magnetic fields could be maintained by similar turbulent convective dynamos in the field-generation regions of planets with the differences among observable magnetic fields due to different circulations in the overlying electrically conducting layers.     

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.     

Atmospheric thermal structures of the giant planets

Thermal models of planetary atmospheres can be calculated from assumptions of the energy budget of the atmosphere and from the knowledge of the effective temperature of the studied planet. On the other hand, the retrieval of the thermal atmospheric profiles from infrared measurements by means of the numerical inversion of the radiative transfer equation presents the advantages of not requiring such assumptions. The extent of the atmospheric range which can then be sounded is examined and the vertical resolution of the inferred profiles is discussed. Comparisons of thermal models and retrieved thermal profiles are made for the four giant planets. The retrieved profiles lead to brightness temperature spectra which fit all the available infrared measurements fairly well for Jupiter and Saturn but only part of them for Uranus and Neptune. The values of the planetary effective temperatures calculated from the retrieved profiles show that Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have strong internal heating sources while Uranus probably has a very small or null one.     

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_⊕.     

Building the terrestrial planets: Constrained accretion in the inner Solar System

To date, no accretion model has succeeded in reproducing all observed constraints in the inner Solar System. These constraints include: (1) the orbits, in particular the small eccentricities, and (2) the masses of the terrestrial planets - Mars’ relatively small mass in particular has not been adequately reproduced in previous simulations; (3) the formation timescales of Earth and Mars, as interpreted from Hf/W isotopes; (4) the bulk structure of the asteroid belt, in particular the lack of an imprint of planetary embryo-sized objects; and (5) Earth’s relatively large water content, assuming that it was delivered in the form of water-rich primitive asteroidal material. Here we present results of 40 high-resolution (N = 1000-2000) dynamical simulations of late-stage planetary accretion with the goal of reproducing these constraints, although neglecting the planet Mercury. We assume that Jupiter and Saturn are fully-formed at the start of each simulation, and test orbital configurations that are both consistent with and contrary to the “Nice model”. We find that a configuration with Jupiter and Saturn on circular orbits forms low-eccentricity terrestrial planets and a water-rich Earth on the correct timescale, but Mars’ mass is too large by a factor of 5-10 and embryos are often stranded in the asteroid belt. A configuration with Jupiter and Saturn in their current locations but with slightly higher initial eccentricities (e = 0.07-0.1) produces a small Mars, an embryo-free asteroid belt, and a reasonable Earth analog but rarely allows water delivery to Earth. None of the configurations we tested reproduced all the observed constraints. Our simulations leave us with a problem: we can reasonably satisfy the observed constraints (except for Earth’s water) with a configuration of Jupiter and Saturn that is at best marginally consistent with models of the outer Solar System, as it does not allow for any outer planet migration after a few Myr. Alternately, giant planet configurations which are consistent with the Nice model fail to reproduce Mars’ small size.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Models of Saturn's interior: Evidence for phase separation

Models of Saturn's interior have been constructed based on an accumulation picture of planet formation. It was found that central pressures were ～90 Mb, and central temperatures ～10^4°K. In sharp contrast to Jupiter, which requires large amounts of heavy material in the envelope to match the observed gravitational quadrupole moment, Saturn requires an almost solar envelope. Indeed, the ratio of enhanced material in the envelope to material in the core is less than ～0.1, while the corresponding value for Jupiter is ～2.