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.     

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.     

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_⊕.     

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.     

Hydrogen Eos at Megabar Pressures and the Search for Jupiter’s Core

The interior structure of Jupiter serves as a benchmark for an entire astrophysical class of liquid–metallic hydrogen-rich objects with masses ranging from ~0.1M _J to ~80M _J (1M _J = Jupiter mass = 1.9e30 g), comprising hydrogen-rich giant planets (mass < 13M _J) and brown dwarfs (mass > 13M _J but ~ < 80M _J), the so-called substellar objects (SSOs). Formation of giant planets may involve nucleated collapse of nebular gas onto a solid, dense core of mass ~0.04M _J rather than a stellar-like gravitational instability. Thus, detection of a primordial core in Jupiter is a prime objective for understanding the mode of origin of extrasolar giant planets and other SSOs. A basic method for core detection makes use of direct modeling of Jupiter’s external gravitational potential terms in response to rotational and tidal perturbations, and is highly sensitive to the thermodynamics of hydrogen at multi-megabar pressures. The present-day core masses of Jupiter and Saturn may be larger than their primordial core masses due to sedimentation of elements heavier than hydrogen. We show that there is a significant contribution of such sedimented mass to Saturn’s core mass. The sedimentation contribution to Jupiter’s core mass will be smaller and could be zero.     

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.     

Accretion of the gaseous envelope of Jupiter around a 5-10 Earth-mass core

New numerical simulations of the formation and evolution of Jupiter are presented. The formation model assumes that first a solid core of several M_⊕ accretes from the planetesimals in the protoplanetary disk, and then the core captures a massive gaseous envelope from the protoplanetary disk. Earlier studies of the core accretion-gas capture model [Pollack, J.B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J.J., Podolak, M., Greenzweig, Y., 1996. Icarus 124, 62-85] demonstrated that it was possible for Jupiter to accrete with a solid core of 10-30 M_⊕ in a total formation time comparable to the observed lifetime of protoplanetary disks. Recent interior models of Jupiter and Saturn that agree with all observational constraints suggest that Jupiter's core mass is 0-11 M_⊕ and Saturn's is 9-22 M_⊕ [Saumon, G., Guillot, T., 2004. Astrophys. J. 609, 1170-1180]. We have computed simulations of the growth of Jupiter using various values for the opacity produced by grains in the protoplanet's atmosphere and for the initial planetesimal surface density, σinit,Z, in the protoplanetary disk. We also explore the implications of halting the solid accretion at selected core mass values during the protoplanet's growth. Halting planetesimal accretion at low core mass simulates the presence of a competing embryo, and decreasing the atmospheric opacity due to grains emulates the settling and coagulation of grains within the protoplanet's atmosphere. We examine the effects of adjusting these parameters to determine whether or not gas runaway can occur for small mass cores on a reasonable timescale. We compute four series of simulations with the latest version of our code, which contains updated equation of state and opacity tables as well as other improvements. Each series consists of a run without a cutoff in planetesimal accretion, plus up to three runs with a cutoff at a particular core mass. The first series of runs is computed with an atmospheric opacity due to grains (hereafter referred to as ‘grain opacity’) that is 2% of the interstellar value and . Cutoff runs are computed for core masses of 10, 5, and 3 M_⊕. The second series of Jupiter models is computed with the grain opacity at the full interstellar value and . Cutoff runs are computed for core masses of 10 and 5 M_⊕. The third series of runs is computed with the grain opacity at 2% of the interstellar value and . One cutoff run is computed with a core mass of 5 M_⊕. The final series consists of one run, without a cutoff, which is computed with a temperature dependent grain opacity (i.e., 2% of the interstellar value for ramping up to the full interstellar value for ) and . Our results demonstrate that reducing grain opacities results in formation times less than half of those for models computed with full interstellar grain opacity values. The reduction of opacity due to grains in the upper portion of the envelope with has the largest effect on the lowering of the formation time. If the accretion of planetesimals is not cut off prior to the accretion of gas, then decreasing the surface density of planetesimals lowers the final core mass of the protoplanet, but increases the formation timescale considerably. Finally, a core mass cutoff results in a reduction of the time needed for a protoplanet to evolve to the stage of runaway gas accretion, provided the cutoff mass is sufficiently large. The overall results indicate that, with reasonable parameters, it is possible that Jupiter formed at 5 AU via the core accretion process in 1 Myr with a core of 10 M_⊕ or in 5 Myr with a core of 5 M_⊕.     

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.     

Predictions on the core mass of Jupiter and of giant planets in general

More than 80 giant planets are known by mass and radius. Their interior structure in terms of core mass, number of layers, and composition however is still poorly known. An overview is presented about the core mass M _core and envelope mass of metals M _Z in Jupiter as predicted by various equations of state. It is argued that the uncertainty about the true H/He EOS in a pressure regime where the gravitational moments J ₂ and J ₄ are most sensitive, i.e. between 0.5 and 4 Mbar, is in part responsible for the broad range \(M_{\mathit{core}}=0{-}18\:M_{\oplus }\), \(M_{Z}=0{-}38\:M_{\oplus }\), and \(M_{\mathit{core}}+M_{Z}=14{-}38\:M_{\oplus }\) currently offered for Jupiter. We then compare the Jupiter models obtained when we only match J ₂ with the range of solutions for the exoplanet \(\mathrm{GJ}\:436\mathrm{b}\), when we match an assumed tidal Love number k ₂ value.     

Making other earths: dynamical simulations of terrestrial planet formation and water delivery

We present results from 44 simulations of late stage planetary accretion, focusing on the delivery of volatiles (primarily water) to the terrestrial planets. Our simulations include both planetary “embryos” (defined as Moon to Mars sized protoplanets) and planetesimals, assuming that the embryos formed via oligarchic growth. We investigate volatile delivery as a function of Jupiter's mass, position and eccentricity, the position of the snow line, and the density (in solids) of the solar nebula. In all simulations, we form 1-4 terrestrial planets inside 2 AU, which vary in mass and volatile content. In 44 simulations we have formed 43 planets between 0.8 and 1.5 AU, including 11 “habitable” planets between 0.9 and 1.1 AU. These planets range from dry worlds to “water worlds” with 100+oceans of water (1 ocean=1.5×10²⁴ g), and vary in mass between 0.23M_⊕ and 3.85M_⊕. There is a good deal of stochastic noise in these simulations, but the most important parameter is the planetesimal mass we choose, which reflects the surface density in solids past the snow line. A high density in this region results in the formation of a smaller number of terrestrial planets with larger masses and higher water content, as compared with planets which form in systems with lower densities. We find that an eccentric Jupiter produces drier terrestrial planets with higher eccentricities than a circular one. In cases with Jupiter at 7 AU, we form what we call “super embryos,” 1-2M_⊕ protoplanets which can serve as the accretion seeds for 2+M_⊕ planets with large water contents.     

Planetesimal dissolution in the envelopes of the forming,giant planets

We have assessed the ability of planetesimals to penetrate through the envelopes of growing giant planets that form by a “core-instability” mechanism. According to this mechanism, a core grows by the accretion of solid bodies in the solar nebula and the growing core becomes progressively more effective in gravitationally concentrating gas from the surrounding solar nebula in an envelope until a “runaway” accretion of gas occurs. In performing this assessment, we have considered the ability of gas drag to slow down a planetesimal; the effectiveness of gas dynamical pressure in fracturing and ultimately finely fragmenting it; the ability of its strength and self-gravity to resist such fracturing; and the degree to which it is evaporated due to heating by the surrounding envelope, including shock heating that develops during the supersonic portion of its trajectory. We also consider what happens if the planetesimal is able to reach the core at free-fall velocity and the ability of the envelope to convectively mix dissolved materials to different radial distances. These calculations were performed for various epochs in the growth of a giant planet with the model envelopes derived by Bodenheimer and Pollack (1986,67, 391–408). As might have been anticipated, our results vary significantly with the size of the planetesimal, its composition, and the stage of growth of the giant planet and hence the mass of its envelope. Over much of the growth phase of the core, prior to its reaching its critical mass for runaway gas accretion, icy planetesimals less than about 1 m in size dissolve in the outer region of the envelope, ones larger than about 1 m and smaller than about 1 km dissolve in the middle region of the envelope, ones larger than 1 km either reach the core interface or dissolve in the deeper regions of the envelope. Similarly rocky planetesimals smaller than about a kilometer dissolve in the middle portion of the envelope, while larger ones can penetrate more deeply. Furthermore, the convection zones of the envelopes during this stage are confined to localized regions and hence dissolved materials experience little radial mixing then. Thus, if much of the accreted mass is contained in planetesimals larger than about a kilometer, the critical core mass for runaway accretion is not expected to change significantly when planetesimal dissolution is taken into account. After accretion is terminated and the planet contracts toward its present size, the convection zone grows until it encompasses the entire envelope. Therefore, dissolved material should eventually become well mixed through the envelope. We proposed that the envelopes of the giant planets should contain significant enhancements above solar proportions in the abundances of virtually all elements relative to that of hydrogen, with the magnitude of the enhancement increasing approximately linearly with the ratio of the high Z mass to the (H, He) mass for the bulk of the planet. This prediction is in accord both qualitatively and quantitatively with the systematic increase in the atmospheric C/H ratio from Jupiter to Saturn to Uranus and Neptune and semiquantitatively with the results of recent interior models of the giant planets. It is not clear whether it is consistent with the abundances of H₂O and NH₃ in the atmospheres of some of the outer planets. Finally, the complete reduction of some dissolved materials, especially C containing compounds, is expected to consume some of the H₂ in the envelopes. Consequently, the He/H₂ ratios in the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune may be slightly enhanced over the solar ratio. We estimate that the He/H₂ ratios for Uranus' and Neptune's atmospheres should be about 6 and 15% larger, respectively, than the solar ratio.     

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.     

Formation of the giant planets

Observational constraints on interior models of the giant planets indicate that these planets were all much hotter when they formed and they all have rock and/or ice cores of ten to thirty earth masses. These cores are probably soluble in the envelopes above, especially in Jupiter and Saturn, and are therefore likely to be primordial. They persist despite the continual upward mixing by thermally driven convection throughout the age of the solar system, because of the inefficiency of double-diffusive convection. Thus, these planets most probably formed by the hydrodynamic collapse of a gaseous envelope onto a core rather than by direct instability of the gaseous solar nebula. Recent calculations by Mizuno (1980, Prog. Theor. Phys.64, 544) show that this formation mechanism may explain the similarity of giant planet core masses. Problems remain however, and no current model is entirely satisfactory in explaining the properties of the giant planets and simultaneously satisfying the terrestrial planet constraints. Satellite systematics and protoplanetary disk nebulae are also discussed and related to formation conditions.     

Jupiter’s moment of inertia: A possible determination by Juno

The moment of inertia of a giant planet reveals important information about the planet’s internal density structure and this information is not identical to that contained in the gravitational moments. The forthcoming Juno mission to Jupiter might determine Jupiter’s normalized moment of inertia NMoI = C/MR² by measuring Jupiter’s pole precession and the Lense–Thirring acceleration of the spacecraft (C is the axial moment of inertia, and M and R are Jupiter’s mass and mean radius, respectively). We investigate the possible range of NMoI values for Jupiter based on its measured gravitational field using a simple core/envelope model of the planet assuming that J₂ and J₄ are perfectly known and are equal to their measured values. The model suggests that for fixed values of J₂ and J₄ a range of NMoI values between 0.2629 and 0.2645 can be found. The Radau–Darwin relation gives a NMoI value that is larger than the model values by less than 1%. A low NMoI of ∼0.236, inferred from a dynamical model (Ward, W.R., Canup, R.M. [2006]. Astrophys. J. 640, L91–L94) is inconsistent with this range, but the range is model dependent. Although we conclude that the NMoI is tightly constrained by the gravity coefficients, a measurement of Jupiter’s NMoI to a few tenths of percent by Juno could provide an important constraint on Jupiter’s internal structure. We carry out a simplified assessment of the error involved in Juno’s possible determination of Jupiter’s NMoI.     

Theoretical evolution of a hydrogen-helium star of 3M ⊙ from the pre-Main Sequence to the core helium-exhaustion phase

The evolution of a first-generation 3M star from the threshold of stability through the stage of helium exhaustion in the core has been studied. The total time elapsed is 4.174×10⁸ yr and most of this time is spent in the blue-giant region of theH-R diagram. Hydrogen-burning near the Main Sequence occurs at a high central temperature via the proton-proton chain until the triplealpha reactions generate a small amount of C¹² toward the end of the hydrogen-burning phase. The corresponding evolution time is longer than that of a normal population I star with the same mass. The ignition of the triple-alpha processes begins in a mildly degenerate, small convective core while the star still has a high surface temperature. Helium-burning in the core, coupled with hydrogenburning in the shell, occupies a period of about 1.8×10⁷ yr, which is only one-third that of a normal star. The mass of the star interior to the hydrogen shell source has increased to a value of 0.50M near the end of core helium exhaustion. This region maintains an inhomogenous composition composed of helium, carbon and oxygen.     

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.     

Spectroscopic study of the envelope of Nova Mon 2012, a γ-ray source

Based on our spectrophotometric observations, we have studied the envelope of the HeN Nova Mon 2012. The abundances of some chemical elements in the envelope and its mass have been estimated. Our results show that the helium, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon abundances in the Nova envelope exceed the solar ones by a factor of 1.5, 33, 9, and 95, respectively. The envelope mass has been found to be 2.3 × 10^?4 M _⊙.     

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.     

Grain sedimentation in a giant gaseous protoplanet

We present a calculation of the sedimentation of grains in a giant gaseous protoplanet such as that resulting from a disk instability of the type envisioned by Boss [Boss, A.P., 1998. Earth Moon Planets 81, 19-26]. Boss [Boss, A.P., 1998. Earth Moon Planets 81, 19-26] has suggested that such protoplanets would form cores through the settling of small grains. We have tested this suggestion by following the sedimentation of small silicate grains as the protoplanet contracts and evolves. We find that during the course of the initial contraction of the protoplanet, which lasts some 4×¹⁰⁵ years, even very small (>1 μm) silicate grains can sediment to create a core both for convective and non-convective envelopes, although the sedimentation time is substantially longer if the envelope is convective, and grains are allowed to be carried back up into the envelope by convection. Grains composed of organic material will mostly be evaporated before they get to the core region, while water ice grains will be completely evaporated. These results suggest that if giant planets are formed via the gravitational instability mechanism, a small heavy element core can be formed due to sedimentation of grains, but it will be composed almost entirely of refractory material. Including planetesimal capture, we find core masses between 1 and 10 M_⊕, and a total high-Z enhancement of ∼40 M_⊕. The refractories in the envelope will be mostly water vapor and organic residuals.