Draft version August 26, 2022

Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX63

The Dynamical Viability of an Extended Jupiter Ring System

Stephen R. Kane1 and Zhexing Li1
1 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
arXiv:2207.06434v3 [astro-ph.EP] 25 Aug 2022

ABSTRACT
Planetary rings are often speculated as being a relatively common attribute of giant planets, partly
based on their prevalence within the Solar System. However, their formation and sustainability remain
a topic of open discussion, and the most massive planet within our planetary system harbors a very
modest ring system. Here, we present the results of a N-body simulation that explores dynamical
constraints on the presence of substantial ring material for Jupiter. Our simulations extend from
within the rigid satellite Roche limit to 10% of the Jupiter Hill radius, and include outcomes from 106
and 107 year integrations. The results show possible regions of a sustained dense ring material presence
around Jupiter that may comprise the foundation for moon formation. The results largely demonstrate
the truncation of stable orbits imposed by the Galilean satellites, and dynamical desiccation of dense
ring material within the range ∼3–29 Jupiter radii. We discuss the implications of these results for
exoplanets, and the complex relationship between the simultaneous presence of rings and massive moon
systems.

Keywords: planetary systems – planets and satellites: dynamical evolution and stability – planets and
satellites: individual (Jupiter)

1. INTRODUCTION System (Crida et al. 2019). Age determinations depend

A distinctive common feature of the giant plan- on many factors, such as the velocity dispersion and in-
ets within the Solar System is the presence of teraction between ring particles (Salo 1995). Rings also
ring systems orbiting the planet. Rings systems stand as a possible record of past collision events, and in-
have been detected and studied extensively for each deed the formation of Saturn’s rings has been suggested
of Jupiter (Showalter et al. 1987; Porco et al. 2003), as the result of a substantial moon being desiccated by
Saturn (Pollack 1975; Porco et al. 2005), Uranus tidal forces as it spiraled into the planet (Canup 2010).
(Elliot et al. 1977; Tyler et al. 1986), and Neptune By comparison, the Jupiter system contains a sub-
(Lane et al. 1989; Showalter 2020). In particular, the stantially more modest ring system that has been ex-
prominent rings of Saturn have been the source of nu- tensively studied via data from such missions as Voy-
merous investigations with regards to their formation ager and Galileo, as well as ground-based observa-
(Goldreich & Tremaine 1978a; Charnoz et al. 2009) and tions (Smith et al. 1979; Ockert-Bell et al. 1999). The-
dynamics (Goldreich & Tremaine 1978b; Bridges et al. ories regarding the origin and evolution of the Jo-
1984). For example, density waves detected within vian rings vary, such as their possible formation along
Saturn’s rings have been utilized as an effective with the Galilean satellites (Prentice & ter Haar 1979),
means to infer oscillations within the planetary interior and the contributions of collisional ejecta lost from in-
(Hedman & Nicholson 2013) and determine differential clined satellites (Burns et al. 1999) and escaping ejecta
rotation of the outer envelope (Mankovich et al. 2019) from the Galilean satellites and/or the inner small
and a diffuse core (Mankovich & Fuller 2021). Addition- moons (Burns et al. 1999; Esposito 2002; Krivov et al.
ally, the age of Saturn’s rings has a range of estimated 2002). Further possible sources of potential ring ma-
values, from several hundred Myrs (Zhang et al. 2017; terial originate from impact debris (Ahrens et al. 1994;
Dubinski 2019; Iess et al. 2019) to as old as the Solar Hueso et al. 2013; Sankar et al. 2020) and the tidal dis-
ruption of satellites (Hyodo & Charnoz 2017) or large
passing Kuiper belt objects (Hyodo et al. 2017). Such
skane@ucr.edu events are likely stochastic in nature whose frequency is
an age-dependent phenomenon (Horner & Jones 2008).
2 Stephen R. Kane & Zhexing Li

Moreover, the dynamical evolution of Jupiter’s rings tems in terms of their formation and architectures
can have complicated explanations, partially with in- (Kane et al. 2013; Makarov et al. 2018; Dobos et al.
teractions between ions and the Jovian magnetosphere 2019; Batygin & Morbidelli 2020). Regular moons are
(Horányi & Cravens 1996) and the incorporation of dis- particularly notable in that they likely formed with the
sipation effects (Greenberg 1983). The formation and planet, as evidenced by their equatorial prograde orbits,
dynamical evolution of Jupiter’s rings have important and are often large enough to exhibit hydrostatic equilib-
consequences regarding the prevalence of rings of giant rium, resulting in a near-round morphology. For exam-
exoplanets. Exoplanetary rings can be a source of con- ple, the four Galilean moons likely formed from the pro-
fusion when evaluating the true nature of the planet toplanetary disk surrounding Jupiter (Ogihara & Ida
and its properties (Piro 2018; Piro & Vissapragada 2012; Heller et al. 2015), possibly catalyzed by migra-
2020) and their successful detection may reveal impor- tion of Saturn (Ronnet et al. 2018), and now contain
tant information regarding the formation of the planet ∼99.997% of the total mass orbiting the planet. The
and its local environment (Arnold & Schneider 2004; mass contained within the regular moons will therefore
Zuluaga et al. 2015; Sucerquia et al. 2020). The Jupiter have a significant influence on the dynamics of ring for-
and Saturn systems demonstrate that the presence and mation and sustainability.
sustainability of rings may be an intricate function of Figure 1 provides a scaled view of the Jupiter and
the architecture of planetary moons, as well as the in- Saturn systems, where the separation from the plane-
trinsic properties of the planet itself. The discoveries tary centers, located at zero, are provided in units of
and/or limits on exoplanet rings and moons will pro- the respective host planet radius. The regular moons
vide crucial statistical data to further understand how are shown as blue circles, where their sizes are relative
rings may have formed and evolved in our Solar System to each other rather than in units of planetary radii,
(Kenworthy & Mamajek 2015). and the names of the major moons are provided. It is
In this work, we provide the results of an extensive worth noting that all of Jupiter’s regular moons, includ-
dynamical simulation that tests regions of long-term ing the Galilean moons, have semi-major axes that are
dynamical stability for ring systems near the plane of within 1/25 of the Jupiter Hill radius, possibly a result
the Jovian equator, and in the presence of the Galilean of the mass distribution of the circumplanetary disk and
moons. In Section 2, we describe the architectures of the moon migration processes that may have occurred. The
Jupiter and Saturn systems, specifically the structure of extent of the rings in units of the planetary radii are
their rings with respect to the orbits of their respective shown as gray regions, and the vertical red dashed lines
moons. Section 3 provides the methodology and results indicate the location of the fluid satellite Roche limit for
for our dynamical simulation of stable orbits at locations each planet. The depiction of Jupiter’s rings include the
that extend from within the rigid satellite Roche limit Halo to Thebe gossamer rings, which span a distance of
to 10% of the Jupiter Hill radius. The implications of 1.29–3.16 Jupiter radii. Similarly, the depiction of Sat-
our simulation results are discussed in Section 4, both urn’s rings include rings D–E, which extend a distance
in terms of the potential for past/future Jovian ring sys- of 1.11–7.96 Saturn radii. The fluid satellite Roche lim-
tems and within the context of giant exoplanets. Con- its are 2.76 and 2.22 planet radii for Jupiter and Sat-
cluding remarks and suggestions for observational tests urn, respectively. Note that the rings depicted in Fig-
are provided in Section 5. ure 1 contain both “dense” and “tenuous” rings, both
of which have different sources of material and phys-
2. ARCHITECTURE OF JUPITER AND SATURN
ical processes acting upon them (Daisaka et al. 2001).
SYSTEMS
For example, Saturn’s E ring originates mainly from the
At the time of writing, the Solar System is known to cryovolcanic plumes of Enceladus, and is considerably
contain over 200 moons, with Jupiter and Saturn har- more tenuous than the main ring (Horányi et al. 2009;
boring at least 79 and 82 moons, respectively1 . The Cuzzi et al. 2010).
prevalence of moons within the Solar System has been Figure 1 highlights the differences in the distribu-
a primary motivator behind the study of and search tion of moon mass with respect to the rings for each
for exomoons (e.g., Hinkel & Kane 2013; Kipping et al. of the planets. In particular, the rings of Saturn con-
2013; Heller et al. 2014; Hill et al. 2018). It has fur- tain numerous small moons, whose presence can both
ther been suggested that Solar System regular moons feed the rings with new material, and also “shep-
may serve as analogs of compact exoplanetary sys- herd” the rings through their gravitational influence
(Petit & Henon 1988; Charnoz et al. 2011; Cuzzi et al.
1 https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/in-depth/ 2014; Nakajima et al. 2020). Indeed, moons can ac-
 The Dynamical Viability of an Extended Jupiter Ring System 3

Figure 1. The regular moons and rings of the Jupiter and Saturn systems, where the relative sizes of the moons are shown,
and their semi-major axes are provided in units of the host planet radii. The extent of the current ring systems, including dense
and tenuous rings, are shown as gray regions, and the vertical red dashed lines are the fluid satellite Roche limit for each planet.

crete relatively rapidly from ring material beyond the system, partially depending on the location of the rings
Roche limit, and such rings are thought to have been relative to the Roche limits. The simulations described
a source of numerous moons within the present Sat- in this paper consider only dense rings for a range of
urn architecture (Charnoz et al. 2010; Crida & Charnoz semi-major axes. The physical processes acting upon
2012; Salmon & Canup 2017). Gaps in Saturn’s rings the rings are described further in Section 4.1.
form through several processes, among them orbital res-
onances with moons, such as the relationship between 3. DYNAMICAL SIMULATIONS
the Cassini Division and Mimas (Goldreich & Tremaine This section describes the dynamical simulations, in-
1978a; Iess et al. 2019; Noyelles et al. 2019). Titan is cluding their configuration, results for the Galilean
relatively far from the main ring structure, but its moons, and injection of ring particles.
presence does result in a ringlet within the inner C
ring through the effect of orbital resonance (Porco et al. 3.1. Dynamics of the Galilean Moons
1984). However, there is evidence to suggest that Titan As discussed in Section 2, an important factor in the
has experienced an outward migration through tidal dis- formation and evolution of planetary rings is the moons
sipation (Lainey et al. 2020). This is somewhat in con- present in the system. In this context, the Galilean
trast to the effects of the more massive Galilean moons moons are by far the largest gravitational influence on
on the dynamical environment around Jupiter, particu- the presence of rings within the inner part of the Jupiter
larly as Io, Europa, and Ganymede are located in a 4:2:1 system. Thus, the dynamical evolution of the Galilean
Laplace resonance (Malhotra 1991; Peale & Lee 2002). moons is a crucial component of evaluating potential
Their orbital configuration is interpreted as strong evi- ring sustainability. There are substantial data that con-
dence that the moons migrated inward either during for- tribute toward accurate ephemerides of the moons, and
mation or soon thereafter (Greenberg 1987; Peale & Lee their dynamics have previously been studied in detail
2002; Sasaki et al. 2010; Ogihara & Ida 2012). This may (Lieske 1980; Greenberg 1987; Lainey et al. 2004; Lari
have resulted in a significant gravitational truncation of 2018). However, the vast majority of these studies focus
a potential massive ring system for Jupiter, such as that on the short-term (∼100 year) dynamics of the moons,
seen for Saturn, depending on the formation and migra- whereas this study is concentrated on timescales related
tion timescales of the Galilean moons. Overall, there are to the sustainability of planetary rings (1–10 million
significant differences between the ways in which dense years).
and tenuous rings interact with the planet and satellite The simulations carried out for this work were con-
ducted within the dynamical simulation package RE-
4 Stephen R. Kane & Zhexing Li

Figure 2. Eccentricity as a function of time for the Galilean satellites: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. The eccentricity
variations were recorded every 100 years during a 106 year simulation, as described in Section 3.

BOUND (Rein & Liu 2012) with the symplectic inte- bination of the resonance configuration and tidal dissi-
grator WHFast (Rein & Tamayo 2015). The initial con- pation present in the Galilean system ensures that the
ditions of the system were constructed to reproduce the moons have exceptionally stable orbits through time and
configuration of the Galilean moon system, incorporat- that they remain largely circular. Note that tidal dis-
ing the current orbital elements extracted from the Hori- sipation was not included in our dynamical simulation.
zons DE431 ephemerides (Folkner et al. 2014), and in- Figure 2 shows that the eccentricities remain below 2%,
cluding the effects of Jupiter’s oblateness (Tamayo et al. 3%, 1%, and 1% for Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto,
2020). The dynamical simulation presented in this work respectively. The short-term analyses of the Galilean
provides an independent assessment for the eccentricity moon eccentricities, such as the semi-analytical model
evolution of the Galilean moons, the results of which are provided by Lari (2018), reveal a transfer of angular mo-
shown in Figure 2 for a duration of 106 years. The com- mentum within the Laplace resonance of the three inner
 The Dynamical Viability of an Extended Jupiter Ring System 5

moons with a period in the range 400-500 days. The fering a collision with one of the large system bodies
long-term eccentricity evolution represented in Figure 2 during the entire simulation.
does not reveal periodic behavior at significantly longer The primary results of our simulations that include
timescales, but does demonstrate that angular momen- particle injections are shown in the top two panels of
tum transfer results in higher eccentricity variations for Figure 3, and are represented as the percentage of the
the less massive inner two moons than the more massive total simulation survived by particles for each separa-
outer two moons. The slightly higher eccentricity vari- tion location. The simulation durations of 106 years
ations for Io and Europa increases regions of dynamical and 107 years are shown in the top and bottom panels,
instability in their vicinity, and thus has consequences respectively, and the location of the Galilean moons are
for long-term ring stability close to Jupiter. indicated by vertical dotted lines. The vertical dashed
lines indicate the location of both the rigid and fluid
3.2. Particle Injection and Ring Stability body Roche limits. The top panel shows that, even for
106 years, the region surrounding the Laplace resonance
To explore the gravitational constraints that the
of Io, Europa, and Ganymede is rendered unstable, ex-
Galilean moons impose upon potential ring particles
acerbated by the slight eccentricity variations of Io and
orbiting Jupiter, we conducted a suite of dynamical
Europa described in Section 3.1. The inner limits of dy-
simulations for the system based upon the architecture
namical stability are located at ∼3.55 Jupiter radii and
framework described in Section 3.1. The stability of an
∼3.12 Jupiter radii for the 106 year and 107 year simula-
extensive ring system and possible moon forming mate-
tions, respectively. The current Jupiter ring system, de-
rial around Jupiter was tested by introducing a series of
picted in Figure 1, extends to ∼3.16 Jupiter radii, indi-
test particles to the Galilean moon system and evaluat-
cating that the ring is young (< 107 years) and/or is be-
ing their survivability at different locations within the
ing sustained with additional material to the Thebe ex-
system. The test particles were assumed to have a den-
tension (Borisov & Krüger 2021). The structure of the
sity of water ice (0.917 g/cm3 ), the value for which is
dynamical stability beyond the orbit of Callisto is a com-
representative of most of the materials in Saturn’s ring
plicated result of Ganymede and Callisto resonance lo-
system, and a spherical shape with radius of ∼1 me-
cations. For example, the dynamical instability located
ter, yielding a total particle mass of ∼3841 kg. Thus,
at ∼31.2 Jupiter radii, partially present at 106 years
we are considering only dense ring material and the
and significantly more pronounced at 107 years, is the
gravitational perturbations acting upon them (see Sec-
1:3 resonance location with Ganymede. Furthermore,
tion 4.1). The particle orbits were set to be circular
there is an island of stability located at ∼41.8 Jupiter
with an inclination of ∼0◦ with respect to the Jupiter
radii, which is not evident in the 106 year results but
equator (coplanar with the Galilean moons). The test
becomes apparent at 107 years, which is a result of a
particles were placed at different locations from Jupiter,
1:2 resonance with Callisto. The effect of resonances
extending from inside the rigid satellite Roche limit (see
is further emphasized in the bottom panel of Figure 3,
Figure 1) to 1/10 of the Jupiter Hill radius. This region
which shows the change in eccentricity, δe, that occurs
was sampled with 1000 evenly spaced locations, result-
during the course of the 107 year simulations. It is
ing in a location step size of ∼4963 km. The simulations
worth noting that, although the bottom panel of Fig-
were carried out with both 106 year and 107 year inte-
ure 3 implies that particles close to the Roche lim-
gration times for each of the separation cases, which
its are predominantly scattered into high eccentricity
translates to 4.6 × 106 and 4.6 × 107 orbits at the outer
orbits, stable low-eccentricity orbits can exist within
edge of our sample space, respectively. For each simu-
that region. For example, the inner Jovian moons of
lation, the time step was set to be 0.05 of Io’s orbital
Metis, Adrastea, Amalthea, and Thebe have semmi-
period (2.1 hours), except for cases where the test parti-
major axes that lie within the range 1.8–3.2 Jupiter
cle locations were inside Io’s orbit, where the time step
radii and are known to have eccentricities that are be-
was adjusted to 0.05 of the orbital period at each parti-
low 0.02 (Cooper et al. 2006; Borisov & Krüger 2020),
cle location. This ensured an adequate time resolution
although dynamical interactions with Io have inflated
to properly sample the dynamical interactions between
the eccentricity of Thebe (Burns et al. 2004). We con-
test particles and the Galilean moons. The orbital prop-
ducted additional simulations for the specific cases of
erties of the particles and Galilean moons were output
those four inner moons where, as for the Galilean moons,
every 100 years during the simulation and the survival
current orbital elements were extracted from the Hori-
rates of the test particle were calculated at each orbital
zons DE431 ephemerides. The results of these simula-
separation. Test particle survival was based upon the
tions show that their mean eccentricities remained small
elapsed time to be either ejected from the system or suf-
6 Stephen R. Kane & Zhexing Li

Figure 3. Results of particle injection and survival for the 106 year (top panel) and 107 year (middle panel) dynamical
simulations. The horizontal axis is the separation from Jupiter in planetary radii, and the vertical axis shows the percentage
of the total dynamical simulation that particles survived at that location, represented by the green line. The vertical dotted
lines represent the semi-major axes of the Galilean moons, and the vertical dashed lines represent the locations of the rigid and
fluid Roche limits. The bottom panel shows the change in eccentricity that occurs for each particle as a function of their initial
semi-major axis during the course of the 107 year simulations.
 The Dynamical Viability of an Extended Jupiter Ring System 7

term viability within the architecture of the system.

The results of our simulations described in Section 3.2
demonstrate that ring structures within the separation
range ∼3–29 Jupiter radii are mostly removed within
106 years. What remains are a system of ringlets be-
tween Ganymede and Callisto (∼20–24 Jupiter radii),
and rings that coincide with the orbit of Callisto. Rings
beyond 29 Jupiter radii are viable for 106 years, but such
rings would likely consist of remaining material from
planet and moon formation processes when the Solar
System was relatively young. After 107 years, the dy-
namical influence of the Galilean moons further desic-
cates the material in the region of ∼3–29 Jupiter radii,
including the ringlet structure between Ganymede and
Figure 4. The loss rate for all particles within the inves- Callisto. As discussed in Section 3.2, orbital resonances
tigated semi-major axis region around Jupiter, shown as a with Ganymede and Callisto also compromise the region
function of time (fractions of 107 years) and the percentage beyond 29 Jupiter radii, ensuring that the primordial
of particles that survive to that time. material would not have remained beyond a few tens of
millions of years.
throughout the entire simulation, with mean eccentrici- The results presented in this work are based pri-
ties of 0.008, 0.008, 0.005, and 0.016 for Metis, Adrastea, marily on dynamical interactions within the Jupiter
Amalthea, and Thebe, respectively. As noted in Sec- system. However, there are numerous other fac-
tion 3.1, tidal dissipation was not included in our simu- tors that have not been taken into account. Events
lations, and so these dynamically induced eccentricities that may increase the lifetime of ring structures,
may be considered upper limits to their expected values. such as impacts and outgassing of moons that re-
The rate at which particles are lost from within the lease solid particles, have not been considered. Jupiter
investigated semi-major region is shown in Figure 4. is well known to suffer relatively frequent impacts
Almost 30% of the particles are lost within the first (Zahnle et al. 2003; Horner & Jones 2008; Hueso et al.
105 years of simulation time. After 106 years, ∼65% 2013, 2018), such as the Comet Shoemaker-Levy-9 event
of particles remain and, after 107 years, ∼52% of par- (Zahnle & Mac Low 1994; Asphaug & Benz 1996), with
ticles remain. As noted above, lost particles are gener- observations of recent impact events helping to place
ally considered to be the result of ejection or collisions. constraints on ejection material that achieves escape ve-
However, as described in Section 2, particles beyond the locity (Ahrens et al. 1994; Sankar et al. 2020), and thus
fluid body Roche limit may also coalesce into moons on may contribute to ring material. It is worth noting that
relatively short timescales, and the diversity of eccen- contributions from isotropic impactors (compared with
tricities exhibited in the bottom panel of Figure 3 for ecliptic impactors) may result in a stochastic distribu-
many of the surviving particles supports this possible tion of ring material, whereas our simulations specifi-
outcome. Another source of particle loss can be capture cally investigate rings coplanar with Jupiter’s equator.
by the Galilean moons, forming circumsatellital rings Furthermore, orbital precession and collisions will nat-
(Sucerquia et al. 2021). Overall, the Galilean moons urally cause any orbiting debris to collapse into the
carve a substantial area of instability into the region planet’s equatorial plane. Additional sources of ring
around Jupiter that may only allow relatively short-lived material are the grinding down of small moons and
ring systems to co-exist with the orbital architectures. outgassing from the Galilean moons (Burns et al. 1999;
Esposito 2002).
4. DISCUSSION On the other hand, there are numerous processes that
4.1. Implications for Jovian Rings serve to decrease the ring lifetime, such as Poynting-
Robertson drag, the Yarkovsky effect, and the elec-
As the dominant planetary mass in the Solar System,
tromagnetic influence of the Jovian magnetosphere
Jupiter has undoubtedly had a complex and eventful
(Burns et al. 1999; Rubincam 2006; Kobayashi et al.
dynamical history. Such a history includes significant
2009). Such non-gravitational forces primarily govern
impacts and other events that have resulted in raw ma-
particles that are significantly smaller (µm–mm) than
terial for substantial ring formation. The major question
those used in our simulations (Burns et al. 1979), and
regarding these ring structures pertain to their long-
8 Stephen R. Kane & Zhexing Li

so are unlikely to substantially impact the results pre-

sented here. For dense rings, such as those that are
considered in our simulations, a major source of ring
material loss beyond the Roche limit is the accretion
into small moons (Crida & Charnoz 2012). Such accre-
tion can happen on relatively small timescales, such that
the loss of ring material in this manner may occur well
within the periods of time considered by our simulations.
In fact, our results provided in Section 3.2 demonstrate
that the excitation of particles into eccentric orbits may
further promote collision scenarios. However, moonlets
that form in the investigated region of semi-major axes
will likely remain subject to the instability caused by
the Galilean moons, resulting in possible ejection from
the system. Migration of moons have also played a role Figure 5. Planet masses (Jupiter masses) and Hill radii
in shaping the dynamical environment around Jupiter. (planetary radii) for the known exoplanets with measured
Resonances between moons can promote inward and masses and radii. The locations of Earth, Jupiter, and Sat-
outward migration and is thought to have occurred for urn are marked by E, J, and S, respectively. The gray region
both the Jupiter and Saturn moon systems (Fuller et al. indicates where formation of massive moons may be limited
2016). The mechanics of resonance trapping for moons by disk migration, whilst a larger Hill radius maximizes pri-
mordial and new material to contribute to ring formation.
is the same process that takes place for planetary mi-
gration (Wyatt 2003) and can greatly affect their com-
position, such as the case of the TRAPPIST-1 planets (Muñoz-Gutiérrez et al. 2022). Therefore, the relative
(Unterborn et al. 2018). Indeed, interaction with the weighting of ring sustainability and dessication factors
rings themselves can result in the migration of small close to the planet have yet to be determined, and it is
moons (Bromley & Kenyon 2013), which may in turn unclear that the dynamical effects are the primary factor
result in their contribution to the rings near the Roche in that region.
limit. Furthermore, given the relatively small mass of 4.2. Implications for Exoplanets
the test particles used in our simulations, the calculated
As noted in Section 1, rings are an important
life expectancy of those particles may be considered an
component of planetary evolution, and there are ac-
upper limit in many cases.
tive efforts to search for their presence around exo-
With the various above described competing factors in
planets (Arnold & Schneider 2004; Zuluaga et al. 2015;
ring contributions, the sustainability of planetary rings
Sucerquia et al. 2020). It is expected that primordial
may be sensitive to the architecture of the local envi-
ring structures, inherited from the circumplanetary disk,
ronment. Based on our simulations, it is possible that
contain a mass that scales with the feeding zone, and
the Galilean moons may be a significant reason that,
hence the Hill radius, of the planet (Heller et al. 2014;
integrated over time, Jupiter is unable to harbor sub-
Kaib & Cowan 2015). There is also evidence that moons
stantial rings. However, there may also have been pe-
play a significant role in this early ring evolution, and
riods of Jupiter history during which impact and small
that the disks are truncated well inside the extent of the
moon collision rates exceeded dynamical disruption by
Hill radius (Shabram & Boley 2013; Fujii et al. 2017).
the Galilean moons, allowing sustained rings signifi-
At the present epoch, the respective prevalence of rings
cantly more massive than those observed at the present
around Jupiter and Saturn suggest that post-primordial
epoch. Although the sustainability of an extended ring
ring formation and evolution does not scale with planet
system beyond the Roche limit may be dominated by the
mass, but rather with the particular moon architecture
combination of dynamical effects and moon coalescence,
associated with the host planet. Indeed, the circum-
the lifetime of rings within the Roche limit is substan-
planetary mass required to form a Galilean moon system
tially more complicated. For example, in the case of
analog may result in a natural inhibitor to ring forma-
Saturn, an examination of the Pallene dusty ring found
tion around massive giant planets. In particular, moon
that non-gravitational forces dominate over the dynam-
migration into a Laplace resonance, such as that de-
ical effects with regards to the sustainability of the ring,
scribed in Section 2, produces strong destabilizing per-
although the moon mass within the Saturnian system
turbations that quickly desiccate disk particles within
is significantly less than that of the Galilean moons
several tens of planetary radii of the planet. It is further
 The Dynamical Viability of an Extended Jupiter Ring System 9

suggested by Canup & Ward (2006) that disk migration timescale reduction would result from the rapid forma-
may limit the maximum size of moons, beyond which tion of large moons, whose gravitational presence would,
the moons may migrate through the circumplanetary in turn, either eject the remaining ring material or excite
disk and into the planet. The implication is that Saturn their eccentricities resulting in further enhancement of
may possibly represent a “sweet spot” of ring formation moon formation (see Section 3.2). The size of the box
in terms of mass, Hill radius, and moon-forming capac- shown in Figure 5 is empirical in nature and requires
ity, although this is quite difficult to gauge fully without further investigation of the various competing factors to-
more complete knowledge of the Jupiter and Saturn ar- ward ring formation and sustainability, but may serve as
chitecture evolutions. Moreover, careful consideration a useful guide for testing models regarding how the pres-
must be given to the various processes acting upon ring ence of substantial moons could potentially influence the
formation and dessication, described in Section 4.1. In long-term presence of rings around giant planets.
particular, there are numerous non-gravitational forces
acting upon ring material within or close to the Roche 5. CONCLUSIONS
limit that can have a dominating effect on ring evolution
Planetary rings and moons are very important fea-
(see Section 4.1). It is also worth noting that these im-
tures of our Solar System, both in their intrinsic geo-
plied correlations between planet mass and ring/moon
logic and dynamical properties, and as crucial signposts
prevalence are based upon the limited inventory of giant
of planetary formation and evolution. Understanding
planets present in the Solar System, for which exoplanet
the complex interactions between moons and rings, and
studies will provide a much needed statistical validation.
how these vary with planetary mass, composition, Hill
However, if indeed the presence of relatively massive
radius, and time, remains one of the most intricate re-
moon systems is correlated with planet mass and Hill
search topics in planetary science. The dynamical evo-
radius, then the prevalence of ring systems may be like-
lution of giant planet systems is one of the primary ways
wise rare amongst many of the discovered giant exoplan-
in which tracing of rings systems and their ages may be
ets. Shown in Figure 5 are planetary masses (Jupiter
undertaken.
masses) and calculated Hill radii (planetary radii) for
The results of our dynamical simulations demonstrate
known exoplanets with relavant data available. The
that the presence of massive moons, especially sys-
data were extracted from the NASA Exoplanet Archive
tems that have migrated into resonance traps as for the
(Akeson et al. 2013) and are current as of 2021 Decem-
Galilean moons, can create significant dynamical con-
ber 18 (NASA Exoplanet Archive 2021). For compar-
straints on ring systems comprised of dense material.
ison, the locations of Earth, Jupiter, and Saturn are
This indicates that, although Jupiter may have had in-
also marked on the diagram. The gray box provides a
termittent periods of substantial rings systems, their
rough guide for what may be considered an optimiza-
long-term sustainability may be severely truncated by
tion region where the harboring of substantial plane-
the presence of the Galilean moons and associated res-
tary rings could be favorable. The planet mass range
onances. Ring material beyond the Roche limit that
of the gray box is 10 Earth masses to 1 Jupiter mass
remain in stable orbits may also experience eccentricity
to approximately capture planets within the ice/gas
excitation that enhances moonlet coalescence. Further-
giant regime (Weiss et al. 2013; Lammer et al. 2014;
more, we have shown that the outer edge of the present
Lopez & Fortney 2014; Rogers 2015; Chen & Kipping
ring system must be relatively young (< 107 years) in
2017) whilst limiting the potential for substantial moon
order to have survived dynamical scattering processes.
formation. The Hill radius range is for all Hill radii
The balance between planet mass, the formation of mas-
beyond 50 planetary radii since small Hill radii trun-
sive moons, and the sustainability of significant ring
cates both the extent of the circumplanetary disk
mass, means that Saturn may be near the optimal region
(Shabram & Boley 2013) and the dynamical viability
for the formation and long-term survival of substantial
of moons (Barnes & O’Brien 2002; Hinkel & Kane 2013;
rings. A useful extension to this work could thus include
Kane 2017). Saturn is deeply embedded within the gray
longer timescale simulations combined with migration
region, whilst Uranus and Neptune (also fulfilling the
effects that fully explore the interaction between moons
planet mass criteria) are located at Hill radii of 2613 and
and rings during periods of formation, as well as moon
4644 planetary radii, respectively. As described above,
formation from ring material and the inclusion of non-
planets more massive than Jupiter, with larger mass
gravitational forces near the Roche limit.
proto-satellite disks and a larger Hill radius in which
Although the inventory of Solar System giant planets
to engage in moon formation, may experience signifi-
and their associated rings and moons is limited, they
cantly reduced timescale of ring sustainability. Such a
yet provide the best clues to the formation and evo-
10 Stephen R. Kane & Zhexing Li

lution of such systems (Horner et al. 2020; Kane et al. The authors thank Paul Dalba and the anonymous
2021), as well as a guide toward detecting their exo- referees for useful feedback on the manuscript. This re-
planet analogs (Dalba et al. 2015; Mayorga et al. 2016, search has made use of the NASA Exoplanet Archive,
2020; Wakeford & Dalba 2020). The detailed data avail- which is operated by the California Institute of Tech-
able for local giant planet systems must necessarily be nology, under contract with the National Aeronautics
balanced by the statistical knowledge that will be gained and Space Administration under the Exoplanet Explo-
through the discovery of exomoons and exorings. Such ration Program. The results reported herein benefited
discoveries will provide the means to fully explore the from collaborations and/or information exchange within
above described potential correlation of moons and ring NASA’s Nexus for Exoplanet System Science (NExSS)
properties with those of their host planet. research coordination network sponsored by NASA’s
Science Mission Directorate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Software: REBOUND (Rein & Liu 2012)

REFERENCES
Ahrens, T. J., Takata, T., O’Keefe, J. D., & Orton, G. S. Charnoz, S., Salmon, J., & Crida, A. 2010, Nature, 465,
1994, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 1087, 752, doi: 10.1038/nature09096
doi: 10.1029/94GL01325 Charnoz, S., Crida, A., Castillo-Rogez, J. C., et al. 2011,
Akeson, R. L., Chen, X., Ciardi, D., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, Icarus, 216, 535, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.09.017
989, doi: 10.1086/672273 Chen, J., & Kipping, D. 2017, ApJ, 834, 17,
Arnold, L., & Schneider, J. 2004, A&A, 420, 1153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035720 Cooper, N. J., Murray, C. D., Porco, C. C., & Spitale, J. N.
Asphaug, E., & Benz, W. 1996, Icarus, 121, 225, 2006, Icarus, 181, 223, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2005.11.007
doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0083 Crida, A., & Charnoz, S. 2012, Science, 338, 1196,
Barnes, J. W., & O’Brien, D. P. 2002, ApJ, 575, 1087, doi: 10.1126/science.1226477
doi: 10.1086/341477 Crida, A., Charnoz, S., Hsu, H.-W., & Dones, L. 2019,
Batygin, K., & Morbidelli, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 143, Nature Astronomy, 3, 967,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8937
doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0876-y
Borisov, N., & Krüger, H. 2020, Planet. Space Sci., 183,
Cuzzi, J. N., Whizin, A. D., Hogan, R. C., et al. 2014,
104556, doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2018.06.005
Icarus, 232, 157, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.12.027
—. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics),
Cuzzi, J. N., Burns, J. A., Charnoz, S., et al. 2010, Science,
126, e29654, doi: 10.1029/2021JA029654
327, 1470, doi: 10.1126/science.1179118
Bridges, F. G., Hatzes, A., & Lin, D. N. C. 1984, Nature,
Daisaka, H., Tanaka, H., & Ida, S. 2001, Icarus, 154, 296,
309, 333, doi: 10.1038/309333a0
doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6716
Bromley, B. C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 764, 192,
Dalba, P. A., Muirhead, P. S., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2015,
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/192
ApJ, 814, 154, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/154
Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L., & Soter, S. 1979, Icarus, 40, 1,
Dobos, V., Barr, A. C., & Kiss, L. L. 2019, A&A, 624, A2,
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(79)90050-2
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834254
Burns, J. A., Showalter, M. R., Hamilton, D. P., et al. 1999,
Science, 284, 1146, doi: 10.1126/science.284.5417.1146 Dubinski, J. 2019, Icarus, 321, 291,
Burns, J. A., Simonelli, D. P., Showalter, M. R., et al. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.11.034
in Jupiter. The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, ed. Elliot, J. L., Dunham, E., & Mink, D. 1977, Nature, 267,
F. Bagenal, T. E. Dowling, & W. B. McKinnon, Vol. 1 328, doi: 10.1038/267328a0
(Cambridge University Press), 241–262 Esposito, L. W. 2002, Reports on Progress in Physics, 65,
Canup, R. M. 2010, Nature, 468, 943, 1741, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/65/12/201
doi: 10.1038/nature09661 Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R. S.,
Canup, R. M., & Ward, W. R. 2006, Nature, 441, 834, & Kuchynka, P. 2014, Interplanetary Network Progress
doi: 10.1038/nature04860 Report, 42-196, 1
Charnoz, S., Morbidelli, A., Dones, L., & Salmon, J. 2009, Fujii, Y. I., Kobayashi, H., Takahashi, S. Z., & Gressel, O.
Icarus, 199, 413, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.019 2017, AJ, 153, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa647d
 The Dynamical Viability of an Extended Jupiter Ring System 11

Fuller, J., Luan, J., & Quataert, E. 2016, MNRAS, 458, Kenworthy, M. A., & Mamajek, E. E. 2015, ApJ, 800, 126,
3867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw609 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/126
Goldreich, P., & Tremaine, S. D. 1978a, Icarus, 34, 240, Kipping, D. M., Forgan, D., Hartman, J., et al. 2013, ApJ,
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90165-3 777, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/134
—. 1978b, Icarus, 34, 227, Kobayashi, H., Watanabe, S.-i., Kimura, H., & Yamamoto,
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90164-1 T. 2009, Icarus, 201, 395,
Greenberg, R. 1983, Icarus, 53, 207, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.01.002
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(83)90142-2 Krivov, A. V., Krüger, H., Grün, E., Thiessenhusen, K.-U.,
—. 1987, Icarus, 70, 334, & Hamilton, D. P. 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90139-4 (Planets), 107, 5002, doi: 10.1029/2000JE001434
Hedman, M. M., & Nicholson, P. D. 2013, AJ, 146, 12, Lainey, V., Duriez, L., & Vienne, A. 2004, A&A, 420, 1171,
doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/1/12 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034565
Heller, R., Marleau, G. D., & Pudritz, R. E. 2015, A&A, Lainey, V., Casajus, L. G., Fuller, J., et al. 2020, Nature
579, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526348 Astronomy, 4, 1053, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1120-5
Heller, R., Williams, D., Kipping, D., et al. 2014, Lammer, H., Stökl, A., Erkaev, N. V., et al. 2014, MNRAS,
Astrobiology, 14, 798, doi: 10.1089/ast.2014.1147 439, 3225, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu085
Hill, M. L., Kane, S. R., Seperuelo Duarte, E., et al. 2018, Lane, A. L., West, R. A., Hord, C. W., et al. 1989, Science,
ApJ, 860, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac384 246, 1450, doi: 10.1126/science.246.4936.1450
Hinkel, N. R., & Kane, S. R. 2013, ApJ, 774, 27,
Lari, G. 2018, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/27
Astronomy, 130, 50, doi: 10.1007/s10569-018-9846-4
Horányi, M., Burns, J. A., Hedman, M. M., Jones, G. H., &
Lieske, J. H. 1980, A&A, 82, 340
Kempf, S. 2009, in Saturn from Cassini-Huygens, ed.
Lopez, E. D., & Fortney, J. J. 2014, ApJ, 792, 1,
M. K. Dougherty, L. W. Esposito, & S. M. Krimigis
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/1
(Springer Science+Business Media), 511,
Makarov, V. V., Berghea, C. T., & Efroimsky, M. 2018,
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9217-6 16
ApJ, 857, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab845
Horányi, M., & Cravens, T. E. 1996, Nature, 381, 293,
Malhotra, R. 1991, Icarus, 94, 399,
doi: 10.1038/381293a0
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(91)90237-N
Horner, J., & Jones, B. W. 2008, International Journal of
Mankovich, C., Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., & Movshovitz,
Astrobiology, 7, 251, doi: 10.1017/S1473550408004187
N. 2019, ApJ, 871, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf798
Horner, J., Kane, S. R., Marshall, J. P., et al. 2020, PASP,
Mankovich, C. R., & Fuller, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5,
132, 102001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab8eb9
1103, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01448-3
Hueso, R., Pérez-Hoyos, S., Sánchez-Lavega, A., et al. 2013,
Mayorga, L. C., Charbonneau, D., & Thorngren, D. P.
A&A, 560, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322216
Hueso, R., Delcroix, M., Sánchez-Lavega, A., et al. 2018, 2020, AJ, 160, 238, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb8df
A&A, 617, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832689 Mayorga, L. C., Jackiewicz, J., Rages, K., et al. 2016, AJ,
Hyodo, R., & Charnoz, S. 2017, AJ, 154, 34, 152, 209, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/209
doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa74c9 Muñoz-Gutiérrez, M. A., Granados Contreras, A. P.,
Hyodo, R., Charnoz, S., Ohtsuki, K., & Genda, H. 2017, Madeira, G., A’Hearn, J. A., & Giuliatti Winter, S. 2022,
Icarus, 282, 195, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.09.012 MNRAS, 511, 4202, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3627
Iess, L., Militzer, B., Kaspi, Y., et al. 2019, Science, 364, Nakajima, A., Ida, S., & Ishigaki, Y. 2020, A&A, 640, L15,
aat2965, doi: 10.1126/science.aat2965 doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038743
Kaib, N. A., & Cowan, N. B. 2015, Icarus, 252, 161, NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2021, Planetary Systems,
doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.013 Version: 2021-12-18, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC,
Kane, S. R. 2017, ApJL, 839, L19, doi: 10.26133/NEA12
doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6bf2 Noyelles, B., Baillié, K., Charnoz, S., Lainey, V., & Tobie,
Kane, S. R., Hinkel, N. R., & Raymond, S. N. 2013, AJ, G. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2947, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz445
146, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/5/122 Ockert-Bell, M. E., Burns, J. A., Daubar, I. J., et al. 1999,
Kane, S. R., Arney, G. N., Byrne, P. K., et al. 2021, Icarus, 138, 188, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.6072
Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets), 126, e06643, Ogihara, M., & Ida, S. 2012, ApJ, 753, 60,
doi: 10.1002/jgre.v126.2 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/60
12 Stephen R. Kane & Zhexing Li

Peale, S. J., & Lee, M. H. 2002, Science, 298, 593, Shabram, M., & Boley, A. C. 2013, ApJ, 767, 63,
doi: 10.1126/science.1076557 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/63
Petit, J. M., & Henon, M. 1988, A&A, 199, 343 Showalter, M. R. 2020, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London Series A, 378, 20190482,
Piro, A. L. 2018, AJ, 156, 80,
doi: 10.1098/rsta.2019.0482
doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad04a
Showalter, M. R., Burns, J. A., Cuzzi, J. N., & Pollack,
Piro, A. L., & Vissapragada, S. 2020, AJ, 159, 131,
J. B. 1987, Icarus, 69, 458,
doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7192
doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(87)90018-2
Pollack, J. B. 1975, SSRv, 18, 3, doi: 10.1007/BF00350197 Smith, B. A., Soderblom, L. A., Johnson, T. V., et al. 1979,
Porco, C., Nicholson, P. D., Borderies, N., et al. 1984, Science, 204, 951, doi: 10.1126/science.204.4396.951
Icarus, 60, 1, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(84)90134-9 Sucerquia, M., Alvarado-Montes, J. A., Zuluaga, J. I.,
Porco, C. C., West, R. A., McEwen, A., et al. 2003, Montesinos, M., & Bayo, A. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L85,
Science, 299, 1541, doi: 10.1126/science.1079462 doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa080
Porco, C. C., Baker, E., Barbara, J., et al. 2005, Science, Sucerquia, M., Alvarado-Montes, J. A., Bayo, A., et al.
2021, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3531
307, 1226, doi: 10.1126/science.1108056
Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020,
Prentice, A. J. R., & ter Haar, D. 1979, Nature, 280, 300,
MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870
doi: 10.1038/280300a0
Tyler, G. L., Sweetnam, D. N., Anderson, J. D., et al. 1986,
Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128,
Science, 233, 79, doi: 10.1126/science.233.4759.79
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 Unterborn, C. T., Desch, S. J., Hinkel, N. R., & Lorenzo,
Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 376, A. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 297,
doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1257 doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0411-6
Rogers, L. A. 2015, ApJ, 801, 41, Wakeford, H. R., & Dalba, P. A. 2020, Philosophical
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/41 Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A,
Ronnet, T., Mousis, O., Vernazza, P., Lunine, J. I., & 378, 20200054, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0054
Crida, A. 2018, AJ, 155, 224, Weiss, L. M., Marcy, G. W., Rowe, J. F., et al. 2013, ApJ,
768, 14, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/14
doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabcc7
Wyatt, M. C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1321, doi: 10.1086/379064
Rubincam, D. P. 2006, Icarus, 184, 532,
Zahnle, K., & Mac Low, M.-M. 1994, Icarus, 108, 1,
doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.05.017
doi: 10.1006/icar.1994.1038
Salmon, J., & Canup, R. M. 2017, ApJ, 836, 109, Zahnle, K., Schenk, P., Levison, H., & Dones, L. 2003,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/109 Icarus, 163, 263, doi: 10.1016/S0019-1035(03)00048-4
Salo, H. 1995, Icarus, 117, 287, doi: 10.1006/icar.1995.1157 Zhang, Z., Hayes, A. G., Janssen, M. A., et al. 2017, Icarus,
Sankar, R., Palotai, C., Hueso, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 294, 14, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.04.008
493, 4622, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa563 Zuluaga, J. I., Kipping, D. M., Sucerquia, M., & Alvarado,
Sasaki, T., Stewart, G. R., & Ida, S. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1052, J. A. 2015, ApJL, 803, L14,
doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/803/1/L14
doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1052