Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Saturn's G ring: insights from the dynamical evolution of dust particles from the G-ring arc

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dust escaping the G-ring arc can reproduce Saturn's G ring.

desk verdict A competent, clearly written dust-dynamics study whose headline I/F match is a fit, not a prediction; solid new numbers but the plasma erosion assumptions need a sensitivity sweep. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15721 v1 pith:R5OGZH4Z submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.EP

Zhenghan Chen , Xiaodong Liu , Kun Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords Saturn'sGringdustdynamicsG-ringarcplasmasputteringradiationpressureLorentzforcepower-lawsizedistributionCassiniobservations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that Saturn's faint G ring is sustained by dust ejected from the G-ring arc near its inner edge, rather than by an ancient independent dust population. It simulates micron-sized grains under planetary oblateness, solar radiation pressure, Poynting–Robertson drag, Lorentz force, plasma drag, moon gravity, and plasma sputtering, then fits a power-law size distribution so that the simulated ring's normal brightness $I/F$ and number density match Cassini observations. The fit gives a size exponent $q=2.8$ and normalization $C_0=4.0$, and with that one distribution the model reproduces the observed brightness profile both through the arc and away from it. If accepted, the G ring is a young, short-lived structure: roughly $10^6$–$10^7$ years old, with a remaining lifetime on the order of $10^4$ years.

What carries the argument

The central object is the swarm of 0.1–50 µm dust grains launched from the 7:6 corotation eccentricity resonance arc at the G ring's inner edge, initialized near Aegaeon's orbit and tracked until the grains are sputtered away, collide with a moon or the A ring, or leave the system. The argument is carried by the coupling of orbital drift and erosion: plasma sputtering shrinks every grain at the fixed rate $r_g(t)=r_{g0}-t/(50\times10^{-6})$ m/yr, plasma drag pushes grains outward after they escape the arc, and a conserved integral of the dust motion relates shrinking grain size to the maximum eccentricity that eventually drives grains into the A ring. The fitting identity is the power-law size distribution $n(r_g)\,dr_g = C_0\,r_g^{-q}\,dr_g$, whose simulated trajectories are converted into normal $I/F$, number density, and optical depth through scattering efficiencies computed for spherical dust grains and grid-cell counting.

What would settle it

Rerun the simulation with a size-dependent plasma sputtering yield and with molecular oxygen ions included in the plasma drag; if the resulting normal $I/F$ no longer matches the Cassini profiles for any power-law exponent, the arc-origin claim fails. An observational check is to resolve the edge-on ring: the peak optical depth should be near $3.9\times10^{-2}$ and the apparent thickness near 9,000 km at threshold $10^{-8}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that dust produced in the G-ring arc and eroded by plasma sputtering can populate the entire G ring and match the brightness Cassini measured. The claim is made quantitative by a differential size distribution $n(r_g)\,dr_g = C_0\,r_g^{-q}\,dr_g$ with $q=2.8$ and $C_0=4.0$; with that distribution, the simulated normal $I/F$ matches the observed radial profiles in both arc and non-arc longitudes, and the simulated vertical number density matches Cassini's in-situ measurements near $2.7\,R_s$. The same simulated population yields a peak edge-on geometric optical depth of $3.9\times10^{-2}$, an apparent edge-on thickness of about $9{,}000$ km at an optical-depth threshold of $10^{-8}$, a dust production rate of $5.4\times10^{-2}$ kg/s, a ring age of $10^6$–$10^7$ years, and a remaining lifetime of order $10^4$ years.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that plasma sputtering erodes every dust grain at the same rate, equal to Saturn's E-ring value, regardless of grain size, and that plasma drag comes only from water-group ions; that assumption controls how quickly grains shrink, when they leave the arc, and every derived ring property.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the arc is the sole source, Aegaeon's own dust production (estimated at $10^{-7}$–$10^{-5}$ kg/s) is far too small to sustain the G ring, so the arc's larger debris, not the moonlet, must be the main dust factory.
  • Because most grains leave the arc smaller than about 16 µm, and particles of 5–10 µm dominate the ring away from the arc, future observations should find few dust grains larger than roughly 20 µm in the main G ring.
  • The predicted edge-on thickness of about 9,000 km at an optical-depth threshold of $10^{-8}$ is a resolvable shape that occultation or high-phase imaging can test directly.
  • With a remaining lifetime near $10^4$ years, the G ring must be continuously resupplied from the arc; if the arc's debris were exhausted, the ring would fade on a geologically short timescale.
  • The model implies that the G ring may vary seasonally, because molecular oxygen ions $\mathrm{O}_2^+$, neglected in the drag calculation, become important near Saturn's solstice and would change sputtering and transport.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same erosion-limited transport argument likely applies to the tenuous rings fed by the Anthe and Methone arcs, so those systems should show a similar power-law size exponent set by local sputtering and plasma drag rather than by the parent body's history.
  • Integrating the fitted power law to a total dust mass and comparing it with independent estimates from occultations or thermal emission would test whether the arc really is the only significant source.
  • The model does not include collisions between escaping grains and arc debris, so the true arc-to-ring mass transfer may be lower than $5.4\times10^{-2}$ kg/s; quantifying that loss would change the age and lifetime estimates.
  • Because the drag and sputtering inputs are taken from Cassini-era plasma conditions, applying the same code to Jupiter's faint dust rings would test whether the fitted $q=2.8$ is a general feature of plasma-eroded arcs or specific to Saturn's G ring.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the dynamical evolution of micron-sized dust particles launched from Saturn's G-ring arc, under the combined action of Saturn's gravity, solar radiation pressure, Poynting-Robertson drag, Lorentz force, plasma drag, moon gravities, and plasma sputtering. Using a test-particle code, the authors integrate trajectories for nine grain sizes, classify their fates, and then synthesize the resulting ring's normal I/F, number density, edge-on optical depth, thickness, age, and lifetime by assuming a power-law size distribution. By matching the simulated peak normal I/F to Hedman et al. (2007) and the simulated vertical number density to Ye et al. (2016), they obtain a power-law exponent q = 2.8 and normalization C0 = 4.0. They report that the simulated radial I/F profiles agree with observations, and estimate the peak edge-on optical depth to be 3.9e-2, the apparent edge-on thickness about 9,000 km, the ring age 10^6-10^7 yr, and the remaining lifetime ~10^4 yr, concluding that the G ring may originate from the arc.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper offers a coherent dynamical framework that connects the G-ring arc to the diffuse G ring and produces quantitative, falsifiable predictions for edge-on optical depth, vertical thickness, and mass-supply rate. The strengths of the manuscript are its detailed force model with parameters taken from published observations, the use of a previously tested numerical code, and the explicit acknowledgment of the O2+ plasma as an uncertainty. The main weakness is that the two key parameters q and C0 are fitted to the same observational profiles that are later presented as confirming the model, so the independent predictive content consists mainly of the profile shapes rather than their absolute normalizations; moreover, the results depend sensitively on uncertain plasma-sputtering and plasma-drag assumptions that are not yet quantified by a sensitivity study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eqs. (3)-(6), Figs. 6 and 8] The parameters q = 2.8 and C0 = 4.0 are not predicted by the dynamics; they are obtained by aligning the simulated normal I/F peak with Hedman et al. (2007) and the simulated vertical number density peak with Ye et al. (2016). Therefore the statement in the abstract that the model 'finds' a power-law exponent of 2.8 should be rephrased as 'constrained' or 'inferred.' More importantly, the agreement with observations is partly by construction: the independent content is the shape of the radial and vertical profiles, not their absolute values. To substantiate the claim that the profiles 'match well,' the authors should overlay the observed I/F profile in Fig. 6 and the observed number-density profile in Fig. 8 on the same axes and report quantitative residuals or a goodness-of-fit measure.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2), Fig. 3; Section 6] The plasma sputtering rate is assumed to be independent of grain size and equal to the E-ring value, and the plasma drag includes only W+ ions, with O2+ neglected even though Section 6 identifies O2+ as a significant plasma component near solstice. These assumptions control the grain escape size (r_escape < 16 micron in Fig. 3), the post-escape lifetimes, and hence the fitted q and all derived quantities. The authors should perform an explicit parameter sweep—varying the sputtering rate by a factor of 2-3 and adding an O2+ component—to demonstrate that q remains within the observationally allowed range and that the reported I/F and density profiles remain consistent with the data. Without such a sensitivity test, the central claim rests on unquantified plasma assumptions.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 6] The simulated normal I/F in the longitude range passing through the arc peaks at 2.1e-5, about 30% higher than the observed value of 1.6e-5 quoted from Hedman et al. (2007). The paper attributes this discrepancy to neglected collisions with parent bodies in the arc. This explanation is plausible but should be backed by a simple quantitative estimate of the collision removal rate; otherwise the agreement in the arc region is not demonstrated and the statement that the simulated and observed profiles 'match well' is only partially supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The wording 'We find that the particle size distribution of the G ring follows a power law with an exponent of 2.8' should be changed to indicate that this exponent is inferred by fitting the model to observations, not derived from first principles.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is typeset ambiguously; the denominator and units are unclear. The authors should write the sputtering rate explicitly as drg/dt = 2e-8 m/yr or equivalent, with rg and t in stated units, to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 6] There is a typo: 'Poynting-Roberson drag' should be 'Poynting-Robertson drag.' Also, 'power-low distribution' in Section 5 should be 'power-law distribution.'
  4. [Section 5, Fig. 8] The figure caption refers to 'red line' and 'black dash line'; if the journal version is printed in grayscale, the curves should be distinguished by line styles or symbols as well.
  5. [Section 5, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The age and remaining-lifetime estimates depend on the assumed density of the progenitor satellite (radius 1.5-3 km), but the density is not stated. The authors should state the adopted bulk density and note how the derived age scales with it.
  6. [Section 5, Fig. 10] The black dash lines in Fig. 10 are described as representing the inner edge of the G ring, outer edge, and Mimas, but the caption text is incomplete; please provide the full legend in the caption.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Size distribution is calibrated to the observed I/F and density peaks, and the same I/F agreement is then cited as support for the arc-origin scenario; profile shapes remain genuinely predictive.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Eqs. (3)-(6), Figs. 6 and 8]
    "By matching both the normal I/F estimated from Eq. (3) and the number density estimated from Eq. (5) with that inferred from the observations (Hedman et al. 2007; Ye et al. 2016), we get q = 2.8 and C0 = 4.0. ... With q = 2.8 and C0 = 4.0, the normal I/F profiles from our numerical simulations match well with that derived by Hedman et al. (2007), which supports that the G ring may originate from the arc."

    Equation (6) assumes a power-law size distribution, and the parameters q and C0 are not derived from the dynamics but are chosen by matching the peak normal I/F of Hedman et al. (2007) and the peak vertical number density of Ye et al. (2016). The very same normal I/F observable is then exhibited as 'matching well' and used as evidence for the arc-origin claim. Thus the peak-amplitude part of the agreement is forced by construction; only the radial/vertical profile shapes and other derived quantities remain independent dynamical predictions conditional on the fitted q and C0.

full rationale

The central dynamical integration (Section 4) and the convolution in Eqs. (3)-(5) are not circular: the simulated trajectories of 0.1-50 micron grains under gravity, radiation pressure, Lorentz force, plasma drag and sputtering determine where grains go and how long they live, and these outputs are then combined with an assumed size distribution. The circular element is confined to the calibration step. The paper assumes the power-law form in Eq. (6) and sets q = 2.8 and C0 = 4.0 by fitting the peak normal I/F (Hedman et al. 2007) and the peak vertical number density (Ye et al. 2016). It then presents agreement of the same I/F observable as support for the arc-origin scenario, so the amplitude part of that agreement is tautological. The radial I/F profile shape, the arc/elsewhere contrast, the edge-on optical depth, and the edge-on thickness are genuine predictions conditional on the fitted q,C0, which is why the circularity is partial (score 6) rather than total. The self-citations to the authors' earlier 'well-tested code' are not load-bearing here; the plasma-sputtering and W+-only drag assumptions are acknowledged limitations and sensitivity concerns, not circular reasoning. The age and remaining lifetime are simple quotients involving the fitted mass-loss rate and independently adopted parent-body masses, so they do not add independent circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The central results rest on two fitted parameters (q and C0) and on several modeling simplifications that the paper states explicitly. The free-parameter count is small but the fitted parameters directly control the brightness, density, age, and lifetime outputs.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law exponent q = 2.8
    Fitted to align the simulated normal I/F peak with Hedman et al. (2007) and the vertical number density with Ye et al. (2016), Section 5.
  • Normalization constant C0 = 4.0
    Adjusted in the same matching procedure; it sets absolute brightness, number density, and the dust production rate in Eq. (7).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Sputtering rate is independent of grain size and equal to the E-ring value (Eq. 2).
    Controls erosion timescales and escape sizes; a different sputtering law would change the fitted q and all derived properties.
  • domain assumption Only water-group ions W+ contribute to plasma drag; O2+ is neglected.
    Authors state that O2+ also contributes significantly near solstice and call this the largest uncertainty in the model.
  • domain assumption Dust grains do not collide with parent debris inside the arc.
    Invoked to explain why the simulated I/F in the arc is slightly higher than observed; collisions would preferentially remove large grains.
  • domain assumption Initial semimajor axes are within 31 km of Aegaeon and mean longitudes within 30 degrees of the arc center; other elements equal Aegaeon's.
    Initial condition based on the observed 7:6 corotation eccentricity resonance; the source distribution affects escape fractions and lifetimes.
  • domain assumption Dust size distribution is the differential power law n(rg) = C0 rg^-q over [0.1, 50] micrometers.
    Functional form taken from previous G-ring studies; the exponent is then fitted to observations rather than derived from the dynamics.
  • domain assumption Grain surface electric potential is constant at -2 V throughout the ring region.
    Adopted from Wahlund et al. (2005); the authors suggest this simplification causes the small vertical offset in the peak number density.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Saturn's G ring: insights from the dynamical evolution of dust particles from the G-ring arc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R5OGZH4Z

@misc{pith2026250715721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Saturn's G ring: insights from the dynamical evolution of dust particles from the G-ring arc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R5OGZH4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15721}
}
abstract

To explore the formation and properties of Saturn's G ring, we study the dynamics of micron-sized dust particles originating from the arc of debris near the inner edge of the ring. The dynamical evolution of particles due to various perturbation forces and the plasma sputtering that erodes the particles is simulated by a well-tested numerical code. Based on the simulation results, the normal $I/F$ of the G ring observed by the Cassini spacecraft can be explained by dust particles originating from the arc. Other properties of the G ring are also estimated, including the steady-state size distribution and the number density of ring particles, the geometric optical depth, the apparent edge-on thickness, the age and the remaining lifetime of the G ring. We find that the particle size distribution of the G ring follows a power law with an exponent of 2.8, and dust particles in the size range of $[5, 10]\,{\mu}$m are dominant within the ring. The average number density of particles of the G ring in the radial direction is about $10^{-3}$-$10^{-2}\,\mathrm{m}^{-3}$. The peak value of the edge-on geometric optical depth of the G ring is about $3.9\times10^{-2}$. The maximum apparent edge-on thickness of the G ring with the geometric optical depth larger than $1\times10^{-8}$ is approximately $9,000\,\mathrm{km}$. The age of the G ring is estimated to be $10^{6}$-$10^{7}\,\mathrm{years}$, and the remaining lifetime of the ring is on the order of $10^{4}\,\mathrm{years}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initial semi-major axes and mean longitudes of the simulated par￾ticles. that the sputtering yield is approximately the same for particles with different sizes when the incident ion energy is less than 1 keV. Be￾cause the energy of the plasma in the vicinity of the G ring is smaller than 100 eV (Tseng et al. 2013), in our work the sputtering rate is assumed to be the same regardless of the particle’s initial size in… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Variation in the maximum value of the eccentricity of a particle with initial size of 10 m as its grain size decreases, which is calculated from the conserved integral of dust particles’ motion derived by Hamilton & Krivov (1996). 0 10 20 30 40 50 r g [ m] 10-4 10-2 100 102 104 Time [years] T life T arc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panel a: typical orbital evolution, including the orbital distance, semimajor axis and eccentricity, and physical radius evolution of particle with grain size g < 1 m. Panel b:same as Panel a, but with grain size g = 1 m. Panel c: same as Panel a, but with grain size g > 1 m. 1 5 10 50 r g [ m] 1 5 10 20 r escape [ m] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average lifetime life and average time arc that dust particles spend in the arc as a function of grain size. hit Mimas increases with the grain size. We note that the fraction of particles that hit Aegaeon is very small. This may be attributed to various non-gravitatio…
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average grain sizes when dust particles escape from the arc as a function of the initial grain size. collide with the A ring due to the close proximity between the orbital distance of the outer edge of the A ring (∼2.27 s) and the initial or￾bital distances of particle…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profiles of the normal / of the simulated ring formed by dust particles originating from the G-ring arc, which is derived from Eq. (3) with = 2.8 and 0 = 4.0. The profile in the longitude range of [−10◦ , 10◦ ] passes through the arc, and the profile in the long…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution of the peak vertical number density in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulated radial number density profiles (averaged over the ver￾tical range of [−0.1, 0.1] s) of dust particles, where the profile in the longitude range of [−10◦ , 10◦ ] passes through the arc, and the profile in the longitude range of [170◦ , 190◦ ] passes through e…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Panel a: edge-on geometric optical depth of the simulated ring, where the line of sight passes through the arc; only the values of edge-on geometric optical depth larger than 1 × 10−8 are shown. Panel b: same as Panel a, but only the values of edge-on geometric optica…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    M., Esposito L

    Brooks S. M., Esposito L. W., Showalter M. R., Throop H. B., 2004, Icarus, 170, 35

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    A., Lamy P

    Burns J. A., Lamy P. L., Soter S., 1979, Icarus https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103579900502, 40, 1

    arXiv 1979

  5. [5]

    M., Esposito L

    Canup R. M., Esposito L. W., 1997, Icarus, 126, 28

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Chen Z., Yang K., Liu X., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11327

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    C., Showalter M

    De Pater I., Martin S. C., Showalter M. R., 2004, Icarus, 172, 446

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    K., et al., 2018, Science, 362, eaat5434

    Dougherty M. K., et al., 2018, Science, 362, eaat5434

    work page 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Elrod M., Tseng W.-L., Wilson R., Johnson R., 2012, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 117

    2012

  2. [10]

    K., Tseng W.-L., Woodson A

    Elrod M. K., Tseng W.-L., Woodson A. K., Johnson R. E., 2014, Icarus, 242, 130

    2014

  3. [11]

    P., Krivov A

    Hamilton D. P., Krivov A. V., 1996, Icarus, 123, 503

    1996

  4. [12]

    M., et al., 2007, science, 317, 653

    Hedman M. M., et al., 2007, science, 317, 653

    2007

  5. [13]

    Hedman M., Cooper N., Murray C., Beurle K., Evans M., Tiscareno M., Burns J., 2010, Icarus, 207, 433

    2010

  6. [14]

    A., 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 199

    Jacobson R. A., 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 199

    2022

  7. [15]

    Johnson R., Fam \'a M., Liu M., Baragiola R., Sittler Jr E., Smith H., 2008, Planetary and Space Science, 56, 1238

    2008

  8. [16]

    Juh \'a sz A., Hor \'a nyi M., 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 107, SMP 1\

    2002

  9. [17]

    Jurac S., Johnson R., Richardson J., 2001, Icarus, 149, 384

    2001

  10. [18]

    J., French R

    Lissauer J. J., French R. G., 2000, Icarus, 146, 12

    2000

  11. [19]

    Liu X., Schmidt J., 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/01/aa30951-17/aa30951-17.html, 609, A57

    2018

  12. [20]

    Liu X., Schmidt J., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/500/3/2979/5942879, 500, 2979

    2021

  13. [21]

    Liu X., Sachse M., Spahn F., Schmidt J., 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JE004999, 121, 1141

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    M., 2020, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 229, 1527

    Madeira G., Giuliatti Winter S. M., 2020, The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 229, 1527

    2020

  15. [23]

    Madeira G., Sfair R., Mour \ a o D., Giuliatti Winter S., 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 5474

    2018

  16. [24]

    Maravilla D., Leal-Herrera J., 2014, Revista mexicana de astronom \' a y astrof \' sica, 50, 341

    2014

  17. [25]

    M., 1998, Icarus, 132, 311

    Meyer-Vernet N., Lecacheux A., Pedersen B. M., 1998, Icarus, 132, 311

    1998

  18. [26]

    A., Granados Contreras A

    Mu \ n oz-Guti \'e rrez M. A., Granados Contreras A. P., Madeira G., A’Hearn J. A., Giuliatti Winter S., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 4202

    2022

  19. [27]

    D., et al., 1996, Science, 272, 509

    Nicholson P. D., et al., 1996, Science, 272, 509

    1996

  20. [28]

    Persoon A., et al., 2020, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125, e2019JA027545

    2020

  21. [29]

    R., Cuzzi J

    Showalter M. R., Cuzzi J. N., 1993, Icarus, 103, 124

    1993

  22. [30]

    A., et al., 1981, Science, 212, 163

    Smith B. A., et al., 1981, Science, 212, 163

    1981

  23. [31]

    Sun K.-L., Sei M., Hedman M., Spahn F., 2017, Icarus, 284, 206

    2017

  24. [32]

    Thomas P., Burns J., Hedman M., Helfenstein P., Morrison S., Tiscareno M., Veverka J., 2013, Icarus, 226, 999

    2013

  25. [33]

    B., Esposito L

    Throop H. B., Esposito L. W., 1998, Icarus, 131, 152

    1998

  26. [34]

    Throop H., Porco C., West R., Burns J., Showalter M., Nicholson P., 2004, Icarus, 172, 59

    2004

  27. [35]

    Tseng W.-L., Johnson R., Elrod M., 2013, Planetary and Space Science, 77, 126

    2013

  28. [36]

    A., 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 88, 6911

    Van Allen J. A., 1983, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 88, 6911

    1983

  29. [37]

    Wahlund J.-E., et al., 2005, Geophysical research letters, 32

    2005

  30. [38]

    Yang K., Schmidt J., Feng W., Liu X., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A120

    2022

  31. [39]

    A., Kurth W

    Ye S.-Y., Gurnett D. A., Kurth W. S., 2016, Icarus, 279, 51

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.