SCIENCE CHINA

Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy

Article

October
2014 Vol. 57 No. 10: 16
doi: 10.1007/s11433-014-5559-1
doi: 10.1007/s11433-014-5559-1

Shape and gravitational field of the ellipsoidal satellites

GAO BuXi1* & HUANG Yong2*
1

Institute of Geodesy and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430077, China;
Physics Department, School of Science, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
Received June 3, 2014; accepted June 24, 2014

The shape and gravitational field of ellipsoidal satellites are studied by using the tidal theory. For ellipsoidal satellites, the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, in the early stage of the satellite formation, strong tidal friction allowed the satellites move in a synchronous orbit and evolve into a triaxial ellipsoidal shape. Because the tidal potential from the associated
primary and the centrifugal potential from the satellite spin are nearly fixed at the surface, the early satellites are the viscoelastic celestial body, and their surfaces are nearly in the hydrostatic equilibrium state. The deformation is fixed in the surface of
the satellite. By using the related parameters of primary and satellite, the tidal height and the theoretical lengths of three primary radii of the ellipsoidal satellite are calculated. Secondly, the current ellipsoidal satellites nearly maintain their ellipsoidal
shape from solidification, which happened a few billion years ago. According to the satellite shape, we estimated the orbital
period and spinning angular velocity, and then determined the evolution of the orbit. Lastly, assuming an ellipsoidal satellite
originated in the hydrostatic equilibrium state, the surface shape could be determined by tidal, rotation, and additional potentials. However, the shape of the satellites geoid differs from its surface shape. The relationship between these shapes is discussed and a formula for the gravitational harmonic coefficients is presented.
ellipsoidal satellites, hydrostatic equilibrium, secular love number, shape, tidal height
PACS number(s): 96.15.Ef, 96.25.Bd, 96.25.Nc, 96.25.Vt, 96.20.Jz
Citation:

Gao B X, Huang Y. Shape and gravitational field of the ellipsoidal satellites. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron,
doi: 10.1007/s11433-014- 5559-1

1 Introduction
Since the twin probes Voyager 1 and 2 passed by Jupiter in
1979, many spacecrafts have visited planetary systems of
Jupiter and Saturn, obtaining significant information, including many images. Dermott & Thomas [1] first used the
Mimas images from Voyager to determine the shape by
limb measurements. Subsequently, Thomas et al. [24] published the shapes of many satellites. In particular, they published the shape of six ellipsoidal and fifteen irregularly
shaped satellites of Saturnian based on the data provided by

*Corresponding author (GAO BuXi, email: buxigao@163.com; HUANG Yong, email:

hy2000@whut.edu.cn)
Recommended by FANG Cheng (CAS Academician)
Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

the Cassini spacecraft [5,6]. Anderson et al. [710] calculated the coefficients of gravitational fields of Galilean satellites by using radio Doppler data. The knowledge of the
shape and gravitational field of ellipsoidal satellites is crucial in the study of their formation, internal structure, and
orbital evolution.
Thomas et al. [6] categorized the satellites into the ellipsoidal and irregularly shaped satellites. Most satellites with
small volume are irregularly shaped satellites and still
maintain the original shape. The solar system has 19 ellipsoidal satellites, all with diameters larger than 395 km [11].
In the early stage of a satellite, because of the strong tidal
force caused by the primary, spin velocity of the satellite
slowed because of tidal friction [12], and the satellite orbit
around the primary in a synchronous rotational orbit [13].
phys.scichina.com

link.springer.com

Gao B X, et al.

Sci China-Phys Mech Astron

The ellipsoidal satellite therefore constantly faces the primary with nearly the same side, and the rotation period is
equal to the orbital period. Ellipsoidal satellites also are
assumed as the triaxial ellipsoid shape. The deformation
caused by tidal forces and spin are nearly constant at the
surface of the satellite. In order to calculate the deformation
of a viscoelastic celestial body, many geophysicists have
adopted the secular Love number ks [14,15]. For example,
the Earths rotation slowed down over 3 billion years, but
the shape is still in the hydrostatic equilibrium state. Yodal
[11] calculated k2 (fluid)=3J2/m=0.941 for Earth, (m is the
rotation factor), which is equal to the value of ks. To explain
the interior structure of ellipsoidal satellites, Zharkov et al.
[16] and Anderson et al. [17] adopted k2>1, which also indicated that ks needed to be adopted, and that satellites have
maintained their fossil shape. McCarthy and Petit [18] suggested that fluid Love numbers can be used contiguously to
determine the permanent tide. Because the liquid Love
number kf is nearly equal to ks, we consider that, based on
theory, ellipsoidal satellites are nearly in the hydrostatic
equilibrium state [19].
In a right-hand coordinate system, the barycenter of the
satellite is chosen as the center, with the spin axis being the
z axis and the x axis pointing to the center of the primary.
With this system, a point on the surface of the satellite can
be specified by (r, , ) where r is the distance from the
point to the origin and and are the colatitude and longitude, respectively. Denoting the mass and mean radius of
the satellite by Ms and Rs respectively, the tidal potential t
and centrifugal potential r on the surface of satellite [15]
such that
t

GM p
l

rn

l
n2

Pn cos Z ,

1
r 2 r 2 sin 2 ,
2

(1)
(2)

where Mp is the mass of the primary, l is the distance between the satellite and the primary, is the spin angular
velocity of the satellite with respect to an inertial coordinate,
and z is the zenith angle of the primary on the surface of
satellite.
According to tide theory, on the surface of a satellite, the
height of the equilibrium tide caused by the tidal potential is

t
,
gs

(3)

where gs is the mean gravitation acceleration on the satellites surface. Because the satellite always faces the primary
with nearly the same side, the permanent tidal deformation
on the satellite surface is approximately stationary. The
maximum tide always occurs at the points of the satellite
surface that are positioned exactly toward or away from the

October (2014) Vol. 57 No. 10

primary (x= Rs). The minimum tide usually occurs at x=0,

and where z=90 and P2 (cosz)=1/2. The equilibrium tide
arising from the rotation is also stationary, with the height
of the centrifugal tide giver as:

gr .
s

(4)

The maximum amplitude of the equilibrium tide occurs on

the equator and the minimum tide necessarily occurs on the
two poles, and the value of the latter is zero. The deformation of the ellipsoidal satellites that are caused by tide
and rotation would give additional potentials td and rd,
respectively, so that
td k t , rd k r ,

(5)

where k is the Love number for calculating the additional

potential. Let and denote the amplitudes caused by the
sum of the driving and the deformation potential of tide and
rotation, respectively, so that

t td
(1 k ) h ,
gs

rd
(1 k ) h ,
r
gs

(6)

where h is the Love number denoting the tidal height and

h=1+k. The value of k is determined by the internal structure of the celestial body. For a solid celestial body, its deformation is small under the action of external forces, thus
the value of k is small, such as for the Moon (k=0.03). For a
celestial body with a large liquid core, the deformation is
much larger, such as for Earth (k=0.3). For a liquid celestial
body, because of the largest deformation, the liquid Love
number kf=0.934 is adopted, so hf=1+kf=1.934. If a viscoelastic celestial body is under the effect of a secular force, we
need to assume the secular love number ks to calculate the
permanent deformation, and so ks is nearly equal to kf [15].
Therefore, most ellipsoidal satellites are in hydrostatic equilibrium, even for ice satellites.
The current ellipsoidal satellites nearly maintain their
early fossil shape. The cooling speed is approximately inversely proportional to the radius of the body [20]. For example, the condensation rate of the Moon can be approximated to be four times faster than that for Earth. If Earth
took 3 billion years to form a solid crust, the time needed
for the Moon (and other ellipsoidal satellites) to form a solid
crust would have been less than 1 billion years. Since the
volumes of ellipsoidal satellites were similar to the Moon,
their crusts would have in all likelihood also solidified at an
early stage. According to the data from Zhong and Zuber
[21], the second-order terms of td and rd for the primordial lithosphere were only reverted by 20% over 100 million
years. Therefore, deformation of ellipsoidal satellites would
be partially preserved. Although condensation took several

Gao B X, et al.

Sci China-Phys Mech Astron

hundred million years, ellipsoidal satellites may have partially maintained their early fossil shapes when cooled.

October (2014) Vol. 57 No. 10

eriod ps. By using Keplers third law, we have

2 Shape of ellipsoidal satellites

2 ,

(10)

a c 2 .

(11)

Thus, the shape factor F of the satellite [7] given as:

Because ellipsoidal satellites are in synchronous rotation,
their triaxial ellipsoid shapes are fixed. However, according
to the laws of secular tide, ellipsoidal satellites may deform
under the influence of the rotation and the tidal potential
from the primary. To address this situation, let l be the
semi-major axis of the satellites orbit, let Ps=2/ be the
spin period of the satellite, and let r = Rs and gs=GMs/Rs2.
With these definitions, only considering the second term,
from eq. (6), we obtain

hs

hs

GM p Rs2
gs l 3

2 Rs2
2 gs

hs

hs

M p Rs4

(7)

2 2 Rs4
.
GM s ps2

(8)

M sl 3

Assuming inherent ellipsoidal satellite is a sphere and Rs is

constant, the three principal axes a, b, c are
1
1
a Rs , b Rs , c Rs .
2
2

(9)

These formulas are similar to the eq. (24) given by Zharkov

et al. [16]. Because the ellipsoidal satellites are in synchronous rotation, their orbital period p is equal to their spin

bc
0.25.
ac

(12)

Table 1 lists the fundamental data for ellipsoidal satellites and their primary [11], as well as the theoretical values
(ac)T, the observed values (ac)O, and the observed shape
factors FO. For Triton, the R is denoted retrograde orbit.
The value of (ac)O for Titan is cited from [22]. From Table
1, we can conclude the following:
Firstly, the solar system has 19 ellipsoidal satellites, but
the number of ellipsoidal satellites which shapes have been
measured is only 8. From the Table 1, the differences between (ac)O and (ac)T for Enceladus, Dione and Rhea are
small and even less than the measure error [6].
Secondly, the theoretical values (ac)T for Io, Mimas,
Tethys, and Triton are 12.071, 14.343, 10.895, and 1.388
km, respectively. The observed values (ac)O are 13.9, 17.2,
12.1, and 2.20 km, respectively [3,4,6]. The observed values
are slightly greater than the theoretical values. The reason
for the discrepancies may be that, Io, Mimas, Tethys, and
Triton have maintained their early shape since inception
several billion years ago. Like the Moon, Io, Mimas, Tethys,
and Triton were near their primary at some point in the past.
Because of the tidal-friction dissipation [23,24], Io, Mimas,

Table 1 Fundamental data of primary and ellipsoidal satellites theoretical values (ac)T, observational values (ac)O, and FO
Prim./Sat.
Earth
Moon
Jupiter
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Saturn
Mimas
Enceladus
Tethys
Dione
Rhea
Titan
Iapetus
Uranus
Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Miranda
Neptune
Triton
Proteas

Radius (km)
6371
1737.5
71492
1821.3
1565
2634
2403
60268
198.8
249.1
529.9
560
764
2575
735.6
25559
581578577
584.7
788.9
761.4
240234233
24766
1353.6
218208201

Mass (1020 kg)

59736
734.6
18986000
893.3
479.7
1482
1076
5684600
0.375
0.73
6.22
10.52
23.1
1345.5
18.0623
868320
13.53
11.72
35.27
30.14
0.659
1024300
214.7
0.44

l (103 km)

384.4

421.6
670.9
1070
1883

185.52
238.02
294.66
377.4
527.04
1221.8
3561.3

191.2
266
435.8
582.6
129.8

354.76
117.65

Period (days)

27.32

1.769138
3.55181
7.154553
16.689018

0.9424218
1.370218
1.887802
2.736915
4.5175
15.94542
79.3302

2.52
4.144
8.706
13.463
1.413

5.87685 R
1.122315

(ac)T (km)

12.071
3.041
1.947
0.341

14.343
8.601
10.895
3.824
2.215
0.392
0.008

3.991
1.78
0.446
0.189
7.353

1.388
10.755

(ac)O (km)

13.90.3

17.20.6
8.30.3
12.10.9
3.80.7
2.60.9
0.410
35.02.8

2.20.8

FO

0.26

0.350.02
0.370.04
0.170.15
0.450.20
0.270.10

0.960.03

Gao B X, et al.

Sci China-Phys Mech Astron

Tethys, and Triton did leave from their primary for some
distances before arriving at their current location. If we assume their mass do not change significantly, we can calculate the orbital period po that corresponds to the observed
value (ac)O by using eq. (7). The result is thus
p0 p

( a c) T
.
( a c) o

(13)

The values from this calculation are 1.6486, 0.8606,

1.7913 and 4.6680 days for Io, Mimas, Tethys and Triton,
respectively. Thus, in the early stages, these satellites were
near to their primary. Lieske [25] determined the Io average
acceleration of orbit as follow formula: n1 n1 (0.7
0.87) 10 11 y 1 . The data is effectively with the explanation.
Thirdly, although the surface of synchronous ellipsoidal
satellites are in the hydrostatic equilibrium state, the theoretical shape factor F=(bc)/(ac)=0.25 has a small significant correction of order 2/(G) by using the eq. (39) as
described elsewhere [26] where is the density of ellipsoidal satellites.
Fourthly, the observed lengths of the three radii of Iapetus are 747.43.1, 747.43.1 and 712.42.0 km [27]. The
observational value of (ac)O is 35 km and the theoretical
value of (ac)T is only 8m. Note that the shape of Iapetus is
nearly a biaxial ellipsoid instead of the triaxial ellipsoidal
shape, and that Iapetus has a tilted orbit and a large eccentricity, thus, Iapetus may have maintained shape since the
early-condensation period when it was captured by Saturn
or impacted by an asteroid [28].

3 Gravitational field of ellipsoidal satellites

(14)

Studying the shape of ellipsoidal satellites also requires

considering the rotation and tidal potential, so that
s t td r rd .

C20=J2 and C22. Gravitational coefficients beyond second

order are small and can be ignored, so the gravitational potential can be shown as:

GM s Rs2
( J 2 P20 sin
1
r r2

C22 P22 sin cos 2 ) .

(16)

On the geoid of ellipsoidal satellites, =constant, If r is

the radius length of the geoid, it can be shown as:
r Rs [1 J 2 P20 sin C22 P22 sin cos 2 ].

(17)

Since P20(sin)= (3cos21) /2 and P22(sin)=3sin2, the

three main radii a , b , c of the geoid of the ellipsoidal satellite are
1

a Rs 1 J 2 3C22 ,
2

b Rs 1 J 2 3C22 ,
2

c Rs (1 J 2 ).

(18)

Anderson et al. [17,26] showed that

J2/C22=10/3.

(19)

Assuming Rs is constant, by using eq. (18), eq. (19) can

also be derived, and the value of J2/C22 also has a small significant correction of order 2/G. Inversely, if the coefficients J2 and C22 satisfy eq. (19), we can conclude that the
surface of the ellipsoidal satellite is in the hydrostatic equilibrium state. From eqs. (18) and (19), considering as thus
a c hs a c .

The gravitational field of an ellipsoidal satellite is only determined by its shape and mass distribution. Thus, if s
denotes the inherent gravitational field, the total potential of
gravitational field is given as:
s td rd .

October (2014) Vol. 57 No. 10

(15)

The shape of the geoid of the ellipsoidal satellite differs

from the surface shape. It is assumed here that the shape of
ellipsoidal satellite is a symmetrical triaxial ellipsoid, and
that the geometric center coincides with the mass center. It
is also assumed that no other contributions to the gravitational potential exist, such as internal heterogeneities or
surface topography. With these assumptions, the secondorder gravitational potential coefficients are zero, except for

The following formula can be derived

J2

5 ac
.
12 hs Rs

(20)

By using eq. (20), we can calculate Jc2 from ac. But

here we only consider the shape of the ellipsoidal satellite
and do not consider its internal structure. Table 2 lists Jd2
calculated with the assumption that the satellite has uniform
density. It also lists the observational value of J o2 and the
value of J c2 calculated from eq. (20). Notation * denote
that their values of J d2 and J c2 are calculated according to
(ac)O
Thus, we can determine that
J 2d J 2o J 2c .

(21)

Table 2 shows that the results for J c2 are slightly less

than observed results for J o2 , and the reason being is that the
shape of core and mantle of the ellipsoidal satellites have

Gao B X, et al.

Sci China-Phys Mech Astron

Table 2 Theoretical, calculated, and observational values of J2 for the

ellipsoidal satellites
Io*
Europa
Ganymede*
Callisto

J d2 (103)
2.031
0.486
0.186
0.036

J o2 (103)
1.846
0.438

0.034

J c2 (103)
1.703
0.419
0.159
0.031

Mimas*
Enceladus*
Tethys*
Dione*
Rhea*
Titan
Iapetus*

23.46
9.024
4.944
1.959
0.864
0.038
18.17

0.0335

18.58
7.156
4.904
1.457
0.731
0.033
10.22

Ariel
Umbriel
Titania
Oberon
Miranda

1.726
0.761
0.142
0.062
0.071

1.478
0.654
0.121
0.053
6,664

Triton*
Proteas

0.384
22.64

0.349
11.02

conserved a slightly larger ellipticity. The values of J d2 are

slightly larger than the values of J o2 , which is reasonable.

October (2014) Vol. 57 No. 10

ship given herein, we can estimate the gravitational field

coefficient J2 and C22 by using the shape of the ellipsoidal
satellite. In addition, the rough shape of the satellite can also
be calculated from the gravitational harmonic coefficient of
satellite.
Although the Moon is an ellipsoidal satellite, the EarthMoon system underwent a unique evolution, thus many
conclusions herein are not valid for the Moon. Gao [20]
showed that the current Moon essentially maintained shape
from solidification, which occurred about 3 billion years
ago. We can thus determine the spin period of the Moon and
the Earth-Moon distance at the time of solidification based
on the current shape of the Moon. The results are 1.7455
108 m, or 2.2 times closer than the present distance and 27.4
times longer than the radius of Earth. In addition, the period
of Moons rotation was then 3.652 d. The ratio between the
spin rate and the orbital rate is about 2.28:1, which is close
to a spin-orbit resonance. Thus, the Moon did not undergo
synchronous rotation at solidification.
We are grateful for the technical support provided by Prof. ZHONG M.,
and discussions with Prof. YAN H. M. and Dr. FENG W. This work was
supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
Nos. 41174014 and D0401).
1

4 Conclusion
The rotation parameters of all the ellipsoidal satellites are
listed in Table 1 are synchronized with their orbit (spit-orbit
synchronism). Ellipsoidal satellites deformed by the centrifugal potential because of their rotation and by the tidal
potential from their primary formed triaxial ellipsoids. According to the relevant parameters of the primary planet and
the satellite, and by adopting the secular Love number
ks=0.94, hs=1+ks, we can calculate the length of the three
primary axes a,b,c. Based on the observed shape for some
satellites, the shape factors F=(bc)/(ac) are approximately equal to 0.25. In addition, the results of measurements of
the gravitational field for Galilean satellites show that
J2/C22=10/3, which also indicates that the ellipsoidal satellites are close to the hydrostatic equilibrium state. Moreover,
their observed lengths a, b, c are in good agreement with the
theoretical values if we adopt the secular Love number.
Although some small differences still remain, these may be
attributed to the orbital evolution or to other factors. These
results suggest that the ellipsoidal satellites were in the hydrostatic equilibrium state and that a hard crust formed in
the very early stages. The current ellipsoidal satellites
maintain a fossil shape.
Because the gravitational field of an ellipsoidal satellite
is related only to deformation, the shape of an ellipsoidal
satellite differs from the geoid. According to the relation-

2
3
4
5
6

7
8

10

11

12

13

14

Dermott S F, Thomas P C. The shape and internal structure of Mimas.

Icarus, 1988, 73(1): 2565
Thomas P C, Dermott S F. The shape of Tethys. Icarus, 1991, 94(2):
391398
Thomas P C, Davies M E, Colvin T R, et al. The shape of Io from
Galileo limb measurements. Icarus, 1998, 135(1): 175180
Thomas P C. The shape of Triton from limb profiles. Icarus, 2000,
148(2): 587588
Thomas P C, Burns J A, Helfenstein P, et al. Shapes of the saturnian
icy satellites and their significance. Icarus, 2007, 190(2): 573584
Thomas P C. Sizes, shapes, and derived properties of the saturnian
satellites after the Cassini nominal mission. Icarus, 2010, 208(1):
395401
Anderson J D, Sjogren W L, Schubert G. Galileo gravity results and
the internal structure of Io. Science, 1996, 272(5262): 709712
Anderson J D, Lau E L, Sjogren W L, et al. Europa's differentiated
internal structure: Inferences from two Galileo encounters. Science,
1997, 276(5316): 12361239
Anderson J D, Schubert G, Jacobson R A, et al. Europas differentiated internal structure: Inferences from four Galileo encounters.
Science, 1998, 281(5385): 20192022
Anderson J D, Jacobson R A, Mcelrath T P, et al. Shape, mean radius,
gravity field, and interior structure of Callisto. Icarus, 2001, 153(1):
157161
Yoder C F. Astrometric and Geodetic Properties of Earth and the
Solar System. Florida, Washington, DC: American Geophysical
Union, 1995. 1213
Caudal G V. The role of tidal torques on the evolution of the system
of Saturns co-orbital satellites Janus and Epimetheus. Icarus, 2013,
223(2): 733740
Robutel P, Rambaux N, El Moutamid M. Influence of the coorbital
resonance on the rotation of the Trojan satellites of Saturn. Celestial
Mech Dyn Astron, 2012, 113(1): 122
Munk W H, Macdonald G J. The Rotation of the Earth: A
Geophysical Discussion. Munk W H, MacDonald G J F, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. 323

6
15
16

17

18
19
20
21

Gao B X, et al.

Sci China-Phys Mech Astron

Lambeck K. The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and

Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 32
Zharkov V N, Leontjev V V, Kozenko A V. Models, figures, and
gravitational moments of the Galilean satellites of Jupiter and icy
satellites of Saturn. Icarus, 1985, 61(1): 92100
Anderson J D, Jacobson R A, Lau E L, et al. Ios gravity field and
interior structure. J Geophys Res-Planets, 2001, 106(E12): 32963
32969
McCarthy D D, Petit G. Iers technical note no. 32. IERS Conventions,
2003, 1(32): 3356
Sharma I. Stability of rubble-pile satellites. Icarus, 2014, 229:
278294
Gao B X. An estimate on the lunar figure. Chin Astron Astrophys,
2009, 33(2): 179187
Zhong S, Zuber M T. Long-wavelength topographic relaxation for
self-gravitating planets and implications for the time-dependent
compensation of surface topography. J Geophys Res-Planets, 2000,
105(E2): 41534164

22
23
24
25

26

27

28

October (2014) Vol. 57 No. 10

Iess L, Rappaport N J, Jacobson R A, et al. Gravity field, shape, and

moment of inertia of Titan. Science, 2010, 327(5971): 13671369
Yoder C F. How tidal heating in Io drives the Galilean orbital
resonance locks. Nature, 1979, 279: 767770
Peale S J, Cassen P, Reynolds R T. Melting of Io by tidal dissipation.
Science, 1979, 203(4383): 892894
Lieske J H. Galilean satellite evolutionObservational evidence for
secular changes in mean motions. Astron Astrophys, 1987, 176: 146
158
Tricarico P. Multi-layer hydrostatic equilibrium of planets and
synchronous moons: Theory and application to Ceres and to Solar
system moons. arXiv:13127427
Castillo-Rogez J C, Matson D L, Sotin C, et al. Iapetus geophysics:
Rotation rate, shape, and equatorial ridge. Icarus, 2007, 190(1): 179
202
Dombard A J, Cheng A F, Mckinnon W B, et al. Delayed formation
of the equatorial ridge on Iapetus from a subsatellite created in a giant
impact. J Geophys Res-Planets, 2012, 117: E03002