Ring systems are too big (analysis and solutions) (x-posted to Bugs forum)

I posted this already in the bugs forum, but I'm posting it here for discussion and figured that other explorers might be interested in it too.


Description
I've done some analysis of the ring systems I've scanned so far in Elite Dangerous and the data confirms what I've seen visually in the game - that most ring systems around planets and brown dwarfs are unrealistically large in extent. If you want to skip the explanation (if you're a dev then I hope you won't! :) then hop down to the Solutions section at the bottom of this post. If you want further info then just let me know!


In this post I'm going to present what I found, some technical background, and some suggestions for fixing it. I'm putting it in the Bug forum because it appears to be a bug (or oversight) in the Stellar Forge system creation. FDev have made a big deal about realism in the game so I hope this explanation gives them a way to fix at least this flaw in the system generation. I'd really appreciate some acknowledgement that they're aware of the issue and can incorporate a fix for it soon (I've also found several other errors in the Stellar Forge output which I'll post later on).


---------------------------------


Definitions (for the purposes of this article):


Roche Limit: The Roche Limit is the distance from a massive body within which an orbiting body is physically disrupted by tidal forces.


This distance is defined by the density of the central body and the density of the satellite (or the material that comprises the satellite). There are several formulae that can be used to define the Roche limit, depending on the rigidity of the satellite - the most relevant and realistic one is that which accounts for fluid deformation of the satellite, which allows it to be deformed by tidal forces. The roche limit for rigid, solid bodies is within this fluid limit, so the fluid limit can be considered to be a valid outer limit at which a body would be broken up by tidal forces. It is important to note that the Roche Limit of satellites with different compositions would be different around a given planet, since it depends on the density of the satellite material.


The fluid Roche Limit formula is as follows: Roche limit ={(2.44)*((Planet Density/Satellite Density)^(1/3))}


The constant of 2.44 is assumed to be correct for this purpose, but it should be noted that some sources give other values between 2.4 and 2.5 (depending on the specific derivation used). The density of the planet and satellite are in kg/m³, the Planet radius and Roche Limit are in metres. The density of the planet can be calculated using the values in the journal.log files - we know the planet mass in Earth masses (1 Earth mass = 5.9742e24 kg) and we know the radius is metres (so we can calculate the volume using V = 4/3*pi*(radius^3), and the density is mass divided by the volume. The calculated Roche limit is expressed in units of the planet's radius - multiplying this by the radius of the planet in metres will give the Roche Limit distance from the centre of the planet in metres.


The satellite density is determined by associating a density value with the RingClass given in the journal.logs. The densities below assume a solid body with no spaces or voids - realistically, many asteroid-sized objects could have voids in them and may be as low as half the stated density.


Icy: 1000 kg/m³.
Rocky: 3500 kg/m³
Metal-Rich: 5500 kg/m³
Metallic: 8000 kg/m³


Plugging these numbers into the Roche Limit formula, we can see that satellites made of less dense material will be torn apart further away from the planet than those made of denser material - i.e. the Roche Limit is further from the planet for low density materials than for high density materials.


From this, we can arrive at two more definitions:


Ring System: A Ring System is a collection of material orbiting a body within its Roche Limit. Massive objects cannot form within a ring system because they would be disrupted by tidal forces.


Accretion Disk: An Accretion Disk is a collection of material orbiting a body beyond its Roche Limit from which massive objects (satellites) can form.


The key difference between a ring system and an accretion disk is the Roche Limit. Within the Roche Limit, tidal forces would disrupt satellites of a given density and would break them up into fragments that form ring systems. These are generally long-lived features since they are usually maintained by impacts within the ring system.


Beyond the Roche Limit, tidal forces would not disrupt satellites of a given density - any debris beyond this distance is free to coalesce (accrete) into larger bodies. This is how planets form in protostellar disks, and how moons form in protoplanetary disks. If an satellite was somehow broken up (e.g. by a giant impact) then at least some of the debris could become an accretion disk around the central body that could then reform into new satellites. Since planet/satellite formation and giant impacts by their very nature occur in very young systems, these are the most likely places to find accretion disks - after a relatively brief span of time, all of the material in the disks forms into satellites or is dispersed.


Hill Spheres: For added complication, there is a potential outer limit for the extent of Accretion Disks - the Hill Sphere. This is the volume where the planet's gravity dominates over that of the star that it orbits.


Hill Sphere = a(1-e) * {(planet mass/3*star mass)^(1/3)}


where a=semi-major axis of planet orbit, e=eccentricity, and the masses are in kg.


This can be calculated using the data known for each planet and its primary star. The actual zone of stability is within about 1/3 of the Hill Sphere - beyond this distance other influences reduce the stability of orbits (though retrograde orbits between 33% and 100% of the Hill Sphere may be stable). In practical terms, it would be best to assume that the maximum size of an Accretion Disk would be 33% of the calculated Hill Sphere distance for that planet. Also, the hill sphere of a planet is usually larger in extent the further the planet is from the star - thus, planets orbiting very close to a star (within 1 AU) would not have huge accretion disks that were millions of km in radius. This must be determined on a case by case basis.




It is important to note a few specific cases to clarify these definitions:


1) While most of Saturn's rings are within its Roche Limit, it does have rings beyond the Roche Limit - the E Ring, and the Phoebe Ring. However, these rings are actively maintained by geyser eruptions on Enceladus (in the case of the E Ring) and micrometeorite impacts from Phoebe for the ring there. They are also composed of much smaller particles than the main rings (dust to pebble-sized). If the processed that maintained them were to cease, these rings would disappear rapidly.


2) The so-called "Super Saturn" J1407b (http://earthsky.org/space/huge-distant-planet-has-rings-200-times-bigger-than-saturns) has often been touted as a "giant ring system" and therefore used as justification for over-sized rings in Elite Dangerous. However, looking at the details it should be obvious that this is actually an Accretion Disk and not a true "ring system" - the disk is around a brown dwarf star that is only 16 million years old, and satellites are forming in the disk.


Now that these have been defined, we can determine the Roche Limits for the worlds in Elite Dangerous. The source data can be extracted from the journal.logs saved by ED.


---------------------------------


Data: I have scanned 227 ringed objects - terrestrial objects, gas giants, and brown dwarfs. I calculated the Roche Limits using the planet density and the assumed RingClass density (listed above) and compared that with the Outer Limit distance of each ring system of those bodies.


The half-density values (due to spaces and voids reducing the density of the satellite) were used to simulate an extreme outer limit for the ring system size.


One system was under 100 million years old and had four ringed planets. These rings were beyond the Roche Limit of those planets, but that was acceptable since they could be considered to be Accretion Disks.


Using the solid density values, I found that 194 out of the remaining 221 ringed objects (88%!) had rings that extended beyond their Roche Limits. Using the half-density values (assuming satellites that were not solid and contained gaps and voids in them) I found that 179 out of the 221 ringed objects (81%) had rings that extended beyond their Roche Limits.


In practical terms, the Roche Limits of most terrestrial bodies and gas giants were between 2 and 5 planetary radii for Icy Rings, and 1 to 4 planetary radii for Metallic Rings. Brown Dwarfs are significantly denser objects and their rings can extend out to between about 5 and 8 BD radii as a result (though they would not be icy due to the heat from the brown dwarf).


In some cases (for solid metallic rings) he Roche Limit is within 1 planetary radius - this means that satellites with that density would not be torn apart before they hit the planetary surface, and so rings made of that material would not be able to exist around that planet.




---------------------------------


Solutions: I think the simplest solution would be as follows:


Regardless of system age, if any planets or satellites orbit within the Roche Limit (or have orbits that enter the Roche Limit) then they should either be removed or replaced by rings.


If the age of the system is over 100 million years old:


1) If the inner radius of a ring is beyond the Roche Limit, then remove that ring completely.
2) if the ring has not been removed in (1): if the outer radius of a ring is greater than the Roche Limit for the Ring Material then reduce the Outer Radius to the same distance (or just within) the Roche Limit.




If the age of the system is less than 1 million years old


1) if the ring system is larger than the Roche Limit then it can remain as an Accretion Disk. If the outer radius of the Accretion Disk is beyond 1/3 of the planet's Hill Sphere then reduce the outer radius to this distance. This is the only circumstance in which huge disks that have radii of millions of km are possible.


2) Ring systems with an outer radius smaller than the Roche Limit remain unchanged as Ring Systems.




---------------------------------


Discussion: Given the radii of even the largest planetary object (around 70000 to 80000 km) and the fact that the Roche Limit of most planets is within 5 planetary radii, it should be apparent that ring systems should not be found anywhere near 1 million km from the planet, let alone beyond it. While Brown Dwarfs are denser objects, they are also usually smaller than this maximum radius so their more extensive rings systems wouldn't extended much further in terms of absolute distance from the BD (also, Icy rings would be extremely unlikely around BDs given the heat that they emit - though they could possibly be found around the coldest Y dwarfs if they were created long after the BD formed).


While this precludes extensive ring systems for older systems, the "over-sized ring systems" that we currently see in the game would be totally acceptable around bodies in young systems that are less than 100 million years old. These would be identified as Accretion Disks and their greater rarity would make them much more impressive when encountered.
 
Last edited:
The observed exoplanet J1407b supposedly has a ring that around 120 million kilometres across. There is a gap around 0.4 AU out, 59 million kilometres. Sure, that gap is most likely crated by a growing planet, but still. :D
 
Last edited:
The observed exoplanet J1407b supposedly has a ring that around 120 million kilometres across. There is a gap around 0.4 AU out, 59 million kilometres. Sure, that gap is most likely crated by a growing planet, but still. :D

It'd be really nice if people actually read what I wrote - I specifically mention this very system in the post because I wanted to head off people who would raise it as justification for big ring systems!:

2) The so-called "Super Saturn" J1407b (http://earthsky.org/space/huge-distant-planet-has-rings-200-times-bigger-than-saturns) has often been touted as a "giant ring system" and therefore used as justification for over-sized rings in Elite Dangerous. However, looking at the details it should be obvious that this is actually an Accretion Disk and not a true "ring system" - the disk is around a brown dwarf star that is only 16 million years old, and satellites are forming in the disk.
 
Last edited:
It'd be really nice if people actually read what I wrote - I specifically mention this very system in the post because I wanted to head off people who would raise it as justification for big ring systems!:

The formation of a ring system is different from the long term stability of a ring system. It's quite likely that a ring system will be larger due to perturbation by gravitational forces of other more distant moons or large gas giants in nearby orbits, how much larger is another question. Until we can get a good look at ringed bodies in other systems it's a hard one to call, it may be that we will see large ring systems, but not as many. Nature often produces contradictory result, I tend to find the shapes of very small bodies in ED is incorrect according to physics, however I won't say they are right or wrong until we either get more evidence or I see their method of calculating ring size.

Until physical evidence is forthcoming I will stick with what hey have because, well, they look nice and this is a game after all.
 
Until physical evidence is forthcoming I will stick with what hey have because, well, they look nice and this is a game after all.

The evidence is in the physics that i presented here. Bigger rings don't exist because of wishful thinking that "nature produces contradictory results". Maybe in a few specific, very unusual circumstances, sure - but they shouldn't make up over 80% of ring systems.

In my experience, people say this sort of thing because ring systems aren't something they're familiar with. If ED was a game about a forest full of fir trees and those trees were 100 metres wide, everyone would notice and accept that as being wrong because they know that fir trees aren't supposed to be that wide. But ring systems and other astronomical things require more knowledge, and without that knowledge people just tend to assume that superficially OK (just looking like what they think a ring system should look like) is good enough. In any other more familiar situation it wouldn't be, so it shouldn't be here.

This is physics - this is how rings work. The rings of Saturn are influenced the satellites outside the ring and they don't go spreading the rings out beyond the Roche Limit. Any other gravitational perturbations are far more likely to just disrupt rings, not keep them stable. And as I said, when we do rings beyond the Roche Limit, it's because they're actively maintained by some process like volcanic eruptions or micrometeoroid impacts, and those rings don't look anything like the ones full of boulders in ED (they'd be more like a ring without the rocks - just a 'dust ring', which would be a neat addition to ED. Just a ring full of fog effect and tiny particles).
 
Last edited:
You know more about astronomy than me, and I sincerely wish you luck. They're doing something called "telepresence" you know.
 
They have a bar that doesn't sell beer and has no trade runs for it either! Can you tell them how this works too...
 
The evidence is in the physics that i presented here. Bigger rings don't exist because of wishful thinking that "nature produces contradictory results". Maybe in a few specific, very unusual circumstances, sure - but they shouldn't make up over 80% of ring systems.

Sorry you are confusing evidence with conjecture based on our current knowledge of physics and the universe.

And no nature doesn't produce contradictory results, nature produces results, if they appear contradictory it is a fault in our understanding of nature.

You don't have "evidence," you have a conjecture, evidence would be a sampling of ring systems where all the rings conformed to your conjecture, we don't have that, we may one day, but we don't at the moment.

There are a number of ways you can have evidence without physical data, I don't think your conjecture fits any of those categories.
 
You don't have "evidence," you have a conjecture, evidence would be a sampling of ring systems where all the rings conformed to your conjecture, we don't have that, we may one day, but we don't at the moment.

Well I've got a spreadsheet full of data from the journal.logs analysing the hundreds of ringed worlds I scanned that is attached to my original post on the Bugs forum. And the calculations there are based on the physical data provided in ED for those worlds, and over 80% of them have rings that are too big. That's the evidence.

So no, actually it's not "conjecture". The data is right there. I'm talking about what Elite Dangerous is producing here, and comparing that with what we know of the natural laws that govern ring systems in reality (which we understand pretty well). And what that shows is that the way ED is calculating them is not realistic. I think I've demonstrated that pretty well with the data I've gathered and analysed, if you'd actually care to look at it and make an effort to understand what I'm saying.

If you want to claim that using that data and current scientific knowledge is "conjecture" (and we have no reason to believe that is wrong on this, and we have nothing better to base this analysis on than that anyway) then I don't think you really understand what is going on here.

Seriously, I don't get this hostility to realism. What's your motivation here, exactly? What do you have to gain by trying to say I'm wrong when you provide no evidence to support your ideas whatsoever and I've provided a lot of data to support my analysis? This "we haven't seen it, therefore anything is possible" argument is utterly specious.

I yearn for the day when I can post something like this and people will say "thanks, that's really interesting" or "thanks, but I disagree on a few points, and here are some sensible reasons why". Instead I just get this noise and I end up having to defend something from people who haven't even bothered to read or understand it properly, or who have no understanding of the background whatsoever but who think their opinions are still somehow valid because they think they know how the universe works better than scientists do. This shouldn't be a fight all the damn time, and it's really demoralising that it is.
 
Last edited:
Well I've got a spreadsheet full of data from the journal.logs analysing the hundreds of ringed worlds I scanned that is attached to my original post on the Bugs forum. And the calculations there are based on the physical data provided in ED for those worlds, and over 80% of them have rings that are too big. That's the evidence.

Look seriously that's not evidence, I am not arguing that you are wrong of right, all I am saying is, data extracted from a video game is not evidence, projections of possible ring systems from current physics is not evidence, it's purely conjecture.

Evidence;

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Conjecture;

an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

You don't have a body of facts or information to use as evidence to support your claim as true, you are theorising based on your current understanding of physics. I am not dissing you, all I am saying is you don't actually have evidence.

I point you to this;

The solar system's largest planetary ring is even more extensive than scientists thought. In 2009, the Spitzer Space Telescope discovered infrared radiation from a ring far beyond all the others encircling Saturn; sunlight heats the ring's dust, which emits its heat at infrared wavelengths. Now, as astronomers report online today in Nature, another heat-seeking spacecraft—NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer—has detected this same ring, finding that it extends 6 million to 16 million kilometers from the planet. If Saturn were the size of a basketball, the ring from one side of the planet to the other would span two-thirds the length of a football field. Although the ring is huge, its dust particles are tiny. They probably arise when debris shed by comets hits distant saturnian satellites such as Phoebe, kicking up material that goes into orbit around the ringed planet

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/biggest-planetary-ring-solar-system

The current position is that rings outside the roche limit are going to be very faint, and this fits in well with the very large ring systems I have seen around planets in ED. Most of the very large rings are barely visible to the eye and it's very easy to accidently crash into them.

And this;

absolutely. The mass of the planet (and it's density) determines the size of it's Roche limit, which defines how far the ring system can extend. As pointed out above, planets can have rings beyond the Roche limit but only faint ones. Dense/Thick rings only form inside the Roche Limit and the more massive the planet, the larger the Roche Limit.

http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/14884/mass-limit-of-planetary-ring

It's possible that most planets with rings have very faint rings that are almost impossible to detect, we don't know this because we don't have the observational evidence to confirm or deny it. We can conjecture all we like, but "evidence" is a fairly well defined term, we don't have evidence yet.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously, I don't get this hostility to realism. What's your motivation here, exactly? What do you have to gain by trying to say I'm wrong when you provide no evidence to support your ideas whatsoever and I've provided a lot of data to support my analysis? This "we haven't seen it, therefore anything is possible" argument is utterly specious.

I yearn for the day when I can post something like this and people will say "thanks, that's really interesting" or "thanks, but I disagree on a few points, and here are some sensible reasons why". Instead I just get this noise and I end up having to defend something from people who haven't even bothered to read or understand it properly, or who have no understanding of the background whatsoever but who think their opinions are still somehow valid because they think they know how the universe works better than scientists do. This shouldn't be a fight all the damn time, and it's really demoralising that it is.

I am not hostile, I have pointed out my reasons why I think what you have presented isn't actually evidence, I haven't even said you are wrong, and I haven't been hostile, you seem to be though, sorry to not agree with your pet theory but you make claims for evidence that simply aren't evidence, just conjecture and I am fine with that. If there's a problem here it appears to be yours, and apparently since I am not welcome to comment on your pet theory I shall cease forthwith, goodbye!
 
Again, did you even read what I posted? You clearly didn't. If you did then you'd have seen that I mentioned that very ring system around Saturn that you described here. I even mention the bloody thing by name, for crying out loud.

And your understanding of what conjecture vs evidence is here is wrong. The evidence here is the data from the game, and the facts I'm comparing them against are the laws of physics from reality. The Roche Limit defines the extent of ring systems in reality - yes there are exceptions, and I already explained why those can exist in my post that you either didn't read or chose to ignore - but those exceptions can't account for the big ring systems in ED because the mechanisms that allow for them don't exist in the game. Most of the rings in the game are beyond the Roche Limit for their planets and are not being actively maintained by other bodies. This really isn't hard to understand.

Now are you going to continue to try to undermine what I'm saying here or do you actually have something constructive and useful to add?
 
Vinyl didnt die, just went into space

BigRing.jpg

The giant itself seems to be fairly large, which makes those rings huge...

zoomrings.jpg

RingPlanet.jpg

Im quite new to the game, never seen anything like that before, hope this helps :)
 
Last edited:
Im quite new to the game, never seen anything like that before, hope this helps :)

Not really, since the system map screenshot doesn't show the system age. And the data shown in the sidebar seems to be from the selected outer gas giant, not the red one?

Looks like the radius of the outer ring is 0.05 AU? (you don't show the inner and outer radius for it). The whole point of my post was that if it's an accretion disk (if the system is young, under about 100 million years old) then that would be OK, but if it's older than that then that is far beyond what can remain stable.
 
Thanks, that's really interesting. :) But I'm not convinced yet, sorry. You can change my mind, though. I do have, for now, two questions to ask (more might follow):

1. The formation of ring systems isn't fully understood. While the formation from material of the protoplanetary disk and the formation by a tidally stressed moon are two possibilities, there is also the hypothesis that rings form after impacts on the planet or after collisions of smaller bodies. We don't know whether the Stellar Forge uses a single mechanism, or a combination of two or three of them. My question: Did you account for the possibility that rings can be a lot younger than the system itself? (The age of Saturn's rings is, after all, a matter of debate.)

2. You mentioned that Saturn's rings extend beyond the Roche limit due to its moons. My question: Did the 227 bodies you analyzed have moons as well that could act as either sources of new material (by active volcanism, for example) or could prevent the accretion of material due to the tidal stress they cause?
 
I love huge ring systems!
Why does Stellar Forge create systems with huge rings?
Because they look nice. What the OP calls an accretion disc could also be called a protoplanetary disc in the case of dwarf stars.

[video=youtube_share;AB1uwPm77Kw]https://youtu.be/AB1uwPm77Kw[/video]
 
Not really, since the system map screenshot doesn't show the system age. And the data shown in the sidebar seems to be from the selected outer gas giant, not the red one?

Looks like the radius of the outer ring is 0.05 AU? (you don't show the inner and outer radius for it). The whole point of my post was that if it's an accretion disk (if the system is young, under about 100 million years old) then that would be OK, but if it's older than that then that is far beyond what can remain stable.

Its unfortunate that the ring info was cut but as far as i know that is the correct planet info. The journey i am on is still in progress so the exact location is blanked until i hand my data in, but fortunately for you :) i passed this system when i was still being meticulous about recording stuff and mission time limit wasnt forcing me forward at top speed.

BigRingStarAge.jpg

If you look in the bottom left corner of the large ring picture that i posted on the previous page you can see its orbiting gas giant

Edit: can confirm that the planet infor is definately correct and is the 9th planet in the system
 
Last edited:
1. The formation of ring systems isn't fully understood. While the formation from material of the protoplanetary disk and the formation by a tidally stressed moon are two possibilities, there is also the hypothesis that rings form after impacts on the planet or after collisions of smaller bodies. We don't know whether the Stellar Forge uses a single mechanism, or a combination of two or three of them. My question: Did you account for the possibility that rings can be a lot younger than the system itself? (The age of Saturn's rings is, after all, a matter of debate.)

How the rings form doesn't really matter that much here. What matters is that they can continue to exist for a long period of time (billions of years) within the Roche Limit, but that they can't outside that limit unless they are being actively maintained by some process. I suppose there's a chance that a giant impact somehow shatters a moon outside the Roche Limit and creates a short-lived larger ring system, but the probability of that is miniscule - you'd need a big impact later in the system's history (when there aren't so many large objects flying around on crossing orbits), as well as one that was big enough to shatter the moon, and you'd need to show up while that ring system still existed and before it had reformed into a satellite (which may be a timescale as short as years or decades in some cases). Certainly it wouldn't happen often enough that the number of gas giants that I found in the sample would have such huge rings.

2. You mentioned that Saturn's rings extend beyond the Roche limit due to its moons. My question: Did the 227 bodies you analyzed have moons as well that could act as either sources of new material (by active volcanism, for example) or could prevent the accretion of material due to the tidal stress they cause?

Technically I wouldn't say that they 'extend' beyond the Roche Limit, the main (i.e. visible) ring system is all within the Roche Limit. The rings outside that are out on their own, and are created by activity on Enceladus and Phoebe. As far as I can recall, none of the bodies I scanned in ED had moons within the extended rings (AFAIK Elite could put some satellites in large gaps between rings, but not actually within the ring). In most cases I'd be pretty confident in saying that there was no mechanism that could sustain a huge system of rings beyond the planet's Roche Limit for the systems I looked at.

- - - Updated - - -

Its unfortunate that the ring info was cut but as far as i know that is the correct planet info. The journey i am on is still in progress so the exact location is blanked until i hand my data in, but fortunately for you :) i passed this system when i was still being meticulous about recording stuff and mission time limit wasnt forcing me forward at top speed.

I think 590 million years is still a little old to be having a disk that size. T Tauri stars might have remnants of disks since the whole point of the T Tauri phase is that the star is active and is blowing away all the gas and dust from formation, but to keep an accretion disk I think the system should be younger, more like 100 million years.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom