Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy

, Volume 107, Issue 4, pp 487–500 | Cite as

Orbital stability of systems of closely-spaced planets, II: configurations with coorbital planets

Original Article


We numerically investigate the stability of systems of 1 \({{\rm M}_{\oplus}}\) planets orbiting a solar-mass star. The systems studied have either 2 or 42 planets per occupied semimajor axis, for a total of 6, 10, 126, or 210 planets, and the planets were started on coplanar, circular orbits with the semimajor axes of the innermost planets at 1 AU. For systems with two planets per occupied orbit, the longitudinal initial locations of planets on a given orbit were separated by either 60° (Trojan planets) or 180°. With 42 planets per semimajor axis, initial longitudes were uniformly spaced. The ratio of the semimajor axes of consecutive coorbital groups in each system was approximately uniform. The instability time for a system was taken to be the first time at which the orbits of two planets with different initial orbital distances crossed. Simulations spanned virtual times of up to 1 × 108, 5 × 105, and 2 × 105 years for the 6- and 10-planet, 126-planet, and 210-planet systems, respectively. Our results show that, for a given class of system (e.g., five pairs of Trojan planets orbiting in the same direction), the relationship between orbit crossing times and planetary spacing is well fit by the functional form log(tc/t0) = bβ + c, where tc is the crossing time, t0 = 1 year, β is the separation in initial orbital semimajor axis (in terms of the mutual Hill radii of the planets), and b and c are fitting constants. The same functional form was observed in the previous studies of single planets on nested orbits (Smith and Lissauer 2009). Pairs of Trojan planets are more stable than pairs initially separated by 180°. Systems with retrograde planets (i.e., some planets orbiting in the opposite sense from others) can be packed substantially more closely than can systems with all planets orbiting in the same sense. To have the same characteristic lifetime, systems with 2 or 42 planets per orbit typically need to have about 1.5 or 2 times the orbital separation as orbits occupied by single planets, respectively.


Stability Planetary systems Coorbital planets 


  1. Arribas M., Elipe A., Kalvouridis T., Palacios M.: Homographic solutions in the planar n + 1 body problem with quasi-homogeneous potentials. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 99, 1–12 (2007)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  2. Borucki, W., 70 colleagues.: Kepler planet-detection mission: introduction and first results. Science 327, 977–980 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. Breen R.: Regression Models: Censored, Sample Selected, or Truncated Data (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (1996)Google Scholar
  4. Chatterjee S., Ford E.B., Matsumura S., Rasio F.A.: Dynamical outcomes of planet-planet scattering. Astrophys. J. 686, 580–602 (2008)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan M.J., Lissauer J.J.: Orbital stability of the Uranian satellite system. Icarus 125, 1–12 (1997)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyson F.J.: Search for artificial stellar sources of infrared radiation. Science 131, 1667–1668 (1960)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. Laskar J.: Large scale chaos and the spacing of the inner planets. Astron. Astrophys. 317, L75–L78 (1997)ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. Lissauer J.J.: Shepherding model for Neptune’s arc ring. Nature 318, 544–545 (1985)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. Lissauer J.J., Quintana E.V., Rivera E.J., Duncan M.J.: The effect of a planet in the asteroid belt on the orbital stability of the terrestrial planets. Icarus 154, 449–458 (2001)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. Lissauer, J.J., Slartibartfast.: How extreme can planetary systems be? Extreme solar systems In: Fischer, D., Rasio, F., Thorsett, S., Wolszczan, A. (eds.) ASP Conference Series, 398, pp. 491–498 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. Marzari F., Weidenschilling S.J.: Eccentric extrasolar planets: The jumping Jupiter model. Icarus 156, 570–579 (2002)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. Maxwell, J.C.: On the stability of the motion of Saturn’s rings. in Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 1, 228 (1890)Google Scholar
  13. Newton, I.: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London (1687)Google Scholar
  14. Newton, I.: Opticks: or, a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. Also two Treatises of the Species and Magnitude of Curvilinear Figures. Printed for Sam. Smith, and Benj. Walford. Printers to the Royal Society, at the Prince’s Arms in St. Paul’s Church-yard (1704)Google Scholar
  15. Rauch, K.P., Hamilton, D.P.: The HNBody package for symplectic integration of nearly-keplerian systems. Amer. Astron. Soc., DDA Meeting #33, #08.02; Bulletin of the Amer. Astron. Soc., 34, 938. http://janus.astro.umd.edu/HNBody/ (2002). Accessed 01 July 2007
  16. Salo H., Yoder C.F.: The dynamics of coorbital satellite systems. Astron. Astrophys. 202, 309–327 (1988)ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith A.W., Lissauer J.J.: Orbital stability of systems of closely-spaced planets. Icarus 201, 381–394 (2009) (Paper I)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deptartment of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Space Science and Astrobiology Division, MS 245-3National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research CenterMoffett FieldUSA

Personalised recommendations