Some Corrections for de Pater and Lissauer, Planetary Sciences

Second Edition, Second Printing, August 2011

Older version? See errata for the Second Edition, First Printing. Updates posted after October 2012 in green.

Chapter 1

  • p. 10, Table 1.5. Many small inner satellites from Table 1.4 are not included in Table 1.5. Polydeuces, Pallene are included in both Tables, but Anthe, Methone, Perdita, Cupid, Mab, Naiad, and Thalassa are absent from Table 1.5. The small saturnian moon Aegaeon is missing from both tables. I'd also suggest removing the roman numerals identifying the satellites from both Tables 1.4 and 1.5 as most readers do not need these. If the roman numerals stay, at least format them identically in both tables.

    Chapter 2

  • p. 27, 1st paragraph of 2.2.1. In the two center of mass equations, "m1" in the numerator should be "m2" and "m2" in the numerator should be "m1". Credit: Jason Aufdenberg, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
  • p. 27. 'm1/m2 > 27' Change 27 -> 25.
  • p. 41, Eq. 2.39. The right hand term needs to be multiplied by an overall minus sign.
  • p. 41, Eq. 2.40. The middle term needs to be multiplied by a minus sign. Credit: Mahmuda Afrin Badhan.
  • p. 42, Fig. 2.20 (b). Two "vector = scalar" problems. Unit x vectors are needed.
  • p. 42, Fig. 2.20 (c). Bold, solid, and dashed arrows are undefined.
  • p. 49, Eq. 2.55a. This is aerodynamic drag (large Reynold's number, proportional to v2), not Stokes drag (small Reynold's number, proportional to v).
  • p. 53, Question 2.23I. Hint is obscure and unhelpful. A straightforward solution need not make use of n2. We suggest that the hint simply be removed. Credit: Krista Smith.

    Chapter 3

  • p. 57, Eq. 3.6 and 3.7. A different symbol is needed here. The second equation give the flux density in the z direction. The first has no directionality. Eq. 3.41a,b are also directional.
  • p. 62, Fig. 3.5 caption. Label (b) should be moved one sentence earlier.
  • p. 70, Eq. 3.80b. The "1" should be replaced with "1/2" and the cited equations immediately above should be 3.78 and 3.79. Credit: Jason Aufdenberg, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

    Chapter 4

  • p. 77. It would be nice to have the Adiabatic Lapse Rates for the rocky planet listed in Table 4.2. It also surprises me that the Lapse Rates on Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are so similar in Table 4.1 (to ~1%) when the planetary surface gravities differ by up to 25%. Are those Lapse Rates really correct?
  • p. 77, Table 4.1. Energy balance numbers and error bars are somewhat inconsistent with Equilibrium and Effective Temperatures for all planets.
  • p. 91, bottom of first column. depresssion -> depression.

    Chapter 5

  • p. 229, Fig. 5.88c. Imapact -> Impact at lower right.
  • p. 239, Problem 5.4.I. The Symbol S0 is misleading as it is defined as the entropy at T=0 in Eq. 5.6. Change S0 -> S298. Also Albite is favored at both temperatures for P < 1 Gpa; high pressure is needed for Jadeite + Quartz to be favored. See http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/equilibria/GibbsE.html. Presumably the problem assumes a pressure/temperature relation in its definition of Cp. This should be stated.

    Chapter 7

  • p. 289, just after Eq. 7.7. U is the energy density, not total energy.
  • p. 290, Eq. 7.10b. vector = scalar problem. (vector v -> scalar vperp?)
  • p. 290, Eq. 7.10c. v2 -> v2perp ? - For problem 7.5I, we need to assume that the velocities are entirely perpendicular to the shock. Probably that needs to be stated in the problem and/or in the set of equations 7.10.
  • p. 295, Eq. 7.30 and Fig. 7.11. While correct and consistent here, standard notation has MB aligned along the positive z axis.
  • p. 295, Eq. 7.41. There is a quadrant ambiguity here.
  • p. 297, Eq. 7.5.1. The mo in denominator should be an m = γr mo. E should be explicitly stated to be the Kinetic Energy.
  • p. 299, just after 7.60. γr is not needed here. In Eq. 7.48, we've already been told to put a γr in the denominator for the relativistic case. In the relativistic case μb = μB.
  • p. 299, text before Eq. 7.62. "The distance of a magnetic field line". distance -> maximum distance
  • p. 299, text after Eq. 7.62. "actual distance in planetary radii". As written, the equation gives the distance L in cm. Since L is usually given in planetary radii, the equation needs an R (Planet radius) on the right hand side.
  • p. 334, Problem 7.12I. The problem is imprecisely worded. I'd define Bm1 and Bm2 before part a) - until then it is not clear that these are field strengths at the mirror points. Also, Bm1 and Bm2 are used for the location of the mirror points in the first sentence of a) breaking from the s1 and s2 notation of p. 298 (just before Eq. 7.53). Perhaps put all definitions up front before the subparts?

    Chapter 8

  • p. 348, bottom of first column. This is not Stokes' Drag, because the acceleration is proportional to v2.
  • p. 353. Halflife for 238U is inconsistent in Eq. 8.6a and Table 8.3! (Credit: Mahmuda Afrin Badhan).
  • p. 353. Halflife for 235U is mildly inconsistent in Eq. 8.6b and Table 8.3. (Credit: Mahmuda Afrin Badhan).

    Chapter 10

  • p. 437, Table 10.2. U. Maryland requests that the Deep Impact encounter with Hartley 2 (Nov. 4, 2010) be added as the 5th close comet flyby!

    Chapter 11

    p. 450, Fig. 11.5. The small satellites Aegaeon and Anthe are missing from Saturn wedge. Synchronous orbit for Uranus should be 2/3 of the way from Perdita's orbit to Puck's (~10% further out than plotted). Amalthea should be about midway between the synchronous and Roche limits at Jupiter.

    p. 459, Figure 11.8. The "slanted motion" cannot be due to the inclination of Enceladus (i=0.02 degrees) which moves that satellite up and down by only 1/3 of its own radius. Perhaps Mimas and Enceladus have been confused?

    p. 469, text after Eq. 11.18a. The statement about mz being even for horizontal forcing and odd for vertical forcing is only true for Lindblad and Vertical resonances (as defined here) which are a subset of all possible resonances. The correct statement is that mz + m'z is always even (vertical frequencies must come in pairs), where m'z is the coefficient of μ on the right hand side of 11.18b, 11.18c, or their generalization.

    p. 477, last paragraph. "Pan also excites eccentricity of ring particles ..." eccentricity -> eccentricities.

    p. 479, full paragraph before Eq. 11.26. "... such eccentricities greatly reduce the chances that particle recollide with the parent moon ...". They do not. While the collision probability is a steep function of inclination, it is nearly independent of eccentricity - see Hamilton and Burns (1994).

    p. 480, text just before Eq. 11.30. "Thebe ring may have formed from plasma drag on some of the Thebe ejecta." No - why would plasma drag cause some particles to go out while others go in? The mechanism of Hamilton and Krueger (2008) is, in my opinion, a far more natural explanation.

    p. 480, text just after Eq. 11.30. "The Lorentz force couples charged dust grains to the magnetic field and hence reinforces plasma drag." What does this mean? For jovian ring particles, the Lorentz force is many orders of magnitude stronger than plasma drag, not merely "reinforcing". Furthermore, the Lorentz force is not a drag force. Finally the Lorentz force is primarily radial while plasma drag is azimuthal. Why are these very different forces compared at all?

    Chapter 12

    p. 504, Fig. 12-19. Horizontal lines (indicating eccentricities) are too faint to see! The only places where they do show up is where they overlap, making darker "error bars" that can be seen (and are misleading!) - see e.g. HD181433. I suggest making all error bars dark.

    p. 505, Figure 12.21. "Error bars for the points" discussed in the caption are not visible in the data.

    p. 505, bottom of first paragraph. "This is in contrast to our Solar System" (discussion of overstability). Is this fair? Of course the orbital periods of exoplanets are more widely separated than that of Solar System planets - they have large eccentricities and hence must be more widely spaced!

    p. 505, bottom of left column. "is intermediate of between those Saturn and ..." -> is intermediate between those of Saturn and

    p. 509, top of second column. 107 - 1010 looks more like 106 - 1010 from the figure.

    Chapter 13

    p. 520, Figure 13.5. There are no units labeled for λ Fλ. The scaling is correct for those stars if the units are erg cm-2s-1. Also the data does not come from the cited paper (Furlan 2006) which is a paper on Spitzer IRS spectra only. Furlan (2006) does include the IRS spectra of AB Aur, but HR 4796A is not included in their sample. Credit: Jessica Donaldson.

    p. 520, last paragraph. Although Beta Pictoris is a main sequence star, the wording here seems to imply it is older. Beta Pictoris is a main sequence star, but at ~12 Myrs old it is a very young main sequence star. Perhaps change "main sequence" -> young main sequence. Credit: Jessica Donaldson.

    Last Updated: Dec. 31, 2012
    Doug Hamilton

    Return to ASTR630 Home Page