Uranus' 4 biggest moons may have buried oceans of salty water

NASA's James Webb Space Telescope captured this shot of Uranus and six of its 27 known moons.
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope captured this shot of Uranus and six of its 27 known moons. A number of background objects, including distant galaxies, are also visible. (Image credit: SCIENCE: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI IMAGE PROCESSING: Joseph DePasquale (STScI))

The four biggest moons of Uranus may harbor salty oceans below their frozen surfaces, a new study suggests.

Scientists taking a fresh look at 40-year-old data sent home by NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft say that the satellites Titania and Oberon, which orbit the farthest from Uranus among the group, may have buried oceans 30 miles (50 kilometers) deep, while those of Ariel and Umbriel may be 19 miles (30 km) deep. The new research explains how the persistent internal heat of the Uranian moons and a few chemicals could make them watery worlds despite their location in the frigid outer reaches of the solar system.

"Finding oceans in the Uranian moons would increase the prospect that [...] ocean worlds are frequent in our solar system, and maybe — by extension — in other solar systems," Julie Castillo-Rogez, a planetary scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and lead author of the new study, told Space.com in an email on Thursday (May 4).

Related: Uranus' moons: A guide to the ice giant's strange tilted moons

Early in their histories, Uranus' five largest moons — Titania, Oberon, Ariel, Umbriel and Miranda — likely hosted substantial oceans ranging from 62 miles to 90 miles (100 km to 150 km) deep, researchers said. 

"If the moons had benefited from long-term heating from their planet, then they could have maintained a thick ocean," Castillo-Rogez said.

For example, the Jupiter moon Europa and Saturn's Enceladus, both of which harbor big subsurface oceans, flex their innards and icy crusts in response to the strong gravitational pull from their host planets. Scientists think this tidal heat helps the moons maintain their subsurface water as a life-friendly liquid. But Uranus' tug is far weaker than that of Saturn or Jupiter, so oceans on even the planet's four largest moons are "mostly frozen by now," Castillo-Rogez said.

To understand more about how Uranus' largest moons may have evolved, her team built a model by gathering findings from NASA missions that studied other ocean worlds. These included Saturn's moon Enceladus, as observed by the Cassini mission; the dwarf planet Ceres, as revealed by Dawn; and Pluto's largest moon Charon, which New Horizons observed during its epic Pluto flyby in 2015.

The team's model revealed that the Uranian moons likely hold "thin oceans with high salt concentrations," according to the new study. This would be thanks to limited internal heat left over from their births, as well as considerable ammonia, whose antifreeze nature helps keep water in its liquid form even in very low temperatures.

The oceans on these Uranian moons have about 150 grams of salt for every liter of water, the researchers estimate. In comparison, Utah's Great Salt Lake in the United States is twice as salty, but life still manages to thrive in and around it.

The jury is still out on the ocean potential of Uranus' fifth-biggest moon, Miranda. Although previous research hinted at a hidden ocean to explain intriguing charged particles blasted into space, Miranda is so small that its internal ocean very likely froze just a few million years after it formed, researchers say in the latest study.

So far, Uranus has been briefly visited by only Voyager 2 — which spotted 10 new moons and a couple of new rings around the ice giant — during its January 1986 flyby. But Uranus may get more attention in the not-too-distant future, in part because exoplanet research has revealed that ice giants are among the most common, yet least understood, planets in the galaxy. 

NASA is developing a potential mission to the planet, currently given the placeholder name of Uranus Orbiter and Probe (UOP). As that moniker suggests, UOP would include an orbiter to gather data about the ice giant and its moons from afar and a probe that would drop into the planet's atmosphere for first-hand information, according to the mission concept.

The new study was published in December 2022 in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Follow Sharmila Kuthunur on Twitter @skuthunur. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Sharmila Kuthunur
Space.com contributor

Sharmila Kuthunur is a Seattle-based science journalist covering astronomy, astrophysics and space exploration. Follow her on X @skuthunur.

  • rod
    The ref paper cited is very interesting reading too; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JE007432 .

    I noted some comments about life in the paper. "Hence, this kind of ocean may not be of great interest for astrobiology, although one cannot rule out that certain life-forms may be able to thrive in this environment."

    That is a key concept concerning moons in our solar system. Note this recent report. The Six Moons Most Likely to Host Life in Our Solar System, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-six-moons-most-likely-to-host-life-in-our-solar-system/
    Here are the 6 moons reported in this article. At Jupiter, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto are listed. At Saturn, Enceladus, and Titan. At Neptune, Triton. Astrobiology as a science has come a long way from Charles Darwin warm little pond postulate in some private letters from the early 1880s where non-living matter in a warm little pond on Earth could evolve into the first, living cell, life's last common ancestor by natural processes and create the evolutionary tree of life seen in the fossil record and life on Earth today. Using the 6 moons listed, the origin of life on the moons would need to survive all the early catastrophism of the solar system and giant planet building with the widespread impacts postulated now in the MMSN and accretion disc. NASA astrobiology section acknowledges Charles Darwin warm little pond scenario for the origin life too. https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/exposed-in-a-warm-little-pond/, 06-Dec-2018. "A recent study examines volcanic islands on the ancient Earth as a potential location for Darwin’s ‘warm little pond.’
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    The interesting thing for me is the apparently high probability of water on planets.
    At one time, it seemed that scientists were wondering where all the water on Earth could have come from. Now, it seems more like where does all the water go on the inner planets? Solar radiation seems to mostly be the answer to the inner planet's water loss. So, I am wondering how muc water Earth actually had when it first formed. Were there continents above water 4.6 billion years ago?
    Reply
  • rod
    Remember Unclear Engineer, all the impacts now in the early solar system so the game is catastrophism and violent bombardments. The Earth does not form with oceans all over or land masses or continents, it was a proto earth before Theia hit it making the Moon according to current modeling. Many more impacts continued, and the Precambrian from 4.5 to 2 billion years ago, some 10x more impacts. Various reports on space.com about this too. So, water must be delivered via impacts and giant impacts, as well as the early Sun, Faint Young Sun. According to the May issue of Sky & Telescope on novae and r-process elements, it took 160 million supernova of massive stars to give us the oxygen we have on Earth today to breathe. Violent, catastrophism must be accepted according to the science in the modeling using natural processes to explain our origins, not just solar radiation. Even Theia impact can cause real trouble for the proto earth and continued growth to what we see today.
    Reply
  • rod
    So, Charles Darwin warm little pond evolved in science into violent catastrophic bombardments and impacts, that created us :) So much has changed now since the early 1880s when Charles Darwin stated this for the origin of life on Earth.
    Reply
  • rod
    Unclear Engineer said:
    The interesting thing for me is the apparently high probability of water on planets.
    At one time, it seemed that scientists were wondering where all the water on Earth could have come from. Now, it seems more like where does all the water go on the inner planets? Solar radiation seems to mostly be the answer to the inner planet's water loss. So, I am wondering how muc water Earth actually had when it first formed. Were there continents above water 4.6 billion years ago?

    Folks may enjoy reading some of the past, space.com reports on how Earth got its water.

    Meteorites reveal how they brought space water to Earth, https://forums.space.com/threads/meteorites-reveal-how-they-brought-space-water-to-earth.59018/
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    I havr read those reports. Remember, they are all highly speculative. The most recent reports about the amount of water under the crust surface on Earth, plus the water-on-the-moon and the water on Mars articles make me wonder how much of that previous speculation is off-base. The apparent thinking along the lines of water on large moons (but not as large as Earth's) seems to add reason to wonder what does and does not control how much water various planetary bodies end-up with.

    For one thing, has anybody really addressed the amount of "shade" that a planetary nebula / protoplanetary disk gives the dust and gas at various radii from the star, perhaps allowing protoplanets to draw in water or ice as they form, and then letting it differentiate as he planet/moon stratifies its material into core/mantel/ocean/etc.?
    Reply
  • rod
    "I havr read those reports. Remember, they are all highly speculative. The most recent reports about the amount of water under the crust surface on Earth, plus the water-on-the-moon and the water on Mars articles make me wonder how much of that previous speculation is off-base."

    Interesting comments here in post #7 by Unclear Engineer. Here is an example from 2013 on the giant impact for the origin of the Moon, and Earth's magma ocean that formed vs. our nice, water planet today.

    Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean, http://www.livescience.com/41061-moon-crash-earth-magma-ocean.html, "LONDON — Billions of years ago, the Earth's atmosphere an opaque and the planet's surface was a vast magma ocean devoid of life."
    Reply
  • rod
    In ref to my post #8, it is important to remember that a proto Earth model is used for Theia impact creating the Moon. That proto Earth is smaller in mass and slightly smaller in radius. A proto Earth 0.65 earth mass and radius 0.9 earth mass, escape velocity about 9.5 km/s. More water could be blasted off into space and then more water must be added again as the proto Earth slowly evolves into the present Earth we see today. Nothing like Charles Darwin warm little pond model.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    What if the Theia model is wrong? Not saying that it is - just that it is a model based on some observations and a lot of assumptions. Even if there were a collision big enough to create the moon, did it have to create a magma ocean? Could it have been a less destructive collision that created a nearly double planet more by capture than destruction? (I say nearly, because the Moon is not big enough to be called a planet.) How about a glancing blow that left most of the two bodies intact, rather than making a cloud of debris that coalesced into the Moon?
    Reply
  • rod
    Unclear Engineer said:
    What if the Theia model is wrong? Not saying that it is - just that it is a model based on some observations and a lot of assumptions. Even if there were a collision big enough to create the moon, did it have to create a magma ocean? Could it have been a less destructive collision that created a nearly double planet more by capture than destruction? (I say nearly, because the Moon is not big enough to be called a planet.) How about a glancing blow that left most of the two bodies intact, rather than making a cloud of debris that coalesced into the Moon?
    Yes, origin science models can be wrong but showing that they are wrong is difficult and challenging. The Theia impact model also creates a synestia phase of the early earth - all molten in simulations too.

    The moon formed inside a vaporized Earth synestia, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180228103238.htm
    Nature all by itself, avoiding the very serious catastrophism of impact modeling now is a must to show how Charles Darwin warm little pond evolved calmly, and non-living matter could slowly evolve into a single cell tiny life form that became the evolutionary tree of life. This report shows moons at Uranus, the paper leaves the door open for life on some and another report I cited shows 6 moons now in the solar system where life could evolve via natural means and live there too. IMO, origin science like this, needs to put all the pieces together and show how nature using violent impacts, created our very livable Earth and not invoke a miracle. You previously indicated speculative here and I agree.
    Reply