Monitoring Io's insane volcanic activity from the comfort of Earth

Oct 18, 2012
Observations of several bright & young eruptions detected at short wavelength (~ 2.1 mm) on the top and longer wavelength (~ 3.2 mm) on the bottom since 2004 using the W.M. Keck 10m telescope (May 2004, Aug 2007, Sep 2007, July 2009), the Gemini North 8m Telescope (Aug 2007) and the ESO VLT-Yepun 8m telescope (Feb 2007) and their adaptive optics systems. Credit: F. Marchis

Watching active volcanic eruptions should definitely be done from a distance, but a group of California researchers has figured out how to do it from the comfort of home. Using an ingenious combination of Earth-based telescopic surveys and archival data, they have gathered nearly 40 distinct snapshots of effusive volcanic eruptions and high temperature outbursts on Jupiter's tiny moon, Io, showing details as small as 100 km (60 miles) on the moon's surface.

Io, the innermost , is an insanely active volcanic wonderland. Although the most detailed observations have come from spacecraft, the Galileo Jupiter orbiter mission ended in 2003 and no future mission capable of studying Io is planned until, at the earliest, 2030. However, there will be no large gap in the monitoring of Io's volcanoes, thanks to the efforts of teams like that led by Franck Marchis, a researcher at the Center of the . Marchis will present results from ground-based telescopic monitoring of volcanic activity on Io over the past decade at the 2012 DPS Meeting in Reno, Nevada.

Erupting volcanoes on Io cannot be directly seen from the ground using classical telescopes. Io is a relatively (3,600 km diameter or 2,300 miles), almost the same size as our moon, located much further away (4.2 times the distance between Earth and the sun, so 630 million kilometers or 390 million miles away). Due to the small apparent size of Io, the observation of details on its surface has traditionally been beyond the capabilities of ground-based telescopes on Earth.

To overcome this limitation, engineers and planetary scientists designed spacecraft to visit the Jovian system, including Io. In 1979, revealed Io's dynamic volcanic activity from the first close-up pictures of its surface, which captured bizarre volcanic terrains, active plumes and hot spots. The Galileo spacecraft remained in orbit in the Jovian system from 1995 to 2003 and observed more than 160 active volcanoes and a broad range of eruption styles. Several outstanding questions remained in the post-Galileo era, and the origin and long-term evolution of Io's volcanic activity is still not yet fully understood.

In the meantime, planetary astronomers have designed instruments to break the "seeing barrier" and improve the image quality of ground-based telescopes. The blurring introduced by the constant motion of the Earth's atmosphere can be corrected in real time using adaptive optics, which provides an image with a resolution close to the diffraction limit of the telescope. Since 2001, all large 8-10m class telescopes have been equipped with this technology.

"Since our first observation of Io in 2001 using the W. M. Keck II 10m telescope from the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii and its AO system, our group became very excited about the technology. We also began using AOs at the Very Large Telescope in Chile, and at the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii. The technology has improved over the years, and the image quality and usefulness of those complex instruments has made them part of the essential instrument suite for large telescopes", said Marchis.

Since 2003, using their own observing programs and archival data, the team led by Marchis has gathered approximately 40 epochs of observations of Io in the near-infrared. These images show details as small as 100 km (60 miles) on the surface of the satellite.

Their observations have revealed young and energetic eruptions called outbursts. These are easily detectable from their immense thermal emission at shorter wavelengths, implying a high eruption temperature. The team observed the awakening of the volcano Tvashtar simultaneously with the New Horizons spacecraft, which flew past Jupiter on its way to Pluto. From a combined survey based on three large telescopes, they report that the eruption was detectable from April 2006 to September 2007. Older observations from the Galileo spacecraft and the W.M. Keck observatory show that this volcano previously displayed a similar fire fountain eruptive style which started in November 1999 and lasted for 15 months. Similarly, Pillan, an energetic eruption detected with the Galileo spacecraft from 1996 to 1999, had sporadic activity again in August 2007 which was reported by the team using the W.M. Keck telescope.

"The episodicity of these volcanoes points to a regular recharge of magma storage chambers" said Ashley Davies a volcanologist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, and a member of the study. "This will allow us to model the eruption process and understand the how heat is removed from Io's deep interior by this particular style of volcanic activity".

Four additional young eruptions were detected during this survey including an extremely active volcano located at a region which had never showed activity in the past (planetocentric coordinates 17S, 5W) in May 2004. This new and sporadic outburst had a total output of 10% the average Io thermal output, so it was more energetic than Tvashtar in 2001, implying a fire fountain style eruption. Interestingly, the team did not observe any "mega-outburst" during this survey, with an energetic output similar to the eruption on Surt in 2001, the most energetic eruption ever witnessed in the solar system. They conclude that those outbursts should be extremely rare or very sporadic, lasting for a few days.

The team and several others groups are still monitoring Io's volcanic activity. They noticed that since September 2010, Io's volcanic activity has been globally quiescent. A dozen permanent, low temperature eruptions, which represent effusive activity, are still detected across the surface of Io, but recent observations of the satellite reveal the absence of young bright eruptions and outbursts. The last one seen from the survey was the detection the Loki Patera eruption on July 24 2009, an active lava lake known for its episodic activity.

"Spacecraft have only been able to capture fleeting glimpses of Io's volcanoes, Voyager for a few months, Galileo a few years, and New Horizons a few days. Ground-based observations, on the other hand, can continue to monitor Io's volcanoes over long time-scales. The more telescopes looking at Io, the better time coverage we can obtain." Said Julie Rathbun from Redlands University, a planetary scientist not directly involved in this study but who has conducted monitoring of Io with IRTF-3m telescope for more than 15 years. "AO observations from 8-10m class telescopes are a dramatic improvement in spatial resolution over previous ground-based observations. Soon they will not only be our only way to monitor Io's volcanoes, but the best way. We should be making these observations more often."

The monitoring of Io's volcanic activity will continue to build a timeline of volcanic activity and thermal emission variability, which will be further complemented by data obtained by other missions to the Jupiter system (such as the ESA mission JUICE, or a future dedicated Europa or Io mission). Until these missions, however, the task of monitoring Io's volcanic activity will be from large, AO-enabled ground-based telescopes.

The next generation of AO systems will provide a better image quality and open the visible wavelength range to planetary astronomers. These systems are currently under development and will have their first light in the coming years. Colorful surface changes due to , such as plume deposits or lava flow fields, will be detectable from the ground.

"The next giant leap in the field of planetary astronomy is the arrival of Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes, such as the Thirty Meter Telescope expected to be available in 2021. It will provide a spatial resolution of 35 km in the near-infrared, equivalent to the spatial resolution of global observations taken by the . When pointed at Io, these telescopes will offer the equivalent of a spacecraft flyby of the satellite", Marchis said.

Io was discovered by Galileo Galilei in January 1610, and the discovery announced in Sidereus Nuncius published in March 1610. Simon Marius claimed to have discovered Io and the other Galilean satellites (Europa, Ganymede, Callisto) independently and at the same time in Mundus Iovalis, published in 1614. The names of the moons of Jupiter, several lovers of the god Jupiter, were suggested by Johannes Kepler and proposed by S. Marius. The eruptive center detected in May 2004 has not yet received an official name.

Explore further: Astronauts to reveal sobering data on asteroid impacts

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mapping volcanic heat on Io

Jun 11, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A new study finds that the pattern of heat coming from volcanoes on Io's surface disposes of the generally-accepted model of internal heating.  The heat pouring out of Io's hundreds of erupting ...

Space image: Jupiter-Io montage

Nov 16, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- This montage of New Horizons images shows Jupiter and its volcanic moon Io, and were taken during the spacecraft's Jupiter flyby in early 2007.

The Atmosphere of Io

Jun 14, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Io is one of the four moons of Jupiter that Galileo discovered after he turned his new telescope heavenward. They shocked him and his contemporaries because they demonstrated that heavenly ...

Recommended for you

Astronauts to reveal sobering data on asteroid impacts

6 hours ago

This Earth Day, Tuesday, April 22, three former NASA astronauts will present new evidence that our planet has experienced many more large-scale asteroid impacts over the past decade than previously thought… ...

Rosetta instrument commissioning continues

6 hours ago

We're now in week four of six dedicated to commissioning Rosetta's science instruments after the long hibernation period, with the majority now having completed at least a first initial switch on.

Astronaut salary

7 hours ago

Talk about a high-flying career! Being a government astronaut means you have the chance to go into space and take part in some neat projects—such as going on spacewalks, moving robotic arms and doing science ...

Red moon at night; stargazer's delight

Apr 16, 2014

Monday night's lunar eclipse proved just as delightful as expected to those able to view it. On the East Coast, cloudy skies may have gotten in the way, but at the National Science Foundation's National Optical ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2012
Re: "Spacecraft have only been able to capture fleeting glimpses of Io's volcanoes, Voyager for a few months, Galileo a few years, and New Horizons a few days."

Actually, it would be helpful if the pictures were shown alongside this claim, because people should be permitted to infer whether or not these observations actually indicate volcanoes. In some cases, NASA has artificially colored in what it infers to be lava fields to make up for saturated cameras, and in other instances, we can clearly see burn fields and bright spots at the edges of those burn fields. Volcanoes are inferred simply because the scientific framework which is currently permitted in the planetary sciences demands it. But, by route of an alternative plasma-based framework, these inferred volcanoes might instead be plasma discharges. Keep in mind that we see rilles on a couple of these planets which go up and down with the terrain. Our inferences shouldn't ALWAYS arrive top-down, from the framework itself.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2012
History of science shows us quite clearly that one of the biggest philosophical problems in science is that of unconceived alternatives. See Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History and the Problem of Uncoceived Alternatives. If a collective of scientists and theorists formulate a social culture where all inferences are conceived in the top-down manner, then that is an outright refusal of the lesson we've learned with respect to unconceived alternatives. Philosophically speaking, inferences which violate the conventional scientific framework, but which can nevertheless point to laboratory science, should be permitted -- for the very reason that the inferential step is the most valuable opportunity we possess for questioning the framework itself.

In a situation where we live with a plasma-based cosmology, and yet problem-solve as if it's not so, the instruments we put onto our probes will not be designed to answer these questions. Saturating probe cameras are suggestive of this.
A2G
5 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2012
Hannes, If you actually had worked with plasmas as I have, you would realize that the volcanoes on Io cannot be explained just by plasma.

If you look at the Galileo detail photos online you can clearly see that the shape of what is on the ground does not match with plasma discharge alone. I know what plasma discharge leaves behind. It is not what we see on Io. There is a slight plasma component to the volcanoes though as the turbulence from the eruption triggers the formation of a great amount of electricity.

Electricity is the effect and not the cause. You have it totally backwards in this case. I know the EU theories very well and I work with plasma experiments every day. Do you? Have you ever done even one? I believe in plasmas and electricity in the universe and I don't know of a single person who thinks otherwise. But the core of the EU theory is wrong.

Then please stop with all the crap about the "man holding you down" all the time. It is really getting old.
A2G
5 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2012
Hannes wrote,

"History of science shows us quite clearly that one of the biggest philosophical problems in science is that of unconceived alternatives. See Exceeding Our Grasp:"

Read that to yourself Hannes. It applies to you.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2012
Actually, it would be helpful if the pictures were shown alongside this claim, because people should be permitted to infer whether or not these observations actually indicate volcanoes. In some cases, NASA has artificially colored in what it infers to be lava fields to make up for saturated cameras, and in other instances, we can clearly see burn fields and bright spots at the edges of those burn fields


Where do you get this crap? Go to the Io wiki page. You can see nice true color images there. They are not saturated. In the images from the voyager crafts you can see volcanic plumes, complete with shadows, rising right out of the volcanos. These volcanos are very clear and distinct features. One of them is bigger than everest. They are stationary, (semi)permanent features. Huge portions of the planet are dusted with sulfur from the eruptions. There's no need for any speculation here. It's as clear as it could possibly be. The IR even show the temp matches volcanos.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2012
Peratt showed that Hannes Alfven's plasma gun phenomenon to be at work in the processes of Io's volcanic activity.
http://public.lan...sler.pdf

We also know that some of these "volcanoes" on Io move.
http://www.spaced...03d.html

It doesn't take a great leap of scientific thought to ask if the plasma gun effect is being created by the electric currents known to be present. The electric currents can both wander (just as in a Tesla ball) and stay in the same location if there is conductive path.
A2G
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2012
Peratt would not write what he wrote in 1987 if he had the images and data we have today. These volcanoes do not move. Just look at the images readily available online.

The second reference is just one writer's opinion presented with no proof. Anyone can write an article with no proofs.

You EU guys are grasping at straws to prop up your theories. This is coming from someone who has personally done hundreds of plasma experiments in different gases, at different vacuum levels, with different emitter materials, voltages from 10 to 70 kv. What have you actually done? What has any EU pusher actually done about plasma experimentation other than complain over and over about how no funding is available. That didn't stop me. What is stopping you guys from doing some plasma experiments for yourself to prove your theories? I just don't get why you don't do some for yourself. Are you maybe secretly afraid to find out you are wrong?
A2G
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
The EU guys are always talking about how their theory is supported by laboratory experiments. Where are all those experiments they keep talking about? You mean the magnetic ball in a plasma experiments that Birkleland did long long ago. Are those the cutting edge experiments you are talking about over and over?

Back to my plasma experiments. Maybe some of you EU guys should at least try and do some. Then show how that proves your theories.
A2G
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
Question for the EU guys. Which comes first? turbulence in the air or lighting? Is the lighting the cause or the effect? The fundamental mistake the EU group is making is reversing cause and effect. They call for the electrical activity around the volcanoes on IO to be the cause instead of the effect. And you do this, even though it is well known that there is extreme electrical activity around erupting volcanoes here on earth because of the extreme turbulence. Try rubbing a balloon on a sweater. At least get the basics in electrical theory right before you start putting everyone else down.

You EU guys claim to see it all so clear and yet are blind when the data does not go your way. You do exactly what you claim mainstream science is guilty of. Exactly.

I am not claiming that all is right in the world of DM, DE, and black holes. It is not. But your solutions are not the correct answer either.

Electricity is an effect. Not the cause.
A2G
4.8 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2012
But to the EU crowds credit they do have some points correct. But electricity is NOT the driver you believe it to be. There is clear organization that you cannot explain by electricity alone. There is a key component missing from your theories. Birkeland currents are cool, but they are not the answer you think they are. They are just currents. They do not drive the formation of anything. They are an effect. Not a cause.

Please slow down and think. I am trying to save you further embarrassment later. Please, for your own sake, listen to some really good advice. Do some actual experiments with plasma yourself. I have seen even teenage kids doing them. You should be able to pull that off if they can.
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2012
Hannes, old buddy. Do you remember the story a month ago where you made the same claim about saturated areas in NASA pictures? http://phys.org/n...ars.html Haha, don't those old memories just bring a smile to your face? And then I showed you half a dozen infrared images of terrestrial lava with saturated areas. I could have linked to dozens more, but I thought you were smart enough to get the point. Boy, was I wrong!
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
Just so you don't confuse other people on the Io volcano issue, here's an article on one famous set of photos containing the saturated areas: http://www.scienc...5001934. Note the caption on figure 6 says "The two smaller bright points (B) were visibly emitting thermal radiation in all filters except for the violet." Hmmm... that's interesting. Every time you've seen an electric arc, whether on the grand scale of a bolt of lightning to a small spark while touching a door knob, you'd have to characterize the color of that spark as white. There's a good reason. An electric discharge is characterized by atoms being stripped of at least one outer electron, and the amount of energy that happens to take corresponds to the energy of a photon in the visible or ultraviolet part of the spectrum. And that's exactly the kind of photon emitted when the atoms regain their electrons.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
This gives the electric discharge its characteristic blinding white brilliance. It's the reason welders need to wear protective goggles. But HannesAlfven, because he doesn't actually care about any observation that doesn't support his world view, would rather have you believe that electric discharges do not emit violet light. This would make them, at best, orange, but more likely red. Back in the real universe, scientists can take that lack of violet light combined with saturation at cooler wavelengths to estimate the temperature of the material. The best fit to the data is about 1300 K. By the Wien displacement law, this material's peak emission would be at 2200 nm, which is in the infrared range. Had humans flown by this instead of a NASA camera, they would have seen lava faintly glowing a dark red.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2012
Prometheus: Io's Wandering Plume

http://www.scienc...abstract

I've got a password to the site, but you can't have it.

"The volcanoes themselves are the hottest spots in the solar system with temperatures exceeding 1800 K (1527 C). The plumes which rise 300 km into space are so large they can be seen from Earth by the Hubble Space Telescope. Confounding common sense, these high-rising ejecta seem to be made up of, not blisteringly hot lava, but frozen sulfur dioxide."

http://science.na...oct99_1/

PhotonX
5 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
Article:
Spacecraft have only been able to capture fleeting glimpses of Io's volcanoes, Voyager for a few months, Galileo a few years, and New Horizons a few days.
I guess I'm too dense to understand this. The relative speeds of Voyager and New Horizons are almost identical. Why would one fly-by show Io for months and another for just days?
.
HannesAlfven:
people should be permitted to infer whether or not these observations actually indicate volcanoes
I plainly remember the stunning discovery image showing the first volcano seen on Io. It was so prominent that it looked like a second moon peeking around Io's limb. No doubt at all about it. I was lucky enough to be a fly on the wall at U. of Arizona to see the fly-bys live, as UA was handling the raw image feeds for JPL.
.
Any other greybeards here remember when we thought that Io would just be a boring, featureless ball, barely worth looking at, and not one of the most dynamic objects in the solar system?
Allex
5 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2012
I've got a password to the site, but you can't have it.

Seriously, how much more immature can you be? Keep your toys to yourself, I've got my own. :>

Of course the ejecta consist of frozen sulfur dioxide. Do you really expect lava to be ejected 300 km above the surface and be still molten in almost complete vacuum?

Well...I presume it is possible in land of Oz...sorry, I mean in Electric Universe.
gwrede
5 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2012
Here's a hard-to-read quote:

"Some there are who are nothing else than a passage for food and augmentors of excrement and fillers of privies, because through them no other things in the world, nor any good effects are produced, since nothing but full privies results from them." -- Leonardo da Vinci

Now, suppose you were one of them, and you were interested in Stars and Space, but nobody wanted to discuss these with you. Then you find these fantastic and easily read web sites about Electric Universe and the like.

But like any man, you desperately need company and friends. Ding! Along comes PhysOrg, with its nice people who take issue with your crap, but treat you like an equal. On the net, nobody knows you're a dog. It might even be that you don't believe the EU stuff yourself. But you sure can use the "company" you get by quoting it. Heck, it looks like everybody on PysOrg is your friend.

Oh, the warm and fuzzy feeling in the morning of knowing they've all written to you here!
Husky
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2012
The thing is that some people try to explain and shoehorn everything from their singular working model of the universe, ie. a PlasmaCosmology Universe or a God created Intelligent Design Universe. Models cover/satisfy only a fraction of our perception of the universe.

I think Alfven did some really good work on plasma, but please dont overstretch his work as to explain the vortex in a glass of schoolmilk.
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2012
Oh, the warm and fuzzy feeling in the morning of knowing they've all written to you here!

Being reviled is still receiving of attention. A good analogy is a badly brought-up dog. Attention of any sort is its award.
Husky
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2012
For me the exciting news about this article is that it bodes well for direct imageing of exoplanets in the near future. Why send a 200 billion (conservative estimate) dollar probe for 50 years to the nearest star, if we soon can peek into the furthest nooks and crannies of space in the near infrared from the comfort of our own planet or orbit??
GSwift7
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2012
Confounding common sense, these high-rising ejecta seem to be made up of, not blisteringly hot lava, but frozen sulfur dioxide


Volcanic plumes here on Earth contain frozen material too. The temperature here isn't as cold as it is there, so you mainly get frozen water. It doesn't come out of the volcano frozen. It freezes once it gets up in the cold upper atmosphere. Io's atmosphere is so cold that things will freeze there that don't freeze here. For example, carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide can condense in Io's atmosphere just like water does in ours, and then fall to the ground like snow. It's only counter-intuitive in the sense that those things don't condense here.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
I was only pointing out two items that were in question, the temp of the vents, some of which may have reached 2,000K, 60% hotter than the hottest basaltic lava on Earth. What's really surprising is that the posters on this thread are so much more sure of their opinion than the scientists who are actually tasked to study this odd world. "The biggest mystery about Io's volcanoes is why they're so hot," says Bill Smythe, a co-investigator on JPL's NIMS team. "At 1800 K, the vents are about 1/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun!"

And two, to correct the spurious claim by A2G that the vents were not moving, clearly an opinion not shared by NASA scientists.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2012
Confounding common sense, these high-rising ejecta seem to be made up of, not blisteringly hot lava, but frozen sulfur dioxide


Volcanic plumes here on Earth contain frozen material too. The temperature here isn't as cold as it is there, so you mainly get frozen water.

And what is ash, chopped liver?
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2012
I was only pointing out two items that were in question, the temp of the vents, some of which may have reached 2,000K, 60% hotter than the hottest basaltic lava on Earth. What's really surprising is that the posters on this thread are so much more sure of their opinion than the scientists who are actually tasked to study this odd world. "The biggest mystery about Io's volcanoes is why they're so hot," says Bill Smythe, a co-investigator on JPL's NIMS team. "At 1800 K, the vents are about 1/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun!"
How nice of you to pull up a quote from Smythe that's 13 years old. And how like you to ignore more recent research, such as Keszthelyi, L. et al. (2007). "New estimates for Io eruption temperatures: Implications for the interior". Icarus 192 (2): 491–502, which showed that the initial estimates of lava temp from the Galileo were too high because they were modeled as lava flows rather than lava fountains.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2012
How nice of you to pull up a quote from Smythe that's 13 years old. And how like you to ignore more recent research, such as Keszthelyi, L. et al. (2007). "New estimates for Io eruption temperatures: Implications for the interior". Icarus 192 (2): 491–502, which showed that the initial estimates of lava temp from the Galileo were too high because they were modeled as lava flows rather than lava fountains.

I pulled the quote directly from NASA's website, your displeasure should be directed at them for not updating their information.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2012
While researching this, I did uncover an amusing set of predictions from noted Electric Universe crackpot Wal Thornhill. Because Galileo was slated to make several close flybys of Io, including one possibly through the plume of Pilan Patera, Wal claimed that Galileo was in danger of being destroyed by electric discharges and that the scientists would be surprised to see temperatures as hot as the Sun. Neither happened.
http://www.holosc...e-at-io/
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2012
"During this Io flyby, it appears the radiation did trigger an error of the onboard computer's memory, which put the spacecraft in a "safe mode," halting all non-essential activities while awaiting further commands from the ground. That occurred Sunday morning at 3:09 a.m Pacific time. Galileo engineers scrambled to prepare new commands to help the spacecraft work around the problem."

"It was a heroic effort to pull this off, "Erickson said. "The team diagnosed and corrected a problem we'd never come across before, and they put things back on track."

http://science.na...oct99_2/

Huh, looks as if something happened. BTW, to this day, the temperatures are still in question and have NOT been directly measured, regardless of your beliefs or which papers you reference.
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2012
Exactly. No one said the Io environment wasn't dangerous. Of course an SEU like this is evidence of one high-energy particle flipping a bit somewhere. Had the craft been disabled by an electric discharge instead, something would have fried. There'd be a broken circuit, and something would have been permanently broken. Luckily that's not what happened. You're wrong about the temperatures being still in question. Amongst legitimate scientists the controversy is settled. Even a decade ago, back when it wasn't settled, the highest estimates weren't over 2000 K, because evidence such as the lack of light in the violet channel provided a very hard upper limit. Compare this to a bolt of lightning at 30,000 K.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2012
It was a "transient bus reset" caused by an inadvertent short circuit. It was a problem that mission scientists had to create a software fix for and it continued to plague the mission after the incident. Also, it was this "safing" event that INTERRUPTED the UV data collection portion of this flyby, so it was less the fact the UV info didn't "show up", as you stated, but that it wasn't collected before the spacecraft was damaged by the event. It was due to several "safing" events that much of the data mission scientists had hoped to glean from the flybys of Io went uncollected. It's really quite amazing the number of problems Galileo had, even from the start of the mission, that the mission was as successful as it was.

Seems Mr. Thornhill's prediction about the spacecraft, although not perfect, was in retrospect quite accurate. Once DIRECT measurements of the temperatures of the plumes can be collected, we'll see about his other prediction.
A2G
5 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2012
Can't drive wrote. "And two, to correct the spurious claim by A2G that the vents were not moving, clearly an opinion not shared by NASA scientists."

They are not moving because of electricity in the way that plasma moves. They "moved" 75 miles in 20 Years. In what way does that prove the EU theory at all? When I said they are not moving, I meant in the sense a plasma moves. If these were electrically driven plasmas They could jump 75 miles in one second. That they are not doing. They are not jumping around as I have seen plasma do many times. That is what I was speaking of. The movement of a volcano over time is not any proof of the EU crap.

You do realize that the atmosphere of Io is one billion times less dense than the Earth, don't you? It is a vacuum chamber. So when the turbulence of the volcano generates great electrical charges you do not get lighting as we do here on earth. You get plasma.

Please go do some experiments yourself before you embarrass yourself anymore.
A2G
5 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
As you raise the pressure from high vacuum levels instead of plasma you start getting lighting like arcs. Many per second. Just as we see around volcanoes on earth. So low level vacuums such as on Io means plasma from a volcano and with higher pressure you get lighting as we see here on earth. So simple even an EU follower can get it.

Then why in the world does the high temp of the volcanoes on Io mean that the EU theory is correct? Have you eliminated all other possibilities for the high temp? No, you have not.

Then with the EU theory, why is there a planet Io in the first place. Did electricity form it? Of course not.

The EU guys are like the messenger who left in a hurry to deliver a message to a far away king. But the messenger was in such a hurry to deliver a message and get the glory, he left before he had any message. The king, to say the least, was unimpressed as are most all here who hear the EU theory.
A2G
5 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2012
Cantdrive85 wrote, "The volcanoes themselves are the hottest spots in the solar system with temperatures exceeding 1800 K (1527 C)

You do realize that lava here on earth gets as hot as 1600 C according to the "experts" on volcanoes?

SO what is the big deal with Io getting that hot?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2012
If Mt. St. Helens moved 75 miles since it's last eruption, I think that would make headline news even outside the science publications. The fact that they moved at all begs the question of whether or not it is a "volcano" in the traditional sense of the word. The question then arises, in conjunction with Mr. Peratt's findings in regards to the plasma focus discharge I mentioned earlier, if the phenomenon can be simply explained by that discovery. The link below describes the Birkeland currents that connect Jupiter and Io, it is likely that we are witnessing the electric energy flowing through those Birkeland currents interacting with the surface of the moon. Both the variability and persistence of the plumes can be explained by the plasma focus discharge. Oh, Io is definitely not in a vacuum, not only does it have an ionosphere and atmosphere, but the particle density is quite high so near Jupiter.
doi:10.1029/2002JA009514
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2012
I was under the impression you were "well informed" about the EUT. If you were, you would know full well that the EUT POV on solid body formation is an a process of electrical accretion of materials within the cores of stars and gas giants. Periodically when the electrical stress of this body reaches a threshold, it will be ejected from it's parent in a type of birthing event, possibly accompanied by an energetic nova type of event in stars and some other type of expression by the gas giants. This theory explains the layering of materials, the spherical aspect of planets and moons, and it can also explain odd moons such as Iapetus with it's equatorial (pinched) mountain range that makes the moon look like a Moki Ball. This is how Mother Nature operates biologically and atomically, why should we assume star/planet or gas giant/moon combinations originated differently?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2012
I did not write that statement, the entire thing was copy/paste from the NASA website I included, the surprise and astonishment was from the scientists involved in the mission.

To your latest point though, according to the USGS;
"Basalt has the highest temperature of any lava, typically between about 1170-1100°C (~2140-2000°F). The other lava types (andesite, dacite, and rhyolite) form cooler flows with temperatures between about 1000-800°C (~1800-1500°F); some flows can still move slowly at temperatures as low as about 600°C (~1100°F)."

http://volcanoes....ndex.php

I'm not sure where you got your info, but your claim is almost 50% higher than what the "experts" at the USGS have determined.

Galileo Mission scientists claimed temperatures to be possibly "at least 2000K", that would be almost twice as hot as lava on Earth, and present the need for a substantial explanation for the energetic displays.
Allex
5 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2012
I'm not sure where you got your info, but your claim is almost 50% higher than what the "experts" at the USGS have determined

Maybe you should listen to the experts a little closer and stop cherry-picking the data.

"Magmas of komatiite compositions have a very high melting point with calculated eruption temperatures in excess of 1600 °C. Basaltic lavas normally have eruption temperatures of about 1100 to 1250 °C."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2012
I'm not sure where you got your info, but your claim is almost 50% higher than what the "experts" at the USGS have determined

Maybe you should listen to the experts a little closer and stop cherry-picking the data.

"Magmas of komatiite compositions have a very high melting point with calculated eruption temperatures in excess of 1600 °C. Basaltic lavas normally have eruption temperatures of about 1100 to 1250 °C."

The key word to that statement is "calculated". That makes the assumption that the theory they based their calculations on is 100% correct. As stated previously, there is a natural mechanism that can readily produce the temperatures required to create what they describe as "some komatiite flows are essentially volcanic glass", that is electricity. They also go on about the komatiite that it follows dendritic channels (lichtenberg figures) and also displays dendritic patterns on the surface of the rock, all distinct traits of electric discharge.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2012
Galileo Mission scientists claimed temperatures to be possibly "at least 2000K", that would be almost twice as hot as lava on Earth, and present the need for a substantial explanation for the energetic displays. -cantdrive

No, they didn't. It doesn't seem like you are aware that there is a huge difference between "at least" and "at most," but in this case 2000 K was certainly the UPPER limit, and only for the initial, crudest estimates. The upper estimate declined with better analysis.
barakn
not rated yet Oct 24, 2012
It was a "transient bus reset" caused by an inadvertent short circuit. It was a problem that mission scientists had to create a software fix for and it continued to plague the mission after the incident.
Transient bus resets plagued Galileo YEARS BEFORE it arrived at Jupiter. http://files.seds...18-24.93 They plagued flybys of other moons, ones that for inexplicable reasons, the EU ignores. "Transient bus resets continue to occur up to several times each encounter, presumably induced by radiation exposure. The number of bus resets experienced in recent encounters is/are: Callisto 22-three, Callisto 23-one, Io 24-one, Io 25--two, Europa 26--two, Io 27--three, Ganymede 28--two." http://trs-new.jp...1743.pdf
Allex
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2012
That makes the assumption that the theory they based their calculations on is 100% correct.

'Calculated' means scientist have MELTED THE ROCKS IN A LAB and came up with a whole range of melting point temperatures (depending on the composition of komatiites). If that's an assumption to you, we have nothing to talk about.
there is a natural mechanism that can readily produce the temperatures required to create what they describe as "some komatiite flows are essentially volcanic glass"

Yep, it's called geothermal heating (the origin of which has more than one cause). I guess you can call it electricity if you presume that Earth is powered like a Duracel bunny.
it follows dendritic channels

Due to it's low viscosity komatiites produce finer flow structures than thick basaltic lavas. You try to present electric-powered lava flow as the only reasonable explanation? Seriously? XD

Guess we have a different idea about what's reasonable.
Allex
5 / 5 (1) Oct 24, 2012
Your way of reasoning and 'logic' reminds me of an ID proponent trying to fit 13,75 billion years into a 6000 years story of biblical creation. Sorry, some things just don't behave the way you would like them to behave. You can imagine electric powered universe the same way they imagine the Universe being created within 6 days and reject everything that doesn't fit your nice little idea. That's not how science works and no 'open your eyes' pleading will change the rules of nature.

You seem to worship electricity as some sort of deity and the Electric Universe Hypothesis like scripture. O_o Something is seriously wrong here...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
I guess the two trillion watts of electric energy NASA claims is created by Io orbiting through Jupiter's plasma torus is just a figment of their imagination.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2012
Also, it was this "safing" event that INTERRUPTED the UV data collection portion of this flyby, so it was less the fact the UV info didn't "show up", as you stated, but that it wasn't collected before the spacecraft was damaged by the event.

You're probably talking about this: "Io 27 - A series of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) scans of the Io plasma torus and Jupiter, planned as a final observation for I27, had to be curtailed because of yet another spacecraft safing event" http://history.na...4231.pdf We see two important things here. First, you are apparently unaware of the difference between violet light (visible spectrum) and EUV (some scientists regard this as the low end of the x-ray spectrum). Good thing the violet data was collected so they didn't need the EUV data. But even had they successfully gotten it, it wouldn't have been of much use for this discussion, as the EUV wasn't pointed at the right thing anyway. Do you ever get anything right?
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2012
Seems Mr. Thornhill's prediction about the spacecraft, although not perfect, was in retrospect quite accurate. Once DIRECT measurements of the temperatures of the plumes can be collected, we'll see about his other prediction.
The spacecraft and flight designers anticipated the harsh Jovian environment decades before the encounter, heavily shielding the spacecraft against radiation. "No Io encounters were planned for the Prime Mission (besides the flyby on Arrival Day) because mission scientists feared that the high radiation levels so close to Jupiter could damage the spacecraft and possibly end the project." http://history.na...4231.pdf (page 231) So the risk was old news - Thornhill simply exaggerated known dangers. His dire warning was that even just two flybys were too dangerous. Galileo survived 6 flybys of Io - a complete failure of Wal Thornhill's prediction.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 24, 2012
I guess the two trillion watts of electric energy NASA claims is created by Io orbiting through Jupiter's plasma torus is just a figment of their imagination.

Strawman argument. No one said there wasn't a large current there. Try to keep on track - we're discussing your well-debunked claim of active electromachining of Io in places where there is instead obvious volcanic activity.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
Noticing that many of these volcanic vents are surrounded by deposits of almost pure sulfur, whereas most of the surface of Io is composed of silicate rock similar to basalt, I looked up the electrical resistance of the two materials (at room temp). Sulfur is 2 x10^15 Ohm*m, whereas the upper range for basalt is ~10^11 Ohm*m. How is it, dear cantdrive85, that the electrical currents responsible for this machining seek out material that is a 20,000x better insulator than surrounding materials? Your "theory" is rotten to the core, and it's starting to stink.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2012
"Galileo detected electrical currents flowing along magnetic field lines above two areas of volcanic activity on Io, Kivelson said. Material shot high from eruptions is apparently affecting conductivity more than 100 kilometers (about 60 miles) above the surface."

http://www.jpl.na...240.html

They, as you, apparently don't understand that electric currents must flow in closed circuits, those currents following field lines must go some place, the evidence is being etched in the surface of Io.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2012
Bullshit. Now you're denying some well beloved EU tenets - namely, that two celestial objects with opposing electrical charges (or one just more weakly charged than the other) when passing each other will experience an electric discharge between them. Since it is an electric discharge, it is a current, but since there's no return current it is not a continuous current but a pulse. Putting aside your ignorance of EU theory, you also made the assumption that the return current for the "100 kilometer" current mentioned above must involve Io's surface, but have offered no proof. The return current could be anywhere within the Jove-Io space.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2012
I'm not sure what you're talking about, here you have two bodies passing each other continuously (in orbit), and they're experiencing electric discharge... Continuously. In the case that you're referring to, a collision or near collision would produce the pulse event you are mentioning, although even in that case the objects will create a circuit even if it's temporary. However if the object was large enough with enough electric potential the discharge may take hours, days, or possibly longer.
I'm not making any assumptions about these currents, the statement from NASA described the connection, "Material shot high from eruptions is apparently affecting conductivity".
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
You categorically stated "electric currents must flow in closed circuits," and I provided a counterexample proving you wrong.

Separately, you stated "I'm not making any assumptions about these currents, the statement from NASA described the connection." But that contradicts something you said before "those currents following field lines must go some place, the evidence is being etched in the surface of Io." There, you just assumed that the current was going to Io's surface, even though you just said you weren't making any assumptions. I don't think you're a liar. It's that you're way in over your head and you have no idea what you're talking about.
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
Also, if the activity on Io is due to electrical machining, then why isn't the same thing occurring the other 3 large Jovian moons? What makes them immune? I know it's not fair to tack that on, considering that you haven't adequately parried any of my other challenges yet, but I don't care. Do your damn homework instead of incessantly raving about currents and circuits.

More news stories

Cosmologists weigh cosmic filaments and voids

(Phys.org) —Cosmologists have established that much of the stuff of the universe is made of dark matter, a mysterious, invisible substance that can't be directly detected but which exerts a gravitational ...

Hubble image: A cross-section of the universe

An image of a galaxy cluster taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope gives a remarkable cross-section of the Universe, showing objects at different distances and stages in cosmic history. They range ...

Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers

(Phys.org) —Four freshmen at the University of Pennsylvania have taken Apple's personal assistant Siri to behave as a graduate-level executive assistant which, when asked, is capable of adjusting the temperature ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

Deadly human pathogen Cryptococcus fully sequenced

Within each strand of DNA lies the blueprint for building an organism, along with the keys to its evolution and survival. These genetic instructions can give valuable insight into why pathogens like Cryptococcus ne ...