NASA issues 'remastered' view of Jupiter's moon Europa

November 21, 2014, NASA
The puzzling, fascinating surface of Jupiter's icy moon Europa looms large in this newly-reprocessed color view, made from images taken by NASA's Galileo spacecraft in the late 1990s. This is the color view of Europa from Galileo that shows the largest portion of the moon's surface at the highest resolution. The view was previously released as a mosaic with lower resolution and strongly enhanced color. To create this new version, the images were assembled into a realistic color view of the surface that approximates how Europa would appear to the human eye. The scene shows the stunning diversity of Europa's surface geology. Long, linear cracks and ridges crisscross the surface, interrupted by regions of disrupted terrain where the surface ice crust has been broken up and re-frozen into new patterns. Color variations across the surface are associated with differences in geologic feature type and location. For example, areas that appear blue or white contain relatively pure water ice, while reddish and brownish areas include non-ice components in higher concentrations. The polar regions, visible at the left and right of this view, are noticeably bluer than the more equatorial latitudes, which look more white. This color variation is thought to be due to differences in ice grain size in the two locations. Images taken through near-infrared, green and violet filters have been combined to produce this view. The images have been corrected for light scattered outside of the image, to provide a color correction that is calibrated by wavelength. Gaps in the images have been filled with simulated color based on the color of nearby surface areas with similar terrain types. This global color view consists of images acquired by the Galileo Solid-State Imaging (SSI) experiment on the spacecraft's first and fourteenth orbits through the Jupiter system, in 1995 and 1998, respectively. Image scale is 2 miles (1.6 kilometers) per pixel. North on Europa is at right. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SETI Institute

(Phys.org) —Scientists have produced a new version of what is perhaps NASA's best view of Jupiter's ice-covered moon, Europa. The mosaic of color images was obtained in the late 1990s by NASA's Galileo spacecraft. This is the first time that NASA is publishing a version of the scene produced using modern image processing techniques.

This view of Europa stands out as the color view that shows the largest portion of the moon's surface at the highest resolution.

An earlier, lower-resolution version of the view, published in 2001, featured colors that had been strongly enhanced. The new image more closely approximates what the human eye would see. Space imaging enthusiasts have produced their own versions of the view using the publicly available data, but NASA has not previously issued its own rendition using near-natural color.

The image features many long, curving and linear fractures in the moon's bright ice shell. Scientists are eager to learn if the reddish-brown fractures, and other markings spattered across the surface, contain clues about the geological history of Europa and the chemistry of the global that is thought to exist beneath the ice.

In addition to the newly processed image, a new video details why this likely ocean world is a high priority for future exploration.

Hidden beneath Europa's icy surface is perhaps the most promising place in our solar system beyond Earth to look for present-day environments that are suitable for life. The Galileo mission found strong evidence that a subsurface ocean of salty water is in contact with a rocky seafloor. The cycling of material between the ocean and shell could potentially provide sources of chemical energy that could sustain simple life forms.

Scientists believe there is an ocean hidden beneath the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. NASA-JPL astrobiologist Kevin Hand explains why scientists are so excited about the potential of this ice-covered world to answer one of humanity's most profound questions.

The Galileo mission was managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, for the agency's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

Explore further: Rover under-ice prototype may lead to Europa search

Related Stories

Rover under-ice prototype may lead to Europa search

June 25, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have been working on a device that may one day explore the underside of ice on Europa, Jupiter's moon. NASA completed an early prototype of the rover it hopes ...

Faraway moon mimics Earth tectonics

September 7, 2014

Jupiter's icy moon Europa may have active tectonic plates similar to those that shape the Earth, which had long been thought unique in this respect, scientists said Sunday.

Mapping the chemistry needed for life at Europa

April 5, 2013

(Phys.org) —A new paper led by a NASA researcher shows that hydrogen peroxide is abundant across much of the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. The authors argue that if the peroxide on the surface of Europa mixes into the ...

US plans to answer the lure of Europa

November 10, 2014

To planetary scientists Jupiter's icy moon Europa is a Siren, calling out to them across the solar system. With its youthful surface, abundance of water and the tantalising evidence of a moon-wide ocean – it is one of ...

Recommended for you

Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy

August 17, 2018

Are magnetic fields an important guiding force for gas accreting to a supermassive black hole (SMBH) like the one that our Milky Way galaxy hosts? The role of magnetic fields in gas accretion is little understood, and trying ...

First science with ALMA's highest-frequency capabilities

August 17, 2018

The ALMA telescope in Chile has transformed how we see the universe, showing us otherwise invisible parts of the cosmos. This array of incredibly precise antennas studies a comparatively high-frequency sliver of radio light: ...

Another way for stellar-mass black holes to grow larger

August 17, 2018

A trio of researchers with The University of Hong Kong, Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics in Taiwan and Northwestern University in the U.S., has come up with an alternative theory to explain how some ...

Six things about Opportunity's recovery efforts

August 17, 2018

NASA's Opportunity rover has been silent since June 10, when a planet-encircling dust storm cut off solar power for the nearly-15-year-old rover. Now that scientists think the global dust storm is "decaying"—meaning more ...

42 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2014
Awesome. I recall when these images first came out; we were treated to a presentation by a scientist from JPL and a planetary astronomer from our local organization explaining (and occasionally wrangling about!) the details available at that time.

This is important for planning future missions to the Jovian system. There's a great deal of science to be done there.
Expiorer
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014
There is no great tidal energy on Europa, because its Rotation period is synchronous. The same as our moon it has always the same side faced to Jupiter. So basically the great Jupiters pull is always in the same direction. And its axial tilt is only 0.1° that means the tides will have a very small amplitude with a period of 3.5 days (orbital period).
If I could move 0.1° every 3 days I would freeze to death :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014
You forgot the other moons, you forgot the Sun, and you forgot that Europa's orbit is eccentric.
Skepticus
5 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2014
Pictures, pictures, and more bleeding pictures! The whole "exploration" business is nearly all sight-seeing. I want real spaceships and probes, not the asthmatic crap out there. A picture is worth a thousand words, ...A real spaceship will reach a THOUSAND WORLD!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2014
What must be the heat source, which can maintain a liquid ocean under the thick ice shell of the moon Europe?

Keep in mind the existence of this ocean is purely hypothetical, the question maybe be as significant as why Pegasus has wings.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2014
@ren
Tidal forces generate heat through fiction. Like dough being kneed.
It is not 100 percent positive that it is an ocean and it may be more of a slush because of the energy questions you asked, but it is believed that there is enough heat being generated for water and better measurements in the future will say for certain.
All those orbital questions have been derived from calculations, you could just Google it.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2014
"Keep in mind the existence of this ocean is purely hypothetical, the question maybe be as significant as why Pegasus has wings."
-------------------------------------

There maybe more evidence than you think:
https://solarsyst...ence.cfm
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014


"Keep in mind the existence of this ocean is purely hypothetical, the question maybe be as significant as why Pegasus has wings."

There maybe more evidence than you think:
https://solarsyst...ence.cfm


The usual story about the weakest force in nature is the reason for everything, including magnetic fields. It's quite laughable, and when you look a bit closer it falls apart quickly.

http://photojourn...0275.jpg

Then there are the Flexus or cycloids which clearly aren't broken icebergs.

http://pirlwww.lp...id3b.gif

Compare the above claims to this simple experiment;

http://www.thunde...uter.m4v

and the close up

http://www.thunde...ball.jpg

and action shots;

https://www.thund...ropa.htm
gkam
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2014
What is the above argument with videos supposed to say?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014
The surface features are not caused by gravity but electric discharge machining. Just as the video/images show.
gkam
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2014
Electrostatics does not keep me on the ground. Does it keep you on the ground?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2014
That's a pretty silly comment. Gravity does what it does, electric discharge does what it does.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2014
There is no great tidal energy on Europa, because its Rotation period is synchronous.
Incorrect.

See http://en.wikiped...er#Moons where it says:
The orbits of Io, Europa, and Ganymede, some of the largest satellites in the Solar System, form a pattern known as a Laplace resonance ... This resonance causes the gravitational effects of the three large moons to distort their orbits into elliptical shapes … The eccentricity of their orbits causes regular flexing of the three moons' shapes, with Jupiter's gravity stretching them out as they approach it and allowing them to spring back to more spherical shapes as they swing away. This tidal flexing heats the moons' interiors by friction.

As far as 'great tidal energy', its greatest for the innermost moon, Io, and it results in "extraordinary volcanic activity."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2014
As far as 'great tidal energy', its greatest for the innermost moon, Io, and it results in "extraordinary volcanic activity."


You mean the ones that are in the wrong place?

http://www.nasa.g...KNYvF8xA

Sure, volcanoes. Some of which travel great distances, such as Prometheus which has migrated at least 85km since we have been observing...

http://www.planet...eus.html

The tidal hypothesis doesn't pass the smell test.

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2014
You mean the ones that are in the wrong place?

They're in perfectly the right place, highlighting what makes the volcanic activity "extraordinary".

Cool links, though, thanks.

The tidal hypothesis doesn't pass the smell test

If you're referring to the eastward offset "that can't be reconciled with existing solid body tidal heating models" smell the next few lines where it says:
Possibilities to explain the offset include a faster than expected rotation for Io, an interior structure that permits magma to travel significant distances from where the most heating occurs to the points where it is able erupt on the surface, or a missing component in existing tidal heating models, like fluid tides from an underground magma ocean, according to the team
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2014
You mean the ones that are in the wrong place?

They're in perfectly the right place, highlighting what makes the volcanic activity "extraordinary".

Cool links, though, thanks.

The tidal hypothesis doesn't pass the smell test

If you're referring to the eastward offset "that can't be reconciled with existing solid body tidal heating models" smell the next few lines where it says:
Possibilities to explain the offset include a faster than expected rotation for Io, an interior structure that permits magma to travel significant distances from where the most heating occurs to the points where it is able erupt on the surface, or a missing component in existing tidal heating models, like fluid tides from an underground magma ocean, according to the team

How can you go wrong with an infinitely adjustable theory that cannot be falsified. No comment on the magical volcano Prometheus?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2014
"Extraordinary" is not 'magical', CD85

When an object passes too close to Jupiter, within Jupiter's Roche limit, the tidal forces pull it to pieces, e.g., Shoemaker–Levy 9
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2014
And nobody postulating that occurrence has been able to explain why that comet's debris arranged itself in a line with more or less even spacing between the separate objects. And there is no evidence Io is disintegrating.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2014
And nobody postulating that occurrence has been able to explain why that comet's debris arranged itself in a line with more or less even spacing between the separate objects. And there is no evidence Io is disintegrating.

Forgot to include the link.

http://en.wikiped...5-17.png
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2014
And nobody postulating that occurrence has been able to explain why that comet's debris arranged itself in a line with more or less even spacing between the separate objects.
You're saying to everyone that you have been unable to find any explanations. From the link on Shoemaker-Levy 9 (above) we can infer there's at least one, and it's backed up with calculations. Quoting:
Calculations showed that its unusual fragmented form was due to a previous closer approach to Jupiter in July 1992. At that time, the orbit of Shoemaker–Levy 9 passed within Jupiter's Roche limit, and Jupiter's tidal forces had acted to pull apart the comet. The comet was later observed as a series of fragments ranging up to 2 km (1.2 mi) in diameter. These fragments collided with Jupiter's southern hemisphere between July 16 and July 22, 1994, at a speed of approximately 60 km/s (37 mi/s) or 216,000 km/h (134,000 mph).
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2014
And there is no evidence Io is disintegrating.

Correct, who suggested it was? But then its orbit doesn't take it within Jupiter's Roche limit. That doesn't change the likelihood that a fair sub-surface portion of Io is in a liquid (molten) state—from the intense tidal heating. Quoting from the Tidal Heating section of the link you provided on Prometheus:
This causes Io's surface to rise and fall by about 100 meters (300 ft). (The highest ocean tides on Earth only reach about 18 meters (60 ft)).
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2014
But then its orbit doesn't take it within Jupiter's Roche limit.
I had to check --

Io density: 3,500 kg/m3
Jupiter density: 1,326 kg/m3
Jupiter radius: 71,492,000 m
Io distance at periapsis: 420,000,000 m

The Roche limit for Io (assuming its a rigid spherical satellite) is the distance where the gravitational force on a test mass at the surface of Io is equal to the tidal force pulling the mass away from Io, given by
d = 1.26 R_J cube-root(p_J / p_I)
where R_J is radius of Jupiter, p_J is density of Jupiter, and p_I is density of Io, so:
d = (1.26)(71492000)*cube-root(1326/3500) = 65,180,820 m
Hence, Io mean orbital radius / Roche limit = 421,700,000 m / 65,180,820 m = 647%
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2014
Gravity cannot apply differential force to an object that small.
Rubbish. In the case of a binary star system where one star is accreting mass from the other, the force of gravity from the two different sources can be seen working on objects no larger than a hydrogen ion.
Volcanic craters aren't mobile.
The conditions on Io are dynamic, to put it mildly. The volcanic activity is "extraordinary" and the geologic activity is "extreme". Prometheus is a volcanic eruption that has been happening continuously since at least 1979 when Voyager 1 flew by providing data. The visible plume occurs where the advancing edge of the lava flow meets the sulfur dioxide frost on the surface. The plume has been observed by both Voyager missions, and also by the Galileo and New Horizon missions.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2014
Your second example is more rubbish than your first as an Ion will move due to a magnetic field before gravity all day.
Look closely, and make sure you read and understand the caption. Then google "RLOF mass transfer" while I ROFL for a bit...
http://en.wikiped...eled.gif
saposjoint
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2014
A new troll. How refreshing. Not.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2014
Why would you correlate mass transfer in a triple star system with a comet passing by a planet? Yeesh. We are still discussing your rediculous hypothesis about Shoemaker Levi right? Just admit that it was a bad example and move on.

Gravity is neither a correlation nor a hypothesis. With enough mass it'll turn your H2 to He, despite the electromagnetic repulsion between protons (hydrogen ions), all day. The discussion was about tidal heating, the range and conditions associated with it, and the very exciting implications it has regarding the possibility of a huge subsurface ocean on Europa and the even more exciting possibility its a suitable environment for lifeforms.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2014
Gravity is neither a correlation nor a hypothesis. With enough mass it'll turn your H2 to He, despite the electromagnetic repulsion between protons (hydrogen ions), all day.


Nothing but hypothesis there, nobody has ever created fusion using gravity.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2014
Nothing but hypothesis there, nobody has ever created fusion using gravity.
Nobody ever created stars using gravity yet there they shine. All words and no maths, CD85. Do the maths on electromagnetism and gravity for the central object in our galaxy—the light of millions of suns was/is no match for the force of gravity from their combined mass (estimated to be 4.31 million solar masses). They can't been seen but we know they're still there from the effect of their mass on nearby stars. Keep it up CD, and I'll be forced to post a link showing plasma raining down onto the sun, from gravity, when those imaginary magnetic field lines reconnect and a flux tube dumps tons of it. Did you know there's a flux tube between Jupiter and Io?

@saposjoint, yup, an EU sock I think, don't have my glasses but looks like "Electric Universe" embroidered across the toes, knows just enough about ions to be disruptive in a physics forum.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2014
Nothing but hypothesis there, nobody has ever created fusion using gravity
no one has created fusion using the principles of the eu either, spark boy

and considering that your model of the sun fails entirely to make predictions or explain as much as the modern mainstream models do, then i suggest taking some actual physics and learning why you eu acolytes continue to epically fail at explaining and predicting anything

for a lesson about the shortcomings of your electric star model... try reading up on the references that Thompson gives here: http://www.tim-th...sun.html

maybe you will learn a little something
personally, i would prefer you tried to meet John Bahcall face to face...
36 references (minimum)
including plasma physics resources

each reference with far more empirical evidence than your entire site of eu pseudoscience
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

learn some real science for once

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2014
Nobody ever created stars using gravity yet there they shine. All words and no maths, CD85.

And nobody ever will, therein lies the advantage of a non-falsifiable theory. All maths, no substance.

Do the maths on electromagnetism and gravity for the central object in our galaxy—the light of millions of suns was/is no match for the force of gravity from their combined mass (estimated to be 4.31 million solar masses).


Even the imaginary million or billions of "solar masses" does not trump the electric force which is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity.

Did you know there's a flux tube between Jupiter and Io?

Yes, I'm aware there is an 3 million amp electric current which connects Jupiter and Io. It is the source of the plasma gun effect which creates the electric discharge that others call "volcanoes".
http://plasmauniv...sler.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014
no one has created fusion using the principles of the eu either, spark boy


This is completely false, you are wrong as usual. Eric Lerner, author of 'The Big Bang Never Happened', has in fact created fusion using those exact principles. He is also quite close (few years) to producing a commercially viable cheap, abundant, and clean power generation using these principles.
http://lawrencevi...ics.com/

BTW, Mr. Lerner's processes, which he has produced peer-reviewed research on, shows that TT is wrong. The processes which TT claims "violates all laws of physics" are alive and well in Mr. Lerner's laboratory. TT doesn't know one iota about electric discharge, as such he just waves his hands and says "that's impossible". Poor ignorant fool...

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014

And nobody ever will, therein lies the advantage of a non-falsifiable theory. All maths, no substance.


Actually if GR were wrong GPS systems would not function properly, It's also been verified by time differences in atomic clocks flown in airplanes vs. ground ones. Even clocks that run in orbit run faster than those on the ground. Is there a mechanism in EU to account for this? It was verified by the perihelion precession of Mercury, deflection of light by the sun, gravitational redshift of light, gravitational lensing, light travel time delay as seen in space probes to a .002% level of agreement, the equivalence principle...the list is literally too long for the post.

If the EU were correct the sun would produce no neutrinos...it does. If the EU were correct the sun wouldn't emit in a continuous spectrum of light, but it does. We've never observed stars "giving birth" to each other, but rather protoplanetary disks and young protostars in their centers, again too long.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 26, 2014
If the EU were correct the sun would produce no neutrinos...

This is completely false conjecture by someone who doesn't have a clue about the electric sun hypothesis. There is fusion on the Sun, there is no dispute there, the increase of neutrinos during solar flares/CME's actually supports the EU view on neutrino production.

If the EU were correct the sun wouldn't emit in a continuous spectrum of light, but it does.

Plasma processes are responsible for the EM spectrum.

We've never observed stars "giving birth" to each other,


As we have never observed star coalescing out of a cloud.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014
This is completely false conjecture by someone who doesn't have a clue about the electric sun hypothesis. There is fusion on the Sun, there is no dispute there, the increase of neutrinos during solar flares/CME's actually supports the EU view on neutrino production.


No, it doesn't at all. It completely supports fusion and nothing else...period.

Plasma processes are responsible for the EM spectrum.


I said a continuous spectrum. Maybe you should read a little more about your own theory.

As we have never observed star coalescing out of a cloud.


That's like saying we've never observed a volcano from its subsurface formation to its eruption through the crust. We haven't, we've just observed EVERY single step in the process looking at different places at different times.

I noticed you completely ignored the profs for relativity. Does the EU actually make any predictions? If so what are they?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2014
This is completely false, you are wrong as usual. Eric Lerner, author of 'The Big Bang Never Happened', has in fact created fusion using those exact principles
@cd
well, except for his own site http://lawrencevi...summary/ actually states something different
...published our paper describing proof that we achieved two of the three conditions required to fuse hydrogen-boron and produce net energy (more released than put in)
so that means he has NOT completed all three, therefore he has NOT done what you claim... oops
sorry, retard
shows that TT is wrong
can you show SPECIFICALLY where he is proven wrong? after all, Thompson is using empirical data from proven studies as well, including plasma physics... where has Lerner proven Thompson wrong?

feel free to be very specific so that we know exactly what you are referring to and how it violates the laws of physics
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014
No, it doesn't at all. It completely supports fusion and nothing else...period.


And fusion also occurs in the Electric Sun model...period. It occurs at the surface and handily fits the observations of the variability of the neutrino data such as the influx during flares/CME's.

I said a continuous spectrum. Maybe you should read a little more about your own theory.


Once again, not a problem for an electrodynamic glow discharge, unlike the simple electrostatic model you must referring to..

http://www.kronos...ic-i.htm

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014
@cd
well, except for his own site http://lawrencevi...summary/ actually states something different

...published our paper describing proof that we achieved two of the three conditions required to fuse hydrogen-boron and produce net energy (more released than put in)


As usual your stupidity is getting in the way. The difference is "and produce net energy", the fusion part has already happened at that is what was being disputed. The "and produce net energy" part is why I mentioned "he is also quite close (few years) to producing...".

You always seem to be several steps behind the conversation, hence your call name Cap'n Stupid.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014
epic science fail, What do you think a Tokamek is?
@reset-TROLL
plasma physics, which is a part of modern physics and astrophysics
1- eu is not based upon the laws of physics, nor is it written by physicists with knowledge of the laws required for astrophysical observations... it is written by engineers
2- eu is based upon SOME lab experiments in plasma physics which do NOT translate to reality (see their attempt to explain the grand canyon/moon craters by plasma discharge rather than observed known phenomenon)
3- as for empirical evidence and peer review... and checking the math... if you would review the eu files, you would see that the predominant amount of info they published is either outright incorrect (violating the laws of physics) or not peer reviewed (as in published in engineering mag's, not astrophysics) in order to get away from being debunked too fast and retracted

either learn http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
or promote PSEUDOSCIENCE like eu
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2014
You always seem to be several steps behind the conversation, hence your call name Cap'n Stupid
@cd
AAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA

i am not the one making claims that plasma discharge forged the grand canyon and moon craters without ANY empirical evidence !!

you also like to say how the eu explains everything (except that it can't)
it makes more predictions that have FAILED than been correct (but i noticed you like to delete those FAILED predictions so that it doesn't show your epic failures of eu)
it also violates the laws of physics (which Tim Thompson already showed you but you ignored)
and lastly, but the best of all... you made claims that modern astrophysicists don't know about plasma physics which is directly refuted EVERY time you say it, as well as proven time and again to be false

what is it this time, eh?
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2014
@reset - Io's tidally deformed shape was visible from Voyager images and further refined by imaging and Doppler tracking during the Galileo mission. To argue against direct observational evidence is sad and pathetic. Also estimates of the Roche limit are easy enough to calculate on a napkin and as such are a common staple of undergrad astrophysics classes. I have personally witnessed physicists write these calculations on a chalk board. Your claim that you "never met a single physicist who believes rigid bodies in a vaccuum have a "Roche limit"" suggests to me that that you've either never met a single physicist or you are a liar.
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2014
I will wait patiently for that paper. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2014
Io's tidally deformed shape was visible from Voyager images and further refined by imaging and Doppler tracking during the Galileo mission. To argue against direct observational evidence is sad and pathetic.


Then surely it will be easy enough for you to produce such info, strangely your claims directly contradict the statements made of this site;

http://lasp.color...lean.php

where it says;

"Although there is no direct evidence of tectonic activity on Io, scientists feel confident it exists..."

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.