4.5 Article

Enceladus: A hypothesis for bringing both heat and chemicals to the surface

期刊

ICARUS
卷 221, 期 1, 页码 53-62

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.05.031

关键词

Enceladus; Geological processes; Geophysics; Interiors

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The eruptive plumes and large heat flow (similar to 15 GW) observed by Cassini in the South Polar Region of Enceladus may be expressions of hydrothermal activity inside Enceladus. We hypothesize that a subsurface ocean is the heat reservoir for thermal anomalies on the surface and the source of heat and chemicals necessary for the plumes. The ocean is believed to contain dissolved gases, mostly CO2 and is found to be relatively warm (similar to 0 degrees C). Regular tidal forces open cracks in the icy crust above the ocean. Ocean water fills these fissures. There, the conditions are met for the upward movement of water and the dissolved gases to exsolve and form bubbles, lowering the bulk density of the water column and making the pressure at its bottom less than that at the top of the ocean. This pressure difference drives ocean water into and up the conduits toward the surface. This transportation mechanism supports the thermal anomalies and delivers heat and chemicals to the chambers from which the plumes erupt. Water enters these chambers and there its bubbles pop and loft an aerosol mist into the ullage. The exiting plume gas entrains some of these small droplets. Thus, nonvolatile chemical species in ocean water can be present in the plume particles. A CO2 equivalent-gas molar fraction of similar to 4 x 10(-4) for the ocean is sufficient to support the circulation. A source of heat is needed to keep the ocean warm at similar to 0 degrees C (about two degrees above its freezing point). The source of heat is unknown, but our hypothesis is not dependent on any particular mechanism for producing the heat. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据