Posted on 03/07/2005 7:21:10 PM PST by DannyTN
What Is Melting the Ice on Enceladus? 03/04/2005
When Cassini flew by Enceladus from 730 miles up on Feb. 15, scientists were hoping it would reveal the secret of its active surface. As is common in planetary science, the mystery only deepened (click here for photo gallery). The surface showed a complex mix of canyons, ridges and spots that suggest a taffy pulling machine has been at work: whatever flowed, it appears to have been thick and viscous.
Richard A. Kerr in Science1 agreed that the little Saturnian ice ball has become “stranger still.” He mentions the first of two puzzles that have deepened with the latest high-resolution photos. One is that Enceladus is not in any tidal resonance with other moons that could generate the interior heat necessary for cryovolcanism. Unless scientists can infer enough radioactive decay in a possible rocky core, how could this little moon, that should long ago have frozen solid throughout, generate such exotic topography? (By contrast, nearby Tethys, with six times the mass, is mostly covered with craters.)
The other mystery is the nature of the viscous material. Scientists had hoped to detect ammonia that might have mixed with the water ice to lower its melting point and give it more viscosity. But now, it is reported in the JPL employee newsletter Universe (02/25/2005), the infrared mapper detected almost pure water ice: “Ammonia or ammonium compounds and carbon dioxide were expected, but not seen in the data.” Dr. Robert N. Clark said the spectra looked as pure as laboratory-fabricated water ice.
So Enceladus joins Europa, Io, Ganymede, Miranda, Triton and other moons with evidence of recent surface activity. Scientists eagerly await another look, even closer (from 310 miles), next Wednesday, March 9.
Most planetary scientists are very honest with their data and glad to find new puzzles to solve. But born and bred on billions of years, they just cannot seem to shake out of the world-picture they have grown to feel comfortable with, that of slow, gradual processes over vast ages, even when the data points are poking them in the back. Some of them would not dare to think of shrinking the timeline of the solar system for fear of incurring the wrath of the Darwin Party (that needs the time; see the story of Lord Kelvin).
But what if these bodies are really young after all? Can’t we at least expand our minds and consider the possibility? It sure would fit the observations better. Planetary scientists glibly toss around the Ma (mega-annum, million years) like this example in the Kerr’s article: “All in all, large parts of Enceladus have suffered ‘fairly energetic events fairly recently,’ perhaps less than 100 million years ago” – as if they knew that, or as if 100 million years is “recent”. 100 million years is a long, long, long time; all the major mountain ranges on Earth are said to be far younger in their scheme, for comparison. Yet 100 million years is only 1/50 of the timeline taught without hint of controversy in all the textbooks.
If these phenomena look young, so be it; don’t force-fit the observations into a predetermined timeline where the data points look funny all clustered near the recent end. A million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you’re talking real funny.
You are correct. I forgot about my fascist and conspiratorial assumptions. This is the effect of being subverted by the imperialist and capitalist pigs in this country.
Will you forgive me if I give a big contribution of capitalist, Nazi greenbacks (as putrid as they are) to Greenpeace, Peta, ELF or Hezbolla?
Hillary in '08
:)
Well, first of all, people should avoid frozen enceladus like the plague.
Enceladus should be prepared from fresh ingredients, and served piping hot, topped with red and green chile.
LOL and why is it that microwave enceladas are always piping hot on the ends and still frozen in the middle?
Reminiscent of the envirowackos spinning everything as proof of global warming. - cake_crumb
It's not as bad as the way evolutionists try to spin everything for evolution. There are far fewer creationists spinning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.