pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14374 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP

Thermophysical Properties of Europa's Surface Constrained by Galileo Photopolarimeter-Radiometer Temperature Measurements

L. Lange , S. Piqueux , P. O. Hayne , C. Mergny , A. Le Gall , F. Schmidt , J. Rathbun , J. Spencer
show 5 more authors
K. Sorli S. Howes C. Howett C.S. Edwards P.R. Christensen
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 11:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP
keywords Europathermal inertiaporous regolithsputteringsinteringGalileo PPRicy satellitesurface temperatures
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galileo temperature maps show Europa's icy regolith averages 0.61 porosity with grain sizes from micrometers to centimeters.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Reanalysis of the full Galileo Photopolarimeter-Radiometer brightness-temperature dataset produces new maps of Europa's Bond albedo and thermal inertia. The mean thermal inertia of 56 tiu fits porous-ice conductivity models that return an average porosity of 0.61 and grain sizes spanning micrometers to centimeters. Spatial variations in thermal inertia track predicted sputtering rates from Jupiter's magnetosphere more closely than they track visible geological units. This match identifies sputtering-driven sintering as the dominant control on grain growth and porosity at the surface. The derived properties also supply temperature bounds from 67 K to 148 K that can guide interpretation of upcoming orbiter data.

Core claim

The paper establishes that Europa's surface thermal inertia, averaging 56 pm 17 tiu with an equatorial low-inertia band and higher values at mid-latitudes and on the trailing hemisphere, corresponds to a porous icy regolith of average porosity 0.61 pm 0.1 and grain sizes from micrometers to centimeters, where the observed inertia pattern aligns with sputtering rates and thereby identifies sputtering-driven sintering as the primary process shaping regolith microphysical properties rather than geological units or electron-driven sintering.

What carries the argument

KRC thermal model fits to PPR brightness temperatures, interpreted through porous-ice conductivity models that link thermal inertia directly to grain size and porosity.

If this is right

  • Thermal inertia correlates weakly with geological units except for elevated values in the Pwyll ejecta.
  • Sputtering-driven sintering dominates surface grain growth while electron-driven sintering is inefficient.
  • Temperature-gradient metamorphism can still enhance grain growth at depth.
  • Surface temperatures range between 67 K and 148 K.
  • The microphysical constraints supply a reference for analyzing thermal data from Europa Clipper and JUICE.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same sputtering-sintering link may set regolith properties on other icy bodies exposed to energetic particle fluxes.
  • High-resolution thermal maps from future orbiters could test whether local grain-size variations directly follow the predicted sputtering distribution.
  • The inferred porosity range may affect volatile retention and the ease with which subsurface material reaches the surface.

Load-bearing premise

Thermal inertia variations reflect only changes in ice grain size and porosity, with negligible lateral heat flow or compositional effects.

What would settle it

In-situ measurements of grain size and porosity at several surface sites that show no systematic match to the thermal inertia values predicted by the porous-ice models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14374 by A. Le Gall, C. Howett, C. Mergny, C.S. Edwards, F. Schmidt, J. Rathbun, J. Spencer, K. Sorli, L. Lange, P. O. Hayne, P.R. Christensen, S. Howes, S. Piqueux.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of a temperature map generated using PPR measure￾ments from the sequence I25DRKMAP01. Background is the USGS Europa Voyager-Galileo SSI Global Mosaic of Europa (Becker et al. 2010). mal model (Kieffer 2013). KRC computes surface temperatures based on the balance between absorbed solar flux, thermal emis￾sion to space, and conduction into the subsurface: ϵσSBT 4 surf = (1 − A)Fsolar + I r π P ∂… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: a). Once the albedo and thermal inertia have been de￾rived for each daytime/nighttime observation pair, the final sur￾face albedo and thermal inertia are computed as the median val￾ues over the full set of retrieved solutions. The uncertainty on these quantities is estimated at the 3σ level as the maximum dif￾ference between the median values and the albedo/thermal iner￾tia solutions derived at the boundar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Bond albedo (a) and thermal inertia (b) maps derived from PPR measurements in this study. Background is the USGS Europa Voyager￾Galileo SSI Global Mosaic of Europa (Becker et al. 2010). Significant latitudinal variations are also observed (Fig￾ure 4), particularly on the leading hemisphere. There (blue and green dots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Thermal inertia of the surface as a function of latitude. Colors indicate west longitude. As a reminder, the leading hemisphere spans from 0° to 180°W, and the trailing hemisphere from 180°W to 360°. 3.3. Grain size and porosity We then retrieved the minimum and maximum grain sizes, as well as the minimum porosity of the surface that can explain these observations using the model described in Section 2.4. … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Box-and-whisker diagrams of the albedo (a, c) and thermal iner￾tia (b, d) of Europa’s surface. Panels (a) and (b) show distributions ex￾tracted from physiographic regions defined by the IAU, while panels (c) and (d) correspond to geomorphological units defined by the geological map of Europa of Leonard et al. (2024). For each box, the central line indicates the median, box edges denote the 25th and 75th pe… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) Schematic of the two-layer model used in this study. b) Sur￾face temperatures modeled with KRC for several values of dtop at TItop = 15 J m−2 K −1 s −1/2 (colored curves), compared to the best-fit case (dark curve) and PPR measurements. c) Root mean square error as a func￾tion of dtop and TItop between the modeled surface temperature and PPR measurements. Simulations are performed at the PPR measurement… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Minimum (a) and maximum (b) surface temperatures over the jovian year simulated with KRC using the albedo and thermal inertia maps generated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Thermal measurements constrain the physical properties of icy satellite surfaces, including grain size, porosity, and regolith structure. On Europa, analyses of the Galileo Photopolarimeter-Radiometer (PPR) dataset revealed thermal inertia heterogeneities, but limited resolution hindered detailed characterization. We reanalyze the PPR dataset to derive maps of Europa's albedo and thermal inertia, and infer the microphysical properties of its icy regolith. Using the KRC thermal model, we fit brightness temperatures and interpret the results with conductivity models of porous ice to constrain grain size, porosity, and sintering processes. We find a mean Bond albedo of 0.64 pm 0.06 and a mean thermal inertia of 56 pm 17 tiu. Thermal inertia varies significantly, with a low-inertia equatorial band (39 pm 7 tiu) and higher values at mid-latitudes and on the trailing hemisphere, likely reflecting compositional differences. These values imply a porous regolith with grain sizes from micrometers to centimeters and an average porosity of 0.61 pm 0.1. Thermal inertia shows little correlation with geological units except for the Pwyll ejecta, which exhibit higher values. Instead, its agreement with sputtering rates suggests sputtering-driven sintering as a key process. Electron-driven sintering appears inefficient, while temperature-gradient metamorphism may enhance grain growth at depth. Modeled surface temperatures range from 67 to 148 K. These results provide a framework for interpreting future observations from Europa Clipper and JUICE.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes Galileo PPR brightness temperature data for Europa using the KRC thermal model to produce maps of Bond albedo (mean 0.64 ± 0.06) and thermal inertia (mean 56 ± 17 tiu, with an equatorial low-inertia band at 39 ± 7 tiu). These are inverted via porous-ice conductivity models to infer regolith microphysical properties (average porosity 0.61 ± 0.1, grain sizes from micrometers to centimeters) and to argue that thermal inertia variations correlate with sputtering rates, implying sputtering-driven sintering as the dominant process rather than electron-driven sintering or temperature-gradient metamorphism. Modeled surface temperatures range from 67 to 148 K, with limited correlation to geological units except for higher values in Pwyll ejecta.

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies useful microphysical constraints on Europa's regolith that can inform interpretation of upcoming Europa Clipper and JUICE data. Strengths include explicit model equations, data tables, error propagation, checks for lateral heat flow and compositional effects, and direct comparison of derived properties to sputtering rates; these elements make the porosity, grain-size, and process conclusions internally consistent and falsifiable.

minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract: replace the nonstandard 'pm' notation for uncertainties with the conventional '±' symbol throughout for clarity and consistency with journal style.
  2. Methods section: while error propagation and fitting procedures are described, a brief explicit statement of the data exclusion criteria (e.g., minimum signal-to-noise or viewing geometry thresholds) would improve reproducibility.
  3. Figure captions: ensure all maps and profiles explicitly state the thermal inertia units (tiu) and the color-scale ranges on first use to avoid reader ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and constructive review. We appreciate the recognition of the manuscript's strengths, including the explicit modeling, error propagation, and direct comparison to sputtering rates, as well as the recommendation for minor revision. No major comments were provided in the report, so we will incorporate any minor suggestions in the revised version while maintaining the core conclusions on thermal inertia, porosity, and sputtering-driven processes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives thermal inertia by fitting the KRC model directly to PPR brightness temperature observations, then inverts those values for porosity and grain size using independent porous-ice conductivity parameterizations drawn from the external literature. These steps are sequential applications of standard heat-transfer equations and published conductivity relations rather than any self-definition, fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is required for the central claims, and the manuscript supplies explicit model equations, error propagation, and checks against lateral heat flow.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on fitting brightness temperatures with the KRC model and interpreting results via existing porous-ice conductivity models. Free parameters are the reported mean albedo, thermal inertia, and derived porosity; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • mean Bond albedo = 0.64 ± 0.06
    Fitted from PPR brightness temperatures
  • mean thermal inertia = 56 ± 17 tiu
    Derived from KRC model fits to temperature data
  • average porosity = 0.61 ± 0.1
    Inferred from conductivity models applied to fitted thermal inertia
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption KRC thermal model assumptions hold for Europa's surface (no lateral heat flow, uniform properties within resolution elements)
    Invoked to convert brightness temperatures into albedo and thermal inertia maps
  • domain assumption Laboratory-derived conductivity models of porous ice accurately represent Europa regolith heat transport
    Used to translate thermal inertia into grain size and porosity

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5634 in / 1553 out tokens · 41778 ms · 2026-05-10T11:37:00.296368+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Schmidt, B

    Abramov, O., Rathbun, J. A., Schmidt, B. E., & Spencer, J. R. 2013, EPSL, 384, 37–41

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    & Spencer, J

    Abramov, O. & Spencer, J. R. 2008, Icarus, 195, 378–385

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    D., Schubert, G., Jacobson, R

    Anderson, J. D., Schubert, G., Jacobson, R. A., et al. 1998, Science, 281, 2019–2022

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    L., Ghent, R

    Bandfield, J. L., Ghent, R. R., Vasavada, A. R., et al. 2011, JGR: Planets, 116

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    2010, in Europa V oyager - Galileo SSI Global Mosaic 500m, USGS

    Becker, T., Archinal, B., Colvin, T., et al. 2010, in Europa V oyager - Galileo SSI Global Mosaic 500m, USGS

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Blackford, J. R. 2007, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 40, R355–R385

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    2020, Icarus, 352, 113947

    Bonnefoy, L., Le Gall, A., Lellouch, E., et al. 2020, Icarus, 352, 113947

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Brandt, R. E. & Warren, S. G. 1993, Journal of Glaciology, 39, 99–110

    work page 1993

  9. [9]

    & Barthels, H

    Breitbach, G. & Barthels, H. 1980, Nuclear Technology, 49, 392–399

    work page 1980

  10. [10]

    Brown, R. H. & Matson, D. L. 1987, Icarus, 72, 84–94

    work page 1987

  11. [11]

    J., Brown, R

    Buratti, B. J., Brown, R. H., Clark, R. N., et al. 2011, in 42nd LPSC, 1634

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    W., Calvin, W

    Carlson, R. W., Calvin, W. M., Dalton, J. B., et al. 2009, in Europa, ed. R. T

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    H., Belton, M

    Carr, M. H., Belton, M. J. S., Chapman, C. R., et al. 1998, Nature, 391, 363–365

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    J., Hibbitts, C

    Cartwright, R. J., Hibbitts, C. A., Holler, B. J., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 125

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    2013, PSS, 77, 64–73

    Cassidy, T., Paranicas, C., Shirley, J., et al. 2013, PSS, 77, 64–73

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Christensen, P. R. 1986, Icarus, 68, 217–238

    work page 1986

  17. [17]

    R., Bandfield, J

    Christensen, P. R., Bandfield, J. L., Bell III, J. F., et al. 2003, Science, 300, 2056–2061

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    R., Spencer, J

    Christensen, P. R., Spencer, J. R., Mehall, G. L., et al. 2024, SSR, 220

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Chyba, C. F. & Phillips, C. B. 2001, PNAS, 98, 801–804

    work page 2001

  20. [20]

    N., Fanale, F

    Clark, R. N., Fanale, F. P., & Zent, A. P. 1983, Icarus, 56, 233–245

    work page 1983

  21. [21]

    Colbeck, S. C. 1983, JGR: Oceans, 88, 5475–5482

    work page 1983

  22. [22]

    2001, Icarus, 149, 133–159 Cruz Mermy, G., Schmidt, F., Andrieu, F., Cornet, T., & Belgacem, I

    Cooper, J. 2001, Icarus, 149, 133–159 Cruz Mermy, G., Schmidt, F., Andrieu, F., Cornet, T., & Belgacem, I. 2025, Icarus, 442, 116739 Cruz Mermy, G., Schmidt, F., Andrieu, F., et al. 2023, Icarus, 115379

    work page 2001

  23. [23]

    M., & Steinbrügge, G

    Culberg, R., Schroeder, D. M., & Steinbrügge, G. 2022, Nature Comm., 13

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    & Verbiscer, A

    Domingue, D. & Verbiscer, A. 1997, Icarus, 128, 49–74

    work page 1997

  25. [25]

    B., Prieto-Ballesteros, O., Goldsby, D

    Durham, W. B., Prieto-Ballesteros, O., Goldsby, D. L., & Kargel, J. S. 2010, SSR, 153, 273–298

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    2018, Space Science Reviews, 214

    Ferrari, C. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    & Lucas, A

    Ferrari, C. & Lucas, A. 2016, A&A, 588, A133 Galileo PDS data. 2022, Galileo Orbiter Photopolarimeter Radiometer (PPR) for GO Bundle

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Giddings, J. C. & LaChapelle, E. 1962, JGR, 67, 2377–2383

    work page 1962

  29. [29]

    2013, PSS, 78, 1–21

    Grasset, O., Dougherty, M., Coustenis, A., et al. 2013, PSS, 78, 1–21

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    2003, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 46, 1103–1109

    Gusarov, A., Laoui, T., Froyen, L., & Titov, V . 2003, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 46, 1103–1109

    work page 2003

  31. [31]

    Hansen, G. B. & McCord, T. B. 2004, JGR: Planets, 109

    work page 2004

  32. [32]

    1973, Icarus, 18, 237–246

    Hansen, O. 1973, Icarus, 18, 237–246

    work page 1973

  33. [33]

    O., Bandfield, J

    Hayne, P. O., Bandfield, J. L., Siegler, M. A., et al. 2017, JGR: Planets, 122, 2371–2400

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    O., Perkins, M., Piqueux, S., et al

    Hayne, P. O., Perkins, M., Piqueux, S., et al. 2025, in 56th LPSC, V ol. 3090

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    R., Domingue, D

    Hendrix, A. R., Domingue, D. L., & King, K. 2005, Icarus, 173, 29–49

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    & Howett, C

    Howes, S. & Howett, C. 2025, in EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2025, V ol. 2025, EPSC–DPS2025–601

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    2011, Icarus, 216, 221–226

    Howett, C., Spencer, J., Schenk, P., et al. 2011, Icarus, 216, 221–226

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Howett, C. J. A., Spencer, J. R., Hurford, T., Verbiscer, A., & Segura, M. 2012, Icarus, 221, 1084

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Howett, C. J. A., Spencer, J. R., Hurford, T., Verbiscer, A., & Segura, M. 2014, Icarus, 241, 239

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    & Blake, D

    Jenniskens, P. & Blake, D. F. 1996, AJ, 473, 1104–1113

    work page 1996

  41. [41]

    L., Kendall, K., & Roberts, A

    Johnson, K. L., Kendall, K., & Roberts, A. D. 1971, PRSLMPS, 324, 301–313

    work page 1971

  42. [42]

    K., Kivelson, M

    Khurana, K. K., Kivelson, M. G., Stevenson, D. J., et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 777–780

    work page 1998

  43. [43]

    Kieffer, H. H. 2013, JGR: Planets, 118, 451–470

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    N., & Ligier, N

    King, O., Fletcher, L. N., & Ligier, N. 2022, PSJ, 3, 72

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    2026, Replication Data for: Thermophys- ical Properties of Europa’s Surface Constrained by Galileo PPR Temperature Measurements [Dataset]

    Lange, L., Piqueux, S., Hayne, P., et al. 2026, Replication Data for: Thermophys- ical Properties of Europa’s Surface Constrained by Galileo PPR Temperature Measurements [Dataset]

    work page 2026

  46. [46]

    J., Alex Patthoff, D., & Senske, D

    Leonard, E. J., Alex Patthoff, D., & Senske, D. A. 2024, in

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    M., & Schmidt, F

    Lesage, E., Massol, H., Howell, S. M., & Schmidt, F. 2022, The Planetary Sci- ence Journal, 3, 170

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    2016, AJ, 151, 163

    Ligier, N., Poulet, F., Carter, J., Brunetto, R., & Gourgeot, F. 2016, AJ, 151, 163

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Loeffler, M. J. & Hudson, R. L. 2012, Icarus, 219, 561–566

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    1980, Journal of Glaciology, 26, 303–312

    Marbouty, D. 1980, Journal of Glaciology, 26, 303–312

    work page 1980

  51. [51]

    Matson, D. L. & Brown, R. H. 1989, Icarus, 77, 67–81

    work page 1989

  52. [52]

    B., Orlando, T

    McCord, T. B., Orlando, T. M., Teeter, G., et al. 2001, JGR: Planets, 106, 3311–3319

    work page 2001

  53. [53]

    E., Ramsey, M

    McKeeby, B. E., Ramsey, M. S., Tai Udovicic, C. J., Haberle, C., & Edwards, C. S. 2022, ESS, 9

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    2021, PSJ, 2, 183

    Mishra, I., Lewis, N., Lunine, J., et al. 2021, PSJ, 2, 183

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    H., Raut, U., Teolis, B

    Mitchell, E. H., Raut, U., Teolis, B. D., & Baragiola, R. A. 2017, Icarus, 285, 291–299

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    2026, Icarus, 450, 116995

    Moingeon, A., Quirico, E., Poch, O., et al. 2026, Icarus, 450, 116995

    work page 2026

  57. [57]

    L., Choukroun, M., Phillips, C

    Molaro, J. L., Choukroun, M., Phillips, C. B., et al. 2019, JGR: Planets, 124, 243–277

    work page 2019

  58. [58]

    Murphy, D. M. & Koop, T. 2005, QJRMS, 131, 1539–1565

    work page 2005

  59. [59]

    2017, Icarus, 286, 56–68

    Nordheim, T., Hand, K., Paranicas, C., et al. 2017, Icarus, 286, 56–68

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    A., Hand, K

    Nordheim, T. A., Hand, K. P., & Paranicas, C. 2018, Nat. Astro., 2, 673–679

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    A., Regoli, L

    Nordheim, T. A., Regoli, L. H., Harris, C. D. K., et al. 2022, PSJ, 3, 5

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Nowicki, S. A. & Christensen, P. R. 2007, JGRh: Planets, 112

    work page 2007

  63. [63]

    A., Siegler, M

    Paige, D. A., Siegler, M. A., Harmon, J. K., et al. 2013, Science, 339, 300–303

    work page 2013

  64. [64]

    A., Siegler, M

    Paige, D. A., Siegler, M. A., Zhang, J. A., et al. 2010, Science, 330, 479–482

    work page 2010

  65. [65]

    T., Buratti, B

    Pappalardo, R. T., Buratti, B. J., Korth, H., et al. 2024, SSR, 220

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    T., Head, J

    Pappalardo, R. T., Head, J. W., Greeley, R., et al. 1998, Nature, 391, 365–368

    work page 1998

  67. [67]

    & Christensen, P

    Piqueux, S. & Christensen, P. R. 2009, JGR: Planets, 114

    work page 2009

  68. [68]

    M., Kleinböhl, A., et al

    Piqueux, S., Kass, D. M., Kleinböhl, A., et al. 2024, Icarus, 419, 115851

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    2021, JGR: Planets, 126

    Piqueux, S., Müller, N., Grott, M., et al. 2021, JGR: Planets, 126

    work page 2021

  70. [70]

    2010, Icarus, 210, 385–395

    Plainaki, C., Milillo, A., Mura, A., Orsini, S., & Cassidy, T. 2010, Icarus, 210, 385–395

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    2004, in Comets II, ed

    Prialnik, D., Benkhoff, J., & Podolak, M. 2004, in Comets II, ed. M. C. Festou, H. U. Keller, & H. A. Weaver, 359

    work page 2004

  72. [72]

    2005, Icarus, 173, 325–341

    Putzig, N., Mellon, M., Kretke, K., & Arvidson, R. 2005, Icarus, 173, 325–341

    work page 2005

  73. [73]

    2004, Icarus, 169, 127–139

    Rathbun, J., Spencer, J., Tamppari, L., et al. 2004, Icarus, 169, 127–139

    work page 2004

  74. [74]

    A., Rodriguez, N

    Rathbun, J. A., Rodriguez, N. J., & Spencer, J. R. 2010, Icarus, 210, 763–769

    work page 2010

  75. [75]

    Rathbun, J. A. & Spencer, J. R. 2020, Icarus, 338, 113500

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    A., Spencer, J

    Rathbun, J. A., Spencer, J. R., & Howett, C. J. A. 2014, in LPI Contributions, V ol. 1774, Workshop on the Habitability of Icy Worlds, ed. LPI Editorial Board, 4045

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    2025, PSJ, 6, 182

    Roth, L., Leonard, E., Miller, K., et al. 2025, PSJ, 6, 182

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    2026, A&A

    Roth, L., Retherford, K., Saur, J., et al. 2026, A&A

    work page 2026

  79. [79]

    D., et al

    Roth, L., Saur, J., Retherford, K. D., et al. 2014, Science, 343, 171–174

    work page 2014

  80. [80]

    1992, SSR, 60

    Russell, E., Brown, F., Chandos, R., et al. 1992, SSR, 60

    work page 1992

Showing first 80 references.