Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 111 references

Interior-Atmosphere Coupling on TRAPPIST-1 f, g, and h: Cryovolcanic Water Exospheres and Infrared Detectability

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-01 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Localized cryovolcanic plumes on TRAPPIST-1f can produce detectable water-vapor signals in roughly 20 JWST transits, while uniform exospheres are harder to see.

desk verdict The paper applies standard interior models to TRAPPIST-1 f,g,h and produces a conditional JWST detectability estimate for water plumes on f, but the outgassing rates sit outside the Monte Carlo results. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.26694 v1 pith:QRA7DM5R submitted 2026-05-26 astro-ph.EP

E. Kleisioti , D. Dirkx , A. V. Oza , A. Louca , M. Rovira-Navarro , T.-M. Bründl , M. A. Kenworthy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords TRAPPIST-1cryovolcanismexoplanetinteriorstransmissionspectroscopysubsurfaceoceansJWSTwaterexospheresicyplanets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper builds layered models of the interiors of TRAPPIST-1f, g, and h to test whether subsurface liquid-water oceans can persist in thermal balance. Monte Carlo runs show that radiogenic heat plus tidal heating in high-pressure ice keep thin outer ice shells and shallow oceans stable on f and g, while h can support thicker shells. From those configurations the authors calculate cryovolcanic water release and generate synthetic transmission spectra, finding that concentrated plume outgassing yields stronger NIRISS signals than the same water spread globally. Under the rates and plume geometries they adopt, TRAPPIST-1f reaches a detectable threshold in about 20 transits.

What carries the argument

Layered interior model (silicate plus ice shells) coupled to Monte Carlo heat-partitioning simulations and synthetic transmission spectra of water exospheres.

What would settle it

A null detection of water absorption features in TRAPPIST-1f transmission spectra after 20 or more JWST/NIRISS transits would falsify the detectability claim for the adopted rates and plume geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Internal heat budgets of TRAPPIST-1f, g, and h are dominated by radiogenic heating and tidal dissipation in high-pressure ice layers. Thermal-equilibrium solutions favor thin outer ice shells and shallow subsurface oceans on f and g, and thicker shells on h. Localized plume-like outgassing produces stronger JWST/NIRISS transmission signals than globally distributed exospheres. Under favorable assumptions, outgassing on TRAPPIST-1f may be detectable within about 20 transits.

Load-bearing premise

Cryovolcanic water outgassing rates and the formation of localized plumes are assumed high enough to produce observable signals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Subsurface oceans remain possible across a wide range of interior configurations for all three planets.
  • The spatial distribution of outgassed water (plume versus global) directly controls the strength of the transmission signal.
  • Interior heat budgets set both the ocean depth and the outgassing rate, linking geology to atmosphere.
  • TRAPPIST-1f is the most promising target among the three for infrared detection of cryovolcanic activity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar interior-atmosphere coupling models could be applied to other icy exoplanets around M dwarfs to predict which ones might show plume signatures.
  • If plumes are confirmed, repeated observations could track changes in outgassing activity over time.
  • Non-detection on f would tighten upper limits on cryovolcanic rates rather than rule out oceans entirely.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses a layered interior model and Monte Carlo sampling of radiogenic plus tidal heat sources to identify thermal-equilibrium configurations with subsurface oceans on TRAPPIST-1 f, g, and h. It separately estimates cryovolcanic water outgassing rates, generates synthetic transmission spectra, and concludes that thin ice shells and shallow oceans are favored for f and g, that plume-like outgassing yields stronger NIRISS signals than global exospheres, and that under favorable assumptions the outgassing on f could be detectable in ~20 transits.

Significance. If the outgassing rates can be shown to follow from the interior heat budgets, the work supplies a concrete framework linking interior structure to observable exospheres on icy exoplanets and supplies falsifiable predictions for JWST observations of the TRAPPIST-1 system. The Monte Carlo exploration of heat partitioning is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (cryovolcanic outgassing estimation): the mass fluxes fed into the transmission spectra are stated as separate estimates rather than computed from the Monte Carlo-sampled heat fluxes, ice-shell thicknesses, or ocean depths; because transmission amplitude scales linearly with column density, this decoupling makes the 20-transit detectability threshold an input rather than a model output.
  2. [§5] §5 (synthetic spectra): the comparison between plume and global distributions is presented without an explicit mapping from the interior thermal-equilibrium solutions to the choice of spatial distribution, so the claim that plumes produce stronger signals rests on an assumption whose consistency with the Monte Carlo results is not demonstrated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'under favorable assumptions' should be accompanied by the numerical range of outgassing rates actually used.
  2. Figure captions: units and scaling factors for the transmission spectra should be stated explicitly so that the column-density dependence can be checked.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which help improve the clarity and rigor of our work. Below we respond to each major comment.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (cryovolcanic outgassing estimation): the mass fluxes fed into the transmission spectra are stated as separate estimates rather than computed from the Monte Carlo-sampled heat fluxes, ice-shell thicknesses, or ocean depths; because transmission amplitude scales linearly with column density, this decoupling makes the 20-transit detectability threshold an input rather than a model output.

    Authors: We agree that the cryovolcanic mass fluxes were estimated separately from the Monte Carlo results. Our interior model determines the conditions for subsurface oceans but does not directly compute outgassing rates, which require additional assumptions about volcanic efficiency. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly state this separation and to link the estimated rates to the range of heat fluxes obtained from the Monte Carlo sampling, thereby making the detectability assessment more directly tied to the interior results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (synthetic spectra): the comparison between plume and global distributions is presented without an explicit mapping from the interior thermal-equilibrium solutions to the choice of spatial distribution, so the claim that plumes produce stronger signals rests on an assumption whose consistency with the Monte Carlo results is not demonstrated.

    Authors: The choice of plume versus global distribution is presented as two end-member scenarios for outgassing. While our Monte Carlo results constrain ice shell thickness and heat budget, they do not specify the spatial distribution, which is a separate geological question. We will revise §5 to provide an explicit discussion mapping the thin ice shell solutions (favored for f and g) to the plausibility of localized plumes, while noting that global distribution is also possible. This will demonstrate the consistency with the interior models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; detectability presented as conditional on separate outgassing estimates

full rationale

The paper's Monte Carlo sampling identifies thermal-equilibrium interior configurations and heat partitioning from radiogenic and tidal terms. Cryovolcanic outgassing rates and spatial distributions (plume vs. global) are then estimated separately to generate synthetic transmission spectra, with detectability stated under favorable assumptions. No equation or step reduces the reported detectability threshold to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. The chain from interior model to observational prediction contains an explicit decoupling acknowledged via the 'favorable assumptions' qualifier, but this is a limitation of scope rather than circularity. No self-definitional, fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation patterns are exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions about layered ice-rock interiors and radiogenic/tidal heating, plus Monte Carlo sampling of parameters whose ranges are not specified in the abstract; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • ice shell thickness
    Varied across Monte Carlo runs to identify thermal equilibrium solutions with subsurface oceans
  • cryovolcanic outgassing rate
    Used to generate synthetic spectra; 'favorable assumptions' imply this is set to values that produce detectable signals
  • spatial distribution of outgassing (plume vs global)
    Directly affects transmission signal strength comparison
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Planets consist of silicate and ice layers with thermal equilibrium possible between radiogenic heating, tidal dissipation, and heat loss
    Invoked to identify equilibrium configurations for f,g,h
  • domain assumption High-pressure ice layers can host significant tidal dissipation
    Stated as dominating internal heat budgets

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interior-Atmosphere Coupling on TRAPPIST-1 f, g, and h: Cryovolcanic Water Exospheres and Infrared Detectability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRA7DM5R

@misc{pith2026260526694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interior-Atmosphere Coupling on TRAPPIST-1 f, g, and h: Cryovolcanic Water Exospheres and Infrared Detectability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRA7DM5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.26694}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the interior structures and cryovolcanic observability of the exoplanets TRAPPIST-1f, g, and h. Our aim is to determine which interior configurations can sustain subsurface liquid water oceans in thermal equilibrium and to assess whether the resulting cryovolcanic outgassing could be detectable with current and future observatories. Using a layered interior model with silicate and ice layers, we identify thermal equilibrium configurations and quantify internal heat partitioning through Monte Carlo simulations. We also estimate cryovolcanic water outgassing and assess its detectability using synthetic transmission spectra of atmospheres and exospheres. We find that the internal heat budgets of all three planets are dominated by radiogenic heating and tidal dissipation in high-pressure ice layers. Thermal equilibrium solutions for TRAPPIST-1f and g favor thin outer ice shells and shallow subsurface oceans, whereas TRAPPIST-1h permits thicker ice shells, in agreement with previous work. Localized plume-like outgassing produces stronger JWST/NIRISS transmission signals than globally distributed exospheres. Under favorable assumptions, outgassing on TRAPPIST-1f may be detectable within about 20 transits. Overall, our results show that subsurface oceans can be sustained across a broad range of interior configurations and constrain the detectability of cryovolcanic water vapor on the TRAPPIST-1f, g, and h planets. Interior heat budgets and the spatial distribution of outgassed material emerge as key factors controlling detectability. This framework motivates future transmission studies of Europa-like exoplanets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the interior model of Trappist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the parameter calculation process. The red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of heat contribution from several sources for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fractions of Qtidal Qeq of the mantle, high-pressure ice layer, and outer ice I shell, as a function of Dice. The lighter and darker shaded regions indicate the 75% and 95% uncertainty intervals derived from the Monte Carlo distribution, respectively. 3.2. Possible int…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: fice as a function of different layer viscosity. Bottom: fmantle as a function of different layer viscosity. Enhanced tidal dissipation occurs in the ice I shell for stiffer HPI layers. Tidal dissipation in the mantle contributes more to the heat budget for stiffe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interior structure as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ntotal as a function of M˙ volc for TRAPPIST-1f. The shaded red region indicates parameter space requiring efficien￾cies η > 1, which are unphysical. The hydrostatic and sput￾tered cloud benchmarks represent the column densities observ￾able with JWST/NIRISS with 450 tr…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Estimated water mass fraction, WMF together with their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, AI&A, 647, A53

    Acuña, Deleuil, Mousis, , et al. 2021, AI&A, 647, A53

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Agol, E., Dorn, C., Grimm, S. L., et al. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 1

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    S., Angerhausen, D., et al

    Alei, E., Konrad, B. S., Angerhausen, D., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A106 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    C., Dobos, V ., & Kiss, L

    Barr, A. C., Dobos, V ., & Kiss, L. L. 2018, Astronomy I& Astrophysics, 613, A37

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al

    Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064501

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    1981, Icarus, 47, 84

    Baum, W., Kreidl, T., Westphal, J., et al. 1981, Icarus, 47, 84

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    2026, ApJ, 997, 70

    Bennacer, Y ., Mousis, O., & Hue, V . 2026, ApJ, 997, 70

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Bierson, C. J. & Steinbrügge, G. 2021, The Planetary Science Journal, 2, 89

    work page 2021

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    2026, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2601.03408

    Bolmont, E., Sastre, M., Revol, A., Kervazo, M., & Tobie, G. 2026, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2601.03408

    2026

  2. [10]

    E., et al

    Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728

    2017

  3. [11]

    C., O’Brien, D

    Bond, J. C., O’Brien, D. P., & Lauretta, D. S. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 1050

    2010

  4. [12]

    2017, AJ, 154, 121

    Bourrier, V ., de Wit, J., Bolmont, E., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 121

    2017

  5. [13]

    Burgasser, A. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 110

    2017

  6. [14]

    H., Schneider, N

    Burger, M. H., Schneider, N. M., de Pater, I., et al. 2001, ApJ, 563, 1063

    2001

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Cadieux, C., Doyon, R., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L2

    2024

  8. [16]

    1985, Icarus, 64, 285

    Cameron, A. 1985, Icarus, 64, 285

    1985

  9. [17]

    Cassidy, T. A. & Johnson, R. E. 2010, Icarus, 209, 696

    2010

  10. [18]

    K., Kargel, J

    Croft, S. K., Kargel, J. S., Kirk, R. L., et al. 1995, in Neptune and Triton, ed. D. P. Cruikshank, M. S. Matthews, & A. M. Schumann, 879–947 de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 214–219

    1995

  11. [19]

    Delrez, L., Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 3577

    2018

  12. [20]

    2019, AI&A, 624, A2

    Dobos, Barr, Amy C., & Kiss, László L. 2019, AI&A, 624, A2

    2019

  13. [21]

    & Turner, E

    Dobos, V . & Turner, E. L. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 804, 41

    2015

  14. [22]

    L., & Alibert, Y

    Dorn, C., Mosegaard, K., Grimm, S. L., & Alibert, Y . 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 865, 20

    2018

  15. [23]

    K., Khurana, K

    Dougherty, M. K., Khurana, K. K., Neubauer, F. M., et al. 2006, Science, 311, 1406

    2006

  16. [24]

    L., Beaulieu, J.-P., & Grasset, O

    Ehrenreich, D., des Etangs, A. L., Beaulieu, J.-P., & Grasset, O. 2006, The As- trophysical Journal, 651, 535

    2006

  17. [25]

    2012, Icarus, 221, 859

    Elser, S., Meyer, M., & Moore, B. 2012, Icarus, 221, 859

    2012

  18. [26]

    Fagents, S. A. 2003, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 108, 5139

    2003

  19. [27]

    A., Greeley, R., Sullivan, R

    Fagents, S. A., Greeley, R., Sullivan, R. J., et al. 2000, Icarus, 144, 54

    2000

  20. [28]

    A., Lopes, R

    Fagents, S. A., Lopes, R. M., Quick, L. C., & Gregg, T. K. 2022, in Comparative

    2022

  21. [29]

    & Spohn, T

    Fischer, H.-J. & Spohn, T. 1990, Icarus, 83, 39

    1990

  22. [30]

    & Oza, A

    Gebek, A. & Oza, A. V . 2020, MNRAS, 497, 5271

    2020

  23. [31]

    Geissler, P. E. 2015, in The Encyclopedia of V olcanoes, 2nd edn., ed. H. Sigurds- son, B. Houghton, S. R. McNutt, H. Rymer, & J. Stix (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 763–778

    2015

  24. [32]

    T., Barnes, R., Meadows, V

    Gialluca, M. T., Barnes, R., Meadows, V . S., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 137

    2024

  25. [33]

    Gillon, M., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Demory, B.-O., et al. 2017, Nature, 542, 456

    2017

  26. [34]

    2000, Planetary and Space Science, 48, 617

    Grasset, O., Sotin, C., & Deschamps, F. 2000, Planetary and Space Science, 48, 617

    2000

  27. [35]

    P., Montesi, L

    Green, A. P., Montesi, L. G. J., & Cooper, C. M. 2021, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 126, e2020JE006677

    2021

  28. [36]

    P., Bell, T

    Greene, T. P., Bell, T. J., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 39–42

    2023

  29. [37]

    2018, A&A, 613, A68

    Grimm, Demory, Brice-Olivier, Gillon, Michaël, et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A68

    2018

  30. [38]

    Guenther, E. W. & Kislyakova, K. G. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 491, 3974

    2019

  31. [39]

    P., Phillips, C

    Hand, K. P., Phillips, C. B., Murray, A., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Jour- nal, 3, 22

    2022

  32. [40]

    Hay, H. C. F. C. & Matsuyama, I. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 875, 22

    2019

  33. [41]

    2013, Nature, 500, 182

    Hedman, M., Gosmeyer, C., Nicholson, P., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 182

    2013

  34. [42]

    Hemingway, D. J. & Mittal, T. 2019, Icarus, 332, 111

    2019

  35. [43]

    Henning, W. G. & Hurford, T. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 30

    2014

  36. [44]

    2022, Nature Communications, 13, 3303

    Hernandez, J.-A., Caracas, R., & Labrosse, S. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 3303

    2022

  37. [45]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  38. [46]

    & Spohn, T

    Hussmann, H. & Spohn, T. 2004, Icarus, 171, 391

    2004

  39. [47]

    2002, Icarus, 156, 143

    Hussmann, H., Spohn, T., & Wieczerkowski, K. 2002, Icarus, 156, 143

    2002

  40. [48]

    J., Parisi, M., et al

    Iess, L., Stevenson, D. J., Parisi, M., et al. 2014, Science, 344, 78

    2014

  41. [49]

    P., Ewald, S

    Ingersoll, A. P., Ewald, S. P., & Trumbo, S. K. 2020, Icarus, 344, 113345, cassini Mission Science Results

    2020

  42. [50]

    1976, Journal of Glaciology, 17, 155–156

    Jaccard, C. 1976, Journal of Glaciology, 17, 155–156

    1976

  43. [51]

    G., Khurana, K

    Jia, X., Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., & Provan, G. T. 2018, Nature Astron- omy, 2, 459

    2018

  44. [52]

    Johnson, R. E. 1990, Energetic Charged-Particle Interactions with Atmospheres and Surfaces (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag)

    1990

  45. [53]

    E., Lanzerotti, L

    Johnson, R. E., Lanzerotti, L. J., Brown, W. L., & Armstrong, T. P. 1981, Science, 212, 1027

    1981

  46. [54]

    E., Oza, A., Young, L

    Johnson, R. E., Oza, A., Young, L. A., V olkov, A. N., & Schmidt, C. 2015, ApJ, 809, 43

    2015

  47. [55]

    Kleisioti, Dirkx, D., Rovira-Navarro, M., & Kenworthy, M. A. 2023, A&A, 675, A57

    2023

  48. [56]

    Kleisioti, Dirkx, D., Tan, X., & Kenworthy, M. A. 2024, A&A, 687, A125

    2024

  49. [57]

    & Fortney, J

    Krissansen-Totton, J. & Fortney, J. J. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 115

    2022

  50. [58]

    Lau, H. C. P., Mitrovica, J. X., Austermann, J., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysi- cal Research: Solid Earth, 121, 6991 Article number, page 13 of 15 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aanda

    2016

  51. [59]

    V ., Leclercq, L., et al

    Leblanc, F., Oza, A. V ., Leclercq, L., et al. 2017, Icarus, 293, 185

    2017

  52. [60]

    2023, Icarus, 399, 115557

    Leblanc, F., Roth, L., Chaufray, J., et al. 2023, Icarus, 399, 115557

    2023

  53. [61]

    2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 29

    Leone, G., Bieger, K., & Soto, M. 2021, Planetary Science Journal, 2, 29

    2021

  54. [62]

    H., Shields, A

    Lobo, A. H., Shields, A. L., Palubski, I. Z., & Wolf, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 161

    2023

  55. [63]

    & Barnes, R

    Luger, R. & Barnes, R. 2015, Astrobiology, 15, 119

    2015

  56. [64]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    Luger, R., Sestovic, M., Kruse, E., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0129

    2017

  57. [65]

    & Wang, C.-Y

    Manga, M. & Wang, C.-Y . 2007, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L07202

    2007

  58. [66]

    G., Bower, D

    Meier, T. G., Bower, D. J., Lichtenberg, T., Tackley, P. J., & Demory, B.-O. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L48 Meyer zu Westram, M., Oza, A. V ., & Galli, A. 2024, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 129, e2023JE007935, e2023JE007935 2023JE007935 Mollière...

    2021

  59. [67]

    & Rhoden, A

    Neveu, M. & Rhoden, A. R. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 543

    2019

  60. [68]

    & Pappalardo, R

    Nimmo, F. & Pappalardo, R. T. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 121, 1378 Öberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, ApJ, 743, L16

    2016

  61. [69]

    2017, PhD thesis, Sorbonne Université

    Oza, A. 2017, PhD thesis, Sorbonne Université

    2017

  62. [70]

    V ., Leblanc, F., Johnson, R

    Oza, A. V ., Leblanc, F., Johnson, R. E., et al. 2019, Planet. Space Sci., 167, 23

    2019

  63. [71]

    L., Roth, L., et al

    Paganini, L., Villanueva, G. L., Roth, L., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 266

    2020

  64. [72]

    Peltier, W. R. 1974, Reviews of Geophysics, 12, 649

    1974

  65. [73]

    B., McEwen, A

    Phillips, C. B., McEwen, A. S., Hoppa, G. V ., et al. 2000, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 105, 22579

    2000

  66. [74]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1408

    Pichierri, G., Morbidelli, A., Batygin, K., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1408

    2024

  67. [75]

    L., Kyuberis, A

    Polyansky, O. L., Kyuberis, A. A., Zobov, N. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2597

    2018

  68. [76]

    2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 45

    Porco, C., DiNino, D., & Nimmo, F. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 148, 45

    2014

  69. [77]

    C., Helfenstein, P., Thomas, P

    Porco, C. C., Helfenstein, P., Thomas, P. C., et al. 2006, Science, 311, 1393

    2006

  70. [78]

    2011, Nature, 474, 620

    Postberg, F., Schmidt, J., Hillier, J., Kempf, S., & Srama, R. 2011, Nature, 474, 620

    2011

  71. [79]

    Quick, L. C. & Marsh, B. D. 2015, Icarus, 253, 16

    2015

  72. [80]

    C., Roberge, A., Mendoza, G

    Quick, L. C., Roberge, A., Mendoza, G. T., Quintana, E. V ., & Youngblood, A. A. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 956, 29

    2023

  73. [81]

    C., Roberge, A., Mlinar, A

    Quick, L. C., Roberge, A., Mlinar, A. B., & Hedman, M. M. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 084402

    2020

  74. [82]

    Renaud, J. P. & Henning, W. G. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 98

    2018

  75. [83]

    Roberts, J. H. & Nimmo, F. 2008, Icarus, 194, 675

    2008

  76. [84]

    1995, Python Reference Manual, Tech

    Rossum, G. 1995, Python Reference Manual, Tech. rep., Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Nether- lands

    1995

  77. [85]

    2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL094289, e2021GL094289 2021GL094289

    Roth, L. 2021, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL094289, e2021GL094289 2021GL094289

    2021

  78. [86]

    D., Saur, J., et al

    Roth, L., Retherford, K. D., Saur, J., et al. 2026, A&A, 709, A59

    2026

  79. [87]

    D., et al

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

    2014

  80. [88]

    F., Liao, Y ., van der Wal, W., & Nimmo, F

    Rovira-Navarro, M., Katz, R. F., Liao, Y ., van der Wal, W., & Nimmo, F. 2022, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 127, e2021JE007117, e2021JE007117 2021JE007117

    2022

  81. [89]

    2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 129

    Rovira-Navarro, M., Matsuyama, I., & Berne, A. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 129

    2024

  82. [90]

    2021, The Plane- tary Science Journal, 2, 119

    Rovira-Navarro, M., van der Wal, W., Steinke, T., & Dirkx, D. 2021, The Plane- tary Science Journal, 2, 119

    2021

  83. [91]

    L., Manga, M., Walker, M., & Rhoden, A

    Rudolph, M. L., Manga, M., Walker, M., & Rhoden, A. R. 2022, in LPI Contri- butions, V ol. 2678, 53rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2562

    2022

  84. [92]

    Sabadini, Vermeersen B., . C. G. 2016, Global Dynamics of the Earth: Appli- cations of Viscoelastic Relaxation Theory to Solid-Earth and Planetary Geo- physics (2nd ed.; Berlin: Springer)

    2016

  85. [93]

    2019, A&A, 627, A149

    Schoonenberg, Djoeke, Liu, Beibei, Ormel, Chris W., & Dorn, Caroline. 2019, A&A, 627, A149

    2019

  86. [94]

    1979, Icarus, 38, 192

    Schubert, G., Cassen, P., & Young, R. 1979, Icarus, 38, 192

    1979

  87. [95]

    Schubert, G., Spohn, T., & Reynolds, R. T. 1986, in IAU Colloq. 77: Some Back- ground about Satellites, ed. J. A. Burns & M. S. Matthews (University of Arizona Press), 224–292

    1986

  88. [96]

    N., & Schubert, G

    Segatz, M., Spohn, T., Ross, M. N., & Schubert, G. 1988, Icarus, 75, 187

    1988

  89. [97]

    2005, Icarus, 173, 480

    Shematovich, V ., Johnson, R., Cooper, J., & Wong, M. 2005, Icarus, 173, 480

    2005

  90. [98]

    L., Meadows, V

    Shields, A. L., Meadows, V . S., Bitz, C. M., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 715, pMID: 23855332

    2013

  91. [99]

    & Kurita, K

    Shoji, D. & Kurita, K. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 789, 3

    2014

  92. [100]

    Smyth, W. H. & Marconi, M. L. 2006, Icarus, 181, 510

    2006

  93. [101]

    Sohl, F., Hussmann, H., Schwentker, B., Spohn, T., & Lorenz, R. D. 2003, Jour- nal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 108 Souˇcek, O., B ˇehounková, M., Lanzendörfer, M., et al. 2024, Nature Communi- cations, 15, 7405

    2003

  94. [102]

    B., Schmidt, B

    Sparks, W. B., Schmidt, B. E., McGrath, M. A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 839, L18

    2017

  95. [103]

    R., Nimmo, F., Ingersoll, A

    Spencer, J. R., Nimmo, F., Ingersoll, A. P., et al. 2018, in Enceladus and the Icy Moons of Saturn, ed. P. M. Schenk, R. N. Clark, C. J. A. Howett, A. J. Verbiscer, & J. H. Waite (University of Arizona Press), 163

    2018

  96. [104]

    & Schubert, G

    Spohn, T. & Schubert, G. 2003, Icarus, 161, 456

    2003

  97. [105]

    2022, A&A, 658, A170

    Teyssandier, Libert, A.-S., & Agol, E. 2022, A&A, 658, A170

    2022

  98. [106]

    2019, A&A, 630, A70

    Tobie, G., Grasset, O., Dumoulin, C., & Mocquet, A. 2019, A&A, 630, A70

    2019

  99. [107]

    2018, A&A, 612, A86 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Turbet, Bolmont, Emeline, Leconte, Jeremy, et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A86 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22 van Woerkom, Q. B. & Kleisioti, E. 2024, A&A, 684, A72

    2018

  100. [109]

    L., Hammel, H

    Villanueva, G. L., Hammel, H. B., Milam, S. N., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1056

    2023

  101. [110]

    D., Schaefer, L

    Wordsworth, R. D., Schaefer, L. K., & Fischer, R. A. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 195

    2018

  102. [111]

    B., Sasselov, D

    Zeng, L., Jacobsen, S. B., Sasselov, D. D., et al. 2019, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 116, 9723

    2019

  103. [112]

    2023, Nature, 620, 746–749 Öberg, K

    Zieba, S., Kreidberg, L., Ducrot, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 746–749 Öberg, K. I. & Bergin, E. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 831, L19 Article number, page 14 of 15 E. Kleisioti et al.: Water exospheres in the TRAPPIST-1 system Appendix A: Melting temperature a...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.