Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 9 minor 70 references

Life after death: Europa in the evolving Habitable Zone of a Red Sun

T0 review · 2 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Europa-like moon can hold surface water for at least 200 million years while its star is a red giant.

desk verdict Surface sublimation results are solid; the 0.2 Gyr survival bound needs a coupled photolysis-escape treatment before it carries the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15495 v1 pith:2QZC2DQK submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Elijah Mullens , Britney Schmidt , Lisa Kaltenegger , Nikole K. Lewis This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords exomoonsredgiantbranchhabitablezoneEuropawater-vaporatmospheresatmosphericescapepost-main-sequencehabitabilitysublimationwhitedwarfplanetarysystems
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

When the Sun leaves the main sequence and swells into a red giant, Jupiter will spend roughly 0.37 Gyr inside the habitable zone (the band where surface water could remain liquid), and an icy moon like Europa would suddenly receive far more light than it does today. This paper models Europa's surface at two moments in that phase with a 2D latitude–longitude grid that tracks diurnal and seasonal light variations, Jupiter's reflected light and eclipse, and ice–vapor phase changes. It finds that the equatorial band and the sub-Jovian mid-latitudes sublimate first, forming a thin water-vapor atmosphere, and that this atmosphere survives thermal escape for at least 0.2 Gyr because the ice–vapor interface caps the surface pressure at the saturation vapor pressure. If correct, icy moons—rather than rocky planets—could be where surface water persists after a star's main-sequence life ends, and the paper's three proposed observing geometries could test the idea.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Clausius–Clapeyron ice–vapor interface: because a water-vapor atmosphere sits above an ice surface made of the same molecule, the surface pressure cannot exceed the saturation vapor pressure given by the Arden–Buck equation, so sublimation self-limits and the atmosphere stays thin. Around it the paper builds a 2D latitude–longitude Newtonian-cooling surface model that steps Europa's orbit every six minutes, combining absorbed stellar flux, Jupiter's phase-dependent reflected light, Jupiter's thermal emission, tidal heating, and a Jupiter eclipse, with ice–vapor phase changes at 170 K. Mass loss is then computed with Jeans escape and hydrodynamic escape formulas evaluated at the saturation-vapor-pressure-bounded surface density; a static 1D photochemical model adds the caveat that photolysis can split water into hydrogen, which is lost almost immediately, and spectral synthesis of the proposed atmospheres uses isochemical averages from that model.

What would settle it

A time-dependent photolysis–escape simulation that couples the paper's 1D photochemistry with Jeans and hydrodynamic escape across the full red giant branch habitable zone, integrated for 0.2 Gyr at $S_{\mathrm{eff}}$ between 0.32 and 1.0, would settle the claim: if the water column is depleted before 200 Myr under the red giant's ultraviolet spectrum, the lower bound fails. On the observational side, stacked transit spectra of a Europan analog around a white dwarf would look for the strong water bands the paper predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Europa-like moon orbiting a gas giant in the red giant branch habitable zone can retain surface water and a thin water-vapor atmosphere for at least 0.2 Gyr. A Newtonian-cooling surface model with ice–vapor phase changes shows that when the Jupiter–Europa system enters the habitable zone at about 12.25 Gyr (receiving 439 W/m², labeled $S_{\mathrm{eff}} = 0.32$), the equatorial band and the sub-Jovian mid-latitudes sublimate; at Earth-like instellation about 0.2 Gyr later (1373 W/m², $S_{\mathrm{eff}} = 1.0$), both hemispheres sublimate substantially, with Jupiter's reflected light and eclipse creating strong sub-Jovian versus anti-Jovian asymmetries. The mass-loss analysis then shows that the Clausius–Clapeyron ice–vapor interface bounds the surface pressure at the saturation vapor pressure, making hydrodynamic escape negligible and Jeans escape of the heavy water molecule slow: at the maximum modeled temperatures, complete water loss would take 0.45 to $1.6\times10^{5}$ Gyr. The paper therefore states, as a lower bound, that surface water persists for at least 0.2 Gyr in the red giant branch habitable zone, and it proposes three observing geometries—a secondary eclipse of a liberated exomoon around a white dwarf, a moon transit around a white dwarf, and a reflected-light transit across the host planet—through which such a sublimating exomoon could be detected.

Load-bearing premise

The 0.2 Gyr survival lower bound assumes photolysis does not strip the water reservoir faster than thermal escape; the paper's photochemistry model is static and preliminary, and any hydrogen produced by photolysis is lost near-instantaneously, so a coupled photolysis–escape calculation could erase the claimed stability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the lower bound holds, icy moons around giant planets become long-lived water reservoirs in the post-main-sequence habitable zone, extending the window for potentially habitable environments beyond the host star's main-sequence lifetime.
  • The surface evolution is hemisphere-dependent: Jupiter's reflected light makes the sub-Jovian hemisphere sublimate first, while Jupiter's eclipse cools that same hemisphere and keeps it from reaching its peak temperature.
  • At Earth-like instellation the model's peak temperatures exceed 250 K for part of each orbit, where the radiative timescale grows longer than Europa's orbital period; past $S_{\mathrm{eff}} = 1.11$ the paper expects a runaway greenhouse, so the 0.2 Gyr stability belongs to the earlier red giant branch phase.
  • Three observing geometries could reveal a sublimating Europan-like exomoon: secondary-eclipse spectroscopy of a liberated moon around a white dwarf, a moon transit around a white dwarf, and a reflected-light transit across the host planet's bright disk.
  • Predicted spectra show strong water bands and a weak ozone feature near 10 $\mu$m in clear atmospheres, while water clouds amplify a short-wavelength scattering slope and mute features out to about 1.4 $\mu$m.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A coupled photolysis–escape model—the paper's own stated next step—could shorten the 0.2 Gyr bound if the red giant's ultraviolet environment photolyzes water faster than the static 1D run suggests, since the paper finds any resulting hydrogen is lost near-instantly.
  • The same machinery should transfer to other icy moons and to sub-Neptune host planets; for smaller, more reflective planets the reflected-light 'optical mirror' transit method would produce a stronger exomoon signal than for a Jupiter analog.
  • Because the surface and escape models sample only two snapshots, interpolating loss rates across the full ~0.37 Gyr in the habitable zone could tell observers when in that window a surviving moon would be easiest to detect.
  • If liberated Europan exomoons around white dwarfs exist, emission spectroscopy may be out of reach for current infrared observatories but could become feasible with future high-contrast missions, making the transit geometry the most promising near-term test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 9 minor

Summary. This paper models the surface and atmospheric evolution of a Europa-like moon orbiting Jupiter during the Sun's red giant branch (RGB), focusing on two snapshots in the RGB habitable zone (Seff = 0.32 at 12.25 Gyr and Seff = 1.0 at 12.45 Gyr). A 2D latitude-longitude thermal model with diurnal, seasonal, eclipse, and Jupiter-reflected-light effects finds that the sub-Jovian hemisphere and equatorial bands sublimate, with a hemispheric asymmetry driven by Jupiter's albedo. The authors then compute thermal escape rates (Jeans and hydrodynamic) and, using the saturation vapor pressure of water as an upper bound, conclude that Europa can retain surface water for at least 0.2 Gyr in the RGB habitable zone. The paper also proposes three observational geometries for detecting such a sublimating exomoon and presents synthetic spectra generated with POSEIDON.

Significance. If the survival claim holds, this work identifies a previously underappreciated class of post-main-sequence habitats: icy moons around giant planets can maintain a water-vapor atmosphere and an ice-vapor interface for hundreds of millions of years during the RGB phase, providing a potential pathway for life beyond the main sequence. The 2D surface model is physically motivated and yields a falsifiable prediction of hemispheric asymmetry that future observations could test. The paper is commendably transparent about its assumptions and limitations, and the provision of a Zenodo reproduction repository is a strength. However, the central 0.2 Gyr claim currently rests on thermal escape alone and is not secured against photolysis, which the authors themselves identify as a potential dominant loss channel.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.5-3.6, Sec. 6] The central assertion that surface water persists for at least 0.2 Gyr in the red giant branch habitable zone is a lower bound for thermal escape only. The manuscript's own VULCAN model (Sec. 3.5) shows H2O photolyzing into H2, O2, and O3, and Sec. 3.6 states that H2 is lost near-instantaneously, yet no photolysis timescale or coupled photolysis-escape model is provided for the two red giant snapshots. The VULCAN run is initialized with the Sun's current spectrum at 1 AU rather than the PHOENIX spectra (Teff = 4900 K and 4300 K) used elsewhere, and the Lorenz et al. (1997) statement that red giant UV flux decreases is not quantified. Without a demonstration that the photolysis timescale is longer than 0.2 Gyr, the survival claim—used to motivate the observability scenarios in Sec. 4—is not established.
  2. [Sec. 4] The synthetic spectra in Figure 5 are initialized with isochemical averages from the VULCAN model, which was run with the solar spectrum rather than the red giant spectra; the resulting O3 and O2 abundances, and hence the predicted 10 μm O3 feature, are not representative of the RGB environment. The paper should either recompute the photochemical output for the two PHOENIX spectra or explicitly label the spectra as purely illustrative and decoupled from the survival claim.
minor comments (9)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (18)] The mean molecular weight of water is given as m = 2.989e26 kg; this should be 2.989e-26 kg (or equivalently 18 amu). As typeset, the equation is dimensionally inconsistent and would prevent reproduction.
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (7)] The equation for dT/dt appears garbled; it should presumably read dT/dt = (F_abs,tot - εσT^4)/c_h. Please fix the typesetting.
  3. [Sec. 4] The formula for the reflected-light signal is incomplete: 'is= 𝐹𝑠(𝜆) 𝐴𝑔(𝜆)( 𝑅𝑝/𝑎𝑝𝑑)2' lacks a clear denominator or parentheses; please correct.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The caption refers to the 'Aden-Buck equation' while the text (Sec. 3.1) calls it the 'Arden-Buck equation'; unify the name.
  5. [Sec. 2.1] Change 'it’s atmospheric composition' to 'its atmospheric composition'.
  6. [Sec. 6] The typo 'chararactize' should be 'characterize'.
  7. [Sec. 3.6] The repeated misspelling 'Clausius-Claperyon' should be 'Clausius-Clapeyron'.
  8. [Figure A1 caption] The sentence 'Yearly and daily surface temperature variations after the simulation has reached steady state are shown in Figure 3' should refer to Figure A2, since Figure 3 is for the Seff = 0.32 case.
  9. [Sec. 2.2] The typo 'susbtellar' should be 'substellar'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 0.2 Gyr survival bound is computed from independent escape formalisms, and the self-citations are contextual inputs rather than load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Europa can retain surface water for at least 0.2 Gyr in the red giant branch habitable zone. The derivation chain is: (1) a 2D Newtonian-cooling surface model produces maximum surface temperatures of 220 K at Seff = 0.32 and 315 K at Seff = 1.0; (2) a Clausius-Clapeyron saturation vapor pressure bound limits the surface pressure; (3) hydrodynamic and Jeans escape rates are computed with standard literature formulas using planetary parameters, not fitted to the target survival time; and (4) the escape timescales at the maximum simulated temperatures are compared with the 0.2 Gyr interval between the two RGB snapshots. The 0.2 Gyr interval itself is taken from Ramirez and Kaltenegger (2016), which overlaps with a coauthor, but that paper is a published post-MS solar system evolution model and does not assume Europa retains water; the survival conclusion is an independent calculation layered on that temporal context. No equation reduces to a fitted value, and no prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The VULCAN photolysis result is explicitly labeled preliminary and the coupled photolysis-escape model is stated to be beyond scope, so the associated photolysis caveat is a completeness and robustness concern rather than a circular step. The remaining self-citations, including Kaltenegger et al. (2020), Kozakis et al. (2018), and Mullens et al. (2024), support observability and spectral modeling but are not load-bearing for the core survival claim. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks for its central result, with only minor contextual self-citation, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several external modeling choices: the HZ timeline, Jupiter albedo proxies, the saturation-vapor-pressure cap, and a 2D no-circulation thermal model. None are fitted to the target result; they are standard literature inputs. The main unverified hinge is the assumption that photolysis does not dominate water loss, which is not included in the escape calculation. The free parameters are mostly literature values that affect timescales but not the qualitative sublimation pattern.

free parameters (7)
  • Thermal depth H = 0.05 m
    Controls surface heat capacity and the rate of heating and cooling in Eqs. 7 and 8. Taken from Ashkenazy (2016); a different H changes sublimation timescales.
  • Sublimation temperature T_sub = 170 K
    Phase-change threshold at a surface pressure of 1e-12 bar; the paper notes the valid range is 150-200 K. This choice sets where phase change begins and the latent-heat integration in Eq. 9.
  • Bond albedo of Europa = not stated explicitly
    Used in Eqs. 2 and 4 to compute absorbed stellar and reflected flux. The value is not tabulated, so it is a free parameter affecting how much flux is absorbed.
  • Jupiter albedo model choice = Cahoy 2 AU and 0.8 AU models
    Used as proxies for Jupiter's phase-dependent geometric albedo at the two RGB snapshots. If Jupiter's actual RGB clouds differ, the reflected-flux asymmetry and resulting sublimation pattern change.
  • Water mass fraction of Europa = 5% of bulk mass
    Used to convert mass-loss rates into water depletion timescales in Sec. 3.3. The choice strongly affects the 'time to lose all water' numbers.
  • Mean molecular weight of water = 2.989e26 kg as printed; should be about 2.99e-26 kg
    Appears in Eq. 18 for the isothermal sound speed, hence in hydrodynamic and Jeans escape rates. The printed value is a typo; using it literally would change escape rates.
  • Cloud particle size and mixing ratio in spectra = log r_m = -1.5 µm; log VMR = -11
    Adopted for the POSEIDON cloudy models in Sec. 4. These values affect spectral features and the inferred detectability of the exomoon.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The Ramirez and Kaltenegger (2016) red giant HZ evolution defines the times (12.25 Gyr, 12.45 Gyr) and instellation values (Seff 0.32, 1.0).
    The paper's two snapshots and the 'at least 0.2 Gyr' window are anchored to this external HZ model. If those timings or fluxes are wrong, the survival interval shifts. Invoked in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Cahoy et al. (2010) Jupiter albedo spectra at 2 AU and 0.8 AU around a Sun-like star are representative of Jupiter's albedo during the RGB.
    Sec. 2.1 maps Seff = 0.32 to the 2 AU model and Seff = 1.0 to the 0.8 AU model. The reflected-light asymmetry and surface temperature results depend on this mapping.
  • domain assumption The surface pressure of a sublimated water atmosphere is bounded by the saturation vapor pressure through a Clausius-Clapeyron interface.
    Secs. 3.1 to 3.3 use this to cap surface pressure and mass loss. If the atmosphere becomes supercritical or dynamically mixed, the bound can be violated.
  • domain assumption A 2D Newtonian cooling model with no lateral heat transport or global circulation adequately represents surface temperature and phase.
    The authors state that a full 3D GCM with recirculation is future work in Sec. 2.4. The sublimation pattern and temperatures are therefore approximate.
  • domain assumption Europa's surface is entirely water ice; salts and carbon-bearing material do not control surface evolution.
    Sec. 2.3 justifies this by bulk composition. If non-ice components dominate albedo or phase behavior, the sublimation pattern changes.
  • domain assumption Europa's orbit is circular and the eclipse occurs instantaneously.
    Sec. 2.2 ignores eccentricity of 0.009 and a 4-minute egress. This is reasonable but a simplification for diurnal flux.
  • standard math Standard mass-loss formalisms for Jeans and hydrodynamic escape apply to a tenuous water-vapor atmosphere in equilibrium.
    Used in Secs. 3.3 and 3.4 following Lehmer et al. (2017). They are first-order approximations, and the paper acknowledges that more complete escape physics is needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Life after death: Europa in the evolving Habitable Zone of a Red Sun." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QZC2DQK

@misc{pith2026250515495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Life after death: Europa in the evolving Habitable Zone of a Red Sun},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QZC2DQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15495}
}
read the original abstract

Most stars end their main-sequence (MS) lives by evolving through the red-giant and asymptotic-giant branches before ending as a quiescent, stable white dwarf. Therefore, it is imperative to model the post-MS as it relates to long-term stability of environments potentially suitable for life. Recent work has shown that gas giants can exist in the habitable zone (HZ) during the red giant phase and around a white dwarf remnant. Icy moons represent large reservoirs of water and will evolve through sublimation and melting when exposed to higher instellation, where the relatively lower surface gravity could lead to the rapid loss of all surface water. We model the surface evolution of Europa when initially exposed to habitable zone instellation in the red giant branch. Modeling the diurnal and yearly flux variations on a 2D map we show that, due to Jupiter's increased albedo, the sub-Jovian hemisphere of Europa largely sublimates while only the anti-Jovian equatorial band sublimates. With the increasing instellation of the red giant branch, both hemispheres sublimate substantially. We then model the evolution of a tenuous water-vapor atmosphere and show it is stable against atmospheric loss for at least 0.2 Gyr in the red giant branch habitable zone. We then present three ways to observe a sublimating Europan-like exomoon and potential spectra. Extending the results of this work to different planets and moons could open up a new pathway by which life could persist beyond the death of a star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model assumptions for stellar and reflected flux variations over different timescales. Top: The Sun’s red giant branch evolution and incident flux at Jupiter over time (Left). Stellar flux at Jupiter (PHOENIX stellar models (Husser et al. 2013)) and geometric albedo (a 0◦ phase) of Jupiter (Cahoy et al. 2010) when it first enters the red giant branch habitable zone (Seff = 0.32, turquoise) and when it receives Earth… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of the latitude-longitude simulation of Europa’s surface evolution when it first enters the red giant branch habitable zone (12.25 Gyr, Seff = 0.32, Jupiter at 2 AU Cahoy et al. (2010) albedo). First three rows show snapshots of the absorbed flux, surface temperature, and phase of Europa’s surface during the first integration of the simulation. The substellar point contributes most of the flux near the equ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flux Sublimation and Surface Temperature for specific latitudes (+90◦ ,+45◦ ,0◦ ,-45◦ , and -90◦ at the anti-Jovian and sub-Jovian hemispheres) for the Europa surface evolution simulation when it first enters the red giant branch habitable zone (12.25 Gyr, Seff = 0.32, Jupiter at 2 AU Cahoy et al. (2010) albedo). Top Row: Once the sub-Jovian mid-latitudes and both hemisphere’s equatorial regions reach the sublimatio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First panel displays the predicted surface pressure as it varies with the depth of the ice shell sublimated. The surface pressure quickly grows to unphysical levels. The second panel displays the saturation vapor pressure at a vapor-ice and vapor-liquid interface, give…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Potential methods by which to measure spectra of a sublimating Europan-like exomoon, with the atmosphere initialized from a photochemical model and included water, ozone, molecular oxygen, and molecular hydrogen. Spectra were generated with POSEIDON (MacDonald & Madhus…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aguichine A., Mousis O., Deleuil M., Marcq E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...914...84A 914, 84

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfa99 2021

  2. [2]

    arXiv:1608.07372

    Ashkenazy Y., 2016, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1608.07372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016arXiv160807372A p. arXiv:1608.07372

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1608.07372 2016

  3. [3]

    Bagenal F., Dols V., 2020, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics)] 10.1029/2019JA027485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JGRA..12527485B 125, e27485

    doi:10.1029/2019ja027485 2020

  4. [4]

    E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129f4501B 129, 064501

    Batalha N. E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129f4501B 129, 064501

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 2017

  5. [5]

    L., 1981, @doi [Journal of Applied Meteorology] 10.1175/1520-0450(1981)020<1527:NEFCVP>2.0.CO;2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981JApMe..20.1527B 20, 1527

    Buck A. L., 1981, @doi [Journal of Applied Meteorology] 10.1175/1520-0450(1981)020<1527:NEFCVP>2.0.CO;2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981JApMe..20.1527B 20, 1527

    doi:10.1175/1520-0450(1981)020 1981

  6. [6]

    L., Marley M

    Cahoy K. L., Marley M. S., Fortney J. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/189 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...724..189C 724, 189

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/1/189 2010

  7. [7]

    JWST Reveals Spectral Tracers of Recent Surface Modification on Europa

    Cartwright R. J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.05283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250405283C p. arXiv:2504.05283

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.05283 2025

  8. [8]

    Chanover N., Bauer J., Gordon M., Huber L., Mace M., Neakrase L., Tiscareno M., Walker R., 2022, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts. p. 415.01

    work page 2022

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    B., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02414-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9..189C 9, 189

    Constantinou T., Shorttle O., Rimmer P. B., 2025, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02414-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NatAs...9..189C 9, 189

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    B., Agol E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...82C 726, 82

    Cowan N. B., Agol E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/82 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...726...82C 726, 82

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Desch S

    Doyle A. E., Desch S. J., Young E. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abd9ba , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..35D 907, L35

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Koester D., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1239447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...342..218F 342, 218

    Farihi J., G \"a nsicke B. T., Koester D., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1239447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...342..218F 342, 218

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Feistel R., Wagner W., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.gca.2006.08.034 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007GeCoA..71...36F 71, 36

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Karalidi T., Bott K

    Goodis Gordon K. E., Karalidi T., Bott K. M., Wogan N. F., Arney G. N., Parenteau M. N., Kataria T., Meadows V. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.02194 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241002194G p. arXiv:2410.02194

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Grant D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acfc3b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...956L..29G 956, L29

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa932d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..254G 154, 254

    Grunblatt S. K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa932d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..254G 154, 254

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Querry M

    Hale G. M., Querry M. R., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.12.000555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApOpt..12..555H 12, 555

    1973 doi

  10. [18]

    K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad011c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..208H 166, 208

    Harada C. K., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad011c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166..208H 166, 208

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Heller R., Barnes R., 2013, @doi [Astrobiology] 10.1089/ast.2012.0859 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AsBio..13...18H 13, 18

    2013

  12. [20]

    Hobley D. E. J., Moore J. M., Howard A. D., Umurhan O. M., 2018, @doi [Nature Geoscience] 10.1038/s41561-018-0235-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatGe..11..901H 11, 901

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Howard S., M \"u ller S., Helled R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450629 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A..15H 689, A15

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    pp EPSC2020--173, @doi 10.5194/epsc2020-173

    Howell S., 2020, in European Planetary Science Congress. pp EPSC2020--173, @doi 10.5194/epsc2020-173

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    O., Wende-von Berg S., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P

    Husser T. O., Wende-von Berg S., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...553A...6H 553, A6

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    I., 2013a, Stellar Evolution Physics, Volume 1: Physical Processes in Stellar Interiors

    Iben Jr. I., 2013a, Stellar Evolution Physics, Volume 1: Physical Processes in Stellar Interiors

  17. [25]

    I., 2013b, Stellar Evolution Physics, Volume 2: Advanced Evolution of Single Stars

    Iben Jr. I., 2013b, Stellar Evolution Physics, Volume 2: Advanced Evolution of Single Stars

  18. [26]

    Jet Propulsion Laboratory N., 2021, Europa Orbital Data

    2021

  19. [27]

    Juanola-Parramon R., et al., 2022, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.3.034001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JATIS...8c4001J 8, 034001

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Clemens J

    Kaiser B. C., Clemens J. C., Blouin S., Dennihy E., Dufour P., Hegedus R. J., Reding J. S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.01878 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241201878K p. arXiv:2412.01878

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    J., Kozakis T., Lewis N

    Kaltenegger L., MacDonald R. J., Kozakis T., Lewis N. K., Mamajek E. E., McDowell J. C., Vanderburg A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aba9d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901L...1K 901, L1

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    J., et al., 2020, in Lystrup M., Perrin M

    Kasdin N. J., et al., 2020, in Lystrup M., Perrin M. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 11443, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave. p. 114431U ( @eprint arXiv 2103.01980 ), @do...

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    F., Pollack J

    Kasting J. F., Pollack J. B., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0019-1035(83)90212-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Icar...53..479K 53, 479

    1983 doi

  24. [32]

    Kempton E. M. R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-023-06159-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Natur.620...67K 620, 67

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    N., Ligier N., 2022, @doi [Planetary Science Journal] 10.3847/PSJ/ac596d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PSJ.....3...72K 3, 72

    King O., Fletcher L. N., Ligier N., 2022, @doi [Planetary Science Journal] 10.3847/PSJ/ac596d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PSJ.....3...72K 3, 72

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Koester D., Chanmugam G., 1990, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/53/7/001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990RPPh...53..837K 53, 837

    1990 doi

  27. [35]

    F., et al., 2017, USGS Spectral Library Version 7 , U.S

    Kokaly R. F., et al., 2017, USGS Spectral Library Version 7 , U.S. Geological Survey, Crustal Geophysics and Geochemistry Science Center, USGS Data Series, Report: iv, 61 p.; Dataset; Data Release, @doi 10.3133/ds1035

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862...69K 862, 69

    Kozakis T., Kaltenegger L., Hoard D. W., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...862...69K 862, 69

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Catling D

    Lehmer O. R., Catling D. C., Zahnle K. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa67ea , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839...32L 839, 32

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Lunine J

    Lorenz R. D., Lunine J. I., McKay C. P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1029/97GL52843 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997GeoRL..24.2905L 24, 2905

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    J., 2023, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.04873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JOSS....8.4873M 8, 4873

    MacDonald R. J., 2023, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.04873 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JOSS....8.4873M 8, 4873

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Madhusudhan N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1979M 469, 1979

    MacDonald R. J., Madhusudhan N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.1979M 469, 1979

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Mortimer J., L \'e cuyer C., Fourel F., Carpenter J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.pss.2018.05.010 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018P&SS..158...25M 158, 25

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Petrovich C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abc564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904L...3M 904, L3

    Mu \ n oz D. J., Petrovich C., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abc564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904L...3M 904, L3

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    K., MacDonald R

    Mullens E., Lewis N. K., MacDonald R. J., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241019253M p. arXiv:2410.19253

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    D., Dermott S

    Murray C. D., Dermott S. F., 1999, Solar System Dynamics . Cambridge University Press , @doi 10.1017/CBO9781139174817

    1999 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Liu B., Lai D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501..507O 501, 507

    O'Connor C. E., Liu B., Lai D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501..507O 501, 507

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01839-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..190O 7, 190

    Orton G. S., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01839-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7..190O 7, 190

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Veras D., Holman M

    Payne M. J., Veras D., Holman M. J., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2966 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457..217P 457, 217

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Kaltenegger L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823....6R 823, 6

    Ramirez R. M., Kaltenegger L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823....6R 823, 6

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    A., Rodriguez N

    Rathbun J. A., Rodriguez N. J., Spencer J. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.07.017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Icar..210..763R 210, 763

    2010 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Denis C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.2001.6591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Icar..151..130R 151, 130

    Rybicki K. R., Denis C., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1006/icar.2001.6591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Icar..151..130R 151, 130

    2001

  43. [51]

    University of Arizona Press, pp 185--215

    Schmidt B., 2020b, Planetary Astrobiology. University of Arizona Press, pp 185--215

  44. [52]

    E., 2020a, in Meadows V

    Schmidt B. E., 2020a, in Meadows V. S., Arney G. N., Schmidt B. E., Des Marais D. J., eds, , Planetary Astrobiology. p. 185, @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816540068

    doi

  45. [53]

    Princeton University Press

    Seager S., 2010, Exoplanet Atmospheres. Princeton University Press

    2010

  46. [54]

    L., Wolf E

    Shields A. L., Wolf E. T., Agol E., Tremblay P.-E., 2024, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241202694S p. arXiv:2412.02694

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R., Tamppari L

    Spencer J. R., Tamppari L. K., Martin T. Z., Travis L. D., 1999, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.284.5419.1514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Sci...284.1514S 284, 1514

    1999

  48. [56]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02206-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..567S 8, 567

    Szalay J. R., et al., 2024, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-024-02206-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..567S 8, 567

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...26T 886, 26

    Tan X., Komacek T. D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886...26T 886, 26

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Grosheintz L., Rimmer P

    Tsai S.-M., Lyons J. R., Grosheintz L., Rimmer P. B., Kitzmann D., Heng K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/228/2/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..228...20T 228, 20

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Fateev A., Lee E., Heng K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..264T 923, 264

    Tsai S.-M., Malik M., Kitzmann D., Lyons J. R., Fateev A., Lee E., Heng K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac29bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...923..264T 923, 264

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Vanderburg A., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2713-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.585..363V 585, 363

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Veras D., 2016, @doi [Royal Society Open Science] 10.1098/rsos.150571 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RSOS....350571V 3, 150571

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.1697V 506, 1697

    Veras D., Vidotto A. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.1697V 506, 1697

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Siess L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794....3V 794, 3

    Villaver E., Livio M., Mustill A. J., Siess L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...794....3V 794, 3

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    G., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.23.001206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApOpt..23.1206W 23, 1206

    Warren S. G., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.23.001206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApOpt..23.1206W 23, 1206

    1984 doi

  57. [65]

    A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/355145a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.355..145W 355, 145

    Wolszczan A., Frail D. A., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1038/355145a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Natur.355..145W 355, 145

    1992 doi

  58. [66]

    Yue Y., Liu J., Wang X., 2023, @doi [Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets)] 10.1029/2022JE007329 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JGRE..12807329Y 128, e2022JE007329

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Catling D

    Zahnle K. J., Catling D. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7846 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...843..122Z 843, 122

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    arXiv:2409.02157

    Zhang K., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240902157Z p. arXiv:2409.02157

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [69]

    R., Armstrong J

    Zollinger R. R., Armstrong J. C., Heller R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1861 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472....8Z 472, 8

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    van Maanen A., 1917, @doi [ ] 10.1086/122654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1917PASP...29..258V 29, 258

    1917 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.