Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Cryovolcanism in the Solar System and beyond: Considerations on Energy Sources, Geological Aspects, and Astrobiological Perspectives

Written By

Georg Hildenbrand, Klaus Paschek, Myriam Schäfer and Michael Hausmann

Submitted: 25 April 2022 Reviewed: 26 April 2022 Published: 10 June 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.105067

From the Edited Volume

Astronomy and Planetary Science - From Cryovolcanism to Black Holes and Galactic Evolution

Edited by Yann-Henri Chemin

Chapter metrics overview

310 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Volcanism based on melting rocks (silicate volcanism) is long known on Earth and has also been found on Jupiter’s moon Io. Remnants of this type of volcanism have been identified also on other bodies in the solar system. Energy sources powered by accretion and the decay of radioactive isotopes seem to be dominant mainly inside larger bodies, which have enough volume to accumulate and retain this energy in significant amounts. On the other hand, the impact of tidal forces allows even tiny bodies to melt up and pass into the stage of cryovolcanism. The dependence of tidal heating on the size of the object is minor, but the masses of and the distances to accompanying bodies as well as the inner compositions of the heated body are central factors. Even though Io as an example of a body supporting silicate volcanism is striking, the physics of tidal forces might suggest a relatively high probability for cryovolcanism. This chapter aims at considering the parameters known and objects found so far in our solar system to give insights into where in our system and other planetary systems cryovolcanism might be expected.

Keywords

  • volcanism
  • cryovolcanism
  • tidal forces
  • radioactivity
  • low-temperature biotopes
  • black smoker equivalents

1. Introduction

All types of volcanism known until now are in the solar system. All considerations and models for volcanism in other stellar systems are built upon our knowledge from our own system. New types of volcanism still unthought of, might be a challenging research topic but may not be considered here.

The main aim of this chapter is to consider cryovolcanism powered by tidal heating and its potential in exosystems. As an introduction, for reference and to characterize the main features as a base for better comparison, a rough overview of its counterpart silicate volcanism as well as underlying types of energy sources in the solar system are given.

The most prominent objects in our solar system harboring active volcanoes are both an example of what may be named high-temperature range volcanism as rocks are molten and are apparent in the form of glowing liquid lava on Earth and on the moon Io. This is generally better known under silicious-based/silicate volcanism because silicate is the most dominating component in liquid rocks. The known temperatures rise to about 1600 K on Io in the volcanoes on the surface [1], while on Earth about 1000 K to 1550 K temperature in the lava is reached [2] depending on the composition of the rocks. The temperature of magma below the surface may have still higher temperatures.

These two objects already show us also the main energy categories on which volcanism, as we know it, relies on. For the Earth, it is mainly based on the conserved accretion/contraction energy from its formation, decay of radioactive elements pulled into the mantle and center of the planet by gravity-induced differentiation, and also on friction rising from the resulting tectonic activity [3]. For Io, it is mainly based on tidal heating from the huge tidal forces raised by the gas giant it is orbiting in its crust and upper mantle [3]. Both may gain also energy from friction that is arising from the resulting tectonic activity. Some of the following general considerations may also apply to forms of energy resources. The energy retention behavior (and so also the duration of volcanic activity) is among other factors strongly depending on surface-to-volume ratios regardless of energy source. Bigger objects with lower surface-to-volume ratios are tending to stay hotter for a longer period and are able to sustain volcanism longer. For Earth and Moon during the assumed collision of their precursor bodies Theia and Gaia, a transfer of the core of Theia into the forming core of the Earth may have increased also the amount of heavier and so radioactive elements, increasing the power for volcanism on Earth and by this decreasing it on the Moon. Also during this early phase, tidal heating may have played a much bigger role for both objects, as they have been much closer together [4].

Regarding ancient evolution steps in the solar system, it is important stressing that even much tinier impacts than Theia with Gaia were much more common and have played a stronger role in melting parts of a planet, asteroid, or moon, especially during the late heavy bombardment (LHB). As it may be perceived as an external energy source and is now of little relevance, volcanism by bombardment will not be discussed further.

Considering the long-term evolution of heating sources also leads us to inactive silicate volcanism as the bodies considered are too tiny to have been able to sustain volcanism until now, as on the Moon, Mercury [5], Venus, and Mars. They are covered with lava plains and show also volcanoes, for example, the highest of the solar system, Olympus Mons on Mars. Still, for all these objects, signs for stronger or lesser still ongoing or very recent volcanic/tectonic activity have been found or are discussed (Moon: [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; Mercury: [11, 12, 13]; Venus: [14, 15, 16, 17]; Mars: [18, 19]). On Mars also a connection to a known type of lower temperature volcanism may already be found as the melting of ice and/or its remnants under a volcano may have been found as well [20, 21, 22, 23].

In the case of Venus, a relatively young surface [24] and its own type of tectonics [25] may also indicate a presence of modifying influences on silicate volcanism that are not well known until now. If the missing of water or other solvents (on Venus probably mostly after entering into a runaway greenhouse effect) is a cause for a changed plate tectonic and so volcanism [26, 27, 28], also availability and abundance of water, NH3 or CH4 have to be considered for modifying silicate volcanism, showing again a link to material and substances beyond rock.

Also, a discussed inhomogeneous distribution of radionuclides as a cause for volcanic activities, for example, on the Moon [6] further highlights a need for deep consideration of how volcanism may be sustained and be modified in behavior.

Moving on outward in the solar system brings us into ranges of asteroids, all of them being tinier than the aforementioned planets and so obviously have cooled and are not maintaining volcanism now. Accretion and radioactive energy seem to be nowadays not important for any type of volcanism in the asteroids. Still, ancient traces of volcanism may be found. The importance of meteorite impacts for melting gets relatively bigger on tinier objects. But also a differing composition of radioactive elements seems to play a bigger role as Al26 [29] and Fe60 [30] seem to have molten these tiny objects and given rise to silicate volcanism. This peroid has made a huge influence on these objects, even though this period may not have been very long, regarding the relatively short half-life of these isotopes.

Entering the realm of the gas giants opens new perspectives. The rocky objects that can show volcanism are now mainly moons, tinier in size but are orbiting much larger gas giants or maybe very close double systems orbiting each other, for example, some TNOs. These conditions open the possibility for tidal heating as the main energy source for volcanoes. Accretion and radioactive energy seem to be nowadays of lesser importance for any type of volcanism in the asteroids, gas giant moons, and beyond in the solar system.

Considering Io as an exception in this range, as we also will show, we encounter two other known examples of volcanism around gas giants that are based on tidal heating, but are now in the lower temperature ranges of cryovolcanism. The moons Enceladus and also Triton have been identified as cryovolcanic worlds [31, 32]. Others show signs of active geology and tectonics, for example, on Europa [33] or Ganymede [34], and are believed to have liquid layers or even oceans of solvents, such as water or NH3, in their depths and even deeper a basic silicate volcanism.

Regarding this, it becomes easily obvious that a real stable definition of cryovolcanism is not as easy. The aim is mostly trying to focus on volatiles, for example, molten water or methane are thrown out on the surface in an environment colder than their own melting temperature, also even if in greater depths rocks might be quite hot. Earth itself is mostly not being considered as a planet harboring cryovolcanism, even though any volcano under ice known (Iceland) or assumed (Antarctica) and geysers all over the world would fulfill such definitions in winter. Also, mud volcanism (also called “cold” volcanism) being based on mud diapirs and being generally associated with (silicate) volcanism [35, 36], is normally not considered under cryovolcanism.

All these ambiguities in defining cryovolcanism may result from a bias in detecting cryovolcanism on foreign worlds in astronomy or astrophysics. Big eruptions are much easier to observe by optic sensors (on or close to Earth or even on probes) as well as by mass analyzing probes in the proximity of these objects than by constant release of volatiles by tectonics of slowly moving ice shields covering deeper-lying liquids or even silicate volcanism. Also, old remnant structures of previous volcanism may still cover deeper active processes, which is much more problematic to investigate. If we improve our detection capabilities, also our definitions will evolve. Regarding detection and research on cryovolcanic worlds, this all illustrates the strong necessity of modeling based on easier accessible observations, either to understand where we might find such objects with cryovolcanism or what kind of cryovolcanism we might expect. This leads apart from the known active volcanic and cryovolcanic worlds to a huge list of strongly assumed, mainly cryovolcanic, active as well as inactive worlds (see Figure 1 and Table 1).

Figure 1.

Overview of types of volcanism identified or assumed on celestial bodies in the solar system (right panel) and the extrasolar planetary system TRAPPIST-1 (left panel). The horizontal axis corresponds to the mean semi-major axis of the orbits as distance to the sun (right panel) and the vertical axis corresponds to the mean semi-major axis of the orbits of moons or exoplanets as the distance from their central object (hosting planet or star TRAPPIST-1) [37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. The radii of the circles depicting each object are scaled logarithmically to the actual radii of the celestial bodies [37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53]. Please note that close to the dwarf planets Pluto and Haumea the two further dwarf planets Orcus and Quaoar exist. These are shown in the zoomed-in inset panel. Charon is a moon of Pluto, and Namaka and Hi’iaka are moons of Haumea. The dwarf planet Sedna on the right side of the right panel orbits the sun at a mean distance of 506 au, so further away as it is shown here, which is indicated with an arrow. Color-coded is the types of volcanism known or assumed on the objects. Table 1 Provides an overview of the respective references. The hollow cross marks objects in the solar system for which ongoing volcanic eruptions or geysers are known. The filled plus marks objects in the solar system for which at least former volcanic eruptions, geysers, or domes (remnants of extinct volcanic activity) are known or strongly assumed. Please note that only on Pluto at least former volcanic eruptions are assumed, but not on Orcus. An asterisk (*) at the end of an object’s name marks when one or several moons are present but not shown here.

ObjectPrimaryType of volcanism, etc.Reference
MercurySunAt least former silicate volcanism[12, 13]
VenusSunAt least former silicate volcanism[15, 16, 17]
EarthSunSilicate volcanism; Active volcanic eruptions
MoonEarthAt least former silicate volcanism[9, 10]
MarsSunAt least former silicate volcanism; At least former volcanic eruptions/domes[18, 19]
CeresSunAt least former cryovolcanism; At least former volcanic eruptions/geysers/domes[54, 55, 56]
IoJupiterSilicate volcanism; Active volcanic eruptions[57]
EuropaJupiterCryovolcanism; At least former volcanic eruptions/geysers/domes[33, 57, 58, 59, 60]
GanymedeJupiterCryovolcanism; At least former volcanic eruptions/geysers/domes[34, 57, 61, 62]
CallistoJupiterCryovolcanism[57]
MimasSaturnCryovolcanism/At least former cryovolcanism (debated)[63, 64, 65]
EnceladusSaturnCryovolcanism; Active volcanic eruptions/geysers[31, 66]
TethysSaturnAt least former cryovolcanism[67, 68, 69]
DioneSaturnCryovolcanism[66]
RheaSaturnCryovolcanism[70]
TitanSaturnCryovolcanism; At least former volcanic eruptions/geysers/domes[71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]
IapetusSaturnAt least former cryovolcanism[70, 80]
MirandaUranusAt least former cryovolcanism[81, 82, 83, 84]
ArielUranusPotential candidate for at least former cryovolcanism[81, 82]
UmbrielUranusPotential candidate for at least former cryovolcanism[81]
TitaniaUranusCryovolcanism[70]
OberonUranusCryovolcanism[70]
TritonNeptuneCryovolcanism; Active volcanic eruptions/geysers[32, 70, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89]
PlutoSunAt least former cryovolcanism; At least former volcanic eruptions/geysers/domes[70, 90]
CharonPlutoAt least former cryovolcanism[91]
OrcusSunAt least former cryovolcanism[70, 92]
HaumeaSunPotential candidate for at least former cryovolcanism[93]
Hi’iakaHaumeaPotential candidate for at least former cryovolcanism[93]
QuaoarSunPotential candidate for at least former cryovolcanism[94]
ErisSunAt least former cryovolcanism[50, 70]
DysnomiaErisAt least former cryovolcanism[50]
SednaSunAt least former cryovolcanism[70]

Table 1.

Celestial objects in the solar system on which different types of volcanism are present or strongly assumed. The last column gives the respective references. References given here were also used to categorize the types of volcanism given in Figure 1. For each object, its orbited primary and the types of known or strongly assumed volcanism and eruptions (active or extinct) are listed.

All these models are strongly based on energy resources and energy transport. Reconsidering some basic parameters in these models may illuminate some specific aspects of cryovolcanic worlds and offers an insight into basic principles to find general concepts for application in far exoplanetary systems.

Advertisement

2. Volcanism present in the solar system and the extrasolar planetary system TRAPPIST-1

The types of active and inactive volcanism in our own neighborhood are various. Figure 1 gives an overview of the different types of volcanism found or strongly assumed on celestial objects in the solar system. To classify the different types of (cryo-)volcanism found on objects in the solar system, we distinguish between the case when the respective type of volcanism is active right now and verified (e.g., by measurements of space probes) or strongly assumed due to observations, measurements or theoretical models, and the case when signs of at least former volcanic activity were identified. We also include the (at least former) presence of a liquid subsurface ocean as part of cryovolcanism.

The melting up of a subsurface ocean requires a strong energy source. This is either powered from the interior of the body hinting at the presence of silicate volcanism in its core. Another or even simultaneously occurring energy source can be the deformation by tidal forces of nearby objects, which can liquify silicates or ice and heats up potentially present silicate magma and/or a (subsurface) ocean further. This might result in icy objects in cryovolcanic activity, for example, in the form of geysers penetrating through the ice crust of Saturn’s ice-moon Enceladus [31]. By cracking up the ice crust a cryo-form of plate tectonics could be initiated, for example, on Jupiter’s ice-moon Europa [33].

In addition, we identify several objects that should be considered as potential candidates for re-evaluation of the potential of tidal-based volcanism based on recent studies. For example, the presence of crystalline water ice and/or ammonia ice on the surface hints at the presence of a mechanism that actively redeposits new material, as crystalline water ice and/or ammonia ice is not stable in the long term in these environments due to destruction by energetic particles (see, e.g., [92, 93, 94]).

Domes, which are mountains and bulges in the crust of a celestial object, could be remnants of extinct eruptive volcanoes or could be plumes that do/did not penetrate fully through the crust. We see the identification of domes on the surface of a celestial object as an indicator for at least former eruptive volcanic activity.

Moreover, we included the objects resulting from our recent study [95], which we identified as new and (in the case of the solar system) not yet elsewhere considered candidates for tidal-based volcanism.

Advertisement

3. Considerations on energy from tidal heating

For cryovolcanism, an indispensable prerequisite must be an energy source. In principle, energy could be gained from accretion and contraction during the formation of the planetary object. This process is among other parameters depending on the size of the object (with R being the radius of the object, roughly R3). As radioactive material is incorporated along with this process, equivalent considerations may be done here. Higher volume-to-surface ratios (R) minimize cooling effects and allow longer stable heating from inside. Rearrangement of material (e.g., impacts as in LHB, Theia-Gaia events, seeding with Al26) may change the occurrence, intensity, and also duration of volcanic active phases; inhomogeneities in deposition of material may give rise to local volcanism. The starting composition of radioactive material during formation may differ along with, for example, age of the stellar population. These processes will be complete in the very early phase of a stellar system (roughly 0.5 Gy after formation) and any volcanic activity based on this will evolve based on the then built-up conditions for heating and cooling. Models over several Gys imply significant effects for the heating of liquid volatiles in bigger objects of several hundreds of km radius [96].

This “standard” energy production process might not work in smaller objects where other heating sources are required, for instance, tidal heating, a process occurring in planetary systems with masses closely associated and thus impacting each other. The general principles for tidal heating may be considered as based on many more parameters as for accretion/radioactivity. Aspects of volume-to-surface ratios (R) are the same as for accretion and radioactivity, many other parameters differ.

The tidal acceleration A acting on an object’s surface is

A=GMr211±Rr21,E1

G as gravitational constant, M as mass of the influencing object, R as radius of the influenced object, and r as distance between the objects. This can be approximated by a Taylor series expansion to

A=2GMRr3.E2

Therefore, the tidal force will go with R (for details and elaborated calculations see [95]). The energy transfer and average dissipation rate gets based on even more parameters and may mostly be assumed by R5 [97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103].

Ė=212k2Qn5R5Ge2,E3

Ė as rate for tidal energy dissipating, G as gravitational constant, k2 as Love number, and Q dissipation function of the satellite. k2Q is telling how “effectively” energy is transferred on the satellite and how this leads to heating. Models with k2 are mainly used, but also models with “higher” Love numbers as k3, k4, or k6 may be considered reasonable for special systems [97, 104, 105, 106].

Q is in the range from 10 to 500 are found for the terrestrial planets and satellites of the major planets. On the other hand, Q for the major planets is always larger than 6·104 [106].

Trying to figure out further principles for tidal heating we may approach this by considering when tidal heating may really be minimized.

A body that is tidally locked on an orbit with eccentricity e=0 will not have any type of tidal energy dissipating. Locking will occur in ranges of

tlock=ωa6IQ3Gmp2R5k2,E4

G,k2,Q,R as above, ω as initial spin rate, a for the semi-major axis of the orbit of the satellite around the planet/partner, ms as mass of the satellite, mp as mass of the planet/partner, and I as momentum of inertia [107] (see pages 169–170 of this article; Formula (9) is quoted here, which comes from ref. [108]), with I0.4msR2:

tlockωa60.4msR2Q3Gmp2R5k2=0.4ω3GQk2a6msmp2R3.E5

With ms=4π3ρR3 and ρ as density of the satellite:

tlock1.6πω9GQk2ρa6mp2.E6

Apart from ω resulting from the formation process, Qk2 and ρ, as parameters for interior composition and “behavior” in heating, mp and especially a seem to strongly influence the period in which tidal heating may be possible.

The moon Io is actually tidally locked and would be on a far bigger orbit with eccentricity e=0 and so no volcanism at all would occur, if its accompanying moons would not have been influencing it and are distracting it from a round orbit [109, 110].

But a may also change over longer periods “on its own” and may so become important regarding the period for tidal heating and so volcanism. This results from an effect of energy transfer by tidal forces beyond heating, yielding a change of orbital velocity because of tidal acceleration or tidal deceleration.

As the energy transfer resulting in heating is not the only effect, tidal acceleration and also tidal deceleration may occur and by changes in velocity, change the orbit of the objects. For tidal acceleration this will bring objects to farther orbits, moving them out of the possible zone for tidal heating, for tidal deceleration, this will lower the orbits and so either crushing the objects when crossing the Roche limit or crashing them on the body which they are orbiting, as it is assumed for Triton [111, 112, 113]. These effects have also an impact via changes in the semi-major axis a on tlock . The changes by tidal acceleration/deceleration are still tiny in our system and so changes in tlock maybe on larger scales [111, 112, 113].

All these aspects make it obvious how variable volcanism based on tidal heating may be. The discovery of so powered cryovolcanism on the moons Enceladus and also Triton has been quite surprising and many proofs or hints for active or inactive volcanism, of any kind, may have still not been found in the region of the asteroid belt and beyond. A general overview of both silicate volcanism and cryovolcanism is given in Figure 2. All sketches of phases given may be powered by both accretion and radioactivity or by tidal heating. Especially if objects are big or young enough, we may also consider overlap of both power types. Known objects in our own system cover only some of these sketches, but still, we do not have proof of volcanism on all objects being considered and, as discussed, some may be cryovolcanic worlds but may have yet not been even put on a list of assumed objects.

Figure 2.

Schematic overview of general types of volcanism (1–3) and how silicate and cryovolcanism are linked (2). Remnants of both silicate and cryovolcanism as signs of inactive volcanism in (4). Earth is a known example of silicate volcanism powered by accretion and radioactivity, as well as Io is also known example of silicate volcanism powered by tidal heating, may be both sketched in (1). Both known icy moons with cryovolcanism powered by tidal heating, Enceladus, and also triton may be found in (2) or in some parts may be in (3). Inactive remnants (4) as discussed may be found on many objects, for example, Vesta or the moon.

Considering this, we may, when looking out of our own solar system, get aware of how problematic identifications of volcanic worlds may get in these faraway systems. Also, some aspects may get stronger influence. Many systems with close orbits, favoring stronger tidal forces, especially around K- and M-stars, have been found and modeled (e.g., [114, 115, 116, 117, 118]). But many parameters of these systems being necessary for modeling are barely known and may need even stronger efforts in measuring and obtaining them. First attempts in reconsidering some constraints of these models have been done (as in e.g., [95]) and first assumptions based on reduced parameter sets for the evaluation of state and kind of volcanic worlds have been made. The approach aims at assessing the potential for volcanic worlds on easier than other observable parameters and has been verified in our own system, yielding all known and many assumed volcanic objects, plus hints for further bodies harboring volcanoes. Thus, it may be considered as a pre-scan before deeper and more intensive modeling. The first application in the system of TRAPPIST-1 gave rise to a higher volcanic potential on all planets, not only by forces of the central star but also by mutual tidal influences of the orbiting bodies [95].

Advertisement

4. Considerations for astrobiology

Regarding the phenomena of silicate and cryovolcanism, all of them may be powered by the energy sources discussed, but conditions for and evolution of these power sources are differing. Considering constraints for life as we know it, new aspects arise. Water in liquid form would be assumed as a requirement, in some alternative chemistry also ammonia or methane are discussed as possible solvents, liquid silicate/rock is less considered as being favorable for life. Also, a longer period of stability of these solvents is seen as favorable.

As accretion/radioactivity powered volcanism is high after formation and presumably gives rise to liquid silicates, it is a narrow gap of parameters depending on the size of the object and seeding of elements, which would allow a long and stable period of solvents as water. Bigger objects (starting already with radii just below 1000 km) might keep the heat over Gys too high, for example, water to rain down on the surface. Objects with sizes of several hundred kilometers and below may cool down very fast, allowing liquid water on the surface or in layers deeper in the crust for short periods of some 10 or 100 Mys [96]. Volcanism by tidal heating seems to be, if special conditions are met, more stable, as may be seen from all moons in our system with known active volcanism or tectonics, for example, Europa, Ganymede, or Enceladus. Even if becoming presumably unstable as Triton, it is after many Gys.

Considering the distribution of stable (e.g., considered from formation until now) volcanism powered by accretion/radioactivity or by tidal heating in our system, only Earth may be considered as accretion/radioactivity powered and many tens of objects powered by tidal heating confirmed or strongly assumed. If not for the power of the sun, habitable biotopes on Earth would be pretty much the same as the assumed ones on the moons discussed, that is, around vents deep in the liquid oceans below an ice crust covering (nearly) the whole surface. If we postulate such black smokers as life forging and maintaining harbors, in general, all over the universe, tidal heating may stably sustain such sources over many Gys, independent of a central stellar object even (and especially) on tiny objects. The requirements for tidal heating to power the cryovolcanism and rendering solvents liquid maybe not easily met, but considering the vast number of tiny objects (in contrast with bigger ones), the overall abundance of the self-powered systems may be seen as relatively high.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

Silicate and cryovolcanism both occur in a broad spectrum considering the proofs, traces, and remnants in our own system. The constraints and challenges for detecting any volcanic activity beyond our system are huge. Some parameters maybe even far more difficult for measuring than others. Bigger objects with volcanism probably based mainly on accretion energy or radioactivity may still be easier for far distance observation, detection, and measurement. Still, an accompanying approach by modeling, for objects in our own system as well as beyond, based on measurable or other feasible attempts seems reasonable.

Considering the models and also the underlying energy sources and evolution, tidal heating as an energy source can be highly variable. It may have a broader spectrum in occurrence than heating by stored accretion energy or radioactivity. Tinier objects may get energy for significant heating from tidal heating and less from accretion and radioactivity. Objects may start in conditions for tidal heating, move out or in these conditions, and may be stabilized by accompanying partners. The real spectrum of possible sets of moons, asteroids, and planets will be probably even much broader. Considering the fact of much larger amounts of tiny objects, the implications for the probability of worlds with volcanic activity of any kind powered by tidal heating are huge.

Being aware of possible long stable periods for liquid solvents on such volcanic worlds powered by tidal heating and also considering known volcanic structures as deep ocean vents serving as harbors for genesis and maintenance of life, the relevance of tidal heating for cryovolcanism/low-temperature geological activity becomes even more prominent.

By a combination of observational systems and models, by their improvement and mutual influence, description and measurement of volcanic worlds, as well as possible biotopes for life beyond our own system, seems to be achievable.

References

  1. 1. Williams DA, Howell RR. Active volcanis Effusive eruptions. In: Lopes RMC, Spencer JR, editors. Io Galileo New View Jupiter’s Volcan. Moon, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2007. pp. 133-161. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-48841-5_7
  2. 2. Volcanoes FP. A Planetary Perspective. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 1993
  3. 3. Williams DA, Byrne PK, Jozwiak L, Liu Y, Radebaugh J. 2 - Effusive silicate volcanis Observations and processes. In: TKP G, RMC L, Fagents SA, editors. Planetary Volcanism across the Solar System. Vol. 1 in Comparative Planetology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2022. pp. 5-75. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813987-5.00002-X
  4. 4. Zahnle K, Arndt N, Cockell C, Halliday A, Nisbet E, Selsis F, et al. Emergence of a habitable planet. Space Science Reviews. 2007;129:35-78. DOI: 10.1007/s11214-007-9225-z
  5. 5. Head JW, Wilson L. Chapter 40 - volcanism on mercury. In: Sigurdsson H, editor. Encycl. Volcanoes. Second ed. Amsterda Academic Press; 2015. pp. 701-716. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00040-7
  6. 6. Braden SE, Stopar JD, Robinson MS, Lawrence SJ, van der Bogert CH, Hiesinger H. Evidence for basaltic volcanism on the moon within the past 100 million years. Nature Geoscience. 2014;7:787-791. DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2252
  7. 7. Srivastava N, Kumar D, Gupta RP. Young viscous flows in the Lowell crater of Orientale basin, moon: Impact melts or volcanic eruptions? Planetary and Space Science. 2013;87:37-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2013.09.001
  8. 8. Whitten J, Head JW, Staid M, Pieters CM, Mustard J, Clark R, et al. Lunar mare deposits associated with the Orientale impact basin: New insights into mineralogy, history, mode of emplacement, and relation to Orientale Basin evolution from moon mineralogy mapper (M3) data from Chandrayaan-1. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2011;116:e00G09. DOI: 10.1029/2010JE003736
  9. 9. Spudis PD. Chapter 39 - volcanism on the moon. In: Sigurdsson H, editor. Encycl. Volcanoes. Second ed. Amsterda Academic Press; 2015. pp. 689-700. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00039-0
  10. 10. Weber RC, Lin P-Y, Garnero EJ, Williams Q, Lognonné P. Seismic detection of the lunar Core. Science. 2011;331:309-312. DOI: 10.1126/science.1199375
  11. 11. Dzurisin D. The tectonic and volcanic history of mercury as inferred from studies of scarps, ridges, troughs, and other lineaments. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1978;83:4883-4906. DOI: 10.1029/JB083iB10p04883
  12. 12. Hanson B. Mercury, up-close again. Science. 2008;321:58-58. DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5885.58
  13. 13. Head JW, Chapman CR, Strom RG, Fassett CI, Denevi BW, Blewett DT, et al. Flood volcanism in the northern high latitudes of mercury revealed by MESSENGER. Science. 2011;333:1853-1856. DOI: 10.1126/science.1211997
  14. 14. Filiberto J, Trang D, Treiman AH, Gilmore MS. Present-day volcanism on Venus as evidenced from weathering rates of olivine. Science Advances. 2020;6(1):eaax7445. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax7445. Available from: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aax7445
  15. 15. Shalygin EV, Markiewicz WJ, Basilevsky AT, Titov DV, Ignatiev NI, Head JW. Active volcanism on Venus in the Ganiki Chasma rift zone. Geophysical Research Letters. 2015;42:4762-4769. DOI: 10.1002/2015GL064088
  16. 16. Armann M, Tackley PJ. Simulating the thermochemical magmatic and tectonic evolution of Venus’s mantle and lithosphere: Two-dimensional models. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2012;117:E12003. DOI: 10.1029/2012JE004231
  17. 17. Mikhail S, Heap MJ. Hot climate inhibits volcanism on Venus: Constraints from rock deformation experiments and argon isotope geochemistry. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors. 2017;268:18-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.pepi.2017.05.007
  18. 18. Hauber E, Brož P, Jagert F, Jodłowski P, Platz T. Very recent and wide-spread basaltic volcanism on Mars. Geophysical Research Letters. 2011;38:l10201. DOI: 10.1029/2011GL047310
  19. 19. Horvath DG, Moitra P, Hamilton CW, Craddock RA, Andrews-Hanna JC. Evidence for geologically recent explosive volcanism in Elysium Planitia, Mars. Icarus. 2021;365:114499. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114499
  20. 20. Fagents SA, Thordarson T. Rootless volcanic cones in Iceland and on Mars. In: Chapman MG, editor. Geol. Mars Evid. Earth-Based Analogs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 151-177
  21. 21. Keszthelyi LP, Jaeger WL, Dundas CM, Martínez-Alonso S, McEwen AS, Milazzo MP. Hydrovolcanic features on Mars: Preliminary observations from the first Mars year of HiRISE imaging. Icarus. 2010;205:211-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.08.020
  22. 22. Brož P, Hauber E. Hydrovolcanic tuff rings and cones as indicators for phreatomagmatic explosive eruptions on Mars. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2013;118:1656-1675. DOI: 10.1002/jgre.20120
  23. 23. Chapman MG, Smellie JL. Mars interior layered deposits and terrestrial sub-ice volcanoes compared: Observations and interpretations of similar geomorphic characteristics. In: Chapman MG, editor. Geol. Mars Evid. Earth-Based Analog. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 178-207. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511536014.008
  24. 24. Strom RG, Schaber GG, Dawson DD. The global resurfacing of Venus. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 1994;99:10899-10926. DOI: 10.1029/94JE00388
  25. 25. Byrne PK, Ghail RC, Şengör AMC, James PB, Klimczak C, Solomon SC. A globally fragmented and mobile lithosphere on Venus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118:e2025919118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2025919118
  26. 26. Mian Zu, Tozer Dc. No water, no plate tectonics: Convective heat transfer and the planetary surfaces of Venus and earth. Terra Nova. 1990;2:455-459. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3121.1990.tb00102.x
  27. 27. Korenaga J. Plate tectonics and surface environment: Role of the oceanic upper mantle. Earth Science Reviews. 2020;205:103185. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103185
  28. 28. Schmandt B, Jacobsen SD, Becker TW, Liu Z, Dueker KG. Dehydration melting at the top of the lower mantle. Science. 2014;344:1265-1268. DOI: 10.1126/science.1253358
  29. 29. Zuber MT, McSween HY, Binzel RP, Elkins-Tanton LT, Konopliv AS, Pieters CM, et al. Origin, internal structure and evolution of 4 Vesta. Space Science Reviews. 2011;163:77-93. DOI: 10.1007/s11214-011-9806-8
  30. 30. Moskovitz N, Gaidos E. Differentiation of planetesimals and the thermal consequences of melt migration. Meteoritics and Planetary Science. 2011;46:903-918. DOI: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2011.01201.x
  31. 31. Hansen CJ, Esposito L, Stewart AIF, Colwell J, Hendrix A, Pryor W, et al. Enceladus’ water vapor plume. Science. 2006;311:1422-1425. DOI: 10.1126/science.1121254
  32. 32. Soderblom LA, Kieffer SW, Becker TL, Brown RH, Cook AF, Hansen CJ, et al. Triton’s geyser-like plumes: Discovery and basic characterization. Science. 1990;250:410-415. DOI: 10.1126/science.250.4979.410
  33. 33. Greenberg R, Geissler P, Hoppa G, Tufts BR. Tidal-tectonic processes and their implications for the character of Europa’s icy crust. Reviews of Geophysics. 2002;40:1-33. DOI: 10.1029/2000RG000096
  34. 34. Schenk PM, McKinnon WB, Gwynn D, Moore JM. Flooding of Ganymede’s bright terrains by low-viscosity water-ice lavas. Nature. 2001;410:57-60. DOI: 10.1038/35065027
  35. 35. De Waard D. Diapirism. In: Seyfert, editor. Struct. Geol. Tecton. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 1987. pp. 202-203. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-31080-0_31
  36. 36. Rajput S, Thakur NK. Chapter 4 - tectonics and gas hydrates. In: Rajput S, Thakur NK, editors. Geol. Controls Gas Hydrate Form. Unconv. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2016. pp. 107-130. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-802020-3.00004-7
  37. 37. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). California Institute of Technology (Caltech), National Araeronatics and Space Agengy (NASA). Solar System Bodies, JPL. n.d. https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?bodies [Accessed April 11, 2022]
  38. 38. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). California Institute of Technology (Caltech), National Araeronatics and Space Agengy (NASA). JPL Small-Body Database Search Engine. n.d. https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb_query.cgi [Accessed April 11, 2022]
  39. 39. Ragozzine D, Brown ME. Orbits and masses of the satellites of the dwarf planet Haumea (2003 El61). Astronomy Journal. 2009;137:4766-4776. DOI: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4766
  40. 40. Brown ME, Schaller EL. The mass of dwarf planet Eris. Science. 2007;316:1585-1585. DOI: 10.1126/science.1139415
  41. 41. Gillon M, Triaud AHMJ, Demory B-O, Jehin E, Agol E, Deck KM, et al. Seven temperate terrestrial planets around the nearby ultracool dwarf star TRAPPIST-1. Nature. 2017;542:456-460. DOI: 10.1038/nature21360
  42. 42. Grimm SL, Demory B-O, Gillon M, Dorn C, Agol E, Burdanov A, et al. The nature of the TRAPPIST-1 exoplanets. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2018;613:A68-A68. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732233
  43. 43. Delrez L, Gillon M, Triaud AHMJ, Demory B-O, de Wit J, Ingalls JG, et al. Early 2017 observations of TRAPPIST-1 with Spitzer. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2018;475:3577-3597. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty051
  44. 44. Vilenius E, Kiss C, Mommert M, Müller T, Santos-Sanz P, Pal A, et al. “TNOs are cool”: A survey of the trans-Neptunian region - VI. Herschel/PACS observations and thermal modeling of 19 classical Kuiper belt objects. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2012;541:A94. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118743
  45. 45. Dunham ET, Desch SJ, Probst L. Haumea’s shape, composition, and internal structure. The Astrophysical Journal. 2019;877:41. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13b3
  46. 46. Ortiz JL, Santos-Sanz P, Sicardy B, Benedetti-Rossi G, Bérard D, Morales N, et al. The size, shape, density and ring of the dwarf planet Haumea from a stellar occultation. Nature. 2017;550:219-223. DOI: 10.1038/nature24051
  47. 47. Braga-Ribas F, Sicardy B, Ortiz JL, Lellouch E, Tancredi G, Lecacheux J, et al. The size, shape, albedo, density, and atmospheric limit of Transneptunian object (50000) Quaoar from multi-chord stellar Occultations. The Astrophysical Journal. 2013;773:26. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/26
  48. 48. Arimatsu K, Ohsawa R, Hashimoto GL, Urakawa S, Takahashi J, Tozuka M, et al. New constraint on the atmosphere of (50000) Quaoar from a stellar occultation. Astronomy Journal. 2019;158:236. DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5058
  49. 49. Sicardy B, Ortiz JL, Assafin M, Jehin E, Maury A, Lellouch E, et al. Size, density, albedo and atmosphere limit of dwarf planet Eris from a stellar occultation. EPSC Abstracts. 2011;2011:137
  50. 50. Saxena P, Renaud JP, Henning WG, Jutzi M, Hurford T. Relevance of tidal heating on large TNOs. Icarus. 2018;302:245-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.11.023
  51. 51. Pál A, Kiss C, Müller TG, Santos-Sanz P, Vilenius E, Szalai N, et al. “TNOs are cool”: A survey of the trans-Neptunian region - VII. Size and surface characteristics of (90377) Sedna and 2010 EK139. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2012;541:L6. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218874
  52. 52. Rommel FL, Braga-Ribas F, Desmars J, Camargo JIB, Ortiz JL, Sicardy B, et al. Stellar occultations enable milliarcsecond astrometry for trans-Neptunian objects and centaurs. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2020;644:A40. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039054
  53. 53. Grootel VV, Fernandes CS, Gillon M, Jehin E, Manfroid J, Scuflaire R, et al. Stellar parameters for Trappist-1. The Astrophysical Journal. 2018;853:30. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa023
  54. 54. Küppers M, O’Rourke L, Bockelée-Morvan D, Zakharov V, Lee S, von Allmen P, et al. Localized sources of water vapour on the dwarf planet (1) Ceres. Nature. 2014;505:525-527. DOI: 10.1038/nature12918
  55. 55. McCord TB, Castillo-Rogez J, Rivkin A. Ceres: Its origin, evolution and structure and Dawn’s potential contribution. Space Science Reviews. 2011;163:63-76. DOI: 10.1007/s11214-010-9729-9
  56. 56. Ruesch O, Platz T, Schenk P, McFadden LA, Castillo-Rogez JC, Quick LC, et al. Cryovolcanism on Ceres. Science. 2016;353:aaf4286. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4286
  57. 57. Showman AP, Malhotra R. The Galilean satellites. Science. 1999;286:77-84. DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5437.77
  58. 58. Anderson JD, Schubert G, Jacobson RA, Lau EL, Moore WB, Sjogren WL. Europa’s differentiated internal structure: Inferences from four Galileo encounters. Science. 1998;281:2019-2022. DOI: 10.1126/science.281.5385.2019
  59. 59. Fagents SA. Considerations for effusive cryovolcanism on Europa: The post-Galileo perspective. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2003;108(e12):5139. DOI: 10.1029/2003JE002128
  60. 60. Quick LC, Glaze LS, Baloga SM. Cryovolcanic emplacement of domes on Europa. Icarus. 2017;284:477-488. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2016.06.029
  61. 61. Vance S, Bouffard M, Choukroun M, Sotin C. Ganymede′s internal structure including thermodynamics of magnesium sulfate oceans in contact with ice. Planetary and Space Science. 2014;96:62-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2014.03.011
  62. 62. Lee Allison M, Clifford SM. Ice-covered water volcanism on Ganymede. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1987;92:7865-7876. DOI: 10.1029/JB092iB08p07865
  63. 63. Tajeddine R, Rambaux N, Lainey V, Charnoz S, Richard A, Rivoldini A, et al. Constraints on Mimas’ interior from Cassini ISS libration measurements. Science. 2014;346:322-324. DOI: 10.1126/science.1255299
  64. 64. Rhoden AR, Henning W, Hurford TA, Patthoff DA, Tajeddine R. The implications of tides on the Mimas Ocean hypothesis. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2017;122:400-410. DOI: 10.1002/2016JE005097
  65. 65. Rhoden AR, Walker ME. The case for an ocean-bearing Mimas from tidal heating analysis. Icarus. 2022;376:114872. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2021.114872
  66. 66. Beuthe M, Rivoldini A, Trinh A. Enceladus’s and Dione’s floating ice shells supported by minimum stress isostasy. Geophysical Research Letters. 2016;43:10,088-10,096. DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070650
  67. 67. Chen EMA, Nimmo F. Implications from Ithaca Chasma for the thermal and orbital history of Tethys. Geophysical Research Letters. 2008;35:l19203. DOI: 10.1029/2008GL035402
  68. 68. Hussmann H, Rodríguez A, Callegari N, Shoji D. Early resonances of Tethys and Dione: Implications for Ithaca Chasma. Icarus. 2019;319:407-416. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.09.025
  69. 69. Gyalay S, Dodds KH, Nimmo F. Estimates of Tethys’ present-day heat flux and moment of inertia from its long-wavelength topography. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts. 2018;2018:P54B-P507B
  70. 70. Hussmann H, Sohl F, Spohn T. Subsurface oceans and deep interiors of medium-sized outer planet satellites and large trans-neptunian objects. Icarus. 2006;185:258-273. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.06.005
  71. 71. Owen T. Huygens rediscovers titan. Nature. 2005;438:756-757. DOI: 10.1038/438756a
  72. 72. Grasset O, Sotin C, Deschamps F. On the internal structure and dynamics of titan. Planetary and Space Science. 2000;48:617-636. DOI: 10.1016/S0032-0633(00)00039-8
  73. 73. Sotin C, Jaumann R, Buratti BJ, Brown RH, Clark RN, Soderblom LA, et al. Release of volatiles from a possible cryovolcano from near-infrared imaging of Titan. Nature. 2005;435:786-789. DOI: 10.1038/nature03596
  74. 74. Turtle EP, Perry JE, McEwen AS, DelGenio AD, Barbara J, West RA, et al. Cassini imaging of Titan’s high-latitude lakes, clouds, and south-polar surface changes. Geophysical Research Letters. 2009;36:l02204. DOI: 10.1029/2008GL036186
  75. 75. Radebaugh J, Lorenz RD, Kirk RL, Lunine JI, Stofan ER, Lopes RMC, et al. Mountains on titan observed by Cassini Radar. Icarus. 2007;192:77-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.06.020
  76. 76. Lopes RMC, Kirk RL, Mitchell KL, LeGall A, Barnes JW, Hayes A, et al. Cryovolcanism on titan: New results from Cassini RADAR and VIMS. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2013;118:416-435. DOI: 10.1002/jgre.20062
  77. 77. Wood CA, Radebaugh J. Morphologic evidence for volcanic craters near Titan’s north polar region. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2020;125:e2019JE006036. DOI: 10.1029/2019JE006036
  78. 78. Fortes AD, Grindrod PM, Trickett SK, Vočadlo L. Ammonium sulfate on titan: Possible origin and role in cryovolcanism. Icarus. 2007;188:139-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.11.002
  79. 79. Mitri G, Bland MT, Showman AP, Radebaugh J, Stiles B, Lopes RMC, et al. Mountains on titan: Modeling and observations. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2010;115:e10002. DOI: 10.1029/2010JE003592
  80. 80. Ring Around a Moon? n.d. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.307.5708.349c [accessed: March 27, 2022]
  81. 81. Tittemore WC, Wisdom J. Tidal evolution of the Uranian satellites: III. Evolution through the Miranda-Umbriel 3:1, Miranda-Ariel 5:3, and Ariel-Umbriel 2:1 mean-motion commensurabilities. Icarus. 1990;85:394-443. DOI: 10.1016/0019-1035(90)90125-S
  82. 82. Schenk PM. Fluid volcanism on Miranda and Ariel: Flow morphology and composition. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth. 1991;96:1887-1906. DOI: 10.1029/90JB01604
  83. 83. Pappalardo RT, Reynolds SJ, Greeley R. Extensional tilt blocks on Miranda: Evidence for an upwelling origin of Arden Corona. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 1997;102:13369-13379. DOI: 10.1029/97JE00802
  84. 84. Hammond NP, Barr AC. Global resurfacing of Uranus’s moon Miranda by convection. Geology. 2014;42:931-934. DOI: 10.1130/G36124.1
  85. 85. Martin-Herrero A, Romeo I, Ruiz J. Heat flow in triton: Implications for heat sources powering recent geologic activity. Planetary and Space Science. 2018;160:19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2018.03.010
  86. 86. Kargel JS. Cryovolcanism on the icy satellites. Earth, Moon, and Planets. 1994;67:101-113. DOI: 10.1007/BF00613296
  87. 87. Smith BA, Soderblom LA, Banfield D, Barnet C, Basilevsky AT, Beebe RF, et al. Voyager 2 at Neptune: Imaging science results. Science. 1989;246:1422-1449. DOI: 10.1126/science.246.4936.1422
  88. 88. McKinnon WB, Kirk RL. Triton. In: Johnson TV, Spohn T, Breuer D, editors. Encycl. Sol. Syst. 3rd ed., Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier; 2014, p. 861–882.
  89. 89. Strom RG, Croft SK, Boyce JM. The impact cratering record on triton. Science. 1990;250:437-439. DOI: 10.1126/science.250.4979.437
  90. 90. Witze A. Icy volcanoes may dot Pluto’s surface. Nature. 2015. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2015.18756
  91. 91. Desch SJ, Cook JC, Doggett TC, Porter SB. Thermal evolution of Kuiper belt objects, with implications for cryovolcanism. Icarus. 2009;202:694-714. DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.009
  92. 92. Barucci MA, Merlin F, Guilbert A, Bergh C de, Alvarez-Candal A, Hainaut O, et al. Surface composition and temperature of the TNO Orcus. Astronomy and Astrophysics 2008;479:L13–L16. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20079079
  93. 93. Dumas C, Carry B, Hestroffer D, Merlin F. High-contrast observations of (136108) Haumea - a crystalline water-ice multiple system. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2011;528:A105. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015011
  94. 94. Jewitt DC, Luu J. Crystalline water ice on the Kuiper belt object (50000) Quaoar. Nature. 2004;432:731-733. DOI: 10.1038/nature03111
  95. 95. Paschek K, Roßmann A, Hausmann M, Hildenbrand G. Analysis of tidal accelerations in the solar system and in extrasolar planetary systems. Applied Sciences. 2021;11:8624. DOI: 10.3390/app11188624
  96. 96. Guilbert-Lepoutre A, Lasue J, Federico C, Coradini A, Orosei R, Rosenberg ED. New 3D thermal evolution model for icy bodies application to trans-Neptunian objects. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2011;529:A71. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014194
  97. 97. Efroimsky M, Makarov VV. Tidal dissipation in a homogeneous spherical body. International Methods Astrophysics Journal. 2014;795:6. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/6
  98. 98. Zschau J. Tidal friction in the solid earth: Loading tides versus body tides. In: Brosche P, Sündermann J, editors. Tidal Frict. Earth’s Rotat. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1978. pp. 62-94. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-67097-8_7
  99. 99. Platzman GW. Planetary energy balance for tidal dissipation. Reviews of Geophysics. 1984;22:73-84. DOI: 10.1029/RG022i001p00073
  100. 100. Segatz M, Spohn T, Ross MN, Schubert G. Tidal dissipation, surface heat flow, and figure of viscoelastic models of Io. Icarus. 1988;75:187-206. DOI: 10.1016/0019-1035(88)90001-2
  101. 101. Peale SJ. Generalized Cassini’s Laws. Astronomy Journal. 1969;74:483. DOI: 10.1086/110825
  102. 102. Peale SJ, Cassen P. Contribution of tidal dissipation to lunar thermal history. Icarus. 1978;36:245-269. DOI: 10.1016/0019-1035(78)90109-4
  103. 103. Kaula WM. Theory of Satellite Geodesy. Applications of Satellites to Geodesy. Waltham, MA, USA: Blaisdell Publishing Company; 1966
  104. 104. Bills BG, Neumann GA, Smith DE, Zuber MT. Improved estimate of tidal dissipation within Mars from MOLA observations of the shadow of Phobos. Journal of Geophysical Research, Planets. 2005;110:e07004. DOI: 10.1029/2004JE002376
  105. 105. Taylor PA, Margot J-L. Tidal evolution of close binary asteroid systems. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy. 2010;108:315-338. DOI: 10.1007/s10569-010-9308-0
  106. 106. Goldreich P, Soter S. Q in the solar system. Icarus. 1966;5:375-389. DOI: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0
  107. 107. Gladman B, Quinn DD, Nicholson P, Rand R. Synchronous locking of tidally evolving satellites. Icarus. 1996;122:166-192. DOI: 10.1006/icar.1996.0117
  108. 108. Peale SJ. Rotation histories of the natural satellites. In: Burns JA, editor. Proc. IAU Colloq 28 Ithaca NY USA. Tucson, AZ, USA: University of Arizona Press; 1977. p. 87
  109. 109. Lainey V, Arlot J-E, Karatekin Ö, Van Hoolst T. Strong tidal dissipation in Io and Jupiter from astrometric observations. Nature. 2009;459:957-959. DOI: 10.1038/nature08108
  110. 110. Yoder CF. How tidal heating in Io drives the galilean orbital resonance locks. Nature. 1979;279:767-770. DOI: 10.1038/279767a0
  111. 111. Nobili AM. Secular effects of tidal friction on the planet-satellite systems of the solar system. Moon and the Planets. 1978;18:203-216. DOI: 10.1007/BF00896743
  112. 112. Ćuk M, Gladman BJ. Constraints on the orbital evolution of triton. The Astrophysical Journal. 2005;626:L113-L116. DOI: 10.1086/431743
  113. 113. Chyba CF, Jankowski DG, Nicholson PD. Tidal evolution in the Neptune-Triton system. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 1989;219:L23-L26
  114. 114. Kite ES, Manga M, Gaidos E. Geodynamics and rate of volcanism on massive earth-like planets. The Astrophysical Journal. 2009;700:1732-1749. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1732
  115. 115. Barr AC, Dobos V, Kiss LL. Interior structures and tidal heating in the TRAPPIST-1 planets. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2018;613:A37. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731992
  116. 116. Dobos V, Barr AC, Kiss LL. Tidal heating and the habitability of the TRAPPIST-1 exoplanets. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2019;624:A2. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834254
  117. 117. Bolmont E, Breton SN, Tobie G, Dumoulin C, Mathis S, Grasset O. Solid tidal friction in multi-layer planets: Application to earth, Venus, a super earth and the TRAPPIST-1 planets - potential approximation of a multi-layer planet as a homogeneous body. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2020;644:A165. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038204
  118. 118. Bolmont E, Selsis F, Raymond SN, Leconte J, Hersant F, Maurin A-S, et al. Tidal dissipation and eccentricity pumping: Implications for the depth of the secondary eclipse of 55 Cancri e. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2013;556:A17. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220837

Written By

Georg Hildenbrand, Klaus Paschek, Myriam Schäfer and Michael Hausmann

Submitted: 25 April 2022 Reviewed: 26 April 2022 Published: 10 June 2022