ΑΣΤΡΟΝΟΜΙΑ

4.2.
1 Introduction
4.2.1.1 Structure and Dimension of the Solar system
4.2.1.2 Definition of a Planet in the Solar System
4.2.1.3 References
4.2.2 Basic Data of Planetary Bodies (Hussmann, Sohl, Oberst )

4.2.2.1 General Definitions
4.2.2.1.1 Orbital Elements
4.2.2.1.2 Time Standards
4.2.2.1.3 Astronomical Units
4.2.2.2 Planets
4.2.2.3 Dwarf Planets
4.2.2.4 Satellites
4.2.2.5 Rings
4.2.2.6 References
4.2.3 Terrestrial Planets and Satellites
4.2.3.1 Geodetic and Geophysical Data (Grott, Hussmann, Oberst, Whlisch)
4.2.3.1.1 Introduction
4.2.3.1.1.1 Symbols Used
4.2.3.1.1.2 Overview
4.2.3.1.2 Rotation and Shape
4.2.3.1.2.1 Rotational Elements
4.2.3.1.2.2 Shape
4.2.3.1.2.3 Method
4.2.3.1.3 Gravity Studies
4.2.3.1.3.1 Method
4.2.3.1.3.2 Gravity Field Coefficients
4.2.3.1.3.3 Gravity Studies of the Earth, Venus, Mars, and the Moon
4.2.3.1.4 Topography
4.2.3.1.5 References
4.2.3.2 Planetary Interiors (Sohl, Wagner, Hussmann, Grott)
4.2.3.2.2 Basic Equations and Models
4.2.3.2.2.1 Two-Layer Structural Models
4.2.3.2.2.2 Three-Layer Structural Models
4.2.3.2.2.3 Depth-Dependent Structural Models
4.2.3.2.2.4 Boundary Conditions
4.2.3.2.2.5 Equation of State
4.2.3.2.3 Typical Structure Models
4.2.3.2.3.2 Mercury
4.2.3.2.3.3 Venus
4.2.3.2.3.4 Mars
4.2.3.2.3.5 The Moon
4.2.3.2.3.6 The Galilean Satellites
4.2.3.2.3.7 The Saturnian Satellites
4.2.3.2.3.8 Icy Satellites of Uranus and Neptune
4.2.3.3 Planetary Seismology (Knapmeyer)
4.2.3.3.1.1 Symbols used
4.2.3.3.1.3 Polynomial Representation of Velocity Models
4.2.3.3.2 Mercury
4.2.3.3.2.1 Expected Seismicity
4.2.3.3.2.2 Velocity Models
4.2.3.3.3 Venus
4.2.3.3.3.1 Seismic Experiments
4.2.3.3.3.2 Seismicity
4.2.3.3.3.3 Velocity Model
4.2.3.3.4 Earth
4.2.3.3.5 Moon
4.2.3.3.5.1.1 Apollo Landing Sites
4.2.3.3.5.1.2 Active Experiments
4.2.3.3.5.1.3 Passive Experiments
4.2.3.3.5.2.1 Meteorite Impacts
4.2.3.3.5.2.2 Shallow Moonquakes
4.2.3.3.5.2.3 Deep Moonquakes
4.2.3.3.5.2.4 Thermal Moonquakes
4.2.3.3.5.3.1 Shallow Structure at Landing Sites
4.2.3.3.5.3.2 Global Models
4.2.3.3.5.4 Attenuation
4.2.3.3.6 Mars
4.2.3.3.6.2 Observed Seismicity
4.2.3.4 Dynamics and Thermal Evolution (Breuer)
4.2.3.4.2 Thermal and Chemical Convection
4.2.3.4.3 Field Equations and Parameterization
4.2.3.4.3.1 Field Equations
4.2.3.4.3.2 Parameterized Convection
4.2.3.4.4 Material Parameters: Viscosity and Radioactive Heat Sources
4.2.3.4.4.1 Mantle Rheology and Viscosity
4.2.3.4.4.2 Radioactive Heat Sources
4.2.3.4.5 Dynamics and Thermal Evolution of Terrestrial Planets
4.2.3.4.5.1 Mercury
4.2.3.4.5.2 Venus
4.2.3.4.5.3 Mars
4.2.3.4.5.4 Moon
4.2.3.5 Planetary Geology (Hauber, Wagner, Jnchen, Whlisch)
4.2.3.5.1 Craters and Chronology
4.2.3.5.2 Volcanism
4.2.3.5.3 Tectonics
4.2.3.5.4 Erosion, Transport, and Sedimentation
4.2.3.5.5 Nomenclature
4.2.3.5.5.1 IAU Rules
4.2.3.5.5.2 Descriptor Terms as Defined by IAU
4.2.3.5.5.3 Categories for Naming Features on Celestial Bodies as Defined
by IAU
4.2.3.6 Planetary Photometry and Spectroscopy (Stephan)
4.2.3.6.1 Photometric Properties of Planetary Surfaces
4.2.3.6.2 Spectral Properties of Planetary Surfaces
4.2.3.6.2.1 Radar Observations
4.2.3.6.2.2 Thermal Infrared Spectroscopy
4.2.3.6.2.3 Radiometry
4.2.3.6.2.4 From Near Infrared to UV
4.2.3.6.2.5 X-ray, -ray, Neutron-Spectroscopy
4.2.3.6.2.6 References
4.2.3.7 Atmospheres of the Planets and Satellites (Grenfell)
4.2.3.6.1 Exospheres of Small Planets and Satellites
4.2.3.6.2 Venus
4.2.3.6.3 Mars
4.2.3.6.4 Galilean Satellites
4.2.3.6.5 Titan
4.2.3.6.6 Pluto Charon and Triton
4.2.3.8 Magnetic Fields (Spohn)
4.2.3.8.1 Dynamos
4.2.3.8.2 Magnetic Field of the Terrestrial Planets and Satellites
4.2.3.8.2.1 Mercury
4.2.3.8.2.2 Venus
4.2.3.8.2.3 Mars
4.2.3.8.2.4 Moon
4.2.3.8.2.5 Galilean Satellites
4.2.4 Planets of the Outer Solar System (Spohn, Grenfell)
4.2.4.1 Rotation, Radii, Shapes, Gravity Fields
4.2.4.2 Giant Planet Atmospheres
4.2.4.3 Interior Models
4.2.4.4 Luminosity and Thermal Evolution
4.2.4.5 Magnetic Fields
4.2.4.6 References
4.2.5 Exoplanets (Grenfell)
4.2.5.1 General Properties
4.2.5.2 Observation Methods
4.2.5.3 Types of Exoplanets
4.2.5.4 References
4.2.6 Missions (Jnchen)
4.2.6.1 The Inner Solar System
4.2.6.2 The Outer Solar System
4.2.6.3 Missions to Other Celestial Bodies
4.2.6.4 References
273 pages
Authors in alphabetical order:

Doris Breuer
John Lee Grenfell
Matthias Grott
Ernst Hauber
Hauke Hussmann
Judit Jnchen
Martin Knapmeyer
Jrgen Oberst
Frank Sohl
Tilman Spohn
Katrin Stephan
Roland Wagner
Frank Wagner
Marita Whlisch
Ref. p. xxx] running head 1
Fig. 1 The eight planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars,

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are shown with their
correct relative sizes (the distances are not to scale). The
compilation also includes the dwarf planet Pluto and its
moon Charon. The dark spot on Jupiter is the shadow of Io,
one of the four Galilean Moons.C.J. Hamilton
4.2.1. Introduction
Humanity has always been fascinated with the wandering stars in the sky, the planets. Ancient astrologists
have observed and used the paths of the planets in the sky to time the seasons and to predict the future.
Observations of the planets helped J. Kepler to formulate his laws of planetary motion and revolutionize
the perception of the world; explaining the anomalous perihelion precession of the orbit of Mercury was
among the first successes of Einsteins theory of general relativity that again revolutionized our
understanding of the world. The future detection of habitable planets around other stars may motivate
another revolution of our thinking.
With the advent of the space age, the planets have been transferred from bright spots in the sky to
worlds of their own right that can be explored in-situ and using remote sensing tools. The terrestrial
planets are of particular interest to the geoscientist because comparison with our own planet allows a
better understanding of our home, the Earth. Venus offers an example of a runaway greenhouse that has
resulted in what we would call a hellish place. With temperatures of around 450C and a corrosive
atmosphere that is also optically non-transparent, Venus poses enormous difficulties to spacecraft
exploration. Mars is a much friendlier planet to explore but a planet where greenhouse effects and
atmospheric loss processes have resulted in a cold and dusty desert. But aside from considerations of the
usefulness of space exploration in terms of understanding Earth, the interested mind can visit astounding
and puzzling places. There is the dynamic atmosphere of Jupiter with a giant thunderstorm that has been
raging for centuries. There is Saturn with its majestic rings and there are Uranus and Neptune with
complicated magnetic fields. These giant planets have moons that are astounding. There is the volcanic
satellite of Jupiter, Io that surpasses the Earth and any other terrestrial planet in volcanic activity and
surface heat flow. This activity is powered by tides that twist the planet such that its interior partially
melts. A much smaller moon of Saturn, Enceladus, also has geysers that could be powered by tidal
heating. Its volcanic activity releases water vapor not lava. There is another moon of Saturn, Titan, that
hides its surface underneath a layer of photochemical smog in a thick nitrogen atmosphere and there are
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
2 running head [Ref. p. xxx
moons of similar sizes that lack any comparable atmosphere. Miranda, satellite of Uranus appears as if it
had been ripped apart and later reassembled. And Triton, a satellite of Neptune, has geysers of nitrogen
powered by solar radiation. Magnetic field data suggest that icy moons orbiting the giant planets may
have oceans underneath thick ice covers. These oceans can, at least in principle, harbor or have harbored
life. Moreover, there are asteroids with moons and comets that may still harbor the clues to how the solar
system and life on Earth formed.
In the following chapters, we will present basic data about the solar system and briefly summarize the
results of space exploration, laboratory measurements and theoretical work. Although we aim at
providing a broad overview we will certainly miss valuable aspects and our approach will be biased by
our view of the solar system as geoscientists. We will start with a brief overview and a definition of a
planet. Chapter 2 will introduce basic data. Chapter 3 will present the terrestrial planets. The following
chapter 4 is devoted to the giant planets while chapter 5 collects data of successful missions to date.
4.2.1.1 Structure and Dimension of the Solar System
The solar system contains a myriad of bodies ranging in size from the Sun to miniscule dust particles. The
Encyclopedias of Planetary Sciences [97Shi] and the Solar System [99Wei] and the Planetary Companion
[98Lod] are useful sources of information about the solar system. A collection of recent reviews in
planetary science can be found in [07Spo]. Valuable collections of planetary data can also be found on
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov and on http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. A collection of images of planetary surfaces can
be found in the NASA photo journal on http://photojournal.nasa.gov.
The Sun, a middle-aged main sequence star, contains 98.8% of the mass of the solar system but only
0.5% of its angular momentum. The next smaller body, Jupiter, still 300 times more massive than Earth
(see Table 1, section 4.2.2.2.), contains more than 60% of the mass of the rest. Jupiter is the biggest of the
giant planets, a group of gaseous planets that constitute a major subgroup of the solar system. Among the
giant planets are - in addition to Jupiter - Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The latter two are sometimes
called the sub-giants or the ice giants because they are notably smaller than Saturn and Jupiter and
because they mostly consist of water, methane and ammonia, components often collectively called the
planetary ices. Earth, the biggest member of the other major subgroup of family members, the terrestrial
planets, is the only planet on which we know to date that life had a chance to develop. Among the
members of this group are Mercury, the innermost planet, Venus, Earths twin with respect to size and
mass, and Mars. The latter planet has the best chance of having developed some primitive forms of life,
which makes it the prime target of present day space missions. The terrestrial planets together have about
0.005% of the mass of the solar system. In addition to the planets the solar system has five dwarf planets
(Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake, and Haumea; see definition in 1.2) and 169 moons (as of Feb. 2008) and a
large number of small bodies including comet nuclei.
The terrestrial planets occupy the inner solar system between 0.3871 AU, the orbit of Mercury and
1.524 AU, the orbit of Mars. (An astronomical unit is equivalent to the length of the semi-major axis of
the Earths orbit, 1.4959 * 108 km.) Beyond the inner solar system is the asteroid belt stretching from 2.3
AU to 3.3 AU. The asteroid belt contains approximately 400,000 asteroids, the biggest being Ceres,
Pallas and Vesta. Its members are speculated to be the parent bodies of most meteorites (stones from
space found on Earths surface). The outer solar system stretches beyond the asteroid belt and contains
the giant Planets Jupiter and Saturn and the sub-giants Uranus and Neptune. Beyond the orbit of Neptune
there is the Kuiper belt and finally the hypothetical Oort cloud. The Kuiper Belt stretches between 30 AU
(roughly the orbit of Neptune) to at least 50 AU and contains Pluto, Sedna and Eris. Kuiper Belt objects
are mostly unexplored. The Oort cloud is believed to be the source of the long-period comets. The outer
reaches of the Kuiper belt and the inner reaches of the Oort cloud are sometimes termed the scattered
disk.
The extent of the solar system is difficult to define. The orbit of the outermost planet Neptune has a
semi-major axis of 30.07 AU. The Kuiper belt is held to stretch between 30 and 50 AU. The semi-major
orbital axis of the dwarf planet Eris is 39.48 AE. It is believed to be a member of the scattered disk. The
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
hypothetical Oort cloud is thought to stretch between 50 AU and 50,000 AU (roughly equivalent to one
light year, 1 Ly. The light year is a commonly used unit to measure large distances from the Earth). The
minor body Sedna has a semi-major axis of 1004 AU (perihelion at 76 and aphelion at 928 AU) and is
thought to be a member of the inner Oort cloud. In the Oort cloud, the gravitational pull of the Sun is
weak but it is believed to dominate over that of neighboring stars up to a distance of 2 Ly. Another
measure of the extent of the solar system is the size of its magnetosphere, the heliosphere. The heliopause
that marks the outer boundary of the heliosphere is believed to be at roughly 100 AU.
4.2.1.2 Definition of a planet in the Solar System
The International Astronomical Union (IAU) introduced the class of dwarf planets in 2006. These are
intermediate in size between the terrestrial planets and small bodies such as cometary nuclei and most
asteroids. The IAU has so far identified the following five celestial bodies as dwarf planets - Pluto, the
former asteroid Ceres, the Trans-Neptunian Object (TNO) Eris, a.k.a. 2003UB313, Makemake, and
Haumea. Other candidate bodies such as asteroid Vesta and the TNO Sedna are under consideration. A
planet of our solar system according to the IAU resolution 5 [06IAU] is a celestial body that (a) is in
orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it
assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its
orbit. A dwarf planet according to the resolution satisfies a) and b) but has NOT cleared its
neighbourhood and d) is not a satellite-see also [06Bas] for a discussion of the term planet.
4.2.1.3. References
97Shi Shirley, J.H., Fairbridge, R.W. (Eds): Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences. Chapman and Hall,
London 1997.
98Lod Lodders, K., Fegley, B.: The Planetary Scientists Companion. Oxford University Press, N.Y.
1998.
99Wei Weissmann, P. R., McFadden, L.-A. A., Johnson, T. V.: The Encyclopedia of the Solar System.
Academic, San Diego, Calif. 1999.
06Bas Basri, G., Brown, M.E.: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 (2006) 193.
07Spo Spohn, T. (2007) Treatise on Geophysics Vol. 10, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Internet Resources
IAU http://www.iau.org/fileadmin/content/pdfs/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4
4.2.2 Basic Data of Planetary Bodies
Hauke Hussmann, Frank Sohl, and Jurgen Oberst

DLR Institute of Planetary Research, Berlin
The planets and their moons are apart from the Sun the main constituents of the Solar System. In
this section the basic physical characteristics and the dynamical states (rotational state and orbits) of plan-
ets, dwarf planets, satellites, and rings are summarized.
4.2.2.1 General Definitions
In the following we list the definitions related to orbital elements, time standards, reference frames and
units, which are used in the subsequent tables.
4.2.2.1.1 Orbital Elements
In Fig.1 the orbital elements are defined with respect to a reference frame, e.g. the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF), which is the IAU-adopted best approximation to an inertial system tied to the solar
systems barycenter [98Fei, 02Sei]. All elements given in this subsection are for bound elliptical orbits. For
further information including other types of trajectories, see e.g., [99Mur]. The set of orbital elements used
in Fig.1 is the following:
1. The semi-major axis a is the distance from the center of the ellipse to the pericenter (or apocenter) of
the orbit.
2. e = 1 p/a is the eccentricity (0 < e < 1). a and e or equivalently a and the semilatus rectum p
p
define the shape and size of an elliptical orbit.

3. The inclination i (0 i ) is the angle between the orbital plane and the reference plane (e.g.,
ecliptic, or equatorial plane of the primary). The orbit of a body revolving about a primary is called
prograde for i < /2 and retrograde for /2 < i .
4. For i 6= 0 the orbit intersects the reference plane at two points, the nodes. At the ascending node
the orbiting body moves from below to above the reference plane, i.e. from negative to positive Z-
values in Fig 1b. (0 2 ), the longitude of the ascending node is the angle measured from a
reference direction (e.g., vernal equinox in the ecliptical system) to the ascending node. is lying in
the reference plane. Per definitionem = 0, if i = 0.
5. The argument of pericenter (0 2 ) is the angle between the ascending node and the pericen-
ter. lies in the orbital plane. The three elements i, and define the orientation of the elliptical
orbit. Together with e and a the shape, size and orientation of the orbit is completely determined. A
sixth element is required to define the position of the body along the orbit.
6. The true anomaly (0 2 ) is the angle from pericenter to the actual position of the orbiting
body at a given time t. has a very obvious geometrical meaning. However, according to Keplers
2nd law it does not increase linearly with time along the orbit. Therefore other elements, e.g., mean
anomaly, mean longitude, time of pericenter passage etc. (see below) are frequently used.
The set of six elements (a, e, i, , , ) at a given time t completely characterizes the state of the orbiting
body at that time (epoch). In the special case of the two-body problem, the orbital elements are constant
over time (with the exception of the true anomaly , of course, which varies between 0 and 2 during each
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
5
Fig. 1. Geometrical illustration of the orbital elements of an elliptical orbit described in the text. (a) a is the semi-major
axis. p is the semilatus rectum, the connecting line between the focus and the orbit perpendicular to the semi-major axis.
Pericenter and apocenter are the points of minimum and maximum distance, respectively, from the primary, located in
one focus of the ellipse. The connecting line between these points is called line of apsides. (b) the orientation of an
orbit (bold line) with respect to a reference system is given by the inclination i, the longitude of ascending node , and
the argument of pericenter . The true anomaly is the angle between the position vector of the body in orbit and the
pericenter.
revolution). If perturbations are taken into account, the orbital elements are functions of time and have to
be referred to a certain point in time (osculating elements).
Various equivalent sets of orbital elements are used in the literature (e.g., [99Mur, 06Sei]). In this section we
additionally use the longitude of pericenter1 = + , the mean motion n = 2 /T , where T is the orbital
period, the mean anomaly M = n(t ), where t is time and is the time of pericenter passage, and the mean
longitude = M + . From Keplers 3rd law the orbital period T is given by T 2 = 4 2a3 /(G(m1 + m2 )),
where G is the gravitational constant and m1 and m2 are the masses of the central and orbiting body, re-
spectively. An alternative to a set of orbital elements often used in numerical calculations is the state vector
consisting of three cartesian coordinates and the three corresponding velocities at a given time. In three-
dimensional space the state vector is equivalent to the description of a particles (or point-mass) dynamical
state by six orbital elements. For transformations between the various reference systems, between the sets
of elements commonly in use, and between elements and state vectors, see e.g., [99Mur].
Orbits of planets are generally referred to the ecliptic which is the mean plane of the Earths orbit around
the Sun. Satellite orbits are often referred to the equatorial plane of the primary planet or to the Laplace
plane which is defined as the plane in which the satellites nodal precession due to perturbations from other
satellites, planets, the Sun or higher moments of the primary planets gravitational field is contained (on
average). An equivalent definition is the plane normal to the satellites orbital precession pole.
4.2.2.1.2 Time Standards
Several time conventions are used to describe orbits and positions of planets and satellites. Here we briefly
mention the ones, which are used in the following tables (for an exact definition of time standards, which
cannot be given here, see, e.g. [06Sei]):
1 Note that and do not lie within the same plane when i 6= 0. However, the definition = + is used in either case.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
6
The International Atomic Time scale (TAI) is a statistical timescale based on a large number of atomic
clocks, located around the world. Its unit is the (SI) second defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770
cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of cesium 133.
The Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is the standard time on the prime meridian at Greenwich.
UTC is an atomic timescale that is kept in close agreement with the Universal Time (UT), a measure of
time that conforms to the mean diurnal motion of the Sun and serves as the basis of civil timekeeping.
Because of small irregularities of the Earths rotation, UTC is updated with leapseconds two times a
year, on January 1 and July 1, if necessary. UTC is related to TAI by UTC = TAI leapseconds.
The Terrestrial Time (TT) (former Terrestrial Dynamical Time (TDT)) is the theoretical time scale of
apparent geocentric ephemerides of solar system bodies. It applies to clocks at sea-level, and it is tied
to TAI through TT = TAI + 32s.184. The units of TT are SI seconds, and the offset of 32s.184 with
respect to TAI is fixed.
The Barycentric Dynamical Time (TDB), is the independent argument of ephemerides and dynamical
theories that are referred to the solar system barycenter. TDB differs from TT only by periodic
variations. For conversion from TT to TDB, see e.g., [06Sei].
The Julian Date, JD is the number of Julian days since 12:00 Universal Time on 1 January 4713 B.C.
A Julian day is one day in astronomical units, defined as 86,400 sec. One Julian year has 365.25
Julian days and one Julian century consists of 36,525 Julian days. Julian dates can be expressed
in dynamical time (TT) or universal time (UT). If precision is of concern, the timescale should be
specified after the Julian date, e.g., Julian date 2451545.0 TT. Sometimes Julian Ephemeris Day
(JED) is used instead of JD.
The Modified Julian Date MJD is defined as MJD = JD 2400000.5. An MJD day thus begins at
midnight, civil date. It is frequently used instead of the Julian date.
J2000 is the current epoch used in astronomical tables. It is equivalent to (a) the Julian date 2451545.0
TT, or January 1, 2000, 12:00:00.0 TT; (b) to January 1, 2000, 11:59:27.816 TAI or (c) to January 1,
2000, 11:58:55.816 UTC.
4.2.2.1.3 Astronomical Units
The IAU system of astronomical units of time, mass, and length is frequently used in tables of solar system
objects (e.g., [06Sei]).
The astronomical unit of time is the interval of one day defined as 86400 s. An interval of 36525 days
is one Julian century.
The astronomical unit of mass is the mass of the Sun (M = 1.9891 1030 kg in SI-units).
The astronomical unit of length is that length for which the Gaussian gravitational constant k takes
the value k = 0.01720209895 when the units of measurement are the astronomical units of length,
mass and time. The dimensions of k2 are those of the constant of gravitation, i.e. length3 mass1
time2 . The value of the Gaussian constant is fixed and is used to define the unit of length. The
latter can be understood as the orbital radius of a ficticious planet with zero mass (i.e. MSun MPlanet
implying MSun + MPlanet = MSun ) on a circular orbit around the Sun whose orbital period T is given
by T = 2 /k, measured in days. That planet revolves about the Sun at a distance in SI units of
AU = 1.49597871464 1011 m (astronomical unit AU in meters). Because of the fixed definition of
the Gaussian constant the Earths semi-major axis is not exactly unity (see Table 2) in astronomical
units.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
7
4.2.2.2 Planets
The planets of the Solar System can be divided in two major groups: a) the terrestrial planets, Mercury,
Venus, Earth and Mars in the inner region of the Solar System (semi-major axes 0.391.52 AU) and b) the
gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune in the outer region (semi-major axes 5.2030.07 AU).
Because of their differing compositions the subgroups gas giants for Jupiter and Saturn and icy giants for
Uranus and Neptune are sometimes used in the literature. The main physical data of the planets and their
orbital characteristics are summarized in Tab.1 and Tab 2. More detail on the physical properties and the
dynamical states of the planets is given in the following sections.
Basic thermal characteristics of the planets are summarized in Table 3. The planetary solar constant S is
Table 1. Basic physical data of the planets of the Solar System (more detailed data is given in the following sub-
sections). R is the mean radius, M the mass, the bulk density, Prot the sidereal rotation period, Porb the sidereal
orbit period, and g, the equatorial gravitational acceleration at the surface. Negative rotational periods correspond to
retrograde rotation. The radii of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune correspond to the one-bar surface and are not
necessarily the appropriate values to be used in dynamical studies, e.g. radius and J2 values should be always used in a
consistent way. References: [92Sei, 07Sei, 95Yod].
R [km] M [1024 kg] [kg m3 ] Prot [days] Porb [years] g [m s2 ]
Mercury 2439.7 1.0 0.3302 5427 56.6462 0.2408467 3.70
Venus 6051.8 1.0 4.8685 5204 243.01 0.61519726 8.87
Earth 6371.00 0.01 5.9736 5515 0.99726968 1.0000174 9.78
Mars 3389.50 0.2 0.64185 3933 1.02595675 1.8808476 3.69
Jupiter 69911 6 1898.6 1326 0.41354 11.862615 23.12
Saturn 58232 6 568.46 687 0.4375 29.447498 8.96
Uranus 25362 7 86.832 1318 0.65 84.016846 8.69
Neptune 24622 19 102.43 1638 0.768 164.79132 11.00
Table 2. Mean orbital elements of the planets of the Solar System at the epoch of J2000 (Julian date JD 2451545.0)
with respect to the mean ecliptic and equinox of J2000. a semi-major axis, e eccentricity, i inclination, longitude
of perihelion, longitude of ascending node, mean longitude. Data for the Earth are actually for the Earth-Moon
barycenter. Data taken from [99Mur], see also [92Sta].
a [AU] e i [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg]
Mercury 0.38709893 0.20563069 7.00487 77.45645 48.33167 252.25084
Venus 0.72333199 0.00677323 3.39471 131.53298 76.68069 181.97973
Earth 1.00000011 0.01671022 0.00005 102.94719 348.73936 100.46435
Mars 1.52366231 0.09341233 1.85061 336.04084 49.57854 355.45332
Jupiter 5.20336301 0.04839266 1.30530 14.75385 100.55615 34.40438
Saturn 9.53707032 0.05415060 2.48446 92.43194 113.71504 49.94432
Uranus 19.19126393 0.04716771 0.76986 170.96424 74.22988 313.23218
Neptune 30.06896348 0.00858587 1.76917 44.97135 131.72169 304.88003
the rate of energy per unit area that is received due to the solar luminosity at all wavelengths at the mean
distance of the respective planet right at the top of the planets atmosphere. It is thus a measure for the
rate of energy that a planet (or e.g., the solar panels of a spacecraft in orbit around that planet) could in
principal receive from the Sun. However, due to reflectance at the planets surface and atmosphere, the
absorbed energy is less than that. A measure for the reflected sunlight is the planets albedo. The geometric
albedo A, 0 A 1 is the ratio of the brightness of a planet for phase angle zero (illuminating source,
reflecting body and observer aligned) to the brightness of a plane, perfectly diffusing disk of the same size
and distance of the planet. The lower the albedo of a planet the more radiation from the Sun is absorbed.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
8
Table 3. Thermal characteristics of the planets of the Solar System. S is the planetary solar constant, T the mean
temperature (surface or at 1 bar level for the giant planets), A the geometric albedo, and P the atmospheric pressure.
Reference: [95Yod].
S [Wm2 ] T [K] A P [bar]
Mercury 9936.9 100700 0.106 < 1012
Venus 2613.9 735 0.65 90
Earth 1367.6 270 0.367 1.0
Mars 589.0 210 0.150 0.0056
Jupiter 50.5 165 5 0.52
Saturn 15.04 134 4 0.47
Uranus 3.71 76 2 0.51
Neptune 1.47 72 2 0.41
Mean equilibrium surface temperatures T are given, taking the Suns radiation and the planets albedo and
atmosphere into account. Two values for day- and night-side are given for Mercury which is lacking a
dense atmosphere. For the terrestrial planets the atmospheric surface pressures P are also listed.
4.2.2.3 Dwarf Planets
In 2006 the IAU passed the definition of planets and dwarf planets of the Solar System. Five objects of the
Solar System have been classified as dwarf planets so far (as of Dec. 2008): the largest main-belt asteroid
Ceres, and the Trans-Neptunian objects Pluto, Eris, Makemake, and Haumea. Tables 4 and 5 summarize
the physical and orbital properties of these objects. Ceres shape can be best approximated by an oblate
spheroid with significantly differing principal axes. Haumea has a very elongated shape and an extremely
small rotation period. Many large trans-neptunian objects (TNOs) including several dwarf planet candi-
dates have been detected in the outer solar system in recent observational campaigns. The number of TNOs
in general and the number of dwarf planets is expected to further increase in the coming years.
Table 4. Physical data of the dwarf planets of the Solar System. The first two columns give the name, minor planet
catalogue number, and former designation, respectively. R is the mean radius, M the mass, the bulk density, Prot the
sidereal rotation period, and Porb the sidereal orbit period. Ceres is an oblate spheroid with significant differences in the
two axes. The two radii along the principal axes (equatorial and polar) are given here. The negative rotation period of
Pluto indicates its retrograde rotation. The shape of Haumea is extremely elongated with approximate axes as given
here. References: [07Sei, 05Tho, 95Yod, 08Bro, 06Rab]
number R [km] M [1020 kg] [kg m3 ] Prot [d] Porb [yr]

Ceres 1 487.3 1.8 9.395 0.125 2077 31 0.378125 4.607
454.7 1.6
Pluto 134340 1145 130.5 0.6 2030 60 6.3867 247.92065
Eris (2003 UB313 ) 136199 1200 50 166 2 2300 30 558.75
Makemake (2005 FY9 ) 136472 750 150 306.17
Haumea (2003 EL61 ) 136108 100 750 1000 42.1 0.1 2600 0.1631 283.28
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
9
Table 5. Mean orbital elements of the dwarf planets of the Solar System at the epoch of JD 2454600.5 TDB, i.e.
May 14, 2008, 00:00h. The orbital elements for Pluto are for JD 2454000.5 TDB corresponding to Sep 22, 2008,
00:00h. Data of Makemake and Haumea is at epoch 2454800.5 (2008-Nov-30.0) TDB. a is the semi-major axis, e the
eccentricity, i the inclination, the argument of perihelion, the longitude of ascending node, M the mean anomaly
at epoch. Inclination, argument of perihelion, and longitude of ascending node are referred to the J2000 ecliptic plane.
Reference: [08JPL] and references therein.
a [AU] e i [deg] [deg] [deg] M [deg]

Ceres 2.7667817 0.07954162 10.58640 72.96457 80.40699 301.6548490
Pluto 39.4450697 0.25024871 17.08900 112.59714 110.37696 25.2471897
Eris ( 2003 UB313 ) 67.840 0.43747 44.0790 151.57 35.9276 198.490
Makemake (2005 FY9 ) 45.426 0.161 28.999 295.154 79.572 151.598
Haumea (2003 EL61 ) 43.133 0.195 28.22 239.184 122.103 202.675
4.2.2.4 Satellites
With the exceptions of Mercury and Venus, all planets of the solar system, as well as many asteroids
and trans-neptunian objects, have one or more satellites. The radii of the satellites range from a few km
up to a few 1000 km. Jupiters satellites Ganymede and Callisto, as well as the Saturnian satellite Titan
exceed planet Mercury in size. Table 6 gives the number of known moons of planets and dwarf planets.
The giant planets are surrounded by systems of satellites, generally consisting of small inner satellites,
Table 6. Total number of known satellites of planets and dwarf planets in the solar system (as of Dec. 2008). The total
number is further divided in classes of objects ordered by size. Whereas no further discoveries of large and mid-sized
satellites can be expected for the planets, the number of small satellites of the giant planets as well as the number of
dwarf planet satellites will almost certainly further increase due to future observational campaigns and missions.
primary total large mid-size small, inner small, outer
R > 1000 km 1000 > R > 100 km R < 100 km
Earth 1 1 0 0 0
Mars 2 0 0 2 0
Jupiter 63 4 0 4 55
Saturn 60 1 8 14 37
Uranus 27 0 5 13 9
Neptune 13 1 2 5 5
Pluto 3 0 1 2 0
Eris 1 0 0 1 0
Haumea 2 0 0 2 0
orbiting close to the planet on almost circular orbits in the equatorial plane, mid-sized and/or large satellites,
likewise on almost circular near-equatorial orbits, and a typically large number of small outer satellites on
highly inclined, eccentric orbits. The satellites of the latter group, the irregular satellites are probably
captured objects, as indicated by their high orbital inclinations and eccentricities. Many of the irregular
satellites revolve about their primaries in a retrograde sense. Due to similar capture processes and collisional
histories, several groups of irregular satellites (e.g., the prograde Himalia group, and the retrograde Ananke,
Carme and Pasiphae groups in the Jupiter system) can be distinguished by similarities in their orbital
elements (e.g., inclination). The regular orbits of the inner and large satellites suggest that they were formed
simultaneously with their respective central planets. There is an observational bias in the number of small
satellites of the giant planets due to the planets distances from Earth. Many of the small satellites have
been discovered in recent observational campaigns or by recent space missions, e.g., Galileo and Cassini.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
10
Additionally, all giant planets possess ring systems made up of small particles. Analogeous to the IAU
definition of planets, an object can be considered as a satellite if it is an isolated body orbiting a planet or
if located within a ring system if it is massive enough to open a gap in the rings.
Most of the small satellites (from 100-km class objects down to 1-km class objects) are irregularly shaped.
The large satellites and most of the mid-sized moons have spherical or slightly ellipsoidal shapes due to
self-gravity and in response to rotation and tidal forces exerted by the primary planet. As a consequence
of tidal despinning all large and mid-sized satellites, as well as most of the small inner satellites rotate
synchronously, i.e. like Earths Moon they are locked in a 1:1 spin-orbit coupling. An important exception is
the irregularly-shaped Saturnian satellite Hyperion, which rotates chaotically. The spin axes of the large and
mid-sized satellites are all roughly perpendicular to the orbital plane, which in most cases nearly coincides
with the equatorial plane of the planet. Details on the rotational states are given in the next section.
Table 7. Basic physical data of the major satellites of the planets and Pluto. The table contains all satellites with
mean radii exceeding 100 km and the two Martian satellites. R is the mean radius, M the mass, the mean density, and
Porb the sidereal rotation period. The satellites are ordered by their corresponding central planets, (Earth, Mars, Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto), divided by horizontal lines and by their distance from the primary. The last column
indicates the satellites spin states. s stands for synchronous, i.e. the orbital period Porb being equal to the rotational
period; and c stands for chaotic. References: [08JPL, 07Sei]. Data on the small inner satellites and outer irregular
satellites are given in Tab.9Tab 19.
Object R [km] GM [km3 s2 ] M [1020 kg] [kg m3 ] Porb [days] spin

Moon 1737.4 1 4902.801 0.001 734.8 3344 5 27.322 s
Phobos 11.1 0.15 0.0007158 0.0000005 1.1 10 4 1872 76 0.319 s
Deimos 6.2 0.18 0.000098 0.000007 1.5 105 1471 166 1.262 s
Io 1821.46 5959.916 0.012 893.2 3528 6 1.769 s
Europa 1562.09 3202.739 0.009 480.0 3013 5 3.551 s
Ganymede 2632.345 9887.834 0.017 1481.9 1942 5 7.155 s
Callisto 2409.3 7179.289 0.013 1075.9 1834 4 16.69 s
Mimas 198.2 0.5 2.530 0.012 0.38 1152 27 0.942 s
Enceladus 252.1 0.2 7.210 0.011 1.1 1606 12 1.370 s
Tethys 533.0 1.4 41.210 0.007 6.2 956 8 1.888 s
Dione 561.7 0.9 73.113 0.003 11.0 1469 12 2.737 s
Rhea 764.3 1.8 154.07 0.16 23.1 1233 10 4.518 s
Titan 2575 2 8978.19 0.06 1345.5 1880 4 15.95 s
Hyperion 133 8 0.37 0.02 5.6 102 569 108 21.28 c
Iapetus 735.6 3.0 120.50 0.03 18.1 1088 18 79.33 s
Phoebe 106.7 1 0.5531 0.0006 8.3 102 1633 49 550.31 s
Miranda 235.8 0.7 4.4 0.5 0.66 1201 137 1.413 s
Ariel 578.9 0.6 90.3 8.0 13.5 1665 147 2.520 s
Umbriel 584.7 2.8 78.2 9.0 11.7 1400 163 4.144 s
Titania 788.9 1.8 235.3 6.0 35.3 1715 44 8.706 s
Oberon 761.4 2.6 201.1 5.0 30.1 1630 43 13.46 s
Proteus 208 8 3.36 0.5 1300 1.122 s
Triton 1352.6 2.4 1427.9 3.5 214.0 2061 7 5.877 s
Nereid 170 25 2.06 0.3 1500 360.14 s
Charon 605 8 108. 6. 16.2 1853 158 6.387 s
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
11
Table 8. Mean orbital elements of the major satellites of the planets and Pluto at epoch (1) 2000 Jan. 1.50 TT, (2)
1950 Jan. 1.00 TT, (3) 1997 Jan. 16.00 TT, (4) 2004 Jan. 1.00 TT, (5) 1980 Jan. 1.0 TT, (6) 1989 Aug. 25.00 TT, (7)
1989 Aug. 18.50 TT. The table contains all satellites with mean radii exceeding 100 km and the two Martian satellites.
a is the semi-major axis, e the eccentricity, the argument of pericenter, M the mean anomaly, i the inclination, and
the longitude of ascending node. The elements of the Moon are referred to the ecliptic; the ones of the Uranian
satellites to the planets equator. Charons barycentric elements are referred to its mean orbit: ICRF right ascension
= 133.05142 , ICRF declination = -6.17674 . All other elements are referred to the local Laplace planes which are
in most cases (close to the planet) only slightly different from the equatorial plane of the planet. In cases where the
elements are referred to the local Laplace planes the declination, Dec., and right ascension, R.A., of the planes pole is
given with respect to the ICRF. The last column, tilt, gives the angle between the planet equator and the Laplace plane.
Reference: [08JPL] and references therein. Data on the small inner satellites and outer irregular satellites are given in
Tab.9Tab 19.
Object a e M i Dec. R.A. tilt

[km] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg]
Moon (1) 384,400 0.0554 318.15 135.27 5.16 125.08
Phobos (2) 9,380 0.0151 150.247 92.474 1.075 164.931 317.724 52.924 0.046
Deimos (2) 23,460 0.0002 290.496 296.230 1.793 339.600 316.700 53.564 0.897
Io (3) 421,800 0.0041 84.129 342.021 0.036 43.977 268.057 64.495 0.000
Europa (3) 671,100 0.0094 88.970 171.016 0.466 219.106 268.084 64.506 0.016
Ganymede (3) 1070,400 0.0013 192.417 317.540 0.177 63.552 268.168 64.543 0.068
Callisto (3) 1882,700 0.0074 52.643 181.408 0.192 298.848 268.639 64.749 0.356
Mimas (4) 185,540 0.0196 14.352 255.312 1.572 153.152 40.590 83.539 0.001
Enceladus (4) 238,040 0.0047 211.923 197.047 0.009 93.204 40.587 83.539 0.001
Tethys (4) 294,670 0.0001 262.845 189.003 1.091 330.882 40.581 83.539 0.002
Dione (4) 377,420 0.0022 168.820 65.990 0.028 168.909 40.554 83.542 0.005
Rhea (4) 527,070 0.0010 256.609 311.551 0.331 311.531 40.387 83.556 0.029
Titan (4) 1,221,870 0.0288 185.671 15.154 0.280 24.502 36.470 83.936 0.600
Hyperion (4) 1,500,880 0.0274 324.183 295.906 0.630 264.022 37.258 83.819 0.461
Iapetus (4) 3,560,840 0.0283 275.921 356.029 7.489 75.831 288.818 78.667 14.968
Phoebe (4) 12,947,780 0.1635 345.582 287.593 175.986 241.570 277.897 67.124 26.891
Miranda (5) 129,900 0.0013 68.312 311.330 4.338 326.438
Ariel (5) 190,900 0.0012 115.349 39.481 0.041 22.394
Umbriel (5) 266,000 0.0039 84.709 12.469 0.128 33.485
Titania (5) 436,300 0.0011 284.400 24.614 0.079 99.771
Oberon (5) 583,500 0.0014 104.400 283.088 0.068 279.771
Proteus (7) 117,647 0.0005 301.706 117.050 0.026 162.690 299.583 42.417 0.479
Triton (6) 354,800 0.0000 344.046 264.775 156.834 172.431 299.452 43.395 0.513
Nereid (6) 5,513,400 0.7512 280.830 359.341 7.232 334.762 282.462 75.854 33.783
Charon (1) 17,536 0.0022 71.255 147.848 0.001 85.187
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
12
Based on their bulk composition derived from mean densities, surface spectroscopy and cosmo-chemical
arguments of the satellites origins, the moons can be devided into two groups, the rocky satellites including
the Earths Moon and the Jovian satellites Io and Europa with densities of about 3000 kg m 3 or more, and
the icy satellites, such as Ganymede and most of the other satellites in the outer solar system with densities
between roughly 1000 and 2000 kg m3 . The moons of the latter group contain silicate rock in addition to
a large fraction of water ice (roughly about 50% by mass). Some satellites, e.g., Neptunes satellite Triton
contain relatively high amounts of rock compared to water ice.
In Table 7 and Table 8 the basic physical and orbital characteristics of the classical satellites are listed.
These tables contain all the large and mid-sized satellites with radii > 100 km. Additionally, we have
included the satellites of Mars, Phobos and Deimos.
In tables 918 data for the small satellites of the giant planets are listed along with their IAU names. In cases
where no names have yet been assigned, the preliminary designation is given. The S stands for satellite
followed by the year of the new satellites discovery. The following letter is the initial of the respective
primary planet, followed by the the subsequent number of newly discovered satellites in the specified year.
E.g., S/2001 U3 is the third newly discovered satellite of Uranus of 2001.
Table 19 provides the data of the satellites of the dwarf planets, Nix and Hydra the newly discovered
satellites of Pluto and Dysnomia, a satellite of Eris. It is remarkable that the ratio of the orbital periods
of Plutos satellites Charon, Nix and Hydra is close to 1:4:6. However, it has not yet been confirmed that
the satellites are indeed locked in stable resonances. Besides Pluto and Eris several trans-neptunian objects
and main-belt asteroids have satellites.
Table 9. Mean orbital elements and sizes of Jupiters small inner satellites at the epoch of 1997 Jan. 16.00 TT
referred to the local Laplace planes. a is the semi-major axis, e the eccentricity, the argument of pericenter, M the
mean anomaly, i the inclination, and the longitude of ascending node. P is the sidereal orbital period and R is the
mean radius. Right ascension and declination of the Laplace plane pole with respect to the ICRF are given by 268.057
and 64.495 , respectively. The angle between Jupiters equator and the Laplace plane is 0 for all four satellites.
References: [08JPL, 07Sei].
satellite a [km] e [deg] M [deg] i [deg] [deg] P [days] R [km]
Metis 128,000 0.0012 297.177 276.047 0.019 146.912 0.295 21.5 2.0
Adrastea 129,000 0.0018 328.047 135.673 0.054 228.378 0.298 8.2 2.0
Amalthea 181,400 0.0032 155.873 185.194 0.380 108.946 0.498 83.45 2.4
Thebe 221,900 0.0176 234.269 135.956 1.080 235.694 0.675 49.3 2.0
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
13
Table 10. Mean orbital elements and sizes of Jupiters small satellites with assigned IAU names at epoch (1) 2000
Jan. 1.00 TT, (2) 2002 May. 6.00 TT, (3) 2002 May. 6.00 TT, (4) 2003 Jun. 10.00 TT. a is the semi-major axis, e
the eccentricity, and i the inclination. The latter is referred to the local Laplace planes. P is the sidereal orbital period
and R is the satellites mean radius. The declination, Dec., and right ascension, R.A., of the Laplace planes pole are
given with respect to the ICRF. The last column, tilt, gives the angle between the planet equator and the Laplace plane.
Reference: [08JPL] and references therein.
satellite a [km] e i [deg] P [days] R [km] R.A. [deg] Dec. [deg] tilt [deg]
Themisto (2) 7,284,000. 0.2428 43.254 130.02 4.0 272.709 66.701 2.924
Leda (1) 11,165,000. 0.1636 27.457 240.92 10 271.668 66.848 2.788
Himalia (1) 11,461,000. 0.1623 27.496 250.56 85 275.667 67.429 4.269
Lysithea (1) 11,717,000. 0.1124 28.302 259.20 18 271.356 67.115 2.953
Elara (1) 11,741,000. 0.2174 26.627 259.64 43 273.200 68.246 4.282
Carpo (4) 17,058,000. 0.4316 51.628 456.30 1.5 273.325 67.004 3.311
Euporie (3) 19,304,000. 0.1432 145.767 550.74 1.0 273.181 66.708 3.061
Orthosie (3) 20,720,000. 0.2808 145.921 622.56 1.0 273.134 66.956 3.225
Euanthe (3) 20,797,000. 0.2321 148.910 620.49 1.5 273.207 66.739 3.089
Harpalyke (2) 20,858,000. 0.2269 148.644 623.32 2.2 273.235 66.919 3.225
Praxidike (2) 20,908,000. 0.2311 148.975 625.39 3.4 273.018 66.760 3.051
Thyone (3) 20,939,000. 0.2286 148.509 627.21 2.0 273.541 66.846 3.258
Mneme (4) 21,035,000. 0.2301 148.693 620.04 1.0 273.243 66.598 3.004
Iocaste (2) 21,060,000. 0.2158 149.425 631.60 2.6 273.218 66.883 3.194
Helike (4) 21,069,000. 0.1506 154.853 626.32 2.0 273.287 66.793 3.149
Hermippe (3) 21,131,000. 0.2096 150.725 633.90 2.0 273.271 66.864 3.195
Thelxinoe (4) 21,164,000. 0.2194 151.370 628.09 1.0 273.335 66.729 3.119
Ananke (1) 21,276,000. 0.2435 148.889 629.77 14 279.087 66.152 4.891
Eurydome (3) 22,865,000. 0.2759 150.274 717.33 1.5 273.195 66.716 3.070
Arche (4) 23,355,000. 0.2496 165.017 731.95 1.5 273.233 66.797 3.137
Pasithee (3) 23,004,000. 0.2675 165.138 719.44 1.0 273.156 66.761 3.091
Chaldene (2) 23,100,000. 0.2521 165.190 723.72 1.9 273.258 66.763 3.120
Isonoe (2) 23,155,000. 0.2471 165.272 726.23 1.9 273.237 66.798 3.139
Erinome (2) 23,196,000. 0.2664 164.936 728.46 1.6 273.208 66.761 3.105
Kale (3) 23,217,000. 0.2599 164.996 729.47 1.0 273.325 66.774 3.147
Aitne (3) 23,229,000. 0.2643 165.091 730.18 1.5 273.158 66.812 3.127
Taygete (2) 23,280,000. 0.2525 165.268 732.41 2.5 273.156 66.761 3.090
Kallichore (4) 23,288,000. 0.2503 165.127 728.73 1.0 273.295 66.789 3.149
Eukelade (4) 23,328,000. 0.2634 165.240 730.47 2.0 273.244 66.754 3.110
Carme (1) 23,404,000. 0.2533 164.907 734.17 23 272.620 66.689 2.897
Kalyke (2) 23,483,000. 0.2471 165.179 742.06 2.6 273.223 66.766 3.112
Sponde (3) 23,487,000. 0.3121 150.998 748.34 1.0 273.138 66.737 3.069
Megaclite (2) 23,493,000. 0.4198 152.766 752.86 2.7 273.239 66.767 3.118
Hegemone (4) 23,577,000. 0.3396 154.186 739.88 1.5 273.251 66.734 3.099
Pasiphae (1) 23,624,000. 0.4090 151.431 743.63 30 273.440 67.645 3.835
Cyllene (4) 23,809,000. 0.4115 150.389 752.00 1.0 273.399 66.714 3.127
Sinope (1) 23,939,000. 0.2495 158.109 758.90 19 273.266 66.880 3.211
Aoede (4) 23,980,000. 0.4311 158.260 761.50 2.0 273.306 66.775 3.142
Autonoe (3) 24,046,000. 0.3168 152.416 760.95 2.0 273.181 66.815 3.136
Callirrhoe (2) 24,103,000. 0.2829 147.167 758.77 4.3 272.836 66.537 2.844
Kore (4) 24,543,000. 0.3245 144.969 779.17 1.0 273.997 66.902 3.428
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
14
Table 11. Mean orbital elements and sizes of Jupiters small satellites without assigned IAU names at epoch 2002
May. 6.00 TT. a is the semi-major axis, e the eccentricity, and i the inclination. i is referred to the local Laplace
planes. P is the sidereal orbital period and R is the mean radius. The declination, Dec., and right ascension, R.A., of the
Laplace planes pole are given with respect to the ICRF. Tilt is the angle between the planet equator and the Laplace
plane. References: [08JPL] and *[08She].
S/2000 J11 12,555,000 0.248 28.30 287.0 2.0
S/2003 J2 28,455,000. 0.4074 157.321 981.55 1.0 273.212 66.862 3.177
S/2003 J3 20,224,000. 0.1969 147.541 583.88 1.0 273.534 66.855 3.262
S/2003 J4 23,933,000. 0.3620 149.574 755.26 1.0 273.154 66.748 3.081
S/2003 J5 23,498,000. 0.2476 165.239 738.74 2.0 273.283 66.805 3.157
S/2003 J9 23,388,000. 0.2627 165.076 733.30 0.5 273.177 66.779 3.109
S/2003 J10 23,044,000. 0.4294 165.069 716.25 1.0 273.227 66.798 3.136
S/2003 J12 17,833,000. 0.4920 151.104 489.72 0.5 273.299 66.911 3.237
S/2003 J15 22,630,000. 0.1944 146.551 689.77 1.0 273.080 66.311 2.768
S/2003 J16 20,956,000. 0.2266 148.512 616.33 1.0 273.242 66.591 2.998
S/2003 J17 22,983,000. 0.2381 164.921 714.51 1.0 273.190 66.782 3.114
S/2003 J18 20,426,000. 0.0601 145.908 596.58 1.0 272.778 66.632 2.893
S/2003 J19 23,535,000. 0.2559 165.154 740.43 1.0 273.267 66.795 3.146
S/2003 J23 23,566,000. 0.2738 146.397 732.45 1.0 272.604 66.531 2.773
Table 12. Planetocentric Saturn-equatorial orbital elements and sizes of Saturns small innermost moons at epoch (1)
JED 2451545.0, (2) JED 2453491.9, and (3) JED 2453005.5 These moons are located within Saturns A and F-ring.
a is the semi-major axis, e the eccentricity, i the inclination, the longitude of ascending node, the longitude of
pericenter, the mean longitude. P is the orbital period and R is the mean radius [06Spi, 08JPL], [05IAU].
satellite a [km] e i [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] P [days] R [km]

Pan (1) 133,584 0.000035 0.001 20 176 146.59 0.57505 12.8
Daphnis (2) 136,504 0 0 0 0 222.952 0.59408 3.5
Atlas (3) 137,670 0.0012 0.003 0.500 332.021 129.760 0.60169 10
Prometheus (3) 139,380 0.0022 0.008 259.504 63.893 306.117 0.61299 46.8 5.6
Pandora (3) 141,720 0.0042 0.050 327.215 50.676 253.373 0.62850 40.6 4.5
Janus (3) 151,460 0.0068 0.163 46.899 288.678 171.432 0.69466 90.4 3.0
Epimetheus (3) 151,410 0.0098 0.351 85.244 37.847 346.196 0.69433 58.3 3.1
Table 13. Mean orbital elements and sizes of Saturns small satellites at epoch 2004 Jan. 1.00 TT referred to Saturns
equator. These moons are located between the orbits of Mimas and Dione. M is the mean anomaly, and the argument
of pericenter. All other quantities are the same as in the previous table. References: [08JPL, 07Sei], [08She]. Anthes
elements at epoch 2007 May 30 04:02:02.511 UTC; longitudes are measured from ascending node of Saturns equator
at epoch on the Earth mean equator at J2000; i is measured relative to Saturns equatorial plane at epoch [08Coo].
Methone 194,440 0.0001 292.695 163.735 0.007 321.745 1.010 1.5
Anthe 197,669 0.001 0.16 51 53.42 141.715 1.0365 0.9
Pallene 212,280 0.0040 216.475 125.909 0.181 114.430 1.154 4
Telesto 294,710 0.0002 341.795 200.143 1.180 300.256 1.888 11 4
Calypso 294,710 0.0005 234.788 101.961 1.499 25.327 1.888 9.5 4
Polydeuces 377,200 0.0192 200.028 191.220 0.177 304.799 2.737 2
Helene 377,420 0.0071 292.056 134.070 0.213 40.039 2.737 16 4
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
15
Table 14. Mean orbital elements and sizes of Saturns irregular satellites at epoch 2000 Feb. 26.00 TT. a is the
semi-major axis, e the eccentricity, and i the inclination. The latter is referred to the ecliptic. P is the sidereal orbital
period and R is the satellites mean radius. Reference: [08JPL] and references therein, and *[08She].
satellite a [km] e i [deg] P [days] R [km]
Kiviuq 11,110,000 0.3289 45.708 449.22 8
Ijiraq 11,124,000 0.3164 46.448 451.42 6
Paaliaq 15,200,000 0.3630 45.084 686.95 11.0
Skathi 15,540,000 0.2698 152.630 728.20 4
Albiorix 16,182,000 0.4770 34.208 783.45 16
S/2007 S2 16,725,000 0.1793 174.043 808.08 3
Bebhionn 17,119,000 0.4691 35.012 834.84 3.0
Erriapo 17,343,000 0.4724 34.692 871.19 5
Siarnaq 17,531,000 0.2960 46.002 895.53 20
Skoll 17,665,000 0.4641 161.188 878.29 3
Tarvos 17,983,000 0.5305 33.827 926.23 7.5
Tarqeq 18,009,000 0.1603 46.089 887.48 3.5
Greip 18,206,000 0.3259 179.837 921.19 3
S/2004 S 13 18,404,000 0.2586 168.789 933.48 3.0
Hyrokkin 18,437,000 0.3336 151.450 931.86 4
Mundilfari 18,628,000 0.2099 167.473 952.77 3.5
S/2006 S1 18,790,000 0.1172 156.309 963.37 3
Jarnsaxa 18,811,000 0.2164 163.317 964.74 3
S/2007 S3 18,975,000 0.1851 174.528 977.80 2.5
Narvi 19,007,000 0.4308 145.824 1003.86 3.5
Bergelmir 19,336,000 0.1428 158.574 1005.74 3.0
S/2004 S 17 19,447,000 0.1793 168.237 1014.70 2.0
Suttungr 19,459,000 0.1140 175.815 1016.67 3.5
Hati 19,846,000 0.3713 165.830 1038.61 3.0
S/2004 S 12 19,878,000 0.3260 165.282 1046.19 2.5
Bestla 20,192,000 0.5176 145.162 1088.72 3.5
Thrymr 20,314,000 0.4664 175.802 1094.11 3.5
Farbauti 20,377,000 0.2396 156.393 1085.55 2.5
Aegir 20,751,000 0.2520 166.700 1117.52 3.0
S/2004 S 7 20,999,000 0.5299 166.185 1140.24 3.0
Kari 22,089,000 0.4770 156.271 1230.97 3.5
S/2006 S3 22,096,000 0.3979 158.288 1227.21 3
Fenrir 22,454,000 0.1363 164.955 1260.35 2.0
Surtur 22,704,000 0.4507 177.545 1297.36 3
Ymir 23,040,000 0.3349 173.125 1315.14 9
Loge 23,058,000 0.1856 167.872 1311.36 3
Fornjot 25,146,000 0.2066 170.434 1494.20 3.0
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
16
Table 15. Mean equatorial orbital elements and sizes of Uranus small inner satellites at epoch (1) 1986 Jan. 19.50
TT or (2) 2004 Aug. 25.50 TT. a is the semi-major axis, e the eccentricity, the argument of pericenter, M the mean
anomaly, i the inclination, and the longitude of ascending node. P is the sidereal orbital period and R is the mean
radius. References: [08JPL, 07Sei] and *[08She].
Cordelia (1) 49,800 0.0003 136.827 254.805 0.085 38.374 0.335 20.1 3
Ophelia (1) 53,800 0.0099 17.761 116.259 0.104 164.048 0.376 21.4 4
Bianca (1) 59,200 0.0009 8.293 138.486 0.193 93.220 0.435 25.7 2.
Cressida (1) 61,800 0.0004 44.236 233.795 0.006 99.403 0.464 39.8 2
Desdemona (1) 62,700 0.0001 183.285 184.627 0.113 306.089 0.474 32.0 4
Juliet (1) 64,400 0.0007 223.819 244.696 0.065 200.155 0.493 46.8 4
Portia (1) 66,100 0.0001 222.433 218.312 0.059 260.067 0.513 67.6 4
Rosalind (1) 69,900 0.0001 140.477 136.181 0.279 12.847 0.558 36. 6
Cupid (2) 74,392 0.0013 247.608 163.830 0.099 182.793 0.613 5
Belinda (1) 75,300 0.0001 42.406 357.224 0.031 279.337 0.624 40.3 8
Perdita (2) 76,417 0.0116 253.925 192.405 0.470 309.376 0.638 10
Puck (1) 86,000 0.0001 177.094 245.796 0.319 268.734 0.762 81. 2.
Mab (1) 97,736 0.0025 249.565 273.769 0.134 350.737 0.923 5
Table 16. Mean semi-major axis a, mean eccentricity e, mean inclination i (referred to the local Laplace planes),
orbital period P and radii R of Uranus irregular satellites at epoch 2004 Jul. 14.00 TT. The declination, Dec., and
right ascension, R.A., of the Laplace planes pole are given with respect to the ICRF. Tilt is the angle between the planet
equator and the Laplace plane. Reference: [08JPL] and references therein.
S/2001 U 3 4,276,000 0.1459 145.220 266.56 6 276.911 64.927 98.522
Caliban 7,231,000 0.1587 140.881 579.73 49 277.436 64.637 98.722
Stephano 8,004,000 0.2292 144.113 677.36 10 272.003 66.170 97.916
Trinculo 8,504,000 0.2200 167.050 749.24 5 271.873 66.318 97.786
Sycorax 12,179,000 0.5224 159.404 1288.30 95 272.154 66.466 97.615
S/2003 U 3 14,345,000 0.6608 56.630 1687.01 6 272.570 65.736 98.278
Prospero 16,256,000 0.4448 151.966 1978.29 15 271.470 66.399 97.747
Setebos 17,418,000 0.5914 158.202 2225.21 15 272.151 66.317 97.759
S/2001 U 2 20,901,000 0.3682 169.840 2887.21 6 271.934 66.322 97.776
Table 17. Mean semi-major axis a, mean eccentricity e, mean inclination i, sidereal orbital period P and radii R of
Neptunes small inner satellites at epoch 1989 Aug 18 0.50 TT, referred to the local Laplace planes. The declination,
Dec., and right ascension, R.A., of the Laplace planes pole are given with respect to the ICRF. Tilt is the angle between
the planet equator and the Laplace plane. Reference: [08JPL] and references therein.
Naiad 48,227 0.0004 4.746 0.294 33. 3. 299.431 42.940 0.448
Thalassa 50,075 0.0002 0.209 0.311 41. 3. 299.431 42.939 0.449
Despina 52,526 0.0002 0.064 0.335 75. 3. 299.431 42.937 0.451
Galatea 61,953 0.0000 0.062 0.429 88. 4. 299.430 42.925 0.462
Larissa 73,548 0.0014 0.205 0.555 97. 3. 299.429 42.897 0.490
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
17
Table 18. Mean semi-major axis a, mean eccentricity e, mean inclination i (referred to the ecliptic), and sidereal orbital
period P of Neptunes small outer satellites at epoch 2003 Jun. 10.00 TT. Orbital elements are referred to the ecliptic
plane. The mean radii of these objects range between 20 and 30 km. Reference: [08JPL] and references therein.
satellite a [km] e i [deg] P [days]
Halimede 16,611,000 0.2646 112.712 1879.08
Sao 22,228,000 0.1365 53.483 2912.72
Laomedeia 23,567,000 0.3969 37.874 3171.33
Psamathe 48,096,000 0.3809 126.312 9074.30
Neso 49,285,000 0.5714 136.439 9740.73
Table 19. Mean semi-major axis a, mean eccentricity e, and sidereal orbital period P of dwarf planet satellites. With
inclinations of about 0.2 deg referred to Charons mean orbital plane, all three satellites of Pluto lie almost in the same
plane. Assuming the density of Charon for Nix and Hydra, the radii of the latter are estimated to be 88 and 72 km,
respectively. Assuming the albedo of Eris for Dysnomia, the radius of the latter is estimated to be 75 km. References:
[08JPL, 05Bro, 08Bro, 08Gre, 08Tho, 06Bar]. More data on Charon can be found in Tab. 7 and Tab.8.
satellite primary a [km] e P [days]
Charon Pluto 17,536 0.0022 6.387
Nix Pluto 48,708 0.0030 24.8562 00013
Hydra Pluto 64,749 0.0052 38.2065 0.0014
Dysnomia Eris (2003 UB313 ) 37, 350 140 0 15.774 0.002
Namaka Haumea (2003 EL61 ) 39, 300 34.7 0.1
Hiiaka Haumea (2003 EL61 ) 49, 100 0.05 49.12 0.03
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
18
4.2.2.5 Rings
The four giant planets all have ring systems with Saturns the most prominent and visible from the Earth
with telescopes. A large number of known satellites are embedded in the ring systems. Some of them shep-
herd rings to sharpen their edges (e.g., [99Mur]) such as Prometheus and Pandora shepherding Saturns
F-ring. Others, like Saturns moon Pan open gaps in the ring systems. It is generally held that the rings
and the embedded satellites are continuously created and destroyed by impacts and accretion. In two cases
Jupiters rings and Saturns E-ring the rings are supplied with material by eruptions on the geologically
active moons Io and Enceladus, respectively. In some cases the ring material is not distributed homoge-
neously along the ring. The optically thicker parts of Neptunes Adams-ring were first recognized as arcs.
The physics of the rings and the ring-moon interactions, responsible for many features in the ring systems
have been recently reviewed by [06Esp]. Tables 20 - 23 summarize the main known properties of the rings.
The data are adopted from the NSSDC planetary data fact sheet [08NSS]. It has been reported that Rhea,
a satellite of Saturn, has a tenuous ring [08Jon]. However, a ring around Rhea has not yet been detected in
the imaging data obtained with the Cassini spacecraft (as of Nov. 2008).
Table 20. The rings of Jupiter. R is the radius, D the optical depth, A the albedo, and S the surface density [08NSS].
R [km] D A S [kg m2 ]
Jupiter equator 71,492
Halo 100,000 122,000 3 106
Main 122,000 129,000 5 106 0.015 5 105
Gossamer (inner) 129,000 182,000 1 107
Gossamer (outer) 182,000 224,900
Table 21. The rings of Saturn. R is the radius, D the optical depth, A the albedo, T the thickness, S the surface density,
and e the eccentricity [08NSS].
R [km] D A T [m] S [kg m2 ] e
Saturn equator 60,268
D inner edge 66,900
D outer edge 74,510
C inner edge 74,658 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.30 5 14 50
Titan ringlet 77,871 170 0.00026
Maxwell gap/ringlet 87,491 170 0.00034
C outer edge 92,000 0.12 0.2 5 20 70
B inner edge 92,000 0.4 2.5 0.4 0.6 5 10 200 1000
B outer edge 117,580 1.8
Cassini divison 0.05 0.15 0.2 0.4 20 180 200
A inner edge 122,170 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 10 30 300 400
Encke gap 133,589
A outer edge 136,775 0.6 0.4 0.6 10 30 200 300
F ring center 140,180 0.1 0.6 0.0026
G inner edge 170,000 1 106 105
G outer edge 175,000
E inner edge 181,000 1.5 105 107
E outer edge 483,000 107
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
19
Table 22. The rings of Uranus. R is the radius, D the optical depth, A the albedo, W the width, and e the eccentricity
[08NSS].
R [km] D A W [km] e
Uranus equator 25,559
6 41,837 0.3 0.015 1.5 0.0010
5 42,234 0.5 0.015 2 0.0019
4 42,571 0.3 0.015 2 0.0011
Alpha 44,718 0.4 0.015 4 10 0.0008
Beta 45,661 0.3 0.015 5 11 0.0004
Eta 47,176 0.4 0.015 1.6
Gamma 47,627 0.3 0.015 14 0.0011
Delta 48,300 0.5 0.015 37 0.00004
Lambda 50,024 0.1 0.015 2 0.
Epsilon 51,149 0.5 2.3 0.018 20 96 0.0079
Table 23. The rings of Neptune. R is the radius, D the optical depth, A the albedo, and W the width [08NSS].
R [km] D A W [km]
Neptune equator 24,764
Galle (1989N3R) 41,900 0.00008 0.015 2000
LeVerrier (1989N2R) 53.200 0.002 0.015 110
Lassell (1989N4R) 53.200 0.00015 0.015 4000
Unnamed 61,950
Adams (1989N1R) 62,933 0.0045 0.015 50
Arcs in Adams Ring
Courage 62,933 0.12 15
Liberte 62,933 0.12 15
Egalite 1 62,933 0.12 0.040 15
Egalite 2 62,933 0.12 0.040 15
Fraternite 62,933 0.12 15
Acknowledgments: We thank Stefanie Hempel for invaluable help in preparing the tables and Tilman
Spohn for constructive comments on the manuscript.
4.2.2.6 References
92Sei Seidelmann, P.K.: editor, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, University Science
Books, Mill Valley, CA, USA, 1992.
92Sta Standish, E. M, et al.: In Seidelmann, P. K., editor, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical
Almanac, University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, USA, 1992.
95Yod Yoder, C.F.: In Ahrens, T., editor, Global Earth Physics. A handbook of physical constants, pages
131, American Geophysical Union, Washington, 1995.
98Fei Feissel, M., Mignard, F.: Astr. Astrophys. 331 (1998) L33L36.
99Mur Murray, C.D., Dermott, S. F.: Solar System Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1999.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
20
02Sei Seidelmann, P. K., Kovalevsky J.: Astr. Astrophys. 392 (2002) 341351.
05Bro Brown, M. E., Trujillo, C. A., Rabinowitz, D. L.: 2005. Astrophys. J. 635 (2005) L97L100.
05IAU IAU Circular No. 8524 (2005).
05Tho Thomas, P. C. et al.: Nature 437 (2005) 224226.
06Bar Barkume, K. M., Brown, M. E., and Schaller, E. L.: Astrophys. J. 640 (2006) L87L89.
06Esp Esposito, L. Planetary Rings (2006) Cambridge Univ. Press 216pp.
06Rab Rabinowitz, D. L. et al.: Astrophys. J. 639 (2006) 12381251.
06Sei Seidelmann, P.K. (Ed.) 2006, Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, University
Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, USA.
06Spi Spitale, J. N. et al.: Astron. J. 132 (2006) 692710.
07Sei Seidelmann, P. K. et al.: Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astr. 98 (2007) 155180.
08Bro Brown, M. E.: In Barucci, M. A., Boehnhardt, H., Cruikshank, D. P. and Morbidelli, A., editors,
The Solar System beyond Neptune, pages 335344, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson 2008.
08Coo Cooper, N. J. et al.: Icarus 195 (2008) 765777.
08Gre Greenberg, R., Barnes R.: Icarus 194 (2008) 847849.
08Jon Jones, G. H. et al.: Science 319 (2008) 13801384.
08JPL JPL Solar System Dynamics website: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov, as of Dec. 2008.
08NSS NASAs National Space Science Data Center website: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/,
as of Nov. 2008.
08She Sheppard, S. S. The Giant Planet Satellite and Moon Page.
http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/sheppard/satellites/, as of July 2008.
08Tho Tholen, D. J. et al.: Astron. J. 135 (2008) 777784.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
21
4.2.3 Terrestrial Planets and Satellites
4.2.3.1 Geodetic and Geophysical Data
Matthias Grott, Hauke Hussmann, Jurgen Oberst, and Marita Wahlisch

Table 1. List of symbols used.

Symbol Definition Units
a (sub-planetary) equatorial radius km
b along-orbit equatorial radius km
c polar radius km
d Interval in days from standard epoch
T Interval in Julian centuries (356525 Julian days)
from standard epoch
W Angle between node Q and prime meridian (Fig.1) deg
0 Right ascension deg
0 Declination deg
n Degree of the spherical harmonic decomposition -
m Order of the spherical harmonic decomposition -
U Gravitational potential m2 s2
G Gravitational constant m3 kg1 s2
GM Planetocentric constant m3 s2
r Radial distance m
R Planetary radius m
Cn,m , Sn,m Gravitational coefficients of degree n and order m
Nnm Normalized associated Legendre functions of degree n and order m -
Pnm Associated Legendre functions of degree n and order m -
Pn Legendre polynomial of degree n -
Longitude [-/2,/2] or -90 to 90 -
Latitude [0,2] or 0 to 360 -
ij Kronecker delta -
Jn Zonal gravitational coefficient -
gr Radial free-air gravity anomaly mGal
N Geoid height m
Angular velocity s1
Planetary coordinate systems typically are defined by the planets rotation and location of the
equator plane. They originate at the bodies center of mass (COM). The rotational axis defines
the z-axis, whereas the equator constrains the plane of the x- and y-axes. The definition of the
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
22
Z
X ICRF North pole of body
North pole of (ao, do)
body Z ICRF
Pr
im
e
Y
90
Equator Equator
+
of body of body
meridian
ao
W Y ICRF
Q Q 90-do
X
Standard Standard
ICRF equator ICRF equator
Fig. 1. The coordinate system of the planet/satellite and the reference system to define the orientation
of the planet/satellite (see text for further explanation).
prime meridian is not unique. In many cases, this meridian is defined by some prominent crater.
However, if bodies are in locked in 1:1 commensurability between spin and orbit period, the mean
sub-planet point defines the prime meridian. For the Moon, e.g., the moment-of-inertia axes can
be used to define the prime meridian.
4.2.3.1.2 Rotation and Shape
4.2.3.1.2.1 Rotational Elements
The rotational elements describe the planetary coordinate systems with respect to an inertial
system. Approximate expressions to convert planetary coordinates to the epochless International
Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) have been derived. The north pole is defined to be the pole of
rotation that lies on the north side of the invariable plane of the solar system. The direction to the
north pole is specified by the value of its right ascension 0 and declination 0 , whereas 0 + 90
(one of the two intersection points of the bodys equator and the ICRF equator) is defined as node
Q (Fig. 1). The location of the prime meridian is specified by the angle W that is measured along
the planets equator in the easterly direction with respect to the planets north pole from the node
Q. In case of W is defined by a cartographic position, the constant in the expression W = W0 + W d
(d is the interval in days from the standard epoch) is chosen so that the ephemeris position follows
the motion of the cartographic position as closely as possible. If W increases with time (i.e. W is
positive), the planet has a direct (or prograde) rotation, and if W decreases with time, the rotation
is said to be retrograde. In cases where sufficiently accurate tracking data are available (e.g. for
the Moon and Mars), expressions for the precession of the rotational axis have been established.
Bodies that show chaotic rotation, such as the small Saturnian satellite Hyperion have defied any
definition of a coordinate system up to the present day.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
23
Table 2. Right ascension 0 , declination 0 , and the angle W between the node Q and the prime
meridian (see Fig.1) of the terrestrial planets in the ICRF [07Sei].
Mercury 0 = 281. 01 0.033T 0 = 61. 45 0.005T W = 329. 548 + 6.1385025d

The 20 meridian is defined by the crater Hun Kal.
Venus 0 = 272. 76 0 = 67. 16 W = 160. 20 1.4813688d
The 0 meridian is defined by the central peak in the crater Ari-
adne.
Earth 0 = 0. 00 0.641T 0 = 90. 00 0.557T W = 190. 147 + 360.9856235d
Mars 0 = 317. 68143 0.1061T 0 = 52. 88650 0.0609T W = 176. 630 + 350.89198226d
The 0 meridian is defined by the crater Airy-0.
4.2.3.1.2.2 Shape
Size and shape constitute fundamental properties of any planetary body. The general shape of
planets and satellites is described with respect to a reference surface. Spheres, ellipsoids (a = b > c
where a and b are the radii in the equatorial plane), or triaxial ellipsoids (a 6= b 6= c) are commonly
used to describe such a reference surface. The radii are computed to fit available topographic data
best. Table 4 and 5 give an overview of the size and shape parameters of the planets and satellites,
respectively. The Moon and Mars are known to have pronounced offset between their centers of
mass (COM) and centers of figure (COF). A highly accurate shape model is available for Mars. In
Table 4 the average (AVG), north (N), and south (S) polar radii of Mars are given. It is common
to approximate the reference surface of Mars by a rotational spheroid with an equatorial radius
and average polar radius. In the last decades, planetary bodies were observed by an increasing
number of space missions (see chapter 5.). As new data become available, planet rotation and
shape information are frequently updated. Recommended rotation and shape data are published
by the IAU (International Astronomical Union) on a regular basis [07Sei].
4.2.3.1.2.3 Method
Coordinates for any place on Earth are easily obtained from GPS readings or similar positioning
systems. Such sophisticated positioning systems do not exist for the planets. Likewise, only very
few surface geodetic measurements from landed spacecraft are available (see chapter 5.). Therefore,
planetary reference systems must be realized from astronomical observations and from remote sens-
ing observations of surface morphology e.g. by radar measurements, imaging or Laser altimetry.
Image- or planetary radii base maps, from which coordinates of morphologic features of interest
can be readily extracted, and to which other data products can be co-registered may be produced
by various techniques. In photogrammetry, the production of base maps is traditionally preceded
by a control point network analysis. The networks consist of large catalogs of prominent landmarks
(typically: small craters) for which coordinates are precisely known. Control point coordinates and
their errors are determined by bundle block adjustments which involve the simultaneous inversion
of large numbers of line/sample coordinates in large numbers of images. Coordinates can be deter-
mined in two dimensions (holding radius fixed) or in three dimensions. Lander stations constitute
unique anchor points for the networks, as for these the coordinates in the planet-fixed coordinate
system as well as coordinates in image space are typically well known. By joint analysis of lander
tracking, the coordinate system of the body and its relationship to ICRF can be computed very
precisely. This includes the observed location of the rotational pole, the rotational rate, parameters
of precession, and the prime meridian [97Fol]. With the availability of reliable navigation data,
base maps are often computed relying on known spacecraft position and pointing data, as well as
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
24
meridian (see Fig.1) of the satellites in the ICRF [07Sei].
0 0 W
Earth: Moon 269.9949 66.5392 38.3213
+0. 0031T +0.0130T +13.17635815d
3. 8787 sin E1 +1.5419 cos E1 1.4 1012 d2
0. 1204 sin E2 +0.0239 cos E2 +3.5610 sin E1
+0.0700 sin E3 0.0278 cos E3 +0.1208 sin E2
0.0172 sin E4 +0.0068 cos E4 0.0642 sin E3
+0.0072 sin E6 0.0029 cos E6 +0.0158 sin E4
0.0052 sin E10 +0.0009 cos E7 +0.0252 sin E5
+0.0043 sin E13 +0.0008 cos E10 0.0066 sin E6
0.0009 cos E13 0.0047 sin E7
0.0046 sin E8
+0.0028 sin E9
+0.0052 sin E10
+0.0040 sin E11
+0.0019 sin E12
0.0044 sin E13
These formulae are precise to approximately 150 m.
where E1 = 125. 045 0. 0529921d, E2 = 250. 089 0. 1059842d, E3 = 260. 008 + 13. 0120009d,
E4 = 176.625 + 13.3407154d, E5 = 357.529 + 0.9856003d, E6 = 311.589 + 26.4057084d,
E7 = 134.963 + 13.0649930d, E8 = 276.617 + 0.3287146d, E9 = 34.226 + 1.7484877d,
E10 = 15.134 0.1589763d, E11 = 119.743 + 0.0036096d, E12 = 239.961 + 0.1643573d,
E13 = 25.053 + 12.9590088d
0 0 W
Mars: Phobos 317. 68 52. 90 35. 06
0.108T 0.061T +1128.8445850d
+1.79 sin M 1 1.08 cos M 1 +8.864T 2
1.42 sin M 1
0.78 sin M 2
Deimos 316. 65 53. 52 79. 41
-0.108T -0.061T +285.1618970d
+2.98 sin M 3 1.78 cos M 3 0.520T 2
2.58 sin M 3
+0.19 cos M 3
where M 1 = 169. 51 0. 4357640d, M 2 = 192. 93 + 1128. 4096700d + 8. 864T 2 ,
M 3 = 53. 47 0. 0181510d
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
25
0 0 W
Jupiter: Metis 268. 05 64. 49 346. 09
-0.009T +0.003T +1221.2547301d
Adrastea 268. 05 64. 49 33. 29
-0.009T +0.003T +1206.9986602d
Amalthea 268. 05 64. 49 231. 67
-0.009T +0.003T +722.6314560d
0.84 sin J1 0.36 cos J1 +0.76 sin J1
+0.01 sin 2J1 0.01 sin 2J1
Thebe 268. 05 64. 49 8. 56
-0.009T +0.003T +533.7004100d
2.11 sin J2 0.91 cos J2 +1.91 sin J2
+0.04 sin 2J2 +0.01 cos 2J2 0.04 sin 2J2
Io 268. 05 64. 50 200. 39
-0.009T +0.003T +203.4889538d
+0.094 sin J3 +0.040 cos J3 0.085 sin J3
+0.024 sin J4 +0.011 cos J4 0.022 sin J4
Europa 268. 08 64. 51 36. 022
-0.009T +0.003T +101.3747235d
+1.086 sin J4 +0.468 cos J4 0.980 sin J4
+0.060 sin J5 +0.026 cos J5 0.054 sin J5
+0.015 sin J6 +0.007 cos J6 0.014 sin J6
+0.009 sin J7 +0.002 cos J7 0.008 sin J7
The 182 meridian is defined by the crater Cilix.
Ganymede 268. 20 64. 57 44. 064
-0.009T +0.003T +50.3176081d
0.037 sin J4 0.016 cos J4 +0.033 sin J4
+0.431 sin J5 +0.186 cos J5 0.389 sin J5
+0.091 sin J6 +0.039 cos J6 0.082 sin J6
The 128 meridian is defined by the crater Anat.
Callisto 268. 72 64. 83 259. 51
-0.009T +0.003T +21.5710715d
0.068 sin J5 0.029 cos J5 +0.061 sin J5
+0.590 sin J6 +0.254 cos J6 0.533 sin J6
+0.010 sin J8 0.004 cos J8 0.009 sin J8
The 326 meridian is defined by the crater Saga.
where J1 = 73. 32 + 91472. 9T , J2 = 24. 62 + 45137. 2T , J3 = 283. 90 + 4850. 7T ,
J4 = 355.80 + 1191.3T , J5 = 119.90 + 262.1T , J6 = 229.80 + 64.3T ,
J7 = 352.25 + 2382.6T , J8 = 113.35 + 6070.0T
Saturn: Pan 40. 6 83. 5 48. 8
-0.036T -0.004T + 626.0440000d
Atlas 40. 58 83. 53 137. 88
-0.036T -0.004T +598.3060000d
Prometheus 40. 58 83. 53 296. 14
-0.036T -0.004T +587.289000d
Pandora 40. 58 83. 53 162. 92
-0.036T -0.004T +572.7891000d
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
26
0 0 W
Epimetheus* 40. 58 83. 52 293. 87
-0.036T -0.004T +518.4907239d
3.153 sin S1 0.356 cos S1 +3.133 sin S1
+0.086 sin 2S1 +0.005 cos 2S1 0.086 sin 2S1
Janus* 40. 58 83. 52 58. 83
-0.036T -0.004T +518.2359876d
1.623 sin S2 0.183 cos S2 +1.613 sin S2
+0.023 sin 2S2 +0.001 cos 2S2 0.023 sin 2S2
Mimas 40. 66 83. 52 337. 46
-0.036T -0.004T +381.9945550d
+13.56 sin S3 1.53 cos S3 13.48 sin S3
44.85 sin S5
The 162 meridian is defined by the crater Palomides.
Enceladus 40. 66 83. 52 2. 82
-0.036T -0.004T +262.7318996d
The 5 meridian is defined by the crater Salih.
Tethys 40. 66 83. 52 10. 45
-0.036T -0.004T +190.6979085d
+9.66 sin S4 1.09 cos S4 9.60 sin S4
2.23 sin S5
The 299 meridian is defined by the crater Arete.
Telesto* 50. 51 84. 06 56. 88
-0.036T -0.004T +190.6979332d
Calypso* 36. 41 85. 04 153. 51
-0.036 -0.004T +190.6742373d
Dione 40. 66 83. 52 357. 00
-0.036 -0.004T +131.5349316d
The 63 meridian is defined by the crater Palinurus.
Helene 40. 85 83. 34 245. 12
-0.036T -0.004T +131.6174056d
Rhea 40. 38 83. 55 235. 16
-0.036T -0.004T +79.6900478d
+3.10 sin S6 0.35 cos S6 3.08 sin S6
* These expressions are valid for the period of the Voyager encoun-
ters. Because of precession they may not be accurate at other time
periods.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
27
The 340 meridian is defined by the crater Tore.

Titan 36. 41 83. 94 189. 64
-0.036T -0.004T +22.5769768d
+2.66 sin S7 0.30 cos S7 2.64 sin S7
Iapetus 318. 16 75. 03 350. 20
-3.949T -1.143T +4.5379572d
The 276 meridian is defined by the crater Almeric.
Phoebe 356. 90 77. 80 178. 58
+931.639d
where S1 = 353. 32 + 75706. 7T , S2 = 28. 72 + 75706. 7T , S3 = 177. 40 36505. 5T
S4 = 300.00 7225.9T , S5 = 316.45 + 506.2T , S6 = 345.20 1016.3T ,
S7 = 29.80 52.1T
Uranus: Cordelia 257. 31 -15. 18 127. 69
0.15 sin U 1 +0.14 cos U 1 1074.5205730d
0.04 sin U 1
Ophelia 257. 31 -15. 18 130. 35
0.09 sin U 2 +0.09 cos U 2 956.4068150d
0.03 sin U 2
Bianca 257. 31 -15. 18 105. 46
0.16 sin U 3 +0.16 cos U 3 828.3914760d
0.04 sin U 3
Cressida 257. 31 -15. 18 59. 16
0.04 sin U 4 +0.04 cos U 4 -776.5816320d
0.01 sin U 4
Desdemona 257. 31 -15. 18 95. 08
0.17 sin U 5 +0.16 cos U 5 -760.0531690d
0.04 sin U 5
Juliet 257. 31 -15. 18 302. 56
0.06 sin U 6 +0.06 cos U 6 -730. 1253660d
0.02 sin U 6
Portia 257. 31 -15. 18 25. 03
0.09 sin U 7 +0.09 cos U 7 -701.4865870d
0.02 sin U 7
Rosalind 257. 31 -15. 18 314. 90
0.29 sin U 8 +0.28 cos U 8 -644.6311260d
0.08 sin U 8
Belinda 257. 31 -15. 18 297. 46
0.03 sin U 9 +0.03 cos U 9 -577.3628170d
0.01 sin U 9
Puck 257. 31 -15. 18 91. 24
0.33 sin U 10 +0.31 cos U 10 472.5450690d
0.09 sin U 10
Miranda 257. 43 -15. 08 30. 70
+4.41 sin U 11 +4.25 cos U 11 254.6906892d
0.04 sin 2U 11 0.02 cos 2U 11 1.27 sin U 12
+0.15 sin 2U 12
+1.15 sin U 11
0.09 sin 2U 11
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
28
Ariel 257. 43 -15. 10 156. 22

+0.29 sin U 13 +0.28 cos U 13142.8356681d
+0.05 sin U 12
0.08 sin U 13
Umbriel 257. 43 -15. 10 108. 05
+0.21 sin U 14 +0.20 cos U 14 86.8688923d
0.09 sin U 12
+0.06 sin U 14
Titania 257. 43 -15. 10 77. 74
+0.29 sin U 15 +0.28 cos U 15 41.3514316d
+0.08 sin U 15
Oberon 257. 43 -15. 10 6. 77
+0.16 sin U 16 +0.16 cos U 16 -26.7394932d
+0.04 sin U 16
where U 1 = 115. 75 + 54991. 87T , U 2 = 141. 69 + 41887. 66T , U 3 = 135. 03 + 29927. 35T ,
U 4 = 61.77 + 25733.59T , U 5 = 249.32 + 24471.46T , U 6 = 43.86 + 22278.41T ,
U 7 = 77.66 + 20289.42T , U 8 = 157.36 + 16652.76T , U 9 = 101.81 + 12872.63T ,
U 10 = 138.64 + 8061.81T , U 11 = 102.23 2024.22T , U 12 = 316.41 + 2863.96T ,
U 13 = 304.01 51.94T , U 14 = 308.71 93.17T , U 15 = 340.82 75.32T ,
U 16 = 259.14 504.81T
0 0 W
Neptune Naiad 299. 36 43. 36 254. 06
+0.70 sin N 0.51 cos N +1222.8441209d
6.49 sin N 1 4.75 cos N 1 0.48 sin N
+0.25 sin 2N 1 +0.09 cos 2N 1 +4.40 sin N 1
0.27 sin 2N 1
Thalassa 299. 36 43. 45 102. 06
+0.70 sin N 0.51 cos N +1155.7555612d
0.28 sin N 2 0.21 cos N 2 0.48 sin N
+0.19 sin N 2
Despina 299. 36 43. 45 306. 51
+0.70 sin N 0.51 cos N +1075.7341562d
0.09 sin N 3 0.07 cos N 3 0.49 sin N
+0.06 sin N 3
Galatea 299. 36 43. 43 258. 09
+0.70 sin N 0.51 cos N +839.6597686d
0.07 sin N 4 0.05 cos N 4 0.48 sin N
+0.05 sin N 4
Larissa 299. 36 43. 41 179. 41
+0.70 sin N 0.51 cos N +649.0534470d
0.27 sin N 5 0.20 cos N 5 0.48 sin N
+0.19 sin N 5
Proteus 299. 27 42. 91 93. 38
+0.70 sin N 0.51 cos N +320.7654228d
0.05 sin N 6 0.04 cos N 6 0.48 sin N
+0.04 sin N 6
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
29
Triton 299. 36 41. 17 296. 53

32.35 sin N 7 +22.55 cos N 7 61.2572637d
6.28 sin 2N 7 +2.10 cos 2N 7 +22.25 sin N 7
2.08 sin 3N 7 +0.55 cos 3N 7 +6.73 sin 2N 7
0.74 sin 4N 7 +0.16 cos 4N 7 +2.05 sin 3N 7
0.28 sin 5N 7 +0.05 cos 5N 7 +0.74 sin 4N 7
0.11 sin 6N 7 +0.02 cos 6N 7 +0.28 sin 5N 7
0.07 sin 7N 7 +0.01 cos 7N 7 +0.11 sin 6N 7
0.02 sin 8N 7 +0.05 sin 7N 7
0.01 sin 9N 7 +0.02 sin 8N 7
+0.01 sin 9N 7
where N = 357. 85 + 52. 316T , N 1 = 323. 92 + 62606. 6T , N 2 = 220. 51 + 55064. 2T ,
N 3 = 354.27 + 46564.5T , N 4 = 75.31 + 26109.4T , N 5 = 35.36 + 14325.4T ,
N 6 = 142.61 + 2824.6T , N 7 = 177.85 + 52.316T
Table 4. Size and shape parameters of the terrestrial planets [07Sei].
Planet Mean radius Equatorial Polar radius RMS deviation

(km) radius (km) from spheroid
(km) (km)
Mercury 2439.7 1.0 same same 1
Venus 6051.8 1.0 same same 1
Earth 6371.00 0.01 6378.14 0.01 6356.75 0.01 3.57
Mars 3389.50 0.2 3396.19 0.1 AVG 3376.20 0.1 3.0
N 3373.19 0.1
S 3379.21 0.1
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
30
Table 5. Size and shape parameters for the satellites [07Sei].

Planet Satellite Mean Subplanetary Along orbit Polar
radius equatorial equatorial radius
(km) radius (km) radius (km) (km)
Earth Moon 1737.4 1 1737.4 1 1737.4 1 1737.4 1

Mars Phobos 11.1 0.15 13.4 11.2 9.2
Deimos 6.2 0.18 7.5 6.1 5.2
Jupiter Metis 21.5 4 30 20
Adrastea 8.2 4 10 8 7
Amalthea 83.5 3 125 73 64
Thebe 49.3 4 58 49 42
Io 1821.46 1829.4 1819.3 1815.7
Europa 1562.09 1564.13 1561.23 1560.93
Ganymede 2632.345 2632.4 2632.29 2632.35
Callisto 2409.3 2409.4 2409.2 2409.3
Saturn Atlas 16 4 18.5 17.2 13.5
Prometheus 50.1 3 74.0 50.0 34.0
Pandora 41.9 2 55.0 44.0 31.0
Epimetheus 59.5 3 69.0 55.0 55.0
Janus 88.8 4 97.0 95.0 77.0
Mimas 198.2 0.5 207.4 0.7 196.8 0.6 190.6 0.3
Enceladus 252.1 0.2 256.6 0.6 251.4 0.2 248.3 0.2
Tethys 533.0 1. 540.4 0.8 531.1 2.6 527.5 2.0
Telesto 11 4 15 2.5 12.5 5 7.5 2.5
Calypso 9.5 4 15.0 8.0 8.0
Dione 561.7 0.9 563.8 0.9 561.0 1.3 560.3 1.3
Helene 16 0.7 17.5 2.5
Rhea 764.3 1.8 767.2 2.2 762.5 0.8 763.1 1.1
Titan 2575 2 2575 2 2575 2 2575 2
Hyperion 133 8 164 8 130 8 107 8
Iapetus 735.6 3.0 747.4 3.1 747.4 3.1 712.4 2.0
Phoebe 106.7 1 108.6 1 107.7 1 101.5 1
Uranus Miranda 235.8 0.7 240.4 0.6 234.2 0.9 232.9 1.2
Ariel 578.9 0.6 581.1 0.9 577.9 0.6 577.7 1.0
Umbriel 584.7 2.8 584.7 2.8 584.7 2.8 584.7 2.8
Titania 788.9 1.8 788.9 1.8 788.9 1.8 788.9 1.8
Oberon 761.4 2.6 761.4 2.6 761.4 2.6 761.4 2.6
Neptune Larissa 96 7 104 89
Proteus 208 8 218 208 201
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
31
(a) Venus (b) Mars
Radius 6051.8 [km] Radius 3396 [km]
Moon
(c)
Radius 1737.4 [km]
Fig. 2. Planetary radii models of Venus, Mars and the Moon. All images are in a Hammer projection with
a central meridian of 0 W. The values are referenced to a sphere of radius 6051.8, 3396 and 1737.4 km
for Venus, Mars and the Moon, respectively. Note the data gaps for Venus and the rotational flattening
present for Mars.
on previously derived rotation parameters of the planet. In addition, it became popular to use the
planet limb position to improve the camera pointing data [06Roa]. The highest radial topographic
accuracy and good horizontal position accuracy give global planetary radii base maps, derived
from multiple laser altimeter measurements. Laser track crossover analysis are applied for orbit
data verification and improvement [01Neu]. Figure 2 shows the known planetary radii models of
Venus, Mars, and the Moon. The Venus near-global planetary radii model was derived from radar
data obtained during the Magellan mission (see chapter 5.) with 50km spatial and 100m vertical
resolution. Note the gaps in the data for the high northern and southern latitudes. The coordinate
system for the Moon is realized by a global network of control points, the Unified Lunar Control
Network (ULCN) 2005 [06Arc]. It is mostly based on Clementine image data [94Noz] as well as
laser altimetry [94Zub]. The network has on average a few hundred meter vertical and 100 m to
few km horizontal absolute accuracy [06Arc]. The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) on Mars
Global Surveyor (see chapter 5.) successfully accomplished about 600 million range measurements,
from which radial topographic accuracy of 1m and horizontal position accuracy better than 100m
have been achieved [01Neu]. Of the planets shown, Mars is the only one that exhibits a significant
amount of rotational flattening.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
32
4.2.3.1.3 Gravity studies
4.2.3.1.3.1 Method
The gravity field of a planet can be derived from Doppler tracking of orbiting or passing spacecraft.
The frequency shifts of radio signals transmitted from the Earth to the probe and back is inverted
to give the acceleration in the direction of the line of sight. The gravity field of the planet is then
derived from a multitude of these measurements.
For the terrestrial planets, gravity models have been constructed using radio tracking data from a
variety of space missions. The most recent gravity models rely on tracking data from the Grace and
Lageos missions for the Earth [08For], the Pioneer Venus Orbiter and Magellan for Venus [06Rap],
Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Mars Pathfinder and the Viking Lander 1 for Mars [05Tyl],
and Lunar Orbiters 1 to 5, the Apollo 15 and 16 subsatellites, and the Clementine and Lunar
Prospector missions for the Moon [99Kon2]. Current gravity models for the terrestrial planets are
summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Current gravity models of the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon. Resolution is given in terms
of degree n and order m of the spherical harmonic decomposition.
Planet Name Resolution References:
Earth EIGEN-GL04C n, m = 360 [08For]
Venus SHGJ180 n, m = 180 [06Rap], [99Kon1]
Mars MGS95J n, m = 95 [05Tyl], [06Kon]
Moon LP165P n, m = 165 [97Lem], [99Kon2], [01Kon]
4.2.3.1.3.2 Gravity Field Coefficients
Several large scale physical properties of the planets can be derived from harmonic expansions
of their gravity fields. The corresponding external gravitational potential U at latitude
[/2, /2], longitude [0, 2] and distance r (with r larger than the planetary radius Rp )
can be represented as
n n
GM X X Rp
U (r, , ) = (Cnm cos(m) + Snm sin(m))Nnm (cos ) (1)
r n=0 m=0 r
where the normalized associated Legendre functions are given by
s
(n m)!
Nnm (x) = (2 0m )(2n + 1) Pnm (x) (2)
(n + m)!
and
dm
Pnm (x) = (1 x2 )m/2 Pn (x) (3)
dxm
n
1 d
Pn (x) = (x2 1)n (4)
2n n! dxn
The usual convention for the representation of the zonal coefficients is
Jn = Cn0 (5)
In particular, J2 measures the planets oblateness and J3 the asymmetry between the northern
and southern hemispheres. Low order coefficients Cnm and Snm of the gravity fields of the Earth,
Venus, Mars and the Moon are given in Table 7.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
33
Table 7. Gravity field coefficients to degree n and order m of 4 for the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon.
The gravitational acceleration GM and reference radius Rp for the particular models are also given. is
the angular velocity necessary for the calculation of the geoid.
Earth Venus
n m Cnm 109 Snm 109 Cnm 109 Snm 109
2 0 484165.227 0.025 0 1969.72 0.67 0
2 1 0.255 0.016 1.440 0.016 26.80 0.34 13.24 0.36
2 2 2439.364 0.017 1400.285 0.017 857.77 0.97 95.53 0.91
3 0 957.205 0.010 0 796.82 0.26 0
3 1 2030.454 0.015 248.204 0.015 2348.30 0.28 541.62 0.27
3 2 904.781 0.019 618.986 0.019 8.53 0.40 809.06 0.42
3 3 721.282 0.024 1414.378 0.024 188.01 0.61 213.48 0.62
4 0 539.992 0.004 0 715.80 0.20 0
4 1 536.143 0.004 .473.563 0.004 457.42 0.20 491.60 0.20
4 2 350.504 0.006 662.477 0.006 126.32 0.18 483.57 0.16
4 3 990.862 0.009 .200.957 0.009 174.66 0.21 116.49 0.19
4 4 188.494 0.009 308.822 0.010 172.51 0.62 1376.61 0.51
GM [km3 s2 ] 398600.4415 324858.5920
Rp [km] 6378.13 6051
106 [rad s1 ] 72.92115 1 ) -0.299.24 1 )
Mars Moon
n m Cnm 109 Snm 109 Cnm 109 Snm 109
2 0 875021.446 0.022 0 90890.18 5.46 0
2 1 0.240 0.012 0.228 0.012 2.72 4.50 0.75 3.48
2 2 84635.831 0.006 48934.512 0.008 34635.49 3.68 16.72 3.04
3 0 11896.460 0.018 0 3203.59 6.48 0
3 1 3803.574 0.012 25177.363 0.012 26327.44 7.49 5464.36 4.46
3 2 15947.887 0.010 8361.380 0.010 14188.17 6.74 4892.03 6.03
3 3 35054.079 0.007 25574.349 0.007 12286.05 4.51 1785.44 4.56
4 0 5128.584 0.019 0 3197.30 7.22 0
4 1 4216.387 0.017 3763.285 0.017 5996.60 9.01 1661.93 5.46
4 2 952.535 0.013 8980.866 0.013 7081.80 9.99 6783.62 8.97
4 3 6456.813 0.009 193.214 0.009 1362.29 8.76 13443.47 8.73
4 4 309.733 0.005 12873.020 0.005 6025.77 6.28 3939.63 5.36
GM [km3 s2 ] 42828.375214 4902.01056
Rp [km] 3396 1738
106 [rad s1 ] 70.8821820 2 ) 2.6617073 1 )
1
) [95Yod]
2
) [01Yua]
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
34
4.2.3.1.3.3 Gravity studies of the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon
The radial free-air gravity anomaly gr can be calculated from the spherical harmonic decomposition
of the gravity field by
n n
GM X X Rp
gr (r) = 2 (n + 1)(Cnm cos(m) + Snm sin(m))Nnm (cos ) (6)
r n=0 m=0 r
The geoid is defined by a specific equipotential surface and the height N of the geoid with respect
to a best-fitting spherical reference surface of radius Rp can be approximated to first order by
[07Wie]
X n n
X Rp 2 r4
N (r, , ) = r (Cnm cos(m) + Snm sin(m))Nnm (cos ) N20 (7)
n=2 m=0
r 3 5GM
where is the angular velocity of the rotating planet.

The radial gravity anomaly gr and geoid height N for the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon
are shown in Figure 3. As the gravity fields of the Earth, Mars and the Moon are dominated by the
degree 2 zonal term C20 , this term has been set to zero for plotting purposes. Additionally, the C22
term has been set to zero for the Moon. The geoid height N shown in Fig. 3 has been evaluated
for the same parameters, neglecting the rotational flattening term in Eq. 7, which dominates the
geoids of Earth and Mars.
On the Earth, the largest gravity anomalies (Fig. 3a) are associated with topography such as
trenches and seamounts, and the geoid (Fig. 3b) shows relatively small undulation of only 200 m.
This picture is similar for the gravity anomalies of Venus (Fig. 3c), which are also highly correlated
with surface topography. The largest anomalies of 200-300 mGal are associated with the volcanoes
Maat and Ozza Montes and the high-standing topography of Maxwell Montes and Beta Regio.
Similar to the Earth, geoid undulations (Fig. 3d) are of the order of only 200 m [99Kon1].
For Mars, large radial gravity anomalies (Fig. 3e) are associated with the volcanoes of the
Tharsis rise. Also, large impact basins such as Isidis, Argyre and Utopia show positive anomalies.
Negative anomalies surround Tharsis [01Phi], Valles Marineris and some mountains and volcanoes.
The geoid anomalies of Mars (Fig. 3f) are the largest among the terrestrial planets, with values
spanning -600 to 1200 m.
The major features of the lunar gravity field (Fig. 3g) are large positive anomalies which are
associated with the nearside impact basins [07Wie]. These are usually referred to as mascons
(mass concentrations, e.g. [68Mul]) and exhibit anomalies of a few hundred mGal. Furthermore,
some of these basins are surrounded by concentric gravity lows. The lunar geoid (Fig. 3e) shows
undulations in excess of 500 m [01Kon].
4.2.3.1.4 Topography
Because planets and satellites other than the Earth have no sea level, their datum for topography
(the zero elevation) is defined as a sphere, a two-axial spheroid or - if known - a gravitational
equipotential surface. For Venus, this reference surface is given by a sphere of 6051.8 km radius.
For Mars it is given as the gravitational equipotential surface whose average radius at the equator is
equal to the mean equatorial radius of 3396 km. For the Moon, the elevation reference is a spheroid
with an equatorial radius of 1737.4 km and a flattening of 1/3234.93. The reference surface for the
Earth is the mean sea level, as given by the WGS84 EGM96 geoid.
Recent topographic models for the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon are summarized in Table
8 and topographic maps derived from these models are shown in Fig. 4. For the Earth, the
distribution of elevations is bimodal and the two sharp peaks in the hypsometric curve (Fig. 5a)
represent the level of the continental shelfs and the deep ocean floor, respectively. The topography
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
35
Fig. 3. Radial gravity anomaly gr and geoid height N for the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon. All
images are in a Hammer projection with a central meridian of 0 W. (a)-(b) gr and N for the Earth,
evaluating the model EIGEN-GL04C [08For] at a reference radius Rp = 6378.13 km and setting the
zonal degree-2 term C20 to zero. (c)-(d) gr and N for Venus, evaluating the model SHGJ180 [06Rap] at
Rp = 6051 km (e)-(f) gr and N for Mars, evaluating the model MGS95J [05Tyl] at Rp = 3396 km and
setting the zonal degree-2 term C20 to zero. (g)-(h) gr and N for the Moon, evaluating the model LP165P
[97Lem] at Rp = 1738 km and setting the zonal degree-2 term C20 and C22 to zero.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
36
(a) Earth (b) Venus
Topography [km] Topography [km]
Mars Moon
(c) (d)
Topography [km] Topography [km]
Fig. 4. Topography of (a) the Earth, (b) Venus, (c) Mars and (d) the Moon as derived from the topographic
models given in Table 8. All images are in a Hammer projection with a central meridian of 0 W. Zero
elevation is given by (a) the mean sea level, (b) a sphere of 6051.8 km radius, (c) the gravitational
equipotential surface whose average radius at the equator is equal to the mean equatorial radius of 3396
km and (d) a spheroid with an equatorial radius of 1738 km and a flattening of 1/3234.93.
of Venus is characterized by its low elevation planes, continental plateaus and volcanic swells,
and the distribution of elevations is sharply unimodal (Fig. 5b). Mars (Fig. 5b) topography is
characterized by the dichotomy between the northern lowlands and southern highland terrains, as
represented by the peaks around -4 and 1.5 km in the hypsometric curve (Fig. 5c), respectively. The
small peak at -7 km is connected to the Hellas impact basin. The lunar topography is dominated
by the elevation difference between the low-standing nearside and high-standing farside topography
as well as the giant farside South Pole-Aitken impact basin. The distribution of elevations on the
Moon is unimodal (Fig. 5d), but less sharply peaked than that of Venus.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
37
Earth Venus Mars Moon

8 8 8 8
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
Elevation [km]
0 0 0 0
2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4
6 6 6 6
8 8 8 8
0 5 10 0 10 20 0 5 0 5
Percent surface area
Fig. 5. Hypsometric curves for the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon, derived from the topographic
models given in Table 8. The bin size for the topographic data is 300 m.
Table 8. Topographic models of the Earth, Venus, Mars and the Moon. Models for the Earth include
oceanic bathymetry and landmass topography. Resolution is given as degrees per datapoint and the
resolution of the spherical harmonic representations are given in terms of degree n and order m.
Planet Name Resolution References:
Earth SRTM30 PLUS 1/120 [03Rab], [05Rod], [97Smi1]
Earth ETOPO2 1/30 [06DoC]
Venus MGN-V-RDRS-5-TOPO-L2-V1.0 1 [92For] [06Sjo], [99Rap]
Mars MGS-M-MOLA-5-MEGDR-L3-V1.0 1/128 [03Smi]
Moon CLEM1-L-LIDAR-5-TOPO-V1.0 1/4 [96Zub]
Venus SHTJV360 n, m = 360 [06Sjo], [99Rap]
Mars GTM090AA n, m = 90 [00Neu]
Moon GLTM-2B n, m = 70 [96Zub], [97Smi2]
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
38
68Mul Muller, P.M., Sjogren, W.L.: Science 161 (1968) 680684.

92For Ford, P.G., Pettengill, G.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,103-13,114.
94Noz Nozette, S., et al.: Science 266 (1994) 18351839.
94Zub Zuber, M. T., et al.: Science 266 (1994) 18391843.
95Yod Yoder, C.F.: in: Ahrens, T.J. (ed.), Global Earth Physics: A Handbook of Physical Constants.
AGU reference shelf 1, pp. 1-31, Washington D.C., American Geophysical Union (1995).
96Zub Zuber, M.T., Smith, D.E., Neumann, G.A.: CLEM1-L-LIDAR-5-TOPO-V1.0, NASA Planetary
Data System (1996).
97Fol Folkner, et al.: Science 278 (1997) 17491752.
97Lem Lemoine, F. G. R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 16,33916,359.
97Smi1 Smith W. H. F, Sandwell D. T.: Science 277 (1997) 19561962.
97Smi2 Smith, D.E., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 15911611.
99Kon1 Konopliv A. S., Banerdt W. B., Sjogren W. L.: Icarus 139 (1999) 318.
99Kon2 Konopliv, A.: LP-L-RSS-5-GRAVITY-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data System (1999).
99Rap Rappaport N. J., Konopliv A. S., Kucinskas A. B.: Icarus 139 (1999) 1931.
00Neu Neumann, G.: MGS-M-MOLA-5-SHADR-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data System (2000).
01Kon Konopliv, A. S., et al.: Icarus 150 (2001) 118, doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6573.
01Neu G. A. Neumann: Int. Arch. Photogr. Rem. Sens., XXXIV-3/W4:7380, 2001.
01Phi Phillips, R. J., et al.: Science 291 (2001) 25872591.
01Yua Yuan, D. N., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 23,37723,402, doi: 10.1029/2000JE001302.
03Rab Rabus P. B., et al.: ISPRS J. Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 57 (2003) 241262.
03Smi Smith, D., et al.: MGS-M-MOLA-5-MEGDR-L3-V1.0., NASA Planetary Data System (2003).
05Rod Rodrguez E., et al.: Technical Report of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA: NASA
and CalTech (2005).
05Tyl Tyler, G.L., et al.: MGS-M-RSS-5-SDP-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data System (2005).
06Arc Archinal, B. A., Rosiek, M. R., Kirk, R. L., Redding, B. L.: USGS, Open-File Report, 1367, (2006).
06DoC U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geo-
physical Data Center (2006), http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/fliers/06mgg01.html
06Kon Konopliv, A. S., et al.: Icarus 182 (2006) 2350, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2005.12.025.
06Rap Rappaport, N. J., Sjogren, W. L.: MGN-V-RDRS-5-TOPO-L2-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data Sys-
tem (2006).
06Roa Roatsch, T., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 54 (2006) 11371145.
06Sjo Sjogren, W. L.: MGN-V-RSS-5-GRAVITY-L2-V1.0, NASA Planetary Data System (2006).
07Sei Seidelmann,P. K., et al.: Celest. Mech. Dynam. Astron. 98 (2007) 155180.
07Wie Wieczorek, M.A. In G. Schubert and T. Spohn, editors, Treatise on Geophysics - Planets and
Moons, volume 10, pages 165206. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
08For Forste, C., et al.: J. Geodesy 82 (2008) 331346, doi:10.1007/s00190-007-0183-8.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
39
4.2.3.2 Planetary Interiors
Frank Sohl, Frank W. Wagner, Hauke Hussmann, and Matthias Grott

Table 1. List of symbols used.
Symbol Definition Unit

a (Sub-planetary) equatorial radius km
A Principal equatorial moment of interia kg m2
b Along-orbit equatorial radius km
B Principal equatorial moment of interia kg m2
c Polar radius km
cp Specific heat J K1 kg1
C Principal polar moment of inertia kg m2
Cm Mantle moment of inertia with respect to rotational axis kg m2
Cn,m , Sn,m Gravitational coefficients of degree n and order m -
g Gravity m s2
G Gravitational constant m3 kg1 s2
G Shear modulus Pa
GM Planetocentric constant km3 s2
I Mean moment of inertia kg m2
Jn Zonal gravitational coefficient -
k Thermal conductivity W m1 K1
k2 Tidal potential Love number -
kf Fluid potential Love number -
KS Adiabatic bulk modulus Pa
KT Isothermal bulk modulus Pa
K0T Isothermal bulk modulus at reference state Pa
K00 First pressure derivative of isothermal bulk modulus at reference state -
l Logarithmic volume derivative of Gruneisen parameter -
m Mass kg
mFe Iron mass kg
M Total mass kg
Mc Core mass kg
p Hydrostatic pressure Pa
p0 Reference pressure Pa
pbase Crust-mantle-transition pressure Pa
pc Central pressure Pa
pcmb Core-mantle-boundary pressure Pa
pth Thermal pressure Pa
q Heat flux W m2
Qp Tidal quality factor -
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
40
Table 1. (continued) List of symbols used.

Symbol Definition Unit
r Radial distance m
R Mean surface radius m
Rc Core radius m
T Temperature K
T0 Reference temperature K
VP Longitudinal P-wave velocity m s1
VS Transversal S-wave velocity m s1
V0 Molar volume cm3 mol1
xFe Concentration of iron per unit mass -
Thermal expansivity K1
0 Thermal expansivity at reference state K1
Thermodynamic Gruneisen parameter -
0 Thermodynamic Gruneisen parameter at reference state -
Apparent tidal phase lag deg
Specific heat production rate W kg1
Fe Mole fraction of iron [0,1] -
FeS Mass fraction of iron sulfide [0,1] -
S Mass fraction of sulfur [0,0.365] -
Mean atomic mass g atom1
Seismic parameter m2 s2
Density kg m3
Mean density kg m3
0 Density at reference state kg m3
c Core density kg m3
m Mantle density kg m3
s Crust density kg m3
%0 Specific mass of mineral at reference state g cm3
Superadiabatic temperature gradient K m1
Moment of inertia kg m2
D Debye temperature K
Mean angular frequency of rotational and orbital period s1
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
41
The internal structure and bulk composition of solar system bodies are key to understanding the
origin and early evolution of the solar system. In general, solar system bodies are composed of
rocks, metals, ices, fluids, and gases. While rock and metal are the main constituents of terrestrial,
i.e. Earth-like, bodies in the inner solar system, more volatile components in form of ices and gases
dominate in the outer solar system. The principal structure of terrestrial planet interiors can be
described in terms of three-layer models, representing the metallic core, the silicate mantle and the
crust. Since seismological observations of solar system bodies are only available for the Earth and,
to a much lesser extent, the Moon, the average density and axial moment of inertia of a planet
constrain the radial distribution of mass and subdivision into core, mantle, and crust layers. Addi-
tionally, large-scale topography and gravity data can be used to infer a planets three-dimensional
internal mass distribution, since the shapes of the physical surface and the external gravitational
field are related to the radial density stratification and compositionally and/or thermally induced
lateral density heterogeneities. Interior structure models aim at calculating (1) the volumes and
masses of major chemical reservoirs that contribute to the bulk composition; (2) the depths to
chemical and rheological discontinuities and mineral phase boundaries; and (3) depth variations
of pressure, temperature, density, and composition. Since there are usually fewer constraints than
unknowns, even basic interior structure models that would involve only two or three chemically
homogeneous layers of constant density suffer from inherent non-uniqueness.
4.2.3.2.2 Basic Equations and Models
4.2.3.2.2.1 Two-layer Structural Models
The mean density of a two-layer spherical body is given by

R3 = (c m )Rc3 + m R3 (1)
from which the relative core radius Rc /R, core mass fraction Mc /M , and dimensionless mean
moment-of-inertia factor (MoI) are obtained according to
1/3
Rc m
= , (2)
R c m
3
Mc c Rc c ( m )
= = , (3)
M R (c m )
and
( m )5/3

I 2 m
MoI = = + , (4)
M R2 5 (c m )2/3
respectively, where the core radius Rc , the mantle density m , and the core density c are unknown.
For a rapidly rotating planetary body in hydrostatic equilibrium, the mean MoI as a measure
for mass concentration toward the center can be obtained from the dimensionless polar moment-of-
inertia factor, C/M/R2 , and the second-degree coefficient of the spherical harmonic representation
of the gravity field, J2 , by
I C 2
= J2 (5)
M R2 M R2 3
where

1 A+B
J2 = C = C2,0 (6)
M R2 2
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
42
is the gravitational oblateness and A < B < C are the planets principal equatorial and polar
moments of inertia, respectively.
The gravitational acceleration gr and hydrostatic pressure pr as a function of radial distance
from the center of the planet r are given by
4
gr = Grc
3
0 r Rc
" 3 #
4 Rc
= Gr m + (c m )
3 r
Rc r R (7)
and

4 3 1 1 2
pr = Gm Rc (c m ) + G2m (R2 r2 )
3 r R 3
Rc r R

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 1
= Gc (Rc r ) + Gm (R Rc ) + Gm Rc (c m )
3 3 3 Rc R
0 r Rc (8)
respectively, where G is the gravitational constant [02Tur].
4.2.3.2.2.2 Three-layer Structural Models
The structural equations of a three-layer spherical body, representing core, mantle, and crust, are
given by
3 3
Rc Rm
= s + (c m ) + (m s ) (9)
R R
5 5 !
I 2 s c m Rc m s Rm
= + + (10)
M R2 5 R R
where the core radius Rc , the crust-mantle radius Rm , the crust density s , the mantle density
m , and the core density c are unknown.
4.2.3.2.2.3 Depth-dependent Structural Models
The construction of depth-dependent models of the interior structure relies on the assumption of
a spherically symmetric planet in perfect mechanical and thermal equilibrium. Spherical models
of the internal density distribution of planetary bodies are required to satisfy two constraints, the
mean density as derived from the total radius R and mass M and the mean moment of inertia
I that can be inferred from the quadrupole moments of the gravitational field and the rotational
dynamics of the spin axis. The following set of differential equations for mass m, iron mass m Fe ,
mean moment of inertia , acceleration of gravity g, pressure p, and heat flux q can be derived
from fundamental principles [07Soh]:
dm
= 4r2 r (11)
dr
dmFe dm
= xFe,r (12)
dr dr
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
43
d 8 4
= r r (13)
dr 3
dg gr
= 4Gr 2 (14)
dr r
dp
= r gr (15)
dr
dq qr
= r r 2 (16)
dr r
where r is the radial distance from the center of the planet, G is the gravitational constant, is
the density, xFe is the concentration of iron per unit mass, and is the specific heat production
rate. The subscript r indicates quantities that are local functions of pressure, temperature, and
composition.
Heat is primarily carried by conduction across the stagnant outer portion of a planets silicate
shell and the top and bottom thermal boundary layers of mantle convection. The corresponding
radial temperature gradient is given by
dT q
= (17)
dr kr
where k is the thermal conductivity. Within the convective portion of the silicate shell and the
outer liquid core shell, the temperature gradient can be approximated by the adiabatic temperature
gradient [77Sta]

dT r dp r r dp dT
=T =T = (18)
dr KS,r dr r dr dr ad
where = KS /cp is the thermodynamic Gruneisen parameter, is the thermal expansivity, cp
is the specific heat, and KS is the adiabatic bulk modulus defined as

1 1
= (19)
KS p S
Finally, , KS , and the shear modulus G are related to the seismic velocities
s
KS,r + 43 G,r
VP,r = (20)
r
and
s
G,r
VS,r = (21)
r
of longitudinal P- and transversal S-waves, respectively, from which the seismic parameter
KS,r 2 4 2
r = = VP,r VS,r (22)
r 3
can be derived.
The set of basic differential equations (11) (18) can be separated into two subsets that are cou-
pled through the density . The mechanical properties of the interior are calculated from Eqs. (11)
(15), while Eqs. (16) (18) give the thermal structure of the model. These equations have to be
supplemented with an appropriate equation of state to include pressure-induced compression and
thermal expansion effects on the density and are discussed in more detail further below.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
44
4.2.3.2.2.4 Boundary Conditions
The set of basic differential equations (11) (18) can be solved by numerical integration with
respect to the following boundary conditions. The central boundary conditions at r = 0 are
m = 0 mFe = 0 ; = 0 ; g = 0 ; p = pc ; q = 0 ; T = Tc (23)
The surface boundary conditions at r = R are
m=M ; mFe = MFe ; =I ; g = gp ; p = pp ; q = qp ; T = Tp (24)
While the mass M and the mean surface values of gravity gp , pressure pp , and temperature
Tp have been derived from spacecraft and Earth-based observations, the surface heat flux q p
of most terrestrial bodies other than the Earth are unknown at present. Since there are three
observational constraints on the model, the mass M , the radius R, and the mean moment of
inertia I, respectively, three parameters are adjustable, the values of which are iteratively adjusted
such that the observational constraints can be satisfied. These parameters are the central pressure
pc , the central temperature Tc , and the pressure at the core-mantle boundary pcmb .
4.2.3.2.2.5 Equation of State
A convenient method to calculate density as a function of depth, first applied to seismological

data from the Earths deep interior, relies on the assumption of hydrostatic pressure (Eq. (15))
and adiabatic temperature (Eq. (18)) conditions and is sometimes referred to as the Williamson-
Adams method honoring its authors. The resultant adiabatic density gradient
d r gr dp
= = r 1 (25)
dr r dr
can be readily obtained from insertion of Eqs. (19) and (22) in (15) and rearranging terms. Later,
a correction term was added to address temperature deviations from an adiabatic reference state.
These are caused by thermal boundary layers of mantle convection and/or compositional changes
and pressure-induced mineral phase transformations in a silicate mantle, giving rise to superadia-
batic temperature gradients

dT dT
= (26)
dr dr ad
that may profoundly affect the density stratification. The overall density gradient is then given by
d dp
= r 1 + r r r (27)
dr dr
and can be derived from the ambient density and the seismic parameter if adiabatic compression
dominates (first term). In the event of perfect adiabaticity, will equal zero, and the superadiabatic
correction (second term) would vanish.
To interpret density profiles inferred from seismological observations in terms of compositional
changes and temperature anomalies, it is necessary to consider decompressed values of density.
Reliable extrapolation to zero-pressure and room-temperature conditions require laboratory mea-
surements of thermodynamic material properties be experimentally determined at high pressures
and temperatures. Extrapolation between different thermodynamic states represents a principal
source of uncertainty in density modeling because of incomplete knowledge of the material param-
eters involved. For technical reasons, laboratory measurements are usually carried through under
isothermal conditions.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
45
The isothermal bulk modulus is then defined as

1 1
= (28)
KT p T
and can be related to KS by using the isothermal-adiabatic transformation
KS
= 1 + T (29)
KT
if the Gruneisen parameter and thermal expansivity are specified. A linearly pressure-
dependent expression for KT is frequently used, i.e.,
dK0T
KT = K0T + p = K0T + K00 p (30)
dp
and taken as = 0 (/0 )l , with index 0 referring to an arbitrarily chosen reference state at fixed
(standard) pressure and temperature conditions p0 and T0 , respectively, l = const., and constant
first pressure derivative K00 . Insertion of Eq. (30) in (28) and subsequent integration yields
" 0 #
K0
K0T
p= 1 (31)
K00 0
which is occasionally referred to as Murnaghans equation. The corresponding density relative to
its reference value is then given by
1/K00
K00
= 1+ p (32)
0 K0T
The density distribution within a chemically homogeneous layer was extended by [52Bir] who
suggested to employ a higher-order isothermal finite-strain equation of state to correct for pressure-
induced compression and to apply temperature corrections through calculation of the thermal
pressure contribution [81Sta].
For example, an isothermal Birch-Murnaghan equation truncated at third-order in strain in-
volves K0T and K00 to correct for pressure-induced compression and the product 0 K0T to
correct for thermal pressure effects, according to [80And]
" 5/3 # ( " #)
7/3 2/3
3K0T 3 0
p = 1 + (K0 4) 1 + pth (33)
2 0 0 4 0
Since internal temperatures of the terrestrial planets usually exceed the Debye temperature, the
quasi-harmonic approximation is valid [92And] and the thermal pressure given by
Z T Z T
p
pth = dT = KT dT 0 K0T (T T0 ) (34)
T0 T V T0
can be used in Eq. (33) to include the temperature effect in the equation-of-state parameters
[84And]. We refer the reader to [07Soh] for a discussion of the 4th order isothermal Birch-
Murnaghan equation of state applied to terrestrial planet interiors, involving second pressure and
first temperature derivatives of the isothermal bulk modulus. Equation-of-state parameters of se-
lected Mg- and Fe-rich mantle mineralogical phase assemblages and core constituents are given in
Tables 2 5.
In summary, the simplicity of the Williamsom-Adams method is partly counterbalanced by the
disadvantage that seismological data are not frequently available for terrestrial planets other than
the Earth and the Moon. The linear pressure dependence of KT inherent in Murnaghans equation
may represent an adequate assumption for small bodies like the Moon and the satellites of the outer
giant planets [07Hus]. However, even for planets in the mass and size range of Mercury or Mars,
with central pressures of the order of the isothermal bulk modulus, more reliable higher-order finite-
strain equations of state corrected for thermal pressure effects such as Eq. 33 are recommended for
the construction of models of the internal density distribution.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
Table 2. Physical properties of mantle mineral phase assemblages.
Phase Formula %0 [g cm3 ] [g atom1 ] D,Mg [K] D,Fe [K]
Olivine () (Mg,Fe)2 SiO4 3.227 + 1.175F e 20.099 + 9.011F e 809(1) 619(2)
Wadsleyite () (Mg,Fe)2 SiO4 3.472 + 1.289F e 20.099 + 9.011F e 849(4) 656(27)
Ringwoodite () (Mg,Fe)2 SiO4 3.563 + 1.305F e 20.099 + 9.011F e 889(6) 648(8)
Orthopyroxene (Mg,Fe)SiO3 3.203 + 0.798F e 20.078 + 6.308F e 809(8) 653(14)
Ca-clinopyroxene Ca(Mg,Fe)Si2 O6 3.279 + 0.377F e 21.655 + 3.154F e 782(5) 702(4)
Clinopyroxene HP (Mg,Fe)SiO3 3.304 + 0.832F e 20.078 + 6.308F e 824(7) 672(11)
Garnet (Mg,Fe)3 Al2 Si3 O12 3.565 + 0.747F e 20.156 + 4.731F e 823(4) 742(5)
Ca-perovskite CaSiO3 4.232 23.232 725(28)
Perovskite (Mg,Fe)SiO3 4.106 + 1.088F e 20.078 + 6.308F e 888(4) 700(10)
Magnesiowustite (Mg,Fe)O 3.586 + 2.274F e 20.152 + 15.770F e 773(9) 417(7)
Post-perovskite MgSiO3 4.071a 20.078 1100a
Note: %0 , specific mass, , mean atomic mass, D , Debye temperature, F e , mole fraction of iron. All values are taken at standard ambient pressure and
room-temperature conditions (300 K). Indices Mg and Fe refer to the specific mineral endmember species. Error estimates in the last digits are given in
parentheses.
References: Unless stated otherwise, the data to calculate specific mass and Debye temperature were taken from [05Sti, 07Sti]. A compilation of atomic
weights by [06Wie2] was used to calculate mean atomic mass. a) [04Tsu].
46
New Series VI/4A
Landolt-Bornstein
Table 3. Elastic properties of mantle mineral phase assemblages.

0 0
Phase V0,Mg V0,Fe K0T,Mg K0T,Fe K0,Mg K0,Fe 0,Mg 0,Fe lMg lFe
[cm3 mol1 ] [cm3 mol1 ] [GPa] [GPa]
Olivine (-phase) 43.60 46.29 128(2) 135(2) 4.2(2) 4.2(10) 0.9(3) 1.06(7) 2.1(2) 3.6(10)
Wadsleyite (-phase) 40.52 42.80 169(3) 169(13) 4.3(2) 4.3(10) 1.2(9) 1.21(30) 2.0(10) 2.0(10)
Ringwoodite (-phase) 39.49 41.86 183(2) 199(7) 4.1(2) 4.1(10) 1.0(10) 1.17(22) 2.8(4) 2.8(10)
Orthopyroxene 125.35 131.88 107(2) 100(4) 7.0(4) 7.0(5) 0.8(4) 0.75(8) 0.3(11) 0.3(10)
Ca-clinopyroxene 132.08 135.73 112(5) 119(4) 5.2(18) 5.2(10) 0.9(5) 0.93(6) 1.5(20) 1.5(10)
Clinopyroxene HP 121.52 127.59 121(1) 121(10) 5.5(3) 5.5(10) 1.1(5) 1.16(30) 0.8(5) 0.8(10)
Garnet 113.08 115.43 170(2) 177(3) 4.1(3) 4.1(3) 1.0(6) 1.10(6) 1.4(5) 1.4(10)
Ca-perovskite 27.45 236(4) 3.9(2) 1.4(7) 1.7(16)
Perovskite 24.45 25.40 251(3) 281(40) 4.1(1) 4.1(10) 1.4(5) 1.44(30) 1.4(5) 1.4(10)
Magnesiowustite 11.24 12.26 161(3) 179(1) 3.9(2) 4.9(2) 1.5(2) 1.53(13) 1.5(2) 1.5(10)
Post-perovskite 24.66 222(1) 4.2(1) 1.64 1.9
Note: V0 , molar volume, K0T , isothermal bulk modulus, K00 , first pressure derivative of isothermal bulk modulus, 0 , thermodynamic Gruneisen parameter,
l = ln
ln
logarithmic volume derivative of thermodynamic Gruneisen parameter. All values are taken at standard ambient pressure and room-temperature
conditions (300 K). Indices Mg and Fe refer to the specific mineral endmember species. Error estimates in the last digits are given in parentheses. Isothermal
bulk moduli KT can be related to adiabatic bulk moduli KS by using the isothermal-adiabatic transformation Eq. (29).
References: Data are taken from the compilation of [05Sti, 07Sti] except those for post-perovskite that are taken from [04Tsu].
47
48
Table 4. Thermal expansivity of mantle mineral phase assemblages.

Phase 0 [105 K1 ] 1 [108 K2 ] 2 [K]
Olivine (-phase)a 2.832 0.758 0.
Wadsleyite (-phase)b 2.711 0.6885 0.5767
Ringwoodite (-phase)c 1.872 0.421 0.6537
Orthopyroxened 2.86 0.72 0.
Ca-clinopyroxenee 2.32 1.88 0.
Clinopyroxene HPd 2.86 0.72 0.
Garnetf 2.81 0.316 0.4587
Ca-perovskiteg 3.133 0.388 0.
Perovskiteh 2.461 0.165 0.
Magnesiowustitei 3.000 1.200 0.
Post-perovskitej 2.57 0. 0.
Note: 0 , 1 , 2 , are coefficients to calculate thermal expansivity according to (T ) = 0 + 1 T 2 T 2 ,

where T is expressed in units of K. Coefficients are compiled for Mg-type mineral endmember species.
References: a) [96Bou]; b) [92Fei]; c) [94Men]; d) [95Zha]; e) [98Zha]; f ) [91And]; g) [96Wan, 05Mat]; h) [98Fiq,
00Fiq, 05Mat]; i) [00Dew]; j) [05Tsu].
Table 5. Thermodynamic properties of core constituents.

Phase %0 K0T K00 0 D
[kg m3 ] [GPa] [105 K1 ] [K]
-Fea 7874 167 4.01 1.78h 6.93h 430h
-Feb 8200 155 5.5 1.78h 6.93h 430h
-Fec 8298 165 5.33 1.78i 6.93m 430i
Fe (liq.)d 8000 180 4.66 1.74j 9.2j -o
FeS IVe 5100 60 4.0 1.54k 6.85n 674q
FeS VIf 5869 156 4.0 1.54l -o 674l
Fe + 10 wt.% S (liq.)g 6400 118 4.7 1.40k 9.2p -o
Note: %0 , specific mass, K0T , isothermal bulk modulus, K00 , first pressure derivative of isothermal bulk
modulus, 0 , thermodynamic Gruneisen parameter, , thermal expansivity, D Debye temperature. All
values are taken at standard ambient pressure and room-temperature conditions (300 K). Isothermal bulk
moduli KT can be related to adiabatic bulk moduli KS by using the isothermal-adiabatic transformation
Eq. (29).
References: a) [00Dub1]; b) [02And, 89Boe, 90Boe]; c) [90Mao]; d) [94And, 08Rin]; e) [95Fei, 08Rin]; f ) [06Ono];
g)
[03Bal, 00San, 08Rin]; h) same as for -Fe assumed; i) [00Dub2]; j) [94And], is valid in the high-
temperature regime (1800 K); k) [84Bro]; l) same as for FeS IV assumed; m) [00Dub3], restricted to
pressure- and temperature-range of 0-300 GPa and 300-1300 K, respectively; n) [95Fei], valid in the
low-temperature regime (800 K); o) not available; p) same as for Fe (liquid) assumed. q) [89Sve]
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
49
4.2.3.2.3 Typical Structure Models
In the following sections, fundamental traits of the interiors of the terrestrial planets and a number
of satellites of the giant planets are compared. Physical parameters used for the construction of
two- and three-layer structural models of the terrestrial planets are collected in Table 6.
Table 6. Physical parameters of interior structure models of the terrestrial planets.

Object Moon Mercury Mars Venus
Mass, 1023 kg 0.73477 3.3019 6.4185 48.685
Radius, km 1737.4 2439.7 3389.5 6051.8
Mean density, kg m3 3344.7 5427.0 3934.9 5243.9
Mean moment-of-inertia factor 0.3931a 0.336b 0.3654c 0.33d
Average crust thickness, km 45 none 45 35
Average crust density, kg m3 2800 none 2900 2900
Average core temperature, K 1700d 1700d 1700d 2800d
Core constituents -Fe/FeS IV -Fe/FeS IV -Fe/FeS IV -Fe/FeS VI
Note: Whereas two-layer structural models lacking a crust are calculated for Mercury, the construction of
three-layer structural models of the Moon, Mars and Venus involves average crustal thickness and density
values taken from [07Wie].
References: a) [01Kon]; b) [01Spo]; c) [06Kon]; d) value assumed.
4.2.3.2.3.2 Mercury
Mercury is the smallest among the terrestrial planets with a mean radius of 2439.7 1 km [07Sei].
Its mean density of 5430 10 kg m3 [87And], much larger than that of the Moon and Mars, is
close to that of the Earth and Venus, indicating that iron is more abundant than in any other
terrestrial planet. If Mercury were fully differentiated with a core mainly composed of iron, the
core radius would occupy up to about 3/4 of the radius of the planet [03Sol]. The possible existence
of a self-sustained magnetic field can be attributed to precipitation of a solid inner core, provided
a volatile constituents such as sulfur were available to keep the outer core liquid, prerequisite to
core dynamo action [88Sch, 02Bal].
Doppler radio tracking data of the Mariner 10 and MESSENGER spacecraft provided infor-
mation the planets mass (GM = 22, 032.09 0.91 km3 s2 , G is the gravitational constant).
The mean radius of Mercury has been derived from Earth-based radar ranging and Mariner 10
range observations [87And]. Mercurys large 88-day forced libration amplitude in longitude of
35.800 200 and Cassini-state-type obliquity of 2.110 0.20 as obtained from ground-based radar
interferometry observations [07Mar] together with the second-degree-and-order gravitational coef-
ficient C2,2 = (1 0.5) 105 obtained from Mariner 10 observations [87And] support the view
that the silicate mantle of the planet is mechanically decoupled from a partially molten core.
Based on gravity and shape date acquired during consecutive Mariner 10 flybys, [96And1]
estimated crustal thicknesses in the range from 100 to 300 km which were difficult to reconcile with
the magmatic history of the planet. [02Nim] consider the stability of Mercurys long-wavelength
topography with respect to lower crustal flow, the latter of which limiting crust thickness. It has
been suggested that the maximum possible crustal thickness may range between 100 and 200 km,
depending on the assumed rheology and spatial distribution of internal heat sources.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
50
Table 7. Two-layer structural model determinations of Mercury (mean MoI factor: 0.336).
S FeS c [kg m3 ] m [kg m3 ] Rc /R Mc /M pc [GPa] pcmb [GPa]
Thermal pressure correction included.
0.365 1.0 6271
0.227 0.621 7000
0.186 0.508 7250 1700.7 0.8758 0.8972 35.592 2.0564
0.147 0.403 7500 2591.6 0.8330 0.7985 36.627 4.1630
0.111 0.305 7750 3047.0 0.7970 0.7229 37.629 5.8903
0.078 0.213 8000 3324.1 0.7663 0.6632 38.605 7.3422
0.046 0.126 8250 3510.9 0.7396 0.6149 39.558 8.5870
0.016 0.045 8500 3645.5 0.7161 0.5751 40.492 9.6715
0 0 8645 3707.7 0.7037 0.5550 41.027 10.241
Thermal pressure not accounted for.
0.365 1.0 6502
0.236 0.647 7250
0.164 0.489 7750 2451.7 0.8251 0.8021 38.185 4.1684
0.100 0.275 8250 3134.7 0.7654 0.6815 40.218 7.0518
0.044 0.121 8750 3460.4 0.7192 0.5997 42.174 9.2310
0 0 9186 3631.9 0.6864 0.5473 43.834 10.761
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The core is composed of -Fe and FeS IV whose elastic
parameters are taken from [89Boe, 90Boe], [02And] and [95Fei], respectively. (b) The average core density
is obtained by extrapolating the third-order Birch-Murnaghan equation Eq. (33) neglecting the thermal
pressure contribution to central pressure conditions of a homogeneous, equivalent-mass sphere of Mercury.
(c) The thermal pressure correction at a core temperature of 1700 K may vary between 5.8 GPa (pure
FeS IV core) and 15 GPa (pure -Fe core) according to Eq. (34). For core sulfur contents exceeding about
20 wt.%, the resultant size of the core would be as large as that of the planet.
See [07vHo] and [07Soh] for more complete accounts on the Mercurian interior and Table 7 for
a comparison of two-layer structural models with variable core sulfur contents S .
4.2.3.2.3.3 Venus
The small size difference between Venus (mean radius 6051.8 1 km) and the Earth (mean radius
6371.00 0.01 km) [07Sei] may have caused completely different traits of evolution of both planets
that manifest themselves in the lack of plate tectonics on Venus in contrast to the Earth. Since
the moment of inertia of Venus is not known, there is no firm constraint on the planets internal
mass distribution. It is less likely that the axial moment of inertia of Venus could be derived from
observations of its rotational state alone since the planets retrograde rotation is extremely slow
(rotation period of 243.0185 0.001 d) and its rotation axis is almost perpendicular aligned to the
plane of its nearly circular orbit [97Yod]. Nevertheless, Venus is sufficiently large that differentiation
into an Earth-like structure consisting of a metallic core, silicate mantle, and basaltic crust likely
accompanied hot accretion. As a consequence of the slightly smaller size and mass of Venus
compared to the Earth, pressure-induced mineral phase transitions may occur at larger depths in
the mantle. If the core were to contain less light elements than the Earths core, however, the
entire thickness of the Venusian mantle could even supersede that of the Earth.
Doppler radio tracking data of the Magellan and Pioneer Venus spacecraft provided important
information on the planets mass (GM = 324, 858.6 0.014 km3 s2 , G is the gravitational con-
stant), its retrograde rotation state, gravitational field, and tidal Love number k 2 [97Sjo]. Crust
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
51
Table 8. Three-layer structural model determinations of Venus (mean MoI factor: 0.33).
0.365 1.0 8388 3353.0 0.7225 0.6032 240.37 52.399
0.305 0.837 8750 3529.0 0.6914 0.5515 248.23 60.896
0.231 0.632 9250 3687.3 0.6560 0.4979 258.92 70.481
0.164 0.448 9750 3793.1 0.6267 0.4576 269.44 78.349
0.103 0.283 10250 3869.1 0.6019 0.4263 279.83 85.006
0.048 0.132 10750 3926.5 0.5805 0.4011 290.11 90.767
0 0 11232 3970.1 0.5625 0.3811 299.95 95.668
0.365 1.0 8775 3538.8 0.6895 0.5484 248.77 61.427
0.290 0.794 9250 3687.3 0.6560 0.4979 258.92 70.481
0.218 0.598 9750 3793.1 0.6267 0.4576 269.44 78.349
0.154 0.422 10250 3869.1 0.6019 0.4263 279.83 85.006
0.096 0.262 10750 3926.5 0.5805 0.4011 290.11 90.767
0.043 0.117 11250 3971.6 0.5618 0.3805 300.31 95.841
0 0 11685 4003.6 0.5473 0.3653 309.14 99.809
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The core is composed of -Fe and FeS VI whose elastic
parameters are taken from [90Mao] and [06Ono, 08Ono], respectively. (b) The average core density is
obtained by extrapolating the third-order Birch-Murnaghan equation Eq. (33) neglecting the thermal
pressure contribution to central pressure conditions of a homogeneous, equivalent-mass sphere of Venus.
(c) The thermal pressure correction at a core temperature of 2800 K may vary between 27 GPa (pure
FeS VI core) and 29 GPa (pure -Fe core) according to Eq. (34). (d) The average crust thickness and
density is 35 km and 2900 kg m3 , respectively, resulting in a calculated crust-mantle transition pressure
of around 900 MPa.
thickness estimates range from 20 to 50 km [97Gri, 98Nim]. The crust is thicker (45-85 km) beneath
the plateau highlands (Alpha, Ovda, Thetis and Tellus Regiones)
See [07Soh] for a more complete account on the Venusian interior and Table 8 for a comparison
of three-layer structural models with variable core sulfur contents S .
4.2.3.2.3.4 Mars
Its mean radius and density of of 3389.5 0.2 km [07Sei] and 3935 kg m3 , respectively, places
Mars well in the midst of all other terrestrial bodies. The polar moment of inertia as derived
from a combined analysis of Mars Global Surveyor tracking and Mars Pathfinder and Viking
Lander ranging data indicates that the Martian interior is differentiated into an Earth-like structure
consisting of a sulfuric metallic core, a silicate mantle enriched in iron oxide and overlain by a
basaltic crust. Most outstanding geologic features are the approximately hemispheric dichotomy
between the southern highlands and the northern plains and the near-equatorial volcanic Tharsis
province that contains the largest volcanoes on Mars [92Tan].
Doppler radio tracking data of a number of orbiting and landed spacecraft have provided ba-
sic information about the planets mass (GM = 42, 828.371901 0.000074 km 3 s2 , G is the
gravitational constant [01Lem]), spin-axis precession [97Fol, 03Yod, 06Kon], tidal Love number k 2
[03Yod, 06Kon], and gravitational field [06Kon]. The global topography and gravitational field of
Mars have been determined with high accuracy using laser altimetry and two-way Doppler track-
ing of the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft [99Smi1, 99Smi2, 00Zub, 01Lem]. The re-analysis
of the entire data set resulted in an improved value of the polar moment-of-inertia factor of
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
52
C/M/a2 = 0.3654 0.0008 with the equatorial radius a fixed at 3396 km [06Kon], being consistent
with the model of a mostly hydrostatic planet and non-hydrostatic contributions to the MoI fac-
tor entirely related to the axisymmetric distribution of topographic loads about Tharsis [79Kau].
Taking into account the planets gravitational oblateness and minor contributions to oblateness
due to the Tharsis rise would result in a mean moment-of-interia I/M/R 2 0.3654 0.0008,
suggesting a slightly stronger concentration of mass toward the center than previously thought,
with consequences for the planets bulk chemistry and interior structure.
Table 9. Three-layer structural model determinations of Mars (mean MoI factor: 0.3654).
0.365 1.0 6288 3553.9 0.5299 0.2377 36.416 18.592
0.274 0.750 6750 3576.6 0.4950 0.2081 37.826 19.900
0.188 0.516 7250 3592.9 0.4657 0.1860 39.302 21.003
0.114 0.311 7750 3604.4 0.4421 0.1702 40.742 21.894
0.048 0.132 8250 3613.0 0.4226 0.1582 42.157 22.642
0 0 8660 3618.6 0.4089 0.1504 43.304 23.176
0.365 1.0 6518 3566.5 0.5114 0.2215 37.124 19.287
0.279 0.764 7000 3585.5 0.4795 0.1961 38.569 20.484
0.201 0.551 7500 3599.1 0.4533 0.1775 40.025 21.470
0.133 0.364 8000 3609.0 0.4319 0.1638 41.452 22.283
0.073 0.200 8500 3616.6 0.4140 0.1533 42.858 22.974
0 0 9197 3624.6 0.3932 0.1421 44.793 23.793
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The core is composed of -Fe and FeS IV whose thermo-
dynamic parameters are taken from [89Boe, 90Boe], [02And], and [95Fei], respectively. (b) The average
core density is obtained by extrapolating the third-order Birch-Murnaghan equation Eq. (33) neglecting
the thermal pressure contribution to central pressure conditions of a homogeneous, equivalent-mass sphere
of Mars. (c) The thermal pressure correction at a core temperature of 1700 K may vary between 5.8 GPa
(pure FeS IV core) and 15 GPa (pure -Fe core) according to Eq. (34). (d) The average crust thickness and
density is 45 km and 2900 kg m3 , respectively, resulting in a calculated crust-mantle transition pressure
of around 485 MPa.
Present estimates of the mean crustal thickness of Mars are entirely based on indirect geophys-
ical evidence, geochemical arguments, and arbitrarily assumed crust and mantle densities and,
therefore, may range between 30 and 80 km [04Neu, 04Wie, 05Sol] although crust thicknesses of
up to about 100 km were also consistent with global geophysical constraints [97Soh, 01Kav, 04Gud,
05Soh].
See [07Soh] for a more complete account on the Martian interior and Table 9 for a comparison
of three-layer structural models with variable core sulfur contents S .
4.2.3.2.3.5 The Moon
The mean radius (1737.4 1 km [07Sei]) of the Moon is about one quarter of that of the Earth.
Its mean density of 3344 kg m3 , however, is comparatively low, indicating that iron is much
less abundant than in the Earth or any other terrestrial planetary body. If the Moon were fully
differentiated with a pure iron core, the core radius would occupy less than 1/4 of the lunar
radius. Lunar laser ranging data show that the true spin axis of the Moon is displaced from the
Cassini alignment (mean direction of the spin axis) by 0.2600 , indicating internal dissipation in the
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
53
presence of a fluid core, not necessarily composed of iron [81Yod, 94Dic, 01Wil]. Furthermore,
remnant magnetization of the lunar crust and the paleomagnetic record of some lunar samples
provide circumstantial evidence for the existence of a lunar core, provided that magnetization was
acquired from an intrinsic magnetic field caused by an early lunar core dynamo [87Hoo].
Table 10. Two-layer structural model determinations of the Moon (mean MoI factor: 0.3931).
0.365 1.0 5010 3279.8 0.3349 0.05626 5.5735 4.3859
0.260 0.713 5500 3281.1 0.3061 0.04718 5.7112 4.5152
0.171 0.468 6000 3282.0 0.2848 0.04144 5.8436 4.6119
0.095 0.261 6500 3282.6 0.2684 0.03756 5.9712 4.6876
0.030 0.083 7000 3283.0 0.2551 0.03475 6.0953 4.7500
0 0 7262 3283.2 0.2491 0.03357 6.1594 4.7787
0.365 1.0 5451 3281.0 0.3086 0.04789 5.6978 4.5042
0.307 0.841 5750 3281.6 0.2947 0.04401 5.7782 4.5668
0.222 0.608 6250 3282.3 0.2761 0.03933 5.9079 4.6518
0.150 0.410 6750 3282.8 0.2614 0.03605 6.0335 4.7202
0.087 0.239 7250 3283.2 0.2494 0.03362 6.1565 4.7775
0.033 0.090 7750 3283.6 0.2393 0.03175 6.2775 4.8267
0 0 8088 3283.7 0.2333 0.03071 6.3588 4.8566
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The core is composed of -Fe and FeS IV whose ther-
modynamic parameters are taken from [00Dub1] and [95Fei], respectively. (b) The average core density
is obtained by extrapolating the third-order Birch-Murnaghan equation Eq. (33) neglecting the thermal
pressure contribution to central pressure conditions of a homogeneous, equivalent-mass sphere of the Moon.
(c) The thermal pressure correction at a core temperature of 1700 K may vary between 5.8 GPa (pure
FeS IV core) and 16 GPa (pure -Fe core) according to Eq. (34).
From Doppler tracking of the Lunar Prospector spacecraft and lunar laser ranging data on
lunar libration, [01Kon] have obtained basic information on the gravitational field of the Moon
and improved values of the Moons mass (GM = 4902.801076 0.000081 km 3 s2 , G is the
gravitational constant), mean moment-of-inertia factor (I/M/R 2 = 0.3931 0.0002), and tidal
potential Love number (k2 = 0.026 0.003). The MoI factor is consistent with a core radius
between 220 and 450 km. Lunar Prospector observations of the induced lunar magnetic moment
when the Moon passes through the geomagnetic tail lobes of the Earth are consistent with a lunar
core radius of 340 90 km [99Hoo]. The existence of a small lunar core could not be confirmed or
rejected on the basis of the seismic data acquired by the Apollo missions.
From a reanalysis of gravity data acquired by the Apollo and Clementine spacecraft and assum-
ing a thickness of 55 km at the Apollo 12/14 site, the thickness of the lunar farside crust has been
estimated at 67 km. A mean thickness of 61 km is obtained if a uniform crustal composition is
assumed [96Neu]. The mean thickness of the lunar crust is estimated at 49 15 km if an Airy-type
compensation mechanism applies [06Wie1, 07Hik].
See [06Wie1] and [07Soh] for more complete accounts on the lunar interior and Table 10 for a
comparison of two-layer structural models with variable core sulfur contents S .
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
54
4.2.3.2.3.6 The Galilean Satellites
Internal structure models of the Galilean Satellites, Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, have
been constructed from data on the satellites gravity fields and shapes acquired by the Galileo
spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter from 19952003. The mission included several close flybys of the
moons and the analysis of gravitational perturbations of the spacecraft allowed the determination
of the principal moment of inertia of the satellites, a quantity which is indicative of a satellites
concentration of mass towards the center. However, the moment-of-inertia (MoI) values were
derived assuming that the satellites are in hydrostatic equilibrium, an assumption that could not
be verified from the data. An exception is Io, for which hydrostatic equilibrium was confirmed from
different flyby geometries (near-polar and near-equatorial). The models described here do assume
hydrostatic equilibrium and will neglect self-compression of chemically uniform layers because of
sufficiently low internal pressures [02Soh]. The main data which have been used to construct these
models are collected in Tables 11 and 12.
Table 11. Mean radius R, mass GM , mean density , and axes of the Galilean Satellites. a, b, c denote
the Jupiter-facing, orbit-facing, and polar axis, respectively. The radii were taken from [07Sei]; masses
were taken from [04Sch].
satellite R [km] GM [km3 s2 ] [kg m3 ] a [km] b [km] c [km]
Io 1821.46 5959.91 0.02 3529 1829.4 1819.3 1815.7
Europa 1562.09 3202.72 0.02 3006 1564.13 1561.23 1560.93
Ganymede 2632.345 9887.83 0.03 1940 2632.4 2632.29 2632.35
Callisto 2409.3 7179.29 0.01 1837 2409.4 2409.2 2409.3
Note: The mean densities are calculated from = 3M/(4R 3 ).
Table 12. Rref is the reference radius associated with J2 and C22 ; the corresponding GM -values are given
in Table 11. J2 (= C20 ) and C22 are low-order gravity coefficients. kf is the fluid potential Love number,
and C/M/R2 is the dimensionless MoI factor with respect to the rotational axis.
satellite Rref [km] J2 106 C22 106 kf C/(M R2 )

Ioa 1821.6 0.5 1859.5 2.7 558.8 0.8 1.3043 0.0019 0.37824 0.00022
Europaa 1565.0 8.0 435.5 8.2 131.5 2.5 1.048 0.020 0.346 0.005
Ganymedea 2631.2 1.7 127.53 2.9 38.26 0.87 0.804 0.018 0.3115 0.0028
Callistoa 2410.3 1.5 32.7 0.8 10.2 0.3 1.103 0.035 0.3549 0.0042
Note: The static fluid potential Love numbers are calculated from kf = 4C22 /qr , where qr = 2 Rref
3
/(GM )
is, to first order, the smallness parameter for the equilibrium figure of a synchronously rotating satellite
with the mean angular frequency of the rotational and orbital period.
Reference: a) [04Sch]
Ios mean density of 3529 kg m3 suggests that this satellite is composed of silicates and iron.
Galileo Doppler radio tracking data have been used to calculate the satellites MoI-factor from a
determination of the tidally and rotationally induced oblateness (J2 ) and the equatorial ellipticity
(C22 ) of its gravitational field. Interior structure models matching the best estimate of Ios MoI
factor of 0.37824 0.00022 give iron and eutectic Fe-FeS core mass fractions of 10.5% and 20.2%,
respectively [96And2]. An independent determination of the quadrupole coefficients J2 and C22
using three Galileo flybys is consistent with Io being in hydrostatic equilibrium [01And]. However,
deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium due to, e.g., a vigorously convecting interior, may exist at
an undetectable level.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
55
We refer the reader to [04Sch] for a more complete account on the interior of Io and Table 13
for a comparison of two-layer structural models with variable core composition and density.
Table 13. Two-layer structural model determinations of Io (mean MoI factor: 0.3782).
c [kg m3 ] m [kg m3 ] Rc /R Mc /M pc [GPa] pcmb [GPa]
5000 3258.0 0.5375 0.2201 7.5518 4.2028
5400 3274.5 0.4926 0.1829 7.8406 4.5596
5800 3284.6 0.4595 0.1594 8.1131 4.8204
6200 3291.5 0.4336 0.1432 8.3748 5.0241
6600 3296.5 0.4126 0.1314 8.6289 5.1906
7000 3300.4 0.3951 0.1224 8.8777 5.3311
7400 3303.4 0.3802 0.1152 9.1225 5.4526
7800 3305.9 0.3673 0.1095 9.3645 5.5597
The mean density of Europa of 3006 kg m3 is intermediate between those of icy satellites such
as Ganymede and Callisto and rocky satellites such as Io and the Moon. Voyager and Galileo
imaging and infrared spectroscopy showed that Europas surface is covered with water ice which
together with the density calls for models that range from hydrated rock-metal interiors beneath
relatively thin ice shells to dehydrated interiors underneath thick ice shells. However, radiogenic
and tidal heating is thought to have been sufficient for dehydration and even subsequent differenti-
ation of the rock-metal component to form an iron-rich core overlain by a silicate mantle [98And1].
Table 14. Three-layer structural model determinations of Europa (mean MoI factor: 0.346).
c m s Rc /R Rm /R Mc /M pc pcmb pbase
[kg m3 ] [kg m3 ] [kg m3 ] [GPa] [GPa] [MPa]
5150 2800 1000 0.5592 61.828 0.2996 5.1270 2.2992 82.827
5150 2900 1000 0.5437 73.644 0.2755 5.0939 2.4199 99.070
5150 3000 1000 0.5268 84.968 0.2506 5.0582 2.5479 114.77
5150 3100 1000 0.5081 95.872 0.2247 5.0191 2.6845 130.01
5150 3200 1000 0.4869 106.42 0.1978 4.9755 2.8311 144.87
5150 3300 1000 0.4627 116.67 0.1697 4.9259 2.9897 159.44
5150 3400 1000 0.4342 126.68 0.1403 4.8679 3.1627 173.78
5150 3500 1000 0.3995 136.51 0.1093 4.7975 3.3538 187.96
5150 3600 1000 0.3546 146.16 0.0764 4.7059 3.5688 202.01
5150 3700 1000 0.2906 155.84 0.0420 4.5784 3.8147 216.22
5150 3800 1000 0.1497 165.52 0.0057 4.3240 4.1214 230.54
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The density of the Fe-FeS core c is fixed at a value cor-
responding to the eutectic sulfur concentration at core pressures. (b) The density of the water-ice/liquid
outer shell s is taken constant, i.e. a small density contrast between the outer ice shell and the underlain
water ocean is neglected. (c) The possible range of meaningful models is limited by the pressure-induced
transition from ice I to ice II at around 209 MPa. Emphasized in italic are model determinations super-
seding that critical pressure at the base of the outer ice shell.
Particularly, strike-slip behavior and plate rotation near the anti-Jovian point is taken as the
current best geologic evidence that the water ice shell is decoupled from Europas deep interior
due to the existence of a subsurface liquid water ocean or at least a soft ice layer [99Pap]. The
most convincing argument for an ocean results from an interpretation of Galileo magnetometer
data [00Kiv] that requires an electrically conducting layer at a shallow depth in which a magnetic
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
56
field is induced as Europa moves through the magnetosphere of Jupiter. It is possible that the ice
layer itself is tidally heated at a rate sufficient to stabilize the ice layer against freezing [02Hus] but
[03Spo] have shown that even radiogenic heating in a chondritic core will suffice to keep a water
ocean.
We refer the reader to [07Hus] and [09Sch] for more complete accounts on the interior of Europa
and Table 14 for a comparison of three-layer structural models with variable silicate mantle density.
Ganymede is the largest satellite in the solar system and exceeds Mercury in diameter. Gravita-
tional and magnetic field observations by the Galileo spacecraft together with spectral data of the
surface suggest that Ganymede is strongly differentiated [04Sch]. The spectral data are consistent
with a surface mainly covered by water ice. The mean density of 1940 kg m 3 indicates that the
interior is composed of water ice and rock-metal components in nearly equal amounts by mass.
Table 15. Three-layer structural model determinations of Ganymede (mean MoI factor: 0.3115).
[kg m3 ] [kg m3 ] [kg m3 ] [GPa] [GPa] [GPa]
5600 2800 1200 0.3954 0.7071 0.1786 9.8132 5.0645 1.4082
5600 2900 1200 0.3828 0.7018 0.1620 9.7152 5.2650 1.4376
5600 3000 1200 0.3732 0.6948 0.1501 9.6730 5.4434 1.4755
5600 3100 1200 0.3611 0.6889 0.1360 9.6029 5.6429 1.5081
5600 3200 1200 0.3472 0.6835 0.1209 9.5188 5.8572 1.5385
5600 3300 1200 0.3329 0.6779 0.1065 9.4412 6.0763 1.5698
5600 3400 1200 0.3157 0.6727 0.0909 9.3419 6.3158 1.5989
5600 3500 1200 0.2957 0.6677 0.0746 9.2274 6.5728 1.6274
5600 3600 1200 0.2716 0.6628 0.0578 9.0905 6.8509 1.6554
5600 3700 1200 0.2409 0.6581 0.0404 8.9183 7.1553 1.6830
5600 3800 1200 0.1976 0.6533 0.0223 8.6801 7.4942 1.7105
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The density of the Fe-FeS core c is fixed at a value
corresponding to the eutectic sulfur concentration at core pressures. (b) The density of the water-ice/liquid
outer shell s is taken constant at an average value taking into account the possible presence of high-pressure
phases such as ice V and ice VI. (c) The possible range of meaningful models is limited by the most likely
range of silicate mantle densities.
The MoI factor of 0.3115 0.0028 is the smallest measured value for any solid body in the solar
system and indicates a strong concentration of mass towards the center of Ganymede [96And3].
Magnetometer measurements of the Galileo spacecraft have shown that Ganymede possesses an
intrinsic magnetic field with equatorial and polar field strengths at the surface of 750 and 1200 nT,
respectively. Since the most likely source is dynamo action in a liquid Fe-FeS core [96Schu],
Ganymedes interior is believed to consist of an iron-rich core surrounded by a silicate rock mantle
overlain by an ice shell that may contain a subsurface water ocean sandwiched between a high-
pressure water ice layer and an outermost ice I layer [96And3, 02Soh].
See [07Hus] for a more complete account on the interior of Ganymede and Table 15 for a
comparison of three-layer structural models with variable mantle density.
Callistos radius is about 200 km smaller than that of Ganymede and its mass is 70% that of
Ganymede, resulting in a mean density of 1837 kg m3 and implying that the interior is likewise
composed of water ice and rock-metal components in nearly equal amounts by mass. The satellites
old, heavily cratered, and dirt-rich surface suggests that endogenic resurfacing has never happened
since it completed its accretion. Provided hydrostatic equilibrium is attained, the Galileo gravity
data suggest that the satellites MoI axial factor is equal to 0.3549 0.0042. However, this value
is not compatible with a fully differentiated interior of Callisto and suggests partial internal differ-
entiation [98And2, 01And2], augmented by a density increase with depth due to pressure-induced
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
57
water ice phase transitions [97Kin].
Table 16. Two-layer structural model determinations of Callisto (mean MoI factor: 0.3549).
m [kg m3 ] c [kg m3 ] Rc /R Mc /M pc [GPa] pcmb [GPa]
900 2262.9 0.8826 0.8469 3.5640 0.3274
1000 2282.1 0.8675 0.8110 3.5885 0.4083
1100 2308.9 0.8479 0.7662 3.6220 0.5119
1200 2349.0 0.8215 0.7089 3.6710 0.6495
1300 2415.3 0.7838 0.6330 3.7494 0.8415
1400 2545.4 0.7253 0.5287 3.8953 1.1298
1500 2908.5 0.6208 0.3788 4.2686 1.6232
Possible two-layer model determinations are summarized in Table 16 to illustrate the effect of
variable degree of partial differentiation on Callistos internal density distribution. The magnetic
data suggest that an ocean is present at depth around 150 km [98Khu, 00Zim]. These two in-
terpretations of geophysical data seem contradictory since the presence of an ocean would lead
to differentiation. In order to reconcile these two observations, [04Nag] propose that Callistos
core is a mixture of ice and rock with the rock concentration increasing with depth and near the
close-packing limit.
Table 17. Three-layer structural model determinations of Callisto (mean MoI factor: 0.3549).
3500 1550 1000 0.5280 0.9994 0.2806 4.8207 2.0499 1.6666
3500 1600 1000 0.5161 0.9859 0.2620 4.7801 2.1337 41.973
3500 1650 1000 0.5036 0.9736 0.2435 4.7390 2.2188 79.004
3500 1700 1000 0.4906 0.9622 0.2250 4.6970 2.3055 113.32
3500 1750 1000 0.4768 0.9517 0.2066 4.6537 2.3943 145.36
3500 1800 1000 0.4622 0.9418 0.1882 4.6084 2.4854 175.47
3500 1850 1000 0.4465 0.9325 0.1697 4.5607 2.5794 203.95
3500 1900 1000 0.4295 0.9237 0.1510 4.5097 2.6764 231.01
3500 1950 1000 0.4109 0.9154 0.1322 4.4546 2.7771 256.87
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The density of the satellites central portion c is taken
constant at a value corresponding to the mean density of Io to allow for the presence of a rock-metal
component. (b) The density of the water-ice/liquid outer shell s is representative for that of clean ice I
separated from a mixture of high-pressure water ice and rock-metal component underneath. (c) The
possible range of meaningful models is limited by the pressure-induced transition from ice I to ice II at
around 209 MPa. Emphasized in italic are model determinations that supersede that critical pressure at
the base of the outer ice shell.
See [07Hus] for a more complete account on the interior of Callisto and Table 17 for a comparison
of three-layer structural models with variable mantle density.
4.2.3.2.3.7 The Saturnian Satellites
The Saturnian satellites have been investigated in detail by the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around
Saturn since 2004. Additionally, there was the landing of the Huygens probe on Titans surface
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
58
in 2005 the first touch-down on a surface of an outer solar system satellite as part of the
Cassini/Huygens mission.
Table 18. Mean radius R, mass GM , mean density , and axes of the largest satellites of Saturn. a, b, c
denote the Saturn-facing, orbit-facing, and polar axis, respectively. References: [07Tho, 06Jac].

Mimas 198.2 0.5 2.5023 0.0020 1150 9 207.4 0.7 196.8 0.6 190.6 0.3
Enceladus 252.1 0.2 7.2096 0.0067 1608 5 256.6 0.6 251.4 0.2 248.3 0.2
Tethys 533.0 1.4 41.2097 0.0063 973 8 540.4 0.8 531.1 2.6 527.5 2.0
Dione 561.7 0.9 73.1127 0.0025 1476 7 563.8 0.9 561.0 1.3 561.7 0.9
Rhea 764.3 2.2 153.9416 0.0049 1233 11 767.2 2.2 762.5 0.8 763.1 1.1
Titan 2575.5 2 8978.1356 0.0039 1880 4
Iapetus 735.6 3.0 120.5117 0.0173 1083 13 747.4 3.1 712.4 2.0
Table 19. Rref is the reference radius associated with J2 and C22 ; the corresponding GM -values are given
in Table 18. J2 (= C20 ) and C22 are low-order gravity coefficients. kf is the fluid potential Love number,
and C/M/R2 is the dimensionless MoI factor with respect to the rotational axis.
satellite Rref [km] J2 106 C22 106 kf C/(M R2 )
Rheaa 764.4 1.1 794.7 89.2 235.26 4.76 1.2517 0.0253 0.3721 0.0036
Rheab 764.4 1.1 889 25 266.6 7.5 1.418 0.040 0.3911 0.0045
Titan 2575.5 2.0 -c -c -c 0.34d
Note: The static fluid potential Love numbers are calculated from kf = 4C22 /qr , where qr = 2 Rref
3
/(GM )
is, to first order, the smallness parameter for the equilibrium figure of a synchronously rotating satellite
with the mean angular frequency of the rotational and orbital period.
References: a) [07Ies], based on an independent determination of J2 and C22 . b) [07And], based on a-priori
hydrostatic assumption J2 /C22 = 10/3. c) not available. d) value assumed.
Masses, radii, and shape data of the largest Saturnian satellites are given in Table 18. Most
of the icy satellites of Saturn are well-described by triaxial ellipsoids. However, Iapetus is best
represented by an oblate spheroid (no difference between Saturn-facing and orbit-facing axes, i.e.
a = b in Table 18). For Titan all the axes are equal in length within the given uncertainties which
are mainly due to the dense atmosphere enshrouding Saturns largest moon.
Table 20. Two-layer model structural determinations of Rhea (mean MoI factor: 0.3721).
m [kg m3 ] c [kg m3 ] Rc /R Mc /M pc [MPa] pcmb [MPa]
800 1403.6 0.8952 0.8166 145.92 17.003
900 1421.3 0.8612 0.7364 147.32 24.968
1000 1465.0 0.7943 0.5954 150.56 39.995
1100 1733.1 0.5944 0.2953 166.86 80.190
1200
The mean density and axial moment of inertia of Rhea as inferred from Doppler data acquired
during a close Cassini spacecraft encounter on November 26, 2005 suggest that the satellites interior
is composed of about 25% rock-metal and 75% water ice by mass and almost undifferentiated [07Ies]
or even a homogeneous mixture of rock-metal and water ice components [07And]. Table 20 contains
possible two-layer model determinations being consistent with those gravitational field observations
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
59
(Table 19), illustrating the effect of variable degree of partial differentiation on Rheas internal
density distribution.
Table 21. Two-layer structural model determinations of Titan (mean MoI factor: 0.34).
m [kg m3 ] c [kg m3 ] Rc /R Mc /M pc [GPa] pcmb [GPa]
900 2530.4 0.8439 0.8090 4.7470 0.5186
1000 2570.9 0.8243 0.7661 4.8096 0.6449
1100 2628.9 0.7990 0.7134 4.8973 0.8058
1200 2718.6 0.7650 0.6475 5.0295 1.0185
1300 2874.9 0.7168 0.5632 5.2518 1.3143
1400 3211.8 0.6423 0.4526 5.7073 1.7618
1500 4401.5 0.5078 0.3066 7.2053 2.5727
1600
1800
Titan is intermediate between the Jovian satellites Ganymede and Callisto with respect to its
radius of 2575.52 km and mean density of 18804 kg m3 . The mean densities of Ganymede, Cal-
listo, and Titan indicate that their interiors are composed of water ice and rock-metal component
in nearly equal amounts by mass. The interior of Titan is likely to be differentiated at least into a
rock-metal core and an icy mantle as a consequence of substantial accretional heating accompanied
by partial outgassing and atmosphere formation [00Gras, 03Soh, 06Tob]. Whether or not Titans
deep interior is further differentiated like Ganymedes into an iron core and a rock mantle above
it, is more speculative. Based on gravity data collected so far during several Cassini spacecraft en-
counters, it cannot be safely excluded that Titans interior is even only partly differentiated, more
similar to that of Callisto. Table 21 contains possible two-layer model determinations being consis-
tent with preliminary inferences of the axial MoI factor from gravity data (Table 19), illustrating
the effect of variable degree of partial differentiation on Titans internal density distribution.
Table 22. Three-layer structural model determinations of Titan (mean MoI factor: 0.34).
3500 1450 1000 0.5958 0.9972 0.3938 6.0744 2.0435 9.7385
3500 1500 1000 0.5876 0.9824 0.3777 6.0465 2.1263 61.429
3500 1550 1000 0.5792 0.9693 0.3618 6.0194 2.2095 107.82
3500 1600 1000 0.5708 0.9574 0.3462 5.9928 2.2935 149.94
3500 1650 1000 0.5621 0.9465 0.3307 5.9664 2.3786 188.58
3500 1700 1000 0.5532 0.9366 0.3152 5.9401 2.4651 224.32
3500 1750 1000 0.5440 0.9273 0.2997 5.9137 2.5535 257.63
Note: The following assumptions are made: (a) The density of the satellites central portion c is taken
constant at a value corresponding to the mean density of Io to allow for the presence of a rock-metal
component. (b) The density of the water-ice/liquid outer shell s is representative for that of clean ice I
separated from a mixture of high-pressure water ice and rock-metal component underneath. (c) The
possible range of meaningful models is limited by the pressure-induced transition from ice I to ice II at
around 209 MPa. Emphasized in italic are model determinations that supersede that critical pressure at
the base of the outer ice shell.
See [07Hus] for a more complete account on the interiors of the Saturnian satellites and Table 22
for a comparison of three-layer structural models of Titan with variable mantle density.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
60
4.2.3.2.3.8 Icy Satellites of Uranus and Neptune
The data for the Uranian satellites mainly come from ground-based observations and from the
Voyager 2 flyby in 1986. In 1989 Voyager 2 reached the Neptune system and obtained data for
Neptunes largest moon Triton during its 40,000 km approach to that satellite. Neptune and Triton
are the most distant planetary objects, yet visited by spacecraft. Data on the masses, radii, and
Table 23. Mean radius R, mass GM , mean density , and axes of the largest satellites of Uranus and
Neptunes largest moon Triton. a, b, c denote the planet-facing, orbit-facing, and polar axis, respectively.
References: [07Sei, 91Jac, 92Jac].
Miranda 235.8 0.7 4.4 0.5 1200 140 240.4 0.6 234.2 0.9 232.9 1.2
Ariel 578.9 0.6 90.3 8 1660 150 581.1 0.9 577.9 0.6 577.7 1.0
Umbriel 584.7 2.8 78.2 9 1390 160
Titania 788.9 1.8 235.3 6 1710 50
Oberon 761.4 2.6 201.1 5 1630 50
Triton 1352.6 2.4 1427.9 3.5 2061 7
densities of the Uranian satellites are given in Table 23. Only the inner satellites Miranda and Ariel
have significant variations in the main axes and are best described by triaxial ellipsoids. Because
most of the data was obtained during one flyby of Voyager 2 through the Uranus system, the
uncertainties in the values for density, mass and shapes of the Uranian satellites are significantly
greater as compared to the data for the Jupiter and Saturn systems.
We refer the reader to [07Hus] for a more complete account on the interiors of the Uranian and
Neptunian satellites.
52Bir Birch, F.: J. Geophys. Res. 57 (1952) 227286.

77Sta Stacey, F. D.: Geophys. Surv. 3 (1977) 175204.
79Kau Kaula, W. M.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 6 (1979) 194196.
80And Anderson, O. L., Baumgardner, J. R.: In Proceedings of the 11th Lunar and Planetary Sci.
Conf., pages 19992014. Lunar and Planetary Science Institute, 1980.
81Sta Stacey, F. D., Brennan, B. J., Irvine, R. D.: Geophys. Surv. 4 (1981) 189232.
81Yod Yoder, C. F.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 303 (1981) 327338.
84And Anderson, O. L.: J. Geodyn. 1 (1984) 185214.
84Bro Brown, J. M., Ahrens, T. J., Shampine, D. L.: J. Geophys. Res. 89 (1984) 60416048.
87And Anderson, J. D., et al.: Icarus 71 (1987) 337349.
87Hoo Hood, L. L., Jones, J. H.: Proc. of the 17th Lunar and Planet. Sci. Conf., Part 2, J.
Geophys. Res. 92 (1987) E396E410.
88Sch Schubert, G., et al.: In Faith Vilas, Clark R. Chapman, and Mildred Shapley Matthews,
editors, Mercury, pages 429460. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1988.
89Boe Boehler, R., et al.: J. Appl. Phys. 65 (1989) 17951797.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
61
89Sve Svendsen, B., Anderson, W. W., Ahrens, T. J.: Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 55 (1989)
154186.
90Boe Boehler, R., von Bargen, N., Chopelas, A.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 21,73121,736.
90Mao Mao, H. K., et al.. J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 21,73721,742.
91And Anderson, O. L., Isaak, D. L., Oda, H.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 18,03718,046.
91Jac Jacobson, R. A., Riedel, J. E., Taylor, A. H.: Astron. Astrophys. 247 (1991) 565575.
92And Anderson, O. L., Isaak, D. L., Oda, H.: Rev. Geophys. 30 (1992) 5790.
92Jac Jacobson, R. A., et al.. Astron. J. 103 (1992) 2068-2078.
92Fei Fei, Y., et al.. J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 44894495.
92Tan Tanaka, K. L., Scott, D. H., Greeley, R.: In H. H. Kieffer, B. M. Jakosky, C. W. Snyder,
and M. S. Matthews, editors, Mars, pages 345382. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1992.
94And Anderson, W. W., Ahrens, T. J.: J. Geophys. Res. 99 (1994) 42734284.
94Dic Dickey, J. O., et al.. Science 265 (1994) 482490.
94Men Meng, Y., et al.: Phys. Chem. Miner. 21 (1994) 407412.
95Fei Fei, Y., et al.: Science 268 (1995) 18921894.
95Zha Zhao, Y., Schiferl, D., Shankland, T. J.: Phys. Chem. Miner. 22 (1995) 393398.
96And1 Anderson, J. D., et al.: Icarus 124 (1996) 690697.
96And2 Anderson, J. D., Sjogren, W. L., Schubert, G.: Science 272 (1996) 709712.
96And3 Anderson, J. D., et al.: Nature 384 (1996) 541543.
96Bou Bouhifd, M. A., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 23 (1996) 11431146.
96Neu Neumann, G. A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 101 (1996) 16,84116,863.
96Schu Schubert, G., et al.: Nature 384 (1996) 544545.
96Wan Wang, Y., Weidner, D. J., Guyot, F.: J. Geophys. Res. 101 (1996) 661672.
97Fol Folkner, W. M., et al.: Science 278 (1997) 17491752.
97Gri Grimm, R. E., Hess, P. C.: In S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten, and R. J. Philips, editors,
Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment, pages 12051244.
Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1997.
97Kin McKinnon, W. B.: Icarus 130 (1997) 540543.
97Moo Moore, W. B., Schubert, G.: Icarus 128 (1997) 415428.
97Sjo Sjogren, W. L., et al.: In S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten, and R. J. Philips, editors, Venus II:
Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment, pages 11251162. Univ. of Ari-
zona Press, Tucson, AZ, 1997.
97Soh Sohl, F., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 16131635.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
62
97Yod Yoder, C. F.: In S. W. Bougher, D. M. Hunten, and R. J. Philips, editors, Venus II: Geology,
Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment, pages 10871124. Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ, 1997.
98And1 Anderson, J. D., et al.: Science 281 (1998) 20192022.
98And2 Anderson, J. D., et al.: Science 280, 15731576.
98Fiq Fiquet, G., et al.: P-V-T equation of state of M gSiO3 perovskite. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.
105 (1998) 2131.
98Khu Khurana, K. K., et al.: Nature 395 (1998) 777780.
98Nim Nimmo, F., McKenzie, D.: Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 26 (1998) 2351.
98Zha Zhao, Y., et al.: Rev. High Pressure Sci. Technol. 7 (1998) 2527.
99Hoo Hood, L. L., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 26 (1999) 23272330.
99Pap Pappalardo, R. T., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 24,01524,055.
99Smi1 Smith, D. E., et al.: Science 286 (1999) 9497.
99Smi2 Smith, D. E., et al.: Science 284 (1999) 14951503.
00Dew Dewaele, A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 28692877.
00Dub1 Dubrovinsky, L. S., et al.: J. Alloy. Compd. 297 (2000) 156161.
00Dub2 Dubrovinsky, L. S., et al.: Am. Mineral. 85 (2000) 386389.
00Dub3 Dubrovinsky, L. S., et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 17201723.
00Fiq Fiquet, G., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2000) 2124.
00Gras Grasset, O., Sotin, C., Deschamps, F.: Planet. Space Sci. 48 (2000) 617636.
00Jol Jolliff, B. L., et al.: Eos, Trans. AGU 81 (2000) 349, 354355.
00Kiv Kivelson, M.G., et al.: Science 289 (2000) 1340-1343.

00San Sanloup, C., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2000) 811814.
00Zim Zimmer, C., et al.: Icarus 147 (2000) 329347.
00Zub Zuber, M. T., et al.: Science 287 (2000) 17881793.
01And Anderson, J. D., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 32,96332,970.
01And2 Anderson, J. D., et al.: Icarus 153 (2001) 157161.
01Kav Kavner, A., Duffy, T. S., Shen, G.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 185 (2001) 2533.
01Kon Konopliv, et al.: Icarus 150 (2001) 118.
01Lem Lemoine, F. G., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 23,35923,376.
01Spo Spohn, T., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 49 (2001) 15611570.
01Wil Williams, J. G., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 27,93327,968.
02And Anderson, O. L., Isaak, D. G.: Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 131 (2002) 1927.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
63
02Bal Balogh, A., Giampieri, G.: Rep. Prog. Phys. 65 (2002) 529560.
02Hus Hussmann H., Spohn, T., Wiezcerkowski, K.: Icarus 156 (2002) 143-151.
02Nim Nimmo, F.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (2002) doi:10.1029/2001GL013883.
02Soh Sohl, F., et al.: Icarus 157 (2002) 104-119.
02Tur Turcotte, D. L., Schubert, G.: Geodynamics, 2nd edition, page 85, Cambridge University
Press, 2002.
03Bal Balog, P. S., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) 2124, doi:10.1029/2001JB001646.
03Soh Sohl, F., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) E12, 5130, doi: 10.1029/2003JE002044.
03Sol Solomon, S. C.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 216 (2003) 441455.
03Spo Spohn, T., Schubert, G.: Icarus 161 (2003) 456-467.
03Yod Yoder, C. F., et al.: Science 300 (2003) 299303.
04Gud Gudkova, T. V., Zharkov, V. N.: Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 142 (2004) 122.
04Nag Nagel K., Breuer D., Spohn T.: Icarus 169 (2004) 402412.
04Neu Neumann, G. A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) E08002, doi:10.1029/2004JE002262.
04Sch Schubert, G., et al.: in: Jupiter: the planet, satellites and magnetosphere, Bagenal, F.,
T. E. Dowling, W. B. McKinnon, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 2004.
04Tsu Tsuchiya, T., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 224 (2004) 241248.
04Wie Wieczorek, M. A., Zuber, M. T.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) E01009,
doi:10.1029/2003JE002153.
05Mat Mattern, E., et al.: Geophys. J. Int. 160 (2005) 973990.
05Soh Sohl, F., Schubert, G., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 110 (2005) E12008,
doi:10.1029/2005JE002520.
05Sol Solomon, S. C., et al.: Science 307 (2005) 12141220.
05Sti Stixrude, L., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C.: Geophys. J. Int. 162 (2005) 610632.
05Tsu Tsuchiya, J., Tsuchiya, T., Wentzcovitch, R. M.: J. Geophys. Res. 110 (2005) B02204,
doi:10.1029/2004JB003409.
06Cas Castillo-Rogez, J.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) E11005, doi:10.1029/2004JE002379.
06Jac Jacobson, R. A., et al.: Astron. J. 132 (2006) 25202526.
06Kon Konopliv, A. S., et al.: Icarus 182 (2006) 2350.
06Ono Ono, S., Kikegawa, T.: Am. Mineral. 91 (2006) 19411944.
06Tob Tobie G., Lunine J., Sotin C.: Nature 440 (2006) 61-64.
06Wie1 Wieczorek, M. A., et al.: Rev. Min. Geochem. 60 (2006) 221364.
06Wie2 Wieser, M. E.: Atomic Weights of the Elements 2005 (IUPAC Technical Report).
Pure Appl. Chem. 78 (2006) 20512066.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
64
07And Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (2007) L02202, doi:10.1029/2006GL028100.

07Hik Hikida, H., Wieczorek, M. A.: Icarus 192 (2007) 150166.
07Hus Hussmann, H., Sotin, C., Lunine, J. I.: In G. Schubert and T. Spohn, editors, Treatise on
Geophysics - Planets and Moons, volume 10, pages 509539. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
07Ies Iess, L., et al.: Icarus 190 (2007) 585593.
07Mar Margot, J. L., et al.: Science 316 (2007) 710714.
07Sei Seidelmann, P. K., et al.: Celest. Mech. Dynam. Astron. 98 (2007) 155180.
07Soh Sohl, F., Schubert, G.: In G. Schubert and T. Spohn, editors, Treatise on Geophysics -
Planets and Moons, volume 10, pages 2768. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
07Sti Stixrude, L., Lithgow-Bertelloni, C.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 263 (2007) 4555.
07Tho Thomas, P. C., et al.: Icarus 190 (2007) 573584.
07vHo Van Hoolst, T., et al.: Space Sci. Rev., 132 (2007) 203227.
07Wie Wieczorek, M.A. In G. Schubert and T. Spohn, editors, Treatise on Geophysics - Planets
and Moons, volume 10, pages 165206. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
08Ono Ono, S., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 272 (2008) 481487.
08Rin Riner, M. A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 113 (2008) E08013, doi:10.1029/2007JE002993.
09Sch Schubert, G., Sohl, F., Hussmann, H.: In R. T. Pappalardo, W. B. McKinnon, and K.
Khurana, editors, Europa, in press. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, 2009.
Landolt-Bornstein
New Series VI/4A
Ref. p. 92] 4.2.3.3 Planetary Seismology 65
4.2.3.3 Planetary Seismology
Martin Knapmeyer
DLR Institute of Planetaey Research, Berlin
Symbol Definition
a Rupture area aspect ratio
Thermal expansion coefficient
Gutenberg-Richter distribution slope
d Layer thickness
DU Digital unit (difference of 1 bit in digital data)
N Normal fault dip angle
T Thrust fault dip angle
t Considered time span
Static stress drop during seismic event
Seismic efficiency of lithosphere deformation
F Fourier transform
H Seismogenic lithosphere thickness
M0 Seismic moment
Mcum Cumulative seismic moment available in given time span
Mmax Largest possible seismic moment
Mmin Smallest considered seismic moment
MoI Moment of inertia factor
MW Moment magnitude
Shear modulus of lithosphere rock
N Number of events in deep moonquake cluster
Poisson ratio of lithosphere rock
Angular frequency
Q Quality factor for pure dilatational deformation
Q Quality factor for pure shear deformation
RP Planetary radius
Density
Standard deviation
T& Lithospheric cooling rate
tmax Maximum age of faults considered in seismicity model
vP P wave velocity
vS S wave velocity
x Normalized radius
XFe Molar iron content in mantle
z Depth
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
66 4.2.3.3 Planetary Seismology [Ref. p. 92
Seismological experiments have been conducted on four terrestrial bodies: Earth, Moon, Mars, and
Venus. The seismology of the Earth is described in a separate volume [84Lb and successors] and is
discussed only very briefly here for comparison.
About eight years of continuous data were returned from the Apollo seismometers. These data
unveiled a seismic behaviour of the Moon that is largely different from that of the Earth.
Seismometers were also installed on Venus and Mars, but did not provide a clear picture of the
seismic activity, let alone the inner structure, of these planets.
The following sections describe the seismic experiments that were actually carried out for Venus,
Moon, and Mars, the amount and nature of the seismic activity of these planets, and their interior
structure as inferred from seismology or theoretical modelling. Models based on direct observation are
available for Earth and Moon only; theoretical velocity models are cited for Mercury, Venus and Mars. In
case of Mars, a theoretical model of its seismic activity is described. Interior structure and composition in
general are described in Sect. 4.2.3.2.2. of this volume.
Seismology of the Sun and the giant planets is not described here. The seismic/acoustic accelerometer
experiment CASSE on board of the Rosetta missions PHILAE-Lander [07Sei] is also not discussed in
this chapter, since its target body is not a terrestrial planet, but a comet.
4.2.3.3.1.3 Polynomial Representation of Velocity Models
The polynomial representation of velocity models known from Earth standard models PREM [81Dzi] and
IASP91 [91Ken] is adopted for the velocity models of Mars in order to obtain a more compact form. The
Venus model was published in polynomial form.
Velocity is expressed as polynomial of the normalized radius
RP z
x= (1)
RP
where z is the depth below the surface.

Polynomials were constructed from values at discrete depths using a least squares fit. Polynomial
coefficients were rounded to a prescribed number of digits. The smallest possible polynomial degrees and
the smallest possible number of significant digits were used in order to reduce the amount of digits to
obtain a lossless compression of the model information. All physical discontinuities are preserved.
At the depths given in the original discrete models, the polynomials reproduce the input velocities and
densities with a relative accuracy of 10-4 or better. This accuracy, however, is purely numerical and does
not imply that the model predicts the real velocities to 10-4 . The velocities are unlikely to have more than
2 or 3 significant digits.
4.2.3.3.2 Mercury
Mercury has been visited by only two spacecraft so far, and these were not intended to deliver lander
units. The three Mariner 10 flybys in 1974 and 1975 returned images of 45% of its surface [78Dun]. The
Messenger flyby of January 2008 provided images from the hemisphere invisible to Mariner 10 [08Mel].
4.2.3.3.2.1 Expected seismicity
The mechanical structure of Mercury is that of a thin elastic/brittle outer shell enclosing a more movable
interior [88Mel]. This outer shell shows tectonic features, mainly in the form of lobate scarps [03Sol].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
These are thought to be the surface traces of large (20-500km long [03Sol], up to 2km displacement
[02Wat]) thrust faults reaching depths up to 35-40km [02Wat]. Lobate scarps are compatible with a 1-
2km radius change of Mercury since its origin [03Sol].
Suggested seismic sources active today may be tidal deformation, thermal stress and both natural and
artificial impacts [03Log2]. Meteorite impacts may be a significant source of seismic waves, because
typical impact speeds are 50km/s, compared to 20km/s on the Moon and 7km/s on Mars [08Mel].
Velocity models based on compositional and thermodynamical modelling (fig. 1) are constructed e.g. by
[03Van] and [08Riv]. Two end-member models were constructed by [08Riv]. Crustal thickness, density
and seismic velocities of the crust are prescribed.
Cold Mantle Model Hot Mantle Model

0 0
200 200
400 400
600 600
800 800
1000 1000
Depth [km]
1200 1200
1400 1400
1600 1600
1800 1800
2000 2000
2200 2200
2439.7 2439.7
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Velocity [kms1] Velocity [kms1]
Fig. 1 Mercury velocity models of [08Riv]. Left: cold

mantle after [91Spo], right: hot mantle after [06Bus]. Shear
wave velocities are drawn as dashed lines, Compressional
wave velocities as solid lines.
Table 1 Comparison of key properties of the hot and cold end member models of [08Riv].
Quantity Hot mantle Cold mantle
Crustal Thickness [km] (fixed) 100 100
Crustal Density [kg/m3] 3000 3000
Core Radius [km] 1960.436 1999.978
Inner Core Radius [km] 595 1200
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Quantity Hot mantle Cold mantle

Central Temperature [K] 2500 2300
CMB Temperature [K] 2000 1850
Table 2 Layering and range of velocities for each layer. Velocity variations are not linear with depth
in both models, see Fig. 1. Models from [08Riv], communicated by [08Van]. Layer Boundary Depths are
rounded to integer kilometres.
Layer Hot Mantle Cold Mantle
-1 -1
z [km] VS [kms ] VP [kms ] z [km] VS [kms-1] VP [kms-1]
Crust 0100 4.55 7.8 0100 4.55 7.8
Mantle 100440 4.43-4.66 7.958.06 100479 4.474.64 7.918.11
Outer 4401240 0 4.666.39 4791845 0 4.355.71
Core
Inner 12402440 3.783.87 6.987.12 18452440 3.563.96 6.597.23
Core
4.2.3.3.3 Venus
A passive seismic experiment using an electromagnetic vertical seismometer has been conducted on the
soviet Venera 13 and Venera 14 landers, with the goal to detect microseismic activity with amplitudes of
order 1m [82Ksa]. The two landers were identical [82Mor]. The seismometer was part of the
meteorological Groza-2 experiment [83Mor]. It was mounted outside of the spacecraft bus on the landing
ring [82Ksa]. Data downlink was limited to time windows of 8s duration, interrupted by alternating 200s
and 392s periods in which no recording was possible. During these interruptions, trigger electronics
counted any amplitude spikes exceeding 1m displacement [82Ksa].
Table 3 Venera 13 and 14 lander parameters

Mission Parameter Quantity Ref.
Venera 13
Landing Time 01.March 1982 [83Mor]
Duration of surface activity 127 min [83Mor]
Latitude 730 S [82Ksa]
Longitude 303 E [82Ksa]
Venera 14
Landing Time 05.March 1982 [83Mor]
Duration of surface activity 57 min [83Mor]
Latitude 1315 S [82Ksa]
Longitude 31009 E [82Ksa]
Table 4 Groza-2 seismometer parameters. Sensitivity not corrected for instrument response [82Ksa].
Parameter Quantity
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Eigenfrequency [Hz] 26
Mass [kg] 0.88
channels 1 (vertical)
Resolution in high sensitivity mode [m] 510-9
Resolution in low sensitivity mode [m] 1.510-7
Event counter trigger threshold [m] 810-7
Max. operation Temperature [K] 780
No event was detected by Venera 13, but two possible microseismic events were found in the Venera
14 data [82Ksa].
The dense atmosphere of Venus allows for Surface waves or displacements at the epicenter to couple
into the atmosphere and experience an exponential amplitude increase due to the pressure decay with
altitude. Dissipation of acoustic energy as well as adiabatic temperature changes in pressure waves are
detectable with infrared sensors theoretically [05Gar, 07Dro].
The conditions at the surface allow for brittle failure of rock [03Dra], but no seismicity is expected below
300km depth [71Der]. A seismic experiment with a life time of 1 day might have a 70% chance to record
one quake with M>3.0 and a 90% chance to record two events with M>2.0 [71Der]. A three sensor
network with a life time of 6-12 months might detect 600 events of M>4.0 [93Sto].
The Groza-2 Experiment onboard Venera 14 resulted in the detection of two possible microseismic
events. The first occurred ~950s after landing and was detected by the trigger, but not recorded. Its
amplitude therefore exceeded the trigger level. The second one occurred about 1361s after landing and
did not exceed the trigger level, but a part of the waveform no later than 56s after the first arrival (timing
concluded from details of the event detection and recording mode, see [82Ksa]) was recorded. By
comparison with Earth seismograms , [82Ksa] conclude that the sources of these events were <3000km
away and suggest a connection with the volcanic areas Beta Regio and Theia Mons.
Based on assumptions on the chemical composition and several equations of state, [83Zha] derived a
model of density and seismic velocities as function of depth (model reproduced in [92Zha]).
Table 5 Seismological model of Venus, excluding the crust. Crustal density is assumed to be 2800
kgm-3, Planetary radius is RP=6050km, normalized radius x [83Zha, 92Zha].
Layer z [km] [103kgm-3] vP [kms-1] vS [kms-1]
Upper Mantle 70-481 7.374 27.17 14.4
-4.146x -19.74x -10.4x
Transition Zone 481-756 10.101 19.32 13.54
-6.871x -10.59x -9.21x
Lower Mantle 756-2840 6.77 14.84 6.83
-2.467x -0.074x +2.65x
-0.266x2 -5.011x2 -3.95x2
Core 2840-6050 11.742 9.98 -
-0.17x -0.66x
-5.402x2 -9.125x2
-3.642x3 -0.74x3
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.3.4 Earth
Seismology of the Earth is discussed in [84Lb] and its successors. Here, we summarize briefly what is
necessary for a comparison with the other terrestrial planets.
The size-frequency distribution of earthquakes can be approximated by a power law (Gutenberg-Richter-

Distribution). Table 6 shows a summary of seismic moments extracted from the data base of the Global
Centroid Moment Tensor (GCMT) Project for the years 1984-2004, which is based on [83Dzi] and is
available at [06Cmt]. Annual updates of recent moment tensors are published in Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors.
The annual moment release varied between 1.891021 Nm in 1988 and 4.31022 Nm in 2004, with a
median of 2.841021 Nm. The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26th Dec. 2004 released 32% (3.91022
Nm) of the global moment release of these 21 years.
Table 6 Average number of events exceeding a given seismic moment (GCMT, 1984-2004), rounded
to integer numbers. Catalog sensitivity threshold is implied by top two rows.
M0 MW Exceeding
[Nm] (ca.) Events per year
11015 3.9 881
11016 4.6 881
11017 5.3 603
11018 5.9 134
11019 6.6 28
11020 7.3 5
11021 7.9 1
11022 8.6 0
Many seismological Earth models were constructed using seismic travel times or eigenmodes alone. The
Preliminary Earth Reference Model (PREM) [81Dzi] also uses radius, mass, and moment of inertia.
These quantities are often the only constraints for interior structure in planetology. The model is defined
in terms of cubic polynomials for compressional and shear wave velocities and density, and layerwise
constants for attenuation. It consists of 7 main layers with a distinction of oceanic and continental crust.
The constraints for the construction of PREM are given in table 7, for comparison with the amount of data
usually available in Planetology. The layer polynomials can be found in [81Dzi].
Table 7 Constraints for construction of PREM

RP [km] 6371
Mass [kg] 5.9741024
MoI [1] 0.3308
Normal Mode Eigenfrequencies >1000
Normal Mode Q values ca. 100
Summary Travel Time ca. 500
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Observations
Body Wave Arrival Times 26000 Events
ca. 2106 P wave arrivals
ca. 2.5105 S wave arrivals
4.2.3.3.5 Moon
During four Apollo landing missions, active and passive experiments were conducted in order to
determine the shallow crustal structure at the landing sites and the overall structure of the lunar interior.
After a first period of data evaluation and interpretation during the 1970s and 1980s, interest renewed
in the late 20th century, due to increased computer power availability.
Seismometers for passive seismic experiments were delivered to the Moon by Apollo missions 11, 12, 14,
15, and 16. On Apollo 12, 14, 16, and 17, active experiments were carried out using dedicated geophones.
Data recording and downlink of the seismometers of Apollo 12 through 17 used the Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiment Package (ALSEP) radio connection, which was independent of the landing module.
4.2.3.3.5.1.1 Apollo Landing Sites
Table 8 Apollo Seismometer sites. The locations of the ALSEPs and the Apollo 11 Lunar Module
were determined using Very Long Baseline Interferometry techniques by [00Dav].
Station Landing Area Lat. [N] Lon. [E] Radius [m]
Apollo 11 M. Tranquilitatis 0.67408 23.47297 1735472
Apollo 12 Oc. Procellarum -3.00942 -23.42458 1736014
Apollo 14 Fra Mauro Highlands -3.64398 -17.47748 1736343
Apollo 15 Mt. Appenninus / Hadley Rille 26.13407 3.62981 1735477
Apollo 16 Descartes Highlands -8.97537 15.49812 1737453
Apollo 17 Taurus-Littrow 20.19209 30.76492 1734814
4.2.3.3.5.1.2 Active Experiments
Active experiments were conducted using long and short period seismometers, with controlled impacts of
spacecraft parts as seismic source (Table 9), but also with geophone profiles (Apollo 14 and 16) and
arrays (Apollo 17), using various explosive charges as source.
The ascent stages of the lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 17 as well as the upper stages of the
Saturn V vehicles were used as impactors. Precise time and location of the impacts were obtained from
spacecraft telemetry, except for the Apollo 16 S4B stage, where a propulsion system leakage and a loss of
tracking reduced the control over the impact [72Amr]. The impact position given in Table 9 for S4B-16
was estimated from evaluation of seismic data [72Amr].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 9 Artificial impact parameters, from [74Tok]. Impactor designations: LM is Lunar Module
ascent stage, S4B is Saturn V third stage, and the two closing digits denote the mission. Impact angle is
measured from horizontal. Times are those received on Earth. Mass differences are due to different
amounts of remaining fuel and consumables.
Impactor Mass Velocity Impact Date Time [UT] Latitude Longitude
[kg] [kms-1] angle N [deg] E [deg]
[deg]
LM-12 2383 1.68 3.7 20. Nov 69 22:17:17.7 -3.94 -21.2
LM-14 2303 1.68 3.6 07. Feb 71 00:45:25.7 -3.42 -19.67
LM-15 2385 1.7 3.2 03. Aug 71 03:03:37.0 26.36 0.25
LM-17 2260 1.67 ? 15.Dec.72 06:50:20.8 19.96 30.5
S4B-13 13925 2.58 76 05. Apr 70 01:09:41.0 -2.75 -27.86
S4B-14 14016 2.54 69 04. Feb 71 07:40:55.4 -8.09 26.02
S4B-15 13852 2.58 62 29. Jul 71 20:58:42.9 -1.51 -11.81
S4B-16 ? ? ? 19. Apr 72 21:02:04 4 1.30.7 -23.80.2
S4B-17 14487 2.55 55 10.Dec.72 20:32:42.3 -4.21 -12.31
On Apollo 14 and 16, two different types of active sources were used: a manually operated thumper
and a mortar that was operated from Earth. The thumper was a hand-held device Containing 21 small
explosives. These were fired in direct contact with the ground, every 4.6m (Apollo 14), or 4.75m (Apollo
16) [72Amr, 74Coo]. The mortar was a small rocket launcher device, containing four grenades with solid
state rocket engines and different amounts of explosives. The Apollo 14 mortar was not used [71Amr].
From the Apollo 16 mortar, only three of four grenades were fired because the pitch angle of the mortar
was out of range after shot 3 [72Amr]. On Apollo 17, 8 explosive packages were deployed during Lunar
Rover traverses at distances between 100m and 2700m by the astronauts [73Kov].
The geophones (table 10) of all Missions were moving coil-magnet instruments, flat in velocity for
frequencies above the eigenfrequency and up to about 100Hz [71Kov]. The Apollo 14 and 16 geophones
were placed on a linear profile, at distances 3m, 49m, and 94m from the ALSEP central station [71Kov,
72Kov]. The four geophones of Apollo 17 were deployed in an equilateral triangular array, with one
geophone at each corner and one inside the triangle. The base of the triangle (geophones 1 & 2) was
oriented in E-W direction, with a base length of 92.2m. Geophones 3 and 4 were 26.6m and 74.4m south
of the baseline mid point [73Amr].
Table 10 Geophone instrument characteristics. The table gives mean and standard deviation of the
actual instruments of each mission.
Mission Number of Eigenfrequency Generator Resistance Sampling Ref.
Sensors [Hz] constant [Ohm] rate [Hz]
[Vm-1s-1]
Apollo 14 3 7.370.19 245.24.5 613562 500 [71Kov]
Apollo 16 3 7.420.03 255.61.2 616969 500 [72Kov]
Apollo 17 4 7.360.04 236.81.8 603995 118 [73Kov]
4.2.3.3.5.1.3 Passive Experiments
During Apollo Missions 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16, four-component seismometers were installed at each
landing site (3 LP and a vertical SP channel). The Apollo 11 instrument was designed for a short life time
and failed during its third lunation [69Amr]. It is of minor importance for the passive seismic experiment
and not considered any further here. Instruments of the other four missions were shut down by
telecommand in September 1977 [79Bat]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
The LP sensor could be used in two modes of operation: in flat mode, with an essentially flat
frequency response in displacement from 0.1Hz to 1Hz, and in peak mode, in which the instrument had a
5.6 times better sensitivity (measured at 0.45Hz). In this mode, the LP sensors operated as
underdampened pendulums [80Vos].
Table 11 Apollo Seismometer characteristics

Category Quantity Value Ref.
System Total mass 11.5kg [70Lat]
data Diameter 23cm [70Lat]
Height 29cm [70Lat]
Power consumption 4.3 7.4W [70Lat]
A/D conversion 10 Bit (01023DU) [80Vos]
Sensor equilibrium ca. 500DU [80Vos]
Sampling rate 1/0.060377 Hz [80Vos]
LP Sensor Resonant period (flat mode) 15s [70Lat]
Resonant period (peak mode) 2.2s [70Lat]
Usable freq. range 0.004 2Hz [70Lat]
Maximum sensitivity (displacement) 0.3nm [70Lat]
Sensitivity at max gain 510-6 V/m [69Als]
Pendulum Mass 0.75kg [69Als]
Digital dynamic range 60dB [69Als]
SP Sensor Resonant period 1s [70Lat]
Usable freq. range 0.05 20Hz [70Lat]
Maximum sensitivity (displacement, 1Hz) 0.3nm [70Lat]
Sensitivity at max gain 510-6 V/m [69Als]
Peak sensitivity freq. 8Hz [69Als]
Digital dynamic Range 60db [69Als]
Table 12 Apollo seismometer horizontal sensor orientations [80Vos, 74Apo], from N over E
Station +X Azimuth [] +Y Azimuth []
Apollo 11 0 90
Apollo 12 180 270
Apollo 14 0 90
Apollo 15 0 90
Apollo 16 334.5 64.5
Table 13 Apollo Seismometer Operation. Activation times are time of initial downlink acquisition. In
1977, Stations A12, A15, A16 were commanded to standby, A14 to OFF [79Bat]. The A11 instrument
failed to respond after the sunset of the 2nd lunar day [69Amr].
Station Activation [UT] Shutdown
Apollo 11 21.July 1969, 04:41 01. Sep. 1969
Apollo 12 19.Nov. 1969, 14:21 30. Sep. 1977
Apollo 14 05.Feb. 1971, 17:23 30. Sep. 1977
Apollo 15 31. July 1971, 18:37 30. Sep. 1977
Apollo 16 21.Apr. 1972, 19:38 30. Sep. 1977
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
The 2004 revision of the Apollo long period event catalog [04Nak] lists 12555 events in five major event
classes (Table 14) that were defined based on visual inspection in the 1970s. Recent analyses [05Bul,
07Bul] have shown that there are still many unlisted events belonging to known source clusters.
Table 14 Lunar seismicity overview. Categorization and event count are from [04Nak], meteorite
energy release from [89Obe], shallow moonquake energy release from [07Obe], deep moonquake energy
release from [74Lam], thermal moonquake energy release from [75Coo].
Event type Number Energy Release [J]
Largest event Smallest Event
Meteorite impact 1744 8.21011 ???
Shallow Moonquake 28 6.91012 3.1107
Deep Moonquake 6897 100 1
Thermal Moonquake 266 1 0.1
Unknown type 3611 ? ?
4.2.3.3.5.2.1 Meteorite Impacts

During the operation of the ALSEP network from 1969 to 1977, a total of 1744 meteorite impacts (table
15) was recorded by the long period seismographs [82Nak, 04Nak]. Meteorite impacts can be identified
from the seismogram characteristics since they show emergent P arrivals and a long rise time until the
amplitude maximum of the envelope is reached. Location of the impacts is difficult due to emergent P
arrivals and S arrivals that are generally weak, compared to moonquakes [78Dor].
The amplitude of impact seismograms depends on impactor mass, speed, density and impact angle
[91Obe]. Detected impactor masses range from 0.1kg to 1000kg (22.5km/s impact velocity assumed)
[78Dor]. Possible impact speeds range from 14.5km/s to 22.5km/s [75Due]. Impactors above 500g can be
detected on the LP channels (100g acc. to [78Dor]), smaller objects are visible on the SP channel and
geophones only [75Due]. Impacts larger than 10kg are detectable on the entire surface of the Moon
[78Dor]. The influx of meteorite mass per year and km2 of lunar surface was estimated by [75Due] to be
log n(M ) = 1.12 1.13 log M (2)
for impactors with mass between 0.5kg and 50kg, where M is the impactor mass in gram and log(n(M)) is
the number of impacts with mass exceeding M. The largest detected impact (04. May 1975) might have
created a crater of 53m diameter, if the impact occurred vertically [89Obe].
The influx of kinetic energy due to meteorites was estimated by [89Obe] to be
log10 n(E ) = 0.99 log10 E + 11.3 (3)
for impactors with energies between 21011J and 21012 J, where E is the impact energy in Joule and n(E)
the number of events with energy larger than or equal to E.
About 20% of all impacts occur in only 3% of the time [82Nak], with large falls concentrating
between April and July [78Dor]. Seismic data reveals several known streams: the Aquarides, Perseides,
Northern and Southern Aquarides, Orionides, Leonides, and Geminides [91Obe]. Some swarms
detected on the Moon, however, could not be correlated with any known meteor shower [91Obe].
Table 15 The 50 largest impacts observed by the Apollo Network. Magnitudes b are determined from
spectral amplitudes at frequencies 0.5Hz, 1.0Hz, 2.0Hz. Energies and masses are estimated assuming 45
impact angle and 16.9km/s impact velocity [89Obe], using the empirical relationship
log10 E = 2b + 10.63546 (simplified from [89Obe]) Location uncertainties were not determined for all
events. Location for the first two listed events was ambiguous, therefore two solutions are given.
Year DOY Colatitude Longitude Mag. b Energy [109 J] Mass [kg]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Year DOY Colatitude Longitude Mag. b Energy [109 J] Mass [kg]

71 143 a) 88.3 a) 0.07 a) -16.63 a) 0.07 -0.44 5.69 39.88
b) 99.02 b) 0.08 b) -17.69 b) 0.06
71 163 a)55.4 a) 0.17 a) 30.08 a) 0.51 0.62 750.69 5256.74
b) 128.15 b) 0.25 b) -39.75 b) 0.48
71 293 52.73 4.2 -40.52 7.11 0.1 68.46 479.42
71 304 134.9 39.9 -0.6 2.73 19.09
72 2 92.4 169.3 0.2 108.51 759.83
72 4 18 74.9 -0.6 2.73 19.09
72 132 95.5 -77.6 -0.4 6.85 47.94
72 134 89 0.59 -16.31 0.57 0.43 312.94 2191.37
72 168 126.8 -151.3 -0.3 10.85 75.98
72 199 54.02 13 135.03 16.38 0.51 452.33 3167.50
72 213 55.52 5.83 3.08 5.49 -0.29 11.36 79.56
72 242 105.5 86.2 -0.5 4.32 30.25
72 243 81.2 58.7 -0.6 2.73 19.09
72 248 84.9 -171.3 -0.2 17.20 120.42
72 321 92.4 -151.3 -0.4 6.85 47.94
72 324 24.24 2.19 -27.88 5.87 -0.41 6.54 45.78
72 337 16.2 181.2 -0.6 2.73 19.09
72 341 128 185.5 -0.2 17.20 120.42
73 82 15.5 -70.1 -0.6 2.73 19.09
73 113 144.57 7.22 31.41 8.74 -0.08 29.89 209.27
73 201 124.9 109.3 -0.3 10.85 75.98
73 213 70.5 -113.2 -0.6 2.73 19.09
73 262 166.96 0.2 -70.12 2.07 -0.33 9.45 66.18
73 358 152.4 -111.3 -0.6 2.73 19.09
74 38 147.4 -83.2 -0.5 4.32 30.25
74 305 148 29.3 -0.4 6.85 47.94
74 325 97.57 0.58 25.02 0.74 -0.28 11.90 83.31
75 60 99.3 -96.3 -0.2 17.20 120.42
75 64 145.5 -61.3 -0.3 10.85 75.98
75 85 99.3 -80.7 -0.4 6.85 47.94
75 86 116.8 -118.2 -0.4 6.85 47.94
75 102 86.78 0.92 38.18 1.54 0.3 171.97 1204.25
75 111 68.7 -65.1 -0.5 4.32 30.25
75 124 128.17 3.64 -118.96 5.2 0.64 823.11 5763.90
75 168 84.9 -138.8 0 43.20 302.49
75 177 71.8 134.9 -0.3 10.85 75.98
75 256 148.7 67.4 -0.5 4.32 30.25
75 322 63.7 159.9 0.1 68.46 479.42
76 13 131.82 2.28 79.11 3.59 0.45 343.13 2402.79
76 21 41.2 129.9 0.1 68.46 479.42
76 25 93.21 3.35 -72.99 2.62 0.55 543.83 3808.17
76 109 32.4 -82 -0.1 27.26 190.86
76 137 100.42 13.8 15.3 4.49 -0.25 13.66 95.66
76 149 106.2 -8.2 -0.5 4.32 30.25
76 230 99.3 134.9 0 43.20 302.49
76 319 76.27 6.54 -89.84 8.83 0.64 823.11 5763.90
77 107 113.17 6.11 -70.27 3.5 0.1 68.46 479.42
77 179 120.5 -85.1 -0.2 17.20 120.42
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.3.5.2.2 Shallow Moonquakes
The characteristic feature of the 28 shallow moonquakes is the extraordinary high SP-Z to LP_Z
amplitude ratio, compared to meteorites and deep moonquakes. Hence they were originally termed High-
Frequency Teleseismic Events (HFT Events) [74Nak].
On the basis of arrival times and coda of the then known 13 HFT events, [77Nak] concluded that the
focal depth must be above 300km depth, and even a depth below 100km is considered unlikely. After
consideration of the variation of the SP envelope and the arrival times of all 28 known events, [79Nak]
revised this estimate to the interval 50-200km.
The shallow moonquakes are among the strongest seismic events on the Moon, with seismic moments
above 1012 Nm and moment magnitudes above 2.3 [87Obe] (the magnitude given by [87Obe] are body
wave magnitudes, whereas [79Nak] uses a special HFT-Magnitude scale based on the digital units
amplitude of the SP-Z sensor. Moment magnitudes given here and in Table 17 are derived from the
seismic moments of [87Obe] using the relation M W = 2(log M 0 9.1) / 3 [02Bor]).
It has been suggested that their occurrence is connected to the borders of the large impact basins
[79Nak], and that they predominantly occur in the north-eastern and south-western quadrants of the lunar
surface [79Nak]. [85Shi] found that HFT occurrence times correlate with the geocentric ecliptical
longitude of the Moon. This was rediscovered by [06Fro], who used basically the same statistical test as
[85Shi]. [06Fro] also claim that the location of the HFT also correlates with the geocentric ecliptical
longitude: HFT events seem to occur on that part of the lunar surface which points to constellations Leo
and Virgo. The range of physical explanations for the source mechanism comprises meteoroid impacts on
extraordinary competent material [77Nak], impact basin rim tectonics [79Nak], release of thermal stresses
remaining from an initially molten Moon [85Bin, 87Obe], planetary tides [85Shi], and deeply penetrating
impacts of extrasolar particles of exotic types of matter [06Fro]. Stress drops of up to 210 MPa support
the hypothesis of an initially molten Moon [87Obe], but care should be taken with interpretations as long
as the source mechanism is unknown and the source depth uncertain.
The list of HFT locations based on velocity model LM-761 of [76Nak] is the only one containing all
28 events, but a recent relocation of eight HFT by [03Log] resulted in shifts of several degrees. LM-761
was a preliminary velocity model with features not maintained in newer models, like a strong negative
gradient in shear wave velocity.
Table 16 Locations of the shallow moonquakes [79Nak]. Origin times and epicenters were estimated
using model LM-761 [76Nak], assuming 100km source depth. Location of events 3 is ambiguous.
Location of event 15 could be constrained only to be at azimuth 30 from Apollo 16.
No. Date Time Longitude Latitude
[N] [E]
1 17.04.1971 07:00:55 48 35
2 20.05.1971 17:25:10 42 -24
3 11.07.1971 13:24:45 43 or -42 -47 or -60
4 02.01.1972 22:29:40 54 101
5 17.09.1972 14:35:55 12 46
6 06.12.1972 23:08:20 51 45
7 09.12.1972 03:50:15 -20 -80
8 08.02.1973 22:52:10 33 35
9 13.03.1973 07:56:30 -84 -134
10 20.06.1973 20:22:00 -1 -71
11 01.10.1973 03:58:00 -37 -29
12 23.02.1974 21:16:50 36 -16
13 27.03.1974 09:11:00 -48 -106
14 19.04.1974 13:35:15 -37 42
15 29.05.1974 20:42:15 ? ?
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
No. Date Time Longitude Latitude

[N] [E]
16 11.07.1974 00:46:30 21 88
17 03.01.1975 01:42:00 29 -98
18 12.01.1975 03:14:10 75 40
19 13.01.1975 00:26:20 -2 -51
20 13.02.1975 22:03:50 -19 -26
21 07.05.1975 06:37:05 -49 -45
22 27.05.1975 23:29:00 3 -58
23 10.11.1975 07:52:55 -8 64
24 04.01.1976 11:18:55 50 30
25 12.01.1976 08:18:05 38 44
26 06.03.1976 10:12:40 50 -20
27 08.03.1976 14:42:10 -19 -12
28 16.05.1976 12:32:40 77 -10
Table 17 Seismic Moments and stress drops [87Obe]. The values given for corner frequency, energy
release and static stress drop are lower boundaries. Moment magnitudes are derived from seismic
moments. Corner frequency of event 28 is from [85Bin].
No. Corner Freq. Seismic Moment Energy Release Stress Drop MW
[Hz] [Nm] [J] [MPa]
1 12 4.41014 9.21011 100 3.70
2 12 6.61013 2.11010 15 3.15
3 8 5.21013 3.8109 3 3.08
4 10 2.31014 1.51011 30 3.51
5 10 1.11013 3.4108 1.5 2.63
6 10 1.91013 1.0109 2.5 2.79
7 8 1.21013 1.9108 1 2.65
8 8 5.51012 4.3107 0.5 2.43
9 12 6.61014 2.11012 150 3.81
10 12 1.31014 8.01010 30 3.34
11 8 3.41013 1.6109 2 2.95
12 8 4.71012 3.1107 0.3 2.38
13 8 1.51013 3.3108 1 2.72
14 8 1.01013 1.5108 0.5 2.60
15 8 6.31013 5.6109 4 3.13
16 12 2.51014 3.01011 55 3.53
17 10 1.61015 6.91012 210 4.07
18 12 1.11014 5.81010 25 3.29
19 12 1.01013 5.3108 2.5 2.60
20 12 1.91013 1.8109 4 2.79
21 10 2.91013 2.4109 4 2.91
22 10 2.31013 1.5109 3 2.84
23 12 4.81013 1.11010 10 3.05
24 10 4.21013 5.0109 5 3.02
25 10 1.11014 3.61010 15 3.29
26 10 3.01014 2.61011 40 3.58
27 12 5.61013 1.51010 13 3.10
28 10 1.31013 2.68
4.2.3.3.5.2.3 Deep Moonquakes
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
The deep moonquakes group in 319 known clusters [04Nak] of repeating sources. For 106 of them, a
linearized least squares location could be obtained from P and S wave arrival readings [05Nak]. The
depth distribution peaks at about 950km (fig. 2). With few exceptions (clusters 29, 33, 218, 241, 244, 245,
282, 285), best fitting locations are all situated on the lunar near side [05Nak]. In several cases, the
location process did not converge without fixing the focal depth prior to the location [05Nak]. Locations
may be flawed by reading errors of tens of seconds [05Nak] and inadequate starting solutions
200
400
600
Focal Depth [km]
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Event Count
Fig. 2 Depth distribution of located events, based on

[04Nak] clusters and [05Nak] locations. Depth bin width
50km. Black: locations with depth resulting from inversion,
white: depth fixed manually.
The occurrence of deep moonquakes correlates strongly with monthly cycles of tidal deformation.
This has been recognized from the first detections of moonquakes onward, since a possible correlation
with the passage of the perigee was hypothesized [07Mei]. A spike train Fourier analysis [e.g. 07Bul] of
the quake occurrence times gives the spectrum of event occurrence shown in fig. 3.
Cluster 6 (125) Cluster 10 (180) Cluster 9 (124)

0.4 0.4 0.4
0.35 0.35 0.35
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05 0.05
0 0 0
25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30
Cluster 33 (63) Cluster 8 (230) Cluster 20 (126)

0.4 0.4 0.4
0.35 0.35 0.35
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05 0.05
0 0 0
25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 3 Spectral analysis of deep quake occurrence. A

spike train Fourier transform, normalized by the number of
events contained in each cluster, is shown as function of
period in days. Dashed vertical line: draconic month period,
solid vertical line: anomalistic month period. Spectra
computed following [07Bul], but with event assignment to
clusters as in [04Nak].
The spectra show strong peaks at the periods of the draconic and anomalistic months (mean durations:
27.212221 and 27.554550 days [99Aa]). The synodic cycle does not appear in the spectra. The relative
amplitudes of the draconic and anomalistic month vary between clusters. Clusters 6 and 10, show almost
equal amplitudes for both, whereas cluster 9 prefers the draconic cycle. Clusters 8 and 33 prefer the
anomalistic period. Cluster 20 does not show significant monthly cycles, because it consists of two
subclusters which have near monthly activity periods, but are about 180 apart in phase (fig. 4). The
strongest spectral contribution in the spectrum of cluster 20 therefore is at half the period of the draconic
month [07Bul].
Cluster 6 (125) Cluster 9 (124)

7
7
6
8
5
5
9
9
4
10
10
3 3
11 11
2 2
12 12
1 1
13 13
P A P A
14 14
27 27
15 15
26 26
16 16
25 25
17 17
24
24
18
18
23
23
19
19
22
22
20
20
21
21
Cluster 33 (63) Cluster 20 (126)

7
7
6
6
8
8
5
5
9
9
4
10
10
3 3
11 11
2 2
12 12
1 1
13 13
P A P A
14 14
27 27
15 15
26 26
16 16
25 25
17 17
24
24
18
18
23
23
19
19
22
22
20
20
21
21
Fig. 4 Phase of deep quake clusters in relation to

perigee, apogee and orbital nodes. Each dot represents the
detection of a single deep quake. The angular coordinate is
the number of days since the last lunar perigee passage,
assuming a mean anomalistic month duration of 27.554551
days. P denotes the perigee, A denotes the apogee. The
radius is the number of perigee passages since 29.06.1969,
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
the last perigee before the landing of Apollo 11. Dashed

concentric circles are drawn every 10 months. The two
spirals of diamond symbols denote the time of passages
through the ascending and descending nodes, respectively,
assuming a mean draconitic month of 27.212220 days and
starting with 22.09.1968, the last total eclipse of the sun
before the landing of Apollo 11. The number of events
belonging to each cluster is given in brackets in the figure
headings. Cluster 6 is predominantly active in the two weeks
surrounding the passage of the perigee. Cluster 9 shows an
activity that is related very closely to the passage of orbital
nodes, corresponding to a weak spectral component of the
anomalistic month. Cluster 33 is an example for a strong
anomalistic and a weak draconitic component. Its activity is
highly correlated to the passage of the apogee. The activity
of cluster 20 follows a two-armed spiral pattern, denoting
seismic activity connected to passage of both the ascending
and the descending node of the orbit, as suggested by the bi-
weekly periodicity.
Table 18. Deep Moonquake Cluster Locations, from [05Nak]. Uncertainty 1 reflects [83Nak]
velocity uncertainty, not arrival time uncertainty. Depth z=933109km is assumed if depth could not be
determined from data. For Clusters 59 and 60, z=750109km was assumed.
Cluster Lat. [N] [] Lon. [E] [] Depth [km] [km]
1 -15.7 2.4 -36.6 4.6 867 29
3 -2.9 1.7 -50.3 6.3 946 22
5 1.1 94.2 -44.7 16.4 933 109
6 43.5 2.9 55.5 9.5 844 33
7 25 1.7 53.2 8 893 27
8 -23.7 4.8 -35.5 6.5 1086 37
9 -6 2.4 -19.7 3.6 1037 68
10 -35.7 4.9 -40.3 6.7 988 21
11 9.2 1.5 17.5 4.9 1187 87
13 -19.1 3 -41.7 5.6 973 23
14 -29.6 9.3 -44.4 7.8 933 109
15 0.7 0.7 -3.9 0.6 747 62
16 7.5 0.8 6.3 1.5 1019 78
17 25.5 2.3 -21.9 2.8 807 40
18 23.3 2.4 32.7 5.5 925 44
19 27.7 3 34.4 6.4 974 42
20 23.7 2.5 -31.4 5.3 945 50
21 -18.2 3 -50.8 7.2 1037 20
22 21.6 1.8 43.6 5.9 788 29
25 35.1 2.2 59.8 9.9 924 28
26 14.3 2.6 5.2 2 1122 90
27 23 3.3 20.4 4.7 1085 64
28 8.1 1.3 10.3 2.6 933 109
29 53.4 15.2 60.9 66.1 1077 32
30 12.7 1.2 -35.7 4.8 931 39
32 25 2.7 43.6 7.3 944 38
33 5.1 2.6 115.8 9.3 877 112
34 6.8 0.7 -7.2 1.3 971 77
35 5 1.5 36.1 11.4 933 109
36 27.5 4.7 -4.6 1.9 1058 74
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

37 22.5 5.5 29.7 10.7 1343 82
38 7.8 1.3 43.3 7 1031 37
39 -21.9 21.1 -12.7 5.1 933 109
40 -1.3 1.2 -10.3 1.5 867 66
41 13.8 1.3 -29.2 3.9 847 45
42 22.2 1.5 -50.7 6.8 907 28
44 50.2 2.9 60.2 12 908 37
49 8.6 4.6 -50.8 5.6 952 93
50 8.7 1 -53.4 5 828 27
51 12.3 1.4 37.7 8 1125 56
53 -10.1 39.9 -39.2 8.1 933 109
54 13.1 30.1 -52.4 10.8 933 109
56 1.1 1.6 -20.6 5 933 109
59 -9.5 17.6 -53.6 5.9 750 109
60 24.1 9.5 -52.2 8 750 109
64 30.1 2.9 53.2 9.8 975 24
65 46.6 3.9 42.3 8.2 861 25
70 34.8 2.1 63 11.3 1014 26
71 -20.9 22.1 -16.8 6.3 933 109
73 21.1 1.7 -44 5.6 908 28
74 34.7 2.5 60.1 10.6 1043 30
77 24.6 8.4 -23.4 11.1 1419 96
82 27.5 9.9 34.3 20.6 919 160
86 -40.9 7.5 -40.6 8.4 933 109
96 6.2 0.6 11.9 1.8 794 64
97 -8.4 2.9 17.9 3.8 989 71
99 10 1.1 22.8 4.2 989 69
100 -2 4.2 32.2 17.1 920 184
107 41 2.5 53.4 7.7 893 34
114 15.5 1.2 55.6 7.5 755 44
201 -40.6 14.8 -3.8 1.6 862 88
202 1 1.7 2.8 1.5 919 170
203 0.5 2 47.3 11.8 1243 50
204 -28.4 8.9 -66.6 9.2 933 109
209 -26.5 12 -35.1 7.2 933 109
212 12.8 1.4 -36.2 5.6 963 45
216 -13.7 3.9 -21.6 4.5 764 81
218 -2.4 4.4 -73.3 32.3 878 107
223 36.1 12.2 -2.4 1.3 863 145
224 -50.7 7.9 -21.4 5.5 933 109
230 6.3 0.9 22.1 9.7 855 188
231 34.3 12 45 29.9 933 109
233 24.1 5.1 26.1 8.2 933 109
234 36.8 4.5 21.2 4.5 1006 41
236 -7.8 3.5 5.4 1.7 933 109
237 12.2 1.9 3.5 1.5 933 109
238 26.3 8.7 20 9.8 831 169
239 26.7 5.6 5.2 2.1 933 109
241 -69.4 4.4 75.4 24.6 933 109
242 58.6 4.6 54.2 15.5 1025 31
243 7 1.3 8.3 4.1 1019 191
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

244 34.6 20.9 56.1 81 933 109
245 8.6 4.9 73 69.5 933 109
246 19.4 2.7 24.3 5.1 959 68
248 5.3 1.1 3.6 1.5 933 109
249 -3.4 2.5 12.5 3.1 933 109
250 -3.6 2.8 21.5 5.7 933 109
251 -46.5 8.3 38.9 9.3 933 109
255 1.4 1.6 15 3.7 933 109
257 35 6.2 19.1 5.5 1063 63
258 -7.1 3.5 15.3 4 933 109
259 3.4 0.6 2 0.7 559 97
260 -1.7 2.3 18 4.5 933 109
267 -7.6 5 36.7 13.2 933 109
271 53.8 6.8 35.2 19.2 933 109
272 -50 7.5 53.2 12.2 933 109
276 -3.7 3.6 -33.9 12.4 933 109
279 4.4 1.2 -4.7 1.8 933 109
280 2.4 2.7 46.1 20.2 933 109
281 -53.2 4.6 -54.4 11.4 933 109
282 15.5 2.4 97 12.3 1141 74
283 7.1 1.2 22.5 4.7 984 76
285 42.9 3.7 110.9 14.2 933 109
286 54.2 6.5 56.5 14 933 109
287 24.8 5.7 35.7 13.5 933 109
290 10.6 1.6 6.4 1.9 933 109
4.2.3.3.5.2.4 Thermal Moonquakes
Thermal moonquakes are high frequency events in the vicinity of the seismometer , registered on the SP
channels only. Their activity begins about 48h after sunrise and decreases fast after sunset [74Lam]. They
show repeating signals that can be grouped into highly localized source clusters. Each cluster shows an
individual type of high correlation with the diurnal cycle. A thermal origin was thus concluded [74Lam].
Since the diurnal temperature wave decays very quickly with depth in the lunar soil, the events must
occur close to or at the surface [75Coo]. Suggested mechanisms include thermal degradation of rocks and
Apollo equipment [74Lam]. Consideration of the energy release makes booming dunes and small
landslides likely sources [75Coo].
4.2.3.3.5.3.1 Shallow Structure at Landing Sites
Seismic velocity models for the uppermost crustal layers at Apollo 14, 16, and 17 sites suggest a layered
regolith structure with different degrees of fracturing and compaction. At the Apollo 14 and 16 sites, firm
layer thicknesses could be given only for two layers reaching down to about 80m (table 19). Only the
large profile lengths covered with the explosive packages of Apollo 17 allowed detecting a solid rock
basement (Table 20).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 19 Apollo 14 and 16 landing site surface layering [71Kov, 72Kov]

Apollo 14 Apollo 16
Layer d [m] vP [kms-1] Layer z [m] vP [kms-1]
Regolith 8.5 0.104 Regolith 0-12.2 0.114
Fra Mauro 38-76 0.299 Cayley Formation 12.2-ca. 82 0.250
Formation or Impact Debris
Pre-Fra-Mauro ? ? Pre-Descartes > ca. 82 ?
Material Material
Table 20 Apollo 17 landing site surface layering [74Coo]

Apollo 17
Layer z [m] vP [kms-1]
Regolith 0-4 0.100
Rubble/broken Rock 4-32 0.327
Basaltic valley fill, fractured 32-390 0.495
Basaltic valley fill, less fractured 390-1385 0.960
Anorthositic highland breccia >1385 4.700
4.2.3.3.5.3.2 Global Models
The discussion on the seismic velocity structure of the Moon is not yet settled. We here give an overview
of models that were constructed in the first period of interpretation, during the 1970s and 1980s (table
21), and from the second period in the early 2000s (table 22). The more recent models result from
extensive Monte Carlo modeling that could not be conducted in the early phase.
An important difference between the velocity models obtained in the two periods is that the recent
models favor a crustal thickness of only 40-50km [00Kha, 06Gag], whereas the earlier models concluded
a crustal thickness of 60km [81Goi, 82Nak]. The lower values are also supported by [06Che], who jointly
determined the crustal thickness at the Apollo landing sites, sites of two artifical impacts and sites of 19
meteorite impacts, using a bayesian Monte Carlo technique. Most impact sites were located in Mare
areas, only two were at far side highlands. Individual members of the resulting model ensemble allowed
for crustal thicknesses of up to 100km at some of the 25 sites, but the best fitting solutions, typically give
thicknesses of 25-50km at the meteorite impact sites and 31-38km at the Apollo landing sites. The
highland crust appears to be 55-60km thick. The crustal thicknesses estimated by [06Che] are also
compatible with results from gravity inversion [06Che]. It must, be taken into account that [06Che]
disregarded any lateral mantle variations, but attributed all travel time variations to at the source and
receiver sites. He might thus overestimate the thickness variation, especially concerning the far side sites.
The travel time data do hardly allow for the identification of seismic discontinuities within the Moon.
The individual models therefore use different depth discretizations that are difficult to compare in tabular
form. The tables given here do not try to regularize the depth sampling but to represent the models as they
are. Earlier models than those reported here exist but are based on preliminary data sets.
The Toksz et al. vP model [74Tok] is based on the well known source times and positions of the
artificial impacts.
The Bills & Ferrari model [77Bil] was intended mainly as a density and composition model. Seismic
velocities were derived from density and elastic moduli. Velocities are given for top and bottom of each
layer, with velocity discontinuities between layers. It explicitly defines a liquid core below 1400km depth.
The model of Goins et al. [81Goi] contains a simplified crustal structure with constant velocity layers,
and constant gradient layers for the mantle (linear interpolation between the given depth samples).
The model of Nakamura et al. [82Nak] defines constant velocity layers. The discontinuities between
layers are not intended to represent mantle structure but are only discretization artifacts. The model
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
indicates velocity uncertainties for layers below 58 km that are between 0.03 kms-1 for vS at 58-270 km
and 0.4 kms-1 for vP below 500 km depth.
Table 21 Early global seismic velocity models of the Moon. Depths are given in km, velocities in
kms-1. First column is a layer count.
Nr [74Tok] [77Bil] [81Goi] [82Nak]
z vP z vP vs z vP vs z vP vs
1 0 0.5 0 5.22 3.02 0-20 5.1 2.96 0-1 0.51 0.30
2 1 0.5 20 5.22 3.02 20-60 6.8 3.9 1-15 4.90 2.84
3 1 4.0 20 6.12 3.31 60 7.75 4.57 15-30 6.25 3.62
4 4 4.6 70 6.52 3.51 400 7.65 4.37 30-58 6.68 3.87
5 7 5.1 70 8.11 4.71 480 7.6 4.2 58-270 7.74 4.49
6 10 5.4 300 7.89 4.39 1100 7.6 4.2 270-500 7.46 4.25
7 15 5.8 300 7.89 4.39 500-1740 8.26 4.65
8 20 6.1 800 7.80 2.89
9 20.5 6.2 800 7.80 2.89
10 21.25 6.72 1400 7.68 2.46
11 54.5 6.7 1400 5.18 0
12 57.5 8.2 1740 5.22 0
13 65 8.9
14 200 8.8
The more recent studies use Bayesian Monte Carlo inversion methods that produce a great number of
models that are compatible with the observations. Likely velocity values and uncertainty boundaries are
estimated from the ensemble of acceptable models. A representation in tables is therefore necessarily
incomplete, since only averages and boundaries can be given.
The model of Khan et al. [00Kha] is a new inversion of the data used by [83Nak]. Uncertainties
between 0.4 kms-1 (vS at 45 km depth) and 2.1 kms-1 (vP below 780 km depth) are reported. Table 22
gives the mean values only. The crustal thickness is deduced to be 455 km by [00Kha].
Gagnepain-Beyneix et al. [06Gag] have reprocessed data from artificial and meteorite impacts,
shallow and deep quakes. They have tested the crustal structure and found compatibility with the thinner
crust given by [00Kha], but do not give explicit crustal velocities above 28km depth. Velocity
uncertainties are significantly smaller than in [00Kha], which is mainly due to a different
parameterization with fewer layers and fixed layer thicknesses. Only mean velocities are listed here.
Table 22 Recent Global velocity models of the Moon. Depths are given in km, velocities in kms-1.
First columns is a layer count
Nr. [00Kha] [06Gag]
z vP vS z vP vS
1 0 7.0 3.0 28-38 7.65 4.37
2 45 7.0 3.0 38-238 7.65 4.44
3 45 8.0 4.0 238-488 7.79 4.37
4 500 8.0 4.8 488-738 7.62 4.40
5 560 8.5 4.8 738-1038 8.15 4.50
6 560 9.9 5.9
7 700 9.0 5.5
8 780 11.0 6.0
9 1100 11.0 6.0
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.3.5.4 Attenuation
The long coda of all seismic events shows that intense scattering occurs, and from the coda in
seismograms of meteorite impacts and deep moonquakes, one can conclude that there must be a zone of
intense scattering and very low attenuation in the crust that might cover the entire Moon [74Lam]. Very
weak S wave arrivals from far side impacts point to a zone of high attenuation in the deep interior in a
zone with a radius of 600 to 800km [74Lam]. Quantitative evaluations can be found e.g. in [74Dai] for
the shallow crust and in [76Nak] for the mantle. See also [81Goi] and references therein.
In [80Bin] it was shown that a deep zone of high attenuation can explain the observed distribution of
deep Moonquakes.
Seismic Q values differ from the tidally determined values, given e.g. by [81Yod] and [01Wil], which
are averages of the entire Moon at frequencies much lower than the seismic frequencies. [01Wil] give
separate Q values for periods between 10 days and 75 years.
Table 23 Attenuation model as summarized in [81Goi]. QS=QP is assumed identical.

Region z [km] Q [1]
Crust 060 5000
Upper mantle 60400 4000
Lower mantle 4001000 1500
Attenuating zone >1000 <500
4.2.3.3.6 Mars
Only one seismic experiment has been conducted on Mars so far, with one seismometer on each of the
two Viking landers (table 24) [77Coo]. The Viking 1 instrument failed to uncage. The instruments were
mounted on top of the lander units, close to one of the three legs of the lander. It was therefore sensitive
to noises generated by wind and lander-internal sources [77And].
The interpretation of martian seismograms is difficult because of the applied data compression
[76And]: Only the absolute evalue of the 0.5Hz low-pass filtered signal [77And] and a running count of
positive zero crossings were sampled at 1.01 Hz and recorded at a resolution of 7 bits and 5 bits,
respectively.
Based on the sensitivity of the instrument and assumptions on the attenuation in the martian interior,
[79Goi] estimated that the Viking 2 instrument (table 25) was not able to detect events with magnitude
smaller than 9 from the Tharsis area (about 110 epicentral distance).
Table 24 Viking lander overview. Lander positions are with respect to an ellipsoid with 3397.2km
equatorial radius and flatness 0.0105 [97Fol]. The missions ended with the last successful
communications and cease of transmissions, respectively [92Sny].
Viking 1 Viking 2 Ref.
Landing site Chryse Planitia Utopia Planitia [92Sny, 77And]
Landing date & time [UTC] 20.July 1976, 11:53:06 03.Sep.1976, 22:37:50 [77Coo]
Seismometer uncaging failed 04. Sep. 1976, 00:53:01 [77Coo, 76And]
End of Experiment - 2. Apr.1978 [79Tok]
Mission end 13. Nov. 1982 11. Apr.1980 [92Sny]
Latitude [N] 22.6969 710-4 48.2688 510-4 [97Fol]
Longitude [E] -48.2217 510-4 134.0100 610-4 [97Fol]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Viking 1 Viking 2 Ref.

Elevation [m] -2690 2 4230 4 [97Fol]
Table 25 Viking Seismometer characteristics [77And]. The raw sample stream (initial) is
downsampled according to the registration mode.
Category Quantity Value
System Data Total Mass 2.2kg
Size 121512cm3
Power consumption 3.5W
Envelope 7 Bit
A/D conversion plus 1 sign bit
Zero crossing count 5 Bit
A/D conversion
Buffer memory 22048 Bit
Sampling rates Initial 121.21Hz
High data rate 20.2 Hz
normal mode 4.04/60 Hz
Event mode 1.01 Hz
Sensor Resonant period 4Hz
Usable freq. range 0.1 10 Hz
Max. Sensitivity 2nm @ 3Hz
10nm @ 1Hz
Pendulum Mass 16g
Generator const. 177 Vm-1s-1
Vertical tilt tolerance 35
Horizontal tilt tolerance 23
4.2.3.3.6.2 Observed Seismicity
On sol 80 (i.e. 80 martian days after landing), an event was detected that was interpreted as a possible
local Marsquake at 110km distance after comparison with two terrestrial events recorded in Pasadena. No
other candidate Marsquake was detected during the first 146 sols [77And]. Since no wind speed data are
available for the time of detection [77And], it cannot be ruled out that the event is due to wind noise and
not of tectonic origin.
From this amount of non-detection, [77And] concluded that the seismicity of Mars per unit surface
area is lower than on Earth at a significance level of 95%, but that the Viking data are not sufficient to
determine if Mars is more active than the Moon. These estimates rely on Q being between 500 and 2000
in the martian interior [77And, 79Goi].
The annual seismic moment release of Mars was estimated to be larger than 1018 Nm by [92Gol] based on
an evaluation of the total slip of faults visible on the martian surface. Later on, [02Gol] bracket the annual
budget between 1017 Nm and 1019 Nm .
The most likely source of seismicity is thermoelastic stress due to secular cooling of the interior
[91Phi]. [06Kna] refine the resulting seismicity estimate and add a model for spatial distribution, based on
tectonic faults that are visible at the martian surface. The model is given by three equations, describing
the cumulative seismic moment release per time (eq. 4), the size-frequency distribution (eq. 5), and the
size of the largest event possible on a given fault (eq.6).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
M cum =
4
T&t P
[
R 3 (RP H )3 ]2
(4)
9 RP H
2
(2
)

M min M min
M M max
N (M 0 ) = 0 (5)

1 min
M
M max

2
2 H L
M 0 ( L) = L min , (6)
1 sin a
The Moment-Length-Relation (6) is valid for M min M 0 M max . It is based on the constant static
stress drop model and assumes a rectangular fault surface. The input parameters for the three equations
are discussed in detail in [06Kna]. Five different scenarios are defined there as end members and middle
of the likely parameter range (tables 26-28). The distribution of tectonic faults visible in the MOLA
digital topography model at a resolution of 64 pixel per degree [01Smi, 03Smi] is used to guide the
distribution of epicentres over the martian surface, as shown in fig. 4 for the Medium model.
Table 26 Seismicity model input parameters. Scenarios are distinguished by the cumulative Moment
(strong, medium or weak) and the total number of events per year (few, medium or many).
Parameter Unit Scenario
StrongFew StrongMany Medium WeakMany WeakFew
RP [km] 3389.515 3389.515 3389.515 3389.515 3389.515
H [km] 150 150 107 40 40
T [] 25 25 25 25 25
N [] 60 60 60 60 60
a 1 2 3 2.5 3 2
T& [10-7Ka-1] 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.2 0.2
[10-5K-1] 3 3 2 2 2
[GPa] 70 70 40 30 30
1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
[MPa] 10 3 5 3 10
1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5
Mmin [Nm] 3.9811010 3.9811010 3.9811010 3.9811010 3.9811010
Mmax [Nm] 3.361020 3.421016 2.411018 3.421016 3.371020
[1/log(Nm)] 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625 0.625
t [a] 1 1 1 1 1
tmax [Ga] 5 5 5 5 5
Table 27 Annual seismic moment. MW is the moment magnitude of a single event that releases the
entire annual budget. 50% of the parameter space correspond to models with an annual budget between
3.751017Nm (MW=5.65) and 9.711017Nm (MW=5.925). A fraction smaller than 10-7 of the parameter
space are outside the weak and strong boundaries.
Model Mcum [Nm] MW
WeakFew 3.421016 4.96
WeakMany 3.421016 4.96
Medium 5.991017 5.78
StrongFew 4.781018 6.39
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Model Mcum [Nm] MW

StrongMany 4.781018 6.39
Table 28 Predicted event recurrence times: mean time after which an event of given magnitude recurs,
computed for entire planet. Empty fields are due to limitation of the strongest possible event.
MW Model
StrongFew StrongMany Medium WeakMany WeakFew
1 38 min 72 s 48.5 min 2.5 h 3.9 d
2 5.5 h 10.5 min 7h 21.9 h 33.5 d
3 1.9 d 1.5 h 2.5 d 7.9 d 290 d
4 17.1 d 13.1 h 21.8 d 68.5 d 6.7 a
5 148 d - 189 d - 50 a
6 3.6 a - 4.5 a - 516 a
7 30.3 a - - - 4500 a
7.6 115 a - - - 17000 a
MEDIUM
23 34 45 56
Fig. 5 Simulated epicentre distribution for the

Medium scenario. Isohypses are drawn for elevations from
-5km to +20km in steps of 5km. Graticule is drawn with
3030 mesh width.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
An overview of several models of the martian interior is given in table 29.

Seismic velocity and density models can be built based on equations of state and a given chemical
composition, as described in [97Soh, 05Soh] and Sect. 4.2.3.2.2 of this volume. [97Soh] have constructed
models by solving the governing equations and using a chemical composition derived from the SNC
meteorites and a Moment of Inertia Factor of MoI=0.366 . The Fe/Si=1.35 ratio of the model in table 30
deviates significantly from the bulk chondritic value of Fe/Si=1.71 [97Soh]. It was not possible to
construct a model that satisfies both the Moment of Inertia Factor and the chondritic Fe/Si ratio.
Model AR [78Oka] was constructed using a chemical composition derived from chondritic meteorites
and using a MoI of 0.3654. Seismic travel times and eigenmode periods are given in [78Oka].
The models from [96Gud] were constructed to explore the value of spheroidal oscillation
measurements for core radius determinations.
In [96Moc], the effect of the iron content of the martian mantle was studied: A higher Fe content
increases density, but decreases seismic velocities. It also smoothes out the olivine - transitions into
gradient zones of a few hundred kilometres thickness, since an increased iron content in olivine allows the
coexistence of the involved mineral phases. There is no - transition.
Different chemical models and recent high pressure / temperature data for mantle minerals of Mars
have been used by [04Gud]. The structure and composition of the core were varied. A content of 50
mol% hydrogen in the core appears to be necessary to fit the chondritic Fe/Si ratio. [04Gud] also study
the seismic source size necessary to excite higher order spheroidal free oscillation modes. Model M6 of
[04Gud] best satisfies the MoI, but has a Fe/Si ratio of only 1.55.
The models of [05Zha] (tables 31 and 32) satisfy the updated MoI and love number that resulted from
Mars Global Surveyor. As in [04Gud], different compositions were used. The preferred model M13 has a
Fe/Si ratio of 1.58. The crust of M13 was modelled separately and has a rather complex structure. Since
the upper 10km of the model are difficult to represent by compact polynomials, they are presented as
discrete depth values as communicated by the authors.
Table 29 Comparison of Mars main discontinuity depths. The [96Gud] models define the Olivine -
transformation only. None of the models has a Perovskite layer.
Model Reference Moho [km] Olivine - Olivine - Core [km]
[km] [km]
A [97Soh] 110 1030 1357 1922
B [97Soh] 252 1058 1416 1723
AR [78Oka] 50 1133 none 1694
M511L [96Gud] 150 853.3 - 1711.9
M512L [96Gud] 150 853.3 - 1834
M513L [96Gud] 150 853.3 - 1928.9
M522L [96Gud] 100 840.7 - 1823.8
M532L [96Gud] 50 831.6 - 1827.2
M512H [96Gud] 150 994.6 - 1817
M412L [96Gud] 150 - - 1834
XFe=10 [96Moc] - 1130 1425 1852
XFe=20 [96Moc] - 1000 (gradient) 1852
XFe=30 [96Moc] - 1000 (gradient) 1852
XFe=40 [96Moc] - (gradient) (gradient) 1852
M6 [04Gud] 50 1117 1413-1454 1728
M13 [05Zha] 50 1140 1439-1479 1691
Table 30 Seismic Velocity model A of [97Soh], represented as polynomials of normalized radius x

which reproduce the original values of [97Soh] with a relative accuracy better than 10-5 (This accuracy
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
does not imply that the model predicts the real velocities to 10-4 . The velocities are unlikely to have more
than 2 or 3 significant digits).
Layer z [km] vP [kms-1] vS [kms-1] [103kgm-3]
Crust 0.000 +13.53241 -79.52797 -36.87198
-10.50178x +277.3684x +120.5534x
109.720 +8.43717x2 -322.57x2 -121.4632x2
-3.808449x3 +149.5597x3 +40.58647x3
-20.80173x4
Rheological 109.720 +58.52484 +9.4101 +64.35302
Lithopshere -202.6362x -14.47814x -263.596x
335.220 +317.4511x2 +17.00685x2 +426.1308x2
-223.4807x3 -7.503172x3 -304.0523x3
+58.13115x4 +80.65374x4
Thermal 335.220 +15.75339 -328.7083 +211.6707
Lithosphere -18.13458x +1538.531x -935.3949x
481.620 +18.78073x2 -2655.328x2 +1575.777x2
-8.415148x3 +2034.406x3 -1179.016x3
-584.5912x4 +330.5188x4
Olivine layer 481.620 +11.92409 +6.594795 +2.588586
-4.863865x -2.594216x +7.297398x
1029.420 +3.48065x2 +1.654337x2 -15.20067x2
-2.547134x3 -1.29049x3 +13.03664x3
-4.3209x4
Olivine layer 1029.420 +11.15706 +8.333783 +4.402694
-0.9921897x -13.17451x -0.5597552x
1356.720 -1.817251x2 +27.4708x2 +0.1313887x2
-28.73018x3 -0.2796876x3
+10.84136x4
Olivine layer 1356.720 +12.00398 +6.820569 +4.643348
-4.233449x -2.632441x -0.9300214x
1887.220 +3.625313x2 +2.379488x2 +0.7406889x2
-2.97074x3 -1.905217x3 -0.6193321x3
Lower thermal 1887.220 +65.41714 +9.928651 +6.495805
boundary -247.4658x -16.47753x -9.322339x
Layer 1921.520 +279.1924x2 +16.95096x2 +9.971156x2
Core 1921.520 +6.538969 0 +7.293911
+0.0038757x +0.0014502x
3389.920 -2.654013x2 -1.846201x2
+0.2664053x3 +0.1318379x3
-1.1473x4 -0.6374107x4
Table 31 M13 upper crust, encompassing changes in petrology and porosity [05Zha].
z [km] vP [kms-1] vS [kms-1] [103kgm-3] z [km] vP [kms-1] vS [kms-1] [103kgm-3]
0.000 0.75 0.5 1.6 4.407 3.137 1.602 2.936
0.339 0.9337 0.5848 1.835 5.424 3.688 1.856 3.057
1.017 1.301 0.7542 2.05 6.441 4.347 2.224 3.143
1.356 1.485 0.839 2.237 7.458 5.148 2.74 3.203
2.373 2.035 1.093 2.542 9.153 6.483 3.6 3.259
3.390 2.586 1.347 2.769 10.509 7.149 4.029 3.289
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 32 M13 lower crust and mantle, represented as polynomials of normalized radius x, which
reproduce the original values of [05Zha] with a relative accuracy better than 10-4 (This does not imply
that the model predicts the real velocities to 10-4 . The velocities are unlikely to have more than 2 or 3
significant digits).
Layer z [km] vP [kms-1] vS [kms-1] [103kgm-3]
Crust 10.50919.662 +3.8363 +0.71631 +12.9151
+3.3233x +3.3233x -9.64753x
19.66221.357 +7.1395 +2.032 +3.319
+2x
21.35736.273 +4.88 +303.338 +19.2552
+2.273x -606.47x -31.8705x
+307.189x2 +15.9341x2
36.27337.968 +7.129 +4.007 +5.2996
-2x
37.96849.833 +5.753 +2.631 +466.362
+1.391x +1.3913x -936.347x
+473.364x2
Upper Mantle 49.8331140.396 +10.8271 +6.06663 +5.72194
-3.02725x -4.88816x -8.24998x
-0.440858x2 +7.15595x2 +13.4267x2
-5.96503x3 -10.7005x3
+1.81681x4 +3.14751x4
Olivine layer 1140.396 +60.4045 +40.689 +20.7734
1194.636 -116.615x -82.623x -37.402x
+58.1449x2 +42.517x2 +17.4664x2
1194.6361439.055 +10.601 +5.219 +4.85878
-2.0564x -0.3184x -1.71744x
+0.310413x2
Olivine layer 1439.0551479.057 +19.0686 +12.7321 +12.726
-16.7687x -15.9268x1 -25.379x
+4.43858x2 +17.671x2
1479.0571579.401 +11.067 +5.735 -58.2623
-2.5733x -1.011x +341.552x
-623.054x2
+378.207x3
1579.4011690.932 +11.087 +5.73 +4.3434
-2.6115x -1.002x -0.54932x
Core 1690.9322540.805 +5.8285 0 +7.40043
-9.48283x -7.0115x
+39.2734x2 +28.73x2
-74.6938x3 -54.1282x3
+43.8172x4 +31.2134x4
2540.8053220.500 +4.986 0 +6.774
+0.9256x +0.5809x
-13.88x2 -9.044x2
+72.45x3 +48.07x3
-144.8x4 -98.73x4
3220.5003390.000 +5.006 0 +6.786
Acknowledgements
The assistance of S. Hempel in the preparation of the lunar seismicity tables is gratefully acknowledged.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
69Als Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package Flight System Familiarization Manual, The
Bendix Corporation, ALSEP-MT-03, revised version 15. Apr. 1969.
69Amr Apollo 11 Mission Report, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, TX, MSC-00171
(1969).
70Lat Latham, G.V., et al.: NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, SP-235 (1970).
(1971).
71Der Derr, J.S.: Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. 61 (1971) 1731.
71Kov Kovach, R.L., et al.: NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, SP-272 (1971).
(1972).
72Kov Kovach, R.L., et al.: NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, TX, SP-315 (1972).
73Amr Apollo 17 Mission Report, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Huston, TX, JSC-07904
(1973).
73Kov Kovach, R.L., et al.: NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, SP-330 (1973).
74Apo Apollo Scientific Experiments Data Handbook; NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center,
Report JSC-09166, NASA Technical Memorandum TM X-58131, Washington D.C. (1974).
74Coo Cooper, M.R., Kovach, R.L.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 12 (1974) 192.
74Dai Dainty, A.M., Toksz, M.N.: The Moon 9 (1974) 11.
74Lam Lammlein, D.R., et al.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 12 (1974) 1.
74Nak Nakamura, Y., et al.: Proc. Fifth Lunar Conf., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol., 3,
Suppl. 5, (1974) 2883.
74Tok Toksz, M.N., et al.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys.12 (1974) 539.
75Coo Cooper, M.R., Kovach, R.L.: Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 6th, (1975) 2863.
75Due Duennebier, F., et al.: Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf., 6th. (1975) 2417.
76And Anderson, D.L., et al.: Science 194 (1976) 1318.
76Nak Nakamura, Y., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 81 (1976) 4818.
77And Anderson, D.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 82 4524 (1977).
77Bil Bills, B.G., Ferrari, A.J.: J. Geophys. Res. 82 (1977) 1306.
77Coo Cooley, C.G., Lewis, J.G.: Martin Marietta Corp., Denver, Col., NASA CR-145148, 118pp.
(1977).
77Nak Nakamura, Y.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 14 (1977) 217.
78Dor Dorman, J. et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 9th (1978) 3615.
78Dun Dunne, J.A., Burgess, E.: NASA SP-424, NASA JPL., Pasadena, CA, 234p. (1978).
78Oka Okal, E.A., Anderson, D.L.: Icarus 33 (1978) 514.
79Bat Bates, J.R., et al.: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office; Reference Publication
1036 (1979).
79Goi Goins, N.R., Lazarewicz, A.R.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 6 (1979) 368.
79Nak Nakamura, Y., et al.: Proc. Lunar. Plant. Sci. Conf., 10th (1979) 2299.
79Tok Toksz, M.N.: Rev. Geophy. Space Phys. 17 (1979) 1641.
80Bin Binder, A.B.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 7 (1980) 707.
80Vos Vostreys, R.W.: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, NSSDC/WDC-A-
R&S 80-11 (1980).
81Dzi Dziewonski, A.M., Anderson, D.L.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 25 (1981) 297.
81Goi Goins, N.R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 (B6) (1981) 5061.
81Yod Yoder, C.F.: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 303 (1981) 327.
82Ksa Ksanfomaliti, L.V., et al.: Pisma Astron. Zh. 8 (1982) 444 (in Russian, English translation in:
Sov. Astron. Lett. 8 (1982) 241).
82Nak Nakamura, Y. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) Supp. A117.
83Dzi Dziewonski, A.M., Woodhouse, J.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 88 (1983) 3247.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
83Mor Moroz, V.I.: In: Hunten, D.M. et al., editors, Venus, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ,
(1983) 1143.
83Nak Nakamura, Y.: J. Geophys. Res. 88 (1983) 677.
83Zha Zharkov, V.N.: The Moon and the Planets 29 (1983) 139.
84Lb Landolt-Brnstein, NS, Vol. V/2a (1984).
85Bin Binder, A.B., Oberst, J.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 74 (1985) 149.
85Shi Shirley, J.B.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 76 (1985/86) 241.
87Obe Oberst, J.: J. Geophys. Res. 92 (B2) (1987) 1397.
88Mel Melosh, H.J.: McKinnon, W.B.: In: Vilas, F. et al., editors, Mercury, University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, AZ, (1988) 794.
89Obe Oberst, J.: PhD Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, (1989) 136.
91Ken Kennett, B.L.N., Engdahl, E.R.: Geophys. J. Int. 105 (1991) 429.
91Obe Oberst, J., Nakamura, Y.: Icarus 91 (1991) 315.
91Phi Philips, R.J.: In: LPI/TR-91-02, pp. 35-38, Lunar and Planet. Inst., Houston, TX (1991).
91Spo Spohn, T.: Icarus 90 (1991) 222.
91Sto Stofan, E.R., et al.: Worksh. on Advanced Technologies for Planetary Instruments, Lunar and
Planetary Inst., Houston, TX, part 1, 23-24 (1991).
92Gol Golombek, M.P., et al.: Science 258 (1992) 979.
92Sny Snyder, C.W., Moroz, V.I.: In: Kieffer, H.H. et al., editors, Mars, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Arizona, (1992) 71.
92Zha Zharkov, V.N.: In: Barsukov, V.L. et al., Venus Geology, Geochemistry, and Geophysics, The
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, (1992) 233.
96Gud Gudkova, T., Zharkov, V.N.: Planet. Space Sci. 44 (1996) 1223.
96Moc Mocquet, A., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 44 (1996) 1251.
97Fol Folkner, W.M., et al. : Science 278 (1997) 1749.
97Soh Sohl, F., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (E1) (1997) 1613.
99Aa The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2000, Nautical Almanac Office, US Naval
Observatory, Washington, DC, USA, and HM Nautical Almanac Office, London, GB (1999).
00Dav Davies, M.E., Colvin, T.R.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (E8) (2000) 20277.
00Kha Khan, A., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2000) 1591.
01Smi Smith, D. E., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106, (2001) 23,689.
01Wil Williams, J.G., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (E11) (2001) 27933.
02Bor Bormann, P., et al.: Chapter No. 3, In: Bormann, P., editor, IASPEI New Manual of
Seismological Observatory Practice, GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Vol. 1, (2002).
02Gol Golombek, M.P.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf., XXXIII, Abstract 1244.
02Wat Watters, T.R. et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (2002) 1542.
03Dra Dragoni, M., Piombo, A.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 135 (2003) 161.
03Log Lognonn, P., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 211 (2003) 27.
03Log2 Lognonn, P., et al.: Geophys. Res. Abstr. 5 (2003) 11183.
03Smi Smith, D. E., et al.: MGS-M-MOLA-5-MEGDR-L3-V1.0, NASA Planet. Data Syst.,
Greenbelt, MD. (2003).
03Sol Solomon, S.C.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 216 (2003) 441.
03Van Van Hoolst, T.: Jacobs, C.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (E11) doi:10.1029/2003JE002126 (2003).
04Nak Nakamura, Y.: Apollo Passive seismic Experiment Long-Period Event Catalog, rev. 0704;
available online at ftp://ftp.ig.utexas.edu/pub/PSE/catsrepts/levent.0104 (2004).
04Gud Gudkova, T.V., Zharkov, V.N.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 142 (2004) 1.
05Bul Bulow, R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 110 E10003 doi:10.1029/2005JE002414 (2005).
05Gar Garcia, R., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 L16205 doi:10.1029/2005GL023558 (2005).
05Nak Nakamura, Y.: J. Geophys. Res. 110 doi:10.1029/2004JE002332 (2005).
05Soh Sohl, F., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 110 E12008 doi:10.1029/2005JE002520 (2005).
05Zha Zharkov, V.N., Gudkova, T.V.: Sol. Syst. Res. 39 (2005) 343.
06Che Chenet, H., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 243 (2006) 1.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
06Cmt The Global Centroid Moment Tensor Project, available online at: www.globalcmt.org, (2006).
06Fro Frohlich, C., Nakamura, Y.: Icarus 185 (2006) 21.
06Gag Gagnepain-Beyneix, J., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 159 (2006) 140.
06Kna Knapmeyer, M., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 E11006 doi:10.1029/2006JE002708 (2006).
07Bul Bulow, R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 E09003 doi:10.1029/2006JE002847 (2007).
07Dro Drossart, P., et al.: Planet. Sp. Sci. 55 (2007) 1653.
07Mei Meissner, R.: Deutsche Geophys. Ges. Mitteilungen, No. 3/2007 (2007) 18-19.
07Sei Seidensticker, K.J., et al.: Sp. Sci. Rev. 128 (2007) 301.
08Mel Melosh, H.J.: Nature 452 (2008) 820.
08Riv Rivoldini, A., et al.: The interior structure of Mercury and its core sulfur content; submitted to
Icarus (2008).
08Van Van Hoolst, T.: personal communication (email of 22. May 2008).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Ref. p. 109] Dynamics and thermal evolution 95
4.2.3.4 Dynamics and thermal evolution
Doris Breuer
Symbol Definition
a Constant parameter of Nu-Ra relation
Thermal expansivity
Am Surface area of the mantle
Ac Surface area of the core
b Depth of the convecting mantle
Constant parameter of Nu-Ra relation
c Constant parameter of Nu-Ra relation
cp Specific heat at constant pressure
Cm Specific heat of the mantle
Cc Specific heat of the core
cm Thickness of the lower thermal boundary layer
ij Kronecker delta
T Temperature difference across the convecting mantle
Tr Characteristic temperature difference
Tcm Temperature difference across the lower thermal boundary layer
E Activation energy for creep
Ratio between the mantle temperature that is representative of the
m
internal energy of the mantle and Tm
Ratio between the mantle temperature that is representative of the
c
internal energy of the core and Tcm
f Constant for the Frank-Kamenetskii approximation
Dissipation function
gi Acceleration of gravity
h Grain size
H Rate of internal heat production per unit mass
m Rate of mantle heat production per unit mass
Dynamic viscosity
k Thermal conductivity
Thermal diffusivity
Decay constant
n Stress component
Nu Nusselt number
p Pressure
qs Surface heat flow
qm Heat flow out of the mantle
qc Heat flow out of the core into the mantle
R Universal gas constant
RaH Internal heating Rayleigh number
Ra Rayleigh number
Rai Rayleigh number based on the viscosity at the base of the upper
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
96 Dynamics and thermal evolution [Ref. p. 109
thermal boundary layer

Ra Lower thermal bounadyr layer Rayleigh number
Density
m Density of the mantle
c Density of the core
t Time
T Temperature
Tm Temperature of the isothermal mantle below the conductive layer
Tcm Temperature at the core-mantle boundary
Second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor
ij Deviatoric stress tensor
ui Fluid velocity
V Activation volume
Vm Volume of the mantle
Vc Volume of the core
xi Position vector
The thermo-chemical evolution of terrestrial planets depends on their composition, structure, rate of
internal heat production, and , to a large extent, on the dynamics of the planets mantle through which
heat is transported by thermal and chemical convection. An understanding of the thermo-chemical
evolution is essential for any interpretation of surface features as being caused by the interior dynamics.
The Earth with plate tectonics and life is unique among the terrestrial planets. Earths lithosphere (the
outer rigid layer of the planet) is broken in seven major plates that participate in the mantle convection
cycle. At mid-oceanic ridges rock is added to the plates while at subduction zones plates are subducted.
Heat transfer across the Earths surface is mostly by advection at mid-oceanic ridges but conduction
through the plates away from the ridge also contributes as does volcanism that is not related to plate
margins (e.g., the Hawaian chain volcanoes). The mode of convection that is related to plate tectonics is
termed mobile lid convection. The near-surface lithospheres of the other earth-like planets are not
segmented but consist of single plates, so called stagnant lids, beneath which the mantle convects. Heat
flow through the lithosphere is mainly transported by conduction, with some minor contribution by
volcanic heat transport through this stagnant lid. The difference in the heat transport mechanism for the
planets is also reflected in their thermal evolution. In the following section, we will introduce the basic
equations for convection and thermal evolution calculations and describe fundamental differences in the
main convecting regimes, between stagnant lid regime and mobile lid convection. In the last part, we
summarize important aspect of the thermo-chemical evolution of Mercury, Venus, Mars and the Moon.
4.2.3.4.2 Thermal and chemical convection
The dynamics of the interior of terrestrial planets is mainly driven by thermal convection. When the
mantle is heated from within (or from below) and is cooled from above, it may become gravitationally
unstable and thermal convection can occur as colder rock descends into the mantle and hotter rock
ascends toward the surface. The stability of the mantle is mostly determined by a balance between the
thermal buoyancy and the retarding viscous forces and is measured by the dimensionless Rayleigh
number Ra (compare Table 1). Convection transports heat toward the surface of the planet and tends to
cool the interior, while heat produced within, e.g., by the decay of radioactive elements tends to warm it.
The motions driven by convective heat transport result in surface stresses and deformation, producing the
geologic features observed on the terrestrial bodies today. The planets internal heat sources provide the
energy for its dynamics, supplying it with the driving energy for mantle convection, and for melting the
mantle which may lead to volcanism. The internal energy of the terrestrial planets was greater early in
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
their histories than it is today, having accumulated rapidly by heat conversion associated with three
separate processes, all of which were most intense during the first few million years of the planets
history: (1) accretion of the planet by impacts, (2) core formation and the associated release of
gravitational potential energy, and (3) the radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. Another important heat
source in a terrestrial body can be tidal dissipation as in the case of the Galilean satellites. This heat
source is not necessarily higher early in the evolution; rather, it depends on the bodys orbital and thermal
evolution.
Purely thermal convection can be strongly influenced by chemical layering in the mantle. In the case
of chemical layering, density variations that drive convection may not only caused by temperature
variations but also by variations in chemical composition. Chemical layering may even block or retard
thermally driven mantle flow if the density increases with depth. In this case, thermal convection is only
possible if density changes due to temperature variations can overcome the compositional density
differences. Chemical layering can enhance mantle flow if the density decreases with depth. Reshuffling
of this unstable configuration results in a stable density configuration unless efficient mixing prevents the
establishment of distinct layers. It is also possible that thermal convection takes place in separate and
chemically distinct layers. The heat transport in a mantle with layered thermal convection is less efficient
than in a mantle with whole mantle convection. Chemical stratification resulting from early
differentiation of the mantle is one way to explain the presence of separate and chemically distinct
reservoirs that might be needed to explain geochemical observations. At present, we do not know whether
distinct chemical reservoirs exist in the terrestrial planets.
4.2.3.4.3 Field equations and parameterization
4.2.3.4.3.1 Field equations
To describe flow processes in a planetary mantle we must consider the conservation of mass, momentum,
and energy for a fluid continuum, since the solid rocks of a mantle deform as fluids on geological time
scales. In addition, these conservation equations must be supplemented by an equation of state. In the
following the basic equations are listed. More details can be found e.g. in [01Sch].
The conservation of mass:
1 D ui
+ =0 (1)
Dt xi
The conservation of momentum (Navier-Stokes-Equation):
Du i p u i u j 2 u k
= + + ij + g i (2)
Dt x i x j x j x i 3 x k

The conservation of energy:
DT Dp T
c p T = k + + H (3)
Dt Dt x i x i
where the dissipation function is defined as

ui
= ij (4)
x j
These general equations can be simplified by assuming a linearized equation of state for the mantle
density of the form:
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
= (T , p ) + (5)
where the overbars refer to a reference state and the prime to departure from the reference state :
T = T + T , p = p + p (6)
It is convenient to take the reference state as motionless and steady. The equations are non-
dimensionalized to obtain the following dimensionless variables (denoted with an asterix)
T
T ' = (7)
Tr

= (8)
r
p b 2 r c pr
p = (9)
r kr
ui b r c pr
ui = (10)
kr
xi
xi = (11)
b
tk r
t = (12)
b 2 r c pr
where the subscript r refers to a representative parameter value. With the help of the dimensionless
variables simplifying approximations such as the anelastic or Boussinesq approximation can be easily
introduced.
Table 1 Important dimensionless parameters used for fluid dynamics field equations.
Symbol Dimensionless Parameters
r c pr
Pr Prandtl number Pr =
kr
r r g r Tr b 3
Ra Rayleigh number Ra =
r r
r r2 g r H r b 5
RaH Internal heating Rayleigh number Ra H =
r rkr
r grb
D Dissipation number D=
c pr
qb
Nu Nusselt number Nu =
k T
For both approximations, the inertial forces in the momentum equation are neglected because the
Prandtl number is essentially infinite. The anelastic approximation further ignores the partial derivatives
of density with respect to time in the momentum equation and thereby eliminates fast local density
variations, i.e. seismic waves. The Boussinesq approximation, leading to the simplest form of the system
of equations, takes all thermodynamic variables including the density to be constant, but a buoyancy force
due to temperature variations is included in the vertical force balance equation. The equations 1 to 3 then
reduce to:
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
u i *
=0 (13)
x i *
* u i u j *
*
pi'* *
0= * g i T * Ra + + (14)
x i x j * x j * x i *

DT *
* T *
Ra H
*c p * *
= k
* i *
+ *H * (15)
Dt x i x i Ra
4.2.3.4.3.2 Parameterized convection
Because of the inherent complexity in these models it is often desirable to take an empirical approach and
parameterize the convective heat transfer rate as a function of known quantities. Such parameterizations
can be derived using simple theories, which result in scaling laws that describe the heat transport in the
interior as a function of the convective parameters. Our improving understanding of the heat transport
mechanisms on terrestrial planets over the last two decades has led to repeated changes in the preferred
scaling law used to model the thermal evolution of one-plate planets. Initially, the scaling law for a fluid
with constant viscosity was used for one-plate planets [e.g., 83Ste, 88Sch, 92Sch]. Today, the stagnant-
lid model allows the variations of viscosity with temperature to be incorporated.
From convection experiments and boundary layer theory for isoviscous fluids the classical power law
relationship between heat flow and convective parameters [e.g., 67Tur; 79Rob] has been derived:
Nu = a Ra (16)
This equation relates the dimensionless heat flux out of the convecting layer, expressed as the Nusselt
number, Nu, to the strength of thermal convection as measured by the Rayleigh number, Ra.
Table 2 The fitting coefficients to calculate the scaling law for isoviscous convection (eq. 18). F/F:
top and bottom boundaries are free slid; F/R: top is free slip and bottom is rigid; R/F: top is rigid and
bottom is free slip; R/R: top and bottom boundaries are rigid.
Boundary
a References
conditions
0.294 0.333 F/F 67TUR
0.279 0.313 F/F 82JAR
0.2697 0.3185 F/F 84CHR
0.268 0.319 F/F 85SCH
0.250 0.323 F/F 93HAN
0.195 0.3 F/R 79KVE
0.332 0.225 R/R 83FRI
0.258 0.321 F/F 00DES
0.336 0.252 R/F 00DES
0.339 0.223 R/R 00DES
In the meantime, it has been recognized that this scaling law models the heat transport in a planet
where convection comprises the whole mantle including the outer layers. In fact, such a model describes
the heat transport in a planet with plate tectonics better than that in a one-plate planet [01Sch]. For a
strongly temperature dependent viscosity convection occurs in the stagnant lid regime as suggested for
the terrestrial planets apart from the Earth. The most viscous part of the lithosphere is essentially rigid and
convection involves only a thin layer of the bottom of the lithosphere. The scaling law for stagnant lid
convection, thus, depends also on the mantle viscosity according to
Nu = a c Rai (17)
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
with Rai the Rayleigh number based on the viscosity at the base of the upper thermal boundary layer and
the Frank-Kamenetskii parameter
E
= T (18)
RTm2
The heat flow out of the convecting system, i.e., the mantle heat flow, is given by
kT
qm = Nu (19)
b
The heat flow into the convecting system, i.e., the core-mantle heat flow, can be calculated by a local
stability criterion [e.g., 83Ste, 00Des]
kTcm
qc = (20)
cm
with
1/ 3
Ra
cm = (21)
gTcm .
The lower thermal boundary layer Rayleigh number has been identified to depend on Rai [00Des], unlike
the case for an isovisous fluid
Ra = 0.28Rai021 (22)
The constant parameters to calculate Nu depend on the stress component, the heating mode and the
geometry. Values of various numerical models are given in table 3. Note that qc is zero for internal
heating modes.
Table 3 Parameter values for scaling laws for stagnant lid convection (eq.17) derived by fitting the
results of numerical simulations. There is a change in the scaling relationship from steady state
convection to time-dependent convection at a Rayleigh number of about 106 [99Dum].
a c Heating mode Geometry References
n=1, steady state
1.89 1.02 0.2 Bottom heating 1x1 95Mor; 96Sol
1.99 1.0 0.2 Bottom heating 1x1 99Dum
3.8 1.63 0.258 Bottom heating 1x1 00Des
2.51 1.2 0.2 Internal heating Spherical 99Res
n=1, time dependent
0.54 1.333 0.333 Bottom heating 4x1 97Doi
0.53 1.333 0.333 Internal heating 4x1 00Sol
0.57 1.333 0.333 Internal heating 2x1 98Gra
0.67 1.333 0.333 Internal heating Spherical 05Res
n=3, steady state
2.8 0.96 0.29 Bottom heating 1x1 98Res
2.1 1.33 0.33 Bottom heating 4 x1 99Dum
n=3, time dependent
0.97 1.6 0.6 Internal heating 1x1 99Res; 00Sol
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
To calculate thermal evolution models for terrestrial planets using the parameterizations, energy
balance equations for the mantle and the core need to be solved. These are, respectively
dTm
m C mVm m = qm Am + m H mVm , (23)
dt
dT
c C cVc c cm = qc Ac . (24)
dt
Detailed discussions of these equations and the methods used to derive them can be found in the
literature. Some of these models include the growth of a crust by mantle partial melting and
differentiation and the associated redistribution of radioactive elements and convection in the core
generation as a prerequisite for the generation of magnetic fields [83Ste; 02Hau; 04Hau; 03Bre; 06Bre].
4.2.3.4.4 Material parameters: viscosity and radioactive heat sources
4.2.3.4.4.1 Mantle rheology and viscosity
The exponential dependence of the viscosity on the inverse absolute temperature is the most important
parameter for understanding the role of mantle convection in transporting heat. The temperature
dependence of the viscosity acts as a thermostat to regulate the mantle temperature. In addition to the
temperature dependence, the rheology in a planetary mantle can be described by two main creep
mechanisms: diffusion creep and dislocation creep. For the case of diffusion creep the solid behaves as a
Newtonian fluid where the viscosity is independent of the applied shear stresses. In contrast, for
dislocation creep, the solid behaves as a non-Newtonian fluid where viscosity depends on shear stress.
Indeed, viscosity tends to decrease with increasing shear stress, often nonlinearly. Which creep
mechanism is valid in terrestrial mantles is not certain. Most laboratory studies of mantle deformation
have concluded that dislocation creep is the applicable deformation mechanism in the upper Earth mantle
and diffusion creep in the lower mantle [01Sch]. However, this assumption is not consistent with post-
glacial rebound studies that favor diffusion creep also for the upper mantle. Furthermore, laboratory
measurements have shown that the pressure-dependence on viscosity can not be neglected in a terrestrial
mantle [97 Kar]. Thus, the viscosity of a terrestrial mantle can be described with the following Arrhenius
relationship:
n 1
E + pV
m
n 1 h
= * exp (25)
2A B RT m
with B* the length of the Burgers vector (~0.5nm) and the shear moduls (~80 GPa). For a Newtonian
rheology n is equal to 1 and for a Non Newtonian rheology a typical value of n is 3.5. For most numerical
studies, however, an exponential viscosity, i.e., the Frank-Kamenetskii approximation, is used since the
two give almost identical results in the limits of large viscosity contrasts.
=
f
(
exp T ) (26)
n 1
where f is a constant and is related to equation 26 through = E/RTi2 for purely temperature-dependent
viscosity. In the case of large viscosity variations due to significant temperature variations in a terrestrial
mantle both equations (25) and (26) give similar results in terms of the viscosity in the convecting part of
the mantle and the flow characteristic.
Table 4 Flow law parameters for olivine. Dry refers to water-free and wet to water-saturated
conditions, respectively.
Dislocation creep Diffusion creep
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Dry Wet Dry Wet

A [s-1] 3.5 x 1022 2.0 x 1018 8.7 x 1015 5.3 x 1015
n 3.5 3.0 1.0 1.0
m 0 0 2.5 2.5
E [kJ mol-1] 540 430 300 240
V [cm3 mol-1] 10-25 10-20 6 5
h [m] - - 10-2 1 10-2 1
4.2.3.4.4.2 Radioactive heat sources
The most important heat source in a planetary body after planetary accretion and core formation is the
release of energy by the decay of long-lived radioactive elements. These elements, namely the uranium
isotopes 235U and 238U, the thorium isotope 232Th, and the potassium isotope 40K, are distributed into the
mantle and the crust. The total present-day production H0 is related to the heat generation rates of the
individual radioactive elements by
C Th CK
H 0 = C 0U H U + 0U H Th + 0U H K (27)

C0 C0
and the past mean heat production rate is given by
t ln 2
exp U 8
238
H = 0.9928C0U H U
1 2

t ln 2
exp 235
235
+ 0.0071C0U H U
1U2

(28)
t ln 2
+ C0Th H Th exp Th
1 2

t ln 2
+ 1.19 104 C0K H K exp 40
40
1K2

The rates of heat production and the half lives 1/2 of these isotopes are given in Table 5 and values of the
concentration of the isotopes for various terrestrial bodies are listed in Table 6.
Table 5 Radiogenic heat sources in terrestrial planets.

Specific heat production Half life of the isotope
Isotope
rate H [W kg-1] 1/2 [yr]
238
U 9.4610-5 4.47109
235
U 5.6910-4 7.04108
U 9.8110-5
232
Th 2.6410-5 1.401010
40
K 2.9210-5 1.25109
K 3.4810-9
Table 6 Models for the present-day concentration of radioactive elements in the primitive mantle of
the planets (for comparison C1-chondrites are included in the table). Ho is the heat production rate per
mass 4.5 Ga ago and Hp is the present-day heat production rate per mass. The models for the Moon
indicated with * give values for the primitive mantle plus the core. As the core size is assumed to be very
small the difference to models only considering the abundances in the silicate part only is small.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Concentration
Planet H0 (pW/kg) Hp (pW/kg) Reference
U (ppb) Th (ppb) K (ppm)
30 120 0 19 5.9 78Wei
88Cam,
Mercury 8 30 550 24 3.4
88Wet
0 400 0 13 10 87Feg
Venus 22 79 220 23 5 80Mor
16 64 160 17 3.7 86Tre
28 101 62 21 5.0 97Mor
Mars
16 56 305 23 4. 94Wae
16 55 920 49 6.1 97Lod
20.3 79.5 240 23 5 95Mcd
22 78.2 232.4 22 5 93Kar
Earth
21 84.1 240 23.5 5.1 91Rin
18 64 180 19 4 85Tay
60.9 223 178 47 12.5 77Wae
Moon 33 125 83 25 6.8 82Tay*
62.8 224 102 45 15 77And*
C1-Chondrites 8 29 550 24 3.4 95Mcd
4.2.3.4.5 Dynamics and thermal evolution of terrestrial planets
The thermal evolution of a terrestrial planet depends on the state of its outer lid and differs between
models that have a stagnant lid and those that have a mobile lid or plate tectonics. A comparison of the
two regimes while assuming the same parameter values for a generic planet similar to Mars shows
substantial differences. For the stagnant lid planet the lid will thicken rapidly as the planet cools while the
temperature of the underlying convecting mantle and core will change comparatively little (Figs. 1a and
1b). With plate tectonics, there is, of course, no growth of a lid and the cooling of the deep interior is
more efficient. As a typical feature, the stagnant lid grows rapidly during the first few hundred million
years and the growth slows down considerably thereafter.
Figures 1c and 1d compare the cumulative energy loss, i.e., the energy loss over the entire evolution
of the planet, and the surface heat flow of the two models. After 4.5 Ga, the energy loss is about 3.11029
J smaller for the stagnant lid model as compared to the plate tectonic model. Such energy losses, when
distributed homogeneously over the entire mantle, imply that the present-day mantle is about 600 K
cooler in the plate tectonics model than it is in the stagnant lid model. Interesting to note is that variations
in the initial temperature distribution results in similar results for the present-day values of the
temperature, surface heat flow, and stagnant lid thickness for both regimes [Fig. 1]. Any tendency of the
mean temperature to increase is offset by an associated reduction in mantle viscosity, an increase in
convective vigor, and a more efficient outward transport of heat. Similarly, a decrease in mantle
temperature tends to increase mantle viscosity, reduce convective flow velocities, and decrease the rate of
heat transfer. As a result of the sensitive feedback between mantle temperature and rheology, relatively
small changes in temperature can produce large changes in heat flux, and the temperature is consequently
buffered at nearly constant temperature [65Toz].
The rate at which a planet loses its internal heat to space, i.e. the surface hat flow, is an important
parameter describing the internal activity of a planet. It further controls the level of tectonism (faulting
and folding of the planet's surface due to internal deformation) and volcanic activity on the planet. It may
be speculated that a planet, in which heat is transported effectively by plate tectonics, has a higher surface
heat flow than a planet in the stagnant lid regime. However, this is only true in the early evolution. In the
shown example, the surface heat flow is even slightly higher in the stagnant lid model after about 2.5 Ga.
The contribution of secular cooling at present is, therefore, similar for the convecting regimes assuming
the same mantle parameters. The Urey ratio, i.e., the ratio of the heat produced within the mantle by
radioactive decay to the total surface heat flow has present values of 0.6 for the stagnant lid regime and
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
0.7 with plate tectonics. A detailed description of the differences between the regimes can be found in
[07Bre].
400
stagnant lid thickness (km)

2200
Mantle temperature (K)
2100 stagna
nt lid
300
2000
stagnant lid
1900
1800 200
1700
1600
plate te 100
1500 ctonic
s
1400
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time (Ma) time (Ma)
150 10308
7
6 ics
Surface heat flow (mW/m2)
5 c t on
plate tectonics e te
5 plat
Energy loss (J)
4
100 lid
nant
3 stag
50
10299
8
stagnant lid
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Time (Ma) Time (Ma)
Fig. 1 Mantle temperature, stagnant lid thickness, surface

heat flow and energy loss for two different heat transfer
models: stagnant lid convection (red line) and plate tectonics
(dashed line). The models shown are for parameters
representative of Mars.
Table 7 Rayleigh number and surface heat flow values representative of the present internal activity
of the terrestrial planets. Variations in the Rayleigh number are mainly due to the uncertainties in the
mantle viscosity, whereas variations in the surface heat flow are mainly due to uncertainties in the
radioactive heat source content of the primitive mantle (compare Table 6) and the contribution of secular
cooling(values between 20% and 50% have been assumed). The surface heat flow of the Earth is based on
thermal gradients in boreholes and corrected for the observational underestimation due to hydrothermal
circulation [93Pol, 07Jau]. The contribution of secular cooling is about 50%. In the case of Mercury the
Rayleigh number can be below the critical Rayleigh number of convection; thus, a present conductive
mantle is possible. The surface heat flow of the Moon has been also measured at two different places;
these values are at the lower end of the values given here (compare Table 8).
Surface heat flow
Rayleigh number
[mW/m2]
Mercury conductive - 105 9 30
Venus 107-108 54 88
Mars 106-107 15 30
Earth 107-108 82 90
Moon 105-106 16 38
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
In the following, we list important characteristics of the thermo-chemical evolution of Mercury,

Venus, Mars and the Moon. More detailed discussions can be found in the indicated literature.
4.2.3.4.5.1 Mercury
An important constraint on Mercurys thermal evolution are lobate scarps that are more or less evenly
distributed over the well-imaged portion of the surface. The scarps are thought to indicate an average
contraction of the planets radius by only 1 2 km since the end of heavy bombardment [75Str]. The
most likely source of global contraction is a combination of a thermal contraction (reduction in average
internal temperature) and a phase change by solidification (e.g., growth of an inner core). Core freezing
contributes more to the global contraction [76Sol].
Thermal evolution models [88Sch, 04Hau] indicate that the observed scarps account for only a rather
small fraction of the total contraction. One possible explanation is that much of the contraction would
have predated the observable geologic record, for instance most of the inner core was formed before the
end of heavy bombardment. In any case, to meet the constraint of only 1-2 km of contraction since the
end of heavy bombardment, relatively little cooling of the interior should have happened since that time.
Of the three formation models [78Wei, 88Cam, 88Wet, 87Feg], the vaporization model [87Feg] predicts
less cooling and contraction of the planet [04Hau] as it assumes 232Th as the sole radiogenic heat
producing element of relevance, which with its 14 Gyr half-life has not had a significant decline in heat
output.
The question of whether mantle heat transport in Mercury occurs by conduction or convection is
controversially discussed in the literature and depends mainly on assumptions about the initial thermal
state, the amount and distribution of radioactive elements, and the efficiency of heat transport. Early
models that assume an undifferentiated and thus respectively cold Mercury suggest that the planet cools
conductively throughout its evolution [e.g., 74Sie; 76Sha; 76Sol, 77Sol; 79Sol]. Models that assume an
initially hot and fully differentiated Mercury are in favour of convection [76Sol, 79Toz, 83Ste, 88Sch,
99Con]. The results suggest that thermal convection is likely during the entire evolution of the planet
although it can be very sluggish at present. Recent studies [01Sol, 04Hau] that consider a non-Newtonian
rheology and incorporate crust growth have a convecting mantle only during the early stages of evolution
which is accompanied by extensive melting and differentiation. Later, convection and melting are absent
and the planet cools conductively.
Fig 2 A typical temperature field of the convecting

mantle (coloured region) in Mercury calculated with a 2D
axisymmeteric convection model with strongly temperature
and pressure dependent viscosity. The temperature decreases
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
from brownish colours to yellow, violet, and blue. The upper

violet to blue part is the stagnant lid, convection takes place
underneath. The solid circle in the center indicates the
present size of the inner core. The viscosity increases by a
factor of 10 in the convecting mantle and by 5 orders of
magnitude in this model of the lid. The model assumes a
concentration of radioactive heat sources consistent with the
silicate vaporization model [87Feg] and a concentration of 1
wight-% sulfur in the core [after 99Con].
The observed magnetic field of the planet implies the presence of a fluid outer core. To prevent the
core from freezing completely, radioactive heat sources in the core [78Tok], late core formation of the
core [76Sha; 77Sol] and deep mantle heat sources [76Cas] have been suggested. Late core formation
would support a cool initial state for Mercury but is at variance with accretion models [e.g., 88Sch]. The
most likely reason for Mercury not having a totally frozen core, however, is a small but significant
concentration of a light alloying element in its core that would reduce the core melting temperature.
Sulfur is the most likely candidate [77Rin, 83Mcc] as it is cosmochemically easily available and
siderophile. To satisfy the observations of both a planet-wide contraction of a few kilometers and a
present fluid outer core, thermal evolution studies [88Sch, 99Con, 04Hau, 06Bus, 07Bre2] conclude that
the mantle should by dry and strongly depleted in potassium.
4.2.3.4.5.2 Venus
The surface of Venus has a global average age of 300 to 800 Ma [92Sch; 97Mck]. It has been suggested
[97Mck; 97Bou; 98Nim] that the planet was globally resurfaced by a volcanic event about 700 Ma b.p..
The resurfacing event according to these models - was followed by an epoch of volcanic quiescence
lasting to the present day. The cause for this global resurfacing event and whether it was a single event or
one of a periodically recurring set of events is highly uncertain. However, the reality of a rapid global
resurfacing event has been questioned by [99Cam] and most recently by [06Bon]. According to the latter
authors, the cratering record allows a variety of interpretations in terms of volcanic resurfacing including
a global decrease with time in the rate of an otherwise statistically distributed volcanic activity. Previous
authors had concluded that Venus underwent a major transition in tectonic style albeit more gradual than
the previously postulated sudden global resurfacing event. The surface geology also seems to indicate that
modifications of the surface are planet wide and gradual over long periods of time rather than episodic
and locally confined [06Iva].
The lack of a present dynamo does not imply that Venus never had an intrinsic magnetic field
although we have no information that relates directly to the past history of the field. Thermal evolution
models suggest that there was a magnetic moment of Venus of the same order as Earth's for about the first
three billion years of Venus' history [83Ste]. An alternative scenario for the present lack of a Venus
magnetic field suggests that Venus's field ceased as Venus transitioned from a plate tectonic to a stagnant
lid regime around 700 Ma ago [02Ste].
4.2.3.4.5.3 Mars
A fundamental problem in the evolution of Mars is the timing and the origin of the crustal dichotomy.
The southern highlands and northern lowlands of Mars differ markedly in average elevation [99Smi] and
crustal thickness [00Zub, 04Neu]. Although it is generally accepted that this crustal dichotomy is one of
oldest features on Mars, the exact timing of the dichotomy formation, which has implications for the
formation mechanism, is strongly debated. The time of formation varies between the Late Noachian/Early
Hesperian (3.7 Ga) [90Mcg], Early Noachian or earlier (>3.9 Ga) [02Fre, 05Nim], and even as early as
the first 50 Ma after the solar system formation [05Sol]. The origin of the crustal dichotomy has variously
been related to external processes, i.e. one or several impacts [84Wil; 88Fre;08And, 08Nim, 08Mar] and
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
internal processes [e.g., 79Wis], but none of the proposed formation mechanisms has been fully
convincing in part due to the uncertainty in the timing of the dichotomy formation. For an endogenic
origin of the dichotomy, three different mechanisms have been proposed that are associated with 1) the
evolution of an early magma ocean [01Hes, 03Elk] 2) an episode of degree-one mantle convection
[73Sch, 79Wis, 01Zho] and 3) an early phase of plate tectonics [94Sle].
The proposed scenarios for the formation of the crustal dichotomy have differing implications for the
thermal evolution of Mars, in particular, for the early evolution. At the present time and most likely
during the past 4 Ga, Mars has been in the stagnant lid regime with a stable plate overlying the convecting
mantle. For the first few hundred million years, however, little is known with any certainty, in particular,
whether the planet had a phase of plate tectonics and later transitioned to single-plate tectonics or whether
the planet never changed its heat transport mechanism and always was in the stagnant lid regime.
[94Sle] proposed that the smooth northern lowlands and the Tharsis volcanoes were remnants of an
ocean floor and an island arc volcanic chain, respectively, similar to plate tectonic features on Earth.
More recently, the magnetic lineation patterns on parts of the southern highlands detected by Mars Global
Surveyor (MGS) have been interpreted to be the result of plate divergence [99Con2, 05Con]. The dating
of the magnetic anomalies led the authors to suggest that the potential early plate tectonic regime lasted
about 500 Ma. However, there is no finally convincing geological evidence for the early existence of
plate tectonics on Mars.
Another striking surface feature are the large volcanic provinces, Tharsis and Elysium, where the
volcanic activity lasted for billion years until the recent past [99Har, 02Ber, 04Neu]. The persistence
volcanism in Tharsis and Elysium could be explained by invoking longstanding plumes with substantially
higher temperature (i.e., more than 100 K) than the average mantle. Such a plume must be thermally fed
by energy flowing from a hot core. As causes for the stability of the super plumes deep-mantle phase
transitions [95Wei; 96Har; 98Bre; 00Har], chemical layering in the mantle, variations in mantle thermal
conductivity [01Sch], and the crustal dichotomy [04Wen] have been proposed. Most recently, thermal
blanketing of the mantle by a thickened crust [06Sch, 07Sch] has been discussed as an alternative
mechanism for generating melt underneath these volcanic provinces. This mechanism would not require a
super-plume and may be more consistent with a cooling core [01Spo].
Thermo-chemical evolution models that include crustal growth usually predict that most of the crust
formed during the first billion years and has grown to reach a thickness of tens of kilometers [91Spo,
92Sch, 93Bre, 02Hau, 03Bre, 06Bre, 07Sch] to a few hundred kilometers [01Wei]. The results of the
model calculations are consistent with the observation that most of the crust was produced early on
[05Sol, 05Nim].
At present, Mars has no global dipolar magnetic field, but the presence of a strong magnetization of
the oldest parts of the crust [98Acu, 99Acu, 99Con2, 01Acu] suggests that the planet generated a
magnetic field early in its history. An early dynamo is supported by most thermal evolution models that
consider the magnetic field history [e.g., 90Sch, 98Spo, 02Hau, 03Bre, 06Bre, 04Wil]. The models arrive
at an early thermally driven dynamo as a consequence of rapid cooling of a core initially superheated with
respect to the mantle (Fig. 3). An alternative scenario assumes rapid cooling of the core through plate
tectonics even without a superheated core and a transition to single-plate tectonics after about 500 Ma.
[00Nim; 01Ste].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
35
core/mantle heat flow (mW/m**2)

30
25 Tcm = 250 K
20
15
critical core heat flow
10
-5
Tcm = 0 K
-10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
time (Ma)
Fig. 3 Core-mantle heat flow as a function of time for

models with early plate tectonics (solid line) and models
with stagnant lid convection throughout the entire evolution
(dash-dotted line) with initial temperature differences across
the core/mantle boundary of Tcm = 0 and Tcm = 250 K
[after 03Bre]. The generation of a thermal dynamo is
possible when the heat flow is larger than the critical core
heat flow.
4.2.3.4.5.4 Moon
The thermal evolution of the Moon has remained a controversial subject. Early models start the evolution
of the Moon with an accretionary initial temperature profile. This temperature profile increases from a
relatively cold deep interior (less than 1000 K) to reach a maximum in the upper mantle from where
temperature decreases towards the surface [86Mat]. Similar temperature profiles have been used in other
models of the Moons thermal evolution [73Cas, 78Tok, 79Cas].
More recent evolution models assume an initially hot interior [e.g., 77Sol, 78Min, 01Spo] but still
open are questions about the thermal and structural state of the Moon after freezing of the magma ocean
and whether convection is an important form of heat transport in the lunar interior. It is generally
accepted that the anorthositc crust of the Moon formed as a floating crust on a magma ocean. Estimates of
the depth of the primordial magmasphere, however, range from the whole Moon melting to thin melt
layers above partially molten zones. Assuming that the magma ocean freezes rapidly during about 100 to
200 Ma [77Sol, 78Min] without any disturbances, this part of the mantle most likely became chemically
stratified following magma ocean differentiation and crystallization with the late dense iron-rich phases
coming to rest upon a less dense Mg-rich phase. Such a layering has strong implications for the
subsequent evolution of the Moon since it is prone to convective overturn and mixing [95Hes, 98All]. It
has also been speculated that during most of the Moons history (i.e., after the first rapid overturn) heat
might be transported by conduction alone [89Kir, 99Pri, 00Wie] as a consequence of the strong depletion
of radioactive elements and stable chemical layering in the mantle.
Paleomagnetic data, combined with radiometric ages of Apollo samples, suggests that a field of
possibly 1 G existed at 4.0 Ga decreasing to a few thousand gamma at 3.2 Ga [75Ste, 86Cis]. Because the
present magnetic field of the Moon is negligible, [75Run] has argued that the lunar rocks were
magnetized at the time of their origin by a field of internal origin. The easiest explanation for such a field
is the operation of a dynamo in an iron-rich lunar core [e.g., 97Kon, 01Spo2, 03Ste]. Some researchers
doubt that an internal dynamo is required to explain the magnetization of the Moon, and favour an
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
alternative idea; the observed magnetic signature is suggested to be generated in association with large
impacts during the early history [72Hid, 84Hoo, 91Hoo, 01Hoo].
The surface heat flow of the Moon was measured by the Heat Flow Experiment on Apollo 15 and 17.
This experiment was also attempted on Apollo 16, but failed due to a broken cable connection.
The Heat Flow Experiment involved drilling two holes into the regolith to depths of 1.6-2.3 meters.
The temperature was measured at several depths within the hole. The rate at which temperature increases
with depth is a measure of the heat flowing from the Moon's interior. The drilling caused some heating
within the hole, although the effects of this heating decayed with time. Also, temperatures in the upper
part of the regolith vary as the amount of incident sunlight changes throughout the lunar day and night.
By monitoring temperatures in the drill holes over a long period of time, these effects can be accounted
for, allowing for a determination of the average heat flow rate at the landing site.
The results of these measurements indicate a heat flow of 21 milliwatts per square meter at the Apollo
15 landing site and of 16 milliwatts per square meter at the Apollo 17 landing site. The Moon's heat flux
is 18-24% of the Earth's average heat flux of 87 milliwatts per square meter. The small value of the lunar
heat flow was expected, given the Moon's small size and the observation that it has been nearly dead
volcanically for the last 3 billion years. Because the heat flow was measured at only two locations, it is
not known how representative these values are for the Moon as a whole. However, because both
measurements were obtained near boundaries between mare and highland regions, it is thought that the
measured heat flows are probably 10-20% higher than the average value for the entire Moon. A recent
discussion of the Apollo heat flow measurements can be found in [06She, 06Wie].
Table 8 Measured heat flow at the landing sites of Apollo 15 and Apollo 17.
Heat flow
Apollo 15 21 mW/m2
Apollo 17 16 mW/m2
65Toz Tozer, D.C.: Geophys. J. Int. 9 (1965) 95.

67Tur Turchotte, D.L., Oxburgh, E.R.: J. Fluid Mech. 28 (1967) 29.
72Hid Hide, R.: The Moon 4 (1972) 39.
73Cas Cassen, P., Reynolds, R.T.: J. Geophys. Res. 78 (1973) 3203.
73Sch Schubert, G., et al.: Nature 242 (1973) 251.
74Sie Siegfried, R.W., Solomon, S.C.: Icarus 23 (1974) 192.
75Run Runcorn, S.K.: Nature 253 (1975) 701.
75Ste Stephenson, A., et al.: Lun. Sci. Conf. 6 (1975) 3049.
75Str Strom, R.G., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 80 (1975) 2478.
76Cas Cassen, P., et al.: Icarus 28 (1976) 501.
76Sha Sharpe, H.N., Strangway, D. W.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 3 (1976) 285.
76Sol Solomon, S.C.: Icarus 28 (1976) 509.
77Rin Ringwood, A. E.: Geochem. J. 11 (1977) 111.
77Sol Solomon, S.C.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 15 (1977) 135.
78Min Minear, J.W., Fletcher, C.R.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 9 (1978) 263.
78Tok Tokzs, M.N., et al.: NASA SP-370, (1978) 245.
78Wei Weidenschilling, S.J.: Icarus 35 (1978) 99.
79Cas Cassen, P., et al.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 19 (1979) 183.
79Kve Kvergvold, O.: Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 12 (1979) 273.
79Rob Roberts, G.O.: Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 12 (1979) 235.
79Toz Tozer, D.C.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 18 (1979) 247.
79Wis Wise, D.U., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 84 (1979) 7934.
80Mor Moroz, V.I., et al.: Nature 284 (1980) 243.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
82Jar Jarvis, G.T., Peltier, W.R.: Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 68 (1982) 389.
83Fri Frick, H., et al.: J. Fluid Mech. 127 (1983) 141.
83Mcc McCammon, C.A., et al.: Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 72 (1983) 577.
83Ste Stevenson, D.J., et al.: Icarus 54 (1983) 466.
84Chr Christensen, U.R.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. (1984) 35 264.
84Hoo Hood, L.L., Vickery, A.: J. Geophys. Res. 89 (1984) C211.
84Wil Wilhelms, D.E., Squyres, S.W.: Nature 309 (1984) 138.
85Sch Schubert, G., Anderson, C.A.: Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc. 80 (1985) 575.
86Cis Cisowski, S.M., Fuller, M.: Origin of the Moon, Lunar and Planetary Institute (1986) 411.
86Mat Matsui, T., Abe, Y.: Origin of the Moon, Lunar and Planetary Institute (1986) 453.
87Feg Fegley, B., Cameron, A.G.W.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 82 (1987) 207.
86Tre Treiman, A.H., et al.: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 50 (1986) 1071.
88Cam Cameron, A.G., et al.: In: Vilas, F., et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson
692-708, 1988).
88Fre Frey, H., Schultz, R.A.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 15 (1988) 229.
88Sch Schubert, G., et al.: In: Vilas, F., et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson 514-
561, 1988.
88Wet Wetherill, G.W.: In: Vilas, F., et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson 670-
691, 1988.
89Kir Kirk, R.L., Stevenson, D.J.: J. Geophys. Res. 94 (B9) (1989) 12133.
90Mcg McGill, G.E., Dimitriou, A.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 12595.
90Sch Schubert, G., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 14095.
91Hoo Hood, L.L., Huang, Z.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 9837.
91Spo Spohn, T.: Icarus 90 (1991) 222.
92Sch Schubert, G., et al.: In: Kieffer, H.H. et al., editors, Mars, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson 147-
183, 1992.
93Bre Breuer, D., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 41 (1993) 269.
93Han Hansen, U., Yuen, D.A.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 20 (1993) 2191.
93Pol Pollack, H.N., et al.: Rev. Geophys. 31 (1993) 267.
94Sle Sleep, N.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 99 (1994) 5639.
94Wae Wnke, H., et al.: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond A349 (1994) 285.
95Hes Hess, P.C., Parmentier, E.M.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 134 (1995) 501.
95Mor Moresi, L.-N., Solomatov, V. S.: Phys. Fluid 7 (1995) 2154.
95Wei Weinstein, S.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 100 (E6) (1995) 11719.
96Har Harder, H., Christensen, U.: Nature 380 (1996) 507.
96Sol Solomatov, V.S., Moresi, L.-N.: J. Geophys. Res. 101 (1996) 4737.
97Bou Basilevsky, A.T., et al.: In: Bougher, S.W., et al., editors, Venus II, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson 1047-1084, 1997.
97Doi Doin, M.-P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 2771.
97 Kar Karato, S., Rubie, D.: J.Geophys.Res 102 (1997) 20111.
97Kon Konrad, W., Spohn, T.: Advances in Space Research 19 10 (1997) 1511.
97Mck McKenzie, D., Nimmo, F.: Icarus 130 (1997) 198.
98Acu Acua, M.H., et al.: Science 279 (1998) 1676.
98All Alley, K.M., Parmentier, E.M.: Physics of Earth and Planetary Interiors 108 (1998) 15.
98Bre Breuer, D., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (1998) 229.
98Gra Grasset, O., Parmentier, E.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 18171.
98Nim Nimmo, F., McKenzie, D.: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 (1998) 23.
98Res Reese, C.C., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 13643.
98Spo Spohn, T., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 8 (1998) 181.
99Acu Acua, M.H., et al.: Science 284 (1999) 790.
99Cam Cameron, A.G.: Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 37 (1999) 1.
99Con Conzelmann, V.: PhD-Thesis, Westflische Wihlems-Universitt Mnster (1999).
99Con2 Connerney, J.E.P., et al.: Science 284 (1999) 794.
99Dum Dumoulin, C., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 12759.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
99Har Hartmann, W.K., et al.: Nature 397 (1999) 586.

99Pri Pritchard, M.E., Stevenson, D.J.: The Origin of the Earth and Moon, Univ. of Arizona Press
1999.
99Res Reese, C.C., et al.: Icarus 139 (1999) 67.
99Smi Smith, D.E., et al.: Science 284 (1999) 1495.
00Des Deschamps, F., Sotin, C.: Geophys. J. Int. 143 (2000) 204.
00Har Harder, H.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2000) 301.
00Nim Nimmo, F., Stevenson, D.. J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 11969.
00Sol Solomatov, V.S., Moresi, L.-N.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 21795.
00Wie Wieczorek, M.A., Phillips, R. J.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 20417.
00Zub Zuber, M.T., et al.: Science 287 (2000) 1788.
01Acu Acua, M.H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 23403.
01Hes Hess, P.C., Parmentier, E.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 28023.
01Hoo Hood, L.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 27825.
01Sch Schubert, G., et al.: Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge 2001.
01Sol Solomatov, V.S.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 191 (2001) 203.
01Spo Spohn, T., et al.: Space Science Reviews 96 (2001) 231.
01Spo2 Spohn, T., et al.: Icarus 149 (2001) 54.
01Ste Stevenson, D.J.: Nature 412 (2001) 214.
01Wei Weizman, A., et al.: Icarus 150 (2001) 195.
01Zho Zhong, S., Zuber, M.T.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 189 (2001) 75.
02Ber Berman, D.C., Hartmann, W.K.: Icarus 159 (2002) 1.
02Fre Frey, H.V., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (2002) 22-1.
02Hau Hauck, S.A., Philipps, R. J.: J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002) 5052.
02Ste Stevenson, D.J.: American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2002, abstract #P21A-08,
(2002).
03Bre Breuer, D., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) 5072.
03Elk Elkins-Tanton, L.T., et al.: Lun. Placet. Sci. Conf., (2003) 1479.
03Ste Stegman, D. R. et al.: Nature 421(6919) (2003) 143.
04Hau Hauck, S.A., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 222 (2004) 713.
04Neu Neukum, G., et al.: Nature 432 (2004) 971.
04Wen Wenzel, M.J., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (2004) L04702.
04Wil Williams J.-P., Nimmo, F.: Geology 32 (2004) 97.
05Con Connerney, J.E.P., et al.: Proc. Nat. Academy of Science 102 (2005) 14970.
05Nim Nimmo, F., Tanaka, K.: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 33 (2005) 133.
05Res Reese, C.C., et al.: Phys. Planet. Int. 149 (2005) 361.
05Sol Solomon, S.C., et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1214.
06Bon Bond, T.M., Warner, M.R.: Lun. Planet. Sci. Conf. 37 (2006) 1957.
06Bre Breuer, D., Spohn, T.: Planet. Space Sci. 54 (2006) 153.
06Bus Buske, M.: PhD-Thesis, ISBN 3-936586-58-6, Copernicus GmbH (2006)
06Iva Ivanov, M.A., Head, J.W: Lun. Planet. Sci. Conf. 37 (2006) 1366.
06Sch Schumacher, S., Breuer, D.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) E02006.
06She Shearer C.K., et al.: Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry 60 (2006) 265+.
06Wie Wieczorek, M.A., et al.: Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry 60 (2006) 221+.
07Bre Breuer, D., Moore, W.B.: In G. Schubert and T. Spohn, editors, Treatise on Geophysics-
Planets and Moons, Volume 10, pages 299-348. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
07Bre2 Breuer, D., et al.: Space Science Reviews 132 (2007) 229.
07Jau Jaupart, C., et al.: In G. Schubert and D. Bercovici, editors, Treatise on Geophysics-Mantle
dynamics, Volume 7, pages 253-303. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
07Sch Schubert, G., et al.: Icarus 188 (2) (2007) 345.
08And Andrews-Hanna, J.C., et al.: Nature 453 (2008) 1212.
08Mar Marinova, M.M., et al.: Nature 453 (2008) 1216.
08Nim Nimmo, F., et al.: Nature 453 (2008) 1220.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.5 Planetary Geology
Ernst Hauber and Roland Wagner

4.2.3.5.1 Craters and chronology

Impact craters on solid surfaces of planets and their moons are created by hypervelocity collisions with
smaller bodies ranging in size from micrometeorites to large bolides up to tens or hundreds of kilometers
in diameter [e.g. 80Pik, 89Mel]. Candidate impactors or projectiles include [e.g. 75Wet, 94Neu, 05Str]:
1. asteroids,
2. comets,
3. remnant bodies of planetary accretion.
Basically, the number or frequency of craters on a given portion of a (solid) planetary surface, such as a
geologic unit with a specific origin, records the age of the unit: the higher the crater frequency, the higher
the age of the surface due to the longer exposition time towards the incoming projectile flux [e.g. 60Oep,
64Bal, 66Har, 75Neu].
The size-frequency distribution of impact craters is assumed to be correlated with the size-frequency
distribution of the projectile family which created the craters [94Neu, and ref.'s therein]. Crater scaling
laws describe the relationship between projectile size and impact condition parameters, e.g. impact
velocity, impact angle, density of impactors, and surface parameters, such as surface gravity, density and
strength of surface materials. Several crater scaling laws are discussed in the literature [e.g. 85Cro, 87Hol,
87Sch, 89Mel].
Crater morphologies reflect physical properties of specific planetary surfaces and changes of these
properties with time [e.g. 04Sch].
Cratering chronology models
The crater frequency measured on a specific geologic unit is representative of the relative age or crater
retention age of the unit in comparison with other units [79Arv]. Two methods exist to obtain the
absolute age of a geologic unit from its crater frequency:
Method 1: Calibration of crater retention ages using radiometric ages of rock samples collected on a
specific geologic unit [e.g. 81Har, 94Neu].
Method 2: Calibration of the crater retention ages using known crater formation rates [e.g. 81Har].
Absolute ages obtained with an impact chronology model are generally termed cratering model ages.
They are given in units of Giga-years (Gyr or Ga; 1 Gyr = 1 billion years) or Mega-years (Myr or Ma; 1
Myr = 1 million years).
Cratering chronology models for the terrestrial planets
The Earths moon is the only body (except Earth) for which Method 1 is applicable today by using
radiometric ages of rock and soil samples from the Apollo and Luna missions (Ref. 4.2.6) [e.g. 81Har,
87Wil, 94Neu, 01Neu1].
The lunar impact cratering chronology model is characterized by an exponentially declining impact
and crater formation rate in the first 800 million years subsequent to planetary formation 4.55 Gyr ago
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
[75Wet, 94Neu]. This period was termed Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) [75Wet]. Since about 3.8
Gyr ago, impact and cratering rates have dropped considerably and reached a more or less constant level
at 3 3.3 Gyr ago [e.g. 75Wet, 94Neu, 01Neu1].
Several groups of authors interpreted a peak in radiometric ages of lunar rocks at about 3.9 Gyr as
indication for a strong peak in impact and cratering rate around this time [74Ter, 90Ryd, 00Har2]. Based
on this interpretation it was concluded that the Late Heavy Bombardment was characterized by a
terminal lunar cataclysm rather than by a smooth, exponential decay in impact rate with time. The lunar
cataclysm theory has been challenged by dynamic, geologic and stratigraphic arguments [e.g. 75Wet,
94Neu, 06Bal] but is still debated in the literature [e.g. 06Hie].
For the terrestrial planets in the Inner Solar System, Mercury, Venus and Mars, surface ages can only
be obtained by models of the crater forming rates on each one of these bodies (Method 2). Shapes of
crater size-frequency distributions measured on the terrestrial planets, including the Moon, were shown to
be more or less similar which indicates (a) the same family of bodies, preferentially asteroids (Main Belt,
Near Earth asteroids, etc.) impacting these planets, and (b) that time dependences of impact and cratering
rates are similar to that for the Moon [e.g. 94Neu, 01Neu1, 05Str].
Lunar-like cratering chronology models were derived for Mercury [88Str, 01Neu2], Venus
[97Mck], and Mars [76Neu, 81Neu, 01Har] (Tab. 1). On the comparably young surface of Venus (less
than an average of 1 Gyr), all record of an intense bombardment prior to 3 Gyr is lost due to internal
activities, and the record of small craters is reduced due to Venus' dense atmosphere causing the
destruction of projectiles smaller than a given size [97Mck]. Measurements of crater frequencies were
also carried out and surface ages derived for several asteroids of the Main Belt (MBA) and of the Near
Earth Asteroid (NEA) population (e.g. 951 Gaspra [94Neu, 96Cha2]; 243 Ida [94Neu, 96Cha1]; 253
Mathilde [98Cha]; 433 Eros [00Cha]).
Surface ages of the terrestrial planets
A stratigraphic scheme for each terrestrial planet was established, based on stratigraphic key horizons
which are defined by geologic criteria and by their superimposed crater frequencies, e.g. crater ejecta,
lava materials etc. [e.g. 87Wil, 90Wil, 01Tan]. The geologic history of each planet was subdivided into
time-stratigraphic systems. Where necessary, these systems were further subdivided into several (e.g.
lower, middle or upper) series.
Time-stratigraphic systems and series correspond to periods and epochs as chronologic criteria
[87Wil, 90Wil]. The beginning of each period or epoch and its duration is defined by the cratering model
age derived from the crater frequency measurement on the key horizon which defines the base of each
system or series [87Wil, 90Wil, 01Tan].
The geologic history of Mercury is subdivided into the following periods (systems), characterized by
major impact events, which are from youngest to oldest: Kuiperian, Mansurian, Calorian, Tolstojan, and
pre-Tolstojan [88Spu]. The cratering model ages for the stratigraphic key horizons which formed at the
beginning of each period are listed in Tab. 1.
The periods (systems) in the geologic history of Venus, defined by plains formation, tectonic and
impact events, are (from youngest to oldest): Aurelian, Guineverian, Fortunian, and pre-Fortunian
[98Bas]. Because there is no unique average estimate of the surface age of Venus, absolute ages are
preferentially given in fractions of an average surface age T [e.g. 97Mck, 98Bas].
The most extended data set concerning stratigraphy and surface ages is available from the surface of
the Moon [87Wil, and ref.'s therein]. The lunar geologic history is subdivided by impact events into
tperiods (systems) Copernican, Eratosthenian, Imbrian, Nectarian, and pre-Nectarian. The Imbrian
period is further subdivided by the Orientale impact into a late (upper) and early (lower) Imbrian epoch
(series) [87Wil]. The cratering model ages for the stratigraphic key horizons are listed in Tab. 1.
The subdivision of the geologic history of Mars is based on key horizons created by plains-forming
volcanism [86Tan]. The periods/systems from youngest to oldest are Amazonian (with a late, middle, and
early epoch), Hesperian (late and early epoch), and Noachian (late, middle, and early epoch). The
Noachian is characterized by the oldest, densely cratered units. Its base is not exposed [86Tan]. The most
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
up-to-date chronology model is by Hartmann and Neukum [01Har]. The cratering model ages of its key
horizons are listed in Tab. 1.
Table 1 Chronologic periods and epochs, corresponding to time-stratigraphic systems and series, of the
geological histories of Mercury, Moon and Mars. Venus is not included because absolute age data are not
widely used for this planet [98Bas]. In columns 2 to 4, the cratering model ages of the stratigraphic key
horizons for each period/system are listed. Model ages are given in units of Gyr (see text for explanation).
No age uncertainties are included for the model ages (see references given in the table for details).
Differences in absolute age dating for each planet between various groups of investigators are due to
differences in assumptions of the impact and cratering rates. For Mars, for example, the two authors
[01Har] came up with either younger ages (Hartmann) or higher ages (Neukum) for the epochs of the
Amazonian period but agree for the epochs of the Hesperian and Noachian periods.
Planet / References (1) / References (2) / References (3)
Period (Epoch) Cratering model age Cratering model age Cratering model age
Mercury [88SNe] [01Neb] ---
Kuiperian 1.0 1.0
Mansurian 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5
Calorian 3.92 3.77
Tolstojan 4.1 3.97
Pre-Tolstojan > 4.1 > 3.97
Moon [87Wil] [94NIv, 01Nea] [01StR]
Copernican 1.1 1.5 1.1 2.1
Eratosthenian 3.2 3.2 3.15
Late Imbrian 3.8 3.84 3.72
Early Imbrian 3.84 3.92 3.77
Nectarian 3.92 4.1 3.92
Pre-Nectarian > 3.92 > 4.1 > 3.92
Mars [01HaN] (Hartmann) [01HaN] (Neukum) ---
Late Amazonian 0.3 0.66
Middle Amazonian 1.5 2.47
Early Amazonian 2.9 3.31
Late Hesperian 3.65 3.65
Early Hesperian 3.74 3.74
Late Noachian 3.86 3.86
Middle Noachian 3.97 3.97
Early Noachian > 3.97 >3.97
Cratering chronologies for the satellites in the Outer Solar System
Two sets of impact chronology models, based on possible crater forming rates, exist for the satellites in
the Outer Solar System: (a) models with a lunar-like time dependence of the impact and cratering rate,
and (b) models with a constant impact and cratering rate throughout most of solar system history.
Lunar-like cratering chronology models for the Jovian and Saturnian satellites were derived by several
groups of investigators [82Sho1, 85Boy, 85Neu, 85Ple, 97Neu, 98Neu, 06Neu]. One group of authors
assumes preferentially comets as major impactors [82Sho1, 85Boy, 85Ple], another group preferentially
asteroids from the Main Belt [98Neu, 06Neu].
A constant cratering rate chronology for the icy satellites of the major planets was put forward, based
on present-day numbers, sizes, orbital parameters and impact rates preferentially of comets originating in
the Kuiper Belt, and extrapolating these impact rates and their uncertainties (factors of 3 5) back in time
[96Sho, 98Zah, 03Zah, and ref.s therein].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
The two competing cratering chronology models agree well for old, densely cratered surfaces on the
icy satellites but are more than an order of magnitude divergent for younger, volcanically and/or
tectonically resurfaced units. A discussion of the pros and cons for each one of these models is beyond
the scope of this summary. For this, the authors refer the reader to a series of publications on this issue
[e.g. 97Neu, 98Neu, 98Zah, 03Zah, 04Sch].
Surface ages of the icy satellites
The low frequency of craters superimposed on the surface of Europa infers a much younger surface age
than for the densely cratered surfaces of Ganymede and Callisto [79Smi2, 82Luc]. The average age of
Europa could be 30 70 Myr in the comet impact chronology model [03Zah].
With the asteroidal lunar-like chronology model, much higher surface ages on the order of 1 Gyr
(range from 1.5 to 0.5 Gyr due to model uncertainty) are obtained for Europa, but individual geologic
units can also be as young as 200 Myr or less [98Neu]. A possible present-day endogenic activity of
Europa is not refuted by this model.
The dark, densely cratered plains on Callisto and Ganymede are mostly old in both chronology
models, on the order of 4 Gyr and older [98Neu, 98Zah, 03Zah]. Major disagreements between the two
models exist for the tectonically resurfaced bright grooved terrain on Ganymede (Ref. 4.2.3.5.3).
Depending on the two cratering chronology models, bright grooved terrain was formed between 3.9 and
3.6 Gyr ago [97Neu, 98Neu], 2 Gyr ago [03Zah], or only a few hundred million years ago [98Zah].
Based on lunar-like impact chronology models, the ages of the densely cratered surfaces of the icy
satellites of Saturn were estimated to be on the order of 3.8 4 Gyr old while resurfaced terrains, e.g. on
Enceladus and Dione, may have formed less than 1.5 Gyr ago [85Boy, 85Ple, 85Neu, 06Neu]. Currently,
the large data volume of images returned by the cameras aboard the Cassini Orbiter around Saturn is used
to update existing model chronologies [03Zah, 06Neu]. The cometary, constant-rate bombardment history
model [03Zah] implies very young ages for the resurfaced terrains on e.g. Enceladus (order of << 1 Gyr)
but still high ages (> 4 Gyr) for the densely cratered units on each satellite [08Kir]. Cassini Radar data
show only a small number of large impact craters on Titan implying a very young surface age [06Sto].
Ages of the surfaces of the five major Uranian satellites Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and
Oberon were obtained by crater counts on Voyager imaging data [87Ple, 88Ple, 89Ple]. Except for
Miranda and Ariel, the spatial resolution is low. The densely cratered plains on these satellites are mostly
old (order of 4 Gyr [03Zah]). Titania shows younger resurfaced terrain with ages of 2 3 Gyr [03Zah].
The tectonically and/or cryovolcanically resurfaced units on Ariel and Miranda could be much younger,
possibly only several 100 Myr [03Zah].
Several groups have worked on crater distributions on Neptun's largest satellite Triton and concluded
that its surface could be not older than several Myr up to 600 Myr [03Zah, and ref.'s therein].
Crater morphologies on the terrestrial planets
Impact craters are ubiquitious landforms on the rocky surfaces of the terrestrial planets Mercury, Venus,
the Earths moon, and Mars [e.g. 89Mel]. Main Belt (MBA) and Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) imaged
so far also show densely cratered surfaces [94Neu, 96Cha1, 96Cha2, 98Cha, 00Cha]. Earth hosts an
average number of 150 confirmed impact features plus a number of less likely cases (order of 50). Most
of the terrestrial cratering record has been erased by active geologic processes.
With increasing diameter, crater morphology becomes increasingly complex. Several classes of crater
forms can be distinguished [83Pik, 88Pik, 89Mel]. Transitional diameters between these classes depend
on the specific physical properties of each body, such as e.g. surface gravity and strength, and therefore
vary from planet to planet. Morphologic classes and transition diameters for each planet are listed in Tab.
2. Typical examples for each morphologic class are shown in Fig. 1. In addition to these morphologic
classes, individual craters of each class are subject to erosion, degradation or other (e.g. tectonic)
processes and can, in addition, be subdivided by their degradational state (Ref. 4.2.3.5.4).
The smallest craters which can be identified in camera images are the so-called simple craters [83Pik,
88Pik, 89Mel]. In their pristine state, simple craters exhibit (a) a sharp crater rim, (b) a bowl-shaped,
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
more or less parabolic crater interior, and (c) a well-developed ejecta blanket. A typical example is shown
in Fig. 1 (top left)). At small sizes, crater morphology is preferentially controlled by the strength of the
surface material [87Hol, 87Sch].
At diameters larger than a few kilometers, crater forms become complex. The simple-to-complex
transition diameter is inversely proportional to the surface gravity [80Pik, 83Hol, 89Mel]. Mars deviates
from this rule because of a significant amount of volatiles in the subsurface [80Pik, 89Mel].
Characteristics of this complex crater class are (a) wall terraces, (b) flat floors, and (c) central peaks or
peak complexes [89Mel] (example: Tycho, Moon, 85 km, Fig. 1 (middle left)). A further criterion is the
depth-to-diameter (d/D) ratio which is significantly smaller than for that of simple craters [see e.g. 80Pik].
At still larger crater sizes, central peak rings can be observed, especially in craters on the Moon or
Mercury (example: Fig. 1 (top right); Tab 2).
The largest complex craters have diameters of several hundreds of kilometers. Impact structures in
this size range are generally termed impact basins [89Mel, 93Spu] (Tab. 2). These features are
characteristic of the oldest geologic units on the terrestrial planets and provide a record of massive
impacts in the early geologic history (prior to 3.7 Gyr).
Double-ring craters are small impact basins or so-called protobasins and display large, central peak
rings [83Pik, 88Pik] (example: Fig. 1 (middle right); Tab. 2). With increasing basin diameter, more than
two rings can be discerned, formed as concentric ridges or inward-facing scarps [89Mel, 93Spu]. A
maximum of six concentric rings in one basin (e.g. Orientale, Moon) was reported [93Spu]. The largest
ring basin known on the terrestrial planets is South Pole Aitken (SPA) on the Moon with a maximum
diameter of 2600 km of the outermost ring [93Spu].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 1 Type examples of characteristic crater morphology

classes on the terrestrial planets (image numbers given at the
bottom of each image). (top left) small simple crater
(unnamed) on Mars (MOC narrow angle camera (NA));
(middle left) complex crater Tycho with terraces and
central peak on the Moon (Lunar Orbiter V); (top right)
complex crater Eminescu with central peak ring, and
(middle right ) large, complex double-ring crater or basin
(unnamed) on Mercury, both images by Messenger MDIS
narrow angle camera (flyby Jan. 2008; PIA numbers are
from http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov); (bottom) rampart
crater (unnamed) on Mars, data from the HRSC camera
aboard MarsExpress, nadir channel frame from orbit 2956.
Ejecta material
The material ejected during crater formation produces two distinct facies of deposits on the surface [e.g.
89Mel]: material ejected over larger distances produces clusters or radial chains of small, more or less
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
irregularly shaped small craters termed secondary craters. This facies is called discontinuous ejecta.
Closer to the rim of the crater, a more or less continuous ejecta blanket can be distinguished. Both ejecta
facies can be seen in the two Mercurian craters in Fig. 1 (top and middle right). Ejecta are not found on
low-gravity bodies, such as asteroids or the two Martian moons [e.g. 94Neu].
Mars exhibits a specific type of continuous ejecta. Their morphology indicates mobilization
(fluidization) of volatiles (e.g. H2O) in the target material, aided by the presence of an atmosphere
[89Mel, 06Car, and ref.s therein]. This class of Martian craters is termed rampart craters. The
continuous ejecta show a lobate-shaped outer boundary, in many cases with a terminal ridge (example:
Fig. 1 (bottom right)).
Crater rays are common for stratigraphically young craters on the Moon and Mercury. Rays are bright,
filament-like albedo features which extend several hundreds of kilometers radially outward from the
crater [89Mel]. Typical examples are Copernicus or Tycho on the Moon. Crater rays are at best seen in
images taken at high sun elevation. Rays fade with time and may have disappeared after 1 2 Gyr
[89Mel]. Their origin is still not fully understood [see discussion in 89Mel].
Table 2 Transition diameters of crater morphology classes for the terrestrial planets. All diameters are
given in kilometers. For the simple-to-complex (average) transition diameter [83Pik, 88Pik], min./max.
ranges are given in smaller characters. Data for Martian rampart craters (third column) by [06Car], Data
for two-ring basins (fourth col.) by [83Pik], for multi-ring basins (fifth col.) by [88Pik] and [93Spu].
Transition diameters for craters and basins on Venus were not exactly measured but have been shown to
be more or less similar to craters on Earth [93Spu].
Planet Simple-to-complex tr. Rampart cr. Two-ring b. Multi-ring b.
Mercury 10 (9 30) - > 75 > 285
Earth (& Venus) 3.5 (2 5) - > 25 (?) > 21
Moon 18 (15 25) - > 140 > 300
Mars 6.5 (5 8) >3 > 45 > 300
Crater morphologies on the satellites of Jupiter
The craters on the three Galilean satellites of Jupiter, Callisto, Ganymede and Europa, formed on
predominantly icy surfaces. Three trends in crater morphology on these bodies were noted [04Sch, and
ref.'s therein]: (1) With increasing diameter, the complexity of crater forms increases, similar to craters on
the rocky terrestrial planets. (2) With increasing diameter, crater forms increasingly deviate from crater
forms on the terrestrial bodies, with morphologies not observed on e.g. the Moon or Mars at larger sizes.
(3) Also unlike craters on rocky bodies, the depth-to-diameter ratio first increases with increasing crater
diameter, but decreases after having reached a maximum at a certain diameter specific to each satellite.
No impact craters have been observed on Io because of the high resurfacing rates on this volcanically
active body [04McE, and ref.'s therein]. Ganymede and Callisto exhibit large expanses of dark, densely
cratered plains implying high surface ages [04Mob, 04Pap]. On the comparably young surface of Europa,
a total number of 150 catalogued (and partly named) craters larger than 1 km and up to 45 km in diameter
was reported using Galileo SSI (including Voyager) data [98Moo, 01Moo, 04Sch].
Broadly, five different classes of impact structures can be distinguished on the three icy Galilean
satellites [79Smi1, 79Smi2, 82Pas, 04Sch]:
1. classic crater forms simple and complex craters,
2. craters with central pits,
3. craters with central domes,
4. bright, flat, pancake-shaped forms termed palimpsests,
5. multi-ring structures.
Specific crater forms unknown from terrestrial-planet surfaces are shown in Fig. 2. Transition diameters
for the characteristic crater morphologies on the three major icy satellites of Jupiter are listed in Tab. 3.
Simple craters on the icy Galilean satellites are similar in morphology to their terrestrial-planet
analogues [04Sch]. The simple-to-complex transition begins at smaller diameters than on the terrestrial
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
planets [04Sch]. Stratigraphically young complex craters larger than 15 20 km can exhibit bright ray
systems. Examples for small complex craters are shown in Fig. 2 (top left).
In some complex craters on all three satellites, an outward-facing scarp is observed in the continuous
ejecta blanket about one crater radius away from the rim. Complex craters with this specific feature were
termed pedestal craters [82Hor, 98Moo, 01Moo, 04Sch]. This feature is reminescent of rampart craters
and, as on Mars, infers the presence of volatiles in the subsurface [82Hor]. Fig. 2 shows two typical
examples of pedestal craters (Gula and Achelous on Ganymede).
Prior to the Voyager flybys and in the Voyager era (1979 1989), viscous relaxation was invoked as
the landmark process to cause flat crater forms (including palimpsests described below) on the icy
Galilean satellites with time, owing to the rapid viscous creep of the low-strength material on these
surfaces [73Joh, 79Smi1, 79Smi2, 82Pas]. Alternatively, relaxation by enhanced rim and floor collaps in
this low-strength material is discussed as the dominant process to create flattened crater topography
[04Sch, and ref.s therein].
At larger crater sizes, rimmed central pits replace central peaks in craters on the three icy Galilean
moons (Tab. 3). With increasing diameter, central domes within rimmed central pits are observed in
craters on Ganymede and Callisto which are unique on these two satellites [82Pas, 88Moo, 04Sch]. Pit-to-
crater and dome-to-crater ratio increases with increasing crater diameter [04Sch]. A typical dome crater is
Melkart on Ganymede (Fig. 2).
A fraction of dome craters on Ganymede and Callisto exhibit a comparably large central dome,
surrounded by a wreath of rugged terrain instead of a rimmed pit while a prominent, coherent crater rim
can no longer be observed. The terminology for such forms is not uniform, they are termed anomalous
dome craters [04Sch, and ref.s therein], large dome craters [88Moo], anomalous pit craters [83Cro], or
penepalimpsests type II [82Pas]. A typical example is Neith on Ganymede (Fig. 2).
The origin of central domes is an open issue. The following modes of origin are in discussion: (1)
refreezing of impact melt [83Cro], (2) post-impact diapirism [88Moo], or (3) rapid uplift of ductile
material during impact [93Sch].
Bright, mostly circular high-albedo impact structures occur on Ganymede and Callisto. First observed
in Voyager data, they were interpreted as remnants of former impact craters and termed palimpsests
[79Smi1, 79Smi2, 82Pas]. These impact crater forms are almost completely devoid of typical crater
morphologies such as crater rims. Palimpsests showing distinctive remnants of concentric structures were
classified as penepalimpsests type I [82Pas]. A typical example, Buto Facula, is shown in Fig. 2.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 2 Typical examples of characteristic crater forms on

Ganymede. These craters are also representative of
analogous crater forms on Callisto. Image sources: mosaics
of Galileo SSI images obtained during various flybys in the
Nominal Mission, SSI target area observation ID of each
frame is given. Chrysor and Aleyn: small complex craters,
target area G1GSMEMPHI01; Gula and Achelous: mid-
sized complex craters with ejecta pedestals, target area
G7GSACHELS01; Melkart: large central pit crater, target
area G8GSMELKRT01; Neith: anomalous dome crater or
pene-palimpsest, target area G7GSNEITH_01; Buto Facula:
palimpsest in dark material of Marius Regio, target area
G8GSBUTOFC01. Mosaics in right column shown in lower-
resolution Voyager context. North is approximately pointing
to the right for Neith and upward for all other images.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
The origin of palimpsests (including penepalimpsests) is not fully understood. The following modes of
emplacement are discussed [03Jon, and ref.s therein]: (1) extrusion, triggered by impact, (2) fluidized
ejecta, or (3) dry and solid ejecta.
Multi-ring structures are the largest impact features on Callisto and Ganymede with a maximum
spatial extension up to several thousands of kilometers. Typical ring structures are Valhalla and Asgard
on Callisto, with maximum diameters of their entire ring systems of 3800 km (Valhalla) and 1900 km
(Asgard) [79Smi1, 79Smi2, 82Pas, 04Moo2].
Unlike ring structures on the terrestrial planets, these two best preserved ring basins on Callisto are
characterized by distinct structural zones with (a) central bright plains reminescent of a palimpsest and up
to several hundreds of kilometers in diameter, surrounded (b) by numerous (> 5) concentric rings of
ridges, scarps, or troughs with a more or less constant spacing [95Sch, 00Gre1].
On Ganymede, multi-ring structures are also abundant but circularity and structural zones have been
altered or obliterated by tectonic deformation [82Pas, 98Pro, 04Pap1, 04Sch]. A second type of ring
structures on Ganymede like the Gilgamesh basin is characterized by (a) similar structural zones but with
a smaller number of rings (< 5), (b) is much less degraded, and (c) shows a smaller frequency of
superimposed impact craters, therefore represents relatively young impact structures [04Sch].
On Europa, multi-ring structures, first identified as brown spots in Voysager images [82Luc], are one
order of magnitude smaller in diameter than on Ganymede or Callisto. Only two of such forms, Callanish
and Tyre, are known [82Luc, 98Moo]. The existence of pits and chains of small craters radial to the center
of both features seen in Galileo SSI data represent secondary crater clusters and confirm that Callanish
and Tyre have an impact origin [01Moo].
Several models describe the origin of multi-ring structures on planets and satellites [89Mel, 93Spu],
but only the Tsunami and the ring tectonic models seem to sufficiently explain the specific morphology of
these structures on icy satellites. In the Tsunami model [68Van, 93Spu], a massive impact can fluidize the
target material and produce wave-like features which are topographically expressed as numerous ridges,
scarps, and troughs.
The ring tectonic model [80Mck] describes the origin of rings on icy satellites by a massive projectile
which impacts into a thin (order of several kilometers to a few tens of kilometers), brittle lithosphere and
penetrates into a ductile, possibly in parts fluid astenosphere. In this model, the material in the
astenosphere flows gravitationally inward toward the center of the impact which extensional stresses in
the material of the lithosphere.
From width and spacing of troughs or furrows, the brittle-to-ductile transition depts can be measured
[80Mck]. On Ganymede and Callisto, this transition was, accordingly, at depths at approximately 15 to 20
km at the time of formation of these basins. On Europa, Callanish and Tyre formed when the brittle-to-
ductile transition was at depths of about 5 10 km [01Moo].
A special crater form abundant on Callisto are crater chains (catenae) which can reach lengths up to
620 km (Gipul Catena) [82Pas, 95Sch]. Only a small number of such chains are radial to ring basins and
therefore secondary crater chains [00Gre1]. The majority of these chains was created by cometary bodies
fragmented into a string of bolides hitting the surface, in a process similar to the break-up of comet
Shoemaker/Levy-9 which impacted Jupiter in July 1994 [95Mck1, 00Gre1].
Table 3 Transition diameters and diameter ranges for crater morphology classes on the three icy Galilean
satellites of Jupiter. Data from Greeley et al. and Schenk et al. [04Gre, 04Sch, and ref.'s therein].
Diameters are given in kilometers. Abbreviations used in the top row are: S2C: simple-to-complex crater
transition; CP: central pit craters; CD: central dome craters; PP: pene-palimpsest (= craters with a large
central dome); P: palimpsests; MRB: multi-ring basins. The smallest palimpsest ( 50 km) on Ganymede
was observed in Galileo SSI data of the first Ganymede flyby [98Pro].
Satellite S2C CP CD PP P MRB
Europa 5 (3 27) -- -- -- -- > 40
Ganymede 3 (2 35) > 26 > 60 50 - 250 50 - 390 > 100
& Callisto
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Crater morphologies on the satellites of Saturn
The morphology of craters on the nine major icy Saturnian satellites Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione,
Rhea, Titan, Hyperion, Iapetus and Phoebe varies from smaller, bowl-shaped simple craters to complex
craters similar to the morphology of craters on the Jovian satellites. Complex craters are characterized by
central peaks or peak complexes but lack central pits and domes [86Cha]. Simple-to-complex transition
diameters are listed in Tab. 4.
Craters with bright rays as observed for the Galilean satellites are not commonplace on the satellites of
Saturn, only at small crater sizes (a few kilometers and less in diameter) [86Cha, 05Por1, 06Wag, 08Sch].
Among several possible causes cited [e.g. 86Cha], these are low surface gravity and high ejection
velocity. One large (48 km in diameter), stratigraphically young ray crater was found on Rhea and is an
impact possibly a few hundreds or tens of million years old [07Wag3, 08Wag].
Cassini ISS data have extended the image data base for large craters, basins and ring structures on
the icy satellites of Saturn. The largest number of such structures was found on Iapetus using digital
terrain models derived from Cassini ISS stereo data [08Gie]. The largest one of these structures is up to
800 km across [07Gie2, 08Gie].
Rhea's old, densely cratered surface also shows several large impact structures. Tirawa and a
degraded basin of similar size adjacent to it to the east were known prior to Cassini [01Sto, 04Moo1, ands
ref.'s therein]. Most of the large impact structures recently discovered in Cassini ISS stereo images are
heavily degraded and therefore difficult to discern [07Gie2, 07Wag3, 08Wag].
Table 4 Average transition diameter, indicated by the occurrence of central peaks, and diameter range for
the simple-to-complex crater transition on each of the major satellites of Saturn [86Cha, 89Sce].
Diameters are given in kilometers.
Satellite Simple-to-complex transition
Mimas 27.5 (20 35)
Enceladus 15 (10 20)
Tethys 27.5 (20 35)
Dione 20 (15 25)
Rhea 15 (10 20)
Iapetus < 49
The 350-km basin Evander (named recently [08Roa2]) located near the south pole of Dione is the largest
impact structure on this satellite. The existence of this basin was anticipated from Voyager imagery
[02Sto]. The largest basin on Tethys is Odysseus (445 km in diameter) and a few more mostly degraded
basins < 300 km in diameter [02Sto, 04Moo1]. The surface of Mimas is characterized by the 110-km
large impact structure Herschel [04Moo1, and ref.'s therein].
The large impact structures are characterized by only one or two rings, mostly ridges or inward-facing
scarps [e.g.04Moo1]. Central peaks or peak complexes can occur in these structures. Differences in
topographic expressions of impact structures on various satellites are believed to have been caused by
differences in thermal histories of each of these bodies [07Gie2, 08Gie].
Crater morphologies of the satellites of Uranus
Detailed analysis of crater morphologies on the five major Uranian satellites, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel,
Titania and Oberon is hampered by the comparably low image resolution obtained during the Voyager 2
flyby in January 1986, except for Miranda and Ariel [86Smi, 89Sce].
The largest number of simple craters is seen on the surface of Miranda which was imaged at highest
spatial resolution [86Smi, 91Cro]. Complex craters on all five major Uranian satellites are characterized
by central peaks [89Sce] (Tab. 5). Central pits, domes, or palimpsests are absent in complex craters
[91Cro]. An 11-km high mountain seen on the limb of Oberon could represent an enormous central peak
of a large impact basin [86Smi, 91Cro].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 5 Average transition diameter or diameter ranges, indicated by the occurrence of central peaks, for
the simple-to-complex crater transition on each of the major satellites of Uranus [86Cha, 89Sce].
Diameters are given in kilometers. Limited image coverage and resolution does not allow to better
constrain the simple-to-complex transition diameter and diameter ranges for central peaks [89Sce].
Satellite Simple-to-complex transition
Miranda > 25
Ariel 15 (10 20)
Umbriel < 29
Titania < 20
Oberon < 35
Ariel, Titania and Oberon exhibit craters with bright rims, bright ejecta and rays [86Smi]. Umbriel lacks
craters with bright ejecta or rays, except for a single bright annular feature 40 km in diameter of unknown
origin [86Smi]. Large, basin-type impact structures >100 km in diameter occur on the surfaces of
Umbriel, Titania and Oberon [86Smi, 91Cro].
Crater morphologies on the satellites of Neptune
Neptune's largest satellite Triton which exhibits very low crater frequencies implying young surface ages
[89Smi, 03Zah]. Simple craters are observed to a maximum diameter of 12 km [89Smi]. Larger craters
show the typical complex morphology with flat floors and central peaks, but central pits, domes or
palimpsests do not occur on Triton. The largest crater found on Triton's surface has a diameter of 27 km
[89Smi].
4.2.3.5.2. Volcanism
Volcanism has shaped the surfaces of all terrestrial planets and the Moon, and also occurs on the Jovian
satellite, Io (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). Other moons of Jupiter and Saturn display evidence for cryovolcanism,
and active eruptions have been observed on Enceladus, a small icy moon of Saturn. Volcanic landforms
result from internal processes that transport heat from a planet`s interior outwards, and the study of past
and present volcanic activity can put important constraints on the internal evolution of a geologic body
(Ref. section 4.2.3.4.: Dynamics and Thermal Evolution). The investigation of the morphology and
mineralogy of volcanic products as well as the study of eruption processes allows to infer the composition
of parent magmas derived from the crust or mantle and, indirectly, to the chemical composition of
planetary interiors. Therefore, an understanding of the volcanic history of a geologic body is of
paramount importance.
This chapter gives an overview of the most important volcanic landforms in the Solar System. It is not
intended to give a comprehensive summary of all volcanic surface features and processes, since there are
many excellent reviews available (general volcanology: [72Mac], [79Wil], [88Cas], [04Fra], [00Sch1],
[00Sig]; basaltic volcanism: [81BVS]; planetary volcanism: [89Cat], [96Mur], [96Fra], [99Wil],
[00Zim2], [83Wil]). Since this chapter is about surface geology, it discusses extrusive volcanism only,
and does not treat impact melts (according to the IUGS, impact melt rocks are crystalline, semihyaline or
hyaline rocks which have solidified from shock-produced impact melt).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 3 Huge basaltic volcanic constructs on the larger

terrestrial planets. (a) Maat Mons on Venus, a steep-sided
volcano that rises three kilometers above the surrounding
terrain. Lava flows extend for hundreds of kilometers across
the fractured plains shown in the foreground, to the base of
Maat Mons. The simulated perspective view was created on
the basis of Magellan radar data and color images of the
Venera 13 and 14 landers (image: NASA/JPL). (b) Huge
terrestrial shield volcanoes such as those found on the
Galapagos or Hawaiian Islands or are often used as
analogues for the giant Martian shield volcanoes. The image
shows the snow-covered caldera of Mauna Loa on Hawai`i
(Mauna Kea in background). Note the similarity to the
caldera of the Martian shield volcano, Olympus Mons,
displayed in panel c (image: USGS/D.W. Peterson). (c) The
summit region of Olympus Mons with its large, 80 km-
diameter caldera. This and other images proved immediately
and beyond doubt that volcanoes exist on Mars (image:
NASA).
Fig. 4 Evidence for volcanism on smaller solar system

bodies. (a) Dome-like feature with central, kidney-shaped
depression on Mercury. This object was recently discovered
by the MESSENGER spacecraft and is interpreted as a broad
and low shield volcano [08Hea], similar to lunar domes.
Image: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington. (b) Lava
flows on the lunar surface bear testimony that volcanism was
a significant process on the Moon (image: Apollo 15, M-
1556). (c) The plume of Tvashtar volcano spectacularly rises
over the surface of the Jovian satellite, Io, against the dark
background of space [07Spe]. Another smaller plume,
associated with the volcano Prometheus, is visible on the
left. Tvashtar`s plume reaches a height of 290 km (terrestrial
volcanoes erupt their gas and dust just a few kilometers
high). The image was taken on 28 February, 2008, by the
New Horizon spacecraft on its way to Pluto during an
encounter with the Jovian system (image: NASA).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Eruptive processes and environmental control
Any specific planetary environment influences the eruption conditions of volcanic processes. The
atmospheric conditions (if an atmosphere is present), the particular surface gravity, and the density profile
within the lithosphere all affect the ascent and eruption of magma as well as the cooling of lava flows and
other volcanic deposits. An analysis of these parameters and their role in volcanic processes is provided
by [83Wil; 84Wil]. These different environmental parameters have to be kept in mind during any attempt
to relate observed volcanic deposits to eruption mechanisms (Tab. 6).
Table 6 Types of volcanc eruptions (after [99Wil]).
Type of eruption Characteristics [99Wil]
Effusive eruptions Magma erupts from a vent without significant disruption and forms a lava
flow
Explosive eruptions Magma is disrupted into fragments (pyroclasts) by expansion of exsolved

gases
Strombolian Eruptions in which large, pressurized bubbles of volcanic gas emerge

intermittently from a vent and burst, disrupting the magma surface into a
spray of pyroclasts
Vulcanian Intermittent explosive eruptions in which gas pressure builds up beneath a
retaining cover of cooled lava until the strength of this layer is exceeded
Hawaiian Steady discharge of volcanic gas and incandescent pyroclasts forms a (fire)
fountain above the vent
Plinian Vigorous explosive eruption in which a relatively steady discharge of
volcanic gas and hot pyroclasts entrains and heats gas from the
surrounding atmosphere to form a high convecting eruption cloud above
the vent
Phreato-magmatic Explosive eruption involving the vigorous interaction of erupting magma
with surface water or any other liquid volatile
Pyroclastic eruption No atmosphere, no convecting eruption cloud (e.g., Moon, Io)
into a vacuum
The factors controlling magma ascent of the Moon have been examined by, e.g., [81Wil]. Of particular
interest is Mars, because it has an atmosphere that is dense enough to support convection clouds, but thin
enough to enable explosive eruptions. Explosive basaltic eruptions should be common on Mars, because
the combination of lower gravity and low atmospheric pressure favours the nucleation of gas bubbles and
fragmentation of magma in greater depths than on Earth [82Fra; 94Wil]. A modern theoretical treatment
of tephra production and dispersion on Mars is given by [07Wil1], and the heat transfer in volcano-ice
interactions on Earth [07Wil2] and some implications for Mars are analyzed by [02Wil2; 07Hea1].
Venus, on the other hand, has a extremely dense atmosphere, which will tend to suppress explosive
eruptions [86Hea]. Water contents of Venusian magmas would have to be much higher than on Earth to
enable explosive eruptions, and it is likely that explosive activity might have never happened on Venus
(Tab. 7). Effusion rates on other planets and moons can not be measured in situ, and have to be derived
from morphometric data (Tab. 8).
Table 7 Surface pressures on planets and minimum water content of magmas to enable explosive
eruptions (from [99Wil]).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Planet Surface atmospheric pressure [MPa] Minimum water content [weight-%]
Earth 0.1 (land) 0.07

60 (ocean floor)
Mars 50 500 (depending on elevation) 0.01
Venus 4 10 (depending on elevation) 2
Moon, Io 0 -
Table 8 Rheologic properties of lava flows and effusion rates on the Earth, Moon, Venus, Mars, and Io
(modified from [07Hie]; b.: basalt, tr.-and.: trachyte/andesite, carbon.: carbonatite, phonol.: phonolite).
Location Yield strength Viscosity Effusion rate Lava Ref.

[Pa] [Pa s] [m3 s-1] type
Earth
Makaopuhi, Hawaii 102 basalt [68Sha]
Mauna Loa, Hawaii 3.5 102 7.2 103 1.4 102 5.6 106 417 556 basalt [87Moo]
Columbia Riv. Basalts <7 103 basalt [84McB]
Makaopuhi, Hawaii 70 8 103 7 102 4.5 103 basalt [84Cig]
Makaopuhi, Hawaii 4 103 2 104 [78Moo]
Mount Etna, Italy 103 5 104 basalt [85Kil]
Mount Etna, Italy 0.3 0.5 basalt [76Pin]
3 4
Kilauea, Hawaii 1.5 10 5 10 basalt [86Fin]
Mauna Loa, Hawaii 0.4 104 basalt [78Moo]
Hawaii 0.23 1.1 104 trachyte [78Moo]
Mount St. Helens 1.5 105 andesite [78Moo]
Mono Craters (USA) 1.2 3.3 105 rhyolite [78Moo]
Sabancaya, Peru 4.99 10 1.57 106
4
7.26 109 1.64 1013 1 13 tr.-and. [03War]
Oldoinyo Lengai, Tanz. 10 100 carbon. [90Daw]
Columbia Riv. Basalts 5.0 4 103 basalt [73Mur]
Mauna Loa, Hawaii 1.7 105 basalt [76Hul]
Paricutin, Mexico 3.6 106 andesite [76Hul]
Arenal, Costa Rica 1.0 107 b.-and. [84Cig]
Arenal, Costa Rica 0.33 andesite [84Pin]
Teide, Tenerife 4.4 107 phonol. [76Hul]
Kilauea, Hawaii 2 400 basalt [90Row]
Mauna Loa, Hawaii 5 1044 basalt [90Row]
Laki (Iceland) 8700 (max) basalt [93Tho]
Moon
Mare Imbrium 1.5 102 [75Moo]
Mare Imbrium 4.2 102 [77Hul]
Mare Imbrium 2 102 [73Boo]
Gruithuisen Domes 7.7 14.2 104 3.2 13.9 108 5.5 119.3 [03Wil]
Mairan Domes 5.3 13.1 104 1.3 11.5 108 48.0 51.5 [03Wil]
Aristarchus 1.3 104 [77Hul]
Aristarchus 1.94 104 [78Moo]
Necho 2.25 104 [78Moo]
King 2.41 104 [78Moo]
Venus
Artemis Festoon Lobe 1 4.12 104 7.12 106 1.02 104 [04McC]
Ovda Festoon Plains 2.07 105 9.28 109 2.4 102 [04McC]
Atalanta Festoon 1.22 105 2.34 109 9.52 102 [04McC]
Artemis Festoon Lobe 2 1.32 105 7.31 109 2.54 103 [04McC]
Mars
Arsia Mons 0.39 3.1 103 [78Moo]
Arsia Mons 2.5 103 3.9 103 9.7 105 5.6 103 4.3 104 b./b.-and. [03War]
Alba Patera 1.9 103 2.8 104 1.7 10 1.9 106
5
[87Cat]
Ascraeus Mons 3.3 103 8.3 104 6.4 105 2.1 108 18 60 [85Zim]
Olympus Mons 8.8 103 4.5 104 2.3 105 6.9 106 [76Hul]
Olympus Mons 1.8 5.3 104 [78Moo]
Elysium Mons 20 [95Kes]
Alba Patera 105 [97Sak]
2 5 4 7
Ascraeus Mons 2.0 10 1.3 10 1.7 10 4.2 10 23 404 [07Hie]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Io
Outburst (January 1990) 105 to 106 [95Bla]; [96Dav]
Open channel flow (Pillan) 103 to 104 [01Dav]; [01Wil1]
Lava lake (Pele) ~250 to 350 [01Dav]; [86Car]
Amirani (insulated flow field) 79 (+9, -6) [00Dav]
16 to 245 Equation 3 [03Dav]
58 Equation 4 [03Dav]
Prometheus (insulated flow field) 35 (+8, -3) [00Dav]
21 Equation 4 [03Dav]
All 14 G1 volcanoes 1655 [00Dav]
Volcanic landforms
Volcanism results in a wide range of surface morphologies, basically all of which have also been
observed on other planets and moons. Central eruptions create some of the most spectacular of volcanic
landforms, i.e. central volcanoes. They can be monogenetic (i.e., formed during one eruption period
[79Woo]), or polygenetic (formed during several eruption periods). Central volcanoes can be classified
into several types: Shield volcanoes, domes, cinder cones, composite volcanoes, craters, and calderas. If
magma interacts with groundwater or seawater, the eruption is called a phreatic eruption, which can
result in maars, tuff cones, and tuff rings. Subglacial eruptions (e.g., in Iceland or Antarctica) give rise to
characteristical, steep-sided and flat-topped table mountains (called tuyas). Diatremes result from
explosive eruptions and the infilling of the vent with breccia. Fissure eruptions are typical for the mid-
ocean ridges on Earth, but are also common on the continents, where they feed the lava flows forming the
vast flood basalt provinces. Pyroclastic deposits can form different deposits. Convecting Plinian eruption
clouds with heights of up to 50 km can create wide-spread airfall deposits (ash). If an eruption cloud
collapses, a pyroclastic flow (a mixture of hot, incandescent pyroclasts, gas, and entrained air) can form
and travel at high speeds (>100 m s-1) for large distances (tens of kilometers). The resulting volcanic
deposit is an ignimbrite (also called ash-flow tuffs), a mixture of pumice and ash, which can be welded or
unwelded. If a volcanic dome collapses, nues ardentes can create block-and-ash flows, made up from
lava blocks with fine vesicles.
Moon
Besides Earth, the Moon is probably the most intensively explored body in the Solar System. Volcanism
on the Moon has been the subject of numerous studies dating back to the pre-Apollo era. Today it is
known that the majority of volcanic terrains on the Moon are associated with the dark mare regions (or pl.
maria). Only minor volcanic features like some apparently volcanic domes and light plains of possible
volcanic origin were found outside the maria. Overviews of lunar volcanic processes and landforms are
given by, e.g., [76Hea], [76Sch], [87Wil], and [06Hie]. Useful general sources for geologic information
about the Moon are the Lunar Source Book book edited by [91Hei] and a recent collection of reviews
edited by [06Jola]. Technical accounts on lunar exploration, containing a wealth of information on
missions and instruments, are available from [99Har] and [07Sto]. An Earth-based (telescopic)
perspective is given by [03Woo].
Magma composition
The smooth surfaces and obviously level contacts of the mare materials with the surrounding highlands
led to early speculations that a liquid or liquid-like material filled ancient topographic depressions, and
although alternative hypotheses were published (e.g., pyroclastic flows [69Mac]), many researchers
agreed early on that the nature of this material was basaltic in origin [e.g.,63Bal]. Samples of the mare
materials were returned to terrestrial laboratories by the Apollo missions and found to be basalts
throughout [81BVS], and thus the term mare materials can be considered to be synonymous to basalts
(Tab. 9) (see [87Wil] and references therein]. Viscosities of lunar lavas are not uniform. Based on the
morphometry and spectrophotometry of lunar mare domes, [03Wil] and later [07Woe] and [07Len]
concluded that the viscosity of the lavas building the lunar mare domes is variable and ranges from
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
102 Pa s 104 Pa s for very low (0.5 2) domes in Mare Tranquillitatis, to 106 Pa s 108 Pa s for the
relatively steep (~1.5 5.5) domes near Hortensius [07Woe]. The even steeper (up to 15) Gruithuisen
and Mairan highland domes were built by lavas with viscosities as high as 109 Pa s [03Wil; 07Woe]. For
comparison, lunar mare lavas have viscosities on the order of ~1 Pa s [70Mur; 71Wei].
Table 9 Major element concentrations (in weight-%) in representative lunar mare basalts (after [91Tay].
Reference SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO K2O TiO2 Cr2O3 MnO Na2O
High-Ti
Apollo 11 High-K 10049 [81BVS] 41.0 9.5 18.7 7.03 11.0 0.36 11.3 0.32 0.25 0.51
Apollo 11 Low-K 10003 [81BVS] 39.8 10.4 19.8 6.7 11.1 0.06 10.5 0.25 0.30 0.40
Apollo 17 70215 [81BVS] 37.8 8.8 19.7 8.4 10.7 0.05 13.0 0.41 0.27 0.36
Apollo 17 Orange Gl. 74220 [81BVS] 38.6 6.3 22.0 14.4 7.7 0.09 8.8 0.75 0.36
Low-Ti
Apollo 12 Pigeonite 12064 [81BVS] 46.3 10.7 19.9 6.5 11.8 0.07 4.0 0.37 0.27 0.28
Apollo 12 Olivine 12002 [81BVS] 43.6 7.9 21.7 14.9 8.3 0.05 2.6 0.96 0.28 0.23
Apollo 12 Ilmenite 12051 [81BVS] 45.3 10.0 20.2 7.0 11.4 0.06 4.7 0.31 0.28 0.29
Apollo 15 Pigeonite 15597 [81BVS] 48.0 9.4 20.2 8.7 10.4 0.06 1.8 0.48 0.30 0.32
Apollo 15 Olivine 15545 [81BVS] 45.2 8.6 22.1 10.3 9.8 0.04 2.4 0.68 0.30 0.31
Low-Ti, aluminous
Luna 16 21013,8 [79Ma] - 13.3 19.1 6.0 11.7 0.21 5.1 0.20 0.26 0.55
Apollo 14 14321 Gp. 5 [85Dic] - 11.8 17.5 10.3 10.8 0.01 2.6 0.46 0.24 0.39
Apollo 14 14053 [81BVS] 46.4 13.6 16.8 8.5 11.2 0.10 2.6 - 0.26 -
Apollo 14 14321 Gp. 1 [85Dic] - 12.7 16.2 7.9 11.2 0.16 2.2 0.37 0.22 0.60
Apollo 14 VHK 14305,390 [85She] - 13.0 16.0 9.9 11.6 0.80 2.2 0.59 0.20 0.41
Very-Low-Ti
Apollo 17 70007,296 [79Wen] - 10.3 17.0 12.0 9.7 0.01 0.4 0.64 0.26 0.15
Apollo 17 78526 [79Wen] - 11.0 17.5 11.0 9.9 0.02 0.9 0.83 0.27 0.15
Luna 24 24174,7 [78Lau] 46.0 12.1 22.1 6.0 11.6 0.02 1.1 0.30 0.28 0.26
Luna 24 24109,78 [78Ma] - 11.6 22.4 7.0 12.3 0.02 1.3 0.38 0.26 0.29
Apollo 15 Green Gl. 15426 [81BVS] 44.1 7.8 21.0 16.7 8.4 0.03 0.37 0.33 - 0.13
Volcanic landforms
Volcanic landforms on the Moon show a smaller degree of variability than terrestrial basaltic landforms.
Most notably, no large shield volcanoes with caldera structures were found. Instead, the mare regions are
characterized by lava flows (Fig. 4b) that form very level surfaces. Vent structures are rarely observed,
and typically the lava flows can not be traced back to their sources. When basalt samples were molten in
laboratories, they were found to have very low viscosities [91Hoe], which explains why lunar mare lavas
can obviously flow over very long distances (flow lengths of 1200 km [73Sch]) and typically do not show
steep flow fronts [71Hol; 76Gre]. A particular type of landform associated with mare volcanism are
sinuous rilles, meandering channels that often start at a circular or elongate depression and gradually
disappear into the lava plains of the maria [71Gre]. The lengths can range from a few kilometers to more
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
than 300 km [70Sch]. There is a consensus among many researchers that the channels are formed by a
combination of mechanical and thermal erosion of the underlying substrate [e.g., 73Hul; 04Wil].
The total area covered by basaltic lavas is about 17% of the lunar surface or 7 106 km2 [76Hea]. If
cryptomaria are included, this number increases to ~20%. Cryptomaria are mare regions that have been
covered by other materials, mostly impact ejecta. Most mare lavas are contained in near-side basins.
Estimates on the thickness of lavas [e.g., 76DeH; 79DeH; 78Hoe; 98Bud] yield maximum thicknesses of
~1-2 km and a total volume of 6 106 km3 [75Hea; 78Thu]. A review of the techniques applied to
determine mare basalt thicknesses is given by [82Hea]. The volumes of individual basalt flow units can
vary substantially, but are, on average, between ~590 km3 and ~940 km3. Although there is considerable
uncertainty involved in these values, it is clear that mare basalts are volumetrically minor (~1% of the
volume of the lunar crust; [76Hea]) and that there was no large-scale partial melting involving significant
parts of the mantle. Other volcanic landforms of the mare regions include volcanic mare domes, e.g., in
the Marius Hills, [76Gue; 80Hea], lava terraces [71Hol], and cinder cones [76Gue]. Summaries of
volcanic landforms of mare regions are given by [76Sch] and [78Mas].
Several areas on the Moon display an unusually high concentration of volcanic features [71Gue;
76Gue], e.g., the Marius Hills or the Aristarchus Plateau /Rima Prinz region [77Whi]. These areas might
have been the source areas for multiple eruptions with high effusion rates and large volumes. Regional
dark mantle deposits, mostly associated with uplands adjacent to younger mare regions, are interpreted to
be pyroclastic materials. [81Wil, 83Wil] find that Hawaiian-style fire fountaining, driven by continuous
gas exsolution, dispersed pyroclastic material over tens to hundreds of kilometers. Pyroclastic glass
formed by lava foutaining of gas-rich, low viscosity and Ti-Fe-rich basaltic magmas [74Hei] is
volumetrically negligible but scientifically important, insofar as it is derived from melts generally
unaffected by crystal fractionation and represents the best samples of the lunar mantle [06Hie]. Reviews
of the lunar basalt types are given by, e.g., [92Nea], [98Pap], and [06Luc].
In comparison to mare basalts, the non-mare volcanic features are relatively insignificant. Most
notably, some obviously volcanic domes can reach diameters of 20 km and heights of >1000 m.
Prominent examples are the Gruithuisen domes, whose shape suggests that they consist of viscous lava,
and the Mairan domes, which might be explosive in nature. More ambiguous is the interpretation of light
plains as volcanic materials, because an origin as impact breccias (as suggested by returned samples) or
other processes can not be ruled out.
Chronology of volcanism
The ages of mare basalts have been determined by radiometric dating of samples [e.g., 01Nyq] and by
crater statistics [e.g., 00Hie, 02Hie, 03Hie]. A detailed overview of lunar chronology is provided by
[06Stf]. Mare volcanism appears to have lasted at least from before ~4.0 Ga to perhaps as late as ~1.2 Ga,
but work by [83Sch] suggests that volcanism might have started even earlier and may have lasted even
longer than this. The intensity of volcanism was not uniform throughout this time span. Crater counts
indicate that volcanism peaked at about 3.5 Ga and drastically declined after that time [00Hie, 02Hie,
03Hie]. Averaged effusion rates seem to be very low, even during the peak period of activity, and have
been estimated at ~10-2 km3 a-1 (comparable to those at individual terrestrial volcanoes like Hawaii)
[92Hea1] (Tab. 10). Individual eruptions, however, were probably associated with very high effusion
rates, separated by long periods of inactivity [e.g., 91Hea2].
Table 10 Magma volumes on planetary bodies (values from [91Gre]).

Total Scaled Scaled
Planet Mass/ Total Extrusive
magma extruded total
-ary Earth extrusives production Ref.
production production production
body mass [106 km3] [km3 yr-1]
[km3 yr-1] [km3 yr-1] [km3 yr-1]
Venus 0.815 2.0 19 0.082 0.78 [87Gri], [91Hea1]
Earth 1.000 3.7 to 4.1 26 to 34 1.0 1.0 [84Cri]
Moon 0.012 10 0.0024 0.025 0.052 0.069 [92Hea1]
Mars 0.107 68.8 0.018 0.17 0.042 0.052 [91Gre]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Magmatism and tectonism
Moon is a one-plate planet with a stagnant lid and does not display evidence for plate tectonics. Instead,
lunar tectonism is restricted to contraction due to global cooling and to local effects (e.g., loading due to
filling of basins with dense basalt) (Ref. 4.2.3.5.3 Tectonics). The magmatism on the Moon, therefore, is
not controlled by Earth-like tectonic environments. From the above description of lunar volcanic
landforms, another distinct difference between the Moon and the larger terrestrial planets, Earth, Venus,
and Mars, becomes apparent: In contrast to these planets, no large shield volcanoes or calderas have been
found on the Moon. These features form when shallow neutral buoyancy zones and magma reservoirs are
present, and their absence on the Moon suggests that such zones do not exist. This can be explained by
the low density of the lunar crust. Petrologic models of lunar magma generation ([70Rin; 75Hub; 76Rin;
81BVS; 82Tay] see also the recent review by [06She]) suggest that magma is generated in depths of 200-
400 km [92Nea; 99She]. Since the crust is less dense than the diapirs, it acts as a buoyancy (density) trap
and prevents their further ascent - the diapirs stall at the base of the crust in significant depths (an
additional rheological trap is created by the cooling of the mantle rock through which the diapir rises, and
the tickening of the lithosphere). Further ascent of the magma is only possible if the basaltic diapirs are
overpressurized and propagating dikes penetrate to the surface. This model [91Hea2; 92Hea1] would
explain why basaltic eruptions are more common on the nearside with its thinner crust, but fails to explain
why basalts are not common in the large South Pole-Aitken basin. A better knowledge of crustal
thickness variations, compositional variations with depth, and global basalt compositions are required to
improve eruption models [06Hie].
Mercury
Mercury is the least explored of the terrestrial planets, and its surface is not yet completely covered by
images. For several decades, images taken by the Mariner 10 probe in 1974 and 1975 were the only
source to study its surface in spatial detail. The available images covered about 45% of the surface, and
no huge volcanoes could be observed, such as those discovered on Mars or Venus. Plains units,
morphologically similar to lunar volcanic plains, were considered to be the most plausible candidate
volcanic landforms [e.g., 75Mur]. However, Mercury does not display composition-related differences in
reflectance, which exist on the Moon between the primary anorthositic crust of the highlands and the
secondary volcanic crust that is exposed in the mare regions. Since the resolution of the Mariner 10
images was limited (typically 1 km/pixel), no unambiguous morphologic evidence for volcanism, e.g.,
flow lobes or vent structures, could be identified [78Mal]. This was not so suprising, however, because
[02Mil] demonstrated that in images of similarly low resolution of the lunar surface it is also not possible
to unambiguously identify volcanic landforms, although they exist. [97Rob] found evidence for
Mercurian volcanism in Mariner 9 colour data, and this work was among the most convincing studies in
favour of volcanism on Mercury before the first MESSENGER flyby. A collection of review of pre-
MESSENGER results is provided in a special issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research [1975], in the
Mercury book edited by [89Vil], and by [07Str]. An easily accessible introduction to Hermean science
[03Str] also covers Mariner 10 and Earth-based observations, and [08Hei] summarize the preliminary
results of the first MESSENGER flyby.
In January 2008, the MESSENGER spacecraft imaged another 21% of the surface that had not be seen
before with resolutions as high as 150 m/pixel. The images show strong evidence for volcanic landforms,
including irregularly-shaped depressions without raised rims, flooding and embayment of impact craters,
floor-fractured craters, and radial graben systems [08Hea]. Perhaps the most unambiguous volcanic
landforms are the irregular, kidney-shaped depressions. A particularly striking example is located at the
southern margin of the Caloris basin (Fig. 4a). The depression is ~20 km long, lacks a raised rim (in
contrast to impact craters), and is surrounded by materials with smooth surfaces. Near the depression, a
bight material seems to mantle the underlying terrain and becomes diffuse outwards after a radial distance
of about 25 km from the depression. This bright material is interpreted by [08Hea] as pyroclastic
deposits, whereas the darker smooth terrain surrounding the depression might be (basaltic) lava flows.
Topographically, the entire feature might be a domical structure, on the basis of shading effects, buried
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
massifs nearby, and embayment relationships. The closest analogy might be lunar mare domes [80Hea],
and the interpretation of the depression and the diffuse bright materials as volcanic vent and pyroclastic
deposits, respectively, is partly based on lunar analogues [74Luc]. Other evidence for possible volcanism
is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 Examples of possible volcanic features on the surface

of Mercury. (a) Telephone-shaped collapse feature on the
floor of an unnamed 52 km-diameter crater (illumination
from the right). Such a collapse feature could reflect past
volcanic activity at and just below the surface of this
particular crater. (b) The 120 km-diameter crater Rudaki
(arrow) displays a floor of smooth plains, which are far less
cratered than the neighboring terrain Some craters in the
plains that appear to have been significantly flooded with
lava, leaving only their circular rims preserved. (c)
Pantheon Fossae, a set of radial grabens inside the Caloris
Basin. The origin is unknown, but one interpretation
[08Hea] is that the grabens are underlain by volcanic dikes.
All images: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Mars
A wealth of data from orbiting and landed missions shows that volcanism on Mars is widespread and of
diverse nature. In terms of the number and the extent of volcanoes and volcanic surfaces, it is
intermediate between the large terrestrial planets, Earth and Venus, on the one hand, and the smaller
bodies in the inner Solar System, Mercury and the Moon, on the other hand. Mars has a thin atmosphere
and is, again, distinct from Earth and Venus with their thick atmospheres and the small bodies without
atmospheres, Mercury and the Moon. Reviews on Martian volcanism are provided by [75Car], [81Gre],
[92Mou], [00Zim1], and [00Gre2], and there are chapters on volcanism in the Mars books by [81Car]
and [07Car]. An atlas of volcanic landforms on Mars illustrates many examples of basaltic volcanic
features [94Hod].
Magma composition
Volcanism on Mars, as on all terrestrial planets, is mainly basaltic (Tab. 11). This notion was first
supported by the inspection of landforms, which show extreme similarities to terrestrial basaltic
landforms [e.g., 74Gre], and later by the analysis of SNC meteorites (thought to come from Mars), which
yields a basaltic composition [e.g., 94McS; 02McS], and the in situ investigation of images and samples
on Mars by landed missions [77Mut; 77Bin; 97Rie; 98Dre; 00Lar; 99McS, 03McS; 04McS]. Moreover,
the detection of wide-spread pyroxenes and olivine in spectral data acquired by orbiting spacecrafts
indicate mafic compositions of surface materials [05Chr; 05Bib; 07Pou] (Fig. 6). Whether more evolved
lavas than basalt were emplaced on the Martian surface is a matter of debate (e.g., orbital spectra might
indicate dacitic [05Chr] and quarzo-feldspathic [04Ban] compositions). Two types of spectra in dark (i.e.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
dust-free) regions have been detected: One interpretation is that this is indicative of the occurrence of two
types of volcanic compositions: basaltic and basaltic-andesitic to andesitic [00Ban1]. Alternatively,
[02Wya] suggested that the andesite of [00Ban1] is actually weathered basalt. A recent review of
Martian surface mineralogy is available in [07Che].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 11 Composition of Martian surface materials.
Ref. SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO SO3 Na2O Cl
Viking Fines
Viking 1 (C5 [82Cla] 42 6.9 17.4 7 +5.0/- 5.6 2.0 0 0.05 0.60 9.5 +6.0/-2.0 0.9
Duricrust) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 1 (C13 [82Cla] 43 7.40 18.2 7 +5.0/- 5.4 2.0 0 0.05 0.59 9.0 +6.0/-2.0 0.9
Duricrust) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 1 (C9 [82Cla] 45 7.5 18.9 5 +5.0/- 6.0 2.0 0 0.05 0.71 7.2 +6.0/-2.0 0.8
Bulk) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 1 (C1 [82Cla] 43 7.5 17.6 6 +5.01- 6.0 2.0 0 0.05 0.65 7.0 +6.0/-2.0 0.7
Fines) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 1 (C7 [82Cla] 44 7.4 19.0 5 +5.0/- 6.0 2.0 0 0.05 0.63 6.8 +6.0/-2.0 0.6
Fines) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 1 (C8 [82Cla] 43 7.1 18.8 6 +5.0/- 5.8 2.0 0 0.05 0.71 5.9 +6.0/-2.0 0.65
Fines) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 1 (C6 [82Cla] 44 7.3 17.3 6 +5.0/- 6.0 2.0 0.04 0.61 6.7 +6.0/-2.0 0.8
Deep Fines) 6.0 4.0 +5.0/-2.0 3.0 0.05 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 2 (U1 [82Cla] 42 18.9 5.8 2.0 0.03 0.6 0.25 8.4 +6.0/-2.0 0.3
Fines) 6.0 +5.0/-2.0 0.05 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 2 (U2 [82Cla] 43 17.6 5.8 2.0 0.02 0.63 8.1 +6.0/-2.0 0.6
under rock) 6.0 +5.0/-2.0 0.05 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 2 (U3 [82Cla] 44 18.3 5.95 0 0.05 0.64 7.6 +6.0/-2.0
Fines) 6.0 +5.0/-2.0 2.0 0.25
Viking 2 (U4 [82Cla] 44 16.9 5.7 2.0 0 0.05 0.52 7.9 +6.0/-2.0 0.45
under rock) 6.0 +5.0/-2.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Viking 2 (U6 [82Cla] 42 17.1 5.5 2.0 0 0.05 0.48 7.9 +6.0/-2.0 0.3
Deep Fines) 6.0 +5.0/-2.0 0.25 +1.5/-
0.5
Average Deep [82Cla] 44 7,3 17,5 6 5,7 <0.5 0,62 6.7 0.8
fines (Viking
1)
Average Deep [82Cla] 43 7* 17,3 6* 5,7 <0.5 0,54 7.9 0.4
fines (Viking
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
2)
Pathfinder SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO SO3 Na2O* Cl H2O
Soils
A-2 Deploy [03Fol] 40.9 10.4 21.2 0.9 8.7 2.0 6.1 0.4 0.50 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 6.0 1.2 3.2 0.7 0.7
0.8 0.8 0.04 0.2 0.2
A-4 Next to [03Fol] 41.0 10.6 20.4 0.8 8.0 1.9 5.6 0.4 0.50 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 6.9 1.4 3.2 0.7 0.8
Yogi 0.9 0.8 0.07 0.2 0.2
A-5 Dark [03Fol] 41.7 10.6 21.8 1.0 7.3 1.6 6.2 0.4 0.5 0.05 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 5.8 1.1 3.3 0.7 0.8
Next to Yogi 0.9 0.8 y 0.1 0.2
A-9 Disturbed [03Fol] 41.7 10.2 22.2 1.0 6.4 1.6 6.4 0.5 0.70 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.6 1.4 2.6 2.4 1.2 n.d.
Soil by 0.9 0.9 0.09 0.2 0.3
Scooby
A-10 Lamb [03Fol] 41.2 9.7 23.9 1.0 7.5 1.7 6.0 0.4 0.4 0.04 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 6.3 1.2 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 1.7
0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2
A-15 [03Fol] 43.2 9.9 23.2 1.0 6.7 1.6 5.5 0.4 0.70 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 5.2 1.1 2.7 0.8 0.8
Mermaid 1.0 0.8 0.07 0.1 0.2
Pathfinder
Indurated
Soils
A-8 Scooby [03Fol] 44.6 10.4 18.9 0.8 6.3 1.5 6.9 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 5.4 1.1 3.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.6
Doo 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.2
Pathfinder SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO SO3 Na2O* Cl H2O
Rocks
A-3 Barnacle [03Fol] 53.9 12.8 16.7 0.7 2.1 0.5 5.7 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.04 0.3 0.1 2.0 0.4 3.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.3
1.1 0.9 0.1 0.1
A-7 Yogi [03Fol] 45.7 10.8 16.5 0.7 5.1 1.2 6.3 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 4.3 0.9 4.7 0.8 0.7 3.4 1.4
1.0 0.8 0.1 0.2
A-16 Wedge [03Fol] 47.2 11.3 18.3 0.7 4.0 0.9 6.8 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.04 0.3 0.1 3.0 0.6 4.8 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.5
1.0 0.8 0.1 0.1
A-17 Shark [03Fol] 51.5 10.2 15.1 0.6 3.7 0.9 7.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.6 0.4 3.4 0.8 0.5 4.3 1.3
1.2 0.8 0.1 0.1
A-18 Half [03Fol] 50.0 12.3 17.9 0.7 3.4 0.8 6.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.6 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 1.3
Dome 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.1
MER Soils
MER Spirit [06Mor], 46.52 10.46 12.18 8.93 6.27 0.41 0.87 0.83 0.36 0.33 4.90 0.74 3.02 0.61
"Laguna" [06Gel] 0.57 0.71 0.57 0.45 0.23 0.03 0.15 0.23 0.08 0.02 0.37 0.08
class soil
(Panda
subclass)
MER [06Mor], 46.78 9.67 13.75 7.31 7.12 0.49 1.02 0.82 0.41 0.38 4.97 0.58 2.23 0.57
Opportunity [06Gel] 1.22 0.49 1.00 0.30 0.28 0.07 0.18 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.23 0.06
"Laguna"
class soil
(Panda
subclass)
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
MER Rocks SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO SO3 Na2O Cl Fe2O3
MER Spirit [08Min] 45,9 10,6 18,7 9,9 7,9 0,15 0,58 1,7 2,6 0,3
"Adirondack"
(consistent
with picritic
basalts)
MER Spirit [08Min] 49,4 13,1 13,2 8,3 6 1,02 0,93 1,8 4 0,4
"Backstay"
(least altered
rock in
Columbia
Hills)
Adirondack [08Mor] 45,7 10,9 15,6 10,8 7,75 0,07 0,48 0,52 0,61 0,41 1,23 2,41 0,2 3,55
Humphrey [08Mor] 45,9 10,7 15,6 10,4 7,84 0,1 0,55 0,56 0,6 0,41 1,28 2,54 0,26 3,55
Mazatzal [08Mor] 45,8 10,7 17 9,72 8,02 0,16 0,59 0,65 0,54 0,42 1,48 2,78 0,23 2,1
Route 66 [08Mor] 44,8 10,8 15,9 8,67 7,83 0,23 0,59 0,74 0,53 0,39 4,2 2,88 0,55 1,4
Irvine [08Mor] 47 8,29 12,3 10,6 6,03 0,68 1,06 0,97 0,2 0,36 2,37 2,68 0,45 7,68
Esperanza [08Mor] 47,9 8,4 11,9 8,45 5,57 0,52 1,05 0,91 0,2 0,38 2,36 3,4 0,47 9,2
Wishstone [08Mor] 43,8 15 6,96 4,5 8,89 0,57 2,59 5,19 0 0,22 2,2 4,98 0,35 5,16
Champagne [08Mor] 43,5 14,8 6,88 3,98 8,75 0,53 2,96 5,05 0 0,25 1,96 5,02 0,6 6,25
Backstay [08Mor] 49,5 13,3 10,7 8,31 6,04 1,07 0,93 1,39 0,15 0,24 1,52 4,15 0,35 3,44
Larry`s Bench [08Mor] 39,7 8,49 16,4 11,2 6,4 0,54 1,19 2,89 0,19 0,37 4,8 2,78 0,93 4,56
Seminole [08Mor] 44,1 7,72 14,7 12,4 4,66 0,66 0,61 0,91 0,39 0,36 4,65 2,98 1,24 5,15
Abiaka
Algonquin [08Mor] 40,6 4 18,9 22,3 2,61 0,12 0,35 0,63 0,87 0,38 4,32 1,59 0,87 2,59
Comanche [08Mor] 41,3 2,93 17,6 24,8 1,93 0,04 0,25 0,45 0,71 0,43 2,69 1,12 0,61 5,53
Palomino
Posey [08Mor] 45,4 9,31 7,54 9,48 6,65 0,42 1,01 1,37 0,32 0,32 4,81 3,5 1,94 8,73
Cool [08Mor] 46 9,3 8,11 9,59 6,5 0,21 0,93 1,12 0,39 0,31 3,75 3,25 1,74 9,77
PapaBell
Stars
Cool [08Mor] 46,6 9,98 7,39 10,3 6,74 0,32 1,11 1,27 0,34 0,29 2,91 3,36 1,35 8,9
PapaBell
Crawford
SNC SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO K20 TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO S Na2O H2O
Meteorites
ALH 77005 [98Lod] 42.4 2.87 20.1 0.4 28.2 3.16 0.030 0.39 0.40 0.98 0.45 0.051 0.02 0.47
0.9 0.28 1.3 0.32 0.005 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.07
EET 79001 A [98Lod] 49.9 5.91 18.4 0.8 16.1 7.26 0.040 0.70 0.60 0.62 0.48 0.21 0.07 0.86 0.0325
0.9 0.60 0.8 0.32 0.007 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.007
EET 79001 B [98Lod] 49.4 11.2 17.4 0.7 6.57 10.8 0.075 1.18 1.28 0.17 0.43 0.193 1.74
0.4 1.4 1.09 0.33 0.008 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.002 0.14
LEW 88516 [98Lod] 46.0 3.31 19.0 1.2 25.0 4.20 0.029 0.39 0,39 0.86 0.49 0,095 0.56
0.4 0.43 0.9 0.28 0.004 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.08
Shergotty [98Lod] 51,3 6.88 19.4 0.7 9.3 0.2 9.60 0.17 0.82 0.67 0.20 0.52 0.13 0.08 1.39 0.028
0.51 0.55 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.012
QUE 94201 [98Lod] 47,9 11.0 18.5 0.5 6.25 11.4 0.045 1.84 0.14 0.45 1.58
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
1.1 0.07 0.2 0.010 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.26
Y793605 [98Lod] 45,4 2,32 19,7 26,2 4,06 0,025 0,35 1,01 0,48 0,36
Zagami [98Lod] 50.5 6.05 18.1 0.5 11.3 10.5 0.14 0.79 0.50 0.33 0.50 0,19 1.23 0.032
0.4 0.38 0.7 0.6 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.005
ALH 84001 [98Lod] 52.8 1.29 17.5 0.5 25.0 1.82 0.017 0.21 0,014 1.14 0.46 0,011 0.14 0,055
0.1 0.10 0.8 0.38 0.006 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.03
G. Valadares [98Lod] 49,5 1,74 19,7 10,9 12.9 0.29 0,35 0,21 0,67 0,82 0,075
4.3 0.21
Lafayette [98Lod] 46,9 2.47 21.6+2.2 12,9 13.4+0.7 0.11+0.02 0.42+0.13 0,45 0.19+0.01 0.50+0.01 0.041+0.002 0.40+0.05 0.188+0.061
1.32
Nakhla [98Lod] 48.6 1.68 20.6 1.5 12.1 14.7 0.13 0.34 0.13 0.26 0.49 0.026 0.46 0.057
1.7 0.21 0.4 0.7 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.008 0.07 0.010
Chassigny [98Lod] 37.4 0.72 27.3 0.8 31.8 0.66 0.036 0.08 0.071 0.77 0.53 0.026 0.12 0.07 0.01
1.1 0.30 0.8 0.10 0.013 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.11 0.013 0.02
Selected SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO K2O TiO2 P2O5 Cr2O3 MnO Na2O H2O
terrestrial
igneous
rocks
Peridotite [00Rog] 44,2 2,05 7,54 42,21 1,92 0,06 0,13 0,03 0,13 0,27
Tholeiitic [00Rog] 48,77 15,9 8,62 9,67 11,16 0,08 1,15 0,09 0,17 2,43 0,3
basalt (morb)
Alkali basalt [00Rog] 47,52 15,95 8,91 5,18 8,96 1,29 3,29 0,64 0,19 3,56 1,16
OIB
Andesite [00Rog] 59,89 17,07 3 3,25 5,67 2,47 0,95 0,31 0,12 3,95
Metaluminous [00Rog] 67,89 14,49 2,57 1,75 3,78 3,05 0,45 0,11 0,08 2,95
Granite
Peraluminous [00Rog] 69,08 14,3 3,23 1,82 2,49 3,63 0,55 0,13 0,06 2,2
Granite
Peralkaline [00Rog] 70,87 14,78 0,1 0,34 4,19 0,1 0,02 0,06 6,47 0,33
Granite
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 6 Composition of Martian volcanic materials.

(a) Petrologic classification of volcanic rocks in Gusev
Crater, as determined by the MER rover, Spirit (modified
from [08McS], [04McS]). (b) Mg/Si versus Al/Si variations
in rocks in Gusev Crater (modified after [04McS],
[01Wae]).
Global distribution of volcanic features
Inspection of global mapping by [77Spu] and [78Sco] shows that up to 60% of the Martian surface are
covered by volcanic products. Volcanic units are not uniformly distributed across the surface of Mars.
The main volcanic provinces are located at the Tharsis and Elysium rises, around the ancient Hellas
impact basin, and at Syrtis Major (see Fig. 1 of [00Zim1]). The largest accumulation of volcanoes is
found in the Tharsis bulge (Tab. 12). The youngest lava flows on Mars are exposed in Tharsis and
Elysium Planitia. Besides Tharsis and Elysium, several highland volcanoes (see below) are clustered in
the circum-Hellas volcanic province [08Wil], in Syrtis Major [04Hie], and in some more isolated
locations (e.g., Apollinaris Patera).
Table 12 Morphometric data of large Martian volcanoes (after [04Ple]; P.: Patera, M.: Mons, Th.:
Tholus).
Volcano Geographic Edifice Relief Volume Flank Caldera Caldera
location* Dimension [km] [m3] Slope Depth area
[km] [] [km] [km]
Alba P. 40N, 251E 1015 1150 5.8 1.8 1015 1.0 1.2 106 138
Albor Th. 19N, 150E 157 164 4.2 2.9 1013 5 3.5 36
Apollinaris P. 8S, 174 E 189 278 5.4 7.3 1013 5 1.8 73 85
Arsia M. 9S, 240E 461 326 11.7 9.2 1014 5 1.5 108 138
Ascraeus M. 11N, 256E 375 870 14.9 1.1 1015 7 3.7 62 67
Biblis P. 2N, 236E 128 176 3.6 1.8 1013 5 4.6 53 59
Ceraunius Th. 24N, 263E 98 130 6.6 2.4 1013 9 2.2 25
Elysium M. 25N, 146E 375 12.6 2.0 1014 7 0.1 14
Hecates Th. 32N, 150E 177 187 6.6 6.7 1013 6 0.4 13
Jovis Th. 18N, 243E 52 58 1.0 8.7 1011 3 1.0 27 32
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Olympus M. 28N, 227E 840 640 21.9 2.4 1015 5 3.2 72 91

Pavonis M. 0N, 247E 380 535 8.4 3.9 1014 4 4.8 91 96
Tharsis Th. 13N, 269E 131 158 7.4 3.1 1013 10 6.8 43 55
Ulysses P. 3N, 238E 100 1.5 2.9 1012 4 2.4 60
Uranius P. 26N, 267E 242 280 3.0 3.5 1013 3 2.4 88 115
Uranius Th. 26N, 262E 62 2.9 3.4 1012 8 0.3 20
Amphitrites P. 59S, 61E 600 700 0.51.5 nc 0.5 0.8 120
Peneus P. 57S, 53E 600 700 0.51.5 nc 0.5 0.8 120
Hadriaca P. 30S, 94E 330 550 1.1 1.6 1013 0.6 0.7 90
Tyrrhena P. 22S, 97E 215 350 1.5 2.1 1013 1.0 0.6 41 55
Meroe P. 7N, 69E 1000 1400 4 nc 0.250.5 1.9 71
Nili P. 9N, 67E 1000 1400 4 nc 0.250.5 1.3 52
*after [00Zim1]
Volcanic landforms
About 15 huge shield volcanoes are located in Tharsis and Elysium (Fig. 7a,b) (Tab. 12). They share
many physiological characteristics with large terrestrial shields like those of Hawaii and the Galapagos
Islands: Rift zones and nested caldera complexes [96Cru; 07Mou], very low flank slopes (~5), and
numerous large individual lava flows that can be channel-fed or tube-fed [07Ble]. Channelized flows are
well known from Mars and may reach enormous lengths of several hundred kilometers [e.g., 07Gar;
08Bal], indicating high volumetric flow rates for extended periods of time. Lava flows of this length are
rarely, if ever, observed on the Earth, and it is debated whether their formation on Mars requires some
extraordinary conditions that are or have never been met on Earth [08Bal]. The rheology of Martian lava
flows, as determined from their morphology and morphometry in remote sensing data, suggests basaltic
lavas with low viscosities [e.g., 78Moo; 85Zim; 07Hie, and references therein]. Taken together, these
properties indicate basaltic, mainly effusive eruptions fed by relatively shallow (i.e. within the volcanic
construct) magma chambers over an extended period of time, perhaps in an episodic pattern [01Wil2]. A
distinctly different class of large central edifices is typical for the circum-Hellas province. The flank
slopes of these shields are even gentler (1), the flanks are dissected by erosional channels, and the
shield-building eruptions seem to have stopped much earlier, as indicated by crater counts. The particular
morphology suggests that these volcanoes were built by explosive volcanism rather than by the effusive
lava flows typical of Tharsis and Elysium, and that erosion could have easily affected the fine-grained
material (e.g., volcanic ash) [93Crn; 93Gre]. Besides the relatively few large well-known volcanoes,
there are hundreds of much smaller shield volcanoes distributed in clusters within the Tharsis and
Elysium provinces (Fig. 7d,e). Their diameters range from several kilometers to tens of kilometers, their
heights reach a few hundred meters, and the corresponding flank slopes are extremely shallow (~0.5)
[08Hau].
Sets of long and linear grabens radiating from Tharsis have been interpreted as the surface expression
of dike swarms analogous to the Mackenzie dike swarm in the Canadian shield (see section 3.5.1.2)
[96Mg1; 02Wil1; 01Ern2], and dikes have been identified elsewhere on Mars [05Gou; 06Hea].
Volcanic plains are found in all volcanic provinces. They are composed of layered material with
thicknesses of up to several kilometers, interpreted to be analogous to terrestrial flood basalts [90Ple;
99McE; 00Kes; 04Kes1]. The Medusae Fossae Formation (a large layered deposit in the equatorial
region between Tharsis and Elysium), might be the result of pyroclastic eruptions (e.g., ignimbrites
[82Sco]).
Since the surface and crust of Mars show many signs of past and present water and ice [e.g., 89Squ;
96Car; 01Bak], it is not surprising that there is a lot of evidence for volcano-water interaction or
volcano-ice interactions [87Squ; 02Sme]. Examples are possible subglacial volcanoes [01Cha],
pseudocraters [01Gre; 01Lan], and even the catastrophic release of water confined in pressurized
aquifers by warming due to volcanic heat [79Car] or by cracking of the cryosphere [93Cli] by dikes [e.g.,
03Hea1].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 7 Examples of volcanic surface features on Mars.

(a) One of the large Martian shield volcanoes, Hecates
Tholus, in the Elysium volcanic province (31.8N/150E).
Hecates Tholus was probably built by effusive and explosive
eruptions [82Mou; 05Hau]. HRSC image h2907_0008.nd.
(b) Uranius Tholus in the Tharsis region, one of the smaller
large volcanoes on Mars (26.2N/262.5E). Many large
impact craters attest to the volcano`s old age of 3.9-4.0 Ga
[06Wer]. HRSC image mosaic. (c) Apollinaris Patera
(8S/174E), a medium-sized volcano that might have
produced large amounts of pyroclastic material.
Characteristic features are the caldera and a prominent fan of
volcanic material extending southwards from the caldera
(THEMIS-IR daylight mosaic). (d) Small low shield in the
Ceraunius Fossae region (23.73N/249.57E, CTX image
P05_002829_2046). (e) Low shields with radial lava flows
in Tharsis (2.4S/252.05E, CTX image P02_001906_1776).
Low shields as shown in (d) and (e) are built by lava flows
with low viscosity. (f) Zephyra Patera (21.5S/173.5E) has
been defined as possible composite cone [78Gre]. It is
located in the ancient cratered terrain of Aeolis Mensae.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
(g) Individual lava flows on the northern flank of Olympus

Mons (North is down). Both channelized flows (black
arrows) and lava tubes (white arrows) can be identified
(HRSC image h6220_0000.nd). (h) Columnar jointing
(arrows) could be identified in a large, fresh, unnamed crater
near Marte Vallis, centered at 21.52N/184.35E [08Mil].
The joints that separate the columns form as the lava
contracts and fractures extend perpendicular to the cooling
front (HiRISE image PSP_005917_2020). (i) Inflated
features in lava flows, well known on Earth, could
unambiguously be identified in MOC and HiRISE images
[08Kes]. Shown here is a classic example of an inflation
plateau at 7.741N/164.410E (HiRISE image
PSP_003241_1880).
Chronological classifications of Martian volcanic surfaces are provided by [79Ple] and [81Neu]. More
recently, more standardized crater counts using images of higher spatial resolution together with
improvements in the cratering model [01Har] led to a new compilation of volcanic ages [06Wer]. In
general, it appears that the oldest volcanic units are roughly 4 to 3.7 Ga old. They are present in Tharsis,
Elysium, and the highland volcanoes. The bulk volume of Tharsis might have been already emplaced at
the end of the Noachian epoch [01Phi]. Volcanic lowland plains in Tharsis and Elysium were emplaced
between ~3.5 Ga and around 2 Ga. Volcanism in the highlands seems to have stopped next, at least ~1 Ga
ago. Later, volcanism was limited to central volcanoes in Tharsis and to Elysium Planitia at the southern
margin of the Elysium province [00Har1]. Overall, it appears that volcanism was intense in the early
history of Mars, with a possible peak when, and gradually declined over time. This overall decline might
have been punctuated by episodic higher intensity [e.g., 01Wil2, 04Neu].
The erupted volumes of volcanic materials are difficult to determine. The most comprehensive
analysis was performed using Viking data, i.e. prior to the detailed global topographic information from
MOLA. According to this study [91Gre], the total volume of extrusive and intrusive magma generated
over the last ~3.8 Ga is about 654 x 106 km3, or 0.17 km3 per year (Tab. 13). This rate is substantially
lower than rates for the Earth (26 to 34 km3 yr-1) or Venus (< 20 km3 yr-1), but much higher than for the
Moon (0.025 km3 yr-1) [91Gre] (Tab. 10).
Table 13 Martian magma volumes (values from [91Gre]; Exp.: Exposed; Extr.: Extruded; Topogr.:
Topography). The magma volume extruded on plains was estimated assuming that some portion of
volcanic plains are covered by non-volcanic units, so the total area of volcanic plains is larger than the
exposed area of volcanic plains. The total magma volume assumes a ratio of intrusive to extrusive magma
of 8.5:1 (the average ratio for Earth [84Cri]).
Area of Exp. Thickn Extr. Volume Total Total

plains plains ess of Plains from extr. magma
Epoch [106 km2] volume plains volume topogr. volume volume
[106 km3] [km] [106 km3] [106 km3] [106 km3] [106 km3]
Late Amazonian 1.06 0.29 0.27 0.33 1.78 2.11 20
Middle Amazonian 3.28 1.04 0.32 1.42 7.07 8.49 81
Early Amazonian 7.93 2.22 0.28 3.61 12.15 15.76 150
Late Hesperian 7.63 1.87 0.24 4.54 11.09 15.63 148
Early Hesperian 22.52 3.95 0.18 10.83 6.82 17.65 168
Late Noachian 9.31 1.28 0.14 4.31 3.46 7.77 74
Middle Noachian 2.85 0.47 0.17 1.39 0.00 1.39 13
Early Noachian ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Total 54.57 11.12 0.20 26.43 42.37 68.80 654
Magmatism and tectonic style
Mars does not show any evidence for plate tectonics in the observable geologic record. Volcanism on
Mars shares many similarities with terrestrial intraplate volcanism. The huge (diameters >100 km) shield
volcanoes in Tharsis resemble volcanoes in island chains like Hawaii or Galapagos, plains volcanism on
Mars [81Ple] is similar to plains volcanism on Earth like in the Snake River Plains [82Gre], and huge,
topographically flat lava flow fields (e.g., in Elysium Planitia) resemble flood basalts like those in the
Columbia River plateau or the Deccan traps in India. There is evidence for limited volcanism at rifts
[01Hau; 05Gro1; 07Kro], but these rifts accomodate very moderate extension and are not seen as
evidence for plate tectonics. No volcanism on Mars that would be related to plate tectonics is known in
the observable geologic record. One possible explanation for the focussing of the volcanism in a few
provinces only is the existence of few long-lived mantle plumes [e.g., 96Har; 98Har; 98Bre; 07Li], and
indeed some researchers, e.g., [97Hea1], considered Tharsis to be the equivalent to a terrestrial large
igneous province (LIP) [94Cof; 97Mah; 05Ern]. Since it is actually larger than terrestrial LIP (at
terrestrial standards, each of the individual large Tharsis shields could be considered an individual LIP), it
was even compared to terrestrial superswells, which are huge geoid anomalies [98McN], or to plume
clusters [04Scu; 07Ern] (for the case of Mars, see, e.g., [98Bre]). Mantle plumes could certainly explain
some of the main volcanic characteristics of Tharsis and Elysium, including the existence of giant dike
swarms [96Mg1; 02Wil1; 01Ern1]. However, the physical plausibility of the long-term stability of
mantle plumes rising from the core-mantle boundary has questioned by [06Sch1, 06Sch2], who doubt
that the heat flow from the core could have supported the sustained plume action for sufficiently long
periods. Instead, [06Sch1,06Sch2, 07Sch1] suggest that the insulating effect of a thickened crust in
Tharsis and Elysium might have created a deep-seated (~300 km) zone of partial melt, which might have
been responsible for the recent volcanism on Mars.
Venus
Venus is the second-largest terrestrial planet, with a diameter only ~330 km less than that of Earth. The
intensity of volcanism on a planet should scale with its mass, and so it is not surprising that Venus has the
second largest number of volcanoes in the solar system. Moreover, erosion is low on the dry surface of
Venus. Therefore, the planet displays an extraordinary inventory of diverse and well-preserved volcanic
landforms. Magellan radar images are the most valuable source for geologic interpretations of volcanic
(and other) surface features. Previous to Magellan, the Soviet Venera missions had delivered the first
radar images that showed the diversity of the Venusian surface [e.g., 86Bar], and Venera landers survived
the harsh environment on Venus` surface long enough to transmit a few images and geochemical
measurements [77Flo; 85Bas]. A list of all missions that observed Venus is contained in a review on the
Venusian surface [03Bas], and an overview of the Soviet-era scientific results is given by [92Bar1].
Summaries of Magellan results are provided by [97Bou], [94Cat], and in a special issue of the Journal of
Geophysical Research, published in 1992. Several reviews cover mainly the morphology and distribution
of volcanic features on Venus [92Hea2; 97Cru; 00Cru].
Magma composition
Volcanism on Venus is predominantly mafic, but a wide range of magmatic compositions seems possible
from the observations. The Venera landers acquired gamma-ray and X-ray fluorescence spectra, which
showed that the contents of potassium, thorium and uranium (Tab. 14) as well as other petrogenic
elements (Tab. 15) are similar to those of terrestrial mafic rocks (alkali basalts and tholeiitic basalts,
depending on the landing sites) [e.g., 92Bar2; 97Sur], although other lithologies can not be excluded.
Significant variations in K and U contents have been reported [97Sur; 99Nik]. Additional evidence for
basaltic volcanism comes from the investigation of volcanic landforms, which show the morphologic
characteristics of terrestrial basalt landforms. It has to be noted, however, that some volcanic edifices
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
have relatively steep flanks, suggesting to some researchers [99Iva; 92Pav] more viscous material with a
possibly more evolved composition than the extensive lava flows and flow fields with the associated
channels (see below for details). Similarly, some festooned lava flows have been cited as evidence for
silicic, perhaps rhyolitic compositions [93Man]. In summary, volcanism on Venus shows many
characteristics of basaltic products, but other compositions might well be present and reflected in the wide
variety of landforms (see below; and see the discussion in [07Elk]).
Table 14 Abundances of primary mineral-forming and radiogenic elements. Values are taken from
[07Smr]. The abundances for each element are interpretations of the most likely minerals on the
Venusian surface [07Smr].
Lander U [ppm] Th [ppm] K [w%]
Venera 8 2.2 0.7 6.5 0.2 4.0 1.2

Venera 9 0.6 0.2 3.6 0.4 0.5 0.1
Venera 10 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2
Vega 1 0.68 0.47 1.5 1.2 0.5 0.3
Vega 2 0.68 0.38 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.2
Table 15 Oxide abundance measured by Venera 13 and 14 (V13, V14), and Vega 2 (V2). Values are in
weight-%, and element abundance was converted into likely chemical combinations (values from
[07Smr]).
SiO2 Al2O3 FeO MgO CaO K2O TiO2 MnO S Cl
V13 45.1 3.0 15.8 3.0 9.3 2.2 11.4 6.2 7.1 0.96 4.0 0.63 1.59 0.45 0.2 0.1 0.65 0.4 <0.3
V14 48.7 3.6 17.9 2.6 8.8 1.8 8.1 3.3 10.3 1.2 0.2 0.07 1.25 0.41 0.16 0.08 0.35 0.31 <0.4
V2 45.6 3.2 16.0 1.8 7.74 1.1 11.5 3.7 7.5 0.7 0.1 0.08 0.2 10.1 0.14 0.12 1.9 0.6 <0.3
Global distribution of volcanic features
The distribution of volcanoes and volcanic centers on Venus (Fig. 8) can provide clues to the global
tectonics (see below). Volcanic features are very wide-spread and occur almost everywhere. There are
several databases listing the different volcanic features on Venus. The most comprehensive one is that of
[00Cru]. Other catalogues are available for radiating graben systems perhaps being the surface
expression of dike swarms [94Gro], coronae [01Sto, for modifications see 02Gla], and coronae,
arachnoids, and novae [01Kos]. An overview of these databases with graphical maps of volcanic feature
distributions is provided by [04Ern].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 8 Distribution of selected volcanic features on Venus

(modified after [Ern04]), plotted in sinusoidal projection
with center meridian at 180. (a) Large volcanoes after
[Cru00]. Symbol size indicates diameter in km. Note that
here and in all other panels of this figure, the symbol sizes
do not correspond to actual size of volcanoes in this map
projection (to allow a greater dynamic range in symbol size,
so as to better display the range in feature size).
(b) Intermediate-sized volcanoes [Cru00]. Symbol size
indicates diameter in km. (c) Coronae and Arachnoids after
[Kos01; Ait02]. Symbol size indicates diameter in km.
(d) Calderae after [Cru00]. Symbol size indicates diameter
in km. (e) Fields of small shield volcanoes after [Cru00].
Symbol size indicates diameter in km. (f) Radiating graben-
fissure systems after [Gro94]. Symbol size indicates radius
in km.
Volcanic landforms
Volcanic landforms on Venus (Fig. 9) have been categorized into four main classes: 1) volcanoes, 2)
volcanic fields, 3) lava fields and plains, and 4) magmatic centers [00Cru]. Volcanoes on Venus have a
large range of sizes: Small shields may have a diameter of less than 1 km, while large edifices or volcanic
centers can reach diameters of more than 1000 km. A large part of the Venusian surface (50-60%) is
covered by regional plains [00Bas]. Lava flows are obvious in many images and occur as radar-dark (i.e.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
smooth) lava plains and as lava flow fields that can reach lengths of > 1000 km and can cover very large
areas [e.g., 91Hea1; 92Hea2; 01Mag]. A unique feature within Venusian lava plains are linear to sinuous
channels, which can reach extreme lengths of >6800 km (Nile river: ~6500 km) [92Bak, 97Bak]. It
requires lavas with extremely low viscosities to build channels of such lengths, and basaltic lavas
typically do not have such low viscosities. Other compositions like ultramafic komatiites, high-Ti lunar-
type basalts, and carbonatites or sulphur flows [94Kar] might be candidate alternatives.
Magmatic centers are described by [00Cru] as large volcano-tectonic features on Venus that do not
have direct terrestrial counterparts. In many cases, they are characterized more by structural features
indicating surface deformation than by magmatic features like volcanic edifices or lava flows. This class
of features includes coronae, arachnoids, and radial fracture centers, or novae.
Fig. 9 Examples of volcanic surface features on Venus.

(a) Volcanic domes in Eistla Regio with diameters of 65 km,
steep flanks and broad, flat tops less than 1 km in height (so-
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
called pancake domes). These domes represent a unique

category of volcanic extrusions on Venus formed from
viscous lava (12.3N/8.3E, iimage width ~250 km; image:
NASA/JPL). (b) Field of small shield volcanoes, ranging in
diameter from 2 to 12 km (64N/110E). These small shield-
type volcanoes are the most abundant geologic feature on the
surface of Venus, believed to number in the hundreds of
thousands, perhaps millions. They are probably constructed
mainly from eruptions of fluid lava flows similar to those
that produce the Hawaiian Islands and sea floor volcanoes
(illumination from the west; image: NASA/JPL). (c) Aine
Corona, a volcano-tectonic structure south of Aphrodite
Terra (59S/164E). The corona is outlined by a concentric
set of fractures, and associated with several volcanic
edifices: Just north of Aine Corona is a pancake dome with
about 35 km diameter. Another pancake dome is located
inside the western parts of the annulus of the corona
fractures. Other volcanic features associated with Aine
Corona include a set of small domes, each <10 km across,
located along the southern portion of the annulus of
fractures, and a smooth, flat region in the center of the
corona, probably a relatively young lava flow. The range of
volcanic features associated with coronae suggests that
volcanism plays a significant role in their formation (image
width ~300 km). (d) Radar-bright and -dark lava flows
encountering and breaching a north-trending ridge belt in
Lada Regio (47S/25E, North is to the right, image width
630 km). (e) Lava channels are common on Venusian
plains. Shown here is a 600 km-long segment of the longest
channel discovered on Venus to date, formed by lava which
may have melted or thermally eroded a path over the plains'
surface (arrows). It is approximately 1.8 km wide
(49N/165E, image width ~345 km). (f) Three unusual
volcanoes in Guinevere Planitia. The northern rim of this
center volcano has a steep scarp, probably the result of
material that has slid away from the volcano and
subsequently has been covered by lava flows. This volcano
overlaps another feature to the southwest that is about 45 km
in diameter and disrupted by many fractures. The
southeastern volcano (25 km in diameter) displays scalloped
edges, which are perhaps the result of multiple material
slides along the volcano margin. All images: NASA/JPL.
The distribution of impact craters on the surface of Venus is random, and traditional methods of dating
planetary surface units by analysis of the crater size-frequency distribution are not applicable. Previous
attempts to use crater counts to date geological units by the combination of morphologically similar units
into large composite regions [e.g., 94Nam; 94Pri; 96Pri] were questioned by [99Cam] who argued that
determining the relative ages of separate areas lacks statistical validity because of the small number of
craters available.
Many researchers agree that the crater distribution can best be explained by global resurfacing,
originally believed to have happened sometimes between 500 Ma to 300 Ma ago [e.g., 92Sch; 94Str;
94Her; 96Pri], but the exact timing of this event is under debate. A new determination of the mean
surface age is about 750 Ma [97McK; 02Bas2], but it could be as old as 1 Ga and as young as 300 Ma
[97McK]. The duration of the resurfacing event, often called catastrophic resurfacing, was once
considered to be extremely short (10 Ma, [94Str]), but is now thought to have lasted considerably longer.
In the most extreme case (oldest mean surface age, largest uncertainties for the deviations from this mean
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
age), the period between the formation of the oldest terrains (tessera) and the youngest structures (rifts)
might have spanned from almost 2 Ga to the present. Even for less extreme cases, the resurfacing time is
still from 1.1 Ga to 200 Ma and thus more than the originally proposed 300-500 Ma. In any case,
however, it is dramatically short compared with global terrestrial resurfacing rates [04Ern]. Within that
time, 80-85% of the surface, including the vast regional volcanic plains, were resurfaced in a rather short
time span, and the remaining area was resurfaced in a period that was an order of magnitude longer.
Tectonism in that long and less active time was restricted to young rifts, and volcanism to lobate flows
forming both volcanic constructs and plain-like lava fields, and smooth local lava fields. It seems that the
volcanic and tectonic activity peaked early in the time covered by the observable geologic record, and that
it was followed by a relatively quit time with low rates of volcanism that extends until now [03Bas]. The
volcanic flux in that late period was probably lower than the terrestrial intraplate volcanism rate, and
similar to the average lunar rate of volcanism during mare volcanism [03Bas].
Magmatism and tectonic style
There is no evidence for plate tectonics on Venus in the geological record spanning the observable time
since the global resurfacing event (Ref section 4.2.3.5.3 Tectonics). Instead, Venus is thought to be a
one-plate planet, and in agreement with this hypothesis, volcanism on Venus displays many similarities to
intraplate volcanism on Earth. The global or large-scale surface expressions of volcanism are generally
ascribed to mantle upwellings or plumes.
On Earth, plumes are thought to be responsible for the formation of large igneous provinces or LIP
[e.g., 94Cof], which are marked by huge voluminous basaltic lava flows (flood basalts; Zitat]). Several
volcanic or volcano-tectonic surface features on Venus have previously been compared to LIP [e.g.,
97Hea1; 04Ern]: volcanic rises, large coronae, crustal plateaus, and regional plains. The most
unambiguous examples of surface signatures of mantle plumes are the volcanic rises, and some
(particularly some of the larger) coronae [07Han]. Coronae are widely agreed to be the result of buoyant
mantle material impinging on the lithosphere [e.g., 97Sto; 06Gri]. Compositional diapirs, thermal diapirs,
or a combination of both might be the driving forces behind coronae formation, and coronae probably
have significantly contributed to heat loss on Venus [97Smra; 03Han; 03Joh].
Large volcanic rises were classified by [95Sto] into rift-dominated volcanic rises, corona-dominated
rises, and volcano-dominated rises. They are typically characterized by broad domical topography with
~13002300 km diameter and ~1-3 km height, local radial lava flows, and deep apparent depths of
compensation, which is thought to be evidence of thermal support within the mantle [07Han]. Volcanic
rises are interpreted as mantle upwellings comparable to terrestrial hotspots on Earth [e.g., 81Phi, 91Phi;
94McG; 94Phi; 97Han; 98Phi; 99Smr; 98Nim; 05Sto], because the combination of a topographic rise, a
geoid high, sometimes triple junction rifting, and large-scale magmatism (comparable to LIP) most
closely matches the criteria to recognize terrestrial hotspots or plumes [73Bur; 01Sen; 01Ern2, 03Ern].
The broad consensus that volcanic rises on Venus are due to plumes is, therefore, supported by different
data sets, including both geological and geophysical observations: size, topography, gravity-topography
ratios (admittance), deep apparent depths of compensation, and wide spread evidence of volcanism
[07Han].
Finally, major concentrations of volcanic centers are located between the Beta, Atla, and Themis
regions, which are also characterized by surface features indicative of rifting and mantle upwelling
[93Cru]. The plains around these accumulations of volcanic centers show evidence for crustal shortening.
[93Cru] interpret this combination of volcanic and tectonic observations as large-scale patterns of mantle
circulation, resembling those attributed to intraplate volcanism on Earth, and [04Ern] compare these
concentrated activity to plume clusters (or superplumes) on Earth.
Databases
Venus: Tabulated Magellan Venus Volcanic Feature Catalog [00Cru]:
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/planetary/databases/venus_cat.html
Venus: Venus Coronae with Volcanic Flow Fields [93Mag]:
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/planetary/bin/flows.xls
Venus: Steep-sided domes [99Iva]:
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/planetary/steep/
Venus: Venus Radial Dike Swarms [94Gro]:
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/planetary/bin/dikeswarms.xls
Venus: Venus Crater Database [97Her]:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/vc/vchome.shtml
Volcanism on the Jovian satellites
Io
Despite its relatively small size (radius 1821.6 km), the Jovian satellite Io is the volcanically most active
body in the Solar System. The mechanism that produces the internal heat is widely agreed to be
dissipation of tidal energy from interaction with Jupiter, induced by the orbital resonance of 4 : 2 :1
between Io, Europa and Ganymede that maintains an elliptical orbit of Io. This dynamical relationship,
first discovered by Galileo, was found to be stable on long timescales by Laplace in 1805, but it was not
until the work of [79Peal] that the implications for the internal activity were fully understood. Peale and
his colleagues predicted widespread and recurrent volcanism. Somewhat earlier, several other studies
had reported measurements that already pointed towards volcanism. Infrared measurements showed high
brightness temperatures [e.g., 72Mor], but the authors did not associate them with volcanic activity. The
spectral detection of sulphur by [78Nel] was interpreted as fumarolic or hot spring activity, and [79Wit]
showed again that the surface of Io displayed high brightness temperatures. Only a few days after the
theoretical study of [79Peal] was published, its predictions were dramatically confirmed by images taken
during the encounter of the Voyager spacecraft with Io. They showed a faint plume against the
background of space, rising 200 km above the surface [79Mor]. This was the first unambiguous evidence
for currently active extraterrestrial volcanism. Subsequently, a number of other plumes has been found
(Tab. 16). SO2 gas was also identified in infrared spectra [79Pear]. Since then, a large number of
publications reported on many aspects of Ionian volcanism, including several reviews of, e.g., [96Spe],
[03Gei], [00Lop], [05Lop], [00McE], [07Lop1], [07Lop4], and [07Dav].
The Voyager and Galileo missions returned a wealth of data on Io, and today it is recognized that the
surface of Io is dominated by volcanic features. Most of the volcanoes are so-called paterae, caldera-like
collapse depressions (Fig. 10). More than 400 calderas have been mapped. Only few topographic edifices
like shield- or stratovolcanoes could be identified. Large lava flows have been observed, and the 300 km-
long Amirani lava flow field is the largest active flow field known in the solar system. The global
distribution of volcanic features is bimodal, with peaks at lower latitudes and 155 and 355 longitudes,
respectively [01Rad]. This pattern is in agreement with expected heat flow patterns from tidal heating
[90Ros] and the simulated pattern of mantle convection [01Tac].
Fig. 10 Examples of volcanic surface features on the Jovian

moon Io. (a) Irregularly shaped caldera (~50 km diameter)
with dark flows radiating from its rim. The flows are
probably low viscosity lavas, possibly of basaltic
composition. Some of them lava flows are over 100 km long
and 15 km wide (image: NASA/JPL). (b) Paterae are
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
saucershaped, shallow volcanic constructs that often have a

central caldera [00Lop]. Tupan Patera is a volcanic
depression, about 75 km across, surrounded by ~900 m-high
cliffs. The floor is covered with a pattern of dark black,
green, red, and yellow materials (as determined in colour
images). The dark material is recent, still-warm lava. This
image exhibits the best evidence to date of chemical
reactions taking place between molten sulfur and molten
rock on Io (image: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona).
(c) Tvashtar Catena is a chain of giant volcanic calderas,
which was the location of an energetic eruption caught in
action in November 1999 (image width ~250 km, North on
top, illumination from the left; NASA/JPL/University of
Arizona).
Table 16 Hot spots on Io (from [00McE], after [99Lop]).
Hot spot % observations detected* Latitude [] Plume?

Pele 100 -18 yes
Mulungu 100 +17 no
Marduk 100 -27 yes
Isum 100 +31 no
Amirani 100 +25 yes
Hi`iaka 100 -2 no
Kanehekili 100 -16 yes
Pillan 89 .10 yes
Loki 88 +11 yes
Malik 88 -35 no
Prometheus 88 -2 yes
Janus 83 -4 no
Zal 83 +41 no
Tupan 75 -18 no
Culann 75 -19 probably
Altjirra 56 -35 no
Zamana 56 +18 yes
Aidne 56 -1 no
Gish Bar 44 +17 no
Sigurd 44 -5 no
Monan 44 +19 no
Shamash 38 -34 no
* Percentage of observations covering each region in which the hop spot was detected [99Lop].
A major debate after the Voyager encounter concerned the nature of the volcanism: Was it sulphur or
silicate volcanism? Spectral data seemed to favour sulphur [e.g., 79Fan; 79Smy], while Io`s bulk density
(3500 km m-3) and the topography of some surface features [80Clo; 86Moo] could be more easily
reconciled with the concept of silicate volcanism. Since the melting temperature of sulphur is lower than
that of basaltic silicates (sulphur ponds and flows are expected to have temperatures of 400-600 K), the
measurement of eruption temperatures in excess of 800 K was strong evidence for silicate volcanism
[e.g., 88Joh]. Today it is believed that silicate volcanism is dominant at hot spots (defined by enhanced
thermal emission), while secondary sulphur volcanism may be important at places [05Lop; 07Jes] and is
responsible for the dominance of SO2 in Io`s atmosphere. The very high temperatures of > 1800 K as
reported by some researchers [e.g., 01Dav] exceed that of typical basaltic lavas. This was explained by
three hypotheses: Ultramafic (komatiite-like) compositions [98McE], superheating of basaltic lavas by
rapid ascent from a deep high-pressure source (where the melting temperature is higher than at surface
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
pressure) [98McE], and ceramic volcanism [03Kar]. Most researchers prefer the ultramafic hypothesis,
since the other mechanisms are either not known from Earth or poorly investigated. Recently, the
extremely high temperatures of >1800 K have been questioned by [07Kes], who put lower limits of
~1600 K to the magma temperature of the volcano Pele.
Eruptions on Io (Tab. 8) can be classified into three categories [05Lop]: Promethean eruptions are the
source of large compound lava flow fields that originate at paterae or fissures [01Kes]. They are long-
lived and steady (a single eruption can last up to several years) and resemble the flows fields of Kilauea in
Hawaii, which are characterized by slow emplacement and inflation features. The lava flows of
Promethean eruptions may remobilize surface volatiles and initiate Promethean plumes. Pele-type
plumes, on the other hand, result from direct eruption of gas from a central vent (Pele is the name of a
prominent volcano on Io). Pillanian eruptions also originate at paterae and fissures [01Kes]. They are
short-lived and display high eruption rates, producing dark lava flows and dark pyroclastic deposits.
Pillanian eruptions can be associated with large plumes (> 200 km high), which are created by the
interaction of silicate magmas with sulfurous volatiles. Plumes contain S2 as well as SO2. While
temperatures at Promethean eruptions correlate with terrestrial basaltic volcanism, those of Pillanian
eruptions correlate with ultramafic volcanism. Lokian eruptions only occur within paterae and involve
lava lakes with or without plumes [04Lop]. One and the same hotspot can display several eruption styles
over time [07Lop1].
No impact craters are seen of the surface of Io, so the resurfacing rates must be high. Indeed, a
comparison between Galileo and Voyager images showed significant local changes of the surface,
although 90% of the surface remained unchanged. The combination of intense volcanism and ultramafic
eruption products is a paradox: A body as active as Io should have experienced a high degree of
differentiation [97Kes], and, at the current rate, a volume of magma 140 times the volume of Io should
have been produced over the age of the solar system [04Kes2]. How can this be reconciled with
ultramafic volcanism, which is considered to be typical of a primitive and undifferentiated mantle)? A
major unknown is the age of the orbital resonance which is necessary to maintain tidal heating in Io.
Estimates from dynamical models suggest an age of the resonance of a few Ga with a lower bound of the
order of a few hundreds of Ma [79Yod; 81Yod; 99Pea]. Based on the coupling of thermal and orbital
models it has also been suggested that Io's activity could be oscillatory during its evolution in resonance
[90Fis]. An alternative explanation would be that differentiation was prevented by some unknown
response of the lithosphere and mantle to tidal heating [04Kes2].
Europa
Cryovolcanism is defined as the effusion or eruption of fluid H2O and/or aqueous solutions of
components such as NH3, CH4, N2 etc. on icy satellites (including dwarf planets and objects beyond the
orbit of Neptune) [89Kar, 98Kar], in contrast to silicate volcanism on the terrestrial planets. Also, volatile
materials can be pyroclastically erupted or ejected in solid state.
Europas surface which can be subdivided into plains and mottled terrain in Voyager images [79Smi1,
79Smi2, 82Luc] was thought to have undergone cryovolcanic resurfacing in its recent past, but the
comparably low Voyager image resolution did not allow to clearly identify cryovolcanic landforms
[04Gre, and ref.s therein].
Galileo SSI images confirmed that cryovolcanism occurred in the past [04Gre, and ref.s therein].
Putative cryovolcanic features (e.g. flow lobes) in several localities infer a wide range in viscosities of the
source materials, possibly a water/ice slush or slurry [98Gre1]. Locally, ridged plains appear to have been
flooded by low-viscosity materials [98Gre1] (Fig. 11 (top)). Active cryovolcanism is believed to occur at
present time but could not be detected in Galileo SSI images because of the following two reasons
[00Phi]: Either cryovolcanism takes place at a scale not distinguishable in SSI data, or this activity is
episodic rather than continuous.
Europas surface also shows indication for intrusive processes. Linear ridges which are the most
widespread landform on Europa possibly formed by intrusion of melt into fractures [98Tur]. Another
explanation for double ridges is diapirism of warm ice into linear fractures [99Hea]. Cryovolcanism
and/or intrusions (including diapirism) also could have caused the formation of pits, domes, and spots
commonly termed lenticulae [04Gre].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Ganymede
Ganymedes surface is subdivided into dark, densely cratered ancient plains covering about 1/3 of its
total surface and bright, less densely cratered, heavily tectonized, grooved terrain on 2/3 of its total area
[79Smi1, 79Smi2, 04Pap] (Ref. 4.2.3.5.3).
In dark terrain, smooth units which embay other surface units such as crater rims, in some parts less
densely cratered, where thought to represent cryovolcanic flows, extruded as icy slushes or slurries with
darker, rockier components incorporated [98Sch2, 04Pap, and ref.s therein]. High-resolution Galileo SSI
images revealed that dark, smooth units originated from mass wasting processes along slopes rather than
cryovolcanism [98Pro].
In the bright terrain, regional- and high-resolution scale images of the Galileo SSI camera revealed
that intense tectonism was the dominant process to create and shape Ganymedes bright terrain (Ref.
4.2.3.5.3) while cryovolcanism played a comparably minor role [04Pap, and ref's therein].
Several caldera-like, scalloped depressions termed paterae found in the bright terrain represent
volcanic vents according to several authors [04Pap, and ref.s therein] (Fig. 11 (bottom)). Ridged
deposits in one of the largest of such paterae were interpreted as cryovolcanic flows [98Hea].
Stereo images (Galileo SSI as well as Voyager) showed that the smoothest units found in a number of
localities in bright terrain could have been created by extrusion of low-viscosity cryomagmatic materials
[01Gie, 01Sch1]. At highest resolution (10 15 m/pxl), also the smoothest units exhibit some degree of
tectonicsm, inferring that cryovolcanism and tectonic deformation are closely linked [02Hea].
Callisto
Neither Voyager nor Galileo SSI high-resolution camera data could provide unequivocal evidence for
cryovolcanism in the old, densely cratered plains on Callisto [95Sch, 00Gre1, 04Moo2]. Bright, at
Voyager resolution smooth possibly cryovolcanic plains in one specific locality could be interpreted as a
degraded palimpsest at higher SSI resolution [00Gre1].
Material in dark smooth patches was created by sublimation and degradation processes (Ref.
4.2.3.5.4) rather than by cryovolcanism [00Gre1, 04Moo2]. However, the still incomplete image coverage
at high resolution leaves cryovolcanism on Callisto as an open issue [00Gre1].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 11 Landforms indicating possible cryovolcanism on the

two icy Jovian satellites Europa and Ganymede. Top:
Smooth unit in ridged plains on Europa which could have
been created by a low-viscosity flow, possibly by material
preferentially consisting of water or of a water-rich solution
[98Gre1]. Alternatively, this feature could also have been
formed by melting due to a heat source in the sub-surface
without extrusive processes [98Gre1]. Part of a Galileo SSI
frame with 26 m/pxl resolution, centered at lat. 5.9 N,
326.8 W. Bottom: A caldera-like, scalloped depression
(patera) with flow-like features possibly created by
cryovolcanism in the Sippar Sulcus area on Ganymede
[98Hea]. Part of a Galileo SSI frame with 172 m/pxl
resolution, centered at lat. 31 S, long. 189 W. Image
source: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov, image ID PIA00592
(top), PIA01614 (bottom). North is pointing toward the top
in both images.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Volcanism on the Saturnian satellites
Mid-sized icy satellites

Smooth plains, possibly indicating cryovolcanic processes involving H2O-NH3 melts, active either in the
past or even in recent times, were identified on Saturns mid-sized icy satellites Enceladus, Tethys,
Dione, and, less conclusively, on Rhea [81Smi, 82Smi, 83Moo, 83Ple, 84Moo, 85Moo].
Higher-resolution images returned by the Cassini ISS cameras since 2004 demonstrated that the
smooth plains observed on these satellites are not of cryovolcanic origin [05Wag, 06Wag, 07Wag1,
07Moo]. No flow fronts or other features indicative of flows or source vents could be detected.
Data from the instruments CIRS (used for temperature measurements), ISS and VIMS aboard Cassini
verified that (1) Enceladus is volcanically active and that (2) material ejected from this satellite is
constantly feeding the E ring [06Por, 06Spe]. The active region is near the south pole in heavily
tectonized terrain, with linear source vents termed tiger stripes [06Por] (Fig. 12). ISS was able to
capture bright jets against the unlit surface of Enceladus for the first time in late 2005 [06Por]. Similar
eruptions were observed repeatedly ever since. The south polar terrain of Enceladus is a hotspot region
with temperatures several 10s of K higher than in the surrounding terrain [06Por, 06Spe].
(1) The higher rock-to-ice ratio in Enceladus, compared to the other icy satellites, (2) tidal heating due
to its orbital eccentricity forced by a resonance with Dione, and (3) possibly a so-far undetected measured
concentration of ammonia may be responsible for its present-day volcanic activity [06Por].
Water ice particle sizes across Enceladuss surface were investigated with VIMS data and were found
to be more or less correlated with surface age: the younger the age, the larger the particles [08Jau]. The
largest particle sizes are abundant in the volcanically active areas.
Titan
With a diameter of 5150 km. the second-largest satellite in the Solar System, Titan, is speculated to be
large enough to have been cryovolcanically active [e.g. 96Lor].
Data obtained with the Radar instrument aboard Cassini revealed landforms which provide evidence
that effusive cryovolcanism may have shaped the landscape of Titan. A large, circular feature 180 km in
diameter, Ganesa Macula, was interpreted as a volcanic dome or shield volcano [07Lop2]. Deposits with
lobate boundaries are morphologically similar to volcanic flow features on Earth or Venus and therefore
could represent cryovolcanic flows [07Lop2].
Caldera-like features, reminescent of those seen in Galileo SSI data on Ganymede (Fig. 11 (bottom)),
were detected in the Cassini Radar data [07Lop2]. Flows emanate from the calderas which supports a
cryvolcanic origin. Small circular features could be either impacts or cryovolcanic calderas [08Lun1].
Volcanism on the Uranian satellites
Smooth plains on the major satellites of Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon, were
interpreted as units created by extrusion of fluid cryovolcanic materials [98Sch2]. On Oberon, crater
floors (e.g. craters Hamlet and Othello) are covered by very dark, smooth material. Possibly triggered by
the impacts which created these craters, fluid materials extruded on the crater floors, either originally
dark, or darkening with time [86Smi, 91Cro]. One possible explanation for the global dark coating on
Umbriel is explosive eruption of material from the interior, driven by methane [84Ste, 86Smi]. A smooth
bright unit on the floor of crater Wunda on Umbriel also was interpreted as cryovolcanic in origin
[91Cro].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 12 Present-day cryovolcanism on Saturns satellite

Enceladus. Top: Jets of H2O particles ejected by pyroclastic
eruptions originating in the south polar terrain (SPT) of the
satellite, captured by the Cassini ISS narrow angle camera
[06Por] (Pic. ID: PIA07758). The particles feed Saturns E
ring. Bottom: Detail of the highly tectonized south polar
terrain (SPT) of Enceladus with dark fractures or gooves
(termed sulci [08Roa1]) which were identified to be the
source vents of the pyroclastic eruptions (Pic. ID: PIA10360
(part); longitudes in degrees West).
Image source: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Cryocolvanic extrusion of liquid material on canyon floors (e.g. in Kewpie Chasma) and outside the
canyons at high latitudes on Ariel was inferred for the origin of smooth units seen in these areas [86Smi,
91Cro]. Repeated extrusions of highly viscous material either explained by a (1) axial-eruption model
[86Smi] or by a (2) lava-tube eruption model [88Jan] - and/or subsequent faulting caused the formation of
medial grooves and ridges [86Smi]. Similar smooth plains units were reported from canyons on Uranus
largest satellite Titania (e.g. Messina Chasmata) [86Smi, 91Cro]. Cryovolcanism is also most likely
associated with the features termed coronae on Miranda [91Cro, 91Grn].
The most likely candidates for fluids creating these features on the cold Uranian satellite surfaces are
mixtures or assemblages of water ice and ammonia with varying concentrations of each species, e.g.
ammonia dihydrate (32% NH3) [86Smi, 98Kar].
Volcanism on the Neptunian satellites
Extensive plains on Triton support an origin by cryovolcanic activity. A smooth to undulating plains unit
extends over several hundred kilometers, originating at an 80-km wide caldera-like structure (Leviathian
Patera) [89Smi, 95Cro]. Plains units are also found in several up to 200 km large "lake-like" depressions
bounded by terraced scarps [89Smi, 95Cro] (Fig. 13). Clusters of pits near the centers of these plains
could represent source vents where liquid material extruded.
Some authors reported flow fronts, small domes, ridges and hummocky plains to be indications for
cryovolcanism on Tritons surface, but a volcanic origin of these features is equivocal [e.g. 95Cro,
98Sch2, and ref.s therein]. A cryovolcanic origin of the so-called cantaloupe terrain in connection with
subsequent modification by erosion and degradation (Ref. 4.2.3.5.4) was discussed by e.g. [89Smi].
That Triton, like Earth, Io and Enceladus, is a volcanically active body at present times could be
verified during the Voyager-2 encounter in 1989. High-emission angle views of the satellite limb at high
southern latitudes revealed active dark plumes suggestive of geyser-like activity [89Smi]. Originating
from a dark spot on the surface, a dark stem rises more or less vertically up to an altitude of about 8 km
and then extends horizontally over a distance of 150 km an more. Possibly an inversion exists at a level of
8 km causing the abrupt change from vertical to horizontal movement of the plume material.
Emplacement of viscous material composed mostly of water-ice and ammonia, similar to the eruption
styles observed on the Uranian satellites, is believed to have formed the cryovolcanic units on Triton [e.g.
89Smi]. Nitrogen and/or methane were discussed as major gas materials driving the geyser-like plumes,
entraining fine dark particles up to an altitude of 8 km which eventually are transported downstream by
winds in Tritons atmosphere. Non-volcanic origins for the plumes where also discussed, such as solar
insolation and sublimation, or sublimation due to intrusion of liquid material into volatile-rich material in
the upper crust [e.g. 89Smi].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 13 Landforms on Triton indicative of past cryovolcanic

activity, seen in Voyager-2 images obtained during its
August 1989 flyby. The image scene is dominated by two
lake-like, scarp-bounded and terraced structures, possibly
former calderas where fluid material was emplaced. Clusters
of pits, superimposed by a single, approximately 10 km
large, fresh impact crater, may represent source vents. The
low freqency of impact craters is an indication of a young
surface age. Image source: Planetary photojournal
(http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov, image ID: PIA05138,
North is pointing upward).
4.2.3.5.3 Tectonics
Tectonic structures are known from the surfaces of all terrestrial planets and the Moon. They reflect the
deformation of the crust by internal forces and, therefore, put important constraints on models of the
interior evolution of planetary bodies. Here we first introduce the basic fault types and the most important
styles of tectonism, before we give short overviews of the structural geologic inventory of Mercury,
Venus, the Moon, and Mars. A full discussion of the tectonics of these bodies is beyond the scope of this
paper, and instead the reader is referred to the literature cited.
Fault types
The deformation of planetary lithospheres by mechanical stresses produces tectonic structures like faults
and folds. The style and levels of tectonism provide important constraints on models of the interior of a
planet or moon, since they are intimately linked to the heat transport and are indicative of the vigor of
internal processes (Ref section 4.2.3.4: Dynamics and Thermal Evolution). Tectonic features are
observed on all terrestrial planets and the Moon, although in different relative importance [e.g., 81Hea;
94Gre]. The basic fracture types are the same on all planets and Moons: mode I fractures are opening
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
fractures, where the relative motion is normal to the fault plane (e.g., joints). Mode II fractures (sliding
mode; shear fractures) are characterized by relative displacement parallel to the fault plane, and mode III
fractures (tearing mode) display motion parallel to the tip line of the fault. Joints are usually too small for
observation in orbital imagery, although they are known to control the preferred orientation of large-scale
erosional structures. Very high-resolution images of Mars (25 cm/pixel) allowed the first-ever direct
identification of jointing in sedimentary rocks [07Oku]. Most recognized faults on planets and moons,
however, are shear fractures: Normal faults, reverse faults, and strike-slip faults (for a modern text on
structural geology see [05Pol]). Examples of the various appearances of planetary tectonic faults are
shown in Fig. 14. Extensional features include normal faults, grabens and halfgrabens [07Sch2], and
more complex and larger structures like rifts. While normal faults and (half)grabens are found on all
terrestrial planets, the Moon, and on several icy satellites, rifts are restricted to the larger bodies Earth,
Venus, and Mars. It has to be noted, however, that some moons of the outer satellites, like Tethys and
Dione, also display rift-like features in their icy crusts [e.g., 07Gie1]. Contractional features are reverse
faults as well as folds. On larger scales, they can form fold-and-thrust belts, which are only known on
Earth and Venus [92Sup]. The terminology of some other planetary contractional tectonic features is
more descriptive than genetic: Lobate scarps are asymmetric positive topographic features, which are
linear or arcuate in plan view, with a steeply sloping scarp face and a gently sloping back scarp [e.g.,
98Wat]. They are thought to be surface-breaking thrust faults (thrust faults are reverse faults with very
low-angle fault planes). Wrinkle ridges are also positive topographic structures, characterized by a broad
arch with a superposed wrinkle structure. There are several structural interpretations, most of them
involving a combination of folding and contractional faulting (fault-propagation folds, i.e. folds in a
layered sequence like sediments or a stack of lava flows over a blind thrust fault; e.g., [93McG], [01Gol],
[00Sch2]). Strike-slip faults (sometimes also called wrench faults) are relatively rare on terrestrial planets,
with the exception of Earth. The only other terrestrial planetary bodies showing evidence for them are
Venus and Mars [e.g., 89Sch; 98Koe], and some icy moons in the outer solar system. This limited
presence on these planets is not very surprising, since strike-slip faulting is a characteristic tectonic
signature of plate tectonics, which is currently operating only on Earth (see below). Their existence on
Venus and Mars, in the absence of plate tectonics, might be explained by perturbations of mantle
convective stress fields due to structural heterogeneities in the crust [e.g., 98Koe]. A perspective of
modern structural geology and possible new applications to planetary science is given by [99Sch].
Fig. 14 Surface appearance of major fault types on planetary

surfaces. (a) Wrinkle ridges in lunar mare basalts (image:
NASA). (b) Linear graben bounded by two parallel normal
faults, cutting the lunar surface. A review of the
nomenclature of normal faults is given by [00Pea] (image:
NASA). (c) The diagonal surface feature cutting the impact
crater on Mars is interpreted as a strike-slip fault by
[08And3] (HRSC image mosaic).
Styles of tectonism
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
While the local and regional deformations and associated faulting patterns on the bodies of the inner solar
system are quite similar, the global styles of geodynamic processes and their associated structural
geologic features are unique for each body. As an example, vertical tectonic movements due to
lithospheric loading or uplift can be encountered on all terrestrial bodies. They are controlled by the
thickness and rheology of the lithosphere [81Hea]. On the other hand, the global tectonic style is
controlled by the internal dynamics. Two tectonic end-member regimes are related to mantle convection
[07ONe]: Active-lid convection involves the foundering and stirring of cold lithosphere into the mantle
[e.g., 98Mor; 04Sol1; 04Sol2]. The only known example of this tectonic regime in the solar system is
plate tectonics on Earth. The other end-member, applying for most terrestrial planets and moons, is the
stagnant lid regime. It is characterized by mantle convection beneath a strong, intact and immobile
lithosphere [91Oga; 95Mor; 97Sol, 00Sol], which is why such bodies are called one-plate planets. An
intermediate regime was envisaged by [98Mor], in which convection occurs as catastrophic overturns of
the stagnant lid followed by a period of quiescence, thereby oscillating between the active and stagnant
modes.
The mineralogy and internal dynamics of terrestrial planets are functions mainly of the mass of a body
and its capability to retain light elements like water, and of the distance to the sun [07Alb]. Earth is the
only planet with significant amount of water in the lithosphere and atmosphere. Even small amounts of
water can dramatically reduce the strength of rocks, allowing the lithosphere to break into plates. Cold
crust sinks into the mantle, rehydrates it and thereby lowers its viscosity by several orders of magnitude
[96Hir]. The lithosphere can bend, the mantle can yield, and in this way the mantle hydration might mark
the onset of plate tectonics [07Alb]. The resulting global topographic signature of plate tectonics is a two-
peaked or bimodal hypsometric curve, representing continents and ocean floors. Venus, while almost
identical in size, does not exhibit signs of this tectonic style. The main explanation seems to be the lack of
water in the lithosphere and atmosphere, causing a high relative stiffness, which acts against subduction
[98Nim]. Consequently, the hypsometric curve is characterized by one peak only, which corresponds to
the vast volcanic plains with elevations close to the mean planetary radius [94Ros]. The opposite end-
member of the terrestrial bodies, compared to the water-rich Earth, is the small Moon, which lost its
volatile content early due to its low gravity. After the cooling of a magma ocean [e.g., 70Woo; 73Sol;
06She], the mantle had probably been consolidated early (3.8 Ga), documented by high relief differences
in the lunar highlands. A similar scenario is plausible for Mercury. Only limited evidence for tectonic
activity is visible on the Moon and Mercury, mainly caused by contraction due to global cooling, local
loading by volcanic basin fillings, and impact tectonics [05Koe]. Mars is intermediate between the Earth
and the Moon. Mars had a more active volatile cycle in the past than today, including water, but the
nature and the duration are not very well constrained [e.g., 01Jak]. It is not clear whether plate tectonics
ever operated on Mars (see below). The preserved tectonic record points to the response of an elastic
lithosphere to loading processes (e.g., by plume-induced volcanism) and to global contraction. Plume-
and basin-related tectonism seems to be the main tectonic style. The concept of plume tectonics was
developed [e.g., 94Mar] following the recognition that plate tectonics fails to account for all aspects of
terrestrial tectonics. It should be mentioned here that the plume model [71Mor], after it was almost
universally accepted for a long time, was recently criticized by several authors. A discussion of this
plume debate is beyond the scope of this text. Instead, the reader is referred to recent collections of
papers that are available in favour of plumes (see [07Cam] and papers discussed therein) and in
opposition to plumes [05Fou].
Moon and Mercury
The smaller bodies like the Moon and Mercury are thought to have experienced an earlier decrease of
significant internal heat production, as compared to Earth or Venus. The internal heat production drives
the endogenic processes volcanism and tectonism. Consequently, the structural geology of the small
terrestrial planets Moon and Mercury is characterized by relatively few and old features. Moon and
Mercury are considered to be one-plate planets, i.e. their lithosphere is made up of a single spherical shell.
Most lunar faults are associated with volcanic loads (e.g., in basins), which bend the elastic
lithosphere downwards and lead to the generation of concentric extensional features (normal faults or
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
grabens) at the edges of the basins and to contractional features in the interior of the basins [80Sol;
87Wil]. More globally distributed faulting would be expected from global expansion and contraction due
to heating and cooling, respectively. The lack of such globally distributed tectonic features on the Moon
suggests that there were no significant changes in the radius of the Moon since the formation of the
presently observed surface, which is about 3.9 Ga old [93Gol]. A modern review of the lunar surface
geology, which includes a section on tectonic processes, is given by [06Hie].
The lithosphere of Mercury has experienced both tensional and compressional stresses [88Mel;
88Tho; 07Hea2]. Extensional features are rare, however, and have so far been observed only in the
interior of the 1550 km-diameter multiring basin Caloris. They are interpreted to be the result of the flow
of a thick crust towards the basin center and the associated uplift and extension of the basin floor
[05Wat], a model that was recently questioned by [08Ken] who tested a range of models of lithospheric
structure and surface loading by finite element modelling. Recently, new images from the MESSENGER
mission have revealed a (so far) unique tectonic feature, which is a set of grabens radiating outwards from
a common center, at or near of which is an impact crater located. The origin of this pattern is unknown.
Far more important than extensional features are contractional features on Mercury. Three types are
known: Wrinkle ridges, lobate scarps, and high-relief ridges (symmetrical positive topography, thought to
be the surface expression of high-angle reverse faults). While wrinkle ridges are confined to the interior
of the large, 1550 km-diameter multi-ring Caloris basin, lobate scarps are more widespread [e.g., 08Wat]
(Fig. 15). It has been suggested that lobate scarps reflect crustal shortening due to internal cooling and
global planetary contraction. Recent mapping of lobate scarps on the part of Mercury that was imaged by
the Mariner 10 spacecraft revealed that lobate scarps are not uniformly distributed and that the direction
of the dip of the fault planes is also not random. A possible explanation is that lobate scarps formed by a
combination of regional-scale compressional stresses and of stresses from global thermal contraction
[04Wat]. The source of regional stresses on a small planet like Mercury is not known, but mantle
convection under a stagnant lid regime might have invoked stresses that could have deformed a thin
elastic lithosphere (25-30 km). Alternatively, gravitational Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities might have
transmitted shear stresses to the base of the crust, causing crustal thickening [04Wat]. The first images of
the MESSENGER mission seem to indicate that lobate scarps are also widely distributed on the
previously unseen hemisphere. Contrary to previous estimates, al least some lobate scarps seem to be
embayed by Caloris ejecta (Caloris is the largest known impact basin on Mercury and formed about at the
end of the heavy bombardement), and are therefore older [08Sol]. Further evidence for an older than
previously assumed age of lobate scarps comes from the new observation that some large impact craters
overprint lobate scarps [08Wat; 08Sol].
In summary, faulting on the smallest terrestrial bodies is dominated by local loading, mainly from
impacts, and global contraction due to secular cooling [77Sol]. Recently, however, numerical simulations
suggested that an ancient pattern of Hermean mantle convection might have contributed to the formation
of lobate sarps [08Kin], so the tectonic history of Mercury might have been more complex than
previously thought.
Fig. 15 Examples of tectonic surface features on Mercury.

(a) Beagle Rupes is more than 600 km long and one of the
largest fault scarps on Mercury. Here it crosscuts
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Sveinsdttir crater (image center; diameter 120 km

220 km) and uplifted the easternmost (right) portion of the
crater floor by almost one kilometer, indicating post-impact
tectonic activity. Image: NASA/Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of
Washington. (b) A classic lobate scarp (black arrows)
crosses the crater floor, the crater rim, and continues off the
top edge of the picture. In contrast, several wrinkle ridges
(white arrows) are restricted to the crater floor. Image:
NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington.
(c) Discovery Rupes, one of the most prominent lobate
scarps on Mercury, as seen in Mariner 10 images. Image:
NASA.
Mars
Besides widespread evidence for volcanism, intense tectonic deformation of the lithosphere attests to the
vigorous endogenic activity of Mars. Both contractional and extensional structures can be observed
globally, although the overwhelming majority of extensional structures in particular are associated with
the Tharsis bulge. Strike-slip faults are rare, but a few examples have been described in Tharsis. A
comprehensive review of Martian tectonic structures is provided by [92Ban].
Mars, like the Moon or Mercury, is a one-plate planet. There is no morphological signature of plate
tectonics, and the conceptual plate tectonics-scenario of [04Sle] has not gained wide acceptance.
However, a very early phase of plate tectonics could explain the dynamo activity [00Nim] and would
have avoided early massive melting on Mars [02Hau]. Its morphological traces might have been
overprinted by later resurfacing processes. Currently, such a scenario can not be ruled out [04Len],
although it is difficult to reconcile with thermal evolution models [03Bre] (Ref section 4.2.3.4:
Dynamics and Thermal Evolution).
The single largest tectonic feature on Mars is the global dichotomy, which separates the southern
highlands from the northern lowlands [07Wat; 08Kie]. It was long thought that the northern lowlands,
showing an apparently younger (i.e. less cratered) surface in images, were created much later than the
southern heavily cratered highlands. When highly accurate topographic data from laser altimetry became
available, it became obvious that many large craters in the northern lowlands have a very subdued
topographic expression, obscuring their visibility in imaging data. If these craters are considered, the crust
in the northern lowlands seems to be as old as in the southern highlands [02Fre; 06Fre]. The origin of the
dichotomy is unknown. Two main models exist: A formation by a giant impact [84Wil], and endogenic
processes related to mantle convection, e.g., convective overturn of the interior [79Wis] or degree-1
convection [01Zho; 06Rob]. Recently, several studies revived the impact theory [08And2; 08Nim;
08Mar], which had been rejected after the first analyses of the MOLA topographic dataset [99Smi;
01Smi].
Except for the dichotomy, the Tharsis rise in the western hemisphere and the formation of Isidis
Planitia and the Elysium rise in the eastern hemisphere clearly dominate the tectonic map of Mars
(Fig. 16) on a global scale [08And1]. The most striking large-scale tectonic feature in the Tharsis-
dominated western hemisphere is a pattern of extensional features, mostly long and narrow simple
grabens, radiating outwards from several centers within Tharsis [01And]. These grabens are interpreted to
have an hourglass subsurface structure and to indicate thick-skinned tectonics [07Schu2]. Several
studies suggest that volcanic dikes may underlie the long, linear grabens [e.g., 96Mg1; 02Wil1], and that
the radiating graben sets are the surface expression of giant radiating dike swarms [01Ern1]. It has to be
noted, however, that this interpretation is not universally accepted and that separate local dike swarms
might be associated with single graben segments [03Mg].
Contractional features are wide spread on Mars (for a review, see [04Mue]). In the western
hemisphere, most wrinkle ridges are arranged in a concentric pattern around Tharsis. The concentric
pattern of contractional features formed as a result of Tharsis and an additional horizontally compressive
stress field, which was caused by global contraction [e.g., 93Wat; 01Gol; 07And]. The idea that there
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
was a single and global origin of the compressional deformation on Mars [00Man] has recently been
questioned by [07Nah], who analyzed the fault data set by [06Kna] and found that there is no significant
episode of compression from global contraction of Mars. Topographic data of wrinkle ridges suggest that
the deformation of the lithosphere reaches down to tens of kilometers, again indicating thick-skinned
tectonics [95Zub1; 01Gol], rather than previously proposed thin-skinned folding [91Wat]. High-
resolution topographic and gravity data show that the geometric pattern of radiating extensional features
and concentric contractional features can best be explained by flexural loading stresses, induced by
loading of Tharsis volcanics and the membrane-flexural support of the rise [00Ban2]. Tharsis, which is
the key to the tectonic evolution of Mars, is often considered to be the possible expression of a hot spot or
mantle plume. The Tharsis-related fracture sets are, therefore, often ascribed to plume tectonics [e.g.,
96Mg2; 07Bak].
About five large and complex rift structures, which are similar in dimension and structural
architecture to terrestrial continental rifts [e.g., 01Hau], are also located at the periphery of Tharsis. It is
not clear whether they are associated with the same stresses that caused the radiating grabens, since some
of these rifts have an along-trend orientation which is not radial, but rather tangential to Tharsis. One
possibility is that they are related to stresses caused by gravitational potential energy in combination with
weak lithospheric zones associated with volcanism [06Dim; 07Gro].
The different fault sets on Mars have different ages. The tectonic evolution is often subdivided into
five stages [01And], ranging in age from the end of the Noachian to the Amazonian epoch. A
comprehensive catalogue of Martian faults together with their maximum ages is described by [06Kna].
As for the volcanism, tectonic activity seems to have peaked early and has gradually waned with time
(Ref. section 4.2.3.3: Planetary Seismology), although punctuated by episodes of higher and lower
intensity. Minor centers of tectonic activity seem to be associated with ancient impact basins (e.g.,
Utopia) or other volcanic provinces (e.g., Elysium, Hesperia Planum). In general, the tectonic
deformation seems to be mainly associated with impact basins and large volcanic provinces. Vertical
deformation is dominant, and no evidence for plate tectonics is visible.
Fig. 16 Global tectonic map of Mars (Mollweide projection

centered at 0 longitude) [06Kna]. Red lines mark
extensional faults (normal faults, grabens, rifts), green lines
mark contractional features (thrust faults, wrinkle ridges).
The majority of faults are associated with the largest
volcano-tectonic province on Mars, Tharsis, in the western
hemisphere.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Venus
Venus is the planet with the most numerous and diverse tectonic structures next to the Earth (Fig. 17).
The most striking characteristics of Venus` surface and tectonism is the apparent lack of plate tectonics. A
lack of plate tectonics is indicated by the globally random distribution of impact craters, which would not
be expected on a planet with plate tectonic-style resurfacing. A lack of Earth-like plate tectonics is also
indicated by the general absence of linear alignments of volcanoes, as it is common on Earth along plate
boundaries. The spatial pattern of magmatic structures is mostly more indicative of blistering of the crust
by magma diapers than by plate tectonics, suggesting that vertical deformation prevails over horizontal
deformation [93Han]. The lack of tectonic deformation of circular structures like coronae and impact
craters, which display a pristine appearance, suggests that there is no plate tectonics working on Venus
since the global resurfacing event (Ref. section 4.2.3.5.2 Volcanism). Evidence against plate tectonics
also comes from global topography, which does not display an interconnected network of linear trenches
or mountain chains [07Smr], the hallmarks of terrestrial plate tectonics. Instead, the topography is
characterized by many circular or elongated discrete features, which are attributed to uplift or subsidence.
Finally, the unimodal distribution of the Venusian surface elevations [94Ros] is markedly different from
Earth`s bimodal hypsometry, caused by the existence of old continents and younger ocean floors as a
consequence of sea-floor spreading. In contrast to Earth, the surface of Venus can be subdivided into
three major domains: Volcanic plains form the largest part of the surface, intensely deformed tessera
form upland plateaus, and broad topographic rises are associated with volcanoes and converging rifts
[e.g., 03Bas].
Numerous reviews discuss the tectonic history of Venus [e.g., 84Phi; 91Phi; 92Sol; 94Phi; 98Nim].
A major debate concerns the sequence of tectonic events on the Venusian surface. In contrast to the other
terrestrial bodies in the inner solar system, the unique crater inventory largely prevents the dating of
surface units on Venus by conventional crater statistics (Ref. section 4.2.3.5.1 Craters and chronology).
The spatial distribution of the only known ~940 impact craters can not be distinguished from a random
one [e.g., 92Sch], a fact which has often been interpreted as the result of a global resurfacing event in the
last 300 Ma to 1 Ga [97McK]. It should be noted, however, that a partly non-random distribution seems
to be possible [98Hau]. The more or less random crater distribution and the problem of dating have led
to fundamentally different views of the global evolution of Venus. One school of thought proposes that
the evolution of Venus was directional, i.e. that major geological events on Venus did not only produce
the same global stratigraphy everywhere on Venus [e.g., 98Bas; 00Bas], but that these events also
occurred simultaneously all over the globe. The other end-member opinion considers the observed
sequence of units to be the result of a specific sequence of volcano-tectonic regimes occurring in different
areas of the planet at different times [e.g., 99Gue]. These two hypotheses correspondingly represent
synchronous and diachronous interpretations of the geologic history [see 02Bas2]. A major criticism of
the concept of a global Venusian stratigraphy comes from the recognition that it is problematic to map
secondary (i.e. tectonic) structures as primary (i.e. material) units [00Han1]. On the other hand, [07Bas1]
point out that tectonic fracturing can be so pervasive that no reliable interpretation of primary material
properties is possible, so that in some cases the delineation of tectonically deformed zones can be useful.
For a more in-depth discussion of this debate, the reader is referred to the recent review of Venusian
surface evolution by [07Bas1].
Contractional tectonic features on Venus are widespread and include wrinkle ridges as well as larger-
scale ridge belts. Many wrinkle ridges can be observed all over Venus, affecting more than 40% of all
plains surfaces [e.g., 99Bil]. They are concentrated in low elevations and are associated with negative
geoid anomalies. Ridge belts are 200-2000 km-long and relatively narrow (30-400 km) areas with a
slightly elevated topography above the adjacent regional plains. Individual ridges are less than ~500 m
high, 5-20 km wide, and up to 100-200 km long with a spacing of about 25 km [07Smr]. It is thought that
large ridge belts formed as contractional features as a consequence of convective mantle downwelling,
characterized by topographic subsidence followed by tectonic thickening of the crust [e.g., 90Zub]. Fold-
and-thrust belts accommodate large-scale horizontal crustal convergence and form mountain ranges
surrounding the volcanic plateau Lakshmi Planum in the Ishtar Terra region [e.g., 92Sup; 94Kee]. They
are considered to be the result of thick-skinned deformation, involving horizontal shortening of a laterally
heterogeneous lithosphere [95Zub2].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Extensional tectonic features are also widespread and consist of relatively simple fractures and
grabens, often grouped in fracture belts, as well as more complex rift structures. Fracture belts are highly
fractured zones that can be embayed by regional plains lavas, and, on the other hand, can fracture regional
plains. Therefore, it seems possible that the relatively old process creating fracture belts was more
extensive than what can be observed from their present-day distribution [07Bas1]. Within the fracture
belts, fracturing is more homogeneous than in rift zones, and the fracture trends are less sinuous.
Rift zones on Venus are characterized by complex extensional faulting, central rift valleys, and
uplifted rift flank topography [e.g., 89Stf]. The remarkable similarity of Venusian and terrestrial rifts,
e.g., the East African Rift System, were recognized by many researchers [81McG; 82Schb; 84Cam;
96Fos]. Rift systems, called chasmata (singular: chasma), can reach lengths of up to 4000 km, widths of
150-300 km, and depths of 5 km [92Sen]. Individiual normal faults may be as long as 100 km [96Fos]. A
spectacular confirmation of significant crustal extension at Venusian rift zones comes from the
observation of an impact crater located in the rift between Rhea and Theia Montes in Beta Regio
(Fig. 17a). A total extension of ~20 km has been determined for Devana Chasma, one of the most
prominent rift systems on Venus [06Kie]. An extension of this magnitude is comparable to continental
rift systems on Earth. Venusian rift zones are often located on domal topographic highs, which might
have formed in response to mantle heterogeneities, i.e. plumes [89Stf; 05Sto; 07Bas2].
Strike-slip faults do occur on Venus [e.g., 95Bro; 98Koe; 03Tuc], although they are of lesser
importance than on Earth, where they are characteristic of horizontal motions of the tectonic plates which
constitute the terrestrial lithosphere. On one-plate planets, the dominant deformation is vertically oriented
(e.g., [81Hea]; for the case of Venus, see [91Phi]). The question is, then, what tectonic forces are
responsible for the observed strike-slip faulting on Venus? One explanation, put forward by [98Koe],
might be that during mantle downwelling [92Bin] a perturbation of the mantle convective stress field
might have led to horizontal compressive stresses in the lithosphere, which is coupled to the mantle stress
field. Usually, this situation leads to the formation of deformation belts [e.g., 92Squ; 97Zub]. If the
maximum compressive stress is slightly rotated away from belt normal, this may induce lateral shear
across the belt and initiate secondary fractures.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 17 Examples of tectonic surface features on Venus.

(a) An example of rifting on Venus: A large crater in the
image center with 37 km diameter (29.9N/282.9E) is
destroyed during the formation of a 20 km-wide rift valley
(white arrow). The easternmost part of the crater rim is just
visible to the right of the dark rift valley [92Sol].
(b) Mountain belts: Smooth, radar-dark lava flows of
Lakshmi Planum (65N/0E) embay isolated tessera terrain
(arrow), made up of intersecting 1 to 2 km-wide grabens.
Maxwell Montes, the highest mountain on the planet, rises to
an elevation of 11.5 km and is part of a series of mountain
belts surrounding Lakshmi Planum. It is interpreted to have
formed by compressional tectonics (image width 300 km).
(c) Ovda Regio is one of the large highlands ringing the
equator of Venus. Low-relief, rounded linear ridges, 8-15 km
wide and 30-60 km long, have locally been cut at right
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
angles by extension fractures. The curvilinear, banded nature

of these ridges suggests that crustal shortening, roughly
oriented north-south, is largely responsible for their
formation (1N/81E). Image height is ~225 km. (d)
Coronae are volcano-tectonic features that are probably
unique to Venus. Shown here is Bahet corona (230 km
150 km; at 49N/2E), surrounded by a ring of ridges and
troughs, which in places cut more radially-oriented fractures.
The center also contains radial fractures as well as volcanic
domes and flows. Coronae are thought to form due to the
upwelling of hot material from deep in the interior of Venus.
Note the small pancake dome just to the southwest of
Bahet. (e) Cross-cutting faults at 30N/333.3E. The fainter
lineations are spaced at regular intervals of about 1 km.
Their width is at the resolution limit of Magellan images.
The brighter, more dominant lineations are less regular and,
in places, appear to begin and end where they intersect the
fainter lineations. It is not clear whether the two sets of
lineations are faults or fractures, but in other Magellan
images, these bright lineations are associated with pit craters
and volcanic features. This type of terrain has not been seen
on Venus nor on other planets. Image width is ~37 km.
(f) Tessera terrain: Several tectonic events formed this
complex fractured terrain in Ovda Regio. An underlying
fabric of ridges and valleys strikes NE-SW. The ridges are
spaced 10-20 km apart and may have been caused by crustal
shortening. They are cut by extension fractures trending
NW-SE, suggesting a later episode of NE-SW extension.
Lastly, the largest valleys, particularly the 20 km-wide one
extending across the image, were probably filled with lava.
The complex internal fabric of Ovda Regio attests to a long
history of tectonic deformation (1S/81E, image width
~225 km). (g) Compression and strike-slip faulting: A ridge
belt (the bright area running from the upper right to the
lower left) is embayed by radar dark (and thus presumably)
smoother lavas (50S/345E). NW-trending secondary
fractures may have been formed during ridge belt-parallel
strike-slip motion [98Koe]. All images: NASA/JPL.
Regional volcanic plains, whose surface lies close to the mean planetary radius (MPR = 6051.5 km above
the planets centre of mass), cover about 80% of the surface [03Bas]. Low and broad ridge belts extend
for thousands of kilometres across the plains and suggest gentle folding and shortening. Complicated
networks of wrinkle ridges are observed on the surfaces of the majority of the plains and are further
evidence for compressional deformation.
The oldest and most intensely deformed areas on Venus are the so-called tessera terrains. The name
comes from the Latin (and originally Greek) word for tile (tessera), because the appearance of the first
identified example of this type of terrain resembled a tile roof in the Venera radar images [86Bar].
Tessera are characterized by both contractional and extensional tectonic structures, and the term has been
used to describe regions of deformed crust displaying two or more intersecting sets of structural elements.
However, tessera includes terrains of several types [96Han], formed by a variety of spatially and
temporally discrete tectonic processes [98Han]. Their chemical composition is unknown. They might be
basaltic, but some studies suggest that they consist of more feldspathic material, somewhat resembling
anorthosites on the Moon or granites on Earth [92Nik].
Tessera terrain comprises isolated areas that stand elevated above the surrounding regional plains, and
are mostly exposed within crustal plateaus.. This is perhaps due to a thicker crust, though there is no
consensus whether this is due to upwelling and magmatism [91Gri; 94Phi; 00Han2] or downwelling and
compression [90Bin; 91Len; 92Bin; 98Gil].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Large volcanic rises on Venus have been categorized into three classes: rift-dominated rises, corona-
dominated rises, and volcano-dominated rises [95Sto]. In general, the rises are thought to be formed by
mantle plumes, although there may be differences with respect to the sizes and the source depths of the
plumes. [99Smr] suggest that the main difference between corona-dominated rises and other large
volcanic rises may be attributed to different sources for the mantle upwellings: Plumes at other rises
might originate from the coremantle boundary, while smaller plumes from shallower depths form the
corona-dominated rises [99Smr].
Plumes on Venus might also be indicated by the observation of radiating fracture patterns, which can
reach lengths of more than 2000 km [95Ern]. On Earth, one of the most famous giant dike swarms is the
Mackenzie dike swarm in the Canadian Shield. It has been recognized that dike swarms are important to
unravel major magmatic events, which are often associated with mantle plumes (for a review on mafic
dike swarms see [87Hal]). More than 118 radiating dike swarms have been mapped on Venus [01Ern1]
How do these combined observations fit into a model of the global tectonics of Venus? One possible
scenario is decribed by [91Phi]: Venusian tectonics may be dominated by plumes, which rise from the
mantle and impinge on the lithosphere, thereby creating hot spots. There is no sea-floor spreading, but
mantle flow fields might be coupled to the lithosphere and lead to regional-scale deformation. A hot-spot
may evolve in several steps, involving a broad domal uplift resulting from a rising mantle plume,
subsequent massive partial melting in the plume head, generation of a thickened crust or crustal plateau,
the collapse of dynamic topography, and lateral creep spreading away of the crustal plateau. Crustal
material is generated by gradual vertical differentiation, rather than by the horizontal creation and
consumption (as it is characteristic of terrestrial sea-floor spreading). It has to be noted that a plume-
dominated tectonic evolution of Venus over the observable part of its history is not unambiguously
accepted. As plumes are criticized for the case of Earth (see above), some researchers also question the
validity of the plume concept for Venus [07Ham].
The tectonic evolution of Venus, as it is known today, raises many questions. Although the planet is
very similar to Earth in terms of its size and overall density, the present day level of geologic activity on
Venus is low. This is indicated by the impact crater record, which is statistically uniform over the entire
surface of the planet and gives a mean production age of 300600 Ma. A very small percentage of craters
(10%) is volcanically embayed from the outside or deformed by tectonism [94Her; 94Str; 97McK].
This uniformity could be a result of gradual resurfacing [92Phi]. Most researchers, however, favour a
global resurfacing event that ended at 300600 Ma, with only minor resurfacing thereafter [e.g., 92Sch;
93Bul; 94Str]. An alternative view has been proposed recently by [07Han], who consider it likely that
the surface of Venus preserves a much more ancient geologic record, a hypothesis that does not require
massive resurfacing in a relatively short time..
It follows from the above observations that a central question in studies of Venusian tectonics
concerns the mechanism which allows a planet with a bulk density, mantle composition, and thus
radioactive heat production similar to Earth, to lose its heat without currently active large-scale
resurfacing [99Smr]. Why is the tectonic style so different on Earth and Venus (plate tectonics versus
plume-dominated tectonics)? The absence of water on present-day Venus might explain some of these
differences. The lack of plate tectonics may be due to strong faults, because the presence of water can
reduce fault strength through pore fluid pressure. For a more in-depth discussion of the extremely
important role of water, see [98Nim], who emphasize that most of the differences between Earth and
Venus processes can be explained by the absence of water on Venus.
Databases
Mars: Interactive Global Database of Martian Faults [06Kna]:
http://europlanet.dlr.de/index.php?id=26
Tectonics on the Jovian satellites
Io
143 mountains are identified on Io [03Jae]. They are rugged and isolated peaks with a random
distribution across the surface [98Car1]. Their heights range between a few kilometers and ~18
kilometers [01Sch2]. These large heights suggest dominantly silicate structures, rather than sulfur-rich
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
edifices, which should not support steep topography in excess of 1 km [80Clo]. Mountains are often
spatially associated with pateras (calderas) [79Mas]. While a few moutains may be volcanoes [e.g.,
86Moo], most are interpreted to be tectonic massifs [82Scha; 86Nas; 89McE]. Their formation is not
well understood. The rapid volcanic resurfacing of Io (Ref. section 4.2.3.5.2 Volcanism) might generate
horizontal lithospheric compressive stress that might be sufficient to induce thrust faulting and uplift the
mountains [98Sch1]. Alternatively, lithospheric heating associated with a secular trend of decreasing
volcanic activity on all scales could induce large compressive stresses at the base of the lithosphere. As
resurfacing rates vary, the fluctuating thermally induced stress could create alternating episodes of
compressive and tensile faulting [01Sch2].
Europa
The two major geologic units on Europa identified in Voyager and Galileo images are (1) bright, in color
images bluish plains, and (2) darker, brownish mottled units which superpose the older plains [79Smi1,
79Smi2, 82Luc, 98Gre1, 04Gre] (Fig. 18, top). Europa is dominated by tectonic features on all scales,
documented by numerous linear or arcuate features which crisscross the surface [82Luc]. Several types of
linear or curved markings, generally termed lineae, with widths up to several tens of kilometers and
lengths up to 1000 km and more were identified in Voyager images [82Luc, 98Gre1, 04Gre]:
1. triple bands
2. ridges
3. dark, wedge-shaped bands
4. gray bands
5. dark bands
During the Galileo Mission at Jupiter (1995 2003), these features were observed at various spatial
resolutions. Ridges and fractures have been shown to be ubiquituos tectonic landforms on Europa
[98Gre1, 04Gre] (Fig. 18, middle). The bright plains consist of a network of parallel ridges and troughs,
similar to grooved terrain on Ganymede.
Ridges are predominantly double ridges with a medial groove or trough [98Gre1, 04Gre]. In some
places complex ridges occur, characterized by a central trough flanked by subparallel linear features
[98Grb, 98Pap2] (see e.g. Fig. 11, top, Ref. 4.2.3.5.2). Heights of double ridges measured e.g. with
Galileo stereo image data are several hundred meters high [99Gie]. Features previously termed triple
bands are actually double or complex ridges with dark flanks at either side [98Gre1].
Depending on the depth of a liquid water layer underneath, several models of ridge formation are in
discussion, involving compressional tectonism, diurnal tidal stresses, cryovolcanic and/or intrusive
processes [04Gre, and ref.'s therein].
Dark wedge-shaped bands and dark bands occur all across Europa's surface. In a region near the anti-
Jovian point termed "pull-apart terrain" they are the dominant landform [98Gre1] (Fig. 18, middle).
Bright plains are separated by dark bands. The morphology of this terrain type is a possible indication of
crustal spreading, with brittle plates moving on a warmer, mobile substrate [e.g. 98Sul, 02Pro]. An
analogy with sea ice in the arctic has been inferred for pull-apart bands in this area [96Pap, 98Gre2].
Morphology, albedo and color of linear features such as ridges and bands changes with time [98Gei1].
For example, older bands are brighter than younger ones. Formation of linear features may even be going
on today [98Gei1].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 18 Geological and tectonic features on Europa (Voyager

and Galileo SSI data). Top: global mosaic of Europa
showing the two major terrain types: (1) bright plains (P)
and (2) mottled terrain (M) [82Luc, 98Gre1, 04Gre]. The
two rectangles indicate the location of the two detailed
views. Pw indicates the 25-km ray crater Pwyll. Middle:
Ridged plains separated by dark wedge in the "pull-apart
terrain" (PA). A prominent double ridge transects the scene
about from west to east (left to right). Bottom: Detail of one
of the chaos regions (Conamara Chaos, CC). Broken plates
of ridged plains were "rafted" in hummocky matrix material.
Further explanation in text. In both detailed views, north is
pointing upward.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Mottled terrain consists of smooth plains, the so-called chaos regions, and features termed lenticulae
(domes, pits and spots) [98Car2, 98Pap, 04Gre] (Ref. 4.2.3.5.2). Chaos regions, such as Conamara Chaos
(Fig. 18, bottom) are characterized by broken plates of pre-existing terrain, such as ridged plains, which
were translated, rotated and tilted in a matrix of predominantly hummocky terrain which in turn could
represent converted pre-existing terrain [98Spa]. Individual plates either moved on a substrate of warm,
mobile ice [e.g. 98Spa] or like icebergs on liquid water at some shallow depth, possibly a subsurface
ocean [98Car2, 98Grb].
Several stress origins are in discussion to account for the abundance of tectonic features identified on
Europa [98Gre1]: (1) phase changes, causing global expansion [81Fin]; (2) global cooling, causing global
contraction [83Hel]; (3) polar wander [89Oja]; (4) tidal stresses caused by Europa's eccentricity in the
Laplace resonance with Io and Ganymede [83Hel, 86Mce, 98Grb]. A possible non-synchronous rotation
of Europa with a lower limit of 10,000 years with respect to its orbit about Jupiter could provide an
additional source of stress [98Gei2].
Ganymede
The surface of Ganymede consists of two major geologic units (Fig. 19, top): older, densely cratered dark
material, and younger, less densely cratered bright material [79Smi1, 79Smi2, 82Sho2]. Dark material
covers about 1/3 of the total surface [04Pap]. The geologic boundary between the two major units is
tectonically controlled [79Smi1, 79Smi2, 82Sho2].
Tectonic landforms in the dark terrain units are 6 20 km wide linear or curved troughs and furrows
termed fossae. Furrows are characterized by flat floors and raised rims with a maximum vertical distance
of 1400 m between rim and floor [88Mur, 98Gie, 98Pro]. Most of the furrows are arranged in concentric
sets with more or less regular spacing of 50 km between individual furrows [82Sho2].
Two models of formation for the concentric furrow systems were discussed: (1) extensional tectonism
caused by convection of mantle material [84Cas], or (2) deformation by huge, basin-forming impacts into
a thin lithosphere early in Ganymede's history, as observed in ring structures (e.g. Valhalla) on Callisto
[82Sho2, 87Sce]. The latter model is now favored [04Pap]. Later endogenic events could have reactivated
these zones of weakness [90Mur].
Bright terrain occurs in two thirds of the total surface area. Bright terrain separates the dark units in
broad, up to several hundred kilometers wide, linear or curved bands termed sulci. At higher resolution,
these bright bands were shown to consist of numerous parallel, closely spaced grooves [79Smi1, 79Smi2,
82Sho2]. Furthermore, parallel grooves of this so-called bright grooved terrain are combined in so-called
structural cells or domains characterized by similar trends of individual grooves within one cell, while the
general trends of the cells differ greatly from one another which reflects a complex stress and strain
history [80Luc, 82Sho2, 86Mur].
Prior to the Galileo mission, the formation of grooved terrain was believed to take place in a
combination of tectonic and cryovolcanic processes [e.g. 81Gol, 82Sho2, 04Pap] but Galileo SSI images
enforced a substantial revision of this view. Apparently, cryovolcanism has played a minor role in
creating grooved terrain [04Pap]. The bright terrain units formed predominantly at the expense of dark
terrain through a process termed tectonic resurfacing, causing the partial or total transformation of dark
terrain into bright terrain by pervasive tectonism [97Hea2]. Generally, grooved terrain represents rifts
created by extensional stress [04Pap].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 19 Geological and tectonic features on Ganymede. Top:

Global Galileo SSI mosaic of Ganymede, centered on lat.
0N, long. 180W (anti-Jovian hemisphere), showing the
two major surface units: older dark terrain (D), and younger
tectonically altered bright terrain (BG). Osiris (Os) is a
large, bright ray crater. Location of the two detailed views
Tiamat Sulcus (TS) and Erech Sulcus (ES) are shown.
Middle: Detail of bright grooved terrain (BG) in Tiamat
Sulcus (Galileo SSI in Voyager context) showing extensional
deformation and right-lateral shear. Tiamat Sulcus transects
older dark terain (D). Bottom: Bright grooved terrain (BG)
in North-South-trending Erech Sulcus is cut by younger
West-East-trending sets of bright grooved and smooth terrain
units. The bright terrain units formed at the expense of older
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
dark terrain (D). North is pointing upwards in both detailed

views.
At high resolution, aided by digital terrain models (DTMs) derived from stereo images, grooved terrain
consists of smaller-scale grooves and ridges indicative of (a) horst and graben and (b) listric faulting
[98Pap1]. Topography is on the order of 500 m up to 1 km [98Gie]. Also, high-resolution and stereo
imaging showed two wavelengths in the topography of grooved terrain [98Gie, 98Pap1, 04Pap]: smaller-
scale ridges and troughs with a wavelength of 1 2 km (not resolved in Voyager images) are
superimposed on larger-scale ridges and troughs with a wavelength of 8 km.
Strike-slip faults created by shear stress have been observed in both Voyager and Galileo data. Lateral
movement can be up to several hundreds of kilometers [88Mur, 02Hea]. There is much less evidence for
compressional features [04Pap].
Callisto
Callisto is devoid of prominent tectonic features. Furrows reminescent of those in Ganymede's dark
terrain, as well as ridges and scarps are impact-related and were created in basin-forming impact events,
such as Valhalla or Asgard [95Sch, 04Moo2].
Albedo lineaments were identified and mapped in the cratered plains, with preferential NW-SE, NE-
SW, NNW-SSE, or ENE-WSW trends [85Tho, 91Wag, 04Moo2, 07Wag2]. These features could result
from an early period of tidal despinning which were possibly reactivated in later times, but their origin
remains an open question [04Moo2]. The same lineament trends could be found in Galileo SSI high-
resolution images. It could be shown that surface degradation on Callisto followed these pre-existing
zones of weakness [07Wag2].
Tectonics on the Saturnian satellites

Tectonic landforms are found on seven of the nine major Saturnian satellites, including Titan. Mimas is
characterized by old, densely cratered plains with little geologic diversity but displays a set of parallel
lineaments, scarps, ridges and grooves [89Sto1]. These features are rather faint compared to the other
satellites. They were interpreted to be related to large impact events, such as the formation of the 110-km
diameter crater Herschel [89Sto1].
A large, almost satellite-encircling rift system named Ithaca Chasma occurs in the old, densely
cratered plains on Tethys [81Smi, 82Smi, 83Moo]. It is (a) a 100 km wide trough which encircles 3/4
of the satellite circumference, (b) consists of at least two narrower branches towards the south and (c) has
terraces [81Smi, 82Smi, 83Moo, 86Mor, 89Sto2]. Stereo models created with Cassini ISS data showed
flexural uplift along the flanks of the trough and a total vertical topography of approximately 10 km
[07Gie1]. Two modes of origin for Ithaca Chasma are in dicussion [82Smi, 83Moo, 04Moo1, 07Gie1]:
(1) Expansion due to freezing of a liquid water interior, or (2) deformation by the large impact which
formed Odysseus.
The first close flyby of Cassini at Iapetus in December 2004 has revealed an enigmatic ridge which
encircles the satellite equatorially along about half of its circumference [05Por1]. The feature bisects the
dark terrain of Cassini Regio symmetrically. Digital terrain models (DTMs) with Cassini ISS data have
yielded a ridge height of 13 km and width of 70 km within the DTM [08Gie]. In a more recent Cassini
flyby at Iapetus in September 2007, the ridge was imaged at much higher resolution [08Den].
Currently, two models exist to explain the origin of the ridge: (1) an endogenic model which is related
to shape and/or spin state changes of Iapetus [05Por1], and (2) an exogenic model in which the ridge
accumulated from ring material remnant from the formation of proto-Iapetus [06Ip] (see also Ref.
4.2.3.5.4).
Dione and Rhea show higher geologic and tectonic diversity than the preceding three satellites
[81Smi, 82Smi]. Dione is known for a variety of tectonic features, such as troughs, ridges, scarps and
lineaments seen in Voyager images [83Ple, 84Moo]. Ridges, scarps and lineaments were also observed in
the old, densely cratered plains on Rhea [85Moo].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
One common feature of both satellites are bright wispy markings abundant on their trailing
hemispheres [81Smi, 82Smi]. Cryovolcanism, possibly pyroclastic eruptions, was offered as a likely
process. A possible tectonic origin has also been inferred [e.g. 84Moo, 02Sto]. With higher-resolution
images by Cassini ISS, the true nature of these wispy markings on both satellites as preferentially tectonic
instead of cryovolcanic could be verified [05Wag, 06Wag, 07Moo, 07Wag1, 07Wag3, 08Wag].
The region on Rhea dominated by tectonism has not yet been imaged at high resolution. On Dione,
detailed imaging of the fractured cratered plains revealed a variety of horsts, graben, scarps and ridges
indicative of extensional, compressional and shear tectonism [05Wag, 06Wag, 07Moo]. The
nomenclature of Dione has been updated recently to account for the tectonic nature of the bright wispy
markings, using terms such as chasmata and fossae (troughs and graben) instead of the previous term
linea [08Roa2].
Since the two Voyager flybys, Enceladus was known as the satellite with the highest geologic
diversity, implying an intense cryovolcanic and tectonic activity which could even persist until present
times [81Smi, 82Smi, 95Kar].
Several very close flybys of Cassini at Enceladus have revealed a wide variety of geologic units which
are predominantly tectonic and cryovolcanic (Ref. 4.2.3.5.2) in origin [05Hel]. Tectonism is pervasive
and also affected old densely cratered plains. Tectonic forms include (1) sets of horsts and graben, (2)
rifts, (3) folded ridges, and (4) ridged and grooved plains reminescent of those on the Galilean satellites
Europa and Ganymede [05Hel]. Various trends indicate a complex stress and strain history involving
extension, compression, and shear.
Linear grooves or sets of grooves have been known since Voyager and termed sulci (or sulcus for a
single groove) [81Smi, 82Smi, 95Kar]. The south polar terrain is surrounded by sinuous scarps and ridges
and displays several narrow individual grooves unofficially nicknamed "tiger stripes" [06Por]. Recently,
these features were assigned names [08Roa1]. In late 2005, the south polar terrain and the "tiger stripes"
were observed to be a cryovolcanically active region [06Por] (Ref. 4.2.3.5.2).
Titan
Prior to the Cassini Mission, the surface of Saturn's largest satellite Titan was unknown due to the dense
N2-atmosphere opaque at visible wavelengths [e.g. 81Smi, 82Smi]. Based on thermodynamic and
energetic considerations, tectonic landforms were expected to be present on Titan, though [05Lor].
Since 2004, the Cassini VIMS and Radar instruments have revealed Titan's surface at sufficiently high
resolution. Bright lineated material and linear hills seen in Radar data from one of the first Titan flybys
were attributed to tectonic processes [06Sto, 07Rad, 08Lun1]. Linear ridges up to 2000 m in height were
interpreted as tectonic features originating from compressional as well as extensional stresses, but other
scenarios of origin (such as impact ejecta blocks) were also offered as possible explanation [07Rad].
VIMS and Radar data obtained in further flybys during the Cassini Prime Mission have revealed
linear mountain ranges up to 1000 km in length and several hundreds of meters high which appear to be
unequivocally tectonic in origin [07Bro; http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov, image PIA10654].
Tectonics on the Uranian satellites
Landforms of tectonic origin occur on all five major satellites of Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel,
Titania and Oberon.
Umbriel and Oberon have the oldest and tectonically least altered surfaces [86Smi]. Lineaments,
canyons, ridges and mesas were observed and mapped on Umbriel [91Cro]. Canyons are 10 to 25 km
wide. Mesas are somewhat indistinct because of the low resolution image resolution, are rectangular in
shape and on the order of 30 50 km wide and 100 150 km long. Topographic relief is a few
kilometers. Canyons and mesas appear to represent horsts and graben created by extensional stress.
Tectonic features on Umbriel are old and may date back to an early period of heavy meteorite
bombardment [91Cro].
Lineaments and canyons also occur on the surface of Oberon [91Cro]. Older and younger systems can
be distinguished, based on their preservation states. Older canyons are generally wider (order of 70 80
km) than younger canyons (20 km). Relief is also on the order of a few kilometers. Canyons on Oberon
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
were created by extensional stresses which were active at an early period of heavy bombardment but may
have acted for a longer time than on Umbriel because younger canyons cut bright rayed craters [91Cro].
Titania is mostly densely cratered but displays prominent tectonic landforms, such as lineaments,
canyons, scarps and ridges [86Smi, 91Cro]. Extensional tectonism has created extensive canyon systems
and trough-like lineaments such as Messina Chasmata which can be traced up to a length of 1500 km in
the imaged area. Graben in these canyons are on the order of 50 to 100 km wide. Ridges (termed Rupes in
planetary nomenclature) up to several hundreds of kilometers long also occur on Titania.
Three modes of origin are discussed (91Cro, and ref.'s therein]: (1) compressional tectonism, (2)
cryovolcanism, (3) or they represent rims of heavily degraded large impact structures. Vertical relief
between the canyons and the ridges is 8 km. Tectonic stresses also deformed the surface at an early
period of heavy bombardment but the time of tectonic activity was more extended compared to Umbriel
and Oberon.
Ariel shows a completely different surface indicating a much more intense geologic evolution [86Smi,
91Cro]. Ariel's surface was extensively resurfaced by tectonism and cryovolcanism (Ref. 4.2.3.5.2)
[91Cro]. Based on the state of preservation and superimposed impact crater frequencies, a time-
stratigraphic sequency of extensional graben-like canyons and scarps has been established. Canyon
widths are from 10 to 100 km, with the oldest canyons being the widest structural features [91Cro].
Canyons depths are 3 4 km [88Thm]. The canyons are associated with landforms indicative both of
cryovolcanism (Ref. 4.2.3.5.2) as well as erosion and degradation (Ref. 4.2.3.5.4).
Ridges are also found on Ariel but their origin either compressional tectonism or cryovolcanism is
uncertain [91Cro]. The system of canyons and scarps on Ariel is believed to have been created by global
expansion which started during an early intense meteorite bombardment and most likely continued into a
period where the heavy bombardment had ceased [86Smi].
An even more dramatic geologic history is recorded in the surface of Miranda, the smallest and
innermost of the five major Uranian satellites. Densely cratered plains are abundant, but these old terrains
are cut by a series of complex tectonic zones including (1) canyons and fault scarps, and (2) features
termed coronae [86Smi].
Canyons can be subdivided by their widths into four different groups (1 2 km, 15 20 km, 35 km,
and 80 km) [91Cro]. In the two larger groups, the inward-facing scarps on either side of the canyon
show asymmetries in height, with one scarp being significantly higher than the opposing scarp. The wider
canyons are on the order of 6 8 km deep. Terraces are also observed in some of these canyons [91Cro].
The coronae are characterized by (1) a sharp geologic contact with the densely cratered plains, (2) a
much lower crater frequency and (3) a smoother topography than in the cratered plains, and (4) by
parallel, linear or curved ridges, troughs and bands [86Smi, 91Cro, 91Grn]. There are differences in
morphology and albedo between the three areas termed coronae [86Smi, 91Cro, 91Grn]. Two of them,
Arden and Elsinore Corona, are ovoid-shaped but in turn differ from one another in structural zones
[91Grn]. Inverness Corona is trapezoid-shaped and differs from the the two other coronae by e.g. a much
less pronounced curvature of the bands [95Cro].
It is believed that tectonism and cryovolcanism were reponsible to create the coronae but what caused
these geologic activities is not yet fully understood [91Cro, 91Grn]. The coronae formed subsequent to an
early heavy bombardment which created the densely cratered plains. Several modes of coronae origin are
in discussion (86Smi, 91Cro, 91Grn]: (1) An exotic scenario such as disruption and reassembling of a
small satellite was suggested after the Voyager flyby [86Smi]. Other scenarios offered are (2) "sinkers"
involving high-density material sinking through a viscous asthenosphere or (3), alternatively, diapirs of
low-density material [87Joh]. A thorough description of the various models and the complex geologic
history of this small satellite is found in [91Cro] and [91Grn].
Tectonics on the Neptunian satellites
Neptune's largest satellite Triton shows a network of lineaments, graben, scarps and ridges [89Smi,
95Cro].
Linear and sinuous ridges are reminescent of similar tectonic features on the Jovian satellite Europa. A
variety in ridge morphology (e.g. single broad ridges, double and multiple ridges) can be observed
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
[95Cro]. Widths of ridges range from 10 to 25 km, lengths can amount up to 1000 km and more. Ridge
heights are on the order of 200 m. Ridges and lobate scarps are interpreted as compressional features, but
extension may also be involved, especially in complex ridges [89Smi, 95Cro]. Troughs are interpreted as
graben created by extensional stress [95Cro]. Locally, strike-slip movements could also have occured
[89Smi]. Locally, both graben and ridges were modified by cryovolcanism.
It is assumed that Triton is an object captured by Neptune [95Mck2]. The major trends of the tectonic
forms mappable on Triton suggest stresses created by tidal interaction involved with the satellite
approaching its primary [93Cro, 95Cro]. Other, e.g. concentric and radial trends may have been caused by
large impacts [90Boy] or rising mantle plumes [93Cro].
Cryovolcanism and erosion/degradation are the dominant processes on Triton (Refs. 4.2.3.5.2,
4.2.3.5.4) which locally obliterated tectonic forms. Ridges formed subsequent to a global cryovolcanic
resurfacing event which created the so-called cantaloupe terrain and possibly destroyed the old densely
cratered surface [95Cro]. The characteristic processes in the following periods are events of
cryovolcanism and tectonism (e.g. formation of extensional graben). At some unknown time in the past,
endogenic activity has more or less ceased. Until present time, formation of impact craters, erosion,
degradation and deposition are the major geologic processes on Triton [95Cro] (Ref. 4.2.3.5.4).
4.2.3.5.4 Erosion, transport and sedimentation
Erosion on the terrestrial planets
The surfaces of all terrestrial planets show evidence for the transport and displacement of material. While
transport processes related to endogenic processes are considered in sections 3.5.1.2 and 3.5.1.3, we focus
here on those that are related to exogenic processes. Naturally, the intensity of these is much stronger on
planets with an atmosphere than on those lacking it. Since Mercury and the Moon do not have
atmospheres, erosion by ice, water or wind is absent. The only remaining transport processes on Mercury
and the Moon are, therefore, related to impact processes (see 3.5.1.1) and to mass wasting, i.e. the
downslope movement of material due to gravitational forces.
The planet with the most widespread and significant erosion, transport, and sedimentation processes is
Earth. Its surface is shaped by their traces at all scales, from microscopic structures to continent-sized
ancient erosion surfaces (e.g., ancient cratons). Earth`s dynamic atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere
all favour the decomposition or weathering of rocks by physical, chemical, and biological weathering.
Some of the weathering products, like rock and mineral particles, can be mobilized by fluid or liquid
media like air (solid particles suspended by wind), ice, or water. Over sufficiently large time intervals,
even huge mountain chains can be eroded on Earth. Erosion rates on Earth are highly variable (Fig. 20)
and depend on substrate (lithology), climate, and precipitation. In general, they are several orders of
magnitude higher than those on the next active planets, Mars and Venus. Often they are referred to as
denudation rates, i.e. the lowering of the Earth`s surface measured in mm ka-1 (mm per 1000 years).
Terrestrial denudation rates, sometimes subdivided into chemical and mechanical denudation rates,
typically range between tens and hundreds of mm ka-1 (Tab. 17). It seems that extreme events (e.g.,
flooding events) account for a proportionally large fraction of the erosion, which might explain why
erosion rates measured over short timescales (100 102 years; without such events) are often smaller than
those determined for long timescales (104 107 years) [07Tom].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 20 Denudation rates of major terrestrial drainage areas (slightly modified from [94Sum]). Rates for mechanical
erosion are shown on the left, rates for chemical erosion are shown on the right.
Erosion on Mars occurred in the past by virtually all mechanisms known from the Earth, although at
different rates. Fluvial erosion was widespread in the early history, before about 3.5 Ga ago, as evidenced
by numerous valleys [82Bak, 96Car]. Surprisingly, recent high-resolution images revealed the existence
of small, kilometer-sized gullies, which exactly resemble landforms produced by the runoff of liquid
water on Earth. These are often arranged in dendritic patterns, typical for terrestrial drainage networks.
Glacial erosion is less evident, but growing evidence for glacial processes on Mars [e.g., 03Hea2]
indirectly imply a significant role for them as well. Aeolian erosion (i.e. erosion by wind) is indicated by
the presence of ventifacts (wind-abraded clasts or rock surfaces), seen in lander images, and yardangs
(wind-moulded landforms in drylands). Erosion rates on Mars are highly variable over time. When the
young Mars still had a denser atmosphere and a more vigorous hydrological activity at its surface, which
involved significant fluvial incision, erosion rates were comparable to slow continental denudation rates
on Earth that are dominated by liquid water. After Mars had become cold and dry (about 3.8 Ga ago),
erosion rates dropped dramatically. It is estimated that long-term erosion rates since then are as low as
0.01 to 10 nm/year, which is 2-5 orders of magnitude lower than on early Mars (Tab. 3.5.xx) and are 2-3
orders of magnitude lower than the slowest erosion rates on Earth. Venus has a thick atmosphere, so wind
as a geological agent is expected to have shaped the surface. Indeed, yardangs on Venus attest to some
aeolian erosion on Venus [97Gre]. However, Venus is completely shrouded in clouds and the surface
temperature varies only slightly as a function of latitude. Therefore, winds are only gentle and wind as an
erosional agent is not effective (Tab. 3.5.xx). Erosion is also an important geological process on the
Saturnian moon Titan, as documented by Radar images from the Cassini and Huygens missions, which
show fluvial channels that were probably formed by liquid methane [e.g., 05Tom, 08Lor]. Titan is
unique in the sense that methane seems to play the role in exogenic processes that water plays on Earth
[08Lun2]. Methane clouds in the atmosphere, and the dendritic fluvial features suggest methane rainfall,
and even lakes of liquid methane have been reported recently [07Sto]. The area on Titan that is affected
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
by fluvial channel formation is unknown, but extrapolation of the analyzed portion to the entire surface
indicates a very small percentage (~0.1%) covered by river channels [08Lor].
Table 17 Typical erosion rates on the terrestrial planets. Terrestrial values modified and simplified from
[83Sau], values for Mars from [07Gol], values for Venus from [93Str] and [97Bas], values for the Moon
from [00Cra].
Climate Relief Typical range for rate of denudation [mm ka-1]
Earth
Temperate continental Normal 10-100
Rain forest Normal 10-100
Steep 100-1000
Arid Variable 10-?
Semiarid Normal 100-1000
Polar/mountainous Steep 10-1000
Glacial, ice sheet Normal 50-200
Glacial, valley glaciers Steep 1000-5000
Any climate Badlands 1000-1,000,000
Mars
Early Mars (>3.8 Ga) Any 1-10
~ 3.8 Ga until today Any 0.00001 0.01
Venus
~1 Ga to 300 Ma until today any 0.003 0.2 (0.21 m/Ma to 0.003 m/Ma)
(large uncertainties!)
Moon
~3 Ga until today (average) Any 0.0002 (2 10-7 mm/yr)
Transport of eroded material on Earth can occur over distances of all scales. Wind-blown material can be
transported across continents (e.g., sand derived from the Sahara is often deposited in Europe, and dust
storms on Mars can affect the atmosphere on global scales), and rivers can be thousands of kilometers
long (e.g., Nile and Amazon on Earth: >6,000 km; outflow channels on Mars: thousands of kilometers).
Material transport by wind is in the form of creep, saltation (bouncing or leaping movement of rock
particles carried by wind or water currents) or suspension (e.g., the classical paper by [41Bag]; see also
[85Gre]). The minimum wind speeds needed for aeolian transport of particles depend on the density of
the atmosphere and the gravitational acceleration (Fig. 21). Fluvial transport, i.e. transport by liquid water
in rivers and streams, includes the suspension of particles in the water current (washload and suspended
load), and the sliding, rolling, and saltating of particles on or very near the river bed (bed load) [e.g.,
64Leo]. A recent review on flow discharge and sediment transport models is given by [05Kle]. In
addition to these transport processes of clastic particles, material can be transported in solution. A
comparison of flow velocities required to move clastic particles on Earth, Mars, and Titan is shown in
Fig. 21.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 21 Velocities in wind and water currents required to

transport clastic particles. (left) Threshold friction speed
predictions for Venus, Titan, Earth, and Mars. Particle
densities for Venus, Earth, and Mars were chosen to be 2.65
g cm-3, representative for silicate material, and 1.9 g cm-3 for
Titan, corresponding to the average density for the satellite
[partly redrawn and simplified from [85Gre]. (right) Fields
of transport categories on Earth, Mars, and Titan (slightly
modified from [06Bur]).
Glaciers transport material as particles distributed in the glacier-ice matrix itself (rock glaciers; note that
there is a debate whether rock glaciers are glacial or periglacial phenomena, which will not be addressed
here), as moraine material (e.g., medial moraines), or as a mantle covering the glacier (debris-covered
glaciers). Virtually all of these transport processes also act or acted on Mars, although at different
intensity in different periods of Mars` history. It also has to be noted that periglacial processes, which are
known on Earth and are thought to be important on Mars, involve material transport, e.g., by sorting
mechanisms like frost heaving. The transport distances, however, are usually minor, and we will not
further consider periglacial processes here.
Erosion and transport imply sedimentation. Sedimentary structures and landforms are particularly
widespread on Earth, the planet with the most active volatile cycle. Major sources and sinks for sediments
are not randomly distributed on Earth, but are controlled by geodynamic processes. Examples are passive
continental margins, where stacks of sediments with thicknesses of tens of kilometers can be encountered.
The sedimentation itself is the result of the interplay between the sediment supply, its reworking and
modification by physical, chemical, and biological processes, and the accommodation space, i.e. the
space that is available for sedimentation [e.g., 96Rea]. Factors controlling the sedimentary rock record
include the sediment supply, climatic conditions, tectonic displacements, sea-level changes, orbital
forcing (e.g., Milankovitch cycles), water chemistry, volcanism, and others.
The only other solar system body with a variety of sedimentary deposits other than Earth is Mars,
although the volume of known sediments on Mars is minor in comparison to Earth. Eolian sedimentation
is ubiquitous, both as dust (grain sizes of about 1-2 microns) and sand-sized particles [92Gre]. Dust
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
deposition is part of the dynamic dust cycle and regularly affects the surface. Recent measurements by
rovers allowed dust deposition rates to be measured in situ. They are estimated to be in the order of 1
grain diameter per 100 Martian days [07Kin]. Sand dunes are evident in most high-resolution images
[e.g., 07Hay]. Some of the largest occurrences of dunes are found around the North Pole, where they
form a continuous sand sea. All dune forms known from Earth have also been observed on Mars, and
recent time-resolved observations showed that at least some dunes are currently active [08Bou].
Delta and fan deposits are found at several locations on Mars and are clear evidence for the deposition
of clastic sediments by fluvial and lacustrine processes [e.g., 03Moo; 03Mal]. It seems that their
formation could have taken place over geologically short timescales, and that the discharge in the fluvial
channels feeding the deposits are characterized by short flooding events [e.g., 08Kra]. Other
morphologically important large-scale sedimentary materials on Mars are layered deposits of considerable
horizontal (hundreds of kilometers) and vertical (several thousand meters) dimensions, which are found
within some large topographic depressions like Valles Marineris or several craters. Despite decades of
research, their origin is still unclear. An origin as eolian, lacustrine, and volcaniclastic sediments as well
as spring deposits or salts have all been invoked to explain their characteristics. Layered sedimentary
materials are also important in Meridiaani Planum, the region where the Mars Exploration Rover,
Opportunity, found mineralogical, geochemical and morphological evidence for past liquid water on the
Martian surface.
An important process that is important on Mars and shall be shortly discussed here in the context of
sedimentation is aqueous alteration. Recently it was found that the layered deposits in Valles Marineris, in
some craters, and in Meridiani Planum are often, but not always, associated with hydrated sulfates
[05Bib, 05Gen]. Their formation must, therefore, probably have involved liquid water. Another alteration
process, again associated with layered deposits, produced phyllosilicates [05Bib, 05Pou]. Since both
sulfates and phyllosilicates point to aqueous alteration, but in different environments, their identification
puts extremely important constraints on the reconstruction of the Martian paleoclimate. While the
phyllosilicate-bearing layers may have formed in situ by the aqueous alteration of basalt more than ~4 Ga
ago, the sulfate-bearing layers are younger and formed in a more acidic environment. In their case, the
original nature of the layers is unclear. A third major class of hydrated phases that was recently identified
on Mars is sedimentary silica-rich material.
The in situ investigation of Martian terrain has recently revealed a great amount of information on
sedimentary environments on Mars. In particular, the Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, identified the
geochemical, mineralogical, and morphological signatures of sedimentary processes in Meridiani Planum
[e.g., 04Squ, 05Tos, 05Gro2, 06Gro].
Sedimentary deposits on Venus is observed in the form of wind-deposited materials and finely layered
material seen at the landing sites. Eolian features occur as radar-dark (i.e. smooth) mantlings, wind
streaks, and dunes. The mantling materials were probably formed by fine debris derived from impact
events. Wind streaks are the most abundant eolian features and formed as the result of accumulation
and/or erosion of loose surface material due to turbulence behind topographic obstacles. Sand dunes are
found as two dune fields [97Gre]. The finely layered rocks seen in the Venera lander images are easily
crushable and porous. One hypothesis interprets them as ejecta from upwind craters that were deposited
from the atmosphere.
Sediments on Titan are documented as large fields of sand dunes, which can reach heights of 100-
150 m [06Lor] and cover as much as 20% of the total surface [08Rad]. The limited extent of river
channels (see above) can not account for this large volume of sediments, and the large-scale sediment
transport processes on Titan remain an enigma [08Lor].
Erosion, transport and sedimentation on the Jovian satellites
Io
Erosion is limited on Io. Long scarps on Io (hundreds of kilometers long, hundreds of meters high) can
have a irregular or fretted appearance, which might be the result of sapping (backward erosion induced by
groundwater or other volatile seepage) involving liquid SO2 [79McC]. Ions and electrons in the Jovian
magnetospheric plasma bombard the surface, and can erode SO2 ice with rates of 10-5 m yr-1 [82Mel;
84Joh].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Europa
Galileo SSI images do not show widespread abundance of erosional or degradational features on Europa,
compared to features on Ganymede and Callisto [99Moo] (see below). Smooth units near the bases of
tectonic ridges were created by downslope movements of fine-grained material and represent talus
deposits. Such features are only discernable in high-resolution images (< 30 m/pxl) [99Moo].
Ganymede
The two major terrain types on Ganymede, older, dark terrain, and younger, bright grooved terrain, show
unique surface features of degradation and deposition [79Smi1, 79Smi2, 04Pap].
Widely abundant processes of mass wasting in the dark terrain are documented in high-resolution
Galileo SSI images [98Pro, 99Moo]. Low-albedo streaks on bright slopes are clear indications of such
processes. Dark, loose material accumulated on floors of furrows, craters, or other topographic lows
[98Pro, 99Obe]. Dry slumping or sliding along steep slopes was discussed to be responsible for these
features [99Moo].
High-resolution views of the dark terrains on Ganymed also revealed a strong heterogeneity between
very dark and very bright landforms within these regions [98Pro]. Sublimation of volatiles, e.g. H2O, has
been inferred to be the major process to create such features [98Pro, 99Moo, 04Pap]. In some of the dark
areas, a combination of sublimation of volatile materials and scarp retreat has created a dark lag,
embaying and partly covering high-standing landforms such as crater rims [99Moo, 04Pap].
Downslope movements indicating mass wasting processes are also observed in the bright grooved
terrain [99Moo, 04Pap]. Dark streaks occur on steep slopes in bright terrain and dark material is
accumulated in topographic lows, induced by sublimation processes and segregation from the bright host
material [98Spe, 99Obe, 04Pap].
The degree of landform degradation was used to map three classes of impact crater forms on
Ganymede on medium-resolution Voyager images (1-2 km/pxl) [84Luc]: Class c3 represents young,
fresh, more or less pristine impact craters, in many cases with an extended system of bright or dark rays.
In class c2, crater rims are more degraded, and ejecta are partially removed. Generally, these crater forms
are older than those in type c3. Class c1 comprises forms almost entirely eroded or degraded, with crater
rims partially or almost completely removed (crater ruins), or covered by younger units. This class
represents the oldest impact crater forms.
Callisto
Impact cratering (Ref. 4.2.3.5.1), erosion and landform degradation, preferentially by sublimation, are the
dominant geological processes on Callisto. These processes are revealed in detail by high-resolution
images returned by the SSI camera aboard the Galileo Orbiter [95Car, 96Moo, 99Moo, 04Moo2,
07Wag2]. Callisto is unique in this respect and features the most heavily degraded surface of the four
Galilean satellites [99Moo].
Sublimation degradation of bright, topographically high-standing landforms, e.g. crater rims, is mainly
caused by (a) solar insolation changing over each diurnal cycle (16.689 earth days), (b) compositional
differences in the icy crust, and (c) zones of weaknesses created by early tectonism (Ref. 4.2.3.5.3)
[96Moo, 99Moo, 04Moo2, 07Wag2]. Temperature variations during one Callisto day range from a
maximum of >165 K at noon to a minimum of 80 K at predawn at the equator [99Moo].
In addition, sublimation degradation may be triggered by a substantial amount of a species more
volatile than H2O-ice, most likely CO2, in the icy crust of Callisto [96Moo, 99Moo]. That CO2 is an
abundant component in the icy crust can be inferred from the discovery of a tenuous CO2 atmosphere
created by outgassing [99Car].
Sublimation degradation created two characteristic landforms: bright massifs, or groups of massifs,
with a geometric albedo of 0.8, and a globally abundant layer of smooth or gently undulating, in some
parts hummocky, dark material (geometric albedo 0.2) [96Moo, 99Moo, 04Moo2, 07Wag2]. This
characteristic distribution of dark and bright material is illustrated in a Galileo SSI high-resolution image
in Fig. 22.
Landslides several kilometers wide with a range in morphology from lobate and blocky to slump-like
can be found on crater floors [00Chu, 04Moo2]. Such mass movements are believed to have been
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
triggered by seismic energy released upon large impact events several hundreds of kilometers away
[00Chu].
Currently it is not known exactly at which rate sublimation degradation occured because the (average)
thickness of the layer, its thermal inertia, particle sizes and composition are not known exactly [99Moo].
Crater counts in the dark, smooth material yielded highly divergent model ages, depending which
cratering chronology model is used [e.g. 04Moo2, 07Wag2].
As is the case for Ganymede, crater forms on Callisto can be subdivided into three erosional classes of
different ages [97Ben, 00Gre1, 07Wag2].
Fig. 22 Landforms indicating erosion and degradation on

Callisto. Part of Galileo SSI picture 30C0004. During the
final closest flyby at Callisto (Galileo orbit C30), the SSI
camera was able to return the highest-resolution images of
the surface. Spatial resolution of this frame is 9 m/pxl (in
horizontal direction). The dark vertical bar is a permanent
data gap. The figure shows the two major surface units of
Callisto [04Moo2]: (1) bright, topographically high-standing
material, and (2) dark, smooth material. Some craters are
degraded but their circular rims are still preserved. Other
massifs represent the remnants of former, now heavily
degraded craters. Shadow lengths were used to measure the
heights of the massifs implying an average height of about
200-300 m [02Bas1, 07Wag2].
Erosion, transport and sedimentation on the Saturnian satellites

Several of the mid-sized icy satellites of Saturn show landforms indicating mass wasting in the higher-
resolution Cassini ISS images. These forms include landslides on the steep inner walls of crater rims, on
central peaks, or on scarps within tectonic forms.
Deposits indicative of mass wasting processes were reported from Dione [06Wag], Rhea [08Wag],
and Iapetus [08Sch]. On the small, low-gravity satellite Phoebe material slumped down from steep crater
walls, accumulating a hummocky deposit on the floor and exposing a bright, ice-rich surface on crater
wall interiors beneath a darker coating [05Por1].
Iapetus is known for an anomalous dichotomy in albedo, with a factor of 10 difference between the
leading (about 0.05) and trailing hemisphere (about 0.5, comparable to other icy bodies), a fact which was
known since the time when Iapetus was discovered by G. D. Cassini in 1671 [82Smi, 86Mor]. For this
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
dark area on the leading hemisphere which is also distributed symmetrically around the apex point of
orbital motion (lat. 0 N, long. 90W), the name Cassini Regio was assigned in planetary cartography.
Cassini ISS data from the first close flyby (Dec. 31, 2004) revealed that Cassini Regio is an old and
heavily cratered dark unit, shows evidence of mass wasting (landslides in craters), and displays an
enigmatic almost satellite-encircling equatorial ridge up to 15 km high (Ref. 4.2.3.5.3) [05Por1].
The origin of the dark material in Cassini Regio is not well understood. Two sets of theories exist
which try to explain the origin of the unusual albedo feature: (1) In one set of theories, the dark material
in Cassini Regio is a deposit created by exogenic processes. (2) Other theories suggest endogenic
processes (e.g. cryovolcanism).
The exogenic origin theories invoked primarily impact-related processes (summaries and references
given by [01Den1, 01Den2] and [05Por1]). Possible sources of deposited dark material are (a) dust
ejected from other Saturnian satellites due to impacts (e.g. Phoebe, Hyperion), or (b) material created by
cataclysmically disrupted satellites.
Endogenic origins (volcanism) have also been discussed but seem less likely [82Smi, 01Den2,
05Por1]. High-resolution data from a flyby in Sep. 2007 show that the dark material deposit is only a few
meters thick [08Den, 08Sch]. These new image data also favor a primarily exogenic origin by thermal
segregation processes which create a dark lag on preferentially icy material [08Den, and ref.s therein].
Titan
Titan has a substantial N2-atmosphere and is the only natural satellite in the Solar System which shows a
morphologic record of fluvial, lacustrine, and eolian processes. The dense atmosphere can be penetrated
only at infrared wavelengths by ISS and VIMS [05Por2, 06Mcc] and by the Cassini Titan Radar Mapper
[07Pag]. The surface could be investigated in detail by the Huygens landing probe on Jan. 14, 2005
[08Kel, and ref.s therein].
The presence of a hydrological cycle on Titan has been assumed, with methane or methane-ethane
being the working fluids analogous to water on Earth or early Mars [e.g. 05Lor]. Landforms inferring
fluvial and lacustrine processes were captured by the DISR camera during descent of the Huygens probe
to the ground [05Tom]. Images show a dendritic drainage system of dark channels carving into the
brighter highlands, similar to terrestrial river systems (Fig. 23). The dendritic network terminates in a
dark lake basin. The channels and the lake basin did not seem to contain fluids at present since Huygens
landed on a solid surface. Images from the landing site showed a number of rounded pebbles which
conclusively indicate transportation and deposition by fluid material (Fig. 23) [08Kel].
Channels and lakes inferring fluvial and lacustrine processes were also revealed in the Cassini Titan
Radar Mapper data [06Sto]. Lakes are abundant in the high latitudes [07Lop3]. Some of these lakes are
several 100 kilometers across. Radar images showed that some of them could be filled with fluid
hydrocarbons, as derived from the smoothness at a Radar wavelength at 2.2 cm [07Lop3, 07Mit]. It was
verified with VIMS data that one of the major lakes is filled with a liquid, most likely ethane in solution
with e.g. methane or other hydrocarbons [08Bro].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 23 Landforms indicative of fluvial and lacustrine

processes, seen in image data of the DISR camera aboard the
Huygens probe. Top: Dendritic drainage system of dark
channels and a dark (at the time of Huygens landing) dry
lakebed, seen from an altitude of about 8 km
(http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov, image ID: PIA07236).
Bottom: Image taken on the dry lakebed at the Huygens
landing site during the 70-minute lifetime of the probe after
landing. Rounded pebbles indicate transport and deposition
by a fluid. Sizes of pebbles are on the order of 15 20 cm.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Eolian processes are indicated by the presence of thousands of dark, longitudinal dunes within 30
latitudes of the equator in the Radar data [06Ela]. These features represent deposits of particulate
materials, possibly consisting of hydrocarbons, and were transported by a global wind system to the
equator where desert-like conditions occur [08Rad]. These materials are then shaped into dunes by East-
West-oriented winds, inferred from their preferential East-West orientation [08Rad].
Erosion, transport and sedimentation on the Uranian satellites
Landforms indicative of erosion and degradation are not easily discerned on the five major satellites of
Uranus, Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon. The comparably low resolution of Voyager
images (on the order of several kilometers per pixel) obtained at Umbriel, Titania and Oberon during the
Voyager-2 flyby impedes the detailed analyses of erosional and degradational features on these two
satellites. Voyager returned higher-resolution images (<1 km/pxl) only of the two innermost major
satellites Miranda and Ariel [86Smi].
Craters on these satellites except Miranda were subdivided into at least three degradational classes: (1)
old, degraded craters, (2) fresh craters, and (3) relatively young bright ray craters [86Smi, 91Cro]. On
Miranda, only two preservation states of craters were found: (a) fresh craters and (b) mantled craters
[91Cro]. Degradation of craters is a result of obliteration by subsequent impacts and/or by tectonicsm.
Bright rays in the younger craters could date back to 3 4 Gyr indicating that erosion and degradation
might have played a minor role in shaping the surfaces of these bodies.
Bright fresh deposits at the base of tectonic features (canyons and scarps) are interpreted as talus
deposits implying mass wasting processes [86Smi, 91Cro]. These features are found on Oberon, Titania,
and Miranda. The interior of the canyons on Ariel, especially in those at the margins of cratered plains
plateaus, display landslides which were interpreted as stratigraphically young geologic units [91Cro].
Neptunian satellites
The southern hemisphere of Neptunes largest satellite Triton is covered by a seasonal bright, reddish ice
cap probably composed of N2-ice mixed with organic compounds reponsible for the reddish hue [89Smi,
89Stn]. Darker patches are abundant within the polar cap probably exposing material beneath the bright
ice deposit. The lack of clear morphologic boundaries between the bright material and the darker patches
in the cap is an indication for a relatively thin veneer of ice. Generally, all surface features on Triton
appear to be covered by a thin frost-like veneer of N2- and CH4-ices [89Stn].
The surface of Triton also shows evidence of erosion, transport and deposition by wind. Tritons
atmosphere is dominated by N2, with traces of other compounds such as CH4 at low altitudes near the
surface [89Stn]. Dark streaks are abundant in the south polar ice cap [89Smi, 89Stn]. The streaks extend
over several 10s of kilometers up to 100 km. They are concentrated between 10 and 30 south latitude
and are preferentially oriented southwest-northeast indicative of a dominant wind direction [89Smi].
A surface unit unique to Triton is termed cantaloupe terrain and is composed of pits and dimples, with a
spatial extent of several kilometers up to 25 km across [89Smi, 89Stn]. Collaps and degradation by
extensive sublimation of surface materials has been invoked as a likely process which created these
landforms [89Smi]. Sublimation of matrix-forming materials also may have caused mechanical
weakening of material exposed in scarps which caused the recession of these scarps with time [90Moo].
Voyager image resolution is not sufficient to observe surface features indicative of erosion, transport and
sedimentation on the smaller Neptunian satellites.
4.2.3.5.5 Nomenclature
Judit Jnchen and Marita Whlisch

Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.5.5.1 IAU rules
IAU composed several rules and conventions over the past years that can be found on the webpage
http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/, which is the official IAU Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature
homepage. The following lists in chapter 4.2.3.5.5.2-4.2.3.5.5.3 contain the descriptor terms as well as
categories for naming features on celestial bodies. These terms and categories, including the definitions
are to be found on the same webpage http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/. 1
4.2.3.5.5.2 Descriptor Terms as defined by IAU
Albedo Feature Geographic area distinguished by amount of reflected light

Arcus, arcs Arc-shaped feature
Astrum, astra Radial-patterned features on Venus
Catena, catenae Chain of craters
Cavus, cavi Hollows, irregular steep-sided depressions usually in arrays or clusters
Chaos Distinctive area of broken terrain
Chasma, chasmata A deep, elongated, steep-sided depression
Colles Small hills or knobs
Corona, coronae Ovoid-shaped feature
Crater, craters A circular depression
Dorsum, dorsa Ridge
Eruptive center Active volcanic centers on Io
Facula, faculae Bright spot
Farrum, farra Pancake-like structure, or a row of such structures
Flexus, flexs A very low curvilinear ridge with a scalloped pattern
Fluctus, flucts Flow terrain
Flumen, flumina Channel on Titan that might carry liquid
Fossa, fossae Long, narrow depression
Insula, insulae Island (islands), an isolated land area (or group of such areas)
surrounded by, or nearly surrounded by, a liquid area (sea or lake).
Labes, labs Landslide
Labyrinthus, labyrinthi Complex of intersecting valleys or ridges.
Lacus "Lake" or small plain; on Titan, a "lake" or small, dark plain with
discrete, sharp boundaries
Landing site name Lunar features at or near Apollo landing sites
Large ringed feature Cryptic ringed features
Lenticula, lenticulae Small dark spots on Europa
Linea, lineae A dark or bright elongate marking, may be curved or straight
Lingula, lingulae Extension of plateau having rounded lobate or tongue-like boundaries
Macula, maculae Dark spot, may be irregular
Mare, maria "Sea"; large circular plain; on Titan, large expanses of dark materials
thought to be liquid hydrocarbons
Mensa, mensae A flat-topped prominence with cliff-like edges
Mons, montes Mountain
Oceanus A very large dark area on the moon
Palus, paludes "Swamp"; small plain
Patera, paterae An irregular crater, or a complex one with scalloped edges
Planitia, planitiae Low plain
Planum, plana Plateau or high plain
Plume Cryo-volcanic features on Triton
Promontorium, promontoria "Cape"; headland promontoria
1
) [USG]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Regio, regiones A large area marked by reflectivity or color distinctions from adjacent
areas, or a broad geographic region
Reticulum, reticula reticular (netlike) pattern on Venus
Rima, rimae Fissure
Rupes, rups Scarp
Satellite Feature A feature that shares the name of an associated feature. For example,
on the Moon the craters referred to as "Lettered Craters" are classified
in the gazetteer as "Satellite Features."
Scopulus, scopuli Lobate or irregular scarp
Sinus, sins "Bay"; small plain
Sulcus, sulci Subparallel furrows and ridges
Terra, terrae Extensive land mass
Tessera, tesserae Tile-like, polygonal terrain
Tholus, tholi Small domical mountain or hill
Undae Dunes
Vallis, valles Valley
Vastitas, vastitates Extensive plain
Virga, virgae A streak or stripe of color
4.2.3.5.5.3 Categories for naming features on celestial bodies as defined by IAU
The Moon
Craters Deceased scientists, scholars, artists and explorers who have made outstanding or fundamental
contributions to their field. Deceased Russian cosmonauts are commemorated by craters in and around
Mare Moscoviense. Deceased American astronauts are commemorated by craters in and around the crater
Apollo. Appropriate locations will be provided in the future for other space-faring nations should they
also suffer fatalities; e.g. Schliemann.
Lacs, Maria, Paludes, Sins Latin terms describing weather, other abstract concepts; e.g. Lacus Mortis
Montes Terrestrial mountain ranges or nearby craters; e.g. Mons Bradley
Rups Name of nearby mountain ranges (terrestrial names); e.g. Rupes Kelvin
Valles Named from nearby features; e.g. Vallis Alpes
Other features (catenae, dorsa, rimae) Named from nearby craters; e.g. Catena Humboldt
Mercury
Craters Deceased artists, musicians, painters, and authors who have made outstanding or fundamental
contributions to their field and have been recognized as art historically significant figures for more than
50 years; e.g. Homer
Dorsa Deceased scientists who have contributed to the study of Mercury; e.g. Antoniadi Dorsum
Fossae Significant works of architecture; Pantheon Fossae
Montes Caloris, from Latin word for "hot"; Caloris Montes
Planitiae Names for Mercury (either the planet or the god) in various languages; e.g. Budh Planitia
Rups Ships of discovery or scientific expeditions; e.g. Pourqoui-Pas Rupes
Valles Radio telescope facilities; e.g. Goldstone Vallis
Venus
Astra
Goddesses, miscellaneous
Chasmata Goddesses of hunt; moon goddesses; e.g. Seo-Ne Chasma
Colles Sea goddesses; e.g. Ruad Colles
Coronae Fertility and earth goddesses; e.g. Xilonen Corona
Craters Deceased women who have made outstanding or fundamental contributions to their field (over
20 km); Common female first names (under 20 km); e.g. Judith
Dorsa Sky goddesses; e.g. Dyan-Mu Dorsa
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Farra Water goddesses; e.g. Seoritsu Farra

Flucts Goddesses, miscellaneous; e.g. Eriu Fluctus
Fossae Goddesses of war; e.g. Nike Fossae
Labyrinthi Goddesses, miscellaneous; Radunitsa Labyrinthus
Lineae Goddesses of war; e.g. Kara Linea
Montes Goddesses, miscellaneous (also one physicist); e.g. Gula Mons
Paterae Famous women; e.g. Wilde Patera
Planitiae Mythological heroines; e.g. Helen Planitia
Plana Goddesses of prosperity; e.g. Lakshmi Planum
Regiones Giantesses and Titanesses (also two Greek alphanumeric); e.g. Alpha Regio
Rups Goddesses of hearth and home; e.g. Ut Rupes
Terrae Goddesses of love; e.g. Ishtar Terra
Tesserae Goddesses of fate and fortune; e.g. Tyche Tessera
Tholi Goddesses, miscellaneous; e.g. Justitia Tholus
Undae Desert goddesses; e.g. Menat Undae
Valles Word for planet Venus in various world languages (400 km and longer); River goddesses (less
than 400 km in length); e.g. Lo Shen Valles
Mars and moons

Albedo Features Names from classical mythology assigned by Schiaparelli and Antoniadi
Large craters (approximately 60 km and larger) Deceased scientists who have contributed to the study
of Mars; writers and others who have contributed to the lore of Mars
Small craters (approximately 60 km and smaller) Small towns and villages of the world with
populations of approximately 100,000 or less
Large valles Name for Mars/star in various languages
Small valles Classical or modern names of rivers
Other features From a nearby named albedo feature on Schiaparelli or Antoniadi maps
Moon Deimos Authors who wrote about martian satellites

Moon Phobos Scientists involved with the discovery, dynamics, or properties of the martian satellites,
and people and places from Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels"
Moons of Jupiter
Moon Amalthea (crater, facula) People and places associated with the Amalthea myth; e.g. Pan,
Moon Thebe (crater) People and places associated with the Thebe myth; Zethus
Moon Io
Active eruptive centers Fire, sun, thunder, and volcano gods and heroes; e.g. Prometheus
Catenae Sun gods
Flucts Name derived from nearby named feature, or fire, sun, thunder, volcano gods, goddesses and
heroes, or mythical blacksmiths; e.g. Acala Fluctus
Mensae People associated with Io myth, derived from nearby feature, or people from Dante's Inferno;
e.g. Hermes Mensa
Montes Places associated with Io myth, derived from nearby feature, or places from Dante's Inferno; e.g.
Nile Montes
Paterae Fire, sun, thunder, volcano gods, heroes, goddesses, mythical blacksmiths, including names from
the associated eruptive center; e.g. Tung Yo Patera
Plana Places associated with Io myth, derived from nearby feature, or places from Dante's Inferno; e.g.
Nemea Planum
Regiones Places associated with Io myth, derived from nearby feature, or places from Dante's Inferno;
e.g. Lerna Regio
Tholi Places associated with Io myth, derived from nearby feature, or places from Dante's Inferno; e.g.
Apis Tholus
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Valles Named derived from nearby named feature; Tawhaki Vallis
Moon Europa
Chaos Places associated with Celtic myths; e.g. Arran Chaos
Craters Celtic gods and heroes; e.g. Balor
Flexs Places associated with the Europa myth, or Celtic stone rows; e.g. Delphi Flexus
Large ringed features Celtic stone circles; e.g. Tyre
Lenticulae Celtic gods and heroes
Lineae People associated with the Europa myth, or Celtic stone rows; e.g. Corick Linea
Maculae Places associated with the Europa myth; e.g. Thera Macula
Regiones Places associated with Celtic myths; e.g. Tara Regio
Moon Ganymede
Catenae Gods and heroes of ancient Fertile Crescent people 2; e.g. Enki Catena
Craters Gods and heroes of ancient Fertile Crescent people; e.g. Kadi
Faculae Places associated with Egyptian myths; e.g. Thebes Facula
Fossae Gods (or principals) of ancient Fertile Crescent people; e.g. Zu Fossae
Paterae Dry wadis (channels) of the Fertile Crescent region
Regiones Astronomers who discovered Jovian satellites; e.g. Galileo Regio
Sulci Places associated with myths of ancient people; e.g. Ur Sulcus
Moon Callisto Names are drawn from myths and folktales of cultures of the Far North such as Norse,
Chukchi, Inuit, Sami, etc.
Catenae Rivers, valleys, and ravines from myths and folktales of cultures of the Far North; e.g. Sid
Catena
Craters Characters from myths and folktales of cultures of the Far North; e.g. Keelut
Faculae Gods and characters of frost, snow, cold, and sleet from myths and folktales of cultures of the
Far North; Kol Facula
Large ringed features Places (other than rivers, valleys and ravines) from myths and folktales of cultures
of the Far North; e.g. Valhalla
Moons of Saturn
Moon Janus (craters) People from myth of Castor and Pollux (twins); e.g. Castor
Moon Epimetheus (craters) People from myth of Castor and Pollux (twins); e.g. Pollux
Moon Mimas (craters, chasmata) People and places from Malory's Le Morte Darthur legends (Baines
translation); Arthur
Moon Enceladus (Craters, Dorsa, Fossae, Planitiae, Sulci) People and places from Burton's Arabian
Nights; e.g. Sindbad
Moon Tethys (chasmata, craters, montes) People and places from Homer's Odyssey; e.g. Ajax
Moon Dione (catenae, chasmata, craters, dorsa, fossae,) People and places from Virgil's Aeneid; e.g.
Dido
Moon Rhea (chasmata, craters) People and places from creation myths (with Asian emphasis); e.g. Pu
Chou Chasma, Yu-Ti
Moon Titan
Albedo features Sacred or enchanted places, paradise, or celestial realms from legends, myths, stories,
and poems of cultures from around the world; e.g. Ching-tu
Craters and large ringed features Gods and goddesses of wisdom; e.g. Sinlap, Nath
Facula and Faculae Facula: Names of islands on Earth that are not politically independent Faculae:
Names of archipelagos; e.g. Santorini Facula
Flucts Gods and goddesses of beauty; e.g. Ara Fluctus
Flumina Names of mythical or imaginary rivers; Elivagar Flumina
2
) Region of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia; it is named after its crescent moon-shape and its rich soil.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Insulae Names of islands from legends and myths; Mayda Insula

Lacs Lakes on Earth, preferably with a shape similar to the lacus on Titan; e.g. Waikare Lacus
Maria Sea creatures from myth and literature; e.g. Kraken Mare
Other features (maculae, regiones, arcs) Deities of happiness, peace, and harmony from world cultures;
e.g. Eir Macula
Undae Gods and goddesses of wind
Virgae Gods and goddesses of rain; e.g. Kalseru Virga
Moon Hyperion (craters, dorsa) Sun and Moon deities; e.g. Helios, Bond-Lassell Dorsum
Moon Iapetus (craters, montes, regiones, terrae) People and places from Sayers' translation of
Chanson de Roland; e.g. Basile, Seville Mons, Cassini Regio, Saragossa Terra
Moon Phoebe
Craters People associated with Phoebe, people from the Argonautica by Apollonius Rhodius and
Valerius Flaccus; e.g. Mopsus
Other features Places from the Argonautica
Moons of Uranus
Puck (craters) Mischievous (Pucklike) spirits (class), Bogle
Miranda (coronae, craters, regiones, rups, sulci) Characters, places from Shakespeare's plays; e.g.
Ferdinand
Ariel (chasmata, craters, valles) Light spirits (individual and class); e.g. Sprite Vallis
Umbriel (craters) Dark spirits (individual); e.g. Minepa
Titania (chasmata. craters, rups) Female Shakespearean characters, places; e.g. Belmont Chasma
Oberon (chasmata, craters) Shakespearean tragic heroes and places; e.g. Mommur Chasma, Hamlet,
Small Satellites Heroines from Shakespeare and Pope
Moons of Neptune
Proteus (craters) Water-related spirits, gods, goddesses (excluding Greek and Roman names); Pharos
Triton (catenae, cavi, craters, dorsa, fossae, maculae, paterae, planitiae, plana, plume, regiones,
sulci) Aquatic names, excluding Roman and Greek. Possible categories include worldwide aquatic spirits,
terrestrial fountains or fountain locations, terrestrial aquatic features, terrestrial geysers or geyser
locations, terrestrial islands; e.g. Set Catena,
Nereid Individual nereids
Small Satellites Gods and goddesses associated with Neptune/Poseidon mythology or generic
mythological aquatic beings
Pluto Underworld deities
41Bag Bagnold, R.A.: The physics of blown sand and desert dunes, Methuen, London 1941.
60Oep pik, E.J.: Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc. 120 (1960) 404.
63Bal Baldwin, R.B.: The Measure of the Moon, University of Chicago Press 1963.
64Bal Baldwin, R.B.: Astron. J. 69 (1964) 377.
64Leo Leopold, L.B., et al.: Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, W.H. Freeman & Co., San
Francisco 1964.
66Har Hartmann, W.K.: Icarus 5 (1966) 406.
68Sha Shaw, H.R., et al.: Am. J. Sci. 266 (1968) 225.
68Van Van Dorn, W.G.: Nature 220 (1968) 1102.
69Mac Mackin, J.H.: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 80 (1969) 735.
70Mur Murase, T., McBirney, A.R.: Science 167 (1970) 1491.
70Rin Ringwood, A.F., Essene, E.: Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf. (1970) 769.
70Sch Schubert, G., et al.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 8 (1970) 199.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
71Gre1 Green, J., Short, N.M.: Volcanic Landforms and Surface Features: A Photographic Atlas and
Glossary, Springer, New York 1971.
71Gre2 Greeley, R.: Earth Moon Planets 3 (1971) 289.
71Gue Guest, J.E.: In: Fielder, G., editor, Geology and physics of the Moon: A study of some
fundamental problems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1971, p. 41.
71Hol Holcomb, R.: J. Geophys. Res. 76 (1971) 5703.
71Lew Lewis, J.S.: Icarus 15 (1971) 174.
71Mor Morgan, W.J.: Nature 230 (1971) 42.
71Wei Weill, D.F., et al.: Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 2nd (1971) 413.
72Lew Lewis, J.S.: Icarus 16 (1972) 241.
72Mac Macdonald, G.A.: Volcanoes, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1972.
72Mor Morrison, D., et al.: Astron. J. 173 (1972) L143.
73Boo Booth, B., Self, S.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 274 (1973) 99.
73Bur Burke, K., Dewey, J.: J. Geol. 81 (1973) 406.
73Hul Hulme, G.: Mod. Geol. 4 (1973) 107.
73Joh Johnson, T.V., McGetchin, T.R.: Icarus 18 (1973) 612.
73Mur Murase, T., McBirney, A.R.: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 84 (1973) 3563.
73Sch Schaber, G.G.: Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 4th (1973) 73.
73Sol Solomon, S.C., Toksz, M.N.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 7 (1973) 15.
74Gre Greeley, R. (Ed.): Geologic Guide to the Island of Hawaii: A Field Guide for Comparative
Planetary Geology (1974) NASA CR-152416, NASA, Washington, D. C.
74Hei Heiken, G., et al.: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 38 (1974) 1703.
74Luc Lucchitta, B.K., Schmitt, H.H.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 5th (1974) 223.
74Ter Tera, F., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 22 (1974) 1.
75Car Carr, M.H.: Sci. Am. 234 (1975) 32.
75Hea Head, J.W. in: Origins of Mare Basalts and their Implications for Lunar Evolution, Lunar
Planet. Inst. (1975) p. 66.
75Hub Hubbard, N.J., Minear, J.W.: Lunar Planet. Sci. 11 (1975) 405.
75Moo Moore, H.J., Schaber, G.G.: Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 6th (1975) 101.
75Mur Murray, B.C., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 80 (1975) 2508.
75Neu Neukum, G., et al.: The Moon 12 (1975) 201.
75Wet Wetherill, G.W.: Proc Lunar Sci. Conf. 6th (1975) 1539.
76DeH De Hon, R.A., Waskom, J.D.: Proc. Lunar. Planet. Sci. Conf. 7th (1976) 2729.
76Gre Greeley, R.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 7th (1976) 2747.
76Gue Guest, J.E., Murray, J.B.: J. Geol. Soc. Lond. 132 (1976) 251.
76Hea Head, J.W.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 14 (1976) 265.
76Hul Hulme, G.: Icarus 27 (1976) 207.
76Neu Neukum, G., Wise, D.U.: Science 194 (1976) 1381.
76Pin Pinkerton, H., Sparks, R.S.J.: J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 1 (1976) 167.
76Rin Ringwood, A.F., Kesson, S.E.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 7th (1976) 1697.
76Sch Schultz, P.H.: Moon Morphology, Univ. Texas Press 1976.
77Bin Binder, A.B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 82 (1977) 4439.
77Flo Florensky, C.P., et al.: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 88 (1977) 1537.
77Hul Hulme, G., Fielder; G.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 285 (1977) 227.
77Mut Mutch, T.A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 82 (1977) 4452.
77Spu Spudis, P.D., Greeley, R.: EOS Trans. AGU 58 (1977) 1182.
77Whi Whitford-Stark, J.L., Head, J.W.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. 8th (1977) 2705.
78Con Consolmagno, G.J., Lewis, J.S.: Icarus 34 (1978) 280.
78Gre Greeley, R., Spudis, P.D.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 5 (1978) 453.
78Hoe Hrz, F.: Proc. Lunar. Planet. Sci. Conf. 9th (1978) 3311.
78Lau Laul, J.C., et al.: In: Papike, J.J., Merrill, R.B., editors, Mare Crisium: The View from Luna 24,
Pergamon, New York, 1978, p. 537.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
78Ma Ma, M.-S., et al.: In: Papike, J.J., Merrill, R.B., editors, Mare Crisium: The View from Luna
24, Pergamon, New York, 1978, p. 569.
78Mal Malin, M.C.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 9th (1978) 3395.
78Mas Masursky, H., et al. (Eds.): Apollo over the Moon: A view from orbit (1978) NASA Report SP-
362.
78Moo Moore, H.J., et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 9th (1978) 3351.
78Nel Nelson, R.M., Hapke, B.W.: Icarus 36 (1978) 304.
78Sco Scott, D.H., Carr, M.H.: Geologic map of Mars (1978) U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Inv. Ser. Map I-
1083, scale 1:25,000,000.
78Thu Thurber, C.H., Solomon, S.C.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 9th (1978) 3481.
79Arv Arvidson, R.E., et al.: Icarus 37 (1979) 467.
79Car Carr, M.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 84 (1979) 2995.
79DeH De Hon, R.A.: Proc. Lunar. Planet. Sci. Conf. 10th (1979) 2935.
79Fan Fanale, F.P., et al.: Nature 280 (1979) 761.
79Ma Ma, M.-S., et al.: Geophys. Res Lett. 6 (1979) 909.
79Mas Masursky, H., et al.: Nature 280 (1979) 725.
79McC McCauley, J.F., et al.: Nature 280 (1979) 736.
79Mor Morabito, L.A., et al.: Science 204 (1979) 972.
79Peal Peale, S.J., et al.: Science 203 (1979) 892.
79Pear Pearl, J., et al.: Nature 280 (1979) 755.
79Ple Plescia, J.B., Saunders, R.S.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 10th (1979) 2841.
79Smi1 Smith, B.A., et al.: Science 204 (1979a) 951.
79Smi2 Smith, B.A., et al.: Science 206 (1979b) 927.
79Smy Smythe, W.D., et al.: Nature 280 (1979) 766.
79Wen Wentworth, S., et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 10 (1979) 207.
79Wil Williams, H., McBirney, A.R.: Volcanology (1979) Freeman Cooper, San Francisco.
79Wis Wise, D.U., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 84 (1979) 7934.
79Wit Witteborn, F.C., et al.: Science 203 (1979) 643.
79Woo Wood, C.A.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 10 (1979) 2815.
79Yod Yoder, C.F.: Nature 279 (1979) 747.
80Clo Clow, G.D., Carr, M.H.: Icarus 44 (1980) 268.
80Hea Head, J.W., Gifford, A.: Moon Planets 22 (1980) 235.
80Luc Lucchitta, B.K.: Icarus 44 (1980) 481.
80Mal Malin, M.C.: Geology 8 (1980) 306.
80Mck McKinnon, W.B., Melosh, H.J.: Icarus 44 (1980) 454.
80Pik Pike, R.J.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 11th (1980) 2159.
80Sol Solomon, S.C., Head, J.W.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 18 (1980) 107.
81BVS Basaltic Volcanism Study Project: Basaltic Volcanism on the Terrestrial Planets (1981)
Pergamon Press, New York.
81Car Carr, M.H.: The Surface of Mars (1981) Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.
81Fin Finnerty, A.A., et al.: Nature 289 (1981) 24.
81Gol Golombek, M.P., Allison M.L.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 8 (1981) 1139.
81Gre Greeley, R., Spudis, P.D.: Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. 19 (1981) 13.
81Har Hartmann, W.K., et al. in: Basaltic Volcanism on the Terrestrial Planets, Pergamon Press, N.
Y. (1981) 1049.
81Hea Head, J.W., Solomon, S.C.: Sciene 213 (1981) 62.
81McG McGill, G.E., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 8 (1981) 737.
81Neu Neukum, G., Hiller, K.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 (1981) 3097.
81Phi Phillips, R.J., et al.: Science 212 (1981) 879.
81Ple Plescia, J.B.: Icarus 45 (1981) 586.
81Smi Smith, B.A. et al.: Science 212 (1981) 163.
81Wil Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 (1981) 2971.
81Yod Yoder, C.F., Peale, S.J.: Icarus 47 (1981) 1.
82Bak Baker, V.R.: The channels of Mars, Univ. of Texas Press, Austin 1982.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
82Cla Clark, B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) 10,059.

82Fra Francis, P.W., Wood, C.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) 9881.
82Gre Greeley, R.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) 2705.
82Hea Head, J.W.: Moon Planets 26 (1982) 61.
82Hor Horner, V.M., Greeley R.: Icarus 51 (1982) 549.
82Luc Lucchitta, B.K., Soderblom L.A.: In: Morrison, D., editor, Satellites of Jupiter, Univ. of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Az. (1982), p. 521.
82Mel Melcher, C.L., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (1982) 115.
82Mou Mouginis-Mark, P.J., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) 9890.
82Pas Passey, Q.R., Shoemaker E.M. In: In: Morrison, D., editor, Satellites of Jupiter, Univ. of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Az. (1982), p. 379.
82Sch1 Schaber, G.G.: In: Morrison, D., editor, Satellites of Jupiter, Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson (1982),
p. 556.
82Sch2 Schaber, G.G.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (1982) 499.
82Sco Scott, D.H., Tanaka, K.L.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) 1179.
82Sho1 Shoemaker E.M., Wolfe R.F.: In: Morrison, D., editor, Satellites of Jupiter, Univ. of Arizona
Press, Tucson, Az. (1982), 277.
82Sho2 Shoemaker, E.M., et al.: In: Morrison, D., editor, Satellites of Jupiter, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az. (1982), 435.
82Tay Taylor, S.R.: Planetary Science: A Lunar Perspective, Lunar Planet. Inst. 1982.
83Cro Croft S.K.: J. Geophys. Res. 88 (1983) 71.
83Hel Helfenstein, P., Parmentier, E.M.: Icarus 53 (1983) 415.
83Moo Moore, J.M., Ahern J.L.: J. Geophys. Res. 88 (1983) A577.
83Pik Pike, R.J.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 11th (1983) 2159.
83Sau Saunders, I., Young, A.: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 8/5 (1983) 473.
83Sch Schultz, P.H., Spudis, P.D.: Nature 302 (1983) 233.
83Wil Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: Nature 302 (1983) 663.
84Cam Campbell, D.B., et al.: Science 226 (1984) 167.
84Cas Casacchia, R., Strom ,R.: J. Geophys Res. 89 (suppl.) (1984) B419.
84Cig Cigolini, C., et al.: J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 29 (1984) 155.
84Cri Crisp, J.A.: J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 20 (1984) 177.
84Fis Fisher, R.V., Schmincke, H.-U.: Pyroclastic Rocks, Springer, New York 1984.
84Joh Johnson, R.E., et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 14th, Part 2, J. Geophys. Res. 89 (1984)
B711.
84Luc Lucchitta, B.K.: Summ. of Ganymede Mappers Meeting, Lunar Planet. Inst., Houston 1984.
84McB McBirney, A.R., Murase, T.: Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 12 (1984) 337.
84Moo Moore, J.M.: Icarus 59 (1984) 205
84Phi Phillips, R.J., Malin, M.C.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 12 (1984) 411.
84Pin Pinkerton, H., Wilson, L.: Bull. Volcanol. 56 (1984) 108.
84Ste Stevenson, D.J. in: Uranus and Neptune (Bergstrahl, J.T., ed.), NASA Conf. Publ. 2330 (1984)
405.
84Wil1 Wilson, L.: Vistas Astron. 27 (1984) 333.
84Wil2 Wilhelms, D.E., Squyres, S.W.: Nature 309 (1984) 138.
85Bas Basilevsky, A.T., et al.: Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 96 (1985) 137.
85Boy Boyce, J.M., Plescia, J.B.: In: Klinger J., et al., editors, Ices in the Solar System, D. Reidel
Publ. Co., Dordrecht, NL, 1985, 791.
85Cro Croft, S.K.: J. Geophys. Res. Suppl. 90 (1985) 828.
85Dic Dickinson, T., et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 15th, in: J. Geophys. Res. 90 (1985) C365
C374.
85Gre Greeley, R., Iversen, J.D.: Wind as a geological process (1985) Cambridge University Press.
85Kil Kilburn, C.R.J.: In: Chester, D.K, et al., editors, Mount Etna, The Anatomy of a Volcano,
Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, 1985, p. 187.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
85Moo Moore, J.M., et al.: J. Geophys Res. 90 (suppl.) (1985) C785.

85Neu Neukum, G.: Adv. Space Res. 5, No. 8 (1985) 107.
85Ple Plescia, J.B., Boyce, J.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 90, No. B2 (1985) 2029.
85She Shervais, J.W., et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 16th, in: J. Geophys. Res. 90 (1985) D3.
85Tho Thomas P.G., Masson P.L.: In: Klinger J. et al., editors, Ices in the Solar System System, D.
Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, NL, 1985, 781.
85Zim Zimbelman, J.R.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 16th, Part 1, J. Geophys. Res. 90 (suppl.)
(1985) D157.
86Bar Barsukov, V.L., et al.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 17th, Part 2, J. Geophys. Res. 91 (1986)
D378.
86Car Carr, M.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 91 (1986) 3521.
86Cha Chapman C.R., McKinnon W. B.: In: Burns, J.A., Matthews, M.S., editors, Satellites, Univ. of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Az., 1986, p. 492.
86Cla Clark, R.N., et al.: In: Burns, J.A., Matthews, M.S., editors, Satellites, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az., 1986, p. 437.
86Fin Fink, J.H., Zimbelman, J.R.: Bull. Volcanol. 48 (1986) 87.
86Hea Head, J.W., Wilson, L.: J. Geophys. Res. 91 (1986) 9407.
86Mce McEwen, A.S.: Nature 321 (1986) 49.
86Moo Moore, J.M., et al.: Icarus 67 (1986) 181.
86Mor Morrison, D., et al.: In: Burns, J.A., Matthews, M.S., editors, Satellites, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az., 1986, 764.
86Mur Murchie, S.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 91, No. B13 (1986) E222.
86Nas Nash, D.B., et al.: In: Burns, J.A., Matthews, M.S., editors, Satellites, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az., 1986, p. 629.
86Sch Schubert, G., et al.: In: Burns, J.A., Matthews, M.S., editors, Satellites, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az., 1986, p. 224.
86Ste Stevenson, D.J., Lunine. J.I.: Nature 323 (1986) 46.
86Tan Tanaka, K.L.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 17th, J. Geophys. Res. 91 suppl. (1986) 139.
87Cat Cattermole, P.: Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 17th, Part 2, J. Geophys. Res. 92 (suppl.) (1987)
E553.
87Gri Grimm, R.E., Solomon, S.C.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 14 (1987) 538.
87Hol Holsapple, K.A.: Intl. J. Impact Eng. 5 (1987) 343.
87Joh Johnson, T.V. et al.: Sci. Amer. 256 (1987) 48.
87Moo Moore, H.J.: In: Decker, R.W., et al., editors, Volcanism in Hawaii, vol. 2, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Prof. Pap. 1350, 1987, p. 1569.
87Pik Pike, R.J., Spudis P.D.: Earth, Moon, & Planets 39 (1987) 129.
87Ple Plescia, J.B.: Nature 327 (1987) 201.
87Sce Schenk, P.M., McKinnon, W.B.: Icarus 72 (1987) 209.
87Sch Schmidt, R.M., Housen K.R.: Intl. J. Impact Eng. 5 (1987) 543.
87Squ Squyres, S.W., et al.: Icarus 70 (1987) 385.
87Wil Wilhelms, D.E.: The Geologic History of the Moon (1987), U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1348,
Washington, DC.
87Zub Zuber, M.T.: J. Geophys. Res. 92 (1987) 541.
88Cas Cas, R.A.F., Wright, J.V.: Volcanic Successions (1988) Unwin Hyman, London.
88Jan Jankowski, D.G., Squyres, S.W.: Science 241 (1988) 1322.
88Joh Johnson, T.V., et al.: Science 242 (1988) 1280.
88Mel Melosh, H.J., KcKinnon, W.B.: In: Vilas, F. et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson Az., 1988, p. 374.
88Moo Moore, J.M., Malin, M.C.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 15 (1988) 225.
88Mur Murchie, S.L., Head, J.W.: J. Geophys Res. 93 (1988) 8795.
88Pik Pike, R.J.: In: F. Vilas et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, Az., 1988, 165.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
88Spu Spudis, P.D., Guest, J.E.: In: F. Vilas et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson,
Az., 1988, 118.
88Str Strom, R.B., Neukum, G.: In: F. Vilas et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson,
Az., 1988, 336.
88Thm Thomas P.C.: Icarus 73 (1988) 427.
88Tho Thomas, P.G., et al.: In: Vilas, F. et al., editors, Mercury Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, Az.,
1988, 401.
89Cat Cattermole, P.: Planetary Volcanism (1989) Ellis Horwood, Chichester.
89Kar Kargel, J.S., Croft, S.K.: Lunar Planet. Inst. Tech. Rep. 20 (1989) 47.
89McE McEwen, A.S., et al.: In: Belton, M.J.S., et al., editors, Time-Variable Phenomena in the Jovian
System, p. 11 (1989) NASA Spec. Publ., NASA SP-464.
89Mel Melosh, H.J.: Oxford Monographs on Geol. & Geophys. No. 11 (1989) Oxford Univ. Press, N.
Y.
89Oja Ojakangas G.W., Stevenson D.J.: Icarus 81 (1989) 220.
89Ple Plescia J. B.: J. Geophys. Res. 92 (1989) 14,918
89Sce Schenk, P.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 94, No. B4 (1989) 3813.
89Sch Schultz, R.A.: Nature 341 (1989) 424.
89Squ Squyres, S.W.: Icarus 79 (1989) 229.
89Stf Stofan, E.R., et al. : Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 101 (1989) 143.
89Stn Stone, E.C., Miner, E.D.: Science 246 (1989) 1417.
89Sto1 Stooke, P.J.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 20th (1989) 1069.
89Sto2 Stooke, P.J.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 20th (1989) 1071.
89Vil Vilas, F., Chapman, C.R., Matthews, M.S. (Eds.): Mercury Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson 1988.
90Bin Bindschadler, D.L., Parmentier, E.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 21,329.
90Boy Boyce, J.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 21st (1990) 121.
90Daw Dawson, J.B., et al.: Geology 18 (1990) 260.
90Fis Fischer, H.-J., Spohn, T.: Icarus 83 (1990) 39.
90Kar Kargel, J.S, Strom, R.G.: Lunar. Planet. Sci. 21 (1990) 599.
90Moo Moore, J.M., Spencer, J.R.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 17 (1990) 1757.
90Mur Murchie, S.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 10,743.
90Ros Ross, M.N., et al.: Icarus 85 (1990) 309.
90Row Rowland, S.K., Walker, G.P.L.: Bull. Volcanol. 52 (1990) 615.
90Ryd Ryder, G.: LPI Contribution 746 (1990) 42.
90Wil Wilhelms, D.E.: In: Greeley, R., Batson, R. M., editors, Planetary Mapping, Cambridge Planet.
Sci. Series 6, Cambridge, U.K., 1990, 208.
90Zub Zuber, M.T.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 17 (1990) 1369.
91Cro Croft, S.K., Soderblom, L.A.: In: Bergstrahl, J. T., et al., editors, Uranus, Univ. of Arizona
Press Tucson, Az., 1986, 561.
91Gre Greeley, R., Schneid, B.D.: Science 254 (1991) 996.
91Gri Grimm, R.E., Phillips, R.J.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 8305.
91Grn Greenberg, R. et al.: In: Bergstrahl, J.T., et al., editors, Uranus, Univ. of Arizona Press Tucson,
Az. 1986, 693.
91Hea1 Head, J.W., et al.: Science 252 (1991) 276.
91Hea2 Head, J.W., Wilson, L.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 18 (1991) 2121.
91Hei Heiken, G., et al. (Eds.): The Lunar Sourcebook: A User`s Guide to the Moon (1991)
Cambridge Univ. Press.
91Hel Heliker, C.C., Wright, T.L.: Eos Trans. AGU 72(47) (1991) 521.
91Hoe Hrz, F., et al.: In: Heiken, G., et al., editors, The Lunar Sourcebook: A User`s Guide to the
Moon., Cambridge Univ. Press., 1991, 61.
91Len Lenardic, A., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 18 (1991) 2209.
91Oga Ogawa, M., et al.: J. Fluid Mech. 233 (1991) 299.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
91Sch Schenk, P.M.: J. Geophys. Res 96/B2 (1991) 1887.

91Tan Tanaka, K.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 15,617.
91Tay Taylor, G.J., et al.: In: Heiken, G., et al., editors, The Lunar Sourcebook: A User`s Guide to the
Moon, Cambridge Univ. Press., 1991, p. 183.
91Wag Wagner, R., Neukum, G.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 22nd (1991) 1453.
91Wat Watters, T.R.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 15,599.
92Bak Baker, V.R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,421.
92Ban Banerdt, W.B., et al.: In: Kieffer, H.H., et al., editors, Mars, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson, Az.,
1992, p. 249.
92Bar1 Barsukov, V.L., et al. (Eds.): Venus Geology, Geochemistry and Geophysics. Research Results
from the USSR (1992) Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson.
92Bar2 Barsukov, V.L.: In: Barsukov, V.L., et al., editors, Venus Geology, Geochemistry and
Geophysics. Research Results from the USSR, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson, Az., 1992, p. 165.
92Bin Bindschadler, D.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,495.
92Gre Greeley, R., et al.: In: Kieffer, H.H., et al., editors, Mars, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson Az.,
1992, p. 730.
92Hea1 Head, J.W., Wilson, L.: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 56 (1992) 2155.
92Hea2 Head, J.W., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,153.
92Mou Mouginis-Mark, P.J., et al.: In: Kieffer, H.H., et al., editors, Mars, Univ. Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az., 1992, p. 424. .
92Nea Neal, C.R., Taylor, L.A.: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 56 (1992) 2177.
92Nik Nikolaeva, O.V., et al.: In: Barsukov, V.L., et al., editors, Venus Geology, Geochemistry and
Geophysics. Research Results from the USSR, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, (1992) p. 129.
92Pav Pavri, B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,479.
92Phi Phillips, R.J., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 15,923.
92Sch Schaber, G.G., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,257.
92Sen Senske, D.A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,395.
92Sol Solomon, S.C., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,199.
92Squ Squyres, S.W., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 13,579.
92Ste Stevenson, D.J. : In: Proc. Symp. Titan, ESA Special Publication 338 (1992) 17.
92Sup Suppe, J., Connors, C.: J. Geophys. Res. 97/E8 (1992) 13,545.
93Bul Bullock, M.A., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 19 (1993) 2147.
93Cli Clifford, S.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1993) 10,973.
93Crn Crown, D.A., Greeley, R.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1993) 3431.
93Cro Croft S.K.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 24th (1993) 349.
93Cru Crumpler, L.S., et al.: Science 261 (1993) 591.
93Fly Flynn, L.P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1993) 6461.
93Gol Golombek, M.P., Banerdt, W.B.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 24th (1993) 545.
93Gre Greeley, R., Crown, D.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1993) 7133.
93Han Hansen, V.L., Phillips, R.J.: Science 260 (1993) 526.
93Mag Magee, K.P., Head, J.W.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 20 (1993) 1111.
93Man Manley, C.R.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 24th (1993) 929.
93McG McGill, G.E.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 20 (1993) 2407.
93Sch Schenk, P.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1993) 7475.
93Spu Spudis, P.D.: Cambridge Planet. Sci. Series No. 8 Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
1993.
93Str Strom, R.G. : Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 24th (1993) 1371.
93Tho Thordarson, T., Self, S.: Bull. Volcanol. 55 (1993) 233.
93Wat Watters, T.R.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1993) 17,049.
94Cat Cattermole, P.: Venus: The Geological Story Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1994.
94Cof Coffin, M.F., Eldholm, O.: Rev. Geophys. 32 (1994) 1.
94Gre Greeley, R.: Planetary Landscapes, 2nd Ed., Chapman & Hall, New York 1994.
94Gro Grosfils, E.B., Head, J.W.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 21 (1994) 701.
94Her1 Herrick, R.R.: Geology 22 (1994) 703.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
94Her2 Herrick, R.R., Phillips, R.J.: Icarus 111 (1994) 387.

94Hod Hodges, C.A., Moore, H.J.: Atlas of volcanic features on Mars (1994) U.S. Geol. Survey
Professional Paper 1534, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington DC.
94Kar Kargel, J.S., et al.: Icarus 112 (1994) 219.
94Kee Keep, M., Hansen, V.L.: J. Geophys. Res. 99 (1994) 26,105.
94Mar Maruyama, S.: J. Geol. Soc. Japan 100 (1994) 24.
94McG McGill, G.E.: J. Geophys. Res. 99 (1994) 23,149.
94McS McSween, H.Y.: Meteoritics 29 (1994) 757.
94Nam Namiki, N., Solomon, S.C.: Science 265 (1994) 929.
94Neu Neukum, G., Ivanov B.A.: In: T. Gehrels, editor, Hazards due to Comets and Asteroids, Univ.
of Arizona Press, Tucson, Az., 1994, p. 359.
94Phi Phillips, R.J., Hansen, V.L.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 22 (1994) 597.
94Pri Price, M., Suppe, J.: Nature 372 (1994) 756.
94Ros Rosenblatt, P., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 21 (1994) 465.
94Sle Sleep, N.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 99 (1994) 5639.
94Str Strom, R.G., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 99 (1994) 10,899.
94Sum Summerfield, M.A., Hulton, N.J.: J. Geophys. Res. 99/B7 (1994) 13,883.
94Wil Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: Rev. Geophys. 32 (1994) 221.
95Bla Blaney, D.L., et al.: Icarus 113 (1995) 220.
95Bro Brown, C.D., Grimm, R.E.: Icarus 117 (1995) 219.
95Car Carr, M. H. et al.: J. Geophys Res. 100 (1995) 18,935.
95Cro Croft, S.K., et al.: In: D. P. Cruikshank, editor, Neptune and Triton, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az., 1995, p. 879.
95Ern Ernst, R.E., et al.: Earth Sci. Rev. 39 (1995) 1.
95Kar Kargel, J.S., Pozio, S.: Icarus 119 (1995) 385.
95Kes Keszthelyi, L.P.: J. Geophys. Res. 100 (1995) 20,411.
95Mck1 McKinnon, W.B., Schenk P.M.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 22 (1995) 1829.
95Mck2 McKinnon, W.B., et al.: In: D. P. Cruikshank, editor, Neptune and Triton, Univ. of Arizona
Press, Tucson, 1995, p. 807.
95Mor Moresi, L., Solomatov, V.: Phys. Fluids 7 (1995) 2154.
95Sch Schenk P.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 100 (E9) (1995) 19,023.
95Sto Stofan, E.R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 100 (1995) 23,317.
95Zub1 Zuber, M.T.: Icarus 114 (1995) 80.
95Zub2 Zuber, M.T., Parmentier, E.M.: Nature 377 (1995) 704.
96Car Carr, M.H.: Water on Mars, Oxford Univ. Press, New York 1996.
96Cha1 Chapman, C.R. et al.: Icarus 120 (1996a) 77.
96Cha2 Chapman, C.R., et al.: Icarus 120 (1996b) 231.
96Cru Crumpler, L.S., et al.: In: McGuire, W.C., et al., editors, Volcano Instability on the Earth and
Other Planets, x Geological Society Special Publication No. 110, 1995, p. 807.
96Dav Davies, A.G.: Icarus 124 (1996) 45.
96Fos Foster, A., Nimmo, F.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 143 (1996) 183.
96Fra Frankel, C.: Volcanoes of the Solar System Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996.
96Han Hansen, V.L., Willis, J.J.: Icarus 123 (1996) 296.
96Har Harder, H., Christensen, U.R.: Nature 380 (1996) 507.
96Hir Hirth, G., Kohlstedt, D.L.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 144 (1996) 93.
96Kir Kirk, R.L., et al.: In: Cruikshank, D.P., editor, Neptune and Triton, Univ. Of Arizona Press,
Tucson, 1996, p. 949.
96Lor Lorenz R. D.: Planet. Space Sci. 44 (1996) 1021.
96Mg1 Mge, D., Masson, P.: Planet. Space Sci. 44 (1996a) 1471.
96Mg2 Mge, D., Masson, P.: Planet. Space Sci. 44 (1996b) 1499.
96Moo Moore, J.M., et al.: Icarus 122 (1996) 63.
96Mur Mursky, G.: Introduction to Planetary Volcanism Prentice-Hall, New York 1996.
96Pap Pappalardo, R.T., Coon, M.D.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 27th (1996) 997 .
96Pri Price, M.H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 101 (1996) 4657.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
96Rea Reading, H.G. (Ed.): Sedimentary Environments, Blackwell, Oxford 1996.

96Sho Shoemaker, E.M. in: Europa Ocean Conference (Matson, D., Nash, D., eds.), Nov. 12 14,
1996, San Juan Capistrano, Ca. (1996) p. 65.
96Spe Spencer, J.R., Schneider, N.M.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 24 (1996) 125.
97Bak Baker, V.R., et al.: In: Venus II (Bougher, S.W., Hunten, D.M., Phillips, R.J., eds.), Univ. Of
Arizona Press, Tucson, Az. (1997) p. 757.
97Bas Basilevsky, A.T. et al. in: Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment (Stephen W., Bougher, D.M. Hunten, and R.J. Philips, eds.), Univ. of Arizona
Press, Tucson, Az. (1997) p. 1047.
97Ben Bender, K.C. et al.: U. S. Geol. Surv. Misc.Inv. Series I-2581 (1997).
97Bou Bougher, S.W., et al. (Eds.): Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment (1997) Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.
97Cru Crumpler, L.S., et al.: In: Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment (Bougher, S.W., Hunten, D.M., Phillips, R.J., eds.), Univ. Of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Az. (1997) p. 697.
97Gre Greeley, R., et al.: In: Venus II:, Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment (Bougher, D.M., Hunten, Phillips, R.J. eds.), Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, Az.
(1997) p. 547.
97Han Hansen, V.L., et al.: In: Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment (Bougher, S.W., Hunten, D.M., Phillips, R.J., eds.) Univ. Ariz. Press, Tucson. p.
(1997) p. 797.
97Hea1 Head, J.W., Coffin, M.F. in: Large Igneous Provinces: Continental, Oceanic, and Planetary
Flood Volcanism (Mahoney, J.J., Coffin, M.F., eds.), Geophys. Mono. Ser. AGU, Washington,
D.C. (1997) p. 411.
97Hea2 Head, J.W., et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 28th (1997) 535.
97Her Herrick, R.R., et al.: in: Venus II (Bougher, S.W., Hunten, D.M., Phillips, R.J., eds.), Univ.
Arizona Press, Tucson, Az. (1997) p. 1015.
97Kes Keszthelyi, L.P., McEwen, A.S.: Icarus 130 (1997) 437.
97Mah Mahoney, J., Coffin, M. (Eds): Large Igneous Provinces: Continental, Oceanic, and Planetary
Volcanism, Geophysical Monograph Series 100, American Geophysical Union 1997.
97McK McKinnon, W.B., et al.: In: Venus II, edited by Bougher, S.W., Hunten, D.M., Phillips, R.J.,
Univ. Of Arizona Press, Tucson, Az. (1997) p. 969.
97Neu Neukum, G.: In: C. Barbieri et al., editors, The Three Galileos, 201, Kluwer Acad. Publ.,
Dordrecht, NL 1997.
97Rie Rieder, R., et al.: Science 278 (1997) 1771.
97Rob Robinson, M.S., Lucey, P.: Science 275 (1997) 197.
97Sak Sakimoto, S.E.H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 6597.
97Smr Smrekar, S.E., Stofan, E.R.: Science 277 (1997) 1289.
97Sol Solomatov, V.S., Moresi, L.-N.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 24 (1997) 1907.
97Sto Stofan, E.R., et al.: In: Venus IIGeology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind
Environment, edited by Bougher, S.W., Hunten, D.M., Phillips, R.J., p. 931 (1997) Univ. Ariz.
Press, Tucson.
97Sur Surkov, Y.A.: Exploration of the Terrestrial Planets from Spacecraft: Instrumentation,
Investigation, Interpretation (2nd. Ed.), Wiley-Praxis, Chichester 1997.
98Bas Basilevsky A.T., Head J.W.III: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) (No. E4) 8531.
98Bre Breuer, D., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (1998) 229.
98Bud Budney, C.J., Lucey, P.G.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 16,855.
98Car1 Carr, M.H. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998) 146.
98Car2 Carr, M.H. et al.: Nature 391 (1998) 363.
98Cha Chapman, C.R., et al.: Meteor. Planet. Sci. 33 (1998) 30.
98Dre Dreibus, G., et al.: Meteor. Planet. Sci. 33 (1998) A42.
98Gei1 Geissler, P.E. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998a) 107.
98Gei2 Geissler, P.E. et al.: Nature 391 (1998b) 368.
98Gie Giese, B., et al.: Icarus 135 (1998) 303.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
98Gil Gilmore, M.S., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 16,813.

98Grb Greenberg, R. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998) 64.
98Gre1 Greeley, R. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998a) 4.
98Gre2 Greeley, R. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998b) 25.
98Han Hansen, V.L., Willis, J.J.: 132 (1998) 321.
98Har Harder, H.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 16,775.
98Hau Hauck, S.A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 13635.
98Hea Head, J.W. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 29th (1998) abstr. 1666 [CD-Rom].
98Kar Kargel, J. S.: In: Schmitt, B. et al., editors, Solar System Ices, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht,
NL, 1998 p. 3.
98Kau Kauahikaua, J.P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 27,303.
98Koe Koenig, E., Aydin, A.: Geology 26 (1998) 551.
98Lod Lodders, K.: Meteor. Planet. Sci. 33 (1998) A183.
98McE McEwen, A.S., et al.: Science 281 (1998) 87.
98McN McNutt, M.K.: Rev. Geophys. 36 (1998) 211.
98Moo Moore, J.M. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998) 127.
98Mor Moresi, L., Solomatov, V.: Geophys. J. Int. 133 (1998) 669.
98Neu Neukum, G. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 29th (1998) abstr. 1742 [CD-Rom].
98Nim Nimmo, F., McKenzie, D.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 26 (1998) 23.
98Pap Papike, J.J., et al.: Rev. Mineral. 36 (1998) 5-1.
98Pap1 Pappalardo, R.T. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998a) 276.
98Pap2 Pappalardo, R.T. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 29th (1998b) abstr. 1859 [CD-Rom] .
98Phi Phillips, R.J., Hansen, V.L.: Science 279 (1998) 1492.
98Pro Prockter, L.M. et al.: Icarus 135 (1998) 317.
98Sch1 Schenk, P.M., Bulmer, M. H.: Science 279 (1998) 1514.
98Sch2 Schenk, P.M., Moore J.M. in: Solar System Ices (Schmitt, B. et al., eds.), Kluwer Acad.
Publ.,Dordrecht, NL (1998) p. 551.
98Spa Spaun, N.A., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, No. 23 (1998) 4277.
98Spe Spencer, J.R., et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 29th (1998) 1149.
98Sul Sullivan, R. et al.: Nature 391 (1998) 371.
98Tur Turtle, E.P. et al.: EOS 79 (1998) F541.
98Wat Watters, T.R., et al.: Geology 26 (1998) 991.
98Zah Zahnle, K., et al.: Icarus 136 (1998) 202.
99Bil Bilotti, F., Suppe, J.: Icarus 139 (1999) 137.
99Cam Campbell, B.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 21,951.
99Car Carlson, R. W.: Science 283 (1999) 820.
99Gie Giese, B. et al., Geophys. Res. Abstr. 1 (1999) 742.
99Har Harland, D.M.: Exploring the Moon, Springer-Praxis, Berlin 1999.
99Hea Head, J.W. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 24,223.
99Iva Ivanov, M.A., Head, J.W.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 18,907.
99Lop Lopez-Gautier, R.M.C., et al.: Icarus 140 (1999) 243.
99McE McEwen, A.S., et al.: Nature 397 (1999) 584.
99McS McSween, H.Y., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 8679.
99Nik Nikolaeva, O.V., Ariskin, A.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 18,889.
99Obe Oberst, J. et al.: Icarus 140 (1999) 283.
99Pea Peale, S.J.: Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 37 (1999) 533.
99Sch Schultz, R.A.: J. Struct. Geol. 21 (1999) 985.
99She Shearer, C.K., Papike, J.J.: Am. Mineral. 84 (1999) 1469.
99Smi Smith, D.E., et al: Science 284 (1999) 1495.
99Smr Smrekar, S.E., Stofan, E.R.: Icarus 139 (1999) 100.
99Wil Wilson, L.: In: McFadden, L.-A., et al., editors, Encyclopedia of the Solar System, p. 877
Academic Press, San Diego, 1999.
00Ban1 Bandfield, J.L., et al.: Science 287 (2000) 1626.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
00Ban2 Banerdt, W.B., Golombek, M.P.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf 31st (2000) abstract 2038.
00Bas Basilevsky, A.T., Head, J.W.: Planet. Space Sci. 48 (2000) 75.
00Cha Chapman, C.R. et al.: Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 32 (2000) 996.
00Chu Chuang, F. C, Greeley, R.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 20,227.
00Cra Craddock, R.A., Howard, A.D.: J. Geophys. Res. 105/E8 (2000) 20387.
00Cru Crumpler, L.S., Aubele, J.C.: in: Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, edited by Sigurdsson, H., p. 727
(2000) Academic Press, San Diego.
00Dav Davies, A.G., et al.: Icarus 148 (2000) 211.
00Gei Geissler, P.E.: in: Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, edited by Sigurdsson, H., p. 785 (2000)
Academic Press, San Diego.
00Gre1 Greeley, R., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 48 (2000) 829.
00Gre2 Greeley, R., et al.: In: Environmental Effects on Volcanic Eruptions: From Deep Ocean to
Deep Space, edited by Zimbelman, J.R., Gregg, T.K.P., p. 75 (2000) Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publ., New York.
00Han1 Hansen, V.L.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 176 (2000) 527.
00Han2 Hansen, V.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 4135.
00Har1 Hartmann, W.K., Berman, D.C.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 15,011.
00Har2 Hartmann, W.K. et al. in: Origin of the Earth and Moon (Canup, R. M., Righter, K., eds.),
Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, Az. (2000) 493.
00Hie Hiesinger, H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000).
00Kes Keszthelyi, L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 15,027.
00Lar Larsen, K.W., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 29,207.
00Lop Lopez-Gautier, R.M.C.: in: Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, edited by Sigurdsson, H., p. 709
(2000) Academic Press, San Diego.
00Man Mangold, N., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 48 (2000) 1201.
00McE McEwen, A.S., et al.: in: Environmental Effects on Volcanic Eruptions: From Deep Ocean to
Deep Space, edited by Zimbelman, J., Gregg, T., p. 179 (2000) Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publ., New York.
00Nim Nimmo, F., Stevenson, D.J.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 11,969.
00Pea Peacock, D.C.P., et al.: J. Struct. Geol. 22 (2000) 291.
00Phi Phillips, C.B. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105, No. E9 (2000) 22,579.
00Pin Pinkerton, H., et al.: in: Environmental Effects on Volcanic Eruptions: From Deep Ocean to
Deep Space, edited by Zimbelman, J., Gregg, T., p. 207 (2000) Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publ., New York.
00Rog Rogers, N., Hawkesworth, C.: in: Encyclopedia of the Solar System (2nd ed.), edited by
McFadden, L.-A., Weissman, P.R., Johnson, T.V., p. 115 (2007) Academic Press, San Diego.
00Sch1 Schmincke, H.-U.: Vulkanismus, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2000.
00Sch2 Schultz, R.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 12,035.
00Sig Sigurdsson, H.: Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, Academic Press, San Diego 2000.
00Sol Solomatov, V.S., Moresi, L.-N.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 21,795.
00Zim1 Zimbelman, J.R.: in: Encyclopedia of Volcanoes, edited by Sigurdsson, H., p. 771 (2000)
Academic Press, San Diego.
00Zim2 Zimbelman, J.R., Gregg, T.K.P. (Eds.): Environmental Effects on Volcanic Eruptions: From
Deep Oceans to Deep Space, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publ., New York, 2000.
01And Anderson, R.C. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106/E9 (2001) 20,563.
01Bak Baker, V.R.: Nature 412 (2001) 228.
01Cha Chapman, M.G., Tanaka, K.L.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 10,087.
01Dav Davies, A.G., et al. : J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 33,079.
01Den1 Denk, T. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 32nd (2001a) abstr. 1596 [CD-Rom]
01Den2 Denk, T. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 32nd (2001b) abstr. 1660 [CD-Rom]
01Ern1 Ernst, R.E., et al.: Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 29 (2001) 489.
01Ern2 Ernst, R.E., Buchan, K.L.: Mantle Plumes: Their Identification Through Time, Geol. Soc. Am.
Spec. Paper 352 (2001) Geological Society of America, Boulder.
01Gie Giese, B. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 32nd (2001) abstr. 1751 [CD-Rom]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
01Gol Golombek, M.P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 23,811.

01Gre Greeley, R., Fagents, S.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 20,527.
01Har Hartmann, W. K., Neukum, G.: Space Sci. Rev. 96 (2001) 165.
01Hau Hauber, E., Kronberg, P.: J. Geophys. Res. 106/E9 (2001) 20,587.
01Jak Jakosky, B.M., Phillips, R.J.: Nature 412 (2001) 237.
01Kes Keszthelyi, L.P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 33,025.
01Kos Kostama, V.-P., Aittola, M.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 32nd (2001) abstract 1185.
01Lan Lanagan, P.D., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (2001) 2365.
01Mag Magee, K.P., Head, J.W.: In: Ernst, R.P., Buchan, K.L, editors, Mantle Plumes: Their
Identification Through Time, Geol. Soc. Am. Special Paper 352, p. 81 (2001) Geol. Soc. Am.,
Boulder.
01McK McKinnon, W.B., Schenk, P.M., Dombard, A.J.: Geology 29 (2001) 103.
01Neu1 Neukum, G. et al.: in Chronology and Evolution of Mars (Hartmann W. K. et al., eds.) (2001a)
53, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, NL.
01Neu2 Neukum, G. et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 49 (2001b) 1507.
01Nyq Nyquist, L.E., Bogard, D.D., Shih, C.-Y.: in: The Century of Space Science, edited by Bleeker,
J.A., Geiss, J., Huber, M., p. 1325 (2001) Kluwer Academic Publ.
01Rad Radebaugh, J., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 33,005.
01Sch1 Schenk, P.M. et al.: Nature 410 (2001) 57.
01Sch2 Schenk, P.M., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 33,201.
01Sen engr, A.M.C.: in: Mantle Plumes: Their Identification Through Time, edited by Ernst, R.P.,
Buchan, K.L., Geol. Soc. Am. Special Paper 352, p. 183 (2001) Geol. Soc. Am., Boulder.
01Smi Smith, D.E., et al: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 23,689.
01Stf Stffler, D., Ryder, G.: in Chronology and Evolution of Mars (Hartmann, W. K. et al., eds.)
(2001) 9, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, NL
01Sto Stofan, E.R., Smrekar, S.E., Tapper, S.W., Guest, J.E., Grindrod, P.M.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 28
(2001) 4267.
01Tac Tackley, P.J., et al.: Icarus 149 (2001) 79.
01Tan Tanaka, K. K.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 32nd (2001) abstr. No. 1695 [CD-Rom]
01Wae Wnke, H., et al.: Space Sci. Rev. 96 (2001) 317.
01Wil1 Williams, D.A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 33,105.
01Wil2 Wilson, L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 1423.
01Zho Zhong, S., Zuber, M.T.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 189 (2001) 75.
02Ait Aittola, M., Kostama, V.-P.: J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002) CiteID 5112.
02Bas1 Basilevsky, A.T.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 32nd (2002) abstr. 1014 [CD-Rom].
02Bas2 Basilevsky, A.T., Head, J.W.: Geology 30 (2002) 1015.
02Fre Frey, H.V., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (2002) 22-1, CiteID 1384.
02Gla Glaze, L.S., Stofan, E.R., Smrekar, S.E., Baloga, S.M.: J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002) 5135, doi:
10.1029/2002JE001904.
02Hau Hauck, S.A., Phillips, R.J.: J. Geophys. Res. 107/E7 (2002) 5052.
02Hea Head, J.W. et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (2002) 4-1.
02Hie Hiesinger, H., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (2002).
02McS McSween, H.Y.: Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 37 (2002) 7.
02Mil Milkovich, S.M., et al.: Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 37 (2002) 37.
02Pro Prockter, L.M. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002).
02Sme Smellie, J.L., Chapman, M.G. (Eds.): Volcano-ice interaction on Earth and Mars, Geol. Soc.
Lond. Spec. Publ. 202, 2002.
02Sto Stooke, P.J.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 33rd (2002) abstr. No. 1553 [CD-Rom]
02Wil1 Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: J. Geophys. Res. 107 (2002) CiteID 5057.
02Wil2 Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: in: Volcano-Ice Interaction on Earth and Mars, edited by Smellie, J.L.,
Chapman, M.G., Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 202 (2002) 5.
02Wya Wyatt, M.B., McSween, H.Y.: Nature 417 (2002) 263.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
03Bas Basilevsky, A.T., Head, J.W.: Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 (2003) 1699.
03Bre Breuer, D., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) CiteID 5072.
03Dav Davies, A.G.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) 5106.
03Ern Ernst, R.E., Buchan, K.L.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 31 (2003) 469.
03Fol Foley, C.N., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) CiteID 8096.
03Gei Geissler, P.E.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 31 (2003) 175.
03Han Hansen, V.L.: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 115 (2003) 1040.
03Hea1 Head, J.W., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 30 (2003) 1577.
03Hea2 Head, J.W., et al.: Nature 426 (2003) 7.
03Hie Hiesinger, H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003).
03Jae Jaeger, W.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) CiteID 5093.
03Joh Johnson, C.L., Richards, M.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) 5058.
03Jon Jones, K.B. et al.: Icarus 164 (2003) 197.
03Kar Kargel, J.S., et al.: EOS 84 (2003) 313.
03Mal Malin, M.C., Edgett, K.S.: Science 302 (2003) 1931.
03McS McSween, H.Y.: in: Treatise on Geochemistry, Vol. 1., edited by Andrew M. Davis, A.M., p.
711 (2003) Elsevier.
03Mg Mge, D., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 108 (2003) CiteID 5044.
03Moo Moore, J.M., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 30/24 (2003) CiteID 2292.
03Str Strom, R.G., Sprague, A.L.: Exploring Mercury: The Iron Planet, Springer-Praxis, Berlin 2003.
03War Warner, N.H., Gregg, T.K.P.: J. Geophys. Res. 108(E10) (2003) 5112.
03Wil Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: J. Geophys. Res. 108(E2) (2003) 5012.
03Woo Wood, C.A.: The Modern Moon, Sky Publ., Cambridge, USA 2003.
03Zah Zahnle, K. et al.: Icarus 163 (2003) 263.
04Ban Bandfield, J.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) CiteID E10009.
04Ern Ernst, R.E., Desnoyers, D.W.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 146 (2004) 195.
04Fra Francis, P, Oppenheimer, C.: Volcanoes, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.
04Gre Greeley, R. et al.: In: F. Bagenal, et al., editors, Jupiter, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004, 329.
04Hie Hiesinger, H., Head, J.W.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) CiteID E01004.
04Kes1 Keszthelyi, L.: Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 5 (2004) CiteID Q11014.
04Kes2 Keszthelyi, L.P., et al.: Icarus 169 (2004) 271.
04Len Lenardic, A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) CiteID E02003, doi: 10.1029/2003JE002172.
04Lop Lopez, R.M.C., et al.: Icarus 169 (2004) 140.
04McC McColley, S.M., Head, J.W.: Lunar Planet. Sci. 35th (2004) abstract 1376.
04McS McSween, H.Y., et al.: Science 305 (2004) 842.
04Moo1 Moore, J.M., et al.: Icarus 171 (2004a) 421.
04Moo2 Moore, J.M., et al.: In: F. Bagenal, et al., editors, Jupiter, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004b, 397.
04Mue Mueller, K., Golombek, M.P.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 32 (2004) 435.
04Neu Neukum, G., et al.: Nature 432 (2004) 971.
04Pap Pappalardo, R.T., et al.: In: F. Bagenal, et al., editors, Jupiter, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004,
363.
04Ple Plescia, J.B.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) CiteID E03003.
04Sch Schenk, P.M. et al.: In: F. Bagenal, et al., editors, Jupiter, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004, 427.
04Scu Schubert, G., et al.: Phys. Earth Planet. Int. 146 (2004) 147.
04Sol1 Solomatov, V.S.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004a) CiteID B01412.
04Sol2 Solomatov, V.S.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004b) CiteID B05408.
04Squ Squyres, S.W. et al.: Science 306 (2004) 1709.
04Wat Watters, T.R., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (2004) L04701.
04Wil Williams, D.A., et al.: Bull. Volcanol. 66 (2004) 16.
05Bib Bibring, J.-P. et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1576.
05Chr Christensen, P.R., et al.: Nature 436 (2005) 504.
05Ern Ernst, R.E., et al.: Lithos 79 (2005) 271.
05Fou Foulger, G.R., et al. (Eds.): Plates, Plumes, and Paradigms, Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Paper 388,
Geol. Soc. Amer., Boulder, 2005.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
05Gen Gendrin, A. et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1587.

05Gou Goudy, C.L., Schultz, R.A.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (2005) CiteID L05201.
05Gro1 Grott, M., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (2005) citeID L21201.
05Gro2 Grotzinger, J. et al.: Earth and Planetary Science Letters 240 (2005) 11.
05Ham Hamilton, W.B.: In: Foulger, G.R., et al., editors, Plates, Plumes, and Paradigms, Geol. Soc.
Am. Spec. Paper 388, p. 781, Geol. Soc. Am., Boulder, 2005.
05Hau Hauber, E., et al.: Nature 434 (2005) 356.
05Hel Helfenstein, P. et al.: Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 37, No. 3 (2005) abstr. 36.01, 701.
05Kle Kleinhans, M.G.: J. Geophys. Res. 110/E12 (2005) E12003.
05Koe Koeberl, C., Henkel, H. (Eds.): Impact Tectonics, Springer, Berlin 2005.
05Lop Lopez, R.M.C., Williams, D.A.: Rep. Prog. Phys. 68 (2005) 303.
05Lor Lorenz, R.D., Lunine, J.I.: Planet. Space Sci. 53 (2005) 557.
05Pol Pollard, D.D., Fletcher, R.C.: Fundamentals of Structural Geology, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge 2005.
05Por1 Porco, C.C. et al.: Science 307 (2005a) 1237.
05Por2 Porco, C.C. et al.: Nature 434 (2005b) 159.
05Pou Poulet, F., et al.: Nature 438 (2005) 623.
05Sch Schmincke, H.-U.: Volcanism, Springer, Berlin 2005.
05Sot Sotin, C., et al.: Nature 435 (2005) 786.
05Sto Stofan, E.R., Smrekar, S.E.: In: Foulger, G.R., et al., editors, Plates, Plumes, and Paradigms,
Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pap. 388, p. 841, Geol. Soc. Am., Boulder, 2005.
05Str Strom, R.G. et al.: Science 309 (2005) 1847.
05Tom Tomasko, M.G., et al.: Nature, 438 (2005) 765.
05Tos Tosca, N.J. et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 240 (2005) 122.
05Wag Wagner, R. et al.: Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 37, No. 3 (2005) abstr. 36.02, 701.
05Wat Watters, T.R., et al.: Geology 33 (2005) 669.
06Bal Baldwin R. B., Icarus 184 (2006) 308.
06Bur Burr, D.M., et al.: Icarus 181 (2006) 235.
06Car Carr M. H.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 307pp, Cambridge, U.K. 2006.
06Dim Dimitrova, L.L., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (2006) L08202.
06Ela Elachi, C. et al.: Nature 441 (2006) 709.
06Fre Frey, H.V.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (2006) CiteID L08S02.
06Gel Gellert, R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) E02S05.
06Gol Golombek, M.P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) E12S10.
06Gri Grindrod, P.M., Hoogenboom, T.: Astron. Geophys. 47 (2006) 3.2.
06Gro Grotzinger, J. et al.: Geology 34 (2006) 1085.
06Hea Head, J.W., Wilson, L., Dickson, J., Neukum, G.: Geology 34 (2006) 285.
06Hie Hiesinger, H., Head, J.W.: In: Jolliff, B.L., et al., editors, New Views of the Moon, Rev. Min.
Geochem. 60, p. 1, Miner. Soc. Am. Geochem. Soc, Chantilly, 2006.
06Ip Ip W. H.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (2006).
06Jola Jolliff, B.L., et al. (Eds.): New Views of the Moon, Rev. Min. Geochem. 60 Miner. Soc. Am.
Geochem. Soc, Chantilly, 2006.
06Kie Kiefer, W.S., Swafford, L.C.: J. Struct. Geol. 28 (2006) 2144.
06Kna Knapmeyer, M., et al: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) CiteID E11006.
06Lor Lorenz, R.D. et al.: Science 312 (2006) 724.
06Luc Lucey, P., et al.: In: Jolliff, B.L., et al., editors, New Views of the Moon, Rev. Min. Geochem.
60, p. 83 Miner. Soc. Am. Geochem. Soc, Chantilly, 2006.
06Mcc McCord, T.B. et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 54 (2006) 1524.
06Mor Morris, R.V., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) E12S15.
06Neu Neukum, G. et al.: Geophys. Res. Abstr. 8 (2006) abstr. EGU-A-09252 [CD-Rom].
06Por Porco, C.C., et al.: Science 311 (2006) 1393.
06Rob Roberts, J.H., Zhong, S.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006) CiteID E06013.
06Sch Schultz, R.A., et al.: J. Struct. Geol. 28 (2006) 2182.
06Sch1 Schumacher, S., Breuer, D.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006a) CiteID E02006.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
06Sch2 Schumacher, S., Breuer, D.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006b) CiteID E09011.
06She Shearer, C.K., et al.: In: Jolliff, B.L., et al., editors, New Views of the Moon, Rev. Min.
06Spe Spencer, J.R., et al.: Science 311 (2006) 1401.
06Stf Stffler, D., et al.: In: Jolliff, B.L., et al., editors, New Views of the Moon, Rev. Min.
06Sto Stofan, E.R. et al.: Icarus 185 (2006) 443.
06Wag Wagner, R. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 37th (2007) abstr. No. 1805 [CD-Rom].
06Wai Waite, J.H., et al.: Science 311 (2006) 1419.
06Wer Werner, S.C.: Major Aspects of the Chronostratigraphy and Geologic Evolutionary History of
Mars (2006) Ph.D. Thesis, FU Berlin, online available at: http://www.diss.fu-
berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000001959.
07Alb Albarde, F., Blichert-Toft, J.: Comptes Rendus Geosci. 339 (2007) 917.
07And Andrews-Hanna, J.C., Zuber, M.T.: Lunar Planet. Sci. 38 (2007) abstract 1897.
07Bak Baker, V.R., et al.: In: Yuen, D.A., et al., editors, Superplumes: Beyond Plate Tectonics, p.507,
Springer, Netherlands, 2007.
07Bas1 Basilevsky, A.T., Head, J.W.: Icarus 192 (2007) 167.
07Bas2 Basilevsky, A.T., McGill, G.E.: In: Esposito, L.W., et al., editors, Exploring Venus as a
Terrestrial planet, Geophysical Monograph Series 176, p.23, Am. Geophys. Union,
Washington, 2007.
07Ble Bleacher, J.E., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E04003.
07Bro Brown, R.H. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 38th (2007) abstr. 2154 [CD-Rom].
07Cam Campbell, I.H., Kerr, A.C.: Chem. Geol. 241 (2007) 149.
07Car Carr, M.H.: The Surface of Mars, Cambridge Univ. Press 2007.
07Che Chevrier, V., Math, P.E. : Planet. Space Sci. 55 (2007) 289.
07Dav Davies, A.: Volcanism on Io, Cambridge Univ. Press 2007.
07Elk Elkins-Tanton, L.T., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E04S06.
07Ern Ernst, R.E., et al.: In: Yuen, D.A., et al., editors, Superplumes: Beyond Plate Tectonics, p. 537,
Springer, Netherlands, 2007.
07Gar Garry, W.B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E08007.
07Gie1 Giese, B. et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (2007) L21203.
07Gie2 Giese, B. et al.: AGU Fall Meeting 2007 (2007b) abstract P12B-07.
07Gro Grott, M., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E06006.
07Han Hansen, V.L.: Chem. Geol. 241 (2007) 354.
07Han Hansen, V.L., Young, D.A.: In: Cloos, M., et al., editors, Convergent Margin Terranes and
Associated Regions. A Tribute to W.G. Ernst, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Paper 419, p. 255,
Geological Society of America, 2007.
07Hay Hayward, R.K. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) E11007.
07Hea1 Head, J.W., Wilson, L.: Annals Glaciol. 45 (2007) 1.
07Hea2 Head, J.W. et al.: Space Sci. Rev. 131 (2007) 41.
07Hie Hiesinger, H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E05011.
07Jes Jessup, K.L., et al.: Icarus 192 (2007) 24.
07Kes Keszthelyi, L.P., et al.: Icarus 192 (2007) 491.
07Kin Kinch, K.M. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) E06S03.
07Kro Kronberg, P., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E04005.
07Len Lena, R., et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 55 (2007) 1201.
07Li Li, Q., Kiefer, W.S.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (2007) CiteID L16203.
07Lop1 Lopez, R.M.C.: in: Encyclopedia of the Solar System (2nd ed.), edited by McFadden, L.-A.,
Weissman, P.R., Johnson, T.V., p. 419 (2007) Academic Press, San Diego.
07Lop2 Lopes, R. M. C. et al.: Icarus 186 (2007) 395.
07Lop3 Lopes R. M. C. et al.: EOS 88 (Nr. 51) (2007) 569.
07Lop4 Lopez, R.M.C., Spencer, J.R. (Eds.): Io after Galileo, Praxis, Chichester 2007.
07Mit Mitri, G. et al.: Icarus 186 (2007) 385.
07Moo Moore, J.M., Schenk, P.M.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 38th (2007) abstr. 2136 [CD-Rom].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
07Mou Mouginis-Mark, P.J., et al.: in: The Geology of Mars: Evidence from Earth-based Analogs,
edited by Chapman, M., p. 71 (2007) Cambridge Univ. Press.
07Nah Nahm, A.L., Schultz, R.A.: AGU Fall Meeting (2007) abstract #P13D-1552.
07Oku Okubo, C.H., McEwen, A.S.: Science 315 (2007) 983.
07ONe O`Neill, C., et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 261 (2007) 20.
07Pag Paganelli, F. et al.: Icarus 191 (2007) 211.
07Pou Poulet, F., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 112 (2007) CiteID E08S02.
07Rad Radebaugh J. et al.: Icarus 192 (2007) 77.
07Sch1 Schumacher, S., Breuer, D.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (2007) CiteID L14202.
07Sch2 Schultz, R.A., et al.: In: The Geology of Mars, edited by Chapman, M., p. 371 (2007)
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
07Smr Smrekar, S.E., Stofan, E.R.: In: Encyclopedia of the Solar System (2nd ed.), edited by
McFadden, L.-A., Weissman, P.R., Johnson, T.V., p. 149 (2007) Academic Press, San Diego.
07Spi Spitale, J.N., Porco, C.C.: Nature 449 (2007) 695.
07Sto Stooke, P.J.: The International Atlas of Lunar Exploration, Cambridge Univ. Press 2007.
07Sto Stofan, E.R. et al.: Nature 445 (2007) 61.
07Str Strom, R.G.: in: Encyclopedia of the Solar System (2nd ed.), edited by McFadden, L.-A.,
Weissman, P.R., Johnson, T.V., p. 117 (2007) Academic Press, San Diego.
07Tom Tomkins, K.M., et al.: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32/7 (2007) 1013.
07Wag1 Wagner, R. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 38th (2007a) abstr. 1958 [CD-Rom].
07Wag2 Wagner, R.: PhD Dissertation (Freie Universitt Berlin, Germany) (2007b) http://www.diss.fu-
berlin.de/2007/806
07Wag3 Wagner, R. et al.: AGU Fall Meeting 2007 (2007c) abstr. P12B-06.
07Wat Watters, T.R., et al.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 35 (2007) 621.
07Wil1 Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 163 (2007) 83.
07Wil2 Wilson, L., Head, J.W.: Annals Glaciol. 45 (2007) 83.
07Woe Whler, C., et al.: Icarus 189 (2007) 279.
08And1 Anderson, R.C. et al.: Icarus 195 (2008) 537.
08And2 Andrews-Hanna, J.C., et al.: Nature 453 (2008) 1212.
08And3 Andrews-Hanna, J.C., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 113 (2008) CiteID E08002.
08Bal Baloga, S.M., Glaze, L.S.: J. Geophys. Res. 113 (2008) CiteID E05003.
08Bou Bourke, M.C. et al.: Geomorphology 94 (2008) 247.
08Bro Brown, R.H. et al.: Nature 454 (2008) 607.
08Den Denk, T. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 39th (2008) abstr. 2533 [CD-Rom]
08Gie Giese, B. et al.: Icarus 193 (2008) 359.
08Hau Hauber, E., et al.: J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. (2008) revised manuscript submitted.
08Hea Head, J.W., et al.: Science 321 (2008) 69.
08Hei Heimpel, M., Kabin, K.: Nature Geosci. 1 (2008) 564.
08Jau Jaumann R. et al.: Icarus 193 (2008) 407.
08Kel Keller H. U. et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 56 (2008) 728
08Ken Kennedy, P.J., et al.: J. Geophys.. Res. (2008) CiteID E08004.
08Kes Keszthelyi, L.P., J. Geophys. Res. 113 (2008) CiteID E04005.
08Kie Kiefer, W.S.: Nature 453 (2008) 1191.
08Kin King, S.D.: Nature Geosci. 1 (2008) 229.
08Kir Kirchoff, M.R., Schenk, P.M.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 39th (2008) abstr. No. 2234 [CD-Rom].
08Kra Kraal, E., et al.: Nature 451 (2008) 973.
08Lor Lorenz, R.D. et al.: Planet. Space Sci. (2008) in press.
08Lun1 Lunine, J. I. et al.: Icarus 195 (2008) 415.
08Lun2 Lunine, J.I., Atreya, S.K.: Nature Geosci. 1 (2008) 159.
08Mar Marinava, M.M., et al.: Nature 453 (2008) 1216.
08McS McSween, H.Y., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 113 (2008) E06S04.
08Mil Milazzo, M.P., et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 39th (2008) LPI Contribution No. 1391., abstract
2062.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
08Min Ming, D.W., et al. : J. Geophys. Res. in press (2008).

08Mor Morris, R.V., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 113 (2008) E06S04.
08Nah Nahm, A.L., Schultz, R.A.: Eos Trans. AGU 88(52), Fall Meet. Suppl. (2007) abstract P13D-
1552.
08Nim Nimmo, F., Hart, S.D., Korycansky, D.G., Agnor, C.B.: Nature 453 (2008) 1220.
08Rad Radebaugh, J.R. et al.: Icarus 194 (2008) 690.
08Roa1 Roatsch, T. et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 56 (2008a) 109.
08Roa2 Roatsch, T. et al.: Planet. Space Sci. 56 (2008b) 1499.
08Sch Schmedemann, N. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 39th (2008) abstr. No. 2070 [CD-Rom].
08Sol Solomon, S.C. et al.: Science 321 (2008) 59.
08Wag Wagner, R. J. et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf. 39th (2008) abstr. No. 1930 [CD-Rom] .
08Wat Watters, T.R., et al.: Lunar Planet. Sci. 39 (2008) abstract 1300.
08Wil Williams, D.A., et al.: Planet. Space Sci., in press (2008) doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2008.08.010.
Internet Resources
USG USGS Nomenclature http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.6 Planetary Photometry and Spectroscopy
Katrin Stephan
4.2.3.6.1 Photometric properties of planetary surfaces
Photometry is one of the basic remote sensing techniques of astronomy and planetary science. Visual
photometry allows the detection of a rotational light curve, to establish whether or not the rotation is in
resonance with the orbital period of astronomical objects. It also allows investigation of the photometric
phase curve, which contain albedo information [79Bow] and also yields an absolute V magnitude at unit
distance to Earth and Sun, which allows a determination of the diameter if the albedo is known [80Deg]
(Table 1 - 3).
The most widely used photometric system, the UBV-system or Johnson-Morgan system is a broad
band photometric system for classify planetary objects according to their colors [53Joh]. The letters U, B,
and V stand for ultraviolet, blue and visual magnitudes that represent color filters which are sensitive
at 364, 442, and 540 nm, respectively.
Little compositional information can be obtained from UBV-colors alone but it is usually possible to
recognize principal compositional types identified by more sophisticated techniques like spectroscopy
(see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.2) and to select exceptional objects for further studies [76Zel][78Bow][79Zel].
More recently, photometric observations of planetary objects are compared to photometric models that
incorporate specific physical parameters of their surfaces [88Bur]. The agreement or lack of agreement
between the observation and the model helps to constrain the model parameters and leads to a more
accurate characterization of the body. The most recent photometric model has been developed by [81Hap]
and can be written in the form:
0 0
I ( 0 , , ) = F [S ( , h) P( , g ) + H ( ) H ( 0 ) 1] , (1)
4 + 0
where I is the bidirectional reflectance of the planetary object observed at a specific incidence (0),
emission () and phase angle , F is the incident solar flux, 0 the single scattering particle albedo, S(,h)
the shadowing function, and P(,g) the single particle scattering function that can be approximated by a
Henyey-Greenstein phase function:
1 g2
P ( , g ) = 3
(1 < g < +1) , (2)
(1 + g + 2 g cos )
2 2
where g is the asymmetry parameter (cos ). The parameter h is called the compaction parameter, and is
related to the porosity of the surface [81Hap]. Hapke parameters derived for planetary satellites are
summarized in Table 4.
Table 1 Photometric properties of the terrestrial planets in the UBV system from [76Ast], [93Ast], (a)
[88Vev], (b) [94Kar].
V0 mean opposition magnitude of the satellite
V(1,0) absolute visual magnitude reduced to a phase angle of zero (=0) and planet-Sun
distances of 1 Astronomical unit
B-V / U-B Color index of Voyager-Filters
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
pv geometric visual albedo of a planetary object - ratio of its actual brightness at zero
phase angle (i.e. as seen from the light source) to that of an idealized flat, fully
reflecting, diffusively scattering (Lambertian) disk with the same cross-section.
q phase integral given in terms of the directional scattered flux I() into phase angle
(averaged over all wavelengths and azimuthal angles) as:
I ( )
q = 2 sin d
0 I (0)
AB Bond Albedo related to the geometric albedo pv by A=pq
Color index
V0 V(1,0) B-V U-B pv q AB
Mercury -0.21 (a) -0.42 (a) -0.91 -0.4 0.096 0.58 0.056
0.138 (a) 0.486 (a) 0.119 (a)
Venus -3.81 -4.34 0.79 0.5 0.6 1.2 0.72
Earth -3.87 -3.9 0.2 ? 0.37 1.05 0.39
Mars -2.01 -1.51 1.37 0.6 0.154 1.02 0.16
1.49 (b)
Table 2 Hemispheric disk-integrated photometric properties of large planetary satellites adapted [93Ast], [06She], c - [06Jac], d - [06Nic], e - [73Lan], f -
[86Han], g [88Bur], h [91Bur], i [93Hil], (8) Bright side, 0.5; faint side, 0.05. For explanation of symbols see Table 1.
Color index
Satellite V0 V(1,0) B-V U-B pv q AB
Earth Moon -12.74 +0.21 0.92 0.46 0.12 0.611 (e) 0.1230.002 (e)
Mars M1 Phobos +11.4 (d) 0.65 0.18 0.07 0.27 0.02
M2 Deimos +12.5 (d) +12.89 0.65 0.18 0.068 (c) 0.32 0.02
Jupiter J1 Io +5.02 -1.68 1.17 1.30 0.62
J2 Europa +5.29 -1.41 0.87 0.52 0.68 1.090.11 (g) 0.620.14 (g)
0.780.03
(g)
J3 Ganymede +4.61 -2.09 0.83 0.50 0.44 (c) 0.780.06 (h) 0.350.03 (h)
J4 Callisto +5.6 (d) -1.05 0.86 0.55 0.19 (c) 0.510.06 (h) 0.110.02 (h)
Saturn S1 Mimas +12.8 (d) +3.3 0.6 (c)
S2 Enceladus +11.8 (d) +2.1 0.7 0.28 1.0 1.4
S3 Tethys +10.3 (d) +0.6 0.73 0.30 0.8 (c)
S4 Dione +10.4 +0.8 0.71 0.31 0.6 (c)
S5 Rhea +9.7 +0.1 0.78 0.38 0.6 (c)
S6 Titan +8.4 (d) -1.28 1.28 0.75 0.2 (c)
S7 Hyperion +14.4 (d) +4.63 0.78 0.33 0.3
S8 Iapetus +11.0 (d) (10.2- +1.5 0.72 0.30 0.2 (8)
11.9 (f)
S9 Phoebe +16.5 (d) +6.89 0.70 0.34 0.081 (c)
Uranus U1 Ariel +13.7 (d) + 1.45 0.39 (c) 0.65 0.310.06 (f)
U2 Umbriel +14.5 (d) + 2.10 0.21 (c) 0.68
U3 Titania +13.5 (d) + 1.02 0.27 (c) 0.70
U4 Oberon +13.7 (d) + 1.23 0.23 (c) 0.68
U5 Miranda +15.8 (d) + 3.6 0.32 (c) 0.240.06 (f)
Neptune N1 Triton +13.5 (d) - 1.24 0.756 (c) 0.72 0.29
1.170.03 (i)
N2 Nereid +19.7 (d) + 4.0 0.155 (c) 0.65
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 3 Hemispheric disk-integrated photometric properties of small planetary satellites adapted [93Ast],
[06She], c - [06Jac], d - [06Nic]; : Quantity is uncertain. See Table 1 for explanation of symbols.
Satellite V0 V(1,0) pv
Jupiter J5 Amalthea +14.1 +7.4 0.09 (c)
J6 Himalia +14.6 (d) +8.14 0.03 (c)
J7 Elara +16.3 (b) +10.0 (b) 0.03 (c)
J8 Pasiphae +17.03 +10.33 ~0.04 (c)
J9 Sinope +18.1 (d) +11.6 ~0.04 (c)
J10 Lysithea +18.3 (d) +11.7 (b) ~0.04 (c)
J11 Carme +17.6 (d) +11.3 (b) ~0.04 (c)
J12 Ananke +18.8 (d) +12.2 (b) ~0.04 (c)
J13 Leda +19.5 (d) +13.5 ~0.04 (c)
J14 Thebe +16.0 (d) +9.0 0.047 (c)
J15 Adrastea +18.7 (d) +12.4 0.05 (c)
J16 Metis +17.5 +10.8 0.061 (c)
J17 Callirrhoe +20.7 (d) +14.2 (b) 0.06 (d)
J18 Themisto +21.0 (d) +14.4 (b) 0.06 (d)
J19 Megaclite +21.7 (d) +15.0 (b) 0.06 (d)
J20 Taygete +21.9 (d) +15.4 (b) 0.06 (d)
J21 Chaldene +22.5 (d) +15.7 (b) 0.06 (d)
J22 Harpalyke +22.2 (d) +15.7 (b) 0.06 (d)
J23 Kalyke +21.8 (d) +15.3 (b) 0.06 (d)
J24 Iocaste +21.8 (d) +14.5 (d) 0.06 (d)
J25 Erinome +22.8 (d) +16.0 (b) 0.06 (d)
J26 Isonoe +22.5 (d) +15.9 (b) 0.06 (d)
J27 Praxidike +21.2 (d) +15.0 (b) 0.06 (d)
J28 Autonoe +22.0 (d) +15.4 (b) 0.06 (d)
J29 Tyone +22.3 (d) +15.7 (b) 0.06 (d)
J30 Hermippe +22.1 (d) +15.5 (b) 0.06 (d)
J31 Aitne +22.7 (d) +16.1 (b) 0.06 (d)
J32 Eurydome +22.7 (d) +16.1 (b) 0.06 (d)
J33 Euanthe +22.8 (d) +16.2 (b) 0.06 (d)
J34 Euporie +23.1 (d) +16.5 (b) 0.06 (d)
J35 Orthosie +23.1 (d) +16.5 (b) 0.06 (d)
J36 Sponde +23.0 (d) +16.4 (b) 0.06 (d)
J37 Kale +23.0 (d) +16.4 (b) 0.06 (d)
J38 Pasithee +23.2 (d) +16.6 (b) 0.06 (d)
J39 Hegemone +22.8 (d) +15.9 (b) 0.04 (d)
J40 Mneme +23.3 (d) +16.3 (b) 0.04 (d)
J41 Aoede +22.5 (d) +15.8 (b) 0.04 (d)
J42 Thelxinoe +23.4 (d) +16.4 (b) 0.04 (d)
J43 Arche +22.8 (d) +16.4 (b) 0.04 (d)
J44 Kallichore +23.7 (d) +16.8 (b) 0.04 (d)
J45 Helike +22.6 (d) +16.0 (b) 0.04 (d)
J46 Carpo +23.0 (d) +15.6 (b) 0.04 (d)
J47 Eukelade +22.6 (d) +15.0 (b) 0.04 (d)
J48 Cyllene +23.2 (d) +16.2 (b) 0.04 (d)
Saturn S10 Janus +14.4 (d) + 4.4 : 0.6 (c)
S11 Epimetheus +15.6 (d) + 5.4 : 0.5 (c)
S12 Helene +18.4 (d) + 8.4 : 0.6 (c)
S13 Telesto +18.5 : + 8.9 : 0.7 : (d)
S14 Calypso +18.7 : + 9.1 : 1.0 (c)
S15 Atlas +19.0 (d) + 8.4 : 0.4 (c)
S16 Prometheus +15.8 (d) + 6.4 : 0.6 (c)
S17 Pandora +16.4 (d) + 6.4 : 0.5 (c)
S18 Pan +19.4 (d) 0.5 :
S19 Ymir +21.6 (d) 0.06 :(c)
S20 Paaliag +21.2 (d) +12.2 0.06 :(d)
S21 Tarvos +22.0 (d) +13.2 0.06 :(d)
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
S22 Ijiraq +22.5 (d) +13.6 0.06 :(d)

S23 Suttungr +23.8 (d) 0.06 :(c)
S24 Kiviuq +21.9 (d) +13.1 0.06 :(d)
S25 Mundilfari +23.7 (d) +14.8 0.06 :(d)
S26 Albiorix +20.4 (d) 0.06 :(c)
S27 Skadi +23.5 (d) +14.8 0.06 :(d)
S28 Erriapo +22.9 (d) +14.0 0.06 :(d)
S29 Siarnaq +20.0 (d) 0.06 :(c)
S30 Thrymr +23.8 (d) +14.8 0.06 :(d)
S31 Narvi +24.1 (d) 0.06 :(d)
S32 Methone +25.1 (d)
S33 Pallene +24.5 (d)
S34 Polydeuces +24.8 (d)
S35 Daphnis
Uranus U6 Cordelia +24.2 (d) +11.4 0.07 :(d)
U7 Ophelia +23.9 (d) +11.1 0.07 :(d)
U8 Bianca +23.1 (d) +10.3 0.07 :(d)
U9 Cressida +22.3 (d) + 9.5 0.07 :(d)
U10 Desdemona +22.5 (d) + 9.8 0.07 :(d)
U11 Juliet +21.7 (d) + 8.8 0.07 :(d)
U12 Portia +21.1 (d) + 8.3 0.07 :(d)
U13 Rosalind +22.5 (d) + 9.8 0.07 :(d)
U14 Belinda +22.1 (d) + 9.4 0.07 :(d)
U15 Puck +20.4 (d) + 7.5 0.07 :(d)
U16 Caliban +22.4 (d) + 9.7 0.07 :(d)
U17 Sycorax +20.8 (d) + 8.2 0.07 :(d)
U18 Prospero +23.2 (d) +11.0 0.07 :(d)
U19 Setebos +23.3 (d) +11.1 0.07 :(d)
U20 Stephano +24.1 (d) +11.9 0.07 :(d)
U21 Trinculo +25.3 (d) 0.06 :(d)
Neptune N3 Naiad +24.6 (d) +10.0 : 0.06 :(d)
N4 Thalassa +23.9 (d) + 9.1 : 0.06 :(d)
N5 Despina +22.5 (d) + 7.9 0.06 (c)
N6 Galatea +22.4 (d) + 7.6 : 0.06 :(c)
N7 Larissa +22.0 + 7.3 0.06 (c)
N8 Proteus +20.3 + 5.6 0.06 (c)
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 4 Hapke parameters of terrestrial planets and satellites from (a) [03Hel], (b) [86Vev], (c) [98Sim], (d) [87Hel], (e) [95Bur], [91Bur],
(f) [97Dom], (g) [91Dom], (h) [86Sim], (i) [85Bur], (j) [88Bur], (k) [89Ver], (l) [88Hel], (m) [90Bur1], (n) [90Hil], (o) [88Vev], Mercury
two solutions: 1. was obtained by fitting the phase curve on a linear I/F scale 2. involved fitting the near opposition portion ( 20) on a
linear scale and the remainder on a magnitude scale.
0 single scattering particle albedo
S0 shadowing function or strength of the opposition surge (phase angle =0)
P0 single particle scattering function (phase angle = 0)
h width of the opposition surge or compaction parameter,
effective surface tilt, also called the macroscopic roughness angle
Void space % 1-/0
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Planet Satellite 0 P0 h Void space References

[%]
Mercury 0.2 / 0.21 21/25 0.11/0.09 90 d, i, o
Earth Moon (0.56m) 0.28 26 0.07 a,d,i
(0.47m) 0.21 -0.250.02 20 0.40.1
Mars M1 Phobos 0.0549 -0.13 21 0.072 87 c,h,j
Jupiter J1 Io 0.87 -0.2 25 65 h,i,k
J2 Europa Global 0.97 -0.150.04 23 1.00.2 a,d,i,k
(0.47m)
Leading side 0.92 10 g
Trailing side 0.90 10 80 e,g
J3 Ganymede Global 0.76 0.01) -0.20.04 281) a,e
(0.47m) 0.800.4 294
Dark terrain 0.6070.005 25.10.1 0.320.007 80 e
Bright terrain 0.6120.005 2.70.1 0.100.01
Leading side 0.820.03 -0.200.04 80 e,f,g
0.830.01
Trailing side 0.780.03 -0.210.04 90 f,g
0.870.01
J4 Callisto Global 0.440.03 -0.350.05 323 92 e
Leading side 0.430.03 -0.230.02 363 88 e
Trailing side 0.450.03 -0.170.02 293 80 e,i
Saturn S1 Mimas 0.930.03 -0.300.05 30 0.70.2 d,i
S2 Enceladus 0.990.02 -0.350.03 0.40.2 90 i,k
S5 Rhea 0.760.03 -0.350.05 163 0.40.1 92 i,k,l
Uranus U5 Miranda 0.55 -0.31 329 92 l,m
U1 Ariel 0.580.05 -0.280.05 283 75 l,m
U2 Umbriel 0.250.03 -0.250.03 183 92 l,m
U3 Titania 0.500.02 -0.200.03 255 92 l,m
U4 Oberon 0.350.05 -0.200.03 203 l,m
Neptune N1 Triton 0.9940.004 -0.280.03 102 n
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Ref. p. xxx] Spectral Properties 211
4.2.3.6.2 Spectral properties of planetary surfaces
Most of our information concerning the elemental and mineralogical composition of the planetary
surfaces and physical state of the constituents is derived from spectral measurements. Individual atomic
and molecular species possess unique and identifiable spectral signatures with their frequency
(wavenumber or wavelength) defined by the quantum structure of specific atoms and molecules.
Characteristic spectral features are to be found especially in the microwave, infrared, visible and
ultraviolet regions, and they are caused by a variety of transition types within atoms and/or molecules e.g.
rotations, vibrations, or electronic transitions, respectively.
4.2.3.6.2.1 Radar observations
A Radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) system detects distant objects by emitting radio or micro waves
and analyzes the returned echos reflected by the target. The delay between emitting and receiving the
returning signal enables to determine the distance between the instrument and the target. The direction of
the beam determines the direction of the reflection. The polarization and frequency of the return can sense
characteristics of planetary surfaces deeper than apparent to visible imaging. Common transmissions of a
circular polarized signal and reception of echoes in the same circular (SC) and opposite (OC)
polarizations are used (i.e. earth-based Arecibo 13-cm- and Goldstone 3.5-cm-observations). In rare
cases the transmission is linearly polarized, with reception in the same linear (SL) and orthogonal linear
(OL) polarizations (i.e. Radar instrument onboard the Cassini spacecraft).
Terrestrial planets and satellites
Radar echos from terrestrial planets and satellites like the Moon are dominated by quasi-specular
scattering properties, which means they are characterized by low radar albedos i.e. ~ 0.1 at 3.5 and 13 cm
(Fig. 1), and most of the echo power has the rotational sense opposite to that transmitted (expressed by a
relatively low circular polarization ratio C (SC/OC) of ~ 0.1 - 0.3). A perfectly smooth surface would
have a polarization ratio of zero, but moderate surface variations cause some echo power in the other
polarization sense. To give an example, anomalous bright radar features are consistent with water ice
deposits at the poles of Mercury [93But][92Har1], and fresh volcanic lava flows on Mars are very rough
at dm-scales [92Har2]; although for most surfaces the total albedo still remain low (Table 5).
Outer planets satellites
In contrast icy satellites scatter radar energy like very rough surfaces do, indicated by their unusual high
radar albedos (Fig. 1, Table 5) as well as very high circular polarization ratios (~1.5) compared to
terrestrial planets [92Ost]. Similarly, linear polarization measurements also show significant power in the
unexpected polarization. Their polarization ratios L, which is defined as the ratio of power in the sense
orthogonal to the transmitted (OL) to the power in the parallel (or same) sense (SL), fall around 0.5.
Although most of the radar echo of the Saturnian satellite Titan is also characterized by a diffusely
scattered component, a small specular component is consistent with those expected for areas of liquid
hydrocarbons [03Cam].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
212 Spectral Properties [Ref. p. xxx
Table 5 Summary of satellites radar properties derived from earth-based (Arecibo 13-cm observation and Goldstone 3.5-cm observations and spacecraft
measurements [07Bus], [92Ost], [77Cam], [78Cam], [01Bla], [07Bla], [06Ost], [07Wye], [90Muh].
OC radar albedo measured in the opposite polarization
SC radar albedo measured in the same circular polarization
OL radar albedo measured in the orthogonal linear polarization
SL radar albedo measured in the same linear polarization
TP total power albedo (TP=SL+OL=SC+OC)
C Circular polarization ratio (SC/OC)
L Linear polarization ratio (OL/SL)
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Planet Satellite Wavelength TP OC SC OL SL n References

Mars M1 Phobos 0.0640.014 07Bus
0.0560.014
M2 Deimos 0.0210.006 07Bus
Jupiter J2 Europa 3.5-cm 2.310.36 0.910.13 1.400.23 92Ost, 06Ost
13-cm 2.600.22 1.030.08 1.580.14 0.830.21 1.770.44 1.730.08 92Ost, 77Cam, 78Cam,
06Ost
70-cm <0.950.36 <0.17 <0.17 01Bla, 06Ost
J3 Ganymede 3.5-cm 1.550.20 0.650.10 0.900.10 92Ost, 06Ost
13-cm 1.390.14 0.570.06 0.820.09 0.480.11 1.030.24 1.460.04 92Ost, 77Cam, 78Cam,
06Ost
70-cm 0.62~0.2 0.250.09 0.370.11 01Bla, 06Ost
J4 Callisto 3.5-cm 0.720.06 0.320.02 0.400.04 92Ost, 06Ost
13-cm 0.690.06 0.320.03 0.370.03 0.230.06 0.410.11 1.430.05 92Ost, 77Cam, 78Cam,
06Ost
70-cm 0.180.06 <0.02 0.150.06 01Bla, 06Ost
S2 Enceladus 2.2-cm 1.60 12.00.9 06Ost
(Avg.)
Enceladus 13-cm 1.940.31 1.070.22 0.860.20 12.00.9 07Bla
(Avg.)
Enceladus 13-cm 2.550.42 1.160.29 1.390.29 07Bla
(L)
Enceladus 13-cm 0.780.28 1.000.28 0.54 07Bla
(T)
S3 Tethys 1.54 1.80.8 06Ost
Tethys 13-cm 1.450.13 0.660.09 0.790.09 07Bla
S4 Dione 2.2-cm 0.94 1.60.7 06Ost
Dione 13-cm 0.740.10 0.410.07 0.320.07 07Bla
S5 Rhea 1.06 1.70.8 06Ost
Rhea 13-cm 1.310.05 0.610.03 0.710.04 07Bla
S6 Titan 2.2-cm <0.4 0.34 07Wye
13-cm 0.21 90Muh, 07Wye
S8 Iapetus (L) 2.2-cm 0.31 1.10.1 06Ost
Iapetus (T) 2.2-cm 0.57 1.30.6 06Ost
S9 Phoebe 2.2-cm 0.18 0.90.2 06Ost
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 1 Radar spectra of terrestrial and icy solar system bodies

[82Ost].
4.2.3.6.2.2 Thermal Infrared Spectroscopy
The IR spectrum of a planetary surface can include both absorption and emission bands diagnostic of the
surface composition that complement the results derived from VIS-NIR spectroscopy (see Chapt.
4.2.3.6.2.3). Various anionic groups (e.g., SiO4, CO3, SO4, etc.) exhibit internal and lattice vibrational
fundamental modes within this wavelength range that are at least one order of magnitude more intense
than any associated combinations and/or overtones at wavelengths less than 5 m. In addition they are
extremely sensitive to minor concentrations of these absorbing species. Especially the strong fundamental
vibrational reststrahlen bands of Si-O located in the wavelength range from 7 to 12 m make this region
sensitive to all silicates, whereas only Fe-bearing minerals can be detected from electronic bands in
shorter wavelength (0.8 2.5m) reflectance spectra [06War]. Specific energies (wavelength position)
and relative intensities of these vibrational modes can be used to distinguish between icy vs. rocky
surfaces, different chemical groups (e.g. carbonates vs. silicates), different structural groups with similar
compositions (sorosilicates vs. phyllosilicates), differing chemical variations within a group (CaCO3 vs.
FeCO3), and differing structural polymorphs of the same compound (e.g. calcite vs. aragonite).
Terrestrial planets and satellites
Thermal IR spectra suggest a significant difference in the compositional and/or structural properties of
Mercury and the Moon. According to observed emittance spectral features, there is strong evidence of the
presence of Fe-poor pyroxenes and intermediate feldspars on Mercury, heterogeneously distributed across
the surface on regional scales [98Spr] [02Spr].
Data from the recent Mars missions show that the mafic regions have much more diversity than
previously recognized [05Chr]. Significant concentrations (>0.10) of plagioclase and high-Ca pyroxene,
sheet silicates/high-Si glass, and hematite are detected [02Ban], [04Yen]. Elevated concentrations of
plagioclase and high-Ca pyroxene correspond to basaltic surfaces located in low albedo highlands regions
north of ~45S. Significant concentrations of plagioclase and sheet silicates/high-Si glass and low
concentrations of high-Ca pyroxenes are consistent with andesitic surfaces and are concentrated in both
southern and northern high-latitude, low-albedo regions [02Ban], [05Yen]. Other emissions and
absorption features in the 5.4 and 10.5m wavelength region have been associated with sulphates,
carbonates, and hydrates [90Pol]. Observations in the thermal infrared have demonstrated that CO2 ice is
the major component of the seasonal caps of Mars [71Neu][79Kie][00Kie]. During northern spring a
moderately cold and bright ring lagging a few degrees of latitude behind the receding boundary of regions
at CO2 sublimation temperatures (160-170K) has been observed and interpreted as H2O frost [01Kie] and
confirmed by observations in the near infrared [05Bib][07Lan] (see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.2.4).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 2 The infrared spectrum of the Moon (dashed line) and

Mars (solid line) obtained with a grating spectrometer
attached to the 5.08-m telescope at Mount Palomar [60Sin].
Outer planet satellites
The volcanic component on Ios surface accounts for the increase in brightness temperature at shorter
wavelengths. Broad shallow features in the 10 30 m spectral regions may come from surface SO3
[95Kha][99Spe][89Nas]. In contrast, the emission spectra from the other icy satellites in the outer solar
system are mostly featureless, nearly black body emission spectra (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Emission spectra of the Galilean satellites obtained by

the Voyager Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS)
[87Spe] and a ground-based Europa spectrum scaled to
Callisto (8.5 13.3 m) from [00Mil]. The fine structures at
shorter wavelengths are probably noise [04Spe].
4.2.3.6.2.3 Radiometry
In contrast to the visible and near-infrared spectral region, where planets and satellites reflect solar
radiation, thermal emission becomes an increasingly dominant source of the energy sampled by remote
sensing observations at longer wavelengths. Thermally emitted photons from a planetary surface can be
used to deduce the surface thermal properties. Monochromatic fluxes at one or two wavelengths can be
used to derive model dependent surface temperatures, while measurements at many wavelengths allow
detailed thermal modelling (Table 6 + 7).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Thermal observations combined with visual observations can be used to derive the albedo of the
surface [82Bro] which can help to constrain the surface composition. Measurements obtained as a
function of time as the surface passes into the night side, or through an eclipse, can be used to derive
thermal conductivity [77Mor]. The thermal conductivity depends on the microstructure as well as the
surface material, and thus provides another constraint on surface composition.
Table 6 Global surface temperatures of terrestrial planets and satellites

Tdisk average 2-cm or 6-cm brightness temperature measured over a disk of the assumed
radius of the satellite
Teq isothermal equilibrium temperature was calculated using the Bond albedo ABond
(Teq=91.4 (1-ABond)1/4 (see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.1)
E emissivity is equal to Tdisk/Teq
Planet Satellite Tdisk [K] Tmin [K] Tmax [K] References
Mercury 452 100 700 75Str
Venus ~735 79Sei
Earth 281 260-283 310 99Har
Moon 220 K (eq) 100K 390K 99Vas
Mars 227K 186K 268K
215 K 150 K 275K 07Lan
Jupiter Io 106K 130K 99Har
Europa 97 K 86 132 99Spe, 96Ort
Ganymede 107 90 152 99Spe, 96Ort
Callisto 13411 805 165 5 87Spe, 04Moo
Saturn Phoebe 82 112 05Fla
Tethys 934 82Han
Enceladus 753 82Han
75K 32.9K 145K 06Spe
Titan 93.7K 07Mit
Uranus Ariel 841 86Han
Miranda 861 86Han
Neptun Triton 38 89Con
Table 7 Radiometric results of the Galilean and Saturnian satellites are from [84deP] and [06Ost],
respectively. Please see Table 6 for explanation of symbols.
Satellite Tdisk [K] Teq [K] E

Europa 2-cm 4710 97 0.48
6-cm 4410 97 0.45
Ganymede 2-cm 676 107 0.63
6-cm 556 107 0.51
Callisto 2-cm 929 117 0.79
6-cm 1057 117 0.90
Enceladus 2-cm 33.4 56.9 0.59
Iapetus (L) 2-cm 73.0 89.9 0.81
Iapetus (T) 2-cm 57.1 83.3 0.69
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Phoebe 2-cm 84.1 91.3 0.92

Rhea 2-cm 45.5 78.7 0.59
Tethys 2-cm 32.0 72.7 0.44
Dione 2-cm 50.8 78.7 0.65
4.2.3.6.2.4 From Near Infrared to UV
Spectroscopy in the spectral range from UV to NIR is the major tool in the study of the mineral
composition and physical state of the constituents of planetary surfaces. UV, visible, and NIR reflectance
spectroscopy is a well established technique, with the first NIR spectra obtained in the laboratory by Sir
William Herschel over 190 years ago. This technique is based on the analysis of reflected electromagnetic
radiation from a sunlit solar system object as a function of viewing geometry and wavelength, and the
comparison of the acquired spectrum with reference reflectance spectra of samples measured in
laboratories. Spectra in this wavelength region are particularly well suited to remote sensing studies
because of the variety of mechanisms that can produce photon absorptions. These mechanisms include
electronic transitions in molecular orbitals and vibrational transitions in molecules and crystals, as well as
electronic transitions within and between atoms (crystal field, metal-metal intervalence charge transfer,
and oxygen-metal charge transfer) [93Bur][80Hun][93Sal]. In addition, UVVNIR spectra are largely free
of thermal emission features, which affect mid infrared spectra (see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.2.2). The precise
wavelength range available for reflectance studies of planetary surfaces varies with temperature, and
therefore with location in the solar system. For example, on Mercury thermally emitted radiation begins at
1.6 m [88Vil], while pure reflectance spectra for icy bodies in the outer solar system may be obtained
out to 4-5 m without interference from thermal emission.
The terrestrial planets and the Moon
Silicates (e.g. pyroxene, olivine, feldspar, phyllosilicates) are ubiquitous on Earth and throughout the
inner solar system (i.e. on Mars, Fig. 4). They exhibit diagnostic Fe+ electronic transition absorption
bands in the visible and near infrared spectral region [75Ada]. One exception is Mercury. Spectra show
an extremely low probability of the Fe2+ charge-transfer absorption band in reflected light from Mercurys
surface indicating that FeO in the regolith is very low in abundance, if present at all
[86Vil][97Ble][02War]). This is also supported by results derived from IR spectroscopy [98Spr][02Spr]
(see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.2.2).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 4 Representative spectra representing the mineralogic

diversity that has been detected on the surface of Mars
derived from the Mars Express OMEGA experiment. These
example spectra show spectral signatures dominated by a
specific mineral species: (a) olivine and high- (HCP) and
low-calcium pyroxenes; (b) hydrated silicates, sulfates like
kieserite and gypsum and (c) ices like water and CO2 ice
[07Pel].
Similar to Mercury the spectra of lunar minerals are generally simpler than Earth spectra since they
contain no additional features due to Fe3+ or OH-. Lunar pyroxenes exhibit two diagnostic Fe2+ electronic
transition absorption bands, one centered near 1m, the other near 2m. The actual position of the band
centers move to longer wavelength as Ca and Fe substitute for Mg in the pyroxene structure [75Ada].
Lunar Maria basalt contain abundant high-Ca pyroxene (>50%) that is indicative of their basaltic nature.
When olivine is also present in significant amounts (10-20%), its effect is to broaden the pyroxene
absorption at 1m and move the center to slightly longer wavelengths. In contrast, lunar highland rocks
contain various amounts of feldspar and different types of mafic minerals.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Ilmenite (FeTiO3) is the most abundant oxide mineral found in lunar rocks, varying from 0 to 24 vol%
[82Pa] and exhibits broad absorptions near 0.5 and 1.2m ([75Ada], [93Bur]). The Ilmenite content in
mare basalt is normally detected only indirectly by the amount of Fe and Ti incorporated into the lunar
regolith (see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.2.5).
Technically not a mineral, glass is of geological importance on the Moon, both as a product of space
weathering and in pyroclastic deposits, characterized by broad features at 1 and 2 m due to ferrous iron
[85Gad][03Gad].
Hydrated materials like phyllosilicates and sulfates are common on Earth and were also identified on
Mars [05Bib] [05Pou] [05Gen] (Fig. 4). Carbonate rocks comprise one-fifth to one-fourth of the terrestrial
stratigraphic record. Based on IR spectra carbonates are supposed to be found on Mars (see Chapt.
4.2.3.6.2.2), but have not been identified in the NIR spectral range yet [05Bib].
Ices and frosts are not only abundant on Earth but also existent on Mars with a water-ice composition
of the north polar perennial cap, and a thin CO2-ice veneer for the south cap [05Bib] (Table 8).
Outer planets satellites
Despite the progress in data collection since the era of the Voyager missions, SO2 (frozen and gaseous) is
still the only compound that definitely has been identified on Ios surface and its spectral features
dominate the Io spectra from UV up to the Near Infrared (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Io reflectance spectrum: Spectral identifications:

A=SO2 gas (fine structure below 0.23m); B=S8 or SnO;
C=S4; D=unkown; E=Cl2SO2 (?). Other features are due to
SO2 frost. (L=leading hemisphere; T=trailing hemisphere;
J=Jupiter facing hemisphere; A=Anti Jovian hemisphere)
([95Spe], [86Cla], NIMS: [97Car], ISO: [04Spe]).
Galileo NIMS results show that frozen SO2 exists almost everywhere on the surface. Regions with
abundant SO2 are related to plumes that are located close to the equator [97Car]. The only regions lacking
SO2 are situated in the vicinity of hot spots, where surface temperatures are sufficiently high enough to
vaporize or prevent the condensation of SO2 [01Dou]. In addition, elemental sulfur is thought to be
common on Ios surface [98Nas] absorbing in the UV and blue light but is highly reflective and
featureless in the near-IR [82Fan]. The variety of surface colors and spectral shapes at ultraviolet-visible
wavelength match several sulfur allotropes [91Mos] (Fig. 5). Additional spectral features were observed
in the UV and NIR that cannot be attributed to SO2 but possibly indicate SO3 [86Nel] and H2O and H2S
frozen in SO2 [90Sal], Cl2SO2 [03Sch], as well as hydrated or hydrogen bearing species [97Car] on Ios
surface [04Spe].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 6 Reflectance spectra of Europa, Ganymede, and

Callisto - Spectral identifications: A=SO2 gas; B=O2 or SnO;
C=bound H2O; D=H2O2; E=CO2; F=O3; G=C-H (?); H=S-H
(?); I=C-N (?); J=O-H or bound H2O. Other features [at 1.04,
1.25, 1.5, and 2 m] are due to HO2 frost References: Noll =
[97Nol]; Spencer = [95Spe]; McFadden = [80McF]; NIMS =
[98McC]. (L=leading hemisphere; T=trailing hemisphere;
J=Jupiter facing hemisphere; A=Anti Jovian hemisphere;
Osiris = bright icy crater) [04Spe].
Spectroscopic observations have shown the clear presence of H2O ice on the surfaces of the Galilean
satellites Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto (Fig. 6), on at least eight relatively large satellites (excluding
Titan) and the rings of Saturn, as well as the five largest satellites of Uranus (Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel,
Titania, and Oberon, Fig. 7). Especially Enceladus water ice spectrum exhibits less opaque material
inclusion than any other satellite in the outer solar system. Therefore it is characterized by the highest
geometric albedo of any known airless body in the solar system (=1.0; [90Bur2]).
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 7 Example spectra of Uranian satellites. Gaps around

1.4 and 1.85 m coincide with high atmospheric opacity.
The Ariel spectrum is an average of all spectra with subsolar
longitudes between 210 and 330. The Umbriel spectrum is
from 2005/09/18 UT and the Titania and Oberon spectra are
both from 2005/10/13 UT [06Gru].
Other ices on outer planet satellites: Triton
Of all icy objects known in the solar system, Triton, the largest satellite of Neptune, has the most
spectrally diverse surface, with four different ices, i.e. N2, CH4, CO, CO2, identified to date
[79Cru][84Cru1][91Cru][93Cru][84Cru2] with N2 as the dominant surface constituent (Fig. 8). Solid N2
dominates the surface with most of the CH4 and probably CO incorporated as a solid solution. Additional
compounds, i.e. organic solids, may be within and be deposited on the icy surface.
The extreme seasonal cycle experienced by Triton may cause its surface layers and atmosphere to change
through sublimation and re-deposition of volatiles, as well as the alteration of the physical and
photometric (see Chapt. 4.2.3.6.1) characteristics of the ices.
In addition to ice(s) outer solar system satellites surfaces contain a varying amount of in the visible
light dark, mostly spectrally neutral component. Although the dark non-ice material is not fully identified
yet, it probably consists of pure carbon, complex organics of various kinds as found in carbonaceous
chondrite material [80Cru][81Cru][81Soi][84Bro][05Cla][07Cru] and other neutrally colored low albedo
materials probably of exogenic origin. Among the many low-albedo satellites, the most striking is Iapetus
with its hemispheric dark side centered on the apex of orbital motion, i.e. the leading hemisphere [85Bel].
A considerable amount of hydrated minerals has been identified on Europa which are associated with
lineaments and mottled chaotic terrains, a region of most recent disruption [98McC][99McC] (Fig. 10).
Thus, the hydrated minerals on Europa represent the only example of non-ice material on an outer planet
satellite surface possibly formed by endogenic processes, probably related to a briny ocean below the
surface.
Various minor compounds have also been discovered in the surface materials of almost all icy
satellites. They are apparently both indigenous and due to radiation processing. CO2 has been reported
first to exist on the Galilean satellites [96Car] [98McC] [00Hib] and more recently also on most of the
Saturnian satellites [05Cla] [05Bur] [08Cla]. CO2 has been found escaping from at least Callisto [99Car].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 8 Observed spectrum of Neptuns satellite Triton

compared to theoretically developed intimate mixtures of
relevant ices with 99.75% N2, 0.10% CO, 0.05% CH4, and
0.10% CO2. CO2 ice is either intimate mixed like the other
ice compounds (Model I) or spatially segregated (Model S).
For detailed information see [93Cru].
Fig. 10. Distribution of hydrated minerals on Europa [98McC] [99McC].
Other constituents were also reported from absorptions in the 3-5 m region in the Jovian system at least
for Ganymede and Callisto (SO2, S-H, CN, C-H) [98McC], and throughout the Saturnian system (CN,
C-H) [05Cla] [07Cru] [08Cla]. However, the near-complete coverage of the outer planets satellites
surface by water ice particles, which absorb strongly in this spectral region, allows little radiation to be
reflected, and thus signatures of minority minerals are easily hidden.
Nevertheless H2O2 was identified by its characteristic absorption at 3.5 m on all three icy Galilean
satellites [99Car] and on Enceladus [07New] and thought to be a product of radiolysis of water ice
[00Moo].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
An UV absorber concentrated on the trailing side of Europa [98Hen] could be attributed to sulfur
delivered to the surface from Io by the Jupiters magnetosphere. O3 produced and trapped in the H2O at
least on Ganymede, Dione, and Rhea was identified due to its absorption band at 0.26m [97Nol]. O2
was detected on Ganymede and may be present in the Saturnian system, but it has not been identified yet.
Thus the influence of Saturns magnetospheric particles on the composition of the Saturnian satellites
appear to be similar to that in the Jupiter system.
Table 8 Distribution of ices in the Solar System. NOTES: HC = hydrocarbon of unknown composition;
XCN = contribution from a chemical species with a C-N triple bond; SH = contribution from a chemical
species with an S-H single bond (adapted from [07Hud]).
Planetary object Ices

Earth H2O
Mars H2O, CO2
Jupiter
Io SO2, SO3, H2S?, H2O?
Europa H2O, SO2, SH, CO2, O2, HC, XCN, H2O2, H2SO4,
b SO2, SH,
H2O, l h CO
d 2, HC,l XCN,
h O2, O3, hydrated and
Ganymede
hydroxylated minerals
H2O, SO2, SH, CO2, HC, XCN, hydrated and
Callisto
hydroxylated minerals
Saturn
Mimas H2O
Enceladus H2O
Tethys H2O
Dione H2O, C, HC, O3
Rhea H2O, HC?, O3
Hyperion H2O, CO2, CN
Iapetus H2O, C, HC, CO2, CN, H2S?
Phoebe H2O, CO2, CN, CH
Titan H2O, C2(CN)2
Rings H2O, HC?
Uranus
Miranda H2O, NH3 (NH3 hydrate?), hydroxylated silicates
Ariel H2O, CO2, OH?
Umbriel H2O
Titania H2O, C, HC, OH?
Oberon H2O, C, HC, OH?
Neptune
Triton N2, CH4, CO, CO2, H2O
4.2.3.6.2.5 X-ray, -ray, neutron spectroscopy
The interaction of galactic cosmic rays, solar radiation, and the material of a celestial body generates
body generates secondary particles: x-rays, gamma-rays, and neutrons. Gamma ray and x-ray
spectroscopy has been used for determining the elemental composition of planetary surfaces [78Ree],
[85Sur] by remote sensing if an intervening thick atmosphere is not present. These methods make it
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
possible to determine the content of basic rock-forming (Fe, Ti, Mg, Al, Ca, Si and O) and natural
radioactive elements (Th, U, K) by measuring the characteristic gamma-ray line emissions of specific
element produced by either nuclear spallation (i.e. neutron inelastic scatter and thermal neutron capture)
or radioactive decay reactions, respectively. The secondary neutron field formed in the vicinity of
extraterrestrial bodies also carries information about the composition of the planetary regolith. The
neutron flux is determined to a large extent by H2O content and the concentrations of some elements that
have anomalous neutron characteristics. The content of H, C, Fe, and elements which have an
anomalously large absorption cross section of thermal neutrons e.g. Cl, B, and Li exert the dominating
influence on the spatial-energy distribution of neutrons.
This method requires a close spacecraft approach or a lander and therefore was applied especially to
Moon and Mars where detailed maps of the distribution and abundance of major elements are available.
Fig. 10 Accepted and rejected gamma-ray spectra summed

up over the entire mapping portion of the mission. Some of
the important lines for measuring surface composition are
labeled in the accepted spectra. These include the radioactive
elements K, U, and Th (1.46, 2.22, and 2.61 MeV); other
strong lines include Fe (0.846 and 7.64 MeV), Mg (1.38
MeV), Si (1.78 MeV), Al (2.22 MeV), O (4.44, 6.13, 6.92
MeV), and Ti (6.76 MeV) [04Law].
Table 9 Elemental composition of Mars [93Sur] and Moon [78Ree] measured using orbital gamma ray
spectroscopy. *Gamma rays were produced by the following processes: N - decay of natural activity, I
neutron inelastic scatter, C neutron capture.
Mars Moon Reaction
type*
Element Phobos 2 Mars 5 Viking Viking GRS AGRS
1 2
O 485 445 50.14.3 50.4 43.5 I
Mg 63 5.02.5 I
Al 52 52 3.00.9 11 I/C
Si 194 143 20.92.5 20 18.5- 20 I
21.5
K 0.30.1 0.30.1 0.25 0.25 1200g/g N
Ca 6 3 4.00.8 3.6 10 C
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Ti 10.5 0.510.2 0.61 1.4 C

Fe 93 144 12.72.0 14.2 9 C/I
Th (1.90.6)10- (2.10.5)10- 1.9g/g N
4 4
U (0.50.1)10- (0.60.1)10- 0.5g/g N
4 4
Fig. 11 Maps of the distribution of K and Th on Mars, as

measured by the Mars Odyssey gamma ray spectrometer.
Data have been smoothed using a 10 by 10 pixel boxcar
filter. The data are displayed over a shaded relief map of
Mars, with mission landing sites indicated: V1 and V2,
Viking 1 and 2; PF, Pathfinder; M, Opportunity in Meridiani
Planum; G, Spirit in Gusev Crater [06Tay].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig 12 Map of the distribution of Cl, Si, and Fe on Mars as

measured by the Mars Odyssey gamma ray spectrometer.
Data have been smoothed using a 10 by 10 pixel boxcar
filter. The mapped area encompasses only hat portion of
Mars in which H content does not dominate. The data are
displayed over a shaded relief map of Mars, with mission
landing sites indicated: V1 and V2, Viking 1 and 2; PF,
Pathfinder; M, Opportunity in Meridiani Planum; G, Spirit in
Gusev Crater. The black line represents the 0-km contour, a
reasonable separation between highlands and lowlands
[06Tay].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 10 Comparison of K, Th, and K/Th in Mars, Earth, asteroid Vesta, the Moon, and carbonaceous
chondrites
K [ppm] Th [ppm] K/Th References

Mars (Average Crust) 3300 0.62 5300 [06Tay]
Mars Bulk Silicate-WD 305 0.056 5450 [84Dre], [88Wn], [94Wn]
Mars Bulk Silicate-L 920 0.056 16,400 [97Lod]
Mars Bulk Silicate-MA 77 0.125 620 [79Mor]
Earth Continental Crust 11,000 4.2 2600 [85Tay]
Earth Bulk Silicate 230 0.079 2900 [85Tay], [79Jag], [95McD]
Vesta (HED meteorites) 420 0.40 1050 [98Kit], [93Mit]
Moon (high-K KREEP) 8000 22 360 [79War], [89War]
CI Chondrites 550 0.029 19,000 [95McD]
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 13 Thermal, epithermal, and fast neutron CO2 frost-free

maps of Mars. Data north of the northern white dashed wavy
line were measured after the northern summer solstice (100
< Ls < 151), and data south of the southern dashed wavy line
were measured during the late summer in the south (329 <
Ls < 1.7). The 0-km elevation contour (black line) is
included for reference. The solid white lines separate the
poleward regions having water abundances larger than about
11% by mass from those at near equatorial latitudes that
have abundances that are less than 11% [02Fel].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.6.2.6. References
53Joh Johnson, H.L., and Morgan, W.W.: Astrophysical Journal (1953) 117, 313.
60Sin Sinton, W.H., Strong, J.: Astrophys. J. 131 (1960), 459.
61Har Harris, D.L.: In: Kuiper, G.P., Middlehurst, B.M., editors, Photometry and colorimetry of
planets and satellites, Planets and Satellites. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961, 272-
342.
70Bur Burns, R.: Mineralogical Applications of Crystal Field Theory, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1970, 224.
71Neu Neugebauer, G., et al.: Astron. J. 76 (1971) 719.
72Han Hanel, R., et al.: Icarus 17 (1972) 428.
73Lan Lane, A.P., Irvine, W.M.: Astron. J. 78 (1973) 267.
75Ada Adams, J.B.: In: Infrared and Raman Spectroscopy of Lunar and Terrestrial Minerals,
Academic Press, New York, 94-116, 1975.
75Str Strom, R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 80 (1975) 2478.
76Ast Astronomical Quantities, third edition, Uni. of London (1976), 144.
76Fin Fink, U. et al.: Astrophysical Journal 207 (1976), L63.
76Zel Zellner, B., Gradie, J.: Icarus 81 (1976) 262.
77Mor Morrison, D.: In: Burns, J.A., editor, Planetary Satellites, Uni. of Arizona Press, Tucson,
1977, 269 - 301.
78Bow Bowell, E., et al.: Icarus 35 (1978) 313.
78Cam Campbell, D.B., et al.: Icarus 134 (1978), 292.
78Nel Nelson, R.M., Hapke, B.W.: Icarus 36 (1978) 304.
78Ree Reedy, R. C., Planetary gamma-ray spectroscopy, Proc. LunarPlanet. Sci. Conf. 9th (1978),
2961.
79Bow Bowell, E., Lumme, K.: In: T. Gehrels, editor, Asteroids, Uni. of Arizona Press, Tucson,
132 169, 1979.
79Cru Cruikshank, D.P.: Icarus 41 (1980) 246.
79Cru Cruikshank, D. P., Silvaggio, P. M.: Astrophys. J. 233 (1979) 1016.
79Jag Jagoutz, E., et al.: The abundances of major, minor, and trace elements in the Earths mantle
as derived from primitive ultramafic nodules, Proc. Lunar Planet. Sci. Conf., 10th, (1979),
2031.
79Kie Kieffer, H.H.: J. Geophys. Res. 84 (1979) 8263.
79Mor Morgan, J. W., Anders, E: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43 (1979) 1601.
79Sei Seiff, A., et al.: Science 205 (1979) 46.
79War Warren, P. H., Wasson, J. T.: Rev. Geophys. 17 (1989) 73.
79Zel Asteroid taxonomy and the distribution of compositional types, in: Asteroids (T. Gehrels,
Ed.) Uni. of Arizona Press, Tucson (1979), 783 806.
80Cam Campbell, D.B., Burns, B.A.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1980) 15003.
80Cru Cruikshank, D.P.: Icarus 41 (1980) 246.
80Deg Degewij, J, et al.: Icarus 44 (1980) 520.
80McF McFadden, L.A., et al.: Icarus 44 (1980) 410.
81Cru Cruikshank D. P., Brown: Icarus 45 (1981) 607.
81Hap Hapke, B.W.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 (1981) 3039.
81Lum Lumme, K., Bowell, E.: Astron. J. 86 (1981) 1694.
76Ast Astronomical Quantities, third edition, Uni. of London (1976), 144.
81Soi Soiffer, B. T., et al.: Icarus 45 (1981) 612.
82Bro Brown, R.H.: The satellites of Uranus spectrophotometric and radiometric studies of their
surface properties and diameters. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu (1982).
82Fan Fanale, F. P., et al.: In: D. Morrison, editor, Satellites of Jupiter, Univ. of Arizona Press,
Tucson, 1982, 756781.
82Han Hanel, R., et al.: Science 233 (1982) 544.
82Ost Ostro, S.J.: In: D. Morrison, editor, Satellites of Jupiter (1982), 213-236.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
84Bro Brown, R. H., Clark, R. N.: Icarus 58 (1984) 288.

84Cru1 Cruikshank D. P., et al.: Icarus 58 (1984) 293.
84Cru2 Cruikshank D. P., Apt, J.: Icarus 56 (1984) 306.
84deP de Pater, I., et al.: Icarus 57 (1984) 93.
84Dre Dreibus, G., and Wnke, H.: Accretion of the Earth and the inner planets, Proc. Int. Geol.
Conf. (1984) 27th (11), 1 20.
85Bel Bell, J. F., et al.: Icarus 61 (1985) 192.
85Bur Buratti, B. J.: Icarus 61 (1985) 208.
85Gad Gaddis, L.R., et al.: Icarus 61 (1985) 461.
85Sur Surkov Y. A., et al.: Astronom. Vestnik 19 (1985) 275 (in Russian).
85Tay Taylor, S. R., and McLennan, S. M.: The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution,
Blackwell Sci., Malden, Mass (1985), 312.
86Cla Clark, R.N., et al.: In: Satellites, edited by J. Burns and M.S. Matthews, Univ. of Arizona
Press (1986), Tucson, 461-486.
86Han Hanel, R. et al.: Science 233 (1986) 70.
86Nel Nelson, R. M., Smythe, W. D.: Icarus 66 (1986) 181.
86Pie Pieters, C.M.: Rev. Geophys. 924 (1986) 557.
86Sim Simonelli, D.P., Veverka, J.: Icarus 68 (1986) 503.
86Vev Veverka, J., et al.: In: Burns, J., Matthews, M.S., editors, Satellites, Univ. of Ariz. Press,
Tucson (1986), 342-402.
86Vil Vilas, F., et al.: Icarus 59 (1984) 60.
87Cru Cruikshank, D. P.: Adv. SpaceRes. 7(5) (1987) 109.
87Hel Helfenstein, P., Veverka, J.: Icarus 72 (1987) 342.
87Spe Spencer, J.R.: Icarus 70 (1987) 99.
87Tho Thompson, T.W.: Earth Moon Planets 37 (1987) 59.
88Bur Buratti, B.J., et al.: Nature 333 (1988a) 148.
88Cla Clark, P.E., et al.: In: Vilas F., et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson,
1988, 77-100.
88Hel Helfenstein, P., et al.: Icarus, 74 (1988) 231.
88Vev Veverka, J., et al.: In: Vilas, F., et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson, 1988,
37-58.
88Vil Vilas, F.: In: Vilas, F., et al., editors, Mercury, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1988, pp.
5976.
88Wn Wnke, H., Dreibus, G.: Chemical composition and accretion history of the terrestrial
planets, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London (1988), Ser. A, 325, 545 557.
89Con Conrath, B., et al.: Science 246 (1989) 1454.
89Nas Nash, D.B., Howel, R.R.: Science 244 (1989) 454.
89Ver Verbiscer, A.J., Veverka, J.: Icarus 82 (1989) 336.
89War Warren, P. H. (1989), KREEP: Major element diversity, trace-element uniformity (almost),
in Workshop on Moon in Transition: Apollo 14, KREEP, and Evolved Lunar Rocks, edited
by G. J. Taylor and P. H. Warren, Tech. Rep. Lunar and Planet. Inst., Houston, Tex. (1989)
89 03, 149153.
90Bur1 Buratti. B.J., et al.: Icarus 84 (1990) 203.
90Bur2 Buratti, B. J., et al.: Icarus 87 (1990) 339.
90Hil Hillier, J., et al.: Science, 250 (1990) 419.
90Muh Muhleman, D.O., et al.: Science 248 (1990) 975.
90Pol Pollack, J.B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (B9) (1990) 14595-627.
90Sal Salama, F., et al.: Icarus 83 (1990) 66.
91Bur Buratti, B.J.: Icarus, 92 (1991) 312.
91Cru Cruikshank D. P., Allamandolat, L. J.: Icarus 9 (1991) 345.
91Dom Domingue, D.L., et al.: Icarus, 90 (1991) 30.
91Mos Moses J.I., Nash, D.B.: Icarus 89 (1991) 277.
92Har1 Harmon, J.K., Slade, M.A.: Science 258 (1992) 640.
92Har2 Harmon, J.K.,et al.: Icarus 98 (1992) 240.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
92Ost Ostro, S.J., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992) 18227.

92Sla Slade, M.A., et al.: Science 258 (1992), 635.
93Ast Astronomical Almanac, http://asa.usno.navy.mil/SecF/2008/Satellite_photo_data.txt, U.S.
Nautical Observatory, Publication Washington (1993).
93Bur Burns, R.G.: In: Pieters, C.M., Englert, A.J. (Eds.), Remote Geochemical Analysis:
Elemental and Mineralogical Composition. Cambridge Univ. Press (1993), Cambridge, 3
29.
93But Butler, B.J., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 98 (1993) 15003.
93Cru Brown, R. H., Clark, R. N.: Icarus 58 (1984) 288.
93Hil Hillier, J.: Voyager Photometry of Triton, PhD. Thesis, Cornell University (1993).
93Mit Mittelfeldt, D., Lindstrom, M.: Proc. Natl. Inst. Polar Res. Symp. Antarct. Meteorites 6
(1993) 268.
93Sal Salisbury, J.W.: In: C. M. Pieters, P.A.J. Englert, editors, Remote Geochemical Analysis:
Elemental and Mineralogical Composition, Cambridge University Press (1993), Cambridge,
79-98.
93Van Vane, G., et al.: In: C. M. Pieters, and P.A.J. Englert (Eds.) Remote Geochemical Analysis:
Elemental and Mineralogical Composition, Cambridge University Press (1993), Cambridge,
121-143.
94Kar Karkoschka, E.: Icarus 111 (1994) 174.
94Spr Sprague, A.L., et al.: Icarus 109 (1994) 156.
94Wn Wnke, H., Dreibus, G.: Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 349 (1994), 285.
95Bur Buratti, B.J.: JGR 100 E9 (1995) 19061.
95Kha Khana, R.K., et al.: Icarus 115 (1995) 250.
95McD McDonough, W. F., Sun, S.-s.: Chem. Geol. 120 (1995) 223.
95Spe Spencer, J.R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 100 (1995) 19049.
96Car Carlson, R., et al.: Science 274 (1996) 385.
96Mur Murchie, S., Erard, S.: Icarus 123 (1996) 63.
96Ort Orton, G.S., et al.: Science 274 (1996) 389.
97Ble Blewett, D.T., et al.: Icarus 129 (1997) 217.
97Cam Campbell, B.A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 102 (1997) 19,307.
97Car Carlson, R. W., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 24 (1997) 2479.
97Dom Domingue, D., Verbiscer A.: Icarus 128 (1997) 49.
97Lod Lodders, K., Fegley Jr., B.: Icarus 126 (1997) 373.
97Nol Noll, K. S., et al.: Nature 388 (1997) 45.
97Vid Vidal, R. A., et al.: Science 276 (1997) 1839.
98Eme Emery, J.P., et al.: Icarus 136 (1998) 104.
98Hen Hendrix, A. R., et al.: Icarus 135 (1998) 79.
98Kit Kitts, K., Lodders, K.: Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 33 (1998) A197.
98McC McCord, T. B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 8603.
98Nas Nash, D. B., Betts, B. H.: In: B. Schmitt, C. De Bergh, and M. Festou (Eds.) Solar System
Ices, Astrophys. Space Sci. Lib., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1998), 607637.
98Sim Simonelli, D. P., et al.: Icarus 131 (1998) 52.
98Spr Sprague, A.L., Roush, T.L.: Icarus 133 (1998) 174.
99Car Carlson, R. W., et al.: Science 283 (1999) 2062.
99Har Hartmann, W.K., Moons & Planets, Fourth Edition, Wadsworth Publishing Company
(1999), 428.
99McC McCord, T.B., et al.: JGR 104 E5 (1999) 11827.
99Vas Vasavada, A.R., et al.: Icarus 141 (1999) 179.
00Hib Hibbits, C.A., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 22541.
00Kie Kieffer, H.H., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 (2000) 9653.
00Mar Digital elevation models of the Moon from Earth-based radar interferometry. IEEE Geosci.
Rem. Sens. 38 (2000) 1122.
00Mil Mills, F. P., Brown, M. E.: J. Geophys. Res. 105 E6 (2000) 15051.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
00Moo Moore, M. H., Hudson, R. L.:Icarus 145 (2000) 282.

01Bla Black, G.J., et al.: Icarus 151 (2001) 160.
01Coo Cooper, B., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (12) (2001) 32803.
01Dou Dout, S., et al.: Icarus 149 (2001) 107.
01Kie Kieffer, H.H., Titus, T.N.: Icarus 154 (2001) 162.
02Ban Bandfield, J. L., et al.: Science 287 (2000) 1626.
02Fel Feldman, W. C., et al.: Science 297 (2002) 75.
02Spr Sprague, A.L., et al.: Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 37 (2002) 1255.
02War Warell, J.: Icarus 156 (2002) 303.
03Gad Gaddis, L.R., et al.: Compositional analyses of lunar pyroclastic deposits. Icarus 161 (2003)
262.
03Sch Schmitt B., Rodriguez S.: JGR 108 E9 (2003) 5104.
04Spe Spencer, J.R., et al.: In: Jupiter The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere (F. Bagenal, T.
Dowling, W. McKinnon, Eds.), Cambridge Uni. Press, Cambridge (2004), 689 - 699.
04Law Lawrence, D. J., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) E07S05.
04Moo Moore, J.M., et al.: Callisto, Jupiter The Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere (Ed. F.
Bagenal, T. E. Dowling, W. B. McKinnon), Cambridge Univ. Press (2004), 397-426.
05Bib Bibring, J.P., et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1576.
05Bur Buratti, B. J., et al.: Astrophys. J 622 (2005) L149.
05Chr Christensen, P.R., et al.: Nature (2005) 436, doi:10.1038/nature03639.
05Cla Clark, R.N., et al.: Nature (2005).
05Fla Flaser, F.M. et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1247.
05Gen Gendrin, A., et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1587.
05Ghe Ghent, R.R., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. (2005) 110, doi: 10.1029/2004JE002366.
05Cam Campbell, B.A., Hawke, B.R.: J. Geophys. Res. (2005), doi:10.1029/2005JE002425.
05Lan1 Langevin, Y., et al.: Science 307 (2005a) 1581.
05Lan2 Langevin, Y., et al.: Science 307 (2005b) 1584.
05Mus Mustard, J.F., et al.: Science 307 (2005) 1594.
05Pou Poulet, F., et al.: Nature 438 (2005) 623.
05Yen Yen, A. S., et al.: Nature 436 (2005) 49.
06Cam Campbell, B.A., Campbell, D.A.: Icarus 180 (2006) 1.
06Gru W.M. Grundy, et al.: Icarus 184 (2006) 543.
06Har Harmon, J.K., et al.: Icarus (2006) 187 374.
06Jac Jacobson, R. A.: JPL Solar System Dynamics, http://ssd/jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_elem (2006).
06Nic Nicholson, P. D.: In: The Observer's Handbook 2006, Rajiv Gupta (Eds.), University of
Toronto Press, Toronto (2005), 20-26.
06Ost Ostro, S.J., et al.: Icarus 183 (2006), 479.
06She Sheppard, S. S., at "The Giant Planet Satellite Page", http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~sheppard
/satellites/ (2006).
06Spe Spencer, J.R., et al.: Science (2006) 311, 5766, 1401-1405.
06Tay Taylor, G. J., et al.: J. of Geophys. Res. (2006) 111, E03S10; 2006 [printed 112(E3), 2007].
06War Warell, J., et al.: Icarus 180 (2006) 281.
07Bla Black, G.J., et al.: Icarus 191 (2007) 702.
07Bus Busch, M.W., et al.: Icarus 186 (2007) 581.
07Cru Cruikshank, D. P., et al.: Icarus (2007), doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.04.036.
07For F., Forget, F., et al.: JGR 112 (2007), 1, E08S12.
07Hud Hudson 2007 The Cosmic Ice Laboratory http://www-691.gsfc.nasa.gov/cosmic.ice.lab/
07Lan Langevin, Y., et al.: JGR 112 (2007) 1, E08S12.
07Mit Mitri, G.: Icarus 186 (2007) 385.
07New Newman, S. F., et al.: The Astrophysical Journal 670 (2007) L143.
07Pel Pelkey, S.M., et al.: JGR 112 (2007) 1, E08S14.
07Wye Wye, L.C., et al.: Icarus 188 (2007) 367.
08Cla Clark, R.N., et al.: Icarus 193 (2008) 372.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.3.6 Atmospheres of the Planets and Satellites
John Lee Grenfell

Center of Astrophysics, Technical University Berlin
4.2.3.6.1 Exospheres of small planets and satellites
Mercury - the extremely tenuous atmosphere features a collisionless exosphere down to the surface. Studying
such atmospheres improves understanding of atmospheric escape processes hence atmospheric evolution in
general. First evidence of an atmosphere on Mercury was provided in 1974 by Mariner 10 [76Bro]. That study
suggested a total number density of <106 molecules cm-3 and subsolar concentrations of helium (=4500cm-
3), atomic hydrogen (=8 cm-3) (thermal component) and atomic oxygen (=7000cm-3) [76Bro]. More recently
[87Pot] Earth-based measurements suggested that sodium is an important atmospheric constituent. The
daytime column abundance of Mercury's atmosphere is summarised in Table 1:
Table 1 Daytime atmospheric column composition on Mercury

Species Column Ref.
[atoms cm-2]
He ~31011 81Gol
Na (12)1011 87Pot
K 109 95Smy
Ca 1.31011 00Bid, 05Kil
Ar (0.51.2)109* 02Kil
*) estimate based on an assumed diffusion coefficient, D=10-15 cm2 s-1 through the crust.
Mercury's atmosphere is continuously replaced by the solar wind [88Hun], vaporisation [93Kil], ion
sputtering and degassing from the regolith [95Smy]. Erosion occurs via e.g. photoionisation and Jeans escape
[97Mor]. Atmospheric constituents can vary strongly e.g. over a diurnal cycle, maybe due to magnetic storms
or changes in degassing which are not well understood [95Smy]. The atmosphere flows from day to night,
driven mainly by solar radiation pressure [95Smy].
Moon - the Apollo missions first established a tenuous lunar atmosphere in the early 1970s. Like on Mercury,
the Moon features a collisionless exosphere down to the surface. Major atmospheric constituents are helium
(from the solar wind) and argon [99Ste]. Apollo 17 data suggested diurnal cycles for argon (peaking in the
day) and helium (peaking at night) [75Hod; 99Ste]. The presence of ice was suggested by radiowave
measurements [97Sta] although atmospheric detections of water and its products are unconfirmed [99Ste]. As
on Mercury, sodium and potassium are present but are about 100 times lower, possibly due to weaker surface
sources [02Kil]. Column sodium values increase from pole to equator by a factor of about 7. A layer of
suspended dust particles were observed to form 10 to 30cm above the lunar surface which persisted several
hours after sunset [74Ren] . These particles may be electrostatically levitated, since the surface is highly
resistive [76Ber]. Unconfirmed mass spectrum data from Apollo provided fascinating hints for molecular
species such as O2, CH4, CO, NO and N2O although only upper limits of about 103cm-3 could be established.
Ref. p. xxx] 234
4.2.3.6.2 Venus
Understanding Venus extreme atmosphere helps to improve climate models of the Earth. Also, investigating
atmospheric chlorine chemistry [87Pri] on Venus helped to shed light on the Earths ozone hole phenomenon.
Venus surface pressure and temperature are 93 bar [83Sei] and 735 K [83Sei] respectively and the planet is
shrouded in thick clouds of sulphuric acid [e.g. 98Lod]. The atmospheric composition is summarised in Table
2:
Table 2 Atmospheric composition of Venus

Species Concentration Altitude Ref.
volume mixing ratio Km
CO2 (0.9650.008) Isoprofile 83Zah
N2 (0.0350.008) Isoprofile 83Zah
H2O 2 . 10-5 0 83Zah
>2 . 10-6 0 07Sve
(615) . 10-5 (2242) 83Zah
(40.5) . 10-5 35 07Sve
HDO 1 . 10-7 Cloud top (~65km) 07Sve
CO (1.70.1) . 10-6 0 83Zah
4.2 . 10-5 36 90Bez
(2.30.5) . 10-5 36 93Pol
(31.8) . 10-5 42 83Zah
(4.51) . 10-5 Cloud top 83Zah
O2 <3 . 10-7 Cloud top 83Tra
3 . 10-6 Cloud top 90Mil
HCl >6.0 . 10-8 (2030) 07Sve
6 . 10-7 Cloud top 67Con
(1.52) . 10-7 Cloud top 07Sve
HF 5 . 10-9 Cloud top 67Con
2.5 . 10-9 80 07Sve
COS 2.5 . 10-7 <50 90Bez
4 . 10-7 35 07Sve
SO (21) . 10-8 Cloud top 90Na
SO2 (2.50.5) . 10-5 10 96Ber
SO2 2 . 10-4 35 07Sve
SO2 (5100) . 10-9 Above cloud 93Zas
Xe 1.9 . 10-9 83Zah
He 1.2 . 10-5 83Zah
Kr 2.5 . 10-8 83Zah
Incoming UV is absorbed strongly in the atmosphere but the identity of the absorber (from 200 to 320nm)
is still debated. Suggested candidates include S2O [97Na] and polysulphur [99Yun]. Above the clouds at
about 65km the main constituent (CO2) in the stratosphere is controlled by minor species such as chlorine-,
hydrogen-, and sulphur-oxides which affect CO2 via catalytic cycles [99Yun]. The cycles play an important
role converting the products of CO2 photolysis (i.e. CO+O) back into CO2. [07Mil] review Venusian catalytic
cycle chemistry, pointing out that many photochemical models under-estimate the catalytic oxidation of
CO+O back into CO2 and therefore over-estimate observed O2 (formed from O).
Below the clouds observations are much more challenging. Spectral windows have however been
discovered [84All]. High pressure and temperatures in the troposphere favour chemical equilibrium
conditions. A cycle in sulphur occurs in which reduced sulphur compounds emitted at the surface are
transported upwards where they are oxidised in the upper troposphere into e.g. sulphuric acid, which is a
major cloud constituent. Some estimation of OCS, HCl, HF below clouds have been derived from remote
sensing [90Bez]. At the surface, mineral chemistry involving pyrite and carbonate [99Yun] lead to the
decomposition of sulphuric acid and the conversion of CO into COS. Modelling studies [07Kra] successfully
reproduced e.g. observed CO and COS from Pioneer and Venera 12 data although kinetic data to constrain the
models are rather lacking.
Large-scale atmospheric dynamics on Venus features cyclostrophic flow which exhibits so-called
superrotation. Here, equatorial zonal winds can exceed 100 ms-1 - about sixty times faster than the rotation of
the planet. 3D models often underestimate superrotation since they fail to transfer sufficient angular
momentum from the surface up to the cloud deck. This shortcoming may be associated with excessive vertical
mixing in the models [93Gen]. Clearer identification of the mechanism(s) which bring about the momentum
transfer is desirable. Superrotation on Venus is reviewed by [97Gie].
Thick clouds enshroud the atmosphere. Cloud droplets are about 2 to 4 microns in radius and are
composed mainly of sulphuric acid and water mixtures [81Kra]. Cloud optical depth on Venus can reach
values of up to 100, about ten times thicker than on Earth. The thick cloud blanket may play a central role in
regulating Venus' climate [01Bul].
X-rays from Venus have been detected with the Chandra satellite [02Den]. They are mainly caused by
solar X-rays, which are scattered in the upper Venus atmosphere at heights around 120 to 140km
[01Cra,02Den]. Moreover, evidence was found of an additional source of X-rays, resulting from charge
exchange interactions between highly charged solar wind ions and atoms in the Venus exosphere
[07Gun,08Den].
The Venus Express Mission has studied e.g. escape of ions through the plasma wake [07Bar], has
investigated the dipole vortex structure at high latitudes [07Sve] and has delivered the first reported detection
of the atmospheric radical, hydroxyl (OH) [08Pic], important for constraining the catalytic cycles in the
stratosphere. The existence of lightning [07Rus] has been confirmed with global flash rates of about half that
on Earth.
4.2.3.6.3 Mars
Concentrations of important Martian species are summarised in Table 3:
Table 3 Atmospheric composition of Mars

Species Concentration Ref.
Volume mixing ratio
CO2 0.9532 77Owe
N2 0.027 77Owe
40
Ar 0.016 77Owe
O2 1.3. 10-3 77Owe
CO 7 . 10-4 77Owe
H2O .
3 10-4 (variable) 79Far
H2 1.7 . 10-5 01Kra
HD 1.2 . 10-8 06Kra
O3 3 . 10-8 74Bar
H 2O 2 (1.800.4) . 10-8 04Cla
3.2 . 10-8 04Enc
CH4 1 . 10-8 04For
Ne 2.5 . 10-6 77Owe
Kr 3.0 . 10-7 77Owe
Xe 8.0 . 10-8 77Owe
He 1 . 10-5 94Kra
Like on Venus, Mars' atmosphere is dominated by CO2 and features catalytic cycles which maintain CO2
Ref. p. xxx] 236
by reforming it from its photolysis products. The main cycles involve hydrogen-oxides and nitrogen-oxides
[99Yun]. Photochemical model studies noted that the effect of the cycles may be over-estimated because the
models over-estimate hydrogen oxides [94Nai; 06Kra]. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [04Enc] is a potentially
important oxidiser of the surface, which tends to remove organic molecules and may regulate the HOx cycles
by storing HOx at night. Ozone is rapidly destroyed by HOx hence constitutes an important tracer of HOx
chemistry. [06Fas] discussed global ozone measurements; [04Lef] modelled 3D ozone responses. The recent
methane detection [04For] has generated much discussion regarding its possible source (e.g. volcanic,
exogenous, hydrogeochemical, biological) discussed e.g. in [07Atr].
Atmospheric dynamics features a global Hadley cell whose structure may depend on orography [02Ric].
Martian GCMs [e.g. 99For] with improved surface physics and atmospheric waves can more accurately
simulate this Hadley cell. A strong vortex develops in high latitudes in winter as discussed e.g. in [01Leo].
Clouds composed of water-ice and/or mixed water-CO2 can form e.g. via heterogeneous nucleation on dust
and which influence the water cycle and climate.
X-rays from Mars have been detected with the satellites Chandra [02Den] and XMM-Newton [06Den1].
They are the result of two processes: scattering of solar X-rays in the upper Mars atmosphere at heights of
around 100 to140km [01Cra,02Den] and charge exchange interactions between highly charged
solar wind ions and atoms in the Mars exosphere [00Kra,01Hol,02Den,05Gun,06Den1]. Due to the low
gravity of Mars, its exosphere has a considerable size and provides a large interaction region, extending
outwards to several planetary radii. With XMM-Newton it was possible to trace the exospheric X-ray
emission out to ~8 Mars radii, proceeding into exospheric regions far beyond those that have been
observationally explored to-date. The X-ray emission appeared particularly pronounced at a few Mars radii
above both poles, implying that the solar wind and/or exospheric density was enhanced there [06Den1]. X-ray
observations open up a novel possibility to apply remote global imaging of planetary exospheres and to
record spatial and temporal variability. A review of the X-ray properties of Mars is provided by [06Den2].
4.2.3.6.4 Galilean Satellites
Io - Voyager measurements [79Pea] confirmed a weak, variable atmosphere on Io consisting mainly of SO2
formed by volcanic activity. Surface temperatures vary from 300K near volcanoes where SO2 is more
plentiful and pressure reaches 10-7 bar, to below 90K on the night side or in polar regions, where SO2 is frozen
out and pressure drops to below 10-12 bar [99Yun]. Hubble Space Telescope (HST) measurements [04Fea]
suggested atomic chlorine with an abundance of about an order of magnitude less than sulphur.
Europa a weak surface pressure of ~10-11 bar, and temperature of 50-110K was first confirmed when
[95Hal] spectroscopically detected atomic oxygen (O) using the HST. The O is likely produced from
dissociation of water vapour formed when water ice is released from the surface by dust particles or/and
interaction with Jupiter's strong magnetic field. [96Bro] subsequently detected sodium in Europa's
atmosphere, present with a total mass of about 300 times less than atmospheric oxygen, with a tail extending
to about twenty-five times Europas radius.
Ganymede the atmosphere is very thin with a surface pressure of <210-11 bar [81Bro] at the surface. HST
measurements [98Hal] suggested an O2 column of (110)1014 cm-2. [96Nol] reported the spectroscopic
detection of ozone.
Callisto the first confirmation of a tenuous CO2 atmosphere with a surface pressure of 7.510-12 bar and
surface temperature of about 150K was first confirmed by the Galileo flyby [99Car].
X-Rays on Galilean Satellites these have been detected on Io, Europa, possibly Ganymede, and from the Io
Plasma Torus (IPT). X-rays from the Galilean satellites are attributed to bombardment by energetic ions
arising in the region of the IPT and thereabouts, whereas bremsstrahlung from nonthermal electrons may
account for a substantial fraction of the observed X-ray flux from the IPT itself [02Els,05Els].
4.2.3.6.5 Titan
Titan's thick atmosphere (surface pressure = 1.5 bar) is believed to resemble that of the prebiotic Earth hence
may provide clues about the origin of life. The two major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen and methane
react in the presence of ultraviolet radiation and cosmic rays to form a complex mixture of higher chain
hydrocarbons and nitriles some of which can condense to form a thick aerosol blanket which enshrouds the
moon. The composition of Titan's atmosphere was first unravelled by Voyager in the 1980s and then more
recently since 2004 by the Cassini/Huygens mission. Aerosol and clouds on Titan have been studied recently
by Cassini [e.g. Kok07]. Table 4 summarises the main atmospheric constituents (up to and including C2):
Table 4 Atmospheric composition (up to C2) of Titan

Species Concentration Ref.
volume mixing ratio
N2 0.98 (surface) 05Nie
CH4 4.9 . 10-2 (surface) 05Nie
(1.6 . 10-2 0.5) 05Fla
(stratosphere)
H2 (9.62.4) . 10-4 07Cou1
(troposphere)
CO 3.2 . 10-5 (troposphere) 05Lop
6 . 10-5 (stratosphere) 05Lop
(4.51.5) . 10-5 05Fla
(stratosphere)
CO2 (1.50.4) . 10-8 07Cou2
(stratosphere)
4.3 . 10-5 (lower
40
Ar 05Nie
atmosphere)
C2H6 (8.82.2) . 10-6 02Liv
(stratosphere)
(1.30.3) . 10-5 07Cou2
(lower latitudes,
stratosphere)
HCN 4 . 10-7 (stratosphere) 93Cou
(5.71.2) . 10-8 07Cou2
(equator, stratosphere)
(5.71.2) . 10-7 07Cou2
(70oN, stratosphere)
C2H2 (3.70.8) . 10-6 07Cou2
C2H4 .
1.2 10-7 (disk average) 03Cou
(1.650.6) . 10-7 07Cou2
(equator, stratosphere)
(1.20.7) . 10-7 07Cou2
(70oN, stratosphere)
The lack of noble gases measured by Cassini [05Nie] suggests that Titans thick nitrogen atmosphere did
not form mainly from planetesimals but was delivered mainly in other forms such as ammonia. Carbon
isotope ratios are consistent with geological, abiotic sources. The changing face of Titan's disk albedo (Titans
smile) may imply a seasonal variation in the atmospheric aerosol [92Cal]. [07Cou2] noted meridional
enhancements (based on Cassini data) for some species (e.g. HCN) in the northern hemisphere, which were
mostly absent (i.e. little variation with latitude) in the southern hemisphere.
Titans dynamics feature a slow, meridional circulation [02Sam] from equator to pole with a poorly-
understood equatorial superrotation. Cassini temperature measurements [05Fla] implied a surface temperature
of around 94K (similar to that observed by Voyager) and a 70K tropopause at 50km. Zonal winds peak in
mid-latitudes at about 160 ms-1 which may inhibit chemical mixing.
Chandra observed Titan in X-rays when the moon was silhouetted against the diffuse X-ray emission of
the Crab nebula [04Mor].
Ref. p. xxx] 238
4.2.3.6.6 Pluto Charon and Triton
Pluto-Charon - the Pluto-Charon system may have formed from a giant impact event which has parallels
with the Earth-Moon formation theory [05Can]. Knowledge of Plutos atmosphere has increased drastically
since 1985 due to lightcurve data from successive eclipses of Pluto with Charon [90Tho] as well as stellar
occultation events [89Ell; 03Sic; 07Per]. Pluto features a tenuous nitrogen-dominated atmosphere with
surface pressure in the range 0.1 to 1.0 bar [99Yun, 07Stro], surface temperatures of 40-60K and an
isothermal upper atmosphere of 95-100K [03Sic]. Atmospheric composition is summarised in Table 5:
Table 5 Plutos atmospheric composition [93Owe]*

Species Concentration
(vmr)
N2 0.98
CH4 1.5 . 10-2
CO 5 . 10-3
CO2 <7 . 10-4
*) atmospheric composition inferred from spectral measurements of surface ices
Atmospheric pressure appears to have doubled from 1988 to 2002 [05Pas] possibly due to sublimation of
nitrogen ice after the southern polar cap entered into sunlight [03Sic]. Modelling studies [97Lar], [[99Kra]
have suggested photochemical sources of non-methane hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. [92Ell] suggested
atmospheric haze particles in the atmosphere based on changes in lightcurve slope, although [90Hub]
suggested this could arise from a steep thermal gradient near the surface. Plutos may be the only atmosphere
in the solar system which is currently undergoing hydrodynamic escape [07Stro].
Triton - The Voyager spacecraft investigated the atmosphere of Neptunes largest moon, Triton during its
1989 flyby, suggesting a cold, nitrogen dominated atmosphere which exists at vapour pressure equilibrium
with the surface. The atmosphere features a surface temperature of 38K [89Con] and a mean surface pressure
of 19 bar [00Ell] although the latter may vary strongly with season and location [95Yel]. [00Ell] suggested a
possible unidentified cooling mechanism to account for the cold surface. Parallels are suspected to exist
between the photochemistry of Triton and that of Titan [99Yun] except the colder temperatures on Triton
imply that organic aerosols would condense more readily. Tritons ionosphere features an unusually high
electron density (>104 cm-3) [99Yun].
4.2.3.6.7. References
67Con Connes, P., et al.: Ap. J. 147 (1967) 1230.

74Bar Barth, C.A.: Ann. Rev. Earth Pla. Sci. 2 (1974) 333.
74Ren Rennilson, J.J., Criswell, D.R.: Moon 10 (1974) 121.
75Hod Hodges, R.R., Jr.: Moon 14 (1975) 139.
76Ber Berg, O.E., Wolf, H., Rhee, J.: Interplan. Dust. Zod. Light, Springer Verlag, New York, 1976.
76Bro Broadfoot, A.L., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 3 (1976) 577.
77Owe Owen, T., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 82 (1977) 4635.
79Far Farmer, C.B., Doms, P.E.: J. Geophys. Res. 84 (1979) 2881.
79Pea Pearl, J.C., et al.: Nature 280 (1979) 755.
81Bro Broadwood, A.L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 A10 (1981) 8259.
81Gol Goldstein, B.E., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 (1981) 5485.
81Kra Krasnopolsky, V.A., Parshev, V.A.: Nature 292 (1981) 610.
83Sei Seiff, A.: Venus, Tucson Uni. Press (1983) 1045.
83Tra Trauger, J.T., Lunine, J.I.: Icarus 55 (1983) 272.
83Zah von Zahn, U., et al.: Venus, Uni. Arizona Press, 1983, 299.
84All Allen, D.A., Crawford, J.W.: Nature 307 (1984) 222.
87Pot Potter, A.E., Morgan, T.H.: Icarus 71 (1987) 472.
87Pri Prinn, R., Fegley, B.: Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 15 (1987) 171.
88Hun Hunten, D.M., et al.: Mercury, Uni. Arizona Press, 1988.
89Con Conrath, B., et al.: Science 246 (1989) 1454.
89Ell Elliot, J.L., et al.: Icarus 77 (1989) 148.
90Bez Bezard, B., et al.: Nature 345 (1990) 508.
90Hub Hubbard, W.B., et al.: Icarus 84 (1990) 1.
90Mil Mills, F.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 E12 (1990) 30757.
90Na Na, C.Y., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 D6 (1990) 7485.
90Tho Tholen, D.J., Buie, M.W.: Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 22 (1990) 1129.
92Cal Caldwell, J.D., et al.: Icarus 103 (1992) 1.
92Ell Elliot, J.L., Young, L.A.: Astron. J. 103 (1992) 991.
93Cou Coustenis, A., et al.: Icarus 102 (1993) 240.
93Gen Del Genio, A.D., et al.: Icarus 101 (1993) 1.
93Kil Killen, R.M., Morgan, T.M.: Icarus 101 (1993) 293.
93Owe Owen, T.C., et al.: Science 261 (1993) 745.
93Pol Pollack, J.B., et al.: Icarus 103 (1993) 1.
93Zas Zasova, L.V., et al.: Icarus 105 (1993) 92.
94Kra Krasnopolsky, V.A., et al.: Icarus 109 (1994) 337.
94Nai Nair, H., et al.: Icarus 111 (1994) 124.
95Hal Hall, D.T., et al.: Nature 373 (1995) 667.
95Smy Smyth, W.H., Marconi, M. L.: Astrophys. J. 441 (1995) 839.
95Yel Yelle, R.V., et al.: Neptune and Triton, Uni. Arizona Press, Tucson, 1995, 1021.
96Ber Bertaux, J.-L., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 101 E5 (1996) 12709.
96Bro Brown, M.E., Hill, R.E.: Nature 380 (1996) 229.
96Nol Noll, K.S., et al.: Science 273 (1996) 341.
97Gie Gierasch, P.J., et al.: Venus II, Uni. Arizona Press, 1997, 459.
97Lar Lara, L.M., Ip, W.H., Rodrigo, R.: Icarus 130 (1997) 16.
97Mor Morgan, T.M., Killen, R.M.: Planet. Spa. Sci. 45 (1997) 81.
97Na Na, C.Y., Esposito, L.W.: Icarus 125 (1997) 364.
97Sta Stacy, N.J.S., et al.: Science 276 (1997) 1527.
98Hal Hall, D.T., et al.: ApJ 499 (1998) 475.
98Lod Lodders, K., Fegley, B., Jr.: Planetary Science Companion, Oxford Uni. Press, 1998.
99Car Carlson, R.W.: Science 283 (1999) 820.
99For Forget, F., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 24155
99Kra Krasnopolsky, V.A., Cruikshank, D.P.: J. Geophys. Res. 104 (1999) 21,979.
99Ste Stern, S.A.: Rev. Geophys. 37 (1999) 453.
99Yun Yung, Y.L., DeMore, W.B.: Photochemistry of Planetary Atmospheres, Oxford Uni. Press, 1999.
00Bid Bida, T., et al.: Nature 404 (2000) 159.
00Ell Elliot, J.L., et al.: Icarus 143 (2000) 425.
00Kra Krasnopolsky, V.: Icarus 148 (2000) 597.
01Bul Bullock, M.A.,Grinspoon, D.H.: Icarus 150 (2001) 19.
01Cra Cravens, T.E., Maurellis, A.N.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (2001) 3043.
01Hol Holmstrom, M., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 (2001) 1287.
01Kra Krasnopolsky, V.A., Feldman, P.D.: Science 294 (2001) 1914.
01Leo Leovy, C.: Nature 412 (2001) 245.
02Den Dennerl, K.: Astron. Astrophys. 394 (2002) 1119.
02Den Dennerl, K., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 386 (2002) 319.
02Els Elsner, R.F., et al.: Astrophys. J. 572 (2002) 1077.
02Kil Killen, R.M.: Met. Pla. Sci. 37 (2002) 1223.
02Liv Livengood, T., et al.: Icarus 157 (2002) 249.
02Ric Richardson, M.I., Wilson, R.J.: Nature 416 (2002) 298.
Ref. p. xxx] 240
02Sam Samuelson, R. E.: Nature 418 (2002) 833.

03Cou Coustenis, A., et al.: Icarus 161 383 2003.
03Sic Sicardy, B., et al.: Nature 424 (2003) 168.
04Cla Clancy, R.T., et al.: Icarus 168 (2004) 116.
04Enc Encrenaz, Th.,et al.: Icarus 170 (2004) 424.
04Fea Feaga, L.M., et al.: Astrophys. J. 161 (2004) 1191.
04For Formisano, V.A., et al.: Science 306 (2004) 1758.
04Lef Lefvre, F., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 109 (2004) 2268.
04Mor Mori, K., et al.: Astrophys. J. 607 (2004) 1065.
05Can Canup, R.M.: Science 307 (2005) 546.
05Els Elsner, R.F., et al.: Icarus 178 (2005) 417.
05Fla Flasar, F.M., et al.: Science 308 (2005) 975.
05Gun Gunell, H., et al.: Adv. Space Res. 36 (2005) 2057.
05Kil Killen, R.M., et al.: Icarus 173 (2005) 300.
05Lop Lopez-Valverde, M.A., et al.: Icarus 175 (2005) 503.
05Nie Niemann, H.B., et al.: Nature 438 (2005) 779.
05Pas Pasachoff, J.M., et al.: Astronom. J. 129 (2005) 1718.
06Den1 Dennerl, K., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 451 (2006) 709.
06Den2 Dennerl, K.: Spa. Sci. Rev. 126 (2006) 403.
06Fas Fast, K., et al.: Icarus 181 (2006) 419.
06Kra Krasnopolsky, V.A.: Icarus 185 (2006) 153.
07Atr Atreya, S.K., Mahaffy, P.R., Wong, A.: Pla. Spa. Sci. 55 (2007) 358.
07Bar Barabash, S., et al.: Nature 450 (2007) 650.
07Cou1 Courtin, R.D., et al.: DPS Meeting #39 38 (2005) 529.
07Cou2 Coustenis, A., et al.: Icarus 189 (2007) 35.
07Gun Gunell, H.,et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 (2007) L030107.
07Kok de Kok, R., et al.: Icarus 191 (2007) 223.
07Kra Krasnopolsky, V.A.: Icarus 191 (2007) 25.
07Mil Mills, F.P., Allen, M.: Pla. Spa. Sci. 55 (2007) 1729.
07Per Person, M.J., et al.: Amer. Astron. Soc., DPS Meeting #39, 38 (2007) 419.
07Rus Russell, C.T., et al.: Nature 450 (2007) 662.
07Str Strobel, D.F.: Icarus 193 (2007) 612.
07Sve Svedhem, H., et al.: Nature 340 (2007) 629.
08Den Dennerl, K.: PSS 56.10 (2008) 1414.
08Pic Piccioni G., et al.: A&A 483 (2008) L29.
Tilman Spohn
Magnetic fields of internal origin are characteristic of Planets and Satellites (for a recent review see
[07CON]). Magnetized meteorites suggest that even planetesimals may have had their own self-generated
fields [08WEI]. In addition to Earth, Mercury, the Giant Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptun, and
the Jovian Satellite Ganymede are known to have largely dipolar internally generated magnetic fields.
Mars has a remnantly magnetized crust in mostly the southern hemisphere [98ACU]. This remnant
magnetization is evidence of an earlier self generated field [04CON]. The Moon also has crust units with
remnant magnetization located suspiciously close to the antipodes of major impact basins [07MIT]. While
the magnetization may be taken as evidence of an ancient magnetic field for the Moon, alternative
explanations have been given. One of the alternative explanations invokes plasma generated upon impact
where the great basins are formed. Arguments against an early dynamo for the Moon use the small size of
its core and its low rotation rate [75RUN]. However, recent scaling laws for the dynamos do not invoke
the planetary rotation rate but do invoke the size of the core. It has been predicted that Venus should have
had an early magnetic field, too [83STE]. The high surface temperature would have annealed any remnant
magnetization since the temperature is above the Curie temperature (the magnetic blocking temperature)
of most remanently magnetisable minerals.
4.2.3.8.1 Dynamos
Generation of a magnetic field requires an electrically conducting shell within a planet and motion within
that shell. In the terrestrial planets and the satellites this region is believed to be the fluid iron-rich core at
the centre. (For recent reviews of Earth and planetary dynamos and convection in the core see [07ROB],
[07CHR], [07JON] and [07BUS].) There may be a solid inner core (see sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.4), the
growth of which may provide a buoyancy flux that may drive the dynamo. The buoyancy in this case
derives from a difference in composition between the solid inner core and the fluid outer core. Light
alloying elements such as sulphur and oxygen tend to be expelled from the solidifying core and
concentrate in the fluid outer core. In addition to a chemical buoyancy flux from the inner core thermal
buoyancy may drive the flow. The thermal buoyancy results from a sufficiently large temperature
difference between the core and the rocky mantle surrounding the core. Convection in the core can be
described by the field equations of fluid dynamics introduced in section 4.2.3.4. However, because the
viscosity of the iron liquid in the core is many (about 20) orders of magnitude smaller than that of the
mantle inertia and Coriolis forces are important. Because of the magnetic field and the electrical
conductivity the Lorentz force has to be included. The momentum equation then is
(1)
In equ (1), t denotes time, v is the fluid velocity, is core density, is the planets rotation vector, g
is gravity, j is the electric current density, B is the magnetic induction vector, and F is the specific body
force (buoyancy). Vector quantities are written in bold face. The first term on the left hand side is the
inertia term the second term denotes the Coriolis force. The third term on the right hand side is the
Lorentz force where , with the magnetic permeability. The Equation is supplemented by
a conservation of mass equation which in the case of an incompressible fluid reads
(2)
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
and the conservation of entropy equation
(3)
where T is temperature, S is entropy, k is the thermal conductivity, and H the rate of release of energy in
the core per unit mass, e.g. radiogenic heat production. The equations must be supplemented by an
equation of state. Usually, taking the Boussinesqu approximation, the fluid is taken to be incompressible
except for the body force where thermal expansion and/or chemical density differences are taken into
account.
The magnetic induction equation (written in a simplified form assuming a solenoidal velocity field
and a constant magnetic diffusivity ) is
(4)
A sustained magnetic field can be generated by the flow if the production of field energy by the
stretching of field lines (the term on the right-hand-side) overcomes the magnetic diffusion on the left and
side. The relative weight of the two terms is measured by the magnetic Reynolds number
(5)
where U is a characteristic velocity and d a characteristic length (e.g., the core radius). The magnetic
Reynolds number must be larger than 1 for the dynamo to operate. Other dimensionless parameter groups
of relevance to the dynamo problem are the Rayleigh number
(6)
where is the volumetric thermal expansion coefficient, T is the non-adiabatic temperature difference
across the convecting layer, is the thermal diffusivity, and is the kinematic viscosity and the Ekman
number
(7)
The Rayleigh number measures the vigour of the convection while the Ekman number measures the
importance of the Coriolis force. Numerical models of the dynamo driven by a buoyancy flux from below
(a growing inner core) have been successful but the models are still far from realistic values of both the
Ekman and Rayleigh numbers. Nevertheless, a scaling law has been derived for the magnetic field
strength at the surface of the dynamo region [06CHR]
(8)
where QB is the buoyancy flux into the dynamo region (thermal and/or chemical), and Rc and Ri are the
outer and inner radii of the core shell. The characteristic length d here is the thickness of the core shell Rc
-Ri. In this scaling, the magnetic field strength depends on the size of the core and the buoyancy flux but
is independent of the electrical conductivity and of the rotation rate although it is still required that the
magnetic Reynolds number be larger than 1 and that in order to obtain a dipolar field the Coriolis force
must dominate over inertia. (The latter requirement is consistent with Cowlings theorem, see [07ROB].)
The scaling supersedes an older scaling law that was derived from a balance between the Lorentz force
and the Coriolis force. In this often used scaling, the magnetic field was proportional to the planetary
rotation rate.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
As Equ. (8) shows, the magnetic field strength is strongly affected by the heat transfer through the
mantle of the planet. The buoyancy flux is directly related to the heat flow extracted by the mantle from
the core for a thermally driven dynamo. For a chemically driven dynamo the rate of inner core growth and
therefore the rate of buoyancy release depend on the core cooling rate and therefore on the heat flow from
the core. The heat flow from the core can be calculated from planet thermal history models (see section
4.2.3.4 and [07BRE]),
4.2.3.8.2 Magnetic Fields of the Terrestrial Planets and Satellites
The magnetic field strength is measured in Teslas (T). An often used unit in geophysics and planetary
science is the Gauss (G) equal to 10-4 T. Fields measured by spacecraft close to the planets depend on the
orbital distance but typical range from tens of nT (Mercury, Mars) to a few G for Jupiter [07CON]. The
measurement of the internal field is perturbed however, by the ambient (external) magnetic field, mostly
due to the solar wind but also due to the field of the planet (e.g., Jupiter) if the field of a satellite (e.g.,
Ganymede) is to be measured. The Earths surface magnetic field is about 30,000 nT.
The simplest means of characterizing a planetary magnetic field is by fitting a dipole field to the data
measured by spacecraft. The dipole can be tilted with respect to the planetary rotation axis and offset
from the centre. The model is known as the offset tilted dipole or OTD. The magnetic induction vector B
of a dipole is related to the dipole moment m measured in Tm and the radial distance from the centre r by
(9)
More complex planetary magnetic fields can be modelled by superposing usually a small number of
dipoles with differing tilts and moments (compare section 4.2.4.5). Crustal fields such as the present field
of Mars are modelled by using large numbers of dipoles e.g.,[00PUR]. In the absence of local currents
( the magnetic induction vector B can be expressed as the gradient of a scalar potential that
will satisfy the Laplace equation. The potential can be expanded in spherical harmonics and the
components of the field can be calculated from the gradient of the potential (see section 4.2.4.4)
4.2.3.8.2.1 Mercury
The magnetic field of Mercury was detected by the Mariner mission in 1974 [74NES]. Unfortunately, the
field to date has been recorded by four fly-bys only: two passes by Mariner 10 and another two passes by
Messenger. Messenger, however, will measure the field much more accurately after it goes into orbit in
2011. The situation will improve even further if the European BepiColombo project ill succeed in getting
two spacecraft into orbit around the planet. Magnetometers on both spacecraft will allow separating
internal from external fields. The mission is planned to be launched in 2014 and orbit insertion is planned
for 2020.
The presently available data for Mercury interpreted together suggest a dipole tilted by 5 to 12
degrees with a moment of 230 to 290 nT. RM3 but non-dipolar terms are found to be significant [08UNO].
These could indicate crustal fields or significant dynamo action close to the core/mantle boundary which
should be close to 0.8 RM. The quality of the data do not yet allow to distinguish between thin shell
dynamo models for Mercury ((Rc-Ri)<<Rc) [04STA] predicting relatively large non-dipolar terms and
thick shell dynamo models (Rc>>Ri) [06CHR].
4.2.3.8.2.2Venus
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Missions to Venus have failed to detect a magnetic field of the planet. An upper limit for its dipole
moment is 10-5 times the moment of the Earth [87PHI] or 0.35 nT.RV. It is concluded that the planet has
neither a significant dynamo magnetic field nor a remnant magnetic field. Models of the magnetic history
of Venus [83STE] suggest that Venus may have had an early magnetic for a few billion years. The field
may have failed to produce remnant magnetization because the temperature of crustal rock remained
above the Curie temperature of magnetisable minerals.
4.2.3.8.2.3 Mars
Early magnetic field observations at Mars by the US mission Mariner 4 and the Sowjet Phobos 2 mission
were inconclusive with regard to the existence of a small dipole field or the absence of the latter [89RID].
Riedler et al. 1989 The first unambiguous detection of an intrinsic field at Mars was achieved by the Mars
Global Surveyor (MGS) mission [98ACU]. In contrast other magnetic planets, the Martian field is lacking
a strong dynamo component. Instead, the spectrum is dominated by components of degree larger than 10.
The field strength varies between 200 nT along the mapping orbit at 400 km height above the surface,
the distance of the mapping orbit, and between 1500 nT at the initial aerobreaking orbit with 100 km
height. It has been concluded that the Martian crust must be about 10 times intensely magnetized than the
Earths crust [02VOR]. Figure 1 shows the three components of the magnetic field at 400 35 km height.
The anomalies are clearly concentrated in the southern hemisphere of Mars, the surface of which is
approximately 1 Ga younger than that of the southern hemisphere (see 4.2.3.5.1). The remnant
magnetization of the Martian crust implies that Mars had a strong planetary field in the past. From the
absence of magnetization in the Hellas basin it has been concluded that the planetary field was gone by
the time of formation of the basin, a few hundred million years after formation of the planet [98ACU],
[04CON]. This conclusion is widely but not unanimously accepted. Models of the magnetic of Mars
predicted an early dynamo [83STE], [90SCH]. The dynamo ceased to operate when the temperature
difference between the core and the mantle became too small to drive convection and dynamo action in
the core. The models predict a dynamo for roughly the first billion years of Martian history. .
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Fig. 1 Orthographic projections of the three components of

the magnetic field (Br , B , B) at
a nominal 400 km mapping orbit altitude, viewed from 30
deg S and 180 deg East longitude at
a nominal 400 km mapping orbit altitude, viewed from 30
deg S and 180 deg East longitude (from [04CON].
Springer Verlag
4.2.3.8.2.4 Moon
The Moon does not have a dipole field at present but large parts of the crust show remnant magnetization
as shown in Figure 2 which is based on data from the US Lunar Prospector mission [07MIT]. The
magnitude of the magnetization reaches values of up to 250 nT, much smaller than the magnetization of
the Martian and the Earths crust. The map suggests that the major impact basins show no crustal
magnetization but some areas antipodal to the impact basins show a relatively strong field. This is
particularly true for the Imbrium basin and to a lesser extent Mare Orientale. It has been suggested e.g.,
[91HOO] - that, therefore, the remnant magnetization is related to the impacts event although the
magnetization occurs at antipodal sites [88LIN]. One model suggests that an impact-generated plasma
cloud may sweep up the ambient magnetic field and converge at the antipodes where the field strength
would then be large. The crustal rock shocked by the impact would then be magnetized by shock
magnetization [83CIS]
Fig. 2 Magnetic field at the surface of the Moon measured

by the electron refelction experiment on Lunar Prospector in
orthographic projection (from [07MIT]). The white circles
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
indicate major impact basins and the black circles their

antipodal regions. American Geophysical Union
4.2.3.8.2.5 Galilean Satellites
The magnetometer onboard the Galileo spacecraft has measured magnetic signals at Europa, Ganymede
and Callisto. For a review see [04KIV]. The spacecraft failed to detect a magnetic signal at Io that could
be attributed to an internal field of that satellite [97KHU]. Absence of a magnetic field at Io was predicted
by [95WIE] who argued that heat production in Ios mantle by tidal dissipation was so dominant that little
heat was removed from the core. The core would therefore be entirely fluid and stably stratified with
respect to thermal convection and thermal and chemical buoyancy would not be available to drive a
dynamo. The magnetic signals detected at Europa and Callisto varied periodically along their orbits
around Jupiter which was interpreted as evidence for electromagnetic induction [97KIV]. The orbits of
the satellites lie within the magnetosphere of the planet. It is widely accepted that the fields are induced in
(salty) oceans underneath tens to hundred kilometre thick ice shells by the time varying magnetic flux of
Jupiters field. The signals measured at Ganymede, however, were interpreted as being due to a dipole
field generated in the core of the satellite. The surface equatorial field strength is 719nT and the dipole
axis is tilted by 176 with respect to the rotation axis [02KIV]. The dipole is rotated 24 toward the
trailing hemisphere from the Jupiter-facing meridian plane. There is evidence for a smaller induced field
in addition to the main field [02KIV] but it is also possible that the signal is due to a quadrupole
component of the main field.
[74Nes] Ness, N.F. et al.: Science 183 (1974) 130.

[75Run] Runcorn, S.K.: Nature 253 (1975) 701.
[83Cis] Cisowski, S.M. et al. : J. Geophys. Res. Suppl. 88 (1983) A691
[83Ste] Stevenson, D.J. et al.: Icarus 54 (1983 ) 466.
[87Phi] Phillips, J.L., Russel, C.T.: J. Geophys. Res. 92 (1987) 2253
[88Lin] Lin, R.P. et al.: Icarus 74 (1988) 529.
[89Rie] Riedler, W., et al.: Nature 341 (1989) 604.
[90Sch] Schubert, G., Spohn, T.: J. Geophys. Res. 95 (1990) 104.
[91Hoo] Hood, L.L., Huang, Z.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 9837.
[95Wie] Wienbruch, U., Spohn,T. Planet. Space. Sci. 43 (1995) 1045
[97Khu] Khurana, K.K. et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, (1997) 2391.
[97Kiv] Kivelson, M.G. et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 24 (1997) 2155.
[98Acu] Acua, M.H. et al.: Science 279 (1998) 1676.
[00Pur] Purucker, M. et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2000) 2449.
[02Kiv] Kivelson, M.G. et al.: Icarus 157 (2002) 507.
[02Vor] Voorhies, C.V. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 107 (E6) (2002).
[04Con] Connerney, J.E.P. et al.: Space Science Revs. 111 (1-2) (2004) 1.
[04Kiv] Kivelson, M.G. et al.: Magnetospheric Interactions with Satellites In: Jupiter. The
Planet, Satellites and Magnetosphere, Cambridge University Press (2004) 513.
[04Sta] Stanley, S. et al.: Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 234 (2004) 27.
[06Chr] Christensen, U.R., Aubert, J.: Geophys. J. Int. 166 (2006) 97.
[07Bre] Breuer, D., Moore, W.B.: Dynamics and Thermal History of the Terrestrial Planets, the
Moon, and Io In: Planets and Moons, Treatise on Geophysics 10 Elsevier (2007) 299.
[07Bus] Busse, F.H., Simitev, R.: Planetary Dynamos In: Planets and Moons, Treatise on
Geophysics 10 Elsevier (2007) 281.
[07Chr] Christensen, U.R., Wicht, J. Numerical Dynamo Simulations, In : Core Dynamics,
Treatise on Geophysics 8 Elsevier (2007) 245.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
[07Con] Connerney, J.E.P.: Planetary Magnetism In: Planets and Moons, Treatise on Geophysics
10 Elsevier (2007) 243.
[07Jon] Jones, C.A.: Thermal and Compositional Convection in the Outer Core, In: Core
Dynamics, Treatise on Geophysics 8 Elsevier (2007) 131.
[07Rob] Roberts, P.H.: Theory of the Geodynamo, In: Core Dynamics, Treatise on Geophysics
8 Elsevier (2007) 131.
[08Wei] Weiss, B. P. et al. : Science 322 (2008) 713.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.4. Planets of the Outer Solar System
Tilman Spohn1 and Lee Grenfell2

1
2
The planets of the outer solar system are Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The former two are the
giant planets, the latter two are also known as sub-giants. The planets are significantly more massive
(compare Table 1 of section 4.2.2.2) than the terrestrial planets and have considerably larger radii. Their
mean densities are much smaller, between roughly 690 kg/m (Saturn) and 1640 kg/m (Neptune). The
density values indicate volatile-rich compositions dominated by hydrogen and helium (Jupiter and Saturn)
and water, ammonia, and methane (Uranus and Neptune). The latter compounds are often referred to as
the ice component and Uranus and Neptune are sometimes referred to as the ice giants; H and He are also
termed the gas component. Together with rock/iron, the major component of the terrestrial planets, the ice
and the gas components are the main ingredients of simple planetary models. A recent review of the
physics of the giant and sub-giant planets can be found in [07Gui]. The planets have numerous satellites
(163 known at the time of this writing, compare Table 7 in 4.2.2.4) ranging in size from hundreds of
meters to the radius of Ganymede (2632 km). The planets also have ring systems, the most prominent one
is that of Saturn which is easily visible from Earth with small telescopes. Some of the smaller satellites
are embedded in the ring systems and may feed the rings with particles such as e.g., Enceladus feeding
Saturns E ring. Other satellites shepherd rings to sharpen their edges [06Esp] such as Prometheus and
Pandora shepherd Saturns F ring. Data on the satellites and rings are collected in section 4.2.2.4 and
4.2.2.5.
4.2.4.1 Rotation, Radii, Shapes, Gravity Fields
Rotational Elements. The rotational elements of a planet are the rates of change of the three angles right
ascension 0, declination 0, and W, the location of the prime meridian in the International Celestial
Reference Frame (ICRF, see section 4.2.3.1.2.1.). The recommended values, accurate to one-tenth of a
degree or better, are listed in Table 1. T is the interval in Julian centuries (=36525 Julian days) from the
standard epoch (2000 January 1.5, i.e. JD 2451545.0 TT) (see 4.2.2.1). W(III) refers to the rotation of the
magnetic field (system III).
Table 1 Rotational elements of the giant and sub-giant planets
Planet 0 0 W
Jupiter 268.056595 64.495303 284.95 + 870.5366420d
-0.006499T +0.002413T
+0.000117 sin Ja +0.000050 cos Ja
+0.000938 sin Jb +0.000404 cos Jb
+0.001432 sin Jc +0.000617 cos Jc
+0.000030 sin Jd -0.000013 cos Jd
+0.002150 sin Je +0.000926 cos Je
(Ja = 99.360714 + 4850.4046 T

Jb = 175.895369 + 1191.9605 T
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Jc = 300.323162 + 262.5475T
Jd = 114.012305 + 6070.2476T
Je = 49.511251 + 64.3 T)
Saturn 40.589 - 0.036 T 83.537 - 0.004 T 38.90 + 810.7939024d

Uranus 257.311 -15.175 203.81 - 501.1600928d
Neptun 299.36+0.70 sin N 43.46-0.51 cos N 253.18 + 536.3128492d-0.48 sin N
(N=357.85+52.316T)
Radii and Shapes. The shapes of the gaseous planets are described as rotationally symmetric
ellipsoids. The radii listed in Table 2 refer to the 105 Pa isobaric surfaces. The parameter values are
regularly updated by the International Astronomical Union IAU as new data become available.
Table 2 Size and shape parameters of the giant and sub-giant planets
Planet Mean radius Equatorial Polar radius RMS deviation
(km) Radius (km) (km) from spheroid (km)
Jupiter 699116 714924 6685410 62.1

Saturn 582326 602684 5436410 102.9
Uranus 253627 255594 2497320 16.8
Neptune 2462219 2476415 2434130 8
Gravity Fields. The gravity fields are measured by Doppler tracking of spacecraft, e.g., [03See] and
by earthbound observation of satellite and planetary orbits. Most of the data available are from the
Voyager and Pioneer missions (see section 4.2.6.2). The potential of the gravity field can be expanded
into spherical harmonics as introduced in section 4.2.3.1.3.2, Equ. 1. The gravity vector is then calculated
by taking the gradient of the potential. Coefficients of the expansion of the potentials are given in Table 4
below together with the values for the product of planetary mass M and universal gravitational constant
G.
Table 4 Gravity fields of the giant and sub-giant planets. (see http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?gravity_fields_op)
Parameter Jupiter [03Jac] Saturn [06Jac] Uranus [07Jac] Neptune [08Jac]
GM (km3s-2) 1267127652 379405851 57945575 683652710
J2 x 106 14696.430.21 16290.710.27 3341.290.72 3408.494.60
J3 x 106 0.640.90 -
J4 x 106 -587.141.68 -935.832.77 -30.441.02 -33.482.93
J6 x 106 34.255.22 86.149.64
J6 x 106 -10.[88Nic]
C22 x 106 0.0060.008
S22 x 106 -0.0130.009
4.2.4.2 Giant Planet Atmospheres
Giant planet atmospheres are composed mainly of primordial hydrogen and helium. In the planets deep
interior, equilibrium chemistry dominates whereas in the middle atmosphere, photochemistry converts
methane into higher hydrocarbons. The latter can condense to form organic aerosol which traps radiation
and contributes to the formation of the temperature inversion. Studying the giant planet atmospheres helps
to understand reducing environments, to unravel the interplay between equilibrium chemistry (where air
parcels have constant Gibbs free energy) and photochemistry, and to develop understanding of the
recently discovered hot Jupiter class of exoplanets (see section 4.2.5). The base of the atmosphere in a
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
gas planet is obviously not easily defined. A reasonable base of the atmosphere can be taken at the 105 Pa
level which is generally used to define the radius of the planet.
Jupiter the atmospheric composition of important species is summarised in Table 6. Data is taken
from: [95Feg] (and references therein, mostly based on Voyager data); [99Enc] based on the Infrared
Space Observatory (ISO) and from [98Zah] and [04Won] measured by the Galileo probe. Note that the
latter sampled a rather unusual meteorological situation so may be atypical of Jupiter [04Won].
Table 6 Jupiters atmospheric composition
Species Concentration Ref. Notes
(vmr)
H2 (0.8980.02) 95Feg
0.864 04Won
He (0.1020.02) 95Feg
(0.13590.0027) 98Zah (212) bar
CH4 (3.01) . 10-3 95Feg
2.1 . 10-3 99Enc
2.050.49) . 10-3 04Won Troposphere
CH3D (2.00.4) . 10-7 95Feg
2.5 . 10-7 99Enc
NH3 (2.60.4) . 10-4 95Feg
(5.742.19) . 10-4 04Won (8.911.7) bar
PH3 (7.01) . 10-7 95Feg
H2O (4.21.4) . 10-4 04Won (17.620.9) bar
(3.02.0) . 10-5 95Feg 6 bar
(41) . 10-6 95Feg (24) bar
1.4 . 10-5 99Enc (35) bar
1.5 . 10-9 99Enc (<0.01bar)
CO (1.60.3) . 10-9 95Feg
1.6 . 10-9 99Enc Troposphere
1.5 . 10-9 99Enc Stratosphere
(uncertain)
C2H2 (1.10.3) . 10-7 95Feg
C2H4 (73) . 10-9 95Feg
C2H6 (5.81.5) . 10-6 95Feg
4.0 . 10-6 99Enc (0.350) . 10-3
bar
C4H2 (32) . 10-10 95Feg Mid-latitudes
C6H6 2 . 10-9 95Feg In northern aurora
AsH3 (2.21.1) . 10-10 95Feg
GeH4 7 . 10-10 95Feg
H2S <3.3 . 10-8 99Yun Troposphere
<2 . 10-9 99Yun Stratosphere
(7.71.8) . 10-5 04Won (1215.5) bar
In Table 6, all [04Won] values have been converted to volume mixing ratio assuming H2=0.864.
[05Mos; 96Gla] modelled the hydrocarbon photochemistry with a globally-averaged column model and
noted some discrepancies in the relative amounts of e.g. C2 compounds compared with observations.
Improved knowledge of Eddy diffusion coefficients and reaction rate data are desirable to address such
issues [05Mos; 99Yun]. The Cassini swingby of Jupiter [04Kun] implied meridional variations of some
hydrocarbon concentrations - suggesting interplay between atmospheric photochemistry and dynamics.
The study of [06Smi] applied a photochemical model to analyse uncertainties in the chemical rate data.
[99Yun] discuss the photochemical pathways of Jupiter (and other giant planets) in detail.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Temperature reaches about 170K near 1bar, declining to 110K at the tropopause at around 0.04bar
[81Lin] where it starts to rise with altitude due to aerosol heating. In the thermosphere, it has been known
since Pioneer 10 (e.g. [75McE]) that Jupiters temperature (reaching 1000K) and subsequently confirmed
by Galileo [97Sei] is about 5 times warmer than expected from radiative absorption. Several mechanisms
have been proposed to address this puzzle. [77Hun] suggested heating via energy deposition from
electrons accelerated in the magnetosphere. More recently [97You] proposed breaking gravity waves
depositing their energy in the thermosphere, although [99Mat] suggested these waves probably do not
fully account for the observed signal.
Jupiters atmospheric dynamics features the familiar global pattern of adjacently-flowing bands
coloured orange (called belts) and white (called zones). Winds of around 100ms-1 in adjacent bands
blow in opposite directions. Cloud particles consisting mainly of frozen water, ammonium hydrosulphide
and ammonia form at around 5, 2 and 0.5 bar respectively [e.g. 99Irw]. [04Fla] derived zonal-mean height
fields for temperature and wind from Cassini data, noting localised hotspot regions near 10-3 bar and a 4-
5year oscillation in temperature above 10-2 bar. The Great Red Spot the persistent anticyclonic storm
at around 22oS, 2-3 Earth diameters in size and rotating with ~6 day period has been successfully
captured in 3D model simulations, e.g. [00Cho]. [05Vas] reviewed knowledge of atmospheric dynamics
on Jupiter after the Galileo and Cassini missions.
X-rays on Jupiter have been observed from both auroral and non-auroral sources. The auroral
emission is driven by the precipitation of highly ionized oxygen and sulfur from the outer magnetosphere
into the polar regions, and their interaction with Jupiter's upper atmosphere [02Gla, 04Bra]. The non-
auroral emission is mainly caused by scattering of solar X-rays [00Mau, 05Bha].
Saturn - the atmospheric composition is summarised in Table 7:
Table 7 Saturns atmospheric composition
(vmr)
H2 (0.9630.024) 95Feg
He (0.03250.024) 95Feg
(0.11-0.15) 00Con
CH4 4.5 . 10-3 95Feg
4.4 . 10-3 99Enc
CH3D (3.92.5) . 10-7 95Feg
99Enc
3.2 . 10-7
HD (1.100.58) . 10-4 95Feg
NH3 (0.52.0) . 10-4 95Feg
5.8 . 10-4 99Atr
PH3 (1.40.8) . 10-6 95Feg
(31) . 10-6 94Wei (0.11) bar
H2O <2 . 10-8 95Feg
2 . 10-7 99Enc >3 bar
(220) . 10-9 99Enc <10-4 bar
H2S (2.20.3) . 10-4 89Bri (225) bar
<2 . 10-7 95Feg
CO (1.00.3) . 10-9 95Feg
2 . 10-9 99Enc Troposphere
~2 . 10-9 99Enc Stratosphere
CO2 3 . 10-10 99Enc <10-2 bar
C2H2 (3.01.0) . 10-7 95Feg

3.5 . 10-6 99Enc 10-4 bar
2.5 . 10-7 99Enc 10-3 bar
C2H6 (7.01.5) . 10-6 95Feg
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4 . 10-6 99Enc <10-2 bar

C3H8 (2.70.8) . 10-8 06Gre 5.10-3 bar, 20oS
(2.50.8) . 10-8 06Gre
5.10-3 bar, 80oS
CH3C2H 6.0 . 10-10 99Enc <10-2 bar
C4H2 9.0 . 10-11 99Enc <10-2 bar
CH3 (0.21.0) . 10-7 99Enc 3.10-7 bar
AsH3 (31) . 10-9 95Feg
GeH4 (44) . 10-10 95Feg
HCl <6.7 . 10-9 06Tea
SiH4 <4 . 10-9 95Feg
HCN <4 . 10-9 95Feg
HCl 1.1 . 10-9 96Wei Tentative
Saturn features less helium (Table 7) than Jupiter (Table 6) which may reflect more efficient removal
of helium into Saturns core [99Yun] or/and rainout of helium droplets deep into the innermost
atmosphere [07Gui] although the mechanism(s) are not well-determined. [00Con] based on Galileo
results, suggested that earlier Voyager measurements of helium on Saturn may be too low for reasons
currently not clear. Differences in the hydrocarbon compositions of Saturn and Jupiter are also possible
e.g. [99Atr] suggested around twice as much methane and acetylene on Saturn than on Jupiter. Model
sensitivity studies are required to shed light on this issue which is currently not well constrained. The
study by [05Mos] presented Cassini data implying hydrocarbon variations with latitude which could not
be explained by photochemistry alone, suggesting an interplay between the meridional circulation and
photochemistry.
Temperature on Saturn reaches about 120K at 1bar, declining to a minimum of 70-80K at the
tropopause near 0.03 bar. Cassini measurements [08Fle] reported a hexagonal vortex at northern high
latitudes clearly a long-lived feature since the Voyager mission reported a similar feature in the early
1980s. Additionally, Cassini measurements of the atmospheric tracer phosphine implied sinking of air
into the vortex centre [08Fle].
X-rays have been detected from Saturn's disk, but no convincing evidence of an X-ray aurora has been
observed [04Nes1, 04Nes2]. The non-auroral emission is mainly caused by scattering of solar X-rays
[05Bha1]. Also the rings of Saturn were detected in X-rays; this radiation is attributed to fluorescent
scattering of solar X-rays on oxygen atoms in the tenuous oxygen atmosphere and ionosphere over the
rings [05Bha2]. A review of the X-ray properties of the outer planetary systems is presented in [07Bra].
Uranus the strong obliquity of Uranus leads to 42 years of constant illumination at high latitudes so
strong seasonality is expected. The atmospheric composition is summarised in Table 8:
Table 8 Uranus atmospheric composition
(vmr)
H2 (0.8250.033) 95Feg
He (0.1520.033) 95Feg
CH4 2.3 . 10-2 95Feg Troposphere
2 . 10-5 95Feg Stratosphere
(310) . 10-5 99Enc Stratosphere
(3.31.1) . 10-2 95Gau Troposphere
C2H2 1 . 10-8 95Feg -4
(13) . 10 bar
(24) . 10-7 99Enc
(1.00.1) . 10-8
-4
C2H6 06Bur 10 bar
(120) . 10-9 95Feg
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
-4
C3H4 (2.50.3) . 10-10 06Bur 10 bar
-4
C4H2 (1.60.2) . 10-10 06Bur 10 bar
CO <3 . 10-8 99Enc Stratosphere
<5 . 10-7 99Enc Troposphere
CO <3 . 10-8 95Feg -4
CO2 (40.5) . 10-11 06Bur 10 bar
<3 . 10-10 99Enc <2. 10-3 bar
HD 1.48 . 10-4 95Feg
CH3D 8.3 . 10-6 95Feg
H2S <8 . 10-7 95Feg
(11) . 10-4 89Bri Troposphere
NH3 <1 . 10-7 95Feg
HCN <1.0 . 10-10 95Feg
The ratio (He/H) in Table 8 is close to the solar value, suggesting that helium is not removed
significantly to the planets interior. Hydrocarbon (including methane) concentrations are generally very
low. Methyl radical concentrations (not yet detected) are much lower than for Saturn and Neptune
[06Bur]. Clouds consisting of methane, hydrogen sulphide and water-sulphide-ammonium mixtures form
at 1, 6, and 100 bar respectively [93Lun].
Temperature reaches about 80K at 1 bar, declining to 50-60K at the tropopause near 0.1 bar where it
starts rise due to aerosol and heating from methane [93Lun]. Uranus features an unusually low internal
heat-source compared with the other gas giants [e.g. 07Gui]. [95Pod] suggested this is because Uranus
deep atmosphere is not homogeneously mixed, which switches off convective mixing so that heat loss
proceeds by slow diffusive mixing. (D/H) ratios (~510-5) are higher than the gas giants (210-5) which is
interpreted as evidence of a different formation mechanism involving icy planetesimals [93Lun].
Atmospheric composition and dynamics on Uranus (and Neptune) are reviewed by [93Lun].
Neptune - the atmospheric composition is summarised in Table 9:
Table 9 Neptunes atmospheric composition
(vmr)
H2 (0.800.03) 95Feg
He (0.190.032) 95Feg
CH4 (12) . 10-2 95Feg Troposphere
(3.31.1) . 10-2 95Gau Troposphere
(6.050.0) . 10-4 99Enc Stratosphere
7 . 10-4 (0.051) . 10-3
bar
C2H2 6 . 10-8 95Feg
1.1 . 10-7 99Enc 10-3 bar
C2H6 1.5 . 10-6 95Feg
1.3 . 10-6 99Enc (0.031.5) . 10-3
bar
HD 1.92 . 10-4 95Feg
CH3D 1.2 . 10-5 95Feg
2.2 . 10-7 99Enc
H2S <3.0 . 10-6 95Feg
(7.53.25) . 10-4 91Pat Troposphere
NH3 <6.0 . 10-7 95Feg
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
CO 2.2 . 10-6 07Hes Upper stratosphere

1.2 . 10-6 95Feg
<10-6 99Enc Troposphere
CH3 (29) . 10-8 99Enc 2 . 10-7 bar
HCN 1.0 . 10-9 95Feg
Table 9 implies that Neptune has relatively more helium than Uranus for reasons poorly understood
[99Yun]. Methane is much more abundant than on Uranus and may even be over-saturated for reasons
which need exploring [93Lun]. Upper cloud layers are comparable to Uranus. The lower mixed cloud
layer on Neptune may penetrate deeper up to 500 bar compared with 400 bar on Uranus [93Lun].
Unlike Uranus, Neptune features an internal heat source with vigorous transport from the lower to the
upper atmosphere, which is thought to account for a broadly similar temperature structure on Neptune as
on Uranus (see above) despite Neptunes greater distance from the Sun. The internal heat source also
impacts the photochemistry via much enhanced Eddy diffusion on Neptune. Neptunes Great Dark Spot
was discussed by [07Beau] who proposed a dynamical origin.
4.2.4.3 Interior Models
Interior structure models of the giant and sub-giant planets can be calculated assuming hydrostatic
equilibrium and mass and energy conservation
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
where P is the pressure, r is the radial distance from the centre, is the density, g is gravity, T is
temperature, m is the mass within the sphere of radius r, L is the intrinsic luminosity, Q is the heat
production rate per unit mass, S is the specific entropy, and t is time. These equations have to be
supplemented by a suitable equation of state. The equation of state is a major source of uncertainty. For
the giant and sub-giant planets, the polytrope
(5)
where is the polytropic constant and n the polytropic index is often used. The polytropic index
increases from zero at low pressures to 1.5 at extremely large pressures. In this limit a model planet or
star will not increase in radius when the mass is increased. In the pressure range characteristic of the deep
interiors of giant planets n equals 1. The polytrope can be used to calculate mass-radius relations for
model planets assuming an isochemical composition. These calculations - e.g., [89Hub] - show that
Jupiter and Saturn plot close to the H-He (in cosmic concentration ratio) polytrope but Uranus and
Neptune do not. Thus hydrogen and helium cannot be the dominant components of the compositions of
the latter planets. Instead, these planets consist of what is called the planetary ices (mostly water,
ammonia, and methane)
Another important consideration concerns the phase diagram of hydrogen and helium.
Thermodynamic considerations show that hydrogen should become metallic at pressures around 0.5 TPa
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
depending to some extent on temperature. Likewise, helium goes out of solution with hydrogen at similar
pressure values. The central pressure in the giant planets can be estimated from
(6)
to be 1 to 10 TPa. These values are considerably larger than the molecular/metallic transition pressures
for Jupiter and Saturn and therefore we expect the transition to occur in these planets.
Following the work of Zharkov and Trubitsyn, Hubbard and co-workers and Guillot and co-workers
([74Zha], [02Hub], [07Gui] for reviews) the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn are divided into a core
consisting of the rock/iron and the ice components, a metallic hydrogen and helium shell, and an outer
shell consisting of mostly molecular hydrogen and helium. Because the atmosphere is depleted in helium
with respect to the solar ratio (compare 4.2.4.2) the metallic hydrogen shell is assumed to contain a
corresponding abundance of helium resulting in an overall solar ratio. The transport of helium from the
outer shell to the shell below is assumed to occur through helium rain. For Jupiter, the surface is at 165 K
and 105 Pa. The transition to metallic hydrogen is located at a radius of 0.75 planetary radii and the
temperature there is about 104 K. There may be an inhomogeneous layer above the transition where the
He concentration varies with depth. The core has a relative radius of about 0.2. Estimates of the core mass
are about 10 Earth masses. The central pressure is estimated to be 4.25 TPa and the temperature 2.104 K.
For Saturn, the surface is at 135 K and 105 Pa. The molecular to metallic hydrogen transition occurs at
0.45 planetary radii where the temperature is estimated to be 104 K. As for Jupiter, an inhomogeneous
layer may have formed at the basis of the outer shell. Since the pressure gradient in Saturn is smaller than
in Jupiter, the latter inhomogeneous sub-layer would be thicker for Saturn. Saturns core is estimated to
have a relative radius of about 0.2 and a mass of up to 7 Earth masses. The central pressure is about 1.2
TPa and the temperature around 104 K.
The interiors of Uranus and Neptune are also thought of as layered although the transitions between
the layers should be more gradual as the work by [89Hub] and [99Gui] suggests. In these models, the
outer layer extending down to 0.8 to 0.9 planetary radii consists of mostly the gas component (molecular
H and He) and some ice. The shell below is composed of ice plus little gas and there is a rock/iron plus
ice core of a few Earth masses.
4.2.4.4 Luminosity and Thermal Evolution
Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune emit significantly more energy than they receive from the sun [e.g., 07Gui].
The intrinsic luminosities (emitted flux per unit area) are 5.440.43, 2.010.14, and 0.4330.046 W m-2,
respectively. For Uranus, the difference between absorbed and emitted power is much smaller,
W m-2. The consequence of the intrinsic flux is that the interiors of the planets are likely to
be fluid, convecting vigorously with mostly adiabatic temperature distributions (an assumption
underlying Equ. 2 of 4.2.4.3). It is possible that the difference between Uranus and Neptune is simply a
consequence of their orbital distances. Both planets emit about the same power of 0.693 (Uranus) and
0.701 (Neptune) W m-2 but Neptune being farther out receives only 35% of Uranus insolation. However,
it is also possible that a larger part of Uranus interior is not homogeneously mixed and stably (with
respect to convection) stratified [95Pod]. In any case the intrinsic luminosity of Uranus can be explained
by radiogenic heating in the rock core but the luminosity of Neptune is about an order of magnitude too
large to be explained in this way.
The intrinsic luminosity of Jupiter has been explained to be caused by contraction upon cooling of the
planet (Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction) [97Bur]. This is not possible for Saturn [99Hub; 03Fot] for which
cooling would be too fast and the gravitational power gained by helium rain has been invoked as an
additional heat source. Although He separation is also possible for Jupiter, helium rain would
unreasonably retard the cooling of this planet although [04Gui] maintain that the model can be improved
to solve the problem. Contraction upon cooling may also contribute to Neptunes energy balance.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Even before spacecraft visited Jupiter it was known that Jupiter possesses a magnetic field [07Con]. This
was concluded from the non-thermal decametric emission from the planet and later from the synchrotron
radiation emitted by electrons trapped in the Jovian van Allen belt. The first spacecraft to fly closely by
Jupiter was Pioneer 10 followed later by Pioneer 11, Voyager 1 and 2 and Ulysses (section 4.2.6). Most
recently, Galileo orbited Jupiter. The most useful magnetic field data for Jupiter are from Pioneer 11,
Voyager 1, and Ulysess. Saturn was visited by Pioneer 11, the two Voyagers and is presently orbited by
Cassini. Uranus and Neptune were both visited by Voyager 2.
The magnetic field strength is measured in Teslas (T). An often used unit in geophysics and planetary
science is the Gauss (G) equal to 10-4 T. Fields measured by spacecraft close to the planets depend on the
orbital distance but typical range from tens of nT (Mercury, Mars) to a few G for Jupiter [07CON]. The
measurement of the internal field is perturbed however, by the ambient (external) magnetic field, mostly
due to the solar wind but also due to the field of the planet (e.g., Jupiter) if the field of a satellite (e.g.,
Ganymede) is to be measured. The Earths surface magnetic field is about 30,000 nT.
The simplest means of characterizing a planetary magnetic field is by fitting a dipole field to the data
measured by spacecraft. The dipole can be tilted with respect to the planetary rotation axis and offset
from the centre. The model is known as the offset tilted dipole or OTD. The magnetic induction vector B
of a dipole is related to the dipole moment m measured in Tm or Gm and the radial distance from the
centre r by
(8)
In the absence of local currents ( the magnetic induction vector B can be expressed as
the gradient of a scalar potential that will satisfy the Laplace equation. The potential can be expanded in
spherical harmonics and the components of the field are given by
(9)
where R is the planetary radius and is the radial distance from the centre of the planet. The first term in
the potential represents the potential of the field due to sources external to the planet with
(10)
where is the co-latitude (measured from the axis of rotation), and the longitude increasing in the
direction of rotation. are the Schmidt quasi-normalized Legendre functions (e.g., [07CON]) and
and are the external Schmidt coefficients.
The second series in Equ. (2) represents the potential of the internal field with
(11)
where and are the internal Schmidt coefficients. The values of the coefficients are determined
by least-square fitting to the spacecraft data. The difficulty in modelling the data recorded by spacecraft
stems to a large part from the difficulty of separating fields with external and internal origin.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
The components of the planetary field vector B are calculated by taking the gradient of the potential
due to internal sources. The dipole moment m (compare Equ. (8)) can be calculated from
(12)
Table 13 gives recent spherical harmonic expansion models for the giant planets Jupiter and Saturn
and the sub-giants Uranus and Neptune while Table 14 gives the parameters of the OTDs. The Jupiter
model is based on Voyager I magnetometer data and observations of the location of the foot print on
Jupiter of the Io Flux Tube IFT. The IFT (a tube of highly concentrated magnetic field energy generated
by the interaction of the Jovian moon Io with Jupiters magnetic field and responsible for Jupiters
decametric radiation) traces a magnetic field line that passes through Io at its orbital distance of
approximately 5.9 Jupiter radii. The IFT footprints in the northern and southern hemispheres can be
clearly observed in the infrared with Earth-based telescopes. The footprints move along the surface of
Jupiter as Io orbits the planet. The model for Saturn is derived from Cassini data while the Uranus and
Neptune magnetic field models are based on Voyager data.
It is clearly seen that the dipole term dominates for Jupiter and Saturn (as it does for the Earth).
This is not observed for Uranus and Neptune. A dominating dipole is usually interpreted as indicating a
deep source of the magnetic field such as the iron core of the Earth. A relatively flat spectrum indicates
magnetic field generation relatively close to the surface.
Table 13 Selected Magnetic Field Models of the Jovian Planets.

Coefficients are given in nT. The Jupiter model is VIT 4 from [82Con1],
Saturn model is SOI, epoch 2004.5 of [82Con2], the Uranus model is Q3
from [87Con] and the Neptune model is O8 from [91Con]. The radii
assumed for the planets are: 71,323 km for Jupiter, 60,268 km for Saturn,
25,600 km for Uranus and 24,765 km for Neptune.
Coefficient Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
g10 428077. 21084. 11893. 9732.

g11 -75306. 11579. 3220.
h11 24616. -15684. -9889.
g20 -4283. 1544. -6030. 7448.

g21 -59426. -12587. 664.
g22 44386. 196. 4499.
h21 -50154. 6116. 11230.
h22 38452. 4759. -70.
g30 8906. 2150. -6592.

g31 -21447. 4098.
g32 21130. -3581.
g33 -1190. 484.
h31 -17187. -3669.
h32 40667. 1791.
h33 -35263. -770.
g40 -22925.
g41 18940.
g42 -3851.
g43 9926.
g44 1271.
h41 16088.
h42 11807.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
h43 6195.
h44 12641.
Table 14 Offset Tilted Dipole (OTD) models of the magnetic fields of

the giant and sub-giant planets.
Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune
Moment [G R] 4,3535 0,2108 0,2284 0,1424

Displacement 0.11 0.004 0.33 0.55
[planetary radii]
Tilt [] 9.5 1 60 47
While significant progress has been made for models of the dynamo in the Earth and the terrestrial
planets (compare section 4.2.3.8.1) models of the Jovian dynamo are scarce [07Bus]. It is agreed,
however, that the region of dynamo action in Jupiter and Saturn is the region below the transition from
molecular to metallic hydrogen, see also 4.2.4.3. The preferred source region is consistent with the
dipolar characteristic of the field. The latter transition will not occur in the sub-giants Uranus and
Neptune. The dynamo probably operates in regions of ionic conductivity in these planets closer to the
surface.
Acknowledgements
Tha authors thank Konrad Dennerl for contributing text on the effect of X-rays in upper atmospheric
regions.
4.2.4.6. References
74Zha Zharkov, V.N., Trubitsyn, V.P.: Physics of Planetary Interiors, Pachart, Tucson (1974) 388pp.
75McE McElroy, M.B.: D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht (1975) 409pp.
77Hun Hunten, D.M., Dessler, A.J.: Planet. Spa. Sci. 25 (1977) 25.
81Lin Lindal, G.F. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 86 (1981) 8721.
82Con1 Connerney, J.E.P. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 87 (1982) 3623.
82Con2 Connerney, J.E.P. et al.: Nature 298 (1982) 44.
87Con Connerney, J.E.P. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 92 (1987) 15,329.
88Nic Nicholson, P.D. and Porco, C.C. J. Geophys. Res. 93 (1988) 10209
89Bri Briggs, F.H., Sacket, P.D.: Icarus 80 (1989) 77.
89Hub Hubbard, W.B.: Structure and Composition of Giant Planet Interiors, In: Origin and Evolution of
Planetary and Satellite Atmospheres, University of Arizona Press, Tucson (1989) 539.
91Con Connerney, J.E.P. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 96 (1991) 19,023.
93Lun Lunine, J.I.: Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 31 (1993) 217.
94Wei Weisstein, E.W., Serabyn, E.: Icarus, 109 (1994) 367.
95Feg Fegley, B.: Global Earth Physics, American Geophysical Union Handbook (1995) 320.
95Gau Gautier, D., et al.: U. Tucson Press, Arizona (1995) 547.
95Pod Podolak, M. et al.: Plan. Spa. Sci. 43 (1995) 1517.
96Gla Gladstone, G.R. et al.: Icarus 119 (1996) 1.
96Wei Weisstein, E.W., Serabyn, E.: Icarus, 123 (1996) 23.
97Bur Burrows, A. et al. : Astrophys. J. 491 (1997) 856.
97You Young, L.A., et al.: Science 276 (1997) 108.
98Zah von Zahn, U. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 103 (1998) 22,815.
99Atr Atreya, S.K. et al. : Planet. Space Sci., 47 (1999) 1243.
99Enc Encrenaz, Th. et al. Planet. Space Sci. 47 (1999) 1225.
99Gui Guillot, T.: Science 286 (1999) 72
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
99Irw Irwin, P.G.J.: Surv. Geophys. 20 (1999) 505.

99Mat Matcheva, K., Strobel, D.: Icarus 140 (1999) 410.
99Pat de Pater, I. et al.: Icarus 91 (1991) 220.
99Yun Yung, Y.L., DeMore, W.B.: Photochemistry of Planetay Atmospheres, Oxford Uni. Press (1999)
192pp.
00Cho Cho, J.Y.K. et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 106 (2001) 5099.
00Con Conrath, B.J., Gautier D. : Icarus 144 (2000) 124.
00Mau Maurellis, A.N., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 27 (2002) 1339.
00Mos Moses, J.I. et al.: Icarus 143 (2000) 244.
02Gla Gladstone, G.R. et al.: Nature 415 (2002) 1000.
02Hub Hubbard, W.B. et al., Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 40 (2002) 103.
03Jac Jacobson, R.A. JUP230 orbit solution (2003) http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?gravity_fields_op
03See Seeber, G. Satellite Geodesy, deGruyter Berlin (2003) 589pp.
04Bra Branduardi-Raymont, G. et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 424 (2004) 331.
04Fla Flasar, F.M., et al.: Nature 427 (2004) 132.
04Gui Guillot, T. et al. : The Interior of Jupiter, In : Jupiter : The Planet, Satellite, and Magnetosphere,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004) 35.
04Kun Kunde, V.G. et al.: Science 305 (2004) 1582
04Nes1 Ness, J.-U. et al..: Astron. Astrophys. 414 (2004) L49.
04Nes2 Ness, J.-U., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 418 (2004) 337.
05Bha1 Bhardwaj, A., et al.: Astrophys. J. 624 (2005) L121.
05Bha2 Bhardwaj, et al..: Astrophys. J. 627 (2005) L73.
05Bha Bhardwaj, A., et al.: Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (2005) L03S08.
05Mos Moses, J.I., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 110 (2005) doi:10.1029/2005JE002411.
06Bur Burgdorf, M., et al.: Icarus 184 (2006) 634.
07Bea Le Beau, R.P., Raymond, P., Deng, X.: Amer. Astron. Soc., DPS Meeting #39, 38 (2007) 526.
05Vas Vasavada and Showman.: Inst. Phys. Publishing 68 (2005) 1935.
06Gre Greathouse, T.K. et al.: Icarus 181 (2006) 266.
06Esp Esposito, L. Planetary Rings (2006) Cambridge Univ. Press 216pp
06Jac Jacobson, R.A. et al. Astron. J. 132 (2006) 6
06Smi Smith, G., Nash, D.: Icarus 182 (2006) 181.
06Tea Teanby, N.A. et al.: Icarus 185 (2006) 466.
07Bha Bhardwaj, A., et al.: Plan. Spa. Sci. 55 (2007) 1135.
07Bus Busse, F.H., Simitev, R.: Planetary Dynamos In: Planets and Moons, Treatise on Geophysics 10
Elsevier (2007) 281.
07Con Connerney, J.E.P.: Planetary Magnetism In: Planets and Moons, Treatise on Geophysics 10
Elsevier (2007) 243.
07Gui Guillot, T., Gautier, D.: Giant Planets In: Planets and Moons, Treatise on Geophysics 10
Elsevier (2007), 439.
07Hes Hesman, B.E. et al.: Icarus 186 (2007) 342.
07Jac Jacobson, R.A. BAAS 39 (2007) 453
08Fle Fletcher, L.N., et al.: Science 319 (2008) 79.
08Jac Jacobson, R.A. BAAS 40 (2008) 296.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.5 Exoplanets
John Lee Grenfell

The term exoplanet refers to a planet orbiting a star (or stellar remnant) other than our Sun and which
has a mass of less than thirteen Jupiters (the limit for thermonuclear deuterium fusion assuming solar
metallicity) there are, however some caveats to this definition (see http:\\www.iau.org). Studying
exoplanets sheds light on our own solar system via comparative planetology. The year 1995 marked the
discovery of the first confirmed exoplanet orbiting a main sequence star [95May] and since then more
than 300 exoplanet candidates have been presented. Studying exoplanets places our solar system in a new
context, and, analagous to the Copernican revolution raises fundamental questions such as: how typical is
our solar system? How did it form compared with other systems? Exoplanet science can also provide
input for the age-old debate concerning habitable conditions and the search for life in the Universe.
4.2.5.1 General Properties
Exoplanets are found in all regions of the sky. Stars with higher metallicities may be more likely to have
exoplanets [05Val]. Most exoplanet orbits found to date are very eccentric (e=0.2 to 0.8) compared e.g. to
the Earth (e~0.1).
4.2.5.2 Observation Methods
Radial Velocity (RV) relies on the wobble effect of a star, moving back and forth with respect to an
observer on the Earth, induced by a planet as the system revolves around its common centre of gravity.
The RV technique excite Doppler-induced time-variations in the stellar spectrum. Jupiter and Earth, for
example, feature Doppler velocities of 13ms-1 and 0.1ms-1 respectively. Modern measurements can detect
planets with RV signals of less than 1ms-1. The RV method yields the planet-star separation (from
Keplers third law) and the product m(sin)i (where m is planetary mass and i is the line of sight angle)
from Newtons gravitational law.
Astrometry relies on accurately measuring changes in a stars position with time, induced by planetary
motion [04Kov].
Transit method relies on the dip in stellar intensity when a planet passes between the stellar disk and
the observer. Since the amplitude of the dip in the lightcurve is proportional to the area of the planetary
disk, the transit method yields the planetary radius. This, combined with information about the planetary
mass from the RV method above, yields an estimate of planetary density an important input parameter
for planetary formation models. Drawbacks of the method are: a favourable alignment geometry is
required (at 1 Astronomical Unit (AU) the probability of a transit alignment is ~0.5%); follow-up
observations using e.g. RV are needed to rule out false detections; data is not continuous.
Gravitational Lensing relies on the lensing effect which occurs when light from a source, typically in
the galactic bulge is bent by a star leading to a lensing effect hence an enhancement in source intensity as
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
seen by an observer on the Earth [04Abe]. If the source star has a planet it features as a secondary peak
on the intensity enhancement curve. The method is very sensitive and has led to the discovery of
terrestrial-sized exoplanets e.g. [05Bea] which are invaluable for statistical studies of exoplanet
properties. Drawbacks are, the lensing configurations are unique so no follow-up observations are
possible. Such planets are very far away - typically ~1000 light years from the Earth, about 10 times
further than exoplanets found from other methods.
Direct imaging involves capturing photons emitted directly by the planet, allowing spectral
characterisation. [05Neu] suggested direct image results for a giant exoplanet orbiting at around 55AU
from its star. The Infra-red has been suggested as a favourable wavelength region for the direct method,
since planets are relatively brighter in this spectral region compared with their central stars, compared
with the visible region. Coronograph techniques which involve the blocking-out of interfering starlight in
order to analyse with direct imaging the residual, exoplanetary signature, are currently under
investigation.
4.2.5.3 Types of Exoplanets
Hot Jupiters these are the most common type of exoplanets discovered to-date
(http:\\www.exoplanet.eu) although this result most likely reflects a bias in detection methods (large
planets with short orbits are favoured for detection). These planets are massive gas giants which orbit
very close to their central star. Their discovery sparked a challenge for planetary formation models, to
predict how to account for them (refs).
A well-studied example is the transiting hot Jupiter HD209458b (or Osiris) where HD refers to the
Henry Draper catalogue and b(c,d...) refer to planets from inner to outer. Osiris lies about 150 light
years away in the Pegasus constellation, orbiting a sunlike star with a period of about 3.5 days and a mass
of 0.7 Jupiters. Strong gravitational interaction due to the close proximity of planet and star lead to tidal
locking, whereby both planet and star have equal rotation rates and the planet has a constant dayside and
nightside.
The main atmospheric constituents of hot Jupiters are likely to be molecular hydrogen and helium,
although their concentrations have not been measured. [03Vid] determined atomic hydrogen via
spectroscopic Lyman-alpha measurements and suggested that Osiris is losing about 10,000 tons per
second of its H. [02Cha] detected sodium spectroscopically in the atmosphere of Osiris. [07Tin; 08Swa]
discussed spectral signals of water, CO and CH4 in the atmosphere of a hot Jupiter. Thermal brightness
measurements of the secondary transit of Osiris (when the planet disappears behind the star) suggested a
brightness temperature of 1130K. A 3D model study of dynamical flow on Osiris was carried out by
[03Cho]. The model simulated strong flow from the planets dayside to the nightside with large cyclonic
flow at high latitudes and global scale atmospheric waves in tropical to mid-latitudes.
Terrestrial Exoplanets refers to a compact body with a core, mantle, crust and a secondary atmosphere
formed from outgassing. As detection methods improve, more and more of such planets are expected to
be found. Planetary formation models are employed to estimate how common such planets could be, and
to shed light on how they form and evolve. [93Lis] provide a review of planet formation. [06Ray] suggest
that about one third of known exoplanet systems could contain a terrestrial planet. Important parameters
which influence this result include: how quickly the planets accrete in the planetary formation disk and
the position and number of gas giants. [07Qui] noted that binary star systems could have habitable planets
if the stars remain >10AU apart. [00Mor] discuss the delivery of water to terrestrial planets.
Superearth denotes a terrestrial exoplanet with a mass of up to about 10 Earth masses [07Val;
07Sot]. Attention has focused recently on the red dwarf star Gliese 581 which hosts three exoplanets.
[07Blo; 07Sel] concluded that one or more of these planets may lie in the HZ although more work is
desirable to explore this issue further. Work has focused on the habitability of planets orbiting faint M-
stars, which are very numerous in the solar neighbourhood. For such stars, the proximity of the HZ to the
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
star implies tidal-locking of planet and star. In such a case, to be habitable the planets atmosphere must
be able to transport sufficient heat from the permanently-illuminated dayside to the nightside, to prevent
atmosphere collapse. [97Jos; 03Jos] modelled such a planet and concluded that for >1bar CO2
atmospheres the planet would indeed be habitable. [07Sca] reviewed the habitability of planets orbiting
M-stars. Additional effects which must be considered are: the influence of flares upon the planets
atmosphere [07Kho], magnetospheric protection [05Gri], atmospheric escape [07Lam] and
photochemistry [07Gre2].
Much effort is being channelled into searching for potentially habitable exoplanets, with particular
interest placed in the search for habitable earthlike planets in the habitable zone.
Habitability the Habitable Zone (HZ) [59Hua; 79Har; 93Kas] denotes the region around a star in
which a planet must orbit if liquid water (assumed to be essential for life) can exist on its surface. In the
Solar system, Venus and Mars lie just beyond the inner and outer HZ boundary respectively.
Biomarkers denote compounds indicative of life, for example oxygen (from photosynthesis) and ozone
(mainly produced from oxygen) and nitrous oxide (from denitrifying bacteria). Other biomarker
signatures are e.g. the simultaneous presence of oxidising and reducing gases in an atmosphere (such as
e.g. oxygen and methane) which cannot be explained by inorganic chemistry alone [65Lov; 93Sag].
Vegetation (the red edge) may also provide a biosignature [e.g. 03Sea]. Model studies [e.g. 93Kas;
02Sel 07Kal; 07Gre1] are employed to calculate theoretical signatures of biomarkers and to rule out
false positives where inorganic chemistry may mimic a lifelike planet.
Missions the French-led COROT exoplanet mission employs the transit approach and can detect down
to about two Earth masses. The planned Kepler mission (NASA) will search for earth-sized terrestrial
planets orbiting in the HZ.
4.2.5.4 References
59Hua Huang, S.: Am. Sci. 47 (1959) 393.

65Lov Lovelock, J.E.: Nature 207 (1965) 568.
79Har Hart, M.: Icarus 37 (1979) 351.
93Kas Kasting, J.F., et al.: Icarus 101 (1993) 108.
93Lis Lissauer, J.J.: Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 31 (1993) 129.
93Sag Sagan, C., et al.: Nature 365 (1993) 715.
95May Mayor, M., Queloz, D.: Nature 378 (1995) 355.
97Jos Joshi, M., Haberle, R.M., Reynolds, R.T. Icarus 129 (1997) 450.
00Mor Morbidelli, A., et al.: Meteor. Plan. Sci. 35 (2000) 1309.
02Cha Charbonneau, D., et al.: Astrophys. J. 568 (2002) 377.
02Sel Selsis, F., et al. : Astron. Astrophys. 388 (2002) 985.
03Cho Cho, J., et al.: Astron. Phys. J. 587 (2003) 117.
03Jos Joshi, M.: Astrobiol. 3 (2003) 415.
03Sea Seager, S., et al.: Astrobiol. 5 (2005) 372.
03Vid Vidal-Madjar, A., et al.: Nature 422 (2003) 143.
04Abe Abe, F., et al.: Science 305 (2004) 1264.
04Kov Kovalevsky, J.: Fundamentals of Astrometry, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
05Bea Beaulieu, J.-P., et al.: Nature 439 (2006) 437.
05Neu Neuhuser, R., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 435 (2005) L13.
06Ray Raymond, S.N., et al.: Nature 313 (2006) 1413.
07Blo von Bloh, W., et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 476 (2007) 1365.
07Gre1 Grenfell, J.L., et al.: Plan. Spa. Sci. 55 (2007) 661.
07Gre2 Grenfell, J.L., et al.: Plan. Spa. Sci. 7 (2007) 185.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
07Gri Griemeier, J.-M., et al.: Astrobiol. 5 (2005) 587.

07Kal Kaltenegger, L., et al.: Astrophys. J. 658 (2007) 598.
07Kho Khodachenko, M., et al.: Astrobiol. 7 (2007) 167.
07Lam Lammer, H., et al.: Astrobiol. 7 (2007) 185.
07Qui Quintana, E.V., et al. : Astrophys. J., 660 (2007) 807.
07Sca Scalo, J., et al.: Astrobiol. 7 (2007) 85.
07Sot Sotin, C., et al. : Icarus 191 (2007) 337.
07Tin Tinneti, G., et al.: Nature 448 (2007) 169.
07Val Valencia, D., et al. : Astrophys. J., 656 (2007) 545.
08Sel Selsis, F.,et al.: Astron. Astrophys. 476 (2007) 1373.
08Swa Swain, M.R., et al.: Nature 452 (2008) 329.
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
4.2.6 Missions
Judit Jnchen
The following tables summarize the successful and partly successful planetary missions from the past up
until the present (status October 2008). Table 1 lists the numbers of missions to specific targets. Tables 2-
4 list missions to terrestrial planets, tables 5-8 missions to the gas giants, and tables 9 - 13 missions to the
Moon, comets, asteroids, dwarf planets, and satellites. Landing site coordinates are given in the respective
entry. Please note that coordinates for some missions to Mars, Venus, and the Moon are based on obsolete
coordinate systems and do not correspond to current systems defined in the IAU 2006 report (see
4.2.3.1.). The tables do not list instrumentations. The interested reader is referred to [07Fal].
The column type contains categories with the following meanings: Fly by are missions, which
pass the target body and continue in an orbit around the Sun or on a course leaving the solar system.
Circumlunar flights like Luna 3 are also included. Orbiter are missions to orbit the target body. Hard
landing are spacecraft which crash on the body, and are considered non functional after contact with the
surface. 1 Soft landing are missions designed to survive and operate after landing. Atmosphere probe
are missions to descent/drift through an atmosphere; they need not survive the landing on the surface
(typical early Venus spacecraft) the same applies to atmosphere balloons. 2 Rover are soft-landing
missions that have a rover on board. Return to Earth are missions that return samples or astronauts.
Landing Module is only used for manned lunar missions. Sample Return are missions that collect
samples for return to Earth.
All tables listing missions are ordered by launch date from oldest to youngest. The reader is referred to
(chapter Small Bodies of the Solar System (by Alan Harris)) for the definitions of the categories comet,
asteroid, and dwarf planet.
Abbreviations
AP Atmosphere Probe
FB Fly by
HL Hard landing
L Lander
LM Landing Module
LR Lunar Rover
O Orbiter
R Rover
RtE Return to Earth
SL Soft landing
SR Sample return
Table 1 Number of Missions to individual celestial bodies (several mission were directed to more than
one celestial body)
Body Number of Missions
Mercury 2
Venus 41
Mars 38
1
) [07Bal].
2
) [07Bal].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Ref. p. xxx] 4.2.6 Missions 265
Jupiter 8
Saturn 4
Uranus 1
Neptune 1
Moon 105
Dwarf Planets 2
Asteroids 9
Comets 11
Phobos 3
Titan 1
4.2.6.1 The Inner Solar system
Table 2 Mercury
Mission Type Notes Launch Ref.
Mariner 10 FB 3 fly bys, first time gravity assist applied in
3
(USA) planetary mission, fly by March 1974, September 3. Nov. 1973
1974, March 1975, first dual-planet mission
4
Messenger (USA) O First fly by January 2008 3. Aug. 2004
Table 3 Venus
5
Mariner 2 (USA) FB Fly by December 1962 27. Aug. 1962
Venera 3 (USSR) AP First space probe to reach surface of another planet, 16. Nov. 1965 6
failed to send data
Venera 4 (USSR) AP Stopped transmitting before reaching surface, 12. June 1967
7
transmitted for 94 minutes during entry, crushed by
atmosphere pressure; 19N, 38E
8
Mariner 5 (USA) FB Fly by October 1967 14. June 1967
Venera 5 (USSR) AP Transmitted for 53 minutes during descent, crushed 9
5. Jan. 1969
by atmosphere pressure; -3N, 18E
Venera 6 (USSR) AP Transmitted for 51 minutes, crushed by atmosphere See
10. Jan. 1969 9
pressure; -5N, 23E
Venera 7 (USSR) AP Transmitted 23 minutes from surface; -5N, 351E See
17. Aug. 1970 9
Venera 8 (USSR) AP Transmitted roughly for 51 minutes from surface; 10
27. Mar. 1972
-10N, 335E
Mariner 10 (USA) FB First time swing by used to reach another planet, fly 11
3. Nov. 1973
by February 1973, first dual-planet mission
12
Venera 9 (USSR) O, SL First images of surface, transmitted for 53 minutes 8. June 1975
3
) [01Eng], [05Eng], [97Gre], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR].
4
) [05Eng], [LPS].
5
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [NMLR].
6
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal].
7
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92BAS].
8
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [NMLR], [LPS].
9
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92BAS].
10
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92BAS].
11
) [01Eng], [05Eng], [97Gre], [02Sid], [NMLR], [LPS].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

from surface; 31.7N, 290.8E
Venera 10 (USSR) O, SL Transmitted for 65 minutes after landing; 16N, See
14. June 1975 12
291E; or 16N, 290.8E
Pioneer-Venus 1 O Double mission with Pioneer-Venus 2 13
20. May 1978
(USA)
Pioneer-Venus 2 AP 4 atmosphere probes, double mission with Pioneer-
(USA) Venus 1, one atmosphere probe survived impact
14
and transmitted for about 60 minutes; 4.4N, 8. Aug. 1978
304E; 59.3N, 4.8E; - 81.7N (or - 31.3N),
317E; - 28.7N, 56.7E
Venera 11 (USSR) FB, Transmitted for about 95 minutes after landing; 15
9. Sept. 1978
SL -14N, 299E
Venera 12 (USSR) FB, Transmitted for about 110 minutes after landing; See
14. Sept. 1978 15
SL -7N, 294E
Venera 13 (USSR) FB, Survived 127 minutes, soil investigation, first 16
30. Oct. 1981
SL colour images of surface; -7.5N, 303.5E
Venera 14 (USSR) FB, Survived for 57 minutes; -13N, 310E See
4. Nov. 1981 16
SL
17
Venera 15 (USSR) O Radar mapping of surface 2. June 1983
18
Venera 16 (USSR) O Radar mapping of surface 7. June 1983
Vega 1 (USSR) FB, Main spacecraft continued on to comet Halley for
19
SL, fly by, atmosphere probe was a balloon; 8.1N, 15. Dec. 1984
AP 176.7E
Vega 2 (USSR) FB, Main spacecraft continued on to comet Halley for
SL, fly by, atmosphere probe was a balloon; -7.2N, 20
21. Dec. 1984
AP 179.4E
Magellan (USA) O First global topography using radar mapping 21

4. May. 1989
techniques
22
Galileo(USA) FB Fly by Venus February 1990 18. Oct. 1989
Venus Express O In operation 23
9. Nov. 2005
(ESA)
Failed missions: 1961-63 Sputnik 7 (AP), Venera 1 (AP), Mariner 1 (FB), Sputnik 19 (AP), Sputnik 20
(AP), Sputnik 21 (FB), Kosmos 21 (FB); 1964-66 Venera 1964 A (FB), Venera 1964 B (FB), Kosmos 27
(AP), Zond 1 (AP), Venera 2 (FB), Kosmos 96 (FB or L), Venera 1965 A (FB), 1967-72 Kosmos 167
(AP), Kosmos 359 (AP), Kosmos 482 (AP)
Table 4 Mars
12
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92BAS].
13
14
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [PE], [NMLR], [07Bal], [92BAS].
15
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92BAS].
16
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [LPS], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92BAS].
17
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [LPS].
18
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [LPS].
19
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal], [92BAS].
20
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal], [92BAS].
21
22
) [01Eng], [05Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [PE], [NMLR].
23
) [ESA], [LPS].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

MARS 1 (USSR) FB Communication failed, silent fly by, collected data 24
1. Nov. 1962
on interplanetary space
25
Mariner 4 (USA) FB First successful fly by, first images 28. Nov. 1964
26
Mariner 6 (USA) FB Fly by at about 3,500 km 25. Feb. 1969
Mariner 7 (USA) FB Fly by at about 3,500 km 27. Mar. See
1969 26
MARS 2 (USSR) O, SL Lander failed (transmission failed, dust storm or 27
19. May 1971
crashed), orbiter transmitted data; 4N, 313E
MARS 3 (USSR) O, SL Lander transmitted 20s (transmission failed, dust 28. May 28
storm), orbiter transmitted data; -45N, 202E 1971
Mariner 9 (USA) O First space craft to enter orbit around a planet 29
30. May 1971
MARS 4 (USSR) O Fly by, was supposed to act as data relay for Mars 30
21. July 1973
6 and 7
MARS 5 (USSR) O Operated for only short period, was supposed to act 31
25. July 1973
as data relay for Mars 6 and 7
MARS 6 (USSR) FB, Lander crashed (but sent data during descent); 32
5. Aug. 1973
SL -24N, 340E; or -24N, 341E
MARS 7 (USSR) FB, Failed (landing probe did fly by), fly by probe 33
9. Aug. 1973
SL collected data
Viking 1 (USA) O, SL First analysis of surface material; 22.269628N, 34
20. Aug. 1975
312.050381E
Viking 2 (USA) O, SL Lander transmitted data until 1980; 47.668093N, See
9. Sept. 1975 34
134.282101E
Phobos 2 (USSR) Mars Failed (contact lost after initial return of data)
O, 35
12. July 1988
Phobo
s SL
Mars Global O First global digital terrain model 36
7. Nov. 1996
Surveyor (USA)
Mars Pathfinder SL, R Rover Sojourner; 19.099641N, 326.747364E 37
4. Dec. 1996
(USA) (initial landing site)
Nozomi (Planet B) O Fly by, first Japanese mars space probe 38
3. July 1998
(Japan)
39
Mars Odyssey O Detailed mineralogical analysis 7. Apr. 2001
24
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [LPS], [PE].
25
26
27
) [05Eng], [97Gre], [02Sid], [PE], [LPS], [07Bal].
28
) [05Eng], [97Gre], [02Sid], [PE], [LPS], [07Bal], [92Bol].
29
30
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS].
31
) [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS].
32
) [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [07Bal], [92Bol], [92Sny].
33
) [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [07Bal].
34
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [NMLR], [07Bal], [06Kon].
35
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal].
36
) [98ESF], [02Sid], [05Eng], [LPS], [NMLR], [PE].
37
) [98ESF], [02Sid], [LPS], [PE], [NMLR], [07Bal], [06Kon].
38
) [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS].
39
) [05Eng], [LPS].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

(USA)
Mars Express O, SL Beagle 2 Lander failed 40
2. June 2003
(ESA)
Mars Exploration SL, R Rover Spirit; - 14.571892N, 175.47848E; or 41
10. June 2003
Rover (USA) -14.5692N, 175.4729E (initial landing site)
Mars Exploration SL, R Rover Opportunity; - 1.948282N, 354.47417E; or See
8. July 2003 41
Rover (USA) - 1.9462N, 354.4734E (initial landing site)
Mars Reconn. O In operation 42
12. Aug. 2005
Orbiter (USA)
43
Phoenix (USA) SL Landed in May 2008; 68.15N, 234.1E 4. Aug. 2007
Failed missions: 1960-64 Mars 1960 A (FB or AP), Mars 1960 B (FB or AP), Sputnik 22 (FB), Sputnik
24 (AP), Mariner 3 (FB), Zond 2 (FB); 1969-71 Mars 1969A (O), Mars 1969B (O), Mariner 8 (O),
Kosmos 419 (O or O, L); 1988-99 Phobos 1 (O, L), Mars Observer (O), Mars96 (O, L), Mars Climate
Orbiter (O), Mars Polar Lander (SL)
4.2.6.2 The outer solar system
Table 5 Jupiter
Pioneer 10 (USA) FB Fly by December 1973, first vehicle placed on a
trajectory to escape solar system; first human made 44
2. Mar. 1972
object to leave solar system; also returned images
of Callisto, Ganymede, and Europa
Pioneer 11 (USA) FB Fly by December 1974 See
6. Apr. 1973 44
Voyager 2 (USA) FB Fly by July 1979, also images of Amalthea, Io, See
20. Aug. 1977 44
Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto
Voyager 1 (USA) FB Fly by March 1979, also images of Amalthea, Io,
See
Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto 5. Sept. 1977 44
Galileo (USA) O, AP Arrival atmosphere probe December 1995, multiple 45

18. Oct. 1989
fly by of Ganymede, Europa, Callisto, Io, Amalthea
Ulysses (USA FB Fly by February 1992, Space probe to investigate 46
6. Oct. 1990
/ESA) Sun
Cassini/Huygens FB Destination Saturn (orbiter and soft landing), fly by 47
15. Oct. 1997
(USA /ESA) 2000
New Horizons FB Destination is Pluto and its moon Charon, fly by 48
19. Jan. 2006
(USA) 2007
40
) [05Eng], [ESA], [LPS], [07Bal].
41
) [05Eng], [LPS], [07Bal], [05Li].
42
) [05Eng], [LPS].
43
) [05Eng], [LPS], [07Bal].
44
45
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [NMLR], [07Bal].
46
) [02Sid], [LPS].
47
) [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS].
48
) [LPS].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
Table 6 Saturn
49
Pioneer 11 (USA) FB Fly by September 1979 6. Apr. 1973
Voyager 2 (USA) FB Fly by August 1981, also images of Titan,
50
Enceladus, Tethys, Rhea, Dione, Mimas, and 20. Aug. 1977
Phoebe
Voyager 1 (USA) FB Fly by November 1980, also images of Titan,
51
Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Hyperion, 5. Sept. 1977
and Rhea
Cassini-Huygens Saturn Atmosphere probe named Huygens, fly by
(USA /ESA) O, Phoebe, Iapetus, Enceladus, Dione, Rhea, with 52
15. Oct. 1997
Titan Tethys, Mimas, and Hyperion, multiple fly by of
AP Titan
Table 7 Uranus
Voyager 2 (USA) FB Fly by January 1986, also images of Miranda, 53
20. Aug. 1977
Oberon, Ariel, Umbriel, and Titania,
Table 8 Neptune
Voyager 2 (USA) FB Fly by August 1989, also images of Triton, Nereid, See
20. Aug. 1977 53
Proteus, Naiad,
4.2.6.3 Missions to other celestial bodies
Table 9 Moon
54
Luna 1 (USSR) HL Fly by, passed moon at distance of 6000 km 2. Jan. 1959
55
Pioneer 4 (USA) FB Fly by of Moon at 60,000 km 3. Mar. 1959
Luna 2 (Ye-1a) HL Crashed near crater Autolycus, 30 N, 0 E; or 12. Sept. 1959 56
(USSR) 29.1 N, 0 E
Luna 3 (Ye-2) FB Highly elliptical orbit around Earth, first pictures 4. Oct. 1959 57
(USSR) from far side of Moon
Ranger 3 (USA) SL Missed Moon (malfunction guidance system), 26. Jan. 1962 58
measurements of interplanetary Gamma-ray flux
59
Ranger 5 (USA) SL Missed Moon, collected Gamma-ray data 18. Oct. 1962
49
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE].
50
51
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE].
52
) [98ESF], [01Eng], [05Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Bal].
53
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng] [LPS], [PE], [NMLR].
54
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
55
) [LE], [97Gre], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR].
56
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har], [07Bal], [92 Bol], [LCM].
57
) Ye-2 designation for farside photography (fly by), [LE], [97Gre] [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
58
) [LE], [97Gre], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR], [07Bal].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

Ranger 7 (USA) HL Crashed in Mare Nubium or Mare Cognitum, 28. July 1964 60
transmitted images, -10.70 N, 339.33 E
Ranger 8 (USA) HL Crashed in Mare Tranquillitatis, transmitted 17. Feb. 1965 61
images, 2.71 N, 24.81 E
Ranger 9 (USA) HL Crashed in Crater of Alphonsus, transmitted 21. Mar. 1965 62
images, -12.91 N, 357.62 E
63
Zond 3 (USSR) FB Imaged Moon 18. July 1965
Luna 9 (Ye-6M) SL First successful soft landing, landed in Oceanus
64
(USSR) Procellarum, 7.14 N, 295.62 E; or 7.13 N, 31. Jan. 1966
295.63 E
Luna 10 (Ye-6S) O First artificial satellite of the Moon 65
31. Mar. 1966
(USSR)
Surveyor 1 (USA) SL Near crater Flamsteed, Ocean of Storm, -2.44 N, 30. May 1966 66
316.66 E
Lunar Orbiter 1 O Purpose: preparation for Apollo landings sites 10. Aug. 1966 67
(USA)
Luna 11 (Ye-6LF) O Performed 277 orbits 24. Aug. 1966 68
(USSR)
Luna 12 (Ye-6LF) O Transmissions ended in January 1967 22. Oct. 1966 69
(USSR)
Lunar Orbiter 2 O Purpose: preparation for Apollo landings sites 6. Nov. 1966 70
(USA)
Luna 13 (Ye-6M) SL Landed in Oceanus Procellarum, 18.9 N, 298 E; 21. Dec. 1966 71
(USSR) or 18.87 N, 297.95 E
Lunar Orbiter 3 O Purpose: preparation for Apollo landings sites 5. Feb. 1967 72
(USA)
Surveyor 3 (USA) SL Landed in Oceanus Procellarum, -3.0159 N, 17. Apr. 1967 73
336.5822 E
Lunar Orbiter 4 O Imaged Moon until end of May 1967 4. May 1967 74
(USA)
75
Explorer 35 (USA) O Ended operation in 1973 19. July 1967
Lunar Orbiter 5 O Imaged Moon until mid-August 1967 1. Aug. 1967 76
(NASA)
59
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR], [07Bal].
60
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR], [07Bal], [LCM].
61
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Bal], [LCM].
62
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Bal], [LCM].
63
64
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har], [07Bal], [LCM], [92Bol].
65
) Ye-6S designation for orbiter, [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
66
67
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR].
68
) Ye-6LF designation for orbiter, [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
) [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR].
76
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

77
Surveyor 5 (USA) SL Landed in Mare Tranquillitatis, 1.49 N, 23.2 E 8. Sept. 1967
78
Surveyor 6 (USA) SL Landed in Sinus Medii, 0.42 N, 358.62 E 7. Nov. 1967
79
Surveyor 7 (USA) SL Landed near crater Tycho, -41.01 N, 348.59 E 7. Jan. 1968
Luna 14 (Ye-6LS) O Communication orbiter, Reached lunar orbit, but no 7. Apr. 1968 80
(USSR) publications
81
Zond 5 (USSR) RtE Plants and two tortoises were passengers 14. Sept. 1968
82
Zond 6 (USSR) RtE Minimum distance about 2,400 km 10. Nov. 1968
Apollo 8 (USA) O,RtE Second manned Apollo flight, first manned flight to 83
21. Dec. 1968
Moon
Apollo 10 (USA) O, Manned mission, first simulation of landing in lunar 18. May 1969
84
LM, orbit
RtE
Luna 15 (Ye-8-5) SL, Crashed in Mare Crisium after a few orbits, 17 N, 13. July 1969
85
(USSR) SR 60 E, images, data about gravitational field,
chemical composition of lunar rocks
Apollo 11 (USA) O, First manned landing on Moon, Mare 16. July 1969
86
LM, Tranquillitatis, 0.67 N, 23.47 E
RtE
87
Zond 7 (USSR) RtE Four tortoises on board 7. Aug. 1969
Apollo 12 (USA) O, Second manned landing, Oceanus Procellarum, 14. Nov. 1969
88
LM, -3.01 N, 336.58 E
RtE
Apollo 13 (USA) O, Manned mission, no landing after accident occurred 11. Apr. 1970
89
LM,
RtE
Luna 16 (Ye-8-5) SL, Landed in Mare Fecunditatis, returned 100g of soil, 12. Sept. 1970 90
(USSR) SR -0.65 N, 56.3 E; or -0.68 N, 56.3 E
91
Zond 8 (USSR) RtE Minimum distance about 1,110 km 20. Oct. 1970
Luna 17 (Ye-8) SL, R Mare Imbrium, rover Lunokhod 1, 38.213 N, 10. Nov. 1970 92
(USSR) 324.803 E
Apollo 14 (USA) O, Third manned landing, Fra Mauro, -3.65 N, 31. Jan. 1971
93
LM, 342.53 E
RtE
94
Apollo 15 (USA) O, Fourth manned landing, Hadley- Apennines, crew 26. July. 1971
77
78
79
80
) Ye-6LS orbiter, [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
81
) [LE], [97Gre], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
82
83
) [97Gre], [05Eng], [LPS].
84
) [97Gre], [05Eng], [LPS], [NMLR].
85
) [97Gre], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har], [07Bal], [LCM].
86
) [97Gre], [05Eng], [LPS], [NMLR], [LCM].
87
88
89
) [97Gre], [05Eng], [LPS], [NMLR].
90
91
92
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har], [07Bal], [LCM].
93
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

LM, also deployed particle and fields sub satellite,
LR, 26.13 N, 3.63 E
RtE
Luna 18 (Ye-8-5) SL, Failed (communication ceased), crashed in Mare 2. Sept. 1971 95
(USSR) SR Fecunditatis after several orbits, 3.57 N, 56.5 E
Luna 19 (Ye-8LS) O Operated for one year 28. Sept. 1971 96
(USSR)
Luna 20 (Ye-8-5) SL, Landed in area of Apollonius, returned 50g, 3.53 14. Feb. 1972 97
(USSR) SR N, 56.55 E
Apollo 16 (USA) O, Fifth manned landing, Descartes Area, crew also 16. Apr. 1972
LM, deployed particle and fields sub satellite, -8.97 N, 98
LR, 15.5 E
RtE
Apollo 17 (USA) O, Sixth manned landing, Taurus-Littrow, first 7. Dec. 1972
LM, geologist on Moon, 20.19 N, 30.77 E 99
LR,
RtE
Luna 21 (Ye-8) SL, R Rover Lunokhod 2, le Monnier crater, 25.85 N, 8. Jan. 1973 100
(USSR) 30.48 E ; or 25.85 N, 30.45 E
Explorer 49 (USA) O Was no lunar mission, but placed in lunar orbit to 10. June 1973 101
avoid terrestrial radio interference
Luna 22 (Ye-8LS) O Ended in November 1975 29. May 1974 102
(USSR)
Luna 23 (Ye-8- SL, Landing in Mare Crisium, main goal not achieved, 28. Oct. 1974 103
5M) (USSR) SR 13 N, 62 E
Luna 24 (Ye-8- SL, Landed in Mare Crisium, returned 170g, 12.75 N, 9. Aug. 1976 104
5M) (USSR) SR 62.2 E
105
Galileo (USA) FB 2 fly bys in 1990 and 1992 18. Oct. 1989
Muses-A (Hiten) FB, O First Japanese moon Orbiter, sub-satellite included 24. Jan. 1990 106
(Japan)
Clementine (USA) O Was supposed to continue journey to asteroid 107
25. Jan. 1994
Geographos, but failed
Lunar Prospector O Ended in July 1999 7. Jan. 1998 108
(USA)
109
SMART-1 (ESA) O First European lunar orbiter; tested solar-powered 27. Sept. 2003
94
) [97Gre], [05Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR], [LCM].
95
) [LE], [97Gre], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har], [07Bal], [LCM], [92Bol].
96
) Ye-8LS designation for orbiter, [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har].
97
98
) [97Gre], [05Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR], [LCM].
99
100
101
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [LPS], [NMLR].
102
103
) [LE], [97Gre], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Har], [07Bal], [LCM].
104
105
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [LPS].
106
) [JAXA], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS].
107
) [LE], [97Gre], [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS].
108
) [05Eng], [01Eng], [02Sid], [LPS].
109
) [ESA], [05Eng], [LPS].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

ion drive
Selene (Kaguya) O One main orbiter, two sub satellites 14. Sept. 2007 110
(Japan)
CHANGE 1 O Reached planned orbit in November 2007 24. Oct. 2007 111
(China)
Chandrayaan-1 O, HL In orbit, Moon impact probe (MIP) on board 22. Oct. 2008 112
(India)
Failed missions: 1958-59 Thor-Able 1 (O), Ye-1 113 (HL), Pioneer 1 (O), Ye-1 (HL), Pioneer 2 (O), Ye-1
(HL), Pioneer 3 (FB), Ye-1a (HL), Atlas-Able P-3 (O); 1960-62 Ye-2f (FB), Ye-2f (FB), Atlas-Able P-30
(O), Atlas-Able P-31 (O), Ranger 1 (FB, test flight), Ranger 2 (FB, test flight), Ranger 4 (SL); 1963-65
Ye-6 114 (SL), Ye-6 (SL), Luna 4 (SL), Kosmos 21 (FB), Ranger 6 (HL), Ye-6 (SL), Ye-6 (SL), Kosmos
60 (SL), Luna Ye-6 (SL), Luna 5 (SL), Luna 6 (SL), Luna 7 (SL), Luna 8 (SL); 1966-68 Kosmos 111
(O), Explorer 33 (O), Surveyor 2 (SL), Surveyor 4 (SL), Zond (RtE), Zond (RtE), Zond (RtE); 1969-71
Zond (RtE), Ye-8 115 (SL, R), N-1 L-1S (test flight), Ye-8-5 116 (SL, SR), L-1S, Kosmos 300 (SL, SR),
Kosmos 305 (SL, SR), Ye-8-5 (SL, SR), Ye-8-5 (SL, SR); 1972-1975 N1-LOK (O, RtE), Ye-8-5M (SL,
SR)
Table 10 Comets
Giacobini-Zinner
ICE (USA) FB Former ISEE-3 space probe for sun research, fly 12. Aug. 1978 117
by September 1985
Comet Halley
Vega 1 (USSR) FB Fly by March 1986; fly by Venus and released 118
15. Dec. 1984
Lander and atmosphere balloon
Vega 2 (USSR) FB Fly by March 1986; fly by Venus and released See
21. Dec. 1984 118
lander and atmosphere balloon
119
Sakigake (Japan) FB Fly by March 1986 7. Jan. 1985
Giotto (ESA) FB Europes first deep space mission, fly by Halley 2. July 1985 120
March 1986- First images of a comet nucleus
Suisei (Japan) FB Fly by March 1986, planned fly by of Giacobini- 18. Aug. 1985
121
Zinner in 1998 cancelled, as well as fly by of
comet Tempel-Tuttle
Comet Grigg-Skjellerup
122
Giotto (ESA) FB Fly by July 1992 2. July 1985
Comet Borrelly
123
Deep Space 1 (USA) FB Fly by September 2001 24. Oct. 1998
110
) [JAXA], [LPS].
111
) [LPS].
112
) [ISRO].
113
) Ye-1 designation for lunar impact.
114
) Ye-6 designation for lander.
115
) Ye-8 designation for rover.
116
) Ye-8-5 designation for sample return.
117
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [NMLR], [LPS].
118
119
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [JAXA].
120
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [ESA], [LPS].
121
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS], [JAXA].
122
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [ESA], [LPS].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

Comet Wild 2
Stardust (USA) FB,
Fly by January 2004, extended mission to fly by 7. Feb. 1999
SR
comet Tempel 1 in 2011, capsule returned to Earth See
in January 2006, main craft still in orbit around 123
sun
Comet 67 P/Churyumov- Gerasimenko
Rosetta (ESA) O, SL Lander Philae, original target was comet 46 2. Mar. 2004 124
P/Wirtanen
Comet Tempel 1
Deep Impact (USA) FB, Mission extended to fly by comet Hartley 2 in 125
12. Jan. 2005
HL 2010
Failed missions: 2002 CONTOUR (FB comets Encke, Schwassmann-Wachmann-3, Comet dArrest)
Table 11 Asteroids
Ida
Galileo (USA) FB Very first close-up views of asteroids, fly by 126
18. Oct. 1989
August 1993
Gaspra
Galileo (USA) FB Very first close-up views of asteroids, fly by See
18. Oct. 1989 126
October 1991
Mathilde
NEAR-Shoemaker FB Fly by June 1997 127
17. Feb. 1996
(USA)
433 Eros
NEAR-Shoemaker O, landed softly on asteroid, Arrival February 2000, 128
17. Feb. 1996
(USA) HL first artificial satellite of an asteroid,
Masursky
Cassini-Huygens FB Fly by in 2000 129
15. Oct. 1997
(USA /ESA)
9969 Braille (1992 KD)
130
Deep Space 1 (USA) FB Fly by July 1999 24. Oct. 1998
Annefrank
131
Stardust (USA) FB Fly by November 2002 7. Feb. 1999
Itokawa
Hayabusa (Japan) SL, First named Muses-C, mission in progress, 132
9. May 2003
SR reached asteroid in September 2005
132524 APL
123
) [02Sid], [05Eng] [01Eng], [LPS].
124
) [05Eng], [ESA], [LPS], [07Bal].
125
) [05Eng], [LPS], [07Bal].
126
127
) [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [NMLR], [LPS].
128
) [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [NMLR], [LPS], [07Bal].
129
) [02Sid].
130
) [02Sid], [01Eng], [05Eng], [LPS].
131
) [05Eng], [LPS].
132
) [05Eng], [LPS], [JAXA], [07Bal].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
New Horizons FB Fly by June 2006 133

19. Jan 2006
(USA)
Vesta
DAWN (USA) O Supposed to arrive in August 2011 See
27. Sept. 2007 133
Failed missions: 1994 Clementine (FB asteroid Geographos)
Table 12 Dwarf Planets

Pluto
New Horizons (USA) FB Supposed to arrive in July 2015 19. Jan. 2006 See 133
Ceres
DAWN (USA) O Supposed to arrive in February
27. Sept. 2007 See 133
2015
Table 13 Other Moons

Phobos
Phobos 2 (USSR) Mars Contact lost after initial return of
O, data 134
12. July 1988
Phobos
SL
135
Mars Express (ESA) FB Fly by July and August 2008 2. June 2003
Titan
Cassini-Huygens (USA Saturn Atmosphere probe named
/ESA) O, Huygens; - 10.33N, 167.68E 15. Oct. 1997 136
Titan
AP
Failed missions: 1988 Phobos 1 (O, SL)
Acknowledgements
Special Thanks to M. Knapmeyer, M. Whlisch, and T. Spohn for their input and insight.
4.2.6.4 References
92Bas Basilevsky, A., et al.: In: Barsukov, V.L., et al., editors, Venus, Geology, Geochemistry, and
Geophysics, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, London, 1992.
92Bol Bolschakow, Wd. et al.: Atlas of the Terrestrial Planets and Their Moons. Moscow State
University Institute for Geodesy and Cartography MIIGAIK, Moscow 1992.
92Sny Snyder, C.W., Moroz, V.I.: In: Kieffer, H.H. et al., editors, Mars, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson and London, 1992.
97Gre Greeley, R., Batson, R.: The NASA Atlas of the Solar System, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK 1997.
133
) [LPS].
134
) [97Gre], [02Sid], [05Eng], [01Eng], [LPS], [PE], [07Bal].
135
) [ESA].
136
) [98ESF], [01Eng], [05Eng], [02Sid], [LPS], [07Bal], [06Fol], [05Leb].
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4
98Esf Report by European Science Foundation and National Research Council: U.S.-European
Collaboration in Space Science, Washington D.C., 1998.
01Eng Engelhardt, W.: Enzyklopdie Raumfahrt, Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main, 2001.
02Sid Siddiqi, A.A.: Deep Space Chronicle, A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes
1958-2000, Monographs in Aerospace History, Nr. 24. NASA SP-2002-4524, 2002.
05Eng Engelhardt, W.: Galileo, Cassini, Giotto: Raumsonden erforschen unser Planetensystem,
Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main, 2005.
05Leb Lebreton, J.-P., et al.: Nature 438 (2005) 758.
05Li Li, Rongxing et al.: Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 71 (10) (2005) 1129.
06Fol Folkner, W. M., et al.: J. Geophys. Res. 111 (2006).
06Kon Konopliv, A.S., et al.: Icarus 182 (2006) 23.
07Bal Ball, A.J., et al.: Planetary Landers and Entry Probes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, 2007.
07Har Harvey, B.: Soviet and Russian Lunar Exploration, Springer (Praxis), Chichester, 2007.
07Fal Falkner, P., et al.: In: G. Schubert and T. Spohn, editors, Treatise on Geophysics - Planets and
Moons, Vol. 10, pages 595-641. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
Internet resources
ESA ESA Missions www.sci.esa.int
NMLR NASA Major Launch Record http://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/index.html
PE Planetary Exploration http://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/index.html
LE Lunar Exploration http://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/index.html
LPS Lunar and Planetary Science http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/
JAXA JAXA http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/index.shtml
LPI LPI http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/apollolanding/
LCM Lunar Constants and models http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?lunar_doc
ISRO Indian Space Research Organization www.isro.org
Landolt-Brnstein
New Series VI/4

ΑΣΤΡΟΝΟΜΙΑ

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ΑΣΤΡΟΝΟΜΙΑ

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

4.2.

4.2.2 Basic Data of Planetary Bodies (Hussmann, Sohl, Oberst )

Authors in alphabetical order:

Fig. 1 The eight planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars,

4.2.1.1 Structure and Dimension of the Solar System

4.2.1.2 Definition of a planet in the Solar System

4.2.2 Basic Data of Planetary Bodies

Hauke Hussmann, Frank Sohl, and Jurgen Oberst

4.2.2.1 General Definitions

4.2.2.1.1 Orbital Elements

define the shape and size of an elliptical orbit.

4.2.2.1.2 Time Standards

4.2.2.1.3 Astronomical Units

4.2.2.3 Dwarf Planets

number R [km] M [1020 kg] [kg m3 ] Prot [d] Porb [yr]

a [AU] e i [deg] [deg] [deg] M [deg]

Object R [km] GM [km3 s2 ] M [1020 kg] [kg m3 ] Porb [days] spin

Object a e M i Dec. R.A. tilt

satellite a [km] e i [deg] [deg] [deg] [deg] P [days] R [km]

4.2.3 Terrestrial Planets and Satellites

4.2.3.1 Geodetic and Geophysical Data

Matthias Grott, Hauke Hussmann, Jurgen Oberst, and Marita Wahlisch

4.2.3.1.1.1 Symbols Used

Table 1. List of symbols used.

4.2.3.1.2 Rotation and Shape

4.2.3.1.2.1 Rotational Elements

Mercury 0 = 281. 01 0.033T 0 = 61. 45 0.005T W = 329. 548 + 6.1385025d

The 340 meridian is defined by the crater Tore.

Ariel 257. 43 -15. 10 156. 22

Triton 299. 36 41. 17 296. 53

Table 4. Size and shape parameters of the terrestrial planets [07Sei].

Planet Mean radius Equatorial Polar radius RMS deviation

Table 5. Size and shape parameters for the satellites [07Sei].

Earth Moon 1737.4 1 1737.4 1 1737.4 1 1737.4 1

(a) Venus (b) Mars

Radius 6051.8 [km] Radius 3396 [km]

Radius 1737.4 [km]

4.2.3.1.3 Gravity studies

4.2.3.1.3.2 Gravity Field Coefficients

where is the angular velocity of the rotating planet.

(a) Earth (b) Venus

Topography [km] Topography [km]

Topography [km] Topography [km]

Earth Venus Mars Moon

68Mul Muller, P.M., Sjogren, W.L.: Science 161 (1968) 680684.

4.2.3.2 Planetary Interiors

Frank Sohl, Frank W. Wagner, Hauke Hussmann, and Matthias Grott

4.2.3.2.1.1 Symbols Used

Table 1. List of symbols used.

Symbol Definition Unit

Table 1. (continued) List of symbols used.

4.2.3.2.2 Basic Equations and Models

4.2.3.2.2.1 Two-layer Structural Models

The mean density of a two-layer spherical body is given by

4.2.3.2.2.2 Three-layer Structural Models

4.2.3.2.2.3 Depth-dependent Structural Models

4.2.3.2.2.4 Boundary Conditions

4.2.3.2.2.5 Equation of State

A convenient method to calculate density as a function of depth, first applied to seismological

The isothermal bulk modulus is then defined as

Table 3. Elastic properties of mantle mineral phase assemblages.

Table 4. Thermal expansivity of mantle mineral phase assemblages.

Note: 0 , 1 , 2 , are coefficients to calculate thermal expansivity according to (T ) = 0 + 1 T 2 T 2 ,

Table 5. Thermodynamic properties of core constituents.