Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quaoar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity

Posted by michael on from the long-way-out dept.

calibanDNS writes "Recent findings at the University of Hawaii's Institute for Astronomy indicate that there may be volcanic activity on at least one object in the Kuiper belt."

53 comments

  1. a bit of wishful thinking... by sailforsingapore · · Score: 1

    Volcanic activity seems like something of a strech...now, particulate venting isn't anything particularly unusual for large, rock like objects in space (see: comets, some asteroids). A collision, though, seems like the most likely cause.

    1. Re:a bit of wishful thinking... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Large collisions would be pretty rare in the Kuiper Belt. There just isn't enough stuff around. Worse, they occur at low speeds. So you wouldn't expect to generate a lot of melting that way. It's possible, of course. But it's an eyebrow-raiser.

      "Particulate venting"? You mean volatile sublimation, like comets when they get near the Sun? I don't know of any asteroids that do that. And Quaoar is much too far from the Sun to expect that sort of behavior. (The maximum temperature you would expect is around 50 Kelvins. And that assumes an albedo of 0, which can't be the case if they can see it in the visible wavelengths.)

    2. Re:a bit of wishful thinking... by Begossi · · Score: 1

      It's just a big, internal combustion powered, alien base. Or maybe the exhaust from their giant alien steam sauna.

      In any case, I for one welcome our new venting Kuiper overlords.

      --
      Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
    3. Re:a bit of wishful thinking... by barakn · · Score: 1
      "You mean volatile sublimation, like comets when they get near the Sun? I don't know of any asteroids that do that."

      Examples are so well known they're in introductory college-level texts like William Hartmann's Moons & Planets. This text mentions cases like asteroid 4015, whose 1979 discovery turned out to be a rediscovery of comet Wilson-Harrington, first discovered in 1949, and the case of asteroid 2090 Chiron, which suddenly sprouted a coma in 1988. Hartmann writes:

      Many outer solar system asteroids with dark carbonaceous surfaces might thus contain ices trapped inside. ... [I]nstead of thinking of the Victorian, semantic distinction between two distinct types of bodies, we have to learn to think in terms of a continuum between less ice-rich bodies and more ice-rich bodies, depending on the original location and conditions of origin.
      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    4. Re:a bit of wishful thinking... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

      a) Having taught from that book, I can tell you right now that Hartmann is not an introductory level text. So please don't try to insult me.

      b) Chiron and Wilson-Harrington are not asteroids. Both are comets. Chiron is nowhere near the main belt and is, rather, a type of object known as a Centaur. It's basically a kind of cometary body, not an asteroid.

      c) While some dead comets are widely believed to be disguing themselves as asteroids, no one (except Hartmann perhaps) that I know wants to classify them in the same category. There is certainly a varaition in the makeup of comets, but comets and asteroids have very different histories and compositions. Having formed inside of the frost-line, asteroids are widely-agreed to be (pretty much by defintion) volatile-poor. Outgassing would not be expected under those conditions as a consequence.

      A little research would have told you this. (Google is your friend, here.) The IAU, for example, codifies the distinction in the very handling and naming of newly discovered bodies.

      In any case, all of this is a tangent. You are suggesting that Sedna could be sublimating when its maximum temperature from solar insolation would be about 50 K. That's singularly unlikely.

    5. Re:a bit of wishful thinking... by barakn · · Score: 1
      a) According to the publisher's website about the 4th edition of Moons & Planets:
      Math boxes allow for greater flexibility and adaptability to varied mathematical abilities. (This text is the only one that gives the instructor a choice of teaching planetary science either at a descriptive level or at a moderately advanced level involving algebra and elementary calculus.)
      Hartmann also mentions freshmen in the book's preface. Clearly the book was written for a wide college audience. Just because you don't use it as an introductory text doesn't mean that it can't be or isn't being used that way somewhere. And just because I disagree with you on the matter doesn't mean I'm trying to insult your intelligence.

      b) According to the IAU's Committee for Small Body Nomenclature, three objects are both minor planets and comets: Chiron, Wilson-Harrington, and Elst-Pizzaro. Your comment that "comets and asteroids have very different histories and compositions" is irrelevent, as the histories and compositions of individual objects are often not known (even spectroscopy can only tell you about the surface, not what's beneath). Thus an object that has never been known to sport a coma is typically designated as a minor planet (i.e. asteroid) regardless of composition. The clear-cut distinction between asteroids and comets disappears in the face of observational constraints.

      c) Armagh Observatory, on Centaurs: "These bodies, many of which have diameters greater than 100 km, are called "Centaurs" because of their "half-comet, half-asteroid" status." There are many links on that page to other pages discussing the controversy surrounding the naming of objects. Centaurs are usually referred to in the literature as asteroids, not comets. Notice that the Minor Planet Center (which was given responsibility by the IAU of designating minor bodies in the Solar System) lists Centaurs on the minor planet orbits page, not the comet orbits page.

      The nomenclature problem isn't limited to Centaurs, as discussed in this excellent but dated Spacedaily article, which says (referring to a April 20, 2000, "Nature" article by Dr. Don Yeomans):

      Yeomans in Nature points out that recent computer simulations show that as much as three percent of Kuiper Belt objects are likely to be rocky asteroids that formed in the outer fringes of the Asteroid Belt -- but then, at some point over the eons, flew close enough to Jupiter to be catapulted by its gravity into the outer Solar System.... [M]eteorites have been found still containing significant traces of water trapped inside them -- which means that "Far from being the dry rocky bodies they were once thought to be, it would seem that some asteroids, along with with comets, might be significant sourcees [sic] of water."

      Google is my friend. Is it yours?

      I wasn't talking about Sedna. I was responding to a general statement you made about asteroids, not any particular asteroid.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  2. Someone needs to say something by LeninZhiv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, to break the silence, I'll chip in my two cents:

    1) It's really really cool to think that that far out into the solar system there could be geological activity going on. The sun's gotta be something like only -3 magnitude from out there.

    2) This has got to be really hard to verify or know much about; although at least now when we get around to sending further probes into the Kuiper belt Quaoar will probably be way up there on the priority scale, which is a good thing.

    Come to think of it, isn't there a probe that was recently launched headed to the Kuiper belt? Anyone know if by some great surrendipity it might be travelling in this region? I look forward to theories as to why Quaoar rather than Pluto or Sedna would be the first signs of geo activity in the outer solar system.

    Just some random thoughts from an amateur astronomer...

    1. Re:Someone needs to say something by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Informative

      The sun's gotta be something like only -3 magnitude from out there.

      Quaoar is at 43 AU from the Sun. That means the Sun's luminosity is down by a factor of 43^2, or about 1900, from what we get at Earth. That's about 8 magnitudes, so the Sun is about a -18 magnitude object. Still by far the brightest thing around.

      Besides, it doesn't matter much. Volcanism is an endogenic process, so the heat source would generally be internal. Surface temperature seldom sets much to do with geological activity. (Erosion is the main exception to this.)

      This has got to be really hard to verify or know much about

      More, and better, spectra. You don't need to get close to something to figure out what's going on, as much as it helps. Another group reportedly already has similar spectra and sees similar features.

      Also, lab work on ice at these temperatures and pressures would help a lot. Although it's hard to figure out what ice will do over the course of 4 billion years...

      Come to think of it, isn't there a probe that was recently launched headed to the Kuiper belt?

      No. The New Horizons mission to Pluto hasn't launched yet.

      I look forward to theories as to why Quaoar rather than Pluto or Sedna would be the first signs of geo activity in the outer solar system.

      1. It's not. Pluto has evidence for geological activity.
      2. So do a lot of other outer solar system objects, although you seem to mean "Kuiper Belt Objects" in this case. (They're not the same thing. The "outer solar system" is usually taken to mean the giant planets and outward.) Even then, you almost have to count Neptune's giant moon Triton on the list, which almost certainly has geological activity.
      3. Sedna is smaller than Quaoar. So it's less likely to have geological activity. Also, it's farther away thatn Quaoar, so it's really tough getting a spectrum.
    2. Re:Someone needs to say something by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      these are just speculations. All that the data actually show is that there is some crystalline ice.

      Quaoar is very cold, only few kelvines and pure water at this temperature freezes into amorphous ice. What is not known is the chemical composition and the history of Quaoar. So it is possible that the ice on Quaoar formed at higher temperatures but this observation is not a proof of a continuous thermal process.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    3. Re:Someone needs to say something by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      They also speculate that the ice would have had to formed recently, since crystalline ice is expected to have a lifetime of a few millions of years with the presence of radiation in space.

    4. Re:Someone needs to say something by shpoffo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So then the Quaoar scenario would seem to show that:

      a) there is some continuous process of heat
      b) there is some form of radiation shielding
      c) there is another process at work that mimics/underlies what we see in heat (spin dynamics, sufficient gravitation, etc?)

      additions, subtractions, comments (from anyone)?

      .
      -shpoffo

    5. Re:Someone needs to say something by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      It's really really cool to think that that far out into the solar system there could be geological activity going on. The sun's gotta be something like only -3 magnitude from out there.
      Neptune's moon, Triton is apparently so cold, that it has volcanoes made of liquid nitrogen.
      --
      More than mere navel gazing.
    6. Re:Someone needs to say something by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      If anybody needs a quick refresher on magnitudes (as I did!) you may want to look here: http://www.e-z.net/~haworth/constel/magnitude.html

      The summary is that each "magnitude" is 2.51 times the brightness, with brighter stars getting lower numbers. So, a magnitude 4 is 2.51 times brighter than a magnitude 5. Negative numbers mean very bright.
      The sun is -26.75 from Earth.

    7. Re:Someone needs to say something by Vacuum+Sux · · Score: 1

      Also, lab work on ice at these temperatures and pressures would help a lot. Although it's hard to figure out what ice will do over the course of 4 billion years...

      We're doing lab work on this already. Here in the lab where I'm sitting now we study non-thermal crytallization of amorphous water using photons. Setup is a vacuum chamber with 10^-10 torr pressure and a cryostat able to cool the graphite sample to about 40 K. The amorphous ice on the sample is irradiated with photons from a laser or a lamp and the crystallization that this processing induces is studied. The same thing can be studied with electrons, ions, or some other specie. The rates can be calculated and one can do simulations on how the ice should look after 4 billion years.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the profit overlords welcome you!
    8. Re:Someone needs to say something by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Or, more precisely, 5 magnitudes is a factor of 100, so each one is a factor of 10^2/5 ~ 2.51.

      Why, yes. Yes, it is an idiotic system. No, I don't know why we astronomers keep using it.

    9. Re:Someone needs to say something by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      "The rates can be calculated and one can do simulations on how the ice should look after 4 billion years."

      Provided that the behavior is linear, of course. But it's great to know that the experients are happening; I know a lot of planetary geologists who are looking forward to better lab data.

    10. Re:Someone needs to say something by Vacuum+Sux · · Score: 1

      Provided that the behavior is linear, of course. But it's great to know that the experients are happening; I know a lot of planetary geologists who are looking forward to better lab data.

      Acctually, we published data recently in Journal of Geophysical Research - Planets about the effect of photons on water ice films, don't know if the quality of the data is good enough for the geologists though. ;)

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the profit overlords welcome you!
    11. Re:Someone needs to say something by DoraLives · · Score: 1
      additions, subtractions, comments (from anyone)?

      Just this: Presuming that the effects are a.) real, and b.) the result of a collision, then how long could things remain more or less intact before they degrade back to their "normal" state?

      In other words, how much time may be allowed to leave things as they are, following a collision, and will this amount of time render the unlikelihood of a collision some time during that permitted time frame a little more likely?

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    12. Re:Someone needs to say something by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because you're not as bright as you appear?

      (sorry, I love astronomers, but I love puns more ;)

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Someone needs to say something by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      Because it allows ancient measures of magnitude to be on the same scale as modern measures.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    14. Re:Someone needs to say something by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Yes, but why should we worry about that? Greek photometric measurements weren't all that accurate and it isn't like anyone cites them much. We don't use stads anymore to measure distance, after all.

    15. Re:Someone needs to say something by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      By "real" do you mean that there really are ice crystals on Quoaor? So then " how long could things remain more or less intact," i.e. in crystalline form, before they degrade back to "normal" - i.e. a non-crystalline form?

      Your restatement, though, gets my imagination running. Is your question whether the probably of another hit during the lifespan of the ice crystals close enough to 'a sure thing' that the ice crystals never really go away? (This presumes some initial hit, or other activity which leads to the formation of ice crystals, but I didn't bother to state that as it would jsut muddt the previous question.)

      The possibility of a continuous presence of ice crystals on Quoaor as a result of regular collisions is f a s c i n a t i n g . Once we have enough information about the material density of the Kuiper Belt we could have a better estimate of that probability. To restate another poster, the time necessary for cosmic radiation to dissolve ice crystals into an amorphous form is millions of years. (Is this what you were asking with "how much time may be allowed to leave things as they are, following a collision..."?)

      ... I wonder if we can figure this out with our present models?

      .
      -shpoffo

    16. Re:Someone needs to say something by nagora · · Score: 1
      The sun's gotta be something like only -3 magnitude from out there.

      According to Celestia, it's -18.56, for what it's worth. (The full moon on Earth is something like -12.6, so the sun would still be bright enough to read by, by a long margin).

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    17. Re:Someone needs to say something by DoraLives · · Score: 1
      By "real" do you mean that there really are ice crystals on Quoaor? So then " how long could things remain more or less intact," i.e. in crystalline form, before they degrade back to "normal" - i.e. a non-crystalline form?

      Yes. Exactly that.

      The possibility of a continuous presence of ice crystals on Quoaor as a result of regular collisions is f a s c i n a t i n g

      Concur.

      Once we have enough information about the material density of the Kuiper Belt we could have a better estimate of that probability

      Actually, we may be able to turn that concept around 180 degrees, and extract useful information. If a reasonably good fix on the gravitational and surface area cross sections of Quoaor and enough other Kuiper belt objects can be had, along with a proper applied understanding of the physics of water ice out that far, we then MAY be able to start seeing if we can set some lower bounds on the frequency of collisions required to give Kuiper Belt objects their observed (got some serious telescope time ahead of us till that little item gets sufficiently nailed down) mix of water ice morphology, and thus get a much better handle on a minimal bracketing figure for exactly how much stuff is out there.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    18. Re:Someone needs to say something by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      And, there aren't many ancient greeks around who would argue with us, right? :)

    19. Re:Someone needs to say something by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      Turning the model around seems like a good first step. So in order to develop a model for the collision frequency's lower bounds we would need:

      1). Quoaoar's gravitation
      2). Quoaoar's surface area
      3). Water-ice physics in the Kuiper Belt

      It seems reasonable that we may have a rough sense of surface area already. We know the surface temperture (50K), so perhaps an "astro-geo-physicist" could help put some brackets on the range of gravitation that Quoaoar may exhibit. Detailed water-ice physics for the Kuiper Belt is obviously a bit trickier, but the original article had stated that 14 mil. years was the estimated decay period for water ice crystals.

      Unknowns in the physics seem to be:

      - Energy needed to form water ice crystals at low temperatures (as wel know of amorphous ice, it seems like we already know this)
      - .... others?

      Given this energy threshold then we can intersect a size/velocity energy plot with angles of impact (all of which likely have models for already)

      Is there anything missing? Do we already have reasonable enough ranges of this information to make an estimate?

      .
      -shpoffo

  3. Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by KWTm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else think, "Geez, can't they even spell 'quasar' correctly"?

    Followed by an excited rush to the article to see how the heck a star can have volcanic activity, of course.

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
    1. Re:Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      When I first saw the article, I was VERY curios as to how a quasar could have volcanic activity, which is why when I originally submitted the article the title was "Evidence of Volcanic Activity in the Kupier Belt".

    2. Re:Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Well, you shouldn't have mitigated the hooker-line. See, you were honest, cautious: your were plonked! The other guy, devious, whorish, deceitful: he got frontpaged... That's life; I thought you had learned (or is it learnt?) the lesson after Bushie got 4 more yrs (I did when Berlusconi got the high stool)?

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    3. Re:Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by calibanDNS · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you pay a little closer attention, you'll notice that I am the submitter. An editor seems to have changed the title of the article after I submitted it.

    4. Re:Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by curious.corn · · Score: 1

      Uh... well... uhh... (blushing in shame)... made a fool of myself yet again... ;-) I thought you had submitted the same story but got the axe because of the bland title. Anyway, it doesn't change the sense of your post and mine: massaging news to spice them up, deliberately relying on equivoke. Oh, what the hell... we all know editors are slashdotters favourite joke! ;-)

      --
      Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    5. Re:Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1

      They actually edited something? OMGWTFBBQ!

    6. Re:Quasar Showing Evidence of Volcanic Activity by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      OBSF: "Starquake" by Robert L. Forward, about a quake on a neurton star (not a quasar, sorry, but it's the closest I can think of).

      Be sure to read "Dragon's Egg" first, "Starquake" is the sequel.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  4. Pronounced kwa-whar why not spelled kwa-whar? by marcus · · Score: 1

    Well, if you are translating from another language and try to convey the sound with the spelling in the non-native language, THEN WHY DON"T YOU SPELL IT PHONETICALLY?!?!??!

    All this Quaoar, pronounced "kwa-whar", Al Quaeda "Al Ca-aida", Quatar "Cutter", Qadhafi "Kadafi", etc. is getting ridiculous.

    Some perverted fascination with Qs I guess.

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    1. Re:Pronounced kwa-whar why not spelled kwa-whar? by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh those pesky non-English alphabets!

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    2. Re:Pronounced kwa-whar why not spelled kwa-whar? by Charvak · · Score: 1

      In arabic and semitic language there are two similar sounding letter for sound K. When writing arabic word in english script Q is used to denote the guttural K.

    3. Re:Pronounced kwa-whar why not spelled kwa-whar? by jeif1k · · Score: 2, Funny

      THEN WHY DON"T YOU SPELL IT PHONETICALLY?!?!??!

      Perbli fer the seim rizn u dohnd spell fenetekli idha.

    4. Re:Pronounced kwa-whar why not spelled kwa-whar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we have those dictionaries because English is not phonetically spelled. If English were spelled phonetically, it would look rather strange. Which was my point.

      Now, what's your point? Oh, I see, you didn't have one.

    5. Re:Pronounced kwa-whar why not spelled kwa-whar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like:

      ghoti [ fish]
      ("gh" as in "tough", "o" as in "women", "ti" as in "motion")
  5. so... by Striker770S · · Score: 1

    an object that rotates around the sun has volcanic activity and is not considered a planet or a moon. many objects have volcanic activity in the solar system, i do not know why this is a special case. The article did not really mention too much. Unless theres valuable metals in that peice, it seems kinda pointless. Tell me if im wrong...

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
    1. Re:so... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's a clue about what goes on inside KBOs. Since we can't drill into any of them right now, this is the best we can do.

    2. Re:so... by barakn · · Score: 1

      Actually it revolves around the sun. It rotates around its own center of mass.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  6. this is nuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I thought North Dakota was cold! For something to be so cold that you have to warm it up to get ice to form properly makes Quaoar alien, and really freakin weird

  7. More Kuiper Belt Information Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Website by the leader of the study: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/kb.html

  8. Alien Volcanos... by Alsee · · Score: 1

    The lava flows might even include molten water!

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:Alien Volcanos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think you mean molten ice.

  9. -297. No air. Ice. Dark. Megamiles away. Volcanos. by human+bean · · Score: 1

    Anybody know when an oil company will be going there? In a place like that, there has to be something really good...

    --

    *whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"

  10. You can say that again. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    "It's really really cool to think that that far out into the solar system there could be geological activity going on. The sun's gotta be something like only -3 magnitude from out there.
    [...]
    Just some random thoughts from an amateur astronomer...    "

    The words are less random than the thoughts. You can increase their enthalpy, while retaining their entropy, by rephrasing:

    "It's really really cool to think that that far out into the solar system there could be geological activity going on, on Quaor. The sun's gotta be something like only -3 magnitude from out there, there ."

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. interesting by Striker770S · · Score: 1

    i didnt see that so that is really cool. But i thought that the KBO would be too large to rotate around its own center of mass, guess not.

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
    1. Re:interesting by barakn · · Score: 1

      You are familiar with night and day, aren't you? They are the result of the Earth's rotation around its own center of mass.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  12. yes but by Striker770S · · Score: 1

    if what the guy is saying (following his pronouns) is that if this belt is rotating around something else, than that would be interesting. Although thinking about it would be unusual because the belt is not small. And ill go behind my original post.

    --
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye