Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

Venus, Long-Thought Dormant, Shows Signs of Volcanic Activity (nbcnews.com) 37

Scientists have identified 37 volcanic structures on Venus that appear to be recently active -- and probably still are today -- painting the picture of a geologically dynamic planet and not a dormant world as long thought. NBC News reports: The research focused on ring-like structures called coronae, caused by an upwelling of hot rock from deep within the planet's interior, and provided compelling evidence of widespread recent tectonic and magma activity on Venus's surface, researchers said on Monday. Coronae are essentially fields of lava flows and major faults spanning a large circular area. Many of the 37 reside within in a gigantic ring in the planet's Southern Hemisphere, including a colossal corona called Artemis 1,300 miles (2,100 km) in diameter.

Many scientists long had thought Venus, lacking the plate tectonics that gradually reshape Earth's surface, was essentially dormant geologically for the past half billion years. The researchers determined the type of geological features that could exist only in a recently active corona - a telltale trench surrounding the structure. Then they scoured radar images of Venus from NASA's Magellan spacecraft in the 1990s to find coronae that fit the bill. Of 133 coronae examined, 37 appear to have been active in the past 2 million to 3 million years, a blink of the eye in geological time.
The research has been published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Venus, Long-Thought Dormant, Shows Signs of Volcanic Activity

Comments Filter:
  • by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @03:05AM (#60317879)

    Given that Venus' athmosphere is so hot, it could almost melt rock.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there were pockets where heat is trapped and the material has a liquidus temperature low enough to give you something equivalent to lava or like a glacier,
    and would definitely check for tha, before assuming volcanoes.

    (In other words: I would be interested in knowing more details for the current conclusion.)

  • News at 11 (Score:4, Funny)

    by MancunianMaskMan ( 701642 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @03:09AM (#60317891)
    Corona spreads to Venus
  • by eminencja ( 1368047 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @03:16AM (#60317925)
    Cool the planet down. It's bigger, warmer, and closer to both the Earth and the sun than Mars.
  • Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @03:29AM (#60317955) Homepage Journal

    Only in the claim that everyone thought it inactive.

    I thought I'd read it was accepted that the surface was replaced every seven years, which requires quite a bit of activity, and that no feature photographed by the Landers still existed.

    Clearly not everyone thought it inactive. With two such opposing views, I'd need to see a survey of literature to know which view was more common and by how much.

    Certainly I'm impressed by the science, nice piece of detective work. I've no problems with the science or the newness of discovering active volcanoes. Superb achievement.

    It's the newness of that one non-Venusian conclusion that bothers me.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @04:25AM (#60318039) Homepage

      "I thought I'd read it was accepted that the surface was replaced every seven years, which requires quite a bit of activity, and that no feature photographed by the Landers still existed."

      I can't imagine thats the case - the planet would have to be covered in permenantly active volcanos. Even Io doesn't get resurfaced that quickly and its the most volcanically active body in the solar system.

      Also if no feature photographed by the landers still exists then by logical deduction it also means the landers no longer exist which would be a bit sad.

      • Also if no feature photographed by the landers still exists then by logical deduction it also means the landers no longer exist which would be a bit sad.

        I'm not sure how much would even be left of them regardless; they didn't remain operational for more than 2 hours, and apparently the pressure and temperature crushed and melted them.

    • by Sique ( 173459 )

      I thought I'd read it was accepted that the surface was replaced every seven years, which requires quite a bit of activity, and that no feature photographed by the Landers still existed.

      Did we ever had two landers so close together that they could take a picture of the same feature? Or how would we know?

    • Also reporting on science is not always accurate in this regard. Based on what you are saying, it may have been the case that science didn’t have any proof that Venus was volcanically active rather than scientists asserting that it was inactive. Like in the past decade, scientists have found evidence of water on Mars not that they have claimed Mars had no water.
    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      You're right about the resurfacing, based on the shortage of meteor craters, but your time scale is way off, it's more like a billion or 2 years IIRC, with the possibility of multiple resurfacing events, which we'll never know for sure..
      As for volcano-ism, I thought it was pretty well established there were active volcanoes on Venus, just based on atmospheric changes. Peaks of sulfur or such that then decrease.
      Assuming Venus is similar to Earth in internal heat, it has to go somewhere.

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        In my defence, the report I read was some time back (even I can't remember everything I read perfectly, dammit) and it may well be I remember correctly but that the report itself was wrong.

        Still, your numbers sound much more likely, so I'll go with those. Thanks!

    • Resurfacing can also happen through erosion. Given the high atmospheric pressure and winds on the surface of Venus, this may be significant.
  • by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @03:41AM (#60317985)

    It's pretty amazing we have any imaging of the planets surface at all.

    The resolution of the surface makes me want to see a good 4K imaging like they did on Mars:

    https://youtu.be/ZEyAs3NWH4A [youtu.be]

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • and use proto matter. Maybe that is why we are seeing fresh volcanoes? This doesn't end well.

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @09:57AM (#60318621)
    At 50km above the surface the air pressure and temperature is about the same a sea level on earth. However the atmosphere is denser. A balloon filled with breathable air will float at that height. So you could have a non-pressurized, floating balloon of breathable air in a place without ionizing radiation. The atmosphere outside is full of the chemicals needed to make plastics and other organic molecules. Solar power would be 10x greater (the atmosphere below you is so reflective you could put solar panels under your cloud city. You can work outside the balloon with only protective clothing from the corrosive atmosphere. As opposed to Mars were you need a pressure and thermal suit. Decontamination is also much easier . The dust and soil on Mars is quite toxic. Where as the Venusian air is corrosive but fine once diluted.
    • by cusco ( 717999 )

      I wonder why more sci-fi writers haven't explored this concept, I first heard about it in the '70s and was immediately interested.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      It's all fine until you hear, "Pop, ssssssss..."

      • Actually, the balloon can be filled at the same pressure as outside. So it would be "Poke, ...[nothing]". The gasses would only exchanges due to thermal diffusion. The leaks would have to be detected based on the composition of the gas, not the sound of its flow or pressure. The "balloon" -- if you can even call it that, since there is no overpressure; gas chamber is probably more accurate -- floats because of the difference in density of breathable air compared to outside atmosphere.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...