QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 24 2006, 10:33 AM)
I have yet to come across a "startling new" interpretation of Titanian geology that (upon my asking him) Ralph Lorenz hasn't been able to point to as being predicted in some past book or paper of his. I think I'll him about the caverns thing and see what he has to say.
QUOTE (belleraphon1 @ Jul 24 2006, 10:40 AM)
All.... if I am not mistaken I believe Ralph Lorenz mentioned this in conjunction with an early Titan theory regaring karst terrain...... check his book 'Lifting Titan's Veil'.
QUOTE (volcanopele @ Jul 24 2006, 10:47 AM)
I thought I remember reading that Ralph predicted that there would be no karst terrain and no caves on Titan...
QUOTE (belleraphon1 @ Jul 24 2006, 11:01 AM)
Yes, that was my recollection as well. It had to do with the ability of liquid methane/ethane to erode water ice. There had been some graduate paper that suggested easy erosion. As it turned out that data was incorrect.
OK, here's the result of my queries, which I just posted in the
blog:
Ralph replied that "I think [Wall] is referring to the porosity that may be indicated in the radiometry polarization data, which isn't published yet." He added that he had indeed talked about caverns on Titan -- in the form of karst terrain -- in his book Lifting Titan's Veil, and that the idea had "originated with Jonathan Lunine in the late 1980s, but that was based on some lab data that subsequently proved to be wrong. We discussed solution erosion on Titan (and showed it to be tiny) in "
Erosion on Titan: Past and Present" (Lorenz and Lunine, 1995, PDF format), although we didn't mention caverns specifically."
Ralph had copied Steve Wall and Jonathan Lunine. Jonathan added that the lab data he'd based his original karst terrain speculation on weren't his, they were "somebody else's published in the refereed literature." He also pointed out that another researcher, David Stevenson, "argued in the early '90s for a porous crust to 'hide' an ethane-methane ocean. It was purely theoretical, and he had one piece of gray [unpublished] literature on this in which he at least speculated about big caverns."
Steve Wall commented that "I confess the language is loose. The reference to porosity is (as Ralph suggests) based on radiometry. Size of the 'pores', and if they extend to anything anyone would call caverns, is debatable."
--Emily