Search for: All records

Abstract Since the Voyager mission flybys in 1979, we have known the moon Io to be both volcanically active and the main source of plasma in the vast magnetosphere of Jupiter. Material lost from Io forms neutral clouds, the Io plasma torus and ultimately the extended plasma sheet. This material is supplied from Io’s upper atmosphere and atmospheric loss is likely driven by plasma-interaction effects with possible contributions from thermal escape and photochemistry-driven escape. Direct volcanic escape is negligible. The supply of material to maintain the plasma torus has been estimated from various methods at roughly one ton per second. Most of the time the magnetospheric plasma environment of Io is stable on timescales from days to months. Similarly, Io’s atmosphere was found to have a stable average density on the dayside, although it exhibits lateral (longitudinal and latitudinal) and temporal (both diurnal and seasonal) variations. There is a potential positive feedback in the Io torus supply: collisions of torus plasma with atmospheric neutrals are probably a significant loss process, which increases with torus density. The stability of the torus environment may be maintained by limiting mechanisms of either torus supply from Io or the loss from the torus by centrifugal interchange in the middle magnetosphere. Various observations suggest that occasionally (roughly 1 to 2 detections per decade) the plasma torus undergoes major transient changes over a period of several weeks, apparently overcoming possible stabilizing mechanisms. Such events (as well as more frequent minor changes) are commonly explained by some kind of change in volcanic activity that triggers a chain of reactions which modify the plasma torus state via a net change in supply of new mass. However, it remains unknown what kind of volcanic event (if any) can trigger events in torus and magnetosphere, whether Io’s atmosphere undergoes a general change before or during such events, and what processes could enable such a change in the otherwise stable torus. Alternative explanations, which are not invoking volcanic activity, have not been put forward. We review the current knowledge on Io’s volcanic activity, atmosphere, and the magnetospheric neutral and plasma environment and their roles in mass transfer from Io to the plasma torus and magnetosphere. We provide an overview of the recorded events of transient changes in the torus, address several contradictions and inconsistencies, and point out gaps in our current understanding. Lastly, we provide a list of relevant terms and their definitions. 

Abstract MESSENGER observations suggest a magma ocean formed on proto-Mercury, during which evaporation of metals and outgassing of C- and H-bearing volatiles produced an early atmosphere. Atmospheric escape subsequently occurred by plasma heating, photoevaporation, Jeans escape, and photoionization. To quantify atmospheric loss, we combine constraints on the lifetime of surficial melt, melt composition, and atmospheric composition. Consideration of two initial Mercury sizes and four magma ocean compositions determines the atmospheric speciation at a given surface temperature. A coupled interior–atmosphere model determines the cooling rate and therefore the lifetime of surficial melt. Combining the melt lifetime and escape flux calculations provides estimates for the total mass loss from early Mercury. Loss rates by Jeans escape are negligible. Plasma heating and photoionization are limited by homopause diffusion rates of ∼10⁶kg s⁻¹. Loss by photoevaporation depends on the timing of Mercury formation and assumed heating efficiency and ranges from ∼10^6.6to ∼10^9.6kg s⁻¹. The material for photoevaporation is sourced from below the homopause and is therefore energy limited rather than diffusion limited. The timescale for efficient interior–atmosphere chemical exchange is less than 10,000 yr. Therefore, escape processes only account for an equivalent loss of less than 2.3 km of crust (0.3% of Mercury’s mass). Accordingly, ≤0.02% of the total mass of H₂O and Na is lost. Therefore, cumulative loss cannot significantly modify Mercury’s bulk mantle composition during the magma ocean stage. Mercury’s high core:mantle ratio and volatile-rich surface may instead reflect chemical variations in its building blocks resulting from its solar-proximal accretion environment.