Critique of 'Elastic thickness of the Venus lithosphere estimated from topography and gravity' by A. Cazenave and K. Dominh
A critique of a model of the near-surface structure of Venus by Cazenave and Dominh (1981) based on Pioneer Venus data on gravity and topography is presented. Two objections are raised, the first an assumption of Airy compensation at a depth of 6 km, and the second that a gravity-topography relation is sufficient to study the subsurface characteristics. It is shown that determination of the gravity field along the line of sight, and not along the vertical, is necessary for a valid geophysical model with the available data. It is concluded that the spacecraft data are sufficient to define constraints on models of the subsurface characteristics, but are not sufficient for actually describing the substrate.