NASA NTRS2015
Placing firmer constraints on the emplacement timescales of visible volcanic features is essential to obtaining a better understanding of the resurfacing history of Venus. Fig. 1 shows a Magellan radar image and topography for a putative venusian lava dome. 175 such domes have been identified, having diameters that range from 19 - 94 km, and estimated thicknesses as great as 4 km [1-2]. These domes are thought to be volcanic in origin [3], having formed by the flow of a viscous fluid (i.e., lava) onto the surface. Among the unanswered questions surrounding the formation of Venus steep-sided domes are their emplacement duration, composition, and the rheology of the lava. Rheologically speaking, maintenance of extremely thick, 1-4 km flows necessitates higher viscosity lavas, while the domes' smooth upper surfaces imply the presence of lower viscosity lavas [2-3]. Further, numerous quantitative issues, such as the nature and duration of lava supply, how long the conduit remained open and capable of supplying lava, the volumetric flow rate, and the role of rigid crust in influencing flow and final morphology all have implications for subsurface magma ascent and local surface stress conditions. The surface of Jupiter's icy moon Europa exhibits many putative cryovolcanic constructs [5-7], and previous workers have suggested that domical positive relief features imaged by the Galileo spacecraft may be volcanic in origin [5,7-8] (Fig. 2). Though often smaller than Venus domes, if emplaced as a viscous fluid, formation mechanisms for europan domes may be similar to those of venusian domes [7]. Models for the emplacement of venusian lava domes (e.g. [9-10]) have been previously applied to the formation of putative cryolava domes on Europa [7].