New Model Narrows Estimates for the Thickness of Europa's Icy Crust

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Image: Courtesy of ELIZABETH TURTLE/University of Arizona

Just how thick the layer of ice covering the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa is lies at the center of an ongoing scientific debate. Current theory holds that the icy layer covers a huge liquid ocean, so its thickness holds import for possible Europan oceanic explorations in the future. But estimates of the ice breadth have ranged from merely one or two kilometers to upwards of 30. Now new research, published in the current issue of Science, provides support for an intermediate thickness of at least three to four kilometers.

To investigate the thickness of the ice layer, Elizabeth Turtle and Elisabetta Peirazzo of the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory exploited impact craters on Europa's surface. The scientists modeled the impact of comets into a layer of ice overlying liquid water and compared the results to six actual Europan craters imaged by Galileo and Voyager that exhibit central peaks (see image). As Turtle explains, because "central peaks are deep material that's been uplifted, that means these impacts could not have penetrated through Europan ice to water. Water would not have been able to form and maintain a central peak." The authors thus conclude that the ice shell must have been greater than three to four kilometers deep. They stress, however, that their observation can only be interpreted as a lower limit.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe