Some of our Solar System’s moons have become very enticing targets in the search for life. There’s growing evidence that some of them have oceans under layers of ice and that these oceans are warm and rich in prebiotic chemistry. NASA’s Europa Clipper is on its way to examine Jupiter’s moon Europa, and the ESA’s Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer is also on its way to the Jovian system to explore some of its icy moons.
While the presence of an ocean on Europa is becoming widely accepted, there’s more uncertainty about the other Galilean moons. However, new evidence suggests that Callisto is very likely an ocean moon, too.
Callisto is Jupiter’s second-largest moon, the third-largest moon in the Solar System, and the outermost Galilean moon. The Voyager probes gave us our first close looks at Callisto in 1979, and the Galileo spacecraft gave us our best images and science data during flybys between 1996 and 2001. Galileo provided the first evidence that Callisto may harbour a subsurface ocean.
Callisto has a different appearance than other suspected ocean moons like Europa and Saturn’s Enceladus. Europa clearly has a white, icy surface, although it has other brownish colours, too. Enceladus has an extremely bright, icy surface and has the highest albedo of any object in the Solar System. Callisto, on the other hand, has a dark, icy surface and is covered in craters.
Europa (L), Enceladus (M), and Callisto (R) have distinctly different surfaces, yet all likely have subsurface oceans.However, the evidence for its ocean is unrelated to its surface appearance and any visible ice.
The main evidence supporting an ocean on Callisto comes from the moon’s magnetic field. Unlike Earth’s internally generated magnetic field, Callisto’s is induced. That means the field is created from Callisto’s interactions with Jupiter and its extremely powerful magnetic field. For Callisto to induce a magnetic field, it has to have a layer of conductive material.
This illustration shows Jupiter’s powerful magnetic field and the four Galilean moons. Image Credit: ESA.The question is, is the layer an ocean or something else?
Different researchers have been trying to answer that question since Galileo gathered its data. One of the spacecraft’s instruments was a magnetometer, a type called a Dual-Technique Magnetometer (DTM). There are multiple types of magnetometers, and each one works differently. Galileo’s DTM provided redundancy and allowed for cross-checking, which increased the accuracy and reliability of its data. It was especially good at detecting the subtle magnetic fields of Jupiter’s moons, including Callisto. It also collected data continuously, which let scientists gain insights into how the magnetic fields of Jupiter and its moons varied over time due to different interactions.
In a 2017 paper, researchers pointed to the ionosphere as the primary cause of Callisto’s magnetic fields. “We find that induction within Callisto’s ionosphere is responsible for a significant part of the observed magnetic fields,” the authors wrote. “Ionospheric induction creates induced magnetic fields to some extent similar as expected from a subsurface water ocean.”
New research in AGU Advances based on Galileo data strengthens the idea that Callisto has a subsurface ocean and that it’s responsible for the moon’s magnetic field rather than its ionosphere. The paper is titled “Stronger Evidence of a Subsurface Ocean Within Callisto From a Multifrequency Investigation of Its Induced Magnetic Field.” The lead author is Corey Cochrane, a scientist at JPL who studies planetary interiors and geophysics. An important part of this research is that they considered data from multiple Galileo flybys (C03, C09, and C10).
“Although there is high certainty that the induced field measured at Europa is attributed to a global-scale subsurface ocean, there is still uncertainty around the possibility that the induced field measured at Callisto is evidence of an ocean,” Cochrane and his co-researchers write. “This uncertainty is due to the presence of a conductive ionosphere, which will also produce an induction signal in response to Jupiter’s strong time-varying magnetic field.”
Observations acquired from the Galileo spacecraft indicate that Callisto (left) reacts inductively to Jupiter’s (right) time-varying magnetic field. New research suggests that this reaction and its results are indicative of the moon hosting a subsurface salty ocean. Image Credit: Corey J. Cochrane, NASA/JPL-CaltechIn short, Callisto’s magnetic field could be caused by its ionosphere, an ocean, or a combination of both. The problem is that Callisto’s conductive ionosphere creates a magnetic field that can mask the presence of an ocean. To get to the truth, the authors used previously published simulations of the moon’s interactions combined with “both an inverse and an ensemble forward modeling method.” The authors write that this brings some clarity about the possible range of Callisto’s interior properties.
The researchers created a four-layer model of Callisto, including its ionosphere. “Among these models, we vary the thickness of the ice shell, the thickness of the ocean, and the conductivity,” the authors write. They also varied the seafloor depth and the ionosphere’s conductance.
This schematic diagram from the study shows the variable parameters in some of the researchers’ modelling. (Left) D is seafloor depth, T is ocean thickness, and Rc is conductance. (R) The ocean parameter space in the study has 8 linear steps for ocean thickness and 10 steps for ocean conductivity. Image Credit: Cochrane et al. 2025.The researchers concluded that the moon’s ionosphere alone cannot explain the magnetic field. Instead, it “more likely arises from the combination of a thick conductive ocean and an ionosphere rather than from an ionosphere alone.”
They also concluded that the ocean is tens of kilometres thick from the seafloor to the ice shell, and the ice shell could also be tens of kilometres thick. “As our results demonstrate, both the inverse and forward modelling approaches support the presence of an ocean when considering data acquired from flyby C10 alongside C03 and C09,” the researchers explain. “Our analysis, the first to simultaneously fit C03, C09, and C10 flyby data together, favours the presence of a thick and deep ocean within Callisto.”
The models also favour a thick ice shell “consistent with Callisto’s heavily cratered geology,” they explain.
Galileo wasn’t dedicated to studying Callisto, so there is a dearth of data in all research into its magnetic fields. “It is challenging to place tighter constraints on the properties of Callisto’s ocean because of the limited number of close Galileo flybys that produced reliable data and because of the uncertainty associated with the plasma interaction,” the authors write in their conclusion.
Better and more complete data is in the future, though. Both NASA’s Europa Clipper and the ESA’s JUICE mission will gather more data, some of it from very close to Callisto’s surface.
The Europa Clipper is scheduled to make nine flybys of Callisto. Seven will be within 1800 km of the surface, and four of those will be within 250 km. Its magnetometer will operate continuously during those flybys. The ESA’s JUICE mission is scheduled to perform 21 flybys of Callisto. All of them will be within 7000 km of the surface, and most will be below 1000 km.
The Europa Clipper’s elliptical orbit will allow it to perform flybys of Jupiter’s moons, including Callisto. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-CaltechBoth the Europa Clipper and JUICE have instruments that Galileo didn’t have. Though Galileo came within about 1100 km of Callisto’s surface, it simply could not provide the same kind of data that these newer missions will. The Clipper and JUICE are scheduled to reach the Jovian system in 2030 and 2031, respectively.
As their data starts to arrive and reaches scientists, we will likely determine for sure if Callisto is yet another of the Solar System’s ocean moons.
The post Does Jupiter’s Moon Callisto Have an Ocean? The Evidence is Mounting appeared first on Universe Today.
And so we come to the last sex post of the day—about a new piece by Richard Dawkins on his Substack site, The Poetry of Reality. Richard points to what he sees as arrant hypocrisy in the statement on biological sex by the Presidents of the SSN, ASN, and SSB. As I mentioned in my first post today:
Note that the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN), and the Society of Systematic Biologists issued a declaration addressed to President Trump and all the members of Congress (declaration archived here), a statement deliberately aimed at contradicting the first Executive Order by declaring that sex is not binary but a spectrum—in all species!
Richard shows, in his post (click below to read), that even the Presidents of these societies act, in their scientific publications, as if sex is binary, and he considers the disparity between their statement and their scientific behavior to be hypocritical.
An excerpt:
The presidents of three American societies of evolutionary biologists and ecologists have written a joint letter to President Trump and members of the US Congress stating that “extensive scientific evidence” contradicts the view that “there are two sexes . . . [which] are not changeable.” Also the view that “sex is determined at conception and is based on the size of the gamete that the resulting individual will produce”. Their statement is false and their letter is riddled with hypocrisy. In my opinion Donald Trump is a loathsome individual, utterly unfit to be President, but his statement that “sex is determined at conception and is based on the size of the gamete that the resulting individual will produce” is accurate in every particular, perhaps the only true statement he ever made.
The fact is, of course, that paper after paper in the scientific literature refers without qualification or equivocation to “males” and “females”. Biologist authors correctly assume that their readers will know the meanings of “male” and “female” without further explanation, and will accept the authors’ unsubstantiated recognition of the sex of the animals they study. I shall quote just three examples, which happen to be papers authored by Carol Boggs, Daniel Bolnick and Jessica Ware, the three society presidents. A conceivable riposte would be that “humans are not animals”. But then at what point in the evolution of Homo sapiens did sex suddenly became non-binary, a single exception to the general rule pervading the whole of the animal and plant kingdoms? And indeed, the three presidents explicitly disavow human exceptionalism when they say, “Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.”
You can read the three examples yourself, for free, in his piece. (I used different examples in my own post here.) Note in the last sentence above that the three Presidents imply that sex is a spectrum in all species! I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t make such a foolish assertion were they to rewrite their letter. But I’m not sure they have even sent that letter, and have heard noises that they haven’t.
After Richard gives his examples, he says this:
When I wrote this, I was unaware that Jerry Coyne had already made the same point, quoting three different papers written by the three society presidents. He was too polite to accuse them of hypocrisy.
Finally, I want to add something important: If you want us to consider adding your name to the letter above, for we’re still accumulating signatures, please click on the link below, which is an early version of the letter with some signatures.
At the bottom of the letter, you will see this form:
If you want your name to be added to the letter to the SSE, ASN, and SSB, please go to that site and fill in the blanks. I ask only two things: you be affiliated with biology in some way, and that you be willing to have your name publicized, not only to the society but on this website (I’m not sure if I’ll post the final version, though). Your response will automatically be added to an Excel document from which we’ll draft the final letter. Thanks!