January 2nd, 2017

The more time passes, the more everyone seems to jump on board NASA's train of thought regarding Pluto/Charon.

ALL ABOARD!!
Next stop Pluto, NASA style.
Here's my best effort to accurately portray the main stream NASA science theory about Pluto

In the first few hundred million years of our solar system's formation, Pluto and Charon were formed between 20 AU to 30 AU from the Sun and they collided creating a debris field from which Charon and the four small moons Styx, Nix, Kerberos and Hydra were formed.

Pluto became differentiated by the impact and developed a 66% by mass (40% by volume, 74% by radius) 875 km radioactive hot rocky core.

The differentiated rocky core radioactively heated Pluto and has kept an ocean of salty 5% ammonia water flowing for 4 billion years. This core is cooling and the ocean is freezing which is causing the extensional fractures on Pluto's surface as there are no thrust faults, lobate scarps or compressional tectonics .

Pluto was also hit by a large object within the first 500 Myr which created Sputnik Planitia (SP). The impactor created the basin that is SP forming Pluto's SP and active geology which also thinned the ice crust deforming it creating more dense mass at this location because of a subsurface ocean of water. This is why SP is directly lined away from Charon. Pluto's atmosphere has been depositing it's tholin onto the surface of Charon at its poles ever since painting them red creating Mordor.

Pluto's unevenly distributed subsurface ocean explains SP anti Charon alignment and is a positive gravity anomaly.
Impacts on Pluto and Charon along with 3 & 11 impacts on the small moons prove the system's 4 billion year age and support the original Pluto/Charon impact hypothesis.

I just found an informative site called SpaceFlight Insider, extremely professional, impressive site.
Laurel Kornfeld has written some good articles about Pluto for this site, worth a visit.
Laurel is a fellow Pluto lover and also has a blog site. Much of her articles reflect NASA's conclusions.
NASA and supporters have produced some really cool looking pictures to demonstrate their theories. 

Artwork by Pam Engebretson

Here's Pluto with the basin of SP facing us.


The dark blue band is NASA's theoretical subsurface ocean which bulges up toward SP weakening the ices at this location in turn creating more dense mass at this anti Charon location. This image is portraying NASA's subsurface ocean positive gravity anomaly.


Directly below is how James Keane illustrates this idea of ocean uplift below the surface of SP.
Full article at University of Arizona News.

The geological features and scientific data observed and taken by New Horizons indicate a subsurface ocean beneath Pluto's surface, encircling the entire planet. Illustration credit: James Keane.

Quote
Here we report that the location of Sputnik Planitia is the natural consequence of the sequestration of volatile ices within the basin and the resulting reorientation (true polar wander) of Pluto. Loading of volatile ices within a basin the size of Sputnik Planitia can substantially alter Pluto’s inertia tensor, resulting in a reorientation of the dwarf planet of around 60 degrees with respect to the rotational and tidal axes.
End Quote

There is a significant error on these two images related to an ejecta blanket. I sent James Keane an email about the error presented in these images and asked him if he could provide a source of information that supports this fallacy of his where there is an ejecta blanket on the surface of Pluto. James did not respond so I will present my thoughts about these images without his feedback.

I'm trying to remain calm about both these drawing by James Keane but cartoon drawings like these really piss me off.

In these falsely portrayed drawings, James inserts the words "ejecta blanket" in an effort to support NASA's impact theory. Below I will show you an actual image taken by New Horizons of SP and you can clearly see there is no "ejecta blanket".

This NASA paper written by Alan Stern and Bill McKinnon admits there is no visual evidence of ejecta at any impact site on Pluto. They explain it by the fact that methane snow probably has covered all evidence of impact ejecta.

This concept of an ejecta blanket is a complete falsehood, a fabrication, a fantasy created by James Keane from listening to lectures by Bill McKinnon.

Presenting false information like this as fact and intentionally misleading people is irresponsible at best and in my opinion reprehensible. Shame on you James Keane and Bill McKinnon, I don't care how smart you are, you are intentionally deceiving people.

I respect most of the scientists that I disagree with as I believe they are simply doing their best to accurately interpret the information they see at Pluto but James & Bill have stepped into a whole different place with the falsehood presented by these images.

This is false science by cartoonism.
I don't take issue with the speculative aspects of these cartoons like the subsurface ocean or thinned mantle ice. I'm not even bothered by the unsubstantiated speculation that SP is an impact site or positive gravity anomaly but to say there's an ejecta blanket where none exist is flat out deceptive and false.

At the 47th Lunar and Planetary Science conference during the week of March 21, 2016. Bill McKinnon lectured. During this lecture he indicated SP was an impact site. At the end of his lecture, he took questions from the audience. A person named Robby or Ravi asked, "If SP is an impact site with low efficiency (5 degree angle of approach) why is there no rock debris around this supposed impact site.

Bill acknowledged that this is a problem for his impact theory. Watch it for yourself below (fast forward to 2:27:30). Bill calls Robby's observation a very astute judgement. Yet here we are 10 months later with James Keane presenting drawings with ejecta blankets where there are none. What kind of nonsense (nonscience) is this? Science by popular opinion, science by deceit and manipulation, science by cartoonism? Take your pick.

Below is a diagram by F. Nimmo demonstrating three possible scenarios to describe SP alignment with Charon.
One is a negative gravity while two are positive gravity anomaly scenarios.
Depth of nitrogen combined with a thinned ice shell and subsurface ocean are NASA's preferred scenario. 

These schematic diagrams show how the gravity anomaly at Sputnik Planitia is affected by an uplifted ocean and the thickness of the nitrogen layer. Either a nitrogen layer more than 40 km thick (panel b) or an uplifted ocean (panel c) could result in a present-day positive gravity anomaly at Sputnik Planitia; otherwise, the gravity anomaly will be strongly negative (panel a). (Image from Nimmo et al., Nature, 2016)

Nimmo presents 3 possibilities at SP.
a) 6 km thick nitrogen filled basin = negative gravity
b) 40 km thick nitrogen filled basin = neutral gravity, greater than 40 km = positive gravity
c) Uplifted 78 km water ocean + 6 km nitrogen filled basin = positive gravity anomaly
Option a) is completely ignored in favor of c).

This animation was created to support the subsurface ocean concept which is theoretically responsible for SP's true polar wander and axial alignment with Charon.

What I like most about this animation is how it illustrates and demonstrates my Torque Induced Tilt (TIT) due to uneven mass distribution idea which I expressed 6 months ago on page 41.

An annotated animation of Pluto reorienting over time around Sputnik Planitia as it slowly fills with ice. Image Credit: James Keane / NASA / JHUAPL / SWRI

James Keane illustration of Sputnik Planitia being created by an impact.
Demonstration of how a theoretical asteroid impacted 60 degrees northward then the planet rotated around to its current position. 

Pluto reorienting: Sputnik Planitia (the left lobe of Pluto's "heart") likely formed in the aftermath of comet impact into Pluto. Sputnik Planitia formed northwest of its present location, and reoriented to its present location as the basin filled with volatile ices. (Illustration: James Keane)

This theory comes from a paper titled Reorientation and faulting of Pluto due to volatile loading within Sputnik Planitia


At first glance NASA's ideas seem like reasonable scenarios but I must play the devils advocate to see where I can find weaknesses in this concept.

After all, isn't that what science is supposed to be all about?

Lets start with the impact theory.
These are my concerns with this theory.

• There's no debris around this theoretical impact site even though Bill McKinnon sometimes says there is then later he says there isn't.
  
• There's no radial ring disturbance evidence of this being an impact site. Bill McKinnon uses Hellas Planitia on Mars which also lacks rings as support for SP being an impact site.
  
• This doesn't look like any other impact site in the solar system.
  
• Sputnik Planitia is a geologically active zone similar to the caldera of a volcano. Do we interpret active volcano caldera's as impact sites?

Impact Site?

No debris, No ejecta blanket - a fact acknowledged by Bill McKinnon

No circular damage pattern as is seen at Valhalla on Callisto

Valhalla Impact basin on Callisto. Callisto is basically the same density as Pluto.

Consider the difference between the two sides of SP.


To the west there is a ridge running from north to south along which we see bulging land masses, stretch marks, fold mountains, cryovolcanoes and turbulent looking deep fluid welling up.


To the east in the uplands, the surface is as youthful as is seen at SP. Yet the terrain is totally different. Would an impact cause this geological variance on each side of SP?

This is how I visualize what I see taking place at SP. Basically its a tear or a rip in Pluto running mostly Northwest to Southeast.

Place your two hands together like you are praying then while keeping your pinkies together open your hands at your thumbs.

To me this is what the western edge of SP is doing, its prying apart in a long line or underground chasm similar to a rift along our ocean floor. This is why the land ice to the west and east of SP is pushed up.

The right image sorta gives a simplified vision of what I see occurring on Pluto.

The Green line is where the subsurface rift is focused this is where Pluto is cracked open.

The Pink arrows are the direction the nitrogen is migrating out of the subsurface crack.

The Blue line is the western compression ridge that is created by the land ice resisting the upwelling fluids, in turn, forcing the flow eastwards.

The Yellow lines are the nearby bulge created by the subsurface nitrogen pressure. The further it extends westwards it has frozen and collapsed creating Peri Planitia, whereas the bulge at Viking Tera is still in a fluid state this area is distended like it wants to burp.

The green fracture line exist because of Pluto's alignment with Charon. While they are currently in near circular orbits they weren't always and Charon's gravitational pull and presence is at the very least squeezing (compressing) Pluto at this location. It would be more accurate to say Charon is bulging Pluto at SP as Pluto collapses and squeezing its own crust at this location. Charon's gravity has bulged and weakened the crust at SP while Pluto gravity has collapsed it.

Since Charon has frozen it is hard as a rock and not collapsing but Pluto has some volatile ices like nitrogen that flow at low temperatures making it pliable for the time being. I first suggested this idea on Page 5 (almost a year ago) and it still seems to be the best description of this area I've heard to date. This Page explains in more detail the geology of area.

To the west of SP Pluto is radically different than it is to the east. Pluto has a split personality created by SP, impacts sites don't display split personalities geological sites do.

Does Valhalla basin on Callisto show radical
differences from its western and eastern sides?

Look at these next few images of impacts on icy moons and ask yourself.
Do any of these impacts look like what I see on Pluto at SP?

Iapetus of Saturn

Valhalla on Callisto of Jupiter

Iapetus of Saturn

Hyperion of Saturn

Rhea of Saturn

Tethys of Saturn

Mimas of Saturn

Argyre basin on Mars

Odysseus Crater on Tethys of Saturn

Archimedes Crater on the Moon

Lunar Impact Basin

Ernest Wright, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio. Lunar Impact

Notice the difference between these impacts compared to the theoretical "impact" on Pluto?
My conclusion is that this is not an impact site as it looks nothing like any other impact site.
This is a tear in Pluto's crust from which nitrogen/methane ices are expelling.

---

OK! so you say, all the above images don't show a fluid backfilling the craters like we see at Pluto.
Here you go

Pingualuit Crater Canada

Chicxulub Crater Yucatan Peninsula Mexico Gravity field image

Chicxulub Crater Mexico

Manicougan Crater Canada

Impact Crater on Europa

Lonar crater Maharashtra Photo credit Mangesh dams Panoramio

Tswaing crater South Africa Photo credit M J Gaylard

Deep Bay Canada

Bosumtwi Ghana

Below are two images of impacts on Pluto very near Sputnik Planitia. One would think these impacts would appear similar to SP if SP was an impact site.

Bill McKinnon says
Chances of getting an impact crater the size of Sputnik Planitia in the last 4 byr is less than one percent. This makes Sputnik Planitia a very, very ancient structure?
Bill is suggesting that SP is an impact crater over 4 billion years old and yet it is currently an active geological site.
Digest that thought for a minute.
Are there any craters anywhere that are 4 billion years old and geologically active?

I have one simple question.
Does Sputnik Planitia look like any of the above impact craters?
No!
Conclusion?
SP is not an impact site!
Its a geological site!

I wanna ride the NASA train too
but someone stole my ticket.


Honestly Mr. Conductor, I support NASA scientists. I've learned everything I know about Pluto from them!



I don't think they're buying it.

Subsurface Ocean

I go back and forth on the subject of a differentiated core.
Is there a core or not a core is it still active or is it dead is it warm enough to create an ocean or not?

While I may vacillate on the existence of a core, I really don't on the concept of its ability to heat Pluto enough to create an ocean of water. I just can't see it. 35 K is pretty cold and Pluto's core is too small and I have science (not scientists) on my side to prove it. Read on.

I see an ocean of flowing nitrogen ices on the surface so I have no problem believing there is a subsurface ocean of fluid slushy nitrogen, methane mix. Nitrogen can flow at 63 K. I see it on the surface so I believe it is the subsurface ocean fluid.

I start with what I see and what I see is internal pressure welling up nitrogen in turn creating compression and expansion zones. When nitrogen is warmed or pressurized to its more fluid state it expands unlike water which does the opposite.

This is what's fracturing Pluto not water ice which is supposedly already hot liquid cooling and freezing, rather nitrogen ices that have been heated by pressure are expanding. The question becomes could Pluto have been dormantly grown like Callisto then brought to life by some event?

Seems all the NASAites only believe Pluto and Charon could have been heated 4-4.5 billion years ago and it can only be winding down from that time. I don't think this way. I think our solar system is still dynamic and active and Pluto was given a heart beat more recently.

The easiest idea is to say there's a 4 billion year old core, its hot and its creating all this geological activity or is it the easiest idea?
Callisto does not align with this train of thought.

Bill Mckinnon and clones say Pluto has a radioactive core, its still hot after 4 billion years and it comes from a core of silicate rock that's <70% the radius of Pluto (about 875km) is enriched with aluminium 26 (26Al) creating an ocean of water that is 5% ammonia and salty, it is cooling and freezing causing the expansion fractures on the surface.

OK lets see if we can't slow this train down.

Lets take some silicate rock, that's the stuff we walk on every day.
If you were to superimpose a 875km radius circle onto a US map it would cover about a quarter of the map.

Suppose we take a bunch of dump trucks and haul a quarter of the soil from the US into space and leave it there for 4 billion years.

Do you suppose it would generate enough radioactive heat from aluminium 26 to melt salty ice water infused with ammonia creating an ocean of water?

Have you ever been out driving on a winter day when ices have frozen to the ground and you find your car slip sliding away. That's the same silicate rock that's supposed to be melting miles thick ice at 35 degrees Kelvin -397 F. These winter temperatures on Earth are extremely mild compared to Pluto's 35 K but lets get scientific about this.

Does Size Matter?

                YES!
According to this paper titled
"Ocean worlds in the outer solar system"
By F. Nimmo and R. T. Pappalardo at  AGU Pub.

Quote from the paper 5.2 Heat Production
For the icy satellites, there are three main sources of heat: accretion, radioactive decay, and tidal heating. Even for Ganymede-size satellites, the gravitational energy released during accretion is rather modest, so that initial differentiation is not guaranteed [Barr and Canup, 2008]. (Ganymede is two and quarter times larger than Pluto)

If accretion happens sufficiently rapidly, some melting will take place [e.g., Lunine and Stevenson, 1982], but the overall contribution to the existence of present-day oceans is minor to negligible. (In the outer solar system there are fewer objects with more space between them making accretion a slower process.)

For many bodies, radioactive decay is the main source of heat. Unless satellites formed before 26Al became extinct (at about 3.5 Myr after solar system formation), the heating will have been dominated by decay of K, U, and Th. (K=Potasium, U=Uranium, Th=Thorium)

size does matter

For differentiated bodies the heat builds up in the silicate interior and is then transferred to the ice above by conduction, convection, or advection.

Pluto's radius is 1,188km or has a diameter of 2374. A 40% core of 1,188km is 875km

For a silicate core >1000 km in radius the heat diffusion timescale is longer than the age of the solar system, so large silicate cores provide a long-term reservoir of energy which can potentially maintain a subsurface ocean. Conversely, for bodies with small silicate core radii like Enceladus or Tethys, (And I include Pluto at 850-875km) ancient heat cannot be stored in this manner.
End Quote

Bill McKinnon has determined that Charon really does have a different, lighter composition than Pluto: the rock mass fraction of Charon is about 59% (the rest being ice), the rock mass fraction of Pluto is 66%.

Thermal evolution of Pluto and implications for surface tectonics and a sub-surface ocean. By Guillaume Robuchon, Francis Nimmo
Page 3
Pluto’s ice/rock+ice ratio is supposed to be about 0.65 (McKinnon et al., 1997) and for a differentiated Pluto the silicate core would be roughly 40% of the volume.

According to the above scientific articles, bodies with a larger radius core than 1,000 km are potentially able to retain their radioactive heat to the present day but bodies with cores smaller than 1,000 km radius would have cooled by now. Pluto's core radius is at most 850 km (according to Bill McKinnon) making it significantly smaller than this required minimum. NASA scientists state that for a planet with a core radius less than 1,000km, too much time has passed for the core to continue to generate heat. Even in bodies with a core greater than 1,000km the heat energy is only potentially enough to retain any heat. 

The cooling process would begin toward the outer edges of the core and migrate downward toward the center so even for a core with some residual heat that heat would be deep inside the core not out toward its edges where cold ice is in contact with the core area with the greatest surface area where the most amount of heat would be dissipated first.

Nimmo also seems to be saying that if Pluto didn't form in the first 3.5 million years of the solar system's development then Aluminum 26 is not the source of radioactive heating as Bill suggests.

Funny thing about F. Nimmo (all of my quotes in blue are from his paper yet) he supports the subsurface water ocean scenario even though I quote much of this work here to disprove this concept. Kinda scratching my head on that one.

Bill McKinnon has suggested Aluminum 26 is the radioactive element in Pluto heating its core. Others are now suggesting its uranium potassium and thorium.

Wikipedia has this to say about Aluminum 26 in our solar system.
26Al is only present today in solar system materials as the result of cosmic reactions on unshielded materials at an extremely low level. Thus, any original 26Al in the early Solar system is now extinct.
and
The half-life of 26Al is 7.17×105 (7.17 times ten to the fifth power) years. This is far too short for the isotope to survive to the present, but a small amount of the nuclide is produced by collisions of argon atoms with cosmic ray protons. 

The radius of Pluto's theoretical differentiated core is too small to still be radioactively hot and the 26Al is long dead but this is the premise upon which McKinnon initiated his subsurface ocean theory. Other scientist like Nimmo have picked up the hot core torch and run with it.

Why do we think there is an ocean of water under Pluto's surface, did we detect one?
How do we detect whether a planet or moon has an ocean?

Another quote from this same paper titled "Ocean worlds in the outer solar system"
By F. Nimmo and R. T. Pappalardo at  AGU Publications.
3. Where are oceans located?
Determining the moment of inertia (MoI) of a body can help assess whether it has undergone differentiation (separation into rock-dominated and ice-dominated layers) or not. Determining the MOI is not simple and it requires multiple orbits. Shape or gravity measurements can in some cases be used to infer the MoI—if the body is in hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e., behaving like a fluid on long timescales). Unfortunately, proving that a body is in hydrostatic equilibrium requires either both degree-two gravity coefficients or both degree-two shape coefficients to be measured (an object's gravity can be decomposed into spherical harmonics; degree-two harmonics have wavelengths of 180°). For the gravity coefficients, this requires at least one roughly equatorial and one roughly polar flyby. (at least two flyby's required more if you don't get a perfect 180 offset orbital orientation)

4 How Are Oceans Detected?
Although determining the MoI is helpful for inferring bulk structure, the densities of solid and liquid H2O are too similar to allow the presence of a subsurface ocean to be inferred. Instead, other geophysical techniques are used, as described below.

There are three main geophysical approaches by which subsurface oceans have been (or could be) detected: magnetic induction, geodetic approaches, and radar sounding.

New Horizons didn't flyby twice (over the pole and equator) nor did it have a radar sounding system nor did it have a magnetometer to confirm whether or not there is a subsurface ocean.

We didn't perform any of these three tests, in other words we have not detected an ocean at Pluto (we infer or assume it) the core is too small and the Aluminium 26 is no longer radioactive (according to Wiki).

Pluto's core is too small to be hot (according to Nimmo and McKinnon).

We also don't know that Pluto is differentiated, we assume it is because 10 years before we got to Pluto we decided Pluto and Charon collided (McKinnon & Robin Canup).

Chew! Chew! Chugga chugggga chuggggga chugggggggaaaaa pssshhhhhhhhhh,
I hear that train slowing down a little.

Perhaps its time to get off this train of thought.

5% Ammonia in an Ocean of Water

While its possible there is ammonia in Pluto we didn't find any during New Horizons' flyby. We looked for it.
We spotted plenty of NH3 ammonia on Charon but none on Pluto. The green stuff in this image is ammonia speckled around Charon. We didn't find any molecular oxygen O2 on Pluto, a fact that is puzzling as comets like 67P have O2 and Pluto is assumed to be made of the same Kuiper Belt stuff as 67P.

Another Quote from "Ocean worlds in the outer solar system"
By F. Nimmo and R. T. Pappalardo at  AGU Publications.
5.1 Antifreeze
The temperature to which the ocean must be cooled prior to freezing depends strongly on its composition, considering that the antifreeze effect of certain species can be dramatic. One important example is ammonia, which can depress the freezing point of water by almost 100 K (Figure 4) [e.g., Choukroun and Grasset, 2010]. Note, however, that if more than about 15% NH3 is present by weight, the resulting liquid will be less dense than ice I [Haynes, 2014], which will therefore tend to founder. Because NH3 is excluded during solidification of an NH3-H2O melt, an ocean that is slowly freezing will become progressively more enriched in NH3 (and thus becomes more difficult to freeze further). Ammonia has been detected directly at Enceladus [Waite et al., 2009] and may be the ultimate source of the N2 in Titan's atmosphere [Glein, 2015]. Ammonia ice has been identified spectroscopically at Charon (notice how Pluto is missing from this statement?) and some of the Saturnian satellites, but not in the Jovian moons [Clark et al., 2014]. This apparent absence of NH3 is consistent with the expected higher temperatures during accretion of Jupiter satellites compared with the satellites of Saturn [Lunine and Stevenson, 1982]. A lack of ammonia would make the Jovian satellites significantly more likely to lose their oceans via freezing than more distant bodies.

Here again Nimmo says things that suggest Pluto wouldn't have an ocean but supports the idea (I'm confused by this).

I believe Nimmo's point here is that, higher temperatures during accretion would evaporate away the ammonia.
If I understand this correctly Charon with ammonia would be more likely to have an ocean (but its frozen), whereas, Pluto with no signs of ammonia is not likely to have a subsurface ocean. Higher accretion temperatures equal no ammonia. If Pluto is differentiated then it must have been hot enough to separate out silicate rock from rock hard ice, this would have had to occur either during accretion or impact.

Let's assume there is ammonia in Pluto, water freezes at 273K so knock off 100K for added ammonia and you're still at 173K,

Pluto is 35K. OK throw in some pressure and you drop the freezing point further but another 137 K.

Hmmm!!! 

Add a small amount of rock that is radioactively dead and Hmmmmm!!!! I don't know just saying.

I think I know how to convince you, I have a model rail road train set, maybe if I build that model, I can convince you. 

The below is a comparison of Pluto as it was modeled pre-flyby (e) versus what we observed during the New Horizons flyby (a-d).
One could conclude that the model is pretty darn close to accurate or that it is completely misleading depending on your point of view. For example, the model shows an equatorial band that is ice free yet this is where most of Pluto's land surface ice exist. Models like this are helpful and can give us insights into that which we don't understand but can also be misleading.

Comparison between the observed and modeled ice distributions on Pluto in July 2015. (Click to enlarge) Image Credit: T. Bertrand & F. Forget / Nature

The blue and light green colors on this map of Pluto are indications of where we detected water ice. Exactly where our model indicated it wouldn't be.

So what's my alternative explanation? 

How was Pluto geologically dormant and then given a heart beat?

This is the story I like
which I told on the previous page 49.
Just because I like it, doesn't make it so.

One to two billion years ago, while Pluto was wandering the solar system as a lone planet Neptune pushed another cluster of 3:2 resonant objects near enough to Pluto to initiate an elliptical spiral dance. This elliptical dance created strong tidal stretching forces between Pluto and this new group of objects.

This cluster of objects was called the Pleiades (its my story I'll call it what I want). The largest of this Pleiades group of objects was Charon. The others were Charon's smaller satellites. When Charon and Pluto began their extreme elliptical orbital dance, Charon's smaller group of satellites were flung away but not completely out of range they were perturbed but not ejected. 
Another quote from the titled "Ocean worlds in the outer solar system"
By F. Nimmo and R. T. Pappalardo at  AGU Publications.
5.2.1 Applications
Charon probably also had a high initial eccentricity and potentially significant ancient heating [e.g., Rhoden et al., 2015], but its orbit is now circular. (a point I made 5 months ago on my speculation page 44)

Pluto and Charon experienced strong tidal stretching for a long period before their orbits settled into a quiet circular pattern.

Eventually the smaller satellites of the Pleiades began returning to a tighter orbit which caused them to collide with Charon and Pluto this is what created Mordor and the small moons. This impact sent some of Charon into orbit and some into Pluto knocking bits off at SP.

The tidal stretching between Pluto/Charon caused both planets to warm and softening their underbellies.

This stretching and pulling along with the returning impacting smaller satellites pounded Charon and possibly Pluto creating massive fractures causing the warmed subsurface fluids to spill out and launched debris into orbit creating the four small moons.

Charon, being smaller chilled down soon after and some of the fallout from the impacts fell back onto its taffy like surface. These chunks lodged themselves gently enough onto Charon to deform the cooling surface without penetrating it. Pluto being larger continues to bubble nitrogen out from below. 

I don't have the tools or ability to prove any of this through modeling but if I did, I'm sure I could create a model that supports this scenario. That's my point about models. If you can conceive it, you can model it. And just because you can model it, doesn't necessarily make it a correct concept.  

I encourage you to read this paper on how we modeled the concept of a subsurface ocean. It goes something like this, Add some salt a dash of pepper throw in 5% ammonia, increase the pressure then add some heat take out a little salt add a few billion years take away some pepper reduce the radiation add more silicate rock increase the ice layer take away more time add some more ammonia toss in some 26Al increase the water thin the ice add more salt and we get 50 different potential ocean scenarios. Then

Viola! Pluto has an ocean.
We don't know Pluto is differentiated, we don't know SP is an impact site, we don't know there is a hot core, we don't know there is an ocean of water, we don't know whether Pluto and Charon collided, we don't know the age of the moons yet here we are patting ourselves on the back aligning and agreeing with each other about all our assumptions as if we know what we're talking about.

CAN I GET EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION?
THE TRAIN LEAVES IN TEN MINUTES!
This brief interlude at the depot of original thought is over, The train's about to leave the station please have your tickets ready and re-board the familiarly run NASA brain train.

Chew! Chew!

Patented Back Patter

ALL ABOARD!!

It is completely possible that all of NASA's theories about Pluto are correct just as it is equally possible they are not correct.
NASA has some really smart scientists developing these theories with some plausible models.
You should not believe me over them, think for yourself.
I simply have questions that puzzle me about these theories.
Actually I have evidence some data is altered some is ignored and some is just wrong.

I have noticed, as time passes some scientists are beginning to see some aspects of my observations but most seem to accept the party line doctrine without much question while others like James Keane don't check any facts when they misrepresent their info in drawings but at least he got his cartoons published in Forbes.

< Page 49 Callisto

Chicken or Egg Page 51 >