Next Article in Journal
Migration of Barchan Dunes in Qatar–Controls of the Shamal, Teleconnections, Sea-Level Changes and Human Impact
Next Article in Special Issue
A New Tool for Airborne Gravimetry Survey Simulation
Previous Article in Journal
Isotopic Composition of Spring Water in Greece: Spring Waters Isoscapes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Topographic Effects in Geoid Determinations

On the Applicability of Molodensky’s Concept of Heights in Planetary Sciences

Department of Land Surveying and Geo-Informatics, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong M1504, China
Department of Geodesy and Geomatics, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geosciences 2018, 8(7), 239;
Received: 29 May 2018 / Revised: 22 June 2018 / Accepted: 25 June 2018 / Published: 29 June 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gravity Field Determination and Its Temporal Variation)
Geometric heights, defined with respect to a geometric reference surface, are the most commonly used in planetary studies, but the use of physical heights defined with respect to an equipotential surface (typically the geoid) has been also acknowledged for specific studies (such as gravity-driven mass movements). In terrestrial studies, the geoid is defined as an equipotential surface that best fits the mean sea surface and extends under continents. Since gravimetric geoid modelling under continents is limited by the knowledge of a topographic density distribution, alternative concepts have been proposed. Molodensky introduced the quasigeoid as a height reference surface that could be determined from observed gravity without adopting any hypothesis about the topographic density. This concept is widely used in geodetic applications because differences between the geoid and the quasigeoid are mostly up to a few centimeters, except for mountainous regions. Here we discuss the possible applicability of Molodensky’s concept in planetary studies. The motivation behind this is rationalized by two factors. Firstly, knowledge of the crustal densities of planetary bodies is insufficient. Secondly, large parts of planetary surfaces have negative heights, implying that density information is not required. Taking into consideration the various theoretical and practical aspects discussed in this article, we believe that the choice between the geoid and the quasigeoid is not strictly limited because both options have advantages and disadvantages. We also demonstrate differences between the geoid and the quasigeoid on Mercury, Venus, Mars and Moon, showing that they are larger than on Earth. View Full-Text
Keywords: geoid; gravity; quasigeoid; topography geoid; gravity; quasigeoid; topography
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Tenzer, R.; Foroughi, I. On the Applicability of Molodensky’s Concept of Heights in Planetary Sciences. Geosciences 2018, 8, 239.

AMA Style

Tenzer R, Foroughi I. On the Applicability of Molodensky’s Concept of Heights in Planetary Sciences. Geosciences. 2018; 8(7):239.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tenzer, Robert, and Ismael Foroughi. 2018. "On the Applicability of Molodensky’s Concept of Heights in Planetary Sciences" Geosciences 8, no. 7: 239.

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop