Clark R. Chapman Southwest Research Inst. Boulder, Colorado, USA (member, MESSENGER Science Team)
description
Transcript of Clark R. Chapman Southwest Research Inst. Boulder, Colorado, USA (member, MESSENGER Science Team)
Clark R. ChapmanSouthwest Research Inst.Boulder, Colorado, USA
(member, MESSENGER Science Team)
Clark R. ChapmanSouthwest Research Inst.Boulder, Colorado, USA
(member, MESSENGER Science Team)
Invited Oral PresentationInvited Oral PresentationSession PS02: The Exploration of MercurySession PS02: The Exploration of Mercury
22ndnd Annual AOGS Meeting Annual AOGS MeetingSingapore, 21 June 2005Singapore, 21 June 2005
Invited Oral PresentationInvited Oral PresentationSession PS02: The Exploration of MercurySession PS02: The Exploration of Mercury
22ndnd Annual AOGS Meeting Annual AOGS MeetingSingapore, 21 June 2005Singapore, 21 June 2005
Review of Mariner 10 Observations: Mercury Surface Impact Processes
Review of Mariner 10 Observations: Mercury Surface Impact Processes
Introduction to Cratering on Mercury
Only direct evidence is from Mariner 10 images of mid-70s (and recent radar)
Theoretical and indirect studies Comparative planetology (Moon, Mars, …) Calculations/simulations of impactor populations
(asteroids, comets, depleted bodies, vulcanoids) Theoretical studies of cratering mechanics,
ejecta distributions, regolith evolution, etc.
Clearly, impact cratering dominates Mercury today, was important in the past
Impact processes range from solar wind and micrometeoroid bombardment to basin-forming impacts
MESSENGER will address cratering issues
Mercury’s Craters: Early Observations
Craters seen by Mariner 10 look superficially like Moon/Mars
But morphologies differ (high g, fewer erosive processes, etc.); see chapters by Spudis & Guest, Pike, and Schultz in Mercury (U. Ariz. Press)
Stratigraphy based on old Tolstoj and more recent Caloris basins
Recent, fresh craters affect albedo (e.g. rays)
Origins for Mercury’s Craters
Primary impact cratering High-velocity comets (5x lunar production rate)
Sun-grazers, other near-parabolic comets Jupiter-family comets Crater chains may be solar-disrupted comets (Schevchenko &
Skobeleva 2005, COSPAR) Near-Earth, Aten, and Inter-Earth asteroids Ancient, possibly depleted, impactor populations
Late Heavy Bombardment Outer solar system planetesimals (outer planet migration) Main-belt asteroids (planetary migration, collisions) Trojans and other remnants of terrestrial planet accretion
Left-over remnants of inner solar system accretion Vulcanoids (bodies that primarily impact Mercury only)
Secondary cratering Craters <2 km diam. from larger impacts Basin secondaries up to 30 km diam. (Wilhelms)
Endogenic craters (volcanism, etc.)
Terrestrial Planet Cratering (Robert Strom)
Old Mercury, Mars, & Moon similar…but: Mars <40 km diam. depleted by
erosion, filling (climate) Mercury <40 km depleted by
“intercrater plains”…but what are they? (Volcanic plains?)
Mercury “Post-Caloris” Strom argues that shape is
similar to highlands Error bars are large; may be
shallower Recent cratering (Moon, Mars)
horizontal Strom interpretation
LHB produced highlands NEAs made recent craters
Neukum interpretation: cratering population invariant in time and location
Role of ‘Late Heavy Bombardment’
LHB (whatever its cause) probably cratered Mercury similarly to the Moon and Mars
What happened before…and after…is not clear
The basin-forming epoch on the Moon (LHB) was of brief duration compared with the period when lunar rock ages were re-set, or the still longer period of bombardment apparently recorded in the HED meteorites (Bogard 1995). Chapman, Cohen & Grinspoon (2004) argue that the different histograms may reflect sampling biases. But if taken literally, the differences might instead mean that different populations of bodies and/or dynamical processes affected different planets. Was the lunar LHB responsible for Mercury’s cratered terrains?
Possible Role of Vulcanoids
Zone interior to Mercury’s orbit is dynamically stable (like asteroid belt, Trojans, Kuiper Belt)
If planetesimals originally accreted there, they may or may not have survived mutual collisional comminution
If they did, Yarkovsky drift of >1 km bodies in to Mercury could have taken several Gyr (Vokroulichy et al., 2000) and impacted Mercury alone long after LHB
Telescopic searches during last 20 years have so far failed to set stringent limits on current population of vulcanoids (but absence today wouldn’t negate earlier presence)
Vulcanoids could have cratered Mercury after the Late Heavy Bombardment, with little leakage to Earth/Moon zone; that would compress Mercury’s geological chronology toward the present (e.g. thrust-faulting might be still ongoing)
?
Images Suggesting Secondary Cratering on Mercury
Rays
Secondaries 90m/pix
Primary
Rays
Secondaries 90m/pix
Primary
Cluster?
Secondary Craters on Europa and the Moon) (Bierhaus et al., Nature, in press 2005)
From studies of spatial clustering and size distributions of ~25,000 craters on Europa, Bierhaus concludes that >95% of them (consistent with all of them) are secondaries!
Simple extrapolation to the Moon (if craters in ice behave as in rock) shows that secondaries could account for all small craters on the “steep branch” of the size-frequency relation!
Crater Production Function
Shoemaker first proposed steep branch as secondaries
Neukum (and most others eventually) considered it an attribute of primaries
Evidence from Europa and Mars now suggests Shoemaker was right after all
Another question: Big, secondaries from basins? (Wilhelms)
“Secondary Branch”
T.P. Highlands
Secondaries Dominate Mars(McEwen et al. 2005)
Zunil produced enough secondaries to account for 1 Myr of Neukum production function
Zunil may have made a billion craters >10m diam
“The Rayed Crater Zunil and Interpretations of Small Impact Craters on Mars”
(Alfred S. McEwen, Brandon S. Preblich, Elizabeth P. Turtle, et al.,2005)
Small and Microscale Impact and Regolith Processes Potential ice deposits in near-
polar shadows may be blanketed to some depth by regolith deposition Competing processes of ice
deposition, impact erosion, regolith deposition
Mercury’s surface is bombarded by micrometeorites and, periodically, by solar wind particles Optical properties (albedo and color)
are modified (“space weathering”) rendering compositional inferences suspect
Conclusion: MESSENGER Will Help Resolve Cratering Puzzles MESSENGER’s high resolution will reveal
many small craters (secondaries?) Probably they will be less far-flung from
their primaries than is true on Europa Are multi-10s-of-km diameter craters
secondaries from Mercury’s dozens of basins (as Wilhelms believes is true for the Moon)?
We should be cautious about tying Mercury’s geological history to the lunar LHB and cautious about relative age-dating of smaller units Mercury’s geology may be old, with
contraction/compression closing off the surface from the internal activity below
Or geology may be young, active today
The End
Supplementary Slides Follow
Mercury: an extreme planet
Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun
Mercury is the smallest planet except for Pluto
Mercury is like a “Baked Alaska”: extremely hot on one side, extremely cold at night
Mercury is made of the densest materials of any planet: it is mostly iron
Mercury’s size compared with MarsMercury’s size compared with Mars
Mercury is Difficult (but Possible) to See for Yourself
Mercury is visible several times a year
just after sunset (e.g. tonight, but it will be tough!)
just before sunrise (the week after Labor Day weekend is best); Mercury will be near Regulus in Leo
It is always close to the Sun, so it is a “race” between Mercury being too close to the horizon and the sky being too bright to see it…use a star chart to see where it is with respect to bright stars and planets
Through a telescope, Mercury shows phases like the Moon
http://messenger.ciw.edu/WhereMerc/WhereMercNow.php
Tonight, Mercury is to the lower right of Jupiter at dusk
MESSENGER: A Discovery Mission to Mercury
MESSENGER is a low-cost, focused Discovery spacecraft, built at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
It will be launched within days
It flies by Venus and Mercury
Then it orbits Mercury for a full Earth-year, observing the planet with sophisticated instruments
Designed for the harsh environs
MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging
Important science instruments and spacecraft components
MESSENGER’s Trajectory
Is there or isn’t there: ferrous iron?Or is Mercury’s surface reduced?
Putative 0.9μm feature appears absent
Other modeling of color/albedo/near-to-mid-IR-spectra yield FeO + TiO2 of 2 - 4% (e.g. Blewett et al., 1997; Robinson & Taylor, 2001)
Warell (2002): SVST data (big boxes) compared with earlier spectra
Warell (2002): SVST data (big boxes) compared with earlier spectra
Vilas (1985): all glassVilas (1985): all glass
Concluding Remarks
MESSENGER’s six science goals Why is Mercury so dense? What is the geologic history of Mercury? What is the structure of Mercury's core? What is the nature of Mercury's magnetic field? What are the unusual materials at Mercury's poles? What volatiles are important at Mercury?
But I think that serendipity and surprise will be the most memorable scientific result of MESSENGER The history of past planetary spacecraft missions
teaches us to expect surprise MESSENGER has superb instruments, it will be so
close to Mercury, and it will stay there a full year