...
首页> 外文期刊>Meteoritics & planetary science >Megaregolith evolution and cratering cataclysm models-Lunar cataclysm as a misconception (28 years later)
【24h】

Megaregolith evolution and cratering cataclysm models-Lunar cataclysm as a misconception (28 years later)

机译:Megaregolith演化和陨石坑大灾变模型-月球大灾变是一种误解(28年后)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The hypothesis of a lunar cataclysmic cratering episode between 3.8 and 3.9 Gyr ago lacks proof. Its strongest form proposes no cratering before about 4.0 Gyr, followed by catastrophic formation of most lunar craters and basins in <200 Myr. The premise that "zero impact melts implies zero impacts" is disproved by data from asteroids, on which early collisions clearly occurred, but from which early impact melts are scarce. Plausible cataclysm models imply that any cataclysm should have affected the whole inner solar system, but among available lunar and asteroid impact melt and impact age resetting data, a narrow, strong 3.8-3.9 Gyr spike in ages is seen only in the region sampled by Apollo/Luna. Reported lunar meteorite data do not show the spike. Asteroid data show a broader, milder peak, spreading from about 4.2 to 3.5 Gyr. These data suggest either that the spike in Apollo impact melt ages is associated with unique lunar front side events, or that the lunar meteorites data represent different kinds of events than the Apollo/Luna data. Here, we develop an alternate "megaregolith evolution" hypothesis to explain these data. In this hypothesis, early impact melts are absent not because there were no impacts, but because the high rate of early impacts led to their pulverization. The model estimates survival halflives of most lunar impact melts prior to 4.1 Gyr at <100 Myr. After a certain time, T_(critical)~4.0 Gyr, impact melts began to survive to the present. The age distribution differences among impact melts and plutonic rocks are controlled by, and hold clues to, the history of regolith evolution and the relative depths of sequenstration of impact melts versus plutonic rocks, both among lunar and asteroidal samples. Both the "zero cratering, then cataclysm" hypothesis and the "megaregolith evolution" hypothesis require further testing, especially with lunar meteorite impact melt studies.
机译:吉尔在3.8到3.9年之间发生了一次月球灾难性陨石坑的假说尚无证据。其最强形式建议在约4.0 Gyr之前不存在火山口,然后在<200 Myr内形成大多数月球陨石坑和盆地的灾难性形成。小行星的数据反驳了“零冲击融化意味着零冲击”的前提,小行星的数据显然发生了早期碰撞,但是从中很少出现早期碰撞。可能的大灾变模型暗示任何大灾变都应该影响到整个内部太阳系,但是在可用的月球和小行星撞击融化和撞击年龄重置数据中,仅在阿波罗取样的区域中看到年龄在3.8-3.9 Gyr范围内的窄而强的峰值/露娜报告的月球陨石数据未显示峰值。小行星数据显示出一个更宽,更缓和的峰,从约4.2到3.5 Gyr扩展。这些数据表明,阿波罗撞击融化年龄的增加与独特的月球正面事件有关,或者月球陨石数据代表的事件类型与阿波罗/月神数据不同。在这里,我们提出了另一种“巨灰岩演化”假说来解释这些数据。在此假设中,不存在早期冲击熔体的原因不是因为没有冲击,而是因为较高的早期冲击率导致了其粉碎。该模型估计在小于100 Myr的4.1 Gyr之前,大多数月球撞击熔体的存活半衰期。经过一定时间T_(critical)〜4.0 Gyr,冲击熔体开始幸存至今。在月球和小行星样本中,撞击熔岩和深成岩之间的年龄分布差异受重熔岩演化历史和撞击熔岩相对于深成岩序列的相对深度的控制,并提供线索。 “零陨石坑,然后是大地裂变”假说和“巨灰石演化”假说都需要进一步检验,尤其是在月球陨石撞击熔体研究中。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号