DOCSLIB.ORG

Science Article on Fast-Breaking Items Or Current Topics of General Inter- Some Errors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Science Article on Fast-Breaking Items Or Current Topics of General Inter- Some Errors Vol. 5, No. 10 October 1995 INSIDE • Aerial Photos by Washburn, p. 200 • Call for Award Nominations, p. 203 • Rocky Mountain Section Meeting, GSA TODAY p. 206 A Publication of the Geological Society of America • Cordilleran Section Meeting, p. 207 Figure 2. Topography of the Manicouagan complex impact The Record of Terrestrial structure, Quebec, Canada. The original diameter of this Impact Cratering 214 ± 1 Ma structure is esti- mated to have been 100 km. Richard Grieve, James Rupert, Janice Smith, Ann Therriault Erosion, however, has removed the rim, and the structure Continental Geoscience Division. Geological Survey of Canada appears as a series of circular Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y3, Canada features with positive and nega- tive relief, beginning with a 150-km-diameter outer fracture zone, seen most easily in the western and southern sectors, ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION and culminating in slightly off- center topographic peaks. The Approximately 150 terrestrial The first studies of a terrestrial annular Manicouagan reservoir impact structures are currently impact structure, of the now famous (dark green area slightly left of known, representing a small, biased Meteor or Barringer Crater, Arizona, in center) is ˜65 km in diameter sample of a much larger population. the early 1900s by D. M. Barringer and and at ˜360 m elevation. Eleva- The spatial distribution indicates colleagues, produced more controversy tions in the center are as much as 1100 m (brown). concentrations in cratonic areas— than acceptance. There was, however, a ˜ in particular, ones where there have gradual increase in the number of rec- been active search programs. The ognized small craters with meteorite majority of the known impact struc- fragments until the 1960s, when so- tures are <200 m.y. old, reflecting called shock metamorphic effects the increasing likelihood of removal became reliable criteria for assigning by terrestrial geologic processes with an impact origin to specific enigmatic increasing geologic age. There is also terrestrial structures (e.g., see papers in a deficit of structures <20 km in French and Short, 1968). This resulted diameter, due to the greater ease in a major increase in the number of with which smaller features can be recognized impact structures. The removed. Their form is similar to results of the planetary exploration impact craters on other planetary programs of the 1970s demonstrated bodies, although comparisons must the ubiquitous nature of impact in the be made with caution, because of solar system, and studies of terrestrial the modifying effects of erosion. impact structures provided a source of Erosion and burial by postimpact ground truth data for the interpreta- sediments can affect estimates of the tion of the planetary cratering record. most fundamental parameters, such These led to a more general acceptance as diameter. The contents of compi- of terrestrial impact structures by the Figure 3. World map indicating locations of currently known terrestrial impact structures. lations of terrestrial impact struc- geoscience community, but impact Note concentrations of impact structures in Australia, North America, and northern Europe– tures such as presented here, there- was regarded largely as a “planetary” western Russia. fore, vary in reliability, with respect process, with little relevance to Earth to the principal characteristics of history. individual structures, and are subject This began to change in the early in sufficient deterioration to the envi- particular attention to the inherent to ongoing revision. Nevertheless, it 1980s, following the discoveries of ronment to result in a mass extinction. biases in the record, as they must be is possible to estimate a cratering evidence of impact at the Cretaceous- The progress of the debate regarding accommodated when drawing infer- rate similar to independently Tertiary (K-T) boundary. Originally the involvement of large-scale impact ences from the known record. derived rates, based on astronomical hotly debated, the discoveries at the at the K-T boundary can be gauged observations. K-T boundary and of the Chicxulub from papers in Silver and Schultz THE KNOWN RECORD structure in Yucatán, Mexico, have led (1982) and Sharpton and Ward (1990). to increasing consensus that, at least in Planetary impact craters are recog- Currently, there is considerable activity this case, large-scale impact can result nized by their morphology. Terrestrial in the area of the hazard to human civ- impact craters are recognized not only ilization posed by impact (e.g., papers by their morphology but also by their in Gehrels, 1994). geologic structure. In the most highly The presence of impact structures, eroded examples, terrestrial impact however, still does not figure highly in craters no longer have an obvious general descriptions of the terrestrial crater form and are recognized by their geologic environment. The highly geologic characteristics. They are no active geologic environment of Earth longer craters, by definition, and are has served to remove, mask, and mod- best referred to as impact structures. ify the terrestrial impact record To avoid confusion and arbitrary defi- throughout geologic time, making it nitions, we refer to all terrestrial impact less obvious and harder to read than craters as impact structures, regardless that of the other terrestrial planets. The of their state of erosion. known impact record is a biased sam- All known terrestrial impact struc- ple of a larger population and is the tures (Table 1) have evidence of an result of the combination of impact impact origin, through the docu- and endogenic terrestrial geologic pro- mented occurrence of meteoritic mate- cesses. About 150 terrestrial impact rial and/or shock metamorphic fea- craters or crater fields, consisting of tures. To various degrees they also have clusters of relatively small craters, are several other aspects in common, such currently known, and about three to as form, structure, and geophysical five new ones are discovered each year. characteristics. Some of the known ter- The last widely circulated listing of ter- restrial structures have some of these restrial impact craters by Grieve and aspects but lack documented shock Robertson (1987) is a world map, spon- metamorphic features. Although some sored by the International Union of of these are more than likely impact- Geological Sciences Commission on origin features, they are not included Comparative Planetology, which lists in Table 1, for consistency. Events Figure 1. Oblique aerial photograph of the 1.2-km-diameter Barringer or Meteor Crater. This 116 features. Here, we update that list- relatively well preserved example of a simple impact structure still retains some of its ejecta ing and review the basic character of blanket, seen here as the hummocky deposits exterior to the rim. the terrestrial impact record. We pay Cratering continued on p. 194 Cratering continued from p. 189 TABLE 1. KNOWN TERRESTRIAL IMPACT STRUCTURES Crater name Location Lat Long Age (Ma) Diam. (km) associated with such phenomena as the 1908 Tunguska explosion, the late Acraman South Australia, Australia 32°1’S 135°27’E >450 90 Pliocene meteorite debris found over Ames Oklahoma, USA 36°15’N 98°12’W 470 ± 30 16 ~300,000 km2 of the South Pacific Amguid Algeria 26°5’N 4°23’E <0.1 0.45 Aorounga Chad, Africa 19°6’N 19°15’E <0.004 12.6 (Kyte et al., 1988), the North American Aouelloul Mauritania 20°15’N 12°41’W 3.1 ± 0.3 0.39 microtektite strewn field, and others Araguainha Dome Brazil 16°47’S 52°59’W 247.0 ± 5.5 40 are also not included in Table 1. Avak Alaska, USA71°15’N 156°38’W >95 12 In compiling Table 1, we used the Azuara Spain 41°10’N 0°55’W <130 30 literature, supplemented by our own B.P. Structure Libya 25°19’N 24°20’E <120 2.8 Barringer Arizona, USA 35°2’N 111°1’W 0.049 ± 0.003 1.19 observations, on (most commonly) the Beaverhead Montana, USA 44°36’N 113°0’W ~600 60 presence of shock metamorphic effects Beyenchime-Salaatin Russia 71°50’N 123°30’E <65 8 at a particular structure. There is, how- Bigach Kazakhstan 48°30’N 82°0’E 6 ± 3 7 ever, a judgmental component in that Boltysh Ukraine 48°45’N 32°10’E 88 ± 3 24 Bosumtwi Ghana 6°30’N 1°25’W 1.03 ± 0.02 10.5 the documentation of shock metamor- Boxhole Northern Territory, Australia 22°37’S 135°12’E 0.0300 ± 0.0005 0.17 phic effects must be convincing. For Brent Ontario, Canada 46°5’N 78°29’W 450 ± 30 3.8 some cases for which there have been Campo Del Cielo* Argentina 27°38’S 61°42’W <0.004 0.05 claims of shock metamorphism, we Carswell Saskatchewan, Canada 58°27’N 109°30’W 115 ± 10 39 have not included the structure. For Charlevoix Quebec, Canada 47°32’N 70°18’W 357 ± 15 54 Chesapeake Bay Virginia, USA 37°15’N 76°5’W 35.5 ± 0.6 85 example, we do not include the Sevetin Chicxulub Yucatán, Mexico 21°20’N 89°30’W 64.98 ± 0.05 170 structure in the former Czechoslovakia, Chiyli Kazakhstan 49°10’N 57°51’E 46 ± 7 5.5 although there was a report of shock Chukcha Russia 75°42’N 97°48’E <70 6 metamorphism in quartz (Vrána, 1987). Clearwater East Quebec, Canada 56°5’N 74°7’W 290 ± 20 26 Clearwater West Quebec, Canada 56°13’N 74°30’W 290 ± 20 36 Our own observations and recent trans- Connolly Basin Western Australia, Australia 23°32’S 124°45’E <60 9 mission electron microscope studies Couture Quebec, Canada 60°8’N 75°20’W 430 ± 25 8 have indicated that this deformation is Crooked Creek Missouri, USA 37°50’N 91°23’W 320 ± 80 7 not shock produced (Cordier et.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cross-References ASTEROID IMPACT Definition and Introduction History of Impact Cratering Studies
    18 ASTEROID IMPACT Tedesco, E. F., Noah, P. V., Noah, M., and Price, S. D., 2002. The identification and confirmation of impact structures on supplemental IRAS minor planet survey. The Astronomical Earth were developed: (a) crater morphology, (b) geo- 123 – Journal, , 1056 1085. physical anomalies, (c) evidence for shock metamor- Tholen, D. J., and Barucci, M. A., 1989. Asteroid taxonomy. In Binzel, R. P., Gehrels, T., and Matthews, M. S. (eds.), phism, and (d) the presence of meteorites or geochemical Asteroids II. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 298–315. evidence for traces of the meteoritic projectile – of which Yeomans, D., and Baalke, R., 2009. Near Earth Object Program. only (c) and (d) can provide confirming evidence. Remote Available from World Wide Web: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ sensing, including morphological observations, as well programs. as geophysical studies, cannot provide confirming evi- dence – which requires the study of actual rock samples. Cross-references Impacts influenced the geological and biological evolu- tion of our own planet; the best known example is the link Albedo between the 200-km-diameter Chicxulub impact structure Asteroid Impact Asteroid Impact Mitigation in Mexico and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Under- Asteroid Impact Prediction standing impact structures, their formation processes, Torino Scale and their consequences should be of interest not only to Earth and planetary scientists, but also to society in general. ASTEROID IMPACT History of impact cratering studies In the geological sciences, it has only recently been recog- Christian Koeberl nized how important the process of impact cratering is on Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria a planetary scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting and Avoiding Killer Asteroids
    Target Earth! Detecting and Avoiding Killer Asteroids by Trudy E. Bell (Copyright 2013 Trudy E. Bell) ARTH HAD NO warning. When a mountain- above 2000°C and triggering earthquakes and volcanoes sized asteroid struck at tens of kilometers (miles) around the globe. per second, supersonic shock waves radiated Ocean water suctioned from the shoreline and geysered outward through the planet, shock-heating rocks kilometers up into the air; relentless tsunamis surged e inland. At ground zero, nearly half the asteroid’s kinetic energy instantly turned to heat, vaporizing the projectile and forming a mammoth impact crater within minutes. It also vaporized vast volumes of Earth’s sedimentary rocks, releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfur di- oxide into the atmosphere, along with heavy dust from both celestial and terrestrial rock. High-altitude At least 300,000 asteroids larger than 30 meters revolve around the sun in orbits that cross Earth’s. Most are not yet discovered. One may have Earth’s name written on it. What are engineers doing to guard our planet from destruction? winds swiftly spread dust and gases worldwide, blackening skies from equator to poles. For months, profound darkness blanketed the planet and global temperatures dropped, followed by intense warming and torrents of acid rain. From single-celled ocean plank- ton to the land’s grandest trees, pho- tosynthesizing plants died. Herbivores starved to death, as did the carnivores that fed upon them. Within about three years—the time it took for the mingled rock dust from asteroid and Earth to fall out of the atmosphere onto the ground—70 percent of species and entire genera on Earth perished forever in a worldwide mass extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rocks from the Peak Ring of the Chicxulub Impact Crater: P-Wave Velocity, Density, and Porosity Measurements from IODP/ICDP Expedition 364 ∗ G.L
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 495 (2018) 1–11 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl Extraordinary rocks from the peak ring of the Chicxulub impact crater: P-wave velocity, density, and porosity measurements from IODP/ICDP Expedition 364 ∗ G.L. Christeson a, , S.P.S. Gulick a,b, J.V. Morgan c, C. Gebhardt d, D.A. Kring e, E. Le Ber f, J. Lofi g, C. Nixon h, M. Poelchau i, A.S.P. Rae c, M. Rebolledo-Vieyra j, U. Riller k, D.R. Schmitt h,1, A. Wittmann l, T.J. Bralower m, E. Chenot n, P. Claeys o, C.S. Cockell p, M.J.L. Coolen q, L. Ferrière r, S. Green s, K. Goto t, H. Jones m, C.M. Lowery a, C. Mellett u, R. Ocampo-Torres v, L. Perez-Cruz w, A.E. Pickersgill x,y, C. Rasmussen z,2, H. Sato aa,3, J. Smit ab, S.M. Tikoo ac, N. Tomioka ad, J. Urrutia-Fucugauchi w, M.T. Whalen ae, L. Xiao af, K.E. Yamaguchi ag,ah a University of Texas Institute for Geophysics, Jackson School of Geosciences, Austin, USA b Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, Austin, USA c Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK d Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre of Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany e Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, USA f Department of Geology, University of Leicester, UK g Géosciences Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, France h Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Canada i Department of Geology, University of Freiburg, Germany j SM 312, Mza 7, Chipre 5, Resid.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Impact Structures Provide the Only Ground Truth Against Which Computational and Experimental Results Can Be Com­ Pared
    Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1987. 15:245-70 Copyright([;; /987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved TERRESTRIAL IMI!ACT STRUCTURES ··- Richard A. F. Grieve Geophysics Division, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA OY3, Canada INTRODUCTION Impact structures are the dominant landform on planets that have retained portions of their earliest crust. The present surface of the Earth, however, has comparatively few recognized impact structures. This is due to its relative youthfulness and the dynamic nature of the terrestrial geosphere, both of which serve to obscure and remove the impact record. Although not generally viewed as an important terrestrial (as opposed to planetary) geologic process, the role of impact in Earth evolution is now receiving mounting consideration. For example, large-scale impact events may hav~~ been responsible for such phenomena as the formation of the Earth's moon and certain mass extinctions in the biologic record. The importance of the terrestrial impact record is greater than the relatively small number of known structures would indicate. Impact is a highly transient, high-energy event. It is inherently difficult to study through experimentation because of the problem of scale. In addition, sophisticated finite-element code calculations of impact cratering are gen­ erally limited to relatively early-time phenomena as a result of high com­ putational costs. Terrestrial impact structures provide the only ground truth against which computational and experimental results can be com­ pared. These structures provide information on aspects of the third dimen­ sion, the pre- and postimpact distribution of target lithologies, and the nature of the lithologic and mineralogic changes produced by the passage of a shock wave.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia
    Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia Chapter 6 Catastrophic mass failure of a Middle Cambrian platform margin, the Lawn Hill Megabreccia, Queensland, Australia Leonardo Feltrin 6-1 Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia Acknowledgement of Contributions N.H.S. Oliver – normal supervisory contributions Leonardo Feltrin 6-2 Chapter 6 Lawn Hill Megabreccia Abstract Megabreccia and related folds are two of the most spectacular features of the Lawn Hill Outlier, a small carbonate platform of Middle Cambrian age, situated in the northeastern part of the Georgina Basin, Australia. The megabreccia is a thick unit (over 200 m) composed of chaotic structures and containing matrix-supported clasts up to 260 m across. The breccia also influenced a Mesoproterozoic basement, which hosts the world class Zn-Pb-Ag Century Deposit. Field-studies (undertaken in the mine area), structural 3D modelling and stable isotopic data were used to assess the origin and timing of the megabreccia, and its relationship to the tectonic framework. Previous workers proposed the possible linkage of the structural disruption to an asteroid impact, to justify the extremely large clasts and the conspicuous basement interaction. However, the megabreccia has comparable clast size to some of the largest examples of sedimentary breccias and synsedimentary dyke intrusions in the world. Together with our field and isotope data, the reconstruction of the sequence of events that led to the cratonization of the Centralian Superbasin supports a synsedimentary origin for the Lawn Hill Megabreccia. However, later brittle faulting and veining accompanying strain localisation within the Thorntonia Limestones may represent post-sedimentary, syntectonic deformation, possibly linked to the late Devonian Alice Springs Orogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook of Iron Meteorites, Volume 1
    CHAPTER FOUR Meteorite Craters Nobody has ever witnessed the formation of a meteor­ meteorites, and (iii) rapidly solidified metallic droplets, ite crater. Interpretations must therefore be based upon analogous to the spheroids encountered in the vicinity of measurement and comparison with artificial craters, caused Meteor Crater, Arizona (Goldstein et al. 1972; Anders et al. by known magnitudes and depths of explosives. Excellent 1973); see page 397. studies have been performed by Baldwin (1949; 1963; The bulk of the typical large lunar craters were formed 1970) who was particularly interested in the puzzling when the kinetic energy ~mv 2 of the impacting body was problems associated with the lunar craters but, as a basis for converted into thermal energy within a fraction of a his speculations, thoroughly examined several terrestrial second, resulting in an explosion. There is a very high craters and presented extensive bibliographies. Results from probability that the impacting body was thereby itself nuclear test sites have been presented by Hansen (1968) totally destroyed, melted or vaporized (Hartman & and Short (1968a, b). Krinov (1960b; 1966a, b) has dis­ Wood 1971; Ahrens & O'Keefe 1972). Fortunately, for the cussed several craters and impact holes associated with science of meteoritics and for the inhabitants of Earth, our meteorites and also devoted a liuge chapter to the Tunguska atmosphere will alleviate the impact of celestial bodies and comet, which did not produce craters at all. See page 9. through a gradual deceleration cause an important propor­ Stanyukovich &' Fedynski (1947), Nininger (1952a; 1956), tion to survive as meteorites. However, large and dense Shoemaker (1963) and Gault et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Fluvial Reworking of Impact Ejecta—A Case Study from the Ries Crater, Southern Germany
    Multiple fluvial reworking of impact ejecta--A case study from the Ries crater, southern Germany Item Type Article; text Authors Buchner, E.; Schmieder, M. Citation Buchner, E., & Schmieder, M. (2009). Multiple fluvial reworking of impact ejecta—A case study from the Ries crater, southern Germany. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 44(7), 1051-1060. DOI 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.tb00787.x Publisher The Meteoritical Society Journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science Rights Copyright © The Meteoritical Society Download date 06/10/2021 20:56:07 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/656594 Meteoritics & Planetary Science 44, Nr 7, 1051–1060 (2009) Abstract available online at http://meteoritics.org Multiple fluvial reworking of impact ejecta—A case study from the Ries crater, southern Germany Elmar BUCHNER* and Martin SCHMIEDER Institut für Planetologie, Universität Stuttgart, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 21 July 2008; revision accepted 12 May 2009) Abstract–Impact ejecta eroded and transported by gravity flows, tsunamis, or glaciers have been reported from a number of impact structures on Earth. Impact ejecta reworked by fluvial processes, however, are sparsely mentioned in the literature. This suggests that shocked mineral grains and impact glasses are unstable when eroded and transported in a fluvial system. As a case study, we here present a report of impact ejecta affected by multiple fluvial reworking including rounded quartz grains with planar deformation features and diaplectic quartz and feldspar glass in pebbles of fluvial sandstones from the “Monheimer Höhensande” ~10 km east of the Ries crater in southern Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Structures and Events – a Nordic Perspective
    107 by Henning Dypvik1, Jüri Plado2, Claus Heinberg3, Eckart Håkansson4, Lauri J. Pesonen5, Birger Schmitz6, and Selen Raiskila5 Impact structures and events – a Nordic perspective 1 Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047, Blindern, NO 0316 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Geology, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, 51014 Tartu, Estonia. 3 Department of Environmental, Social and Spatial Change, Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark. 4 Department of Geography and Geology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen, Denmark. 5 Division of Geophysics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 64, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland. 6 Department of Geology, University of Lund, Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden. Impact cratering is one of the fundamental processes in are the main reason that the Nordic countries are generally well- the formation of the Earth and our planetary system, as mapped. reflected, for example in the surfaces of Mars and the Impact craters came into the focus about 20 years ago and the interest among the Nordic communities has increased during recent Moon. The Earth has been covered by a comparable years. The small Kaalijärv structure of Estonia was the first impact number of impact scars, but due to active geological structure to be confirmed in northern Europe (Table 1; Figures 1 and processes, weathering, sea floor spreading etc, the num- 7). First described in 1794 (Rauch), the meteorite origin of the crater ber of preserved and recognized impact craters on the field (presently 9 craters) was proposed much later in 1919 (Kalju- Earth are limited.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tennessee Meteorite Impact Sites and Changing Perspectives on Impact Cratering
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND THE TENNESSEE METEORITE IMPACT SITES AND CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON IMPACT CRATERING A dissertation submitted by Janaruth Harling Ford B.A. Cum Laude (Vanderbilt University), M. Astron. (University of Western Sydney) For the award of Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT Terrestrial impact structures offer astronomers and geologists opportunities to study the impact cratering process. Tennessee has four structures of interest. Information gained over the last century and a half concerning these sites is scattered throughout astronomical, geological and other specialized scientific journals, books, and literature, some of which are elusive. Gathering and compiling this widely- spread information into one historical document benefits the scientific community in general. The Wells Creek Structure is a proven impact site, and has been referred to as the ‘syntype’ cryptoexplosion structure for the United State. It was the first impact structure in the United States in which shatter cones were identified and was probably the subject of the first detailed geological report on a cryptoexplosive structure in the United States. The Wells Creek Structure displays bilateral symmetry, and three smaller ‘craters’ lie to the north of the main Wells Creek structure along its axis of symmetry. The question remains as to whether or not these structures have a common origin with the Wells Creek structure. The Flynn Creek Structure, another proven impact site, was first mentioned as a site of disturbance in Safford’s 1869 report on the geology of Tennessee. It has been noted as the terrestrial feature that bears the closest resemblance to a typical lunar crater, even though it is the probable result of a shallow marine impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocks, Soils and Surfaces: Teacher Guide
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration ROCKS, SOILS, AND SURFACES Planetary Sample and Impact Cratering Unit Teacher Guide Goal: This activity is designed to introduce students to rocks, “soils”, and surfaces on planetary worlds, through the exploration of lunar samples collected by Apollo astronauts and the study of the most dominant geologic process across the Solar System, the impact process. Students will gain an understanding of how the study of collected samples and impact craters can help improve our understanding of the history of the Moon, Earth, and our Solar System. Additionally, this activity will enable students to gain experience with scientific practices and the nature of science as they model skills and practices used by professional scientists. Objectives: Students will: 1. Make observations of rocks, “soil”, and surface features 2. Gain background information on rocks, “soil”, and surface features on Earth and the Moon 3. Apply background knowledge related to rocks, soils, and surfaces on Earth toward gaining a better understanding of these aspects of the Moon. This includes having students: a. Identify common lunar surface features b. Create a model lunar surface c. Identify the three classifications of lunar rocks d. Simulate the development of lunar regolith e. Identify the causes and formation of impact craters 4. Design and conduct an experiment on impact craters 5. Create a plan to investigate craters on Earth and on the Moon 6. Gain an understanding of the nature of science and scientific practices by: a. Making initial observations b. Asking preliminary questions c. Applying background knowledge d. Displaying data e. Analyzing and interpreting data Grade Level: 6 – 8* *Grade Level Adaptations: This activity can also be used with students in grades 5 and 9-12.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Recovery of Ejecta Material from Confirmed, Probable
    Appendix A Recovery of Ejecta Material from Confirmed, Probable, or Possible Distal Ejecta Layers A.1 Introduction In this appendix we discuss the methods that we have used to recover and study ejecta found in various types of sediment and rock. The processes used to recover ejecta material vary with the degree of lithification. We thus discuss sample processing for unconsolidated, semiconsolidated, and consolidated material separately. The type of sediment or rock is also important as, for example, carbonate sediment or rock is processed differently from siliciclastic sediment or rock. The methods used to take and process samples will also vary according to the objectives of the study and the background of the investigator. We summarize below the methods that we have found useful in our studies of distal impact ejecta layers for those who are just beginning such studies. One of the authors (BPG) was trained as a marine geologist and the other (BMS) as a hard rock geologist. Our approaches to processing and studying impact ejecta differ accordingly. The methods used to recover ejecta from unconsolidated sediments have been successfully employed by BPG for more than 40 years. A.2 Taking and Handling Samples A.2.1 Introduction The size, number, and type of samples will depend on the objective of the study and nature of the sediment/rock, but there a few guidelines that should be followed regardless of the objective or rock type. All outcrops, especially those near industrialized areas or transportation routes (e.g., highways, train tracks) need to be cleaned off (i.e., the surface layer removed) prior to sampling.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geophysical Interpretation of the Woodleigh Impact Structure, Southern Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia
    REPORT THE GEOPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF 79 THE WOODLEIGH IMPACT STRUCTURE SOUTHERN CARNARVON BASIN WESTERN AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA by R. P. Iasky, A. J. Mory, and K. A. Blundell GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA DEPARTMENT OF MINERALS AND ENERGY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA REPORT 79 THE GEOPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE WOODLEIGH IMPACT STRUCTURE, SOUTHERN CARNARVON BASIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA by R. P. Iasky, A. J. Mory, and K. A. Blundell Perth 2001 MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT; TOURISM; SMALL BUSINESS; GOLDFIELDS–ESPERANCE The Hon. Clive Brown MLA DIRECTOR GENERAL L. C. Ranford DIRECTOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Tim Griffin Copy editor: D. P. Reddy REFERENCE The recommended reference for this publication is: IASKY, R. P., MORY, A. J., and BLUNDELL, K. A., 2001, The geophysical interpretation of the Woodleigh impact structure, Southern Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia: Western Australia Geological Survey, Report 79, 41p. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-publication entry Iasky, R. P. (Robert Paul),1956– The geophysical interpretation of the Woodleigh impact structure, Southern Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia Bibliography. ISBN 0 7307 5680 7 1. Geomorphology — Western Australia — Carnarvon Basin. 2. Seismic reflection method. 3. Seismic prospecting — Western Australia — Carnarvon Basin. I. Mory, A. J. (Arthur John), 1953–. II. Blundell, K. A. (Kelvin Ashley), 1966–. III. Geological Survey of Western Australia. IV. Title. (Series: Report (Geological Survey of Western Australia); 79). 622.153099413 ISSN 0508–4741 Printed by Haymarket, Perth, Western Australia Copies available from: Information Centre Department of Minerals and Energy 100 Plain Street EAST PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6004 Telephone: (08) 9222 3459 Facsimile: (08) 9222 3444 www.dme.wa.gov.au Cover photograph: Oblique view from the southwest of the first vertical derivative of the Bouguer gravity for the Woodleigh area.
    [Show full text]