DOCSLIB.ORG

Principles of Structural Geology on Rocky Planets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Principles of Structural Geology on Rocky Planets Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Principles of structural geology on rocky planets Journal: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Manuscript ID cjes-2019-0065.R1 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the 20-Jun-2019 Author: Complete List of Authors: Klimczak, Christian; University of Georgia, Department of Geology Byrne, Paul; North Carolina State University, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences Şengör, Celâl; Istanbul Teknik �niversitesi, Solomon, Sean; Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Keyword: Planetary Tectonics,Draft Planetary Geology, Mercury, Mars, Venus Is the invited manuscript for Understanding tectonic processes and their consequences: A tribute to consideration in a Special A.M. Celal Sengor Issue? : https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Page 1 of 90 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 1 Principles of structural geology on rocky planets 2 Christian Klimczak1*, Paul K. Byrne2, A. M. Celâl Şengör3, Sean C. Solomon4 3 4 1 Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 5 ([email protected]) 6 2 Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State 7 University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA ([email protected]) 8 3 Department of Geology, Faculty of Mines and the Eurasia Institute of Earth Sciences, 9 İstanbul Technical University, 34469 Maslak, İstanbul, Turkey ([email protected]) 10 4 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,Draft Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964, USA 11 ([email protected]) 12 13 *Corresponding Author: 14 Christian Klimczak 15 Department of Geology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA 16 Phone: 706-542-2977 17 Fax: 706-542-2425 18 Email: [email protected] 1 https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Page 2 of 90 19 Abstract 20 Although the earth is the only known planet on which plate tectonics operates, many 21 small- and large-scale tectonic landforms indicate that deformational processes also occur 22 on the other rocky planets. Although the mechanisms of deformation differ on Mercury, 23 Venus, and Mars, the surface manifestations of their tectonics are frequently very similar 24 to those found on the earth. Furthermore, tectonic processes invoked to explain 25 deformation on the earth before the recognition of horizontal mobility of tectonic plates 26 remain relevant for the other rocky planets. These connections highlight the importance 27 of drawing analogies between the rocky planets for characterizing deformation of their 28 lithospheres and for describing, applyingDraft appropriate nomenclature, and understanding 29 the formation of their resulting tectonic structures. Here we characterize and compare the 30 lithospheres of the rocky planets, describe structures of interest and where we study them, 31 provide examples of how historic views on geology are applicable to planetary tectonics, 32 and then apply these concepts to Mercury, Venus, and Mars. 33 Keywords: Planetary Tectonics, Planetary Geology, Mercury, Venus, Mars 34 2 https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Page 3 of 90 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 35 Introduction 36 37 “Without a theoretical framework, such as the plate tectonic models, of the spatial 38 relations of rock bodies to one another in an orogenic belt, however wrong they may be, 39 objective criticism, fruitful deductions, and new observations would become difficult to 40 make. Identifying terranes without immediate hypothetical interpretations diminishes 41 testability (because tectonic analysis would be reduced to irrefutable singular existential 42 statements) and therefore objectivity. I conclude that the terrane concept is therefore a 43 less objective approach to orogeny than the simplistic models it criticizes and must 44 inevitably lead to scientific sterility,Draft as did the Alpine nappe concept before 1950. I argue 45 for a methodology of tectonic analysis that starts with models about spatial relations of 46 rock bodies and leads to piecemeal improvements by critical observations, a method that 47 led to the discoveries of Alpine structure and evolution and also to plate tectonics.” 48 This argument by Şengör (1990) – on the utility of the concept of terranes in the study 49 of orogenic belts – could not be more fitting to many concepts and methods used in 50 planetary structural geology and tectonics that have prevailed to the present. 51 The idea that similar processes generate similar outcomes underpins the principle of 52 uniformitarianism that has made the rise of modern geology possible. However, 53 uniformitarianism was originally invoked to explain structures that are now geologically 54 inert. On the earth (refer to Şengör (2017) for the names of the planets we employ here, 55 including our own), there was no question that a given process created similar results 56 everywhere. Curiously, this obvious point has often been overlooked in the justified 57 excitement arising from the study of geological structures on other worlds. As space 3 https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Page 4 of 90 58 exploration revealed to us alien planetary surfaces, new designations were invented to 59 catalogue the structures seen thereon. This approach was particularly true for the many 60 shortening structures discovered on the rocky planets. Although the diversity and 61 variability of structural styles and architecture of shortening structures on the earth are 62 well documented, the nomenclature for extraterrestrial shortening landforms was 63 established with no regard to testable descriptions clearly related to crustal shortening 64 that were developed for the earth. Hence, comprehensive analogies between thrust 65 systems on ours and other rocky worlds cannot be fully drawn in planetary structural 66 geology. 67 Comparative geology as a method to study planets has long been known. Comparative 68 earth science had been practiced everDraft since Aristotle, Dikaiarchos, Eratosthenes, and 69 Strabo began describing the morphological features of our planet in terms of explanatory 70 geological models, but the honor of systematizing comparative earth sciences, geography, 71 and geology clearly belong to the two co-founders of modern geography, Carl Ritter and 72 Alexander von Humboldt. Von Humboldt combined his observations in Latin America 73 with those in the Canary Islands, Europe, and western and central Asia to characterize the 74 world’s large tectonic features such as oceans, mountain belts, and large basins (such as 75 the West Siberian or North Caspian) and to unite their description in one common 76 terminology. His publications on global stratigraphy (von Humboldt 1823a) and on 77 mountain ranges and volcanoes (von Humboldt 1823b, 1831, 1843) were aimed toward 78 that end. Carl Ritter took a more systematic approach and compared the large-scale 79 features of Asia among each other and helped to establish and expand von Humboldt’s 80 terminology in his monumental (if unfinished) “The General and Comparative 4 https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Page 5 of 90 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 81 Geography," of which only 19 volumes were published, covering Africa and almost the 82 whole of Asia (see Richter 1983). Both von Humboldt and Ritter were aided by Leopold 83 von Buch’s earlier publications (von Buch 1810, 1824) on the isostatic rise of 84 Scandinavia, the mountains of central Europe, and the volcanoes of the Canary Islands. 85 When these author’s explanatory theories were refuted, a good part of their descriptive 86 terminology survived into the time of the development of models involving substantial 87 horizontal motions (e.g., Élie de Beaumont 1829–1830, 1852; and Suess 1868, 1875, 88 1883–1909), and the new terminology, much enriched through the first three decades of 89 the twentieth century (e.g., Argand 1911, 1912, 1916, 1924, 1934; Kober 1921, 1931, 90 1942; Stille 1924, 1940; Staub 1924, 1928; Bucher 1933), proved extremely helpful in 91 describing and interpreting the large-scaleDraft structural features of our planet. However, 92 after World War II, that terminology and hypothetical world view of tectonics gradually 93 fell into desuetude, largely because of the switch of the international scientific language 94 from French and German to English alone and the rise of an unwelcome diffidence 95 towards theorizing in geology. By the time of the advent of plate tectonics theory, 96 beginning with J. Tuzo Wilson’s epoch-making paper of 1965, much of the older, rich, 97 and very apposite terminology had been forgotten. Consequently, such studies, for 98 reasons mentioned above, have been ignored in the planetary science community. 99 Here, we elaborate on some widely accepted principles and techniques of structural 100 geology devised by the earth tectonic community that can be readily applied to the study 101 of planetary tectonics, but which have not yet found widespread use for worlds beyond 102 our own. Likewise, some forgotten principles and techniques developed for the earth 103 prior to the wide scientific acceptance of plate tectonics find applicability on one-plate 5 https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Page 6 of 90 104 planets (i.e., those with a single, continuous lithospheric shell) such as Mercury and 105 Mars. Of course, comparative planetary geology must account for differences between 106 the earth and planets, such as the presence of water, which affects mineralogical and 107 rheological aspects of tectonic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shallow Crustal Composition of Mercury As Revealed by Spectral Properties and Geological Units of Two Impact Craters
    Planetary and Space Science 119 (2015) 250–263 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Planetary and Space Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pss Shallow crustal composition of Mercury as revealed by spectral properties and geological units of two impact craters Piero D’Incecco a,n, Jörn Helbert a, Mario D’Amore a, Alessandro Maturilli a, James W. Head b, Rachel L. Klima c, Noam R. Izenberg c, William E. McClintock d, Harald Hiesinger e, Sabrina Ferrari a a Institute of Planetary Research, German Aerospace Center, Rutherfordstrasse 2, D-12489 Berlin, Germany b Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA c The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, USA d Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303, USA e Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Planetologie, Wilhelm-Klemm Str. 10, D-48149 Münster, Germany article info abstract Article history: We have performed a combined geological and spectral analysis of two impact craters on Mercury: the Received 5 March 2015 15 km diameter Waters crater (106°W; 9°S) and the 62.3 km diameter Kuiper crater (30°W; 11°S). Using Received in revised form the Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS) Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) dataset we defined and mapped 9 October 2015 several units for each crater and for an external reference area far from any impact related deposits. For Accepted 12 October 2015 each of these units we extracted all spectra from the MESSENGER Atmosphere and Surface Composition Available online 24 October 2015 Spectrometer (MASCS) Visible-InfraRed Spectrograph (VIRS) applying a first order photometric correc- Keywords: tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.11628V3 [Astro-Ph.EP] 26 Jan 2021
    manuscript submitted to JGR: Planets The Fundamental Connections Between the Solar System and Exoplanetary Science Stephen R. Kane1, Giada N. Arney2, Paul K. Byrne3, Paul A. Dalba1∗, Steven J. Desch4, Jonti Horner5, Noam R. Izenberg6, Kathleen E. Mandt6, Victoria S. Meadows7, Lynnae C. Quick8 1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA 2Planetary Systems Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA 3Planetary Research Group, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA 4School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA 5Centre for Astrophysics, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia 6Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, USA 7Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA 8Planetary Geology, Geophysics and Geochemistry Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA Key Points: • Exoplanetary science is rapidly expanding towards characterization of atmospheres and interiors. • Planetary science has similarly undergone rapid expansion of understanding plan- etary processes and evolution. • Effective studies of exoplanets require models and in-situ data derived from plan- etary science observations and exploration. arXiv:2012.11628v4 [astro-ph.EP] 8 Aug 2021 ∗NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellow Corresponding author: Stephen R. Kane, [email protected] {1{ manuscript submitted to JGR: Planets Abstract Over the past several decades, thousands of planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System. These planets exhibit enormous diversity, and their large numbers provide a statistical opportunity to place our Solar System within the broader context of planetary structure, atmospheres, architectures, formation, and evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisions to the Online Textbook Exploring the Planets (Explanet.Info): Mercury and Pluto
    49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2018 (LPI Contrib. No. 2083) 2724.pdf REVISIONS TO THE ONLINE TEXTBOOK EXPLORING THE PLANETS (EXPLANET.INFO): MERCURY AND PLUTO. B.C. Spilker1, E.H. Christiansen1, and J. Radebaugh1, 1Brigham Young University, De- partment of Geological Sciences, Provo, UT 84602. [email protected] Introduction: Exploring the Planets (http://ex- planet.info) [1] is a free online college textbook cover- ing the basic concepts of planetary science, and the character and evolution of the planetary bodies in the Solar System (including the planets, important moons, asteroids, and Kuiper Belt Objects). The latest edition (3rd edition) was published online in 2007 by Eric H Christiansen. Earlier paper editions were published by Prentice Hall in 1990 and 1995. Exploring the Planets approaches an introductory study of the solar system mainly through basic geolog- ical principles. Compared with other introductory plan- etary geology texts, such as Planetary Sciences by de Pater and Lissauer [2], Introduction to Planetary Sci- ence by Faure and Mensing [3], The New Solar System by Beatty, Petersen, and Chaikin [4] or Earth, Evolu- tion of a Habitable World by Lunine [5], this is the only book with a basic geology approach. It is intended to be used as a primary or supplementary source in in- troductory science courses (geology or astronomy ). Book Structure: Exploring the Planets is divided into three sections. The first section gives a broad over- view of the Solar System and an introduction to plane- tary science. This section helps the reader develop the geological background required to understand the pro- cesses that have shaped the planets, and to begin think- ing like a planetary scientist.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Robert Watters
    THOMAS ROBERT WATTERS Address: Center for Earth and Planetary Studies National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution P. O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012 Education: George Washington University, Ph.D., Geology (1981-1985). Bryn Mawr College, M.A., Geology (1977-1979). West Chester University, B.S. (magna cum laude), Earth Sciences (1973-1977). Experience: Senior Scientist, Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution (1998-present). Chairman, Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution (1989-1998). Research Geologist, Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, Smithsonian Institution, Planetary Geology and Tectonics, Structural Geology, Tectonophysics (1981-1989). Research Assistant, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Chemical Analysis and Fission Track Studies of Meteorites (1980-1981). Research Fellowship, American Museum of Natural History, Electron Microprobe and Petrographic Study of Aubrites and Related Meteorites (1978-1980). Teaching Assistant, Bryn Mawr College (1977-1979), Physical and Historical Geology, Crystallography and Optical Crystallography. Undergraduate Assistant, West Chester University (1973-1977), Teaching Assistant in General and Advanced Astronomy, Physical and Historical Geology. Honors: William P. Phillips Memorial Scholarship (West Chester University); National Air and Space Museum Certificate of Award 1983, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992, 2002, 2004; American Geophysical Union Editor's Citation for Excellence in Refereeing - Journal Geophysical Research-Planets, 1992; Smithsonian Exhibition Award - Earth Today: A Digital View of Our Dynamic Planet, 1999; Certificate of Appreciation, Geological Society of America, 2005, 2006; Elected to Fellowship in the Geological Society of America, 2007. The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 2009 Publication Award - Outstanding Research Paper, “Return to Mercury: A Global Perspective on MESSENGER’s First Mercury Flyby (S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • True Polar Wander of Mercury
    Mercury: Current and Future Science 2018 (LPI Contrib. No. 2047) 6098.pdf TRUE POLAR WANDER OF MERCURY. J. T. Keane1 and I. Matsuyama2; 1California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA ([email protected]); 2Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. Introduction: The spin of a planet is not constant to the Sun and subject to stronger tidal and rotational with time. Planetary spins evolve on a variety of time- forces. However, even with this corrected dynamical scales due to a variety of internal and external forces. oblateness, the required orbital configuration appears One process for changing the spin of a planet is true po- unreasonable−requiring semimajor axes <0.1 AU [5]. lar wander (TPW). TPW is the reorientation of the bulk An alternative explanation may be that a large fraction planet with respect to inertial space due to the redistri- of Mercury’s figure is a “thermal” figure, set Mercury’s bution of mass on or within the planet. The redistribu- close proximity to the Sun and its unique spin-orbit res- tion of mass alters the planet’s moments of inertia onance [7-8] (which are related to the planet’s spherical harmonic de- True Polar Wander of Mercury: While Mercury’s gree/order-2 gravity field). This process has been meas- impact basins and volcanic provinces cannot explain ured on the Earth, and inferred for a variety of solar sys- Mercury’s anomalous figure, they still have an im- tem bodies [1]. TPW can have significant consequences portant effect on planet’s moments of inertia and orien- for the climate, tectonics, and geophysics of a planet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geology of Mercury: Results from the First Two MESSENGER Flybys of the Innermost Planet
    The geology of Mercury: Results from the first two MESSENGER flybys of the innermost planet LOUISE M. PROCKTER1, SEAN C. SOLOMON2, JAMES W. HEAD3, THOMAS R. WATTERS4, SCOTT L. MURCHIE1, MARK S. ROBINSON5, CLARK R. CHAPMAN6, and RALPH McNUTT, JR1 1Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, U.S.A. 2Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, U.S.A. 3Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A. 4National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. 5Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, U.S.A. 6Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302, U.S.A. In 2008 the MESSENGER spacecraft made two flybys of the planet Mercury, collecting a wealth of new near-global science data. These data included observations of approximately 50% of the planet that had not been viewed by the Mariner 10 spacecraft during its flybys in 1974-1975. Many of the new observations were focused on Mercury’s geology, including monochrome imaging at resolutions as high as 100 m/pixel, multispectral imaging in 11 filters at resolutions as high as 500 m/pixel, laser altimetry tracks extending over several thousands of kilometers, and high-resolution spectral measurements of several types of terrain. We present an overview of the first inferences on Mercury’s global geology from the MESSENGER observations. The new MESSENGER images and altimetry provide compelling evidence that volcanism was a widespread and protracted process on Mercury. MESSENGER observations show distinct spectral units as well as morphological evidence suggesting embayment and possibly pyroclastic eruptions. Preliminary measurements of impact crater size-frequency distributions suggest that plains material on Mercury’s surface ranges in age from a time shortly after the end of heavy impact bombardment to as young as perhaps 1 billion years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Structural Geology on Rocky Planets1 Christian Klimczak, Paul K
    1437 ARTICLE Principles of structural geology on rocky planets1 Christian Klimczak, Paul K. Byrne, A.M. Celâl S¸engör, and Sean C. Solomon Abstract: Although Earth is the only known planet on which plate tectonics operates, many small- and large-scale tectonic landforms indicate that deformational processes also occur on the other rocky planets. Although the mechanisms of deforma- tion differ on Mercury, Venus, and Mars, the surface manifestations of their tectonics are frequently very similar to those found on Earth. Furthermore, tectonic processes invoked to explain deformation on Earth before the recognition of horizontal mobility of tectonic plates remain relevant for the other rocky planets. These connections highlight the importance of drawing analogies between the rocky planets for characterizing deformation of their lithospheres and for describing, applying appro- priate nomenclature, and understanding the formation of their resulting tectonic structures. Here we characterize and compare the lithospheres of the rocky planets, describe structures of interest and where we study them, provide examples of how historic views on geology are applicable to planetary tectonics, and then apply these concepts to Mercury, Venus, and Mars. Key words: planetary tectonics, planetary geology, Mercury, Venus, Mars. Résumé : Bien que la Terre soit la seule planète connue sur laquelle il y a une tectonique des plaques, de nombreuses formes de relief tectoniques de petite et grande envergure indiquent que des processus de déformation se produisent également sur d’autres planètes rocheuses. Si les mécanismes de déformation sur Mercure, Vénus et Mars diffèrent, les manifestations en surface de leurs tectoniques respectives sont souvent très semblables à celles observées sur la Terre.
    [Show full text]
  • The Planetary Geology Division of the Geological Society of America
    The Planetary Geology Division of the Geological Society of America Volume 27, Number 1 March 2009 Message from the Chair on the latest MESSENGER mission results from Mercury and an impact cratering session to honor this year’s Gilbert award winner, the Louise M. Prockter indefatigable Bob Strom. The abstract deadline Applied Physics Laboratory, for the annual meeting will be August 11, and Johns Hopkins University we encourage you to consider submitting a paper. Abstract submittals will begin in April, but you can view the topical sessions now at As this year’s Chair it is my turn to thank you http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2009/sessi all for your continued support of our Division, ons/topical.asp. whether through your membership dues, service as a judge for the Dwornik student Student papers are especially welcome, and award, or supporting us at our booth during last their authors can apply for one of our new year’s GSA Annual Meeting in Houston. The student awards to help offset travel costs (after Houston meeting was well attended, and we the meeting registration opens, look for capitalized on the location and the ties to information on the PGD website at human exploration that abound there. The http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2009/sessi Planetary Geology Division historically has a ons/topical.asp.) significant number of topical sessions at the annual meeting, and it is a great opportunity to Despite the current economic uncertainties, I mix with terrestrial geologists, many of whom am happy to be writing this at a time when we are fascinated by what we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Planets (Bennett Et Al
    Earth and the Geology of the Terrestrial Planets (Bennett et al. Ch. 9) Major Ideas In This Chapter ● Terrestrial planets looked (largely) the same when they were formed. Differences due to geological processes. ● Geological activity is driven by internal heat ● Planetary size plays a large role in retaining heat ● Distance from the Sun, rotation affects erosion ● Crater density can indicate surface age ● Earth has a unique geology Terrestrial Planets ● Compared to Jovian planets: – Smaller size/mass – Large “core” to atmosphere ratio – Higher density – Closer to Sun and closer together – Warmer – Few or no moons – No rings (NASA) Planetary Surfaces and Interiors ● Terrestrial planets + Moon were similar when young – Subjected to heavy bombardment – Differences due to processes that occurred after formation ● Understanding the surface features: planetary geology ● Processes in the interior drive activity at the surface Your book uses “terrestrial worlds” to refer to the terrestrial planets + the Moon. (from Bennett et al.) (from Bennett et al.) How Do We Learn About Planetary Interiors? ● Average density determinations ● Local gravity variations as measured with artificial satellites ● Magnetic fields: molten core/convection ● Lava flow: internal composition ● Earthquakes: internal structure Earthquakes: Seismic Waves ● Earthquakes generate vibrations – Typical wavelength ~ several km – Reconstruct interior ● Two types of waves: – P-waves: compressional waves – S-waves: shear waves ● S-waves cannot pass through liquid (from Bennett et
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Geologic Investigations Series I-2650, Sheet 2 of 3
    GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION SERIES I–2650 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Prepared for the ATLAS OF MARS: THAUMASIA REGION U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION SHEET 2 OF 3 85° 90° 80° NO. CRATERS LARGER Contact—Dashed where approximately located or gradational 75 95° ° THAN 2, 5, AND 16 KM STAGES FOSSAE OTHER STRUCTURES SYSTEM Fault or graben—Bar and ball on downthrown side of fault; dotted where HISTORY DIAMETER PER 1,000,000 KM2 buried 100° 70° 2516 Scarp—Line marks top of slope; barb points downslope. Forms contact in places 40 or less Mare-type (wrinkle) ridge—Symbol on ridge crest; dashed where buried 105° 65° Subdued mare-type (wrinkle) ridge 50 Broad (>3 km wide), nearly flat-topped ridge 60 ° 60 110 Sinai Planum Thaumasia ° Narrow (<2 km wide), sharp-crested linear ridge 70 Narrow (<3 km wide), subdued ridge 80 Syria Planum Planum Depression or caldera 90 AMAZONIAN 100 Crater rim crest ° 55 115 ° 13 Crater central peak ° –15 –15 ° 5 Crater central pit 150 2 Center of figure 200 2 300 50 Solis Marineris/ Valles Noctis Labyrinthus Syria Planum Planum Claritas Fossae 400 ° –20 –20 ° 75 Daedalia 4 Warrego Valles Warrego 500 Thaumasia Fossae 600 100 Wrinkle ridges Wrinkle Coracis, Melas, and Nectaris Fossae Thaumasia highland rifts Planum 700 Broad ridges and large scarps 3 HESPERIAN 800 Coprates rise 900 150 1000 Argyre structures 1200 200 25 2 ° –25 –25 ° 17A 300 75 9A ?? 400 100 14 10 1 500 NOACHIAN d 600 150 ? n a 200 l ° –30 –30 ° T h 250 h g a i ? ? ? ?? ? u H m a (Schultz and Tanaka, 1994) and has morphologic features (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Phyllosilicates and Sulfates on Mars
    Phyllosilicates and Sulfates on Mars Case Studies from Terra Cimmeria and Valles Marineris Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften am Fachbereich Geowissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin Vorgelegt von Lorenz Wendt Berlin, 2012 I Ersttgutachter: Prof. Dr. Ralf Jaumann Fachbereich Geowissenschaften Institut für Geologische Wissenschaften Fachrichtung Planetologie und Fernerkundung und Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt DLR Institut für Planetenforschung, Abteilung Planetologie Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Stephan van Gasselt Freie Universität Berlin Fachbereich Geowissenschaften Institut für Geologische Wissenschaften Fachrichtung Planetologie und Fernerkundung Datum der Disputation: 13. Juli 2012 III Eidesstattliche Erklärung Hiermit erkläre ich, die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig und nur unter Verwendung der angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel erstellt zu haben. Lorenz Wendt V Danksagung Ich möchte zuallererst Herrn Prof. Neukum meinen Dank aussprechen. Seine High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC), die er mit viel Durchhaltevermögen nach dem Absturz der Mars 96 Mission auf Mars Express auf die Reise schickte, gab mir überhaupt erst die Möglichkeit, mich an der Freien Universität Berlin mit der Geologie des Mars zu beschäftigen. Herr Prof. Neukum hat mir damit die Tür zur Planetenforschung geöffnet, und mir auch in vielerlei anderer Hinsicht Möglichkeiten zur wissenschaftlichen Weiterentwicklung eröffnet. Herrn Prof. van Gasselt danke ich für die Begutachtung der vorliegenden Arbeit, die fachlichen Diskussionen und die kritische Durchsicht meiner Manuskripte, sowie die menschliche Unterstützung an manch einem schwierigen Punkt, der sich im Lauf der Arbeit an dieser Dissertation ergab. Und natürlich danke ich ihm für die viele Mühe im Hintergrund, die er sich mit der Betreuung der wissenschaftlichen Anträge gemacht hat, aus denen viele meiner Kollegen und auch ich ihren Lebensunterhalt bestritten haben.
    [Show full text]
  • Iac-09-A3.6.2 the Messenger Mission: Results from The
    IAC-09-A3.6.2 THE MESSENGER MISSION: RESULTS FROM THE FIRST TWO MERCURY FLYBYS Ralph L. McNutt, Jr.1, Sean C. Solomon2, Peter D. Bedini3, Eric J. Finnegan4, David G. Grant5, and the MESSENGER Team 1The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, M/S MP3-E128, Laurel, MD 20723 U.S.A. [email protected] 443-778-5435, Fax: 443-778-0386 2Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 5241 Broad Branch Road, N.W., Washington, DC 20015 U.S.A. [email protected] 202-478-8850, Fax: 202-478-8821 3The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, M/S 23-282, Laurel, MD 20723 U.S.A. [email protected] 443-778-4642, Fax: 443-778-5295 4The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, M/S 23-282, Laurel, MD 20723 U.S.A. [email protected] 443-778-1712, Fax: 443-778-6635 5The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 11100 Johns Hopkins Road, M/S 4-283, Laurel, MD 20723 U.S.A. [email protected] 443-778-5297, Fax: 443-778-5295 ABSTRACT NASA’s MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft is well into its voyage to initiate a new era in our understanding of the innermost planet. During 2008 MESSENGER flew by Mercury twice and completed the initial spacecraft reconnaissance of the planet begun 34 years earlier by Mariner 10. MESSENGER observations have illuminated how the 1500-km- diameter Caloris basin was a focus for magmatic and deformational activity.
    [Show full text]