4.0 Article

Ages of Globally Distributed Lunar Paleoregoliths and Soils from 3.9 Ga to the Present

Journal

EARTH MOON AND PLANETS
Volume 112, Issue 1-4, Pages 59-71

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11038-014-9437-7

Keywords

Moon; Regolith; Closure age; Bombardment history

Funding

  1. NASA Lunar Science Institute [NNA09DB33A]
  2. NASA Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute [NNA14AB07A]
  3. Leverhulme Trust [2011-569]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study determines the ages of 191 discrete lunar regolith samples from the Apollo, Luna, and meteorite collections. Model closure ages (for lithified breccias) and appearance ages (for unconsolidated soils) are calculated using the trapped Ar-40 and Ar-36 abundances of each sample, determined from published Ar data. Model closure ages of regolith breccias span similar to 3.9 to 0.01 Ga and appearance ages of soils range from similar to 3.6 to 0.03 Ga; 169 of these ages are published here for the first time, while 22 are recalculated ages. The regolith breccias with the oldest closure ages originate from the ancient highlands and oldest mare surfaces sampled by the Apollo missions. Soils generally have similar ages to each other, regardless of location and collection depth, with most model ages < 2.0 Ga. Together, the soils and regolith breccias represent a record of regolith processes over the past 3.9 Ga. The data illustrate that individual landing sites can provide a diversity of ages, which has implications for planning future missions. Differences in maturity between older and younger regolith samples may reflect a change in collisional regimes over time. We note, too, that the closure ages published here are critical data needed for selecting temporally appropriate regolith samples used to decipher the diversity of impactors hitting the lunar surface over time and how the Sun has changed in time.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available