4.3 Article

Spectral emissivity measurements of Mercury's surface indicate Mg- and Ca-rich mineralogy, K-spar, Na-rich plagioclase, rutile, with possible perovskite, and garnet

期刊

PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 364-383

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2009.01.006

关键词

Mercury; Mercury's surface composition; Iron-poor mineralogy; Spectroscopy of mercury's surface; Mercury's formation

资金

  1. NSF [AST-0406796]
  2. Swedish Science foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mid-infrared 2-D spectroscopic measurements from 8.0 to 12.7 gm of Mercury were taken using Boston University's Mid-Infrared Spectrometer and Imager (MIRSI) mounted on the NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, 7-11 April 2006. Measurements reported here cover radar bright region C, a dark plains region west of Caloris Basin, and the interior of Caloris Basin. By use of spectral deconvolution with a large spectral library composed of many mineral compositions and grain size separates, we fitted, or unmixed, the Mercury spectra. We find mineral suites composed of magnesium-rich orthopyroxene and olivine, Ca-, Mg-, Na-rich clinopyroxene, potassium feldspar, and Na-bearing plagioclase feldspar. Both Ca- and Mg-rich garnet (pyrope and grossular, respectively) are apparently present in small amounts. Opaque minerals are required for spectral matching, with rutile (TiO2) repeatedly providing the best fit. However, in the case of the radar bright region C, perovskite also contributed to a very good fit. Caloris Basin infill is rich in both potassium feldspar and Na-rich plagioclase. There is little or no olivine in the Caloris interior smooth plains. Together with the high alkali content, this indicates that resurfacing magmas were low to intermediate in SiO2. Data suggest the dark plains exterior to Caloris are highly differentiated low-iron basaltic magmas resulting in material that might be classified as oligorclase basalts. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据