4.6 Article

Comparison of laboratory and in situ reflectance spectra of Chang'e-5 lunar soil

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 674, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245751

关键词

planets and satellites; surfaces; infrared; planetary systems; radiative transfer; scattering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China's CE5 mission obtained lunar soil samples and in situ spectra, enabling comparison with laboratory analysis of the same sample. Reflectance spectra measurements of the CE5 soil and two size fractions (<45 and 45-355 μm) at various phase angles revealed that in situ photometric experiments are necessary for spectral exploration on the Moon. The <45-μm fraction showed closer scattering properties to the in situ spectral data, suggesting it may be more representative of pristine lunar soil.
Context. Reflectance spectra provide essential information on the mineralogical composition of a planetary surface. However, the spectral characteristics of lunar soil are significantly influenced by its photometric properties, coupled with space weathering and particle size.Aims. China's Chang'e-5 (CE5) mission returned lunar soil samples and obtained in situ spectra of the sampling site, enabling us to compare the laboratory and in situ analyses of the same sample.Methods. In this study, we measured the reflectance spectra of the bulk CE5 soil and two size fractions (<45 and 45-355 mu m) at various phase angles (41.3 degrees to 101.3 degrees).Results. The photometric properties of the CE5 samples exhibit back scattering, whereas an in situ measurement appears as forward scattering, indicating that in situ photometric experiments are always necessary for spectral exploration on the Moon. In addition, the scattering properties of the <45-mu m fraction are closer to the in situ spectral data, suggesting that the finer fraction could be more representative of pristine lunar soil. The maturity of CE5 soil is estimated to be submature to mature based on the spectral ratio between 750 nm and 950 nm.

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

4.6
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