4.5 Article

Scaliger Crater Region on the Moon: Implications for the Australe North Basin and magmatism in the region

期刊

ICARUS
卷 408, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2023.115841

关键词

Moon; Volcanism; Impact cratering; Australe North

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides evidence for the influence of the proposed Australe North Basin on the local geology in the Scaliger Crater region. Late-stage volcanism has also been reported in this region, suggesting prolonged volcanic activity inside an obscured pre-Nectarian basin.
Australe North (35.5 degrees S, 96 degrees E) is a pre-Nectarian impact basin north of Mare Australe, first identified using the GRAIL data. It does not show clear topographic signatures typical of any large impact structure on the Moon. However, results from GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) mission suggested the presence of a 880 km wide basin whose boundary does not coincide with the earlier identified Australe Basin. In this study, we investigate the Scaliger Crater region to understand the controls that the proposed Australe North Basin played on the local geology in the region. The location of the Scaliger Crater at the intersection of the rims of two preNectarian Basins, Milne and the proposed Australe North provides a unique geological setting to reconstruct the region's geological history. We provide geological evidence substantiating the existence of the rim of the Australe North Basin, as has been proposed using gravity data. Based upon the spectral signatures and morphometry, we suggest the presence of a mafic pluton and/or lower crustal/mantle rocks in the region and provide constraints on its emplacement timescale. For the first time, Late-stage volcanism has been reported inside the Bowditch Crater and Lacus Solitudinis, emplaced at-1.7 Ga and 2.3 Ga, respectively, suggesting prolonged volcanism at the eastern lunar nearside-farside boundary inside an obscured pre-Nectarian basin.

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

4.5
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