4.6 Article

Mineralogical Criteria for the Parent Asteroid of the Carbonaceous Achondrite NWA 6704

期刊

ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL
卷 159, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5fe7

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA Planetary Missions Program [NNX14AN16G]
  2. NASA Data Analysis Program [NNX14AN16G]
  3. state of Arizona Technology Research Initiative Fund
  4. NASA [NNX14AN16G, 678588] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The unique achondrite meteorite Northwest Africa (NWA) 6704 and its paired samples are fragments of an unknown parent asteroid that experienced large-scale igneous melting early in our solar system's history. The geochemistry and mineralogy of NWA 6704 show that its parent asteroid has affinities with carbonaceous chondrites and that the precursor materials were relatively oxidized. While large-scale melting has affected the meteorite, there is no evidence for equilibration with a metallic melt. NWA 6704 paired meteorites therefore provide insights into the evolution of planetesimals and bodies that accreted from source materials, possibly in the ice-rich outer solar system. Currently, we lack an understanding of the distribution of potential parent asteroids of the NWA 6704 meteorites. We have undertaken a detailed multiwavelength (0.35-25 mu m) spectroscopic and geochemical investigation of NWA 6704 to provide constraints on the potential parent asteroids of these enigmatic meteorites. In comparison with asteroid spectra, NWA 6704 is similar to the S(VI) subtypes of the S-asteroid complex. By using the Bus-DeMeo Taxonomic Classifier, we determine that NWA 6704 has affinities toward V-type (Vesta type) asteroids. We have determined that the parent asteroid of NWA 6704 would be a V-type asteroid that is not dynamically linked to Vesta and also fall in the S(VI) subtype of the Band I center versus Band area ratio diagram. A search in the literature for potential parent bodies yielded one asteroid, (34698) 2001 OD22, as a possible candidate.

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