4.7 Article

Re-examination of the lunar magma ocean cumulate overturn hypothesis: melting or mixing is required

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 196, 期 3-4, 页码 239-249

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00613-6

关键词

moon; magma oceans; cumulates; lunar interior; titanium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a long-standing hypothesis that the last fraction of the lunar magma ocean crystallized into a layer of dense, Ti-rich cumulate minerals at shallow depths (similar to100 km) early in the moon's history. Many questions remain about the stability of these high-Ti cumulates. It has been suggested that the cumulates subsequently sank deep into the moon because of gravitational instability, but high-Ti material is required at shallower depths by 3.5 Ga to create the high-Ti mare basalts and picritic glasses. The high-Ti material may have re-erupted from depth, or some or all of it may have remained at shallow depths throughout lunar history. Data on phase stabilities, bulk compositions, densities, and temperatures of melting and crystallizing in addition to results from numerical modeling suggest that the high-Ti cumulates would sink only under highly specific conditions. Five scenarios for sinking high-Ti cumulate materials are examined, and only two are found plausible. In particular, it is found that simple sinking of solidified high-Ti cumulates is unlikely because the temperature at which the cumulates solidify is low, and viscosity under these conditions is very high, It is, however, possible that high-Ti cumulates mixed with a substantial fraction of olivine would have viscosity low enough to allow them to sink as solids. Further, because clinopyroxene and ilmenite melt in a ratio of 2:1, remelted high-Ti cumulates would be negatively buoyant and sink as liquids. percolating downward through the underlying mantle and beginning to recrystallize ilmenite at 200 km depth. making a hybrid, heterogeneous mantle. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.7
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