No abstract

Understanding the structure and composition of the lunar interior is fundamental to furthering our knowledge of the formation and subsequent evolution of the Earth‐Moon system. Among various methods, electromagnetic sounding is a valuable approach to constraining lunar interior structure. While Apollo‐era electromagnetic sounding analyses of lunar magnetometer observations reported constraints on the lunar interior structure, the presence of perturbing plasma currents and magnetic fields was often regarded as a second‐order correction. Here, we use AMITIS, a three‐dimensional, time‐dependent hybrid plasma model with a conducting lunar interior to demonstrate that electromagnetic fields from the lunar wake and from the lunar interior interact and thereby alter geophysically induced electromagnetic fields. Our results indicate that electromagnetic sounding of airless bodies interacting with a conductive plasma and exposed to a time‐varying magnetic field must be interpreted via plasma models in order to untangle plasma and induced field contributions.

The National Academy's current Planetary Decadal Survey (NRC, 2011) prioritizes a future Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN) mission to gather new information that will permit us to better determine how the overall composition and structure of the Moon inform us about the initial differentiation and subsequent evolution of terrestrial planets.

The Lunar Geophysical Network (LGN) mission is proposed to land on the Moon in 2030 and deploy packages at four locations to enable geophysical measurements for 6–10 yr. Returning to the lunar surface with a long-lived geophysical network is a key next step to advance lunar and planetary science. LGN will greatly expand our primarily Apollo-based knowledge of the deep lunar interior by identifying and characterizing mantle melt layers, as well as core size and state. To meet the mission objectives, the instrument suite provides complementary seismic, geodetic, heat flow, and electromagnetic observations. We discuss the network landing site requirements and provide example sites that meet these requirements. Landing site selection will continue to be optimized throughout the formulation of this mission. Possible sites include the P-5 region within the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT; (lat: 15°; long: −35°), Schickard Basin (lat: −44.°3; long: −55.°1), Crisium Basin (lat: 18.°5; long: 61.°8), and the farside Korolev Basin (lat: −2.°4; long: −159.°3). Network optimization considers the best locations to observe seismic core phases, e.g., ScS and PKP. Ray path density and proximity to young fault scarps are also analyzed to provide increased opportunities for seismic observations. Geodetic constraints require the network to have at least three nearside stations at maximum limb distances. Heat flow and electromagnetic measurements should be obtained away from terrane boundaries and from magnetic anomalies at locations representative of global trends. An in-depth case study is provided for Crisium. In addition, we discuss the consequences for scientific return of less than optimal locations or number of stations.

No abstract