Terrestrial analogues for lunar impact melt flows

Neish, C. D.; Hamilton, C. W.; Hughes, S. S.; Nawotniak, Shannon Kobs; Garry, W. B.; Skok, J. R.; Elphic, R. C.; Schaefer, E. I.; Carter, L.M.; Osinski, G. R.; Lim, D. S. S.; Heldmann, J. L.

doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.08.008

Cited by 27 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include pyroclastic deposition (Carter et al, 2013), contemporaneous emplacement with the adjacent ancient mare deposits, with deposits of elevated blockiness (Bennett et al, 2015), some style of explosive process (either pyroclastic deposition or removal of surface materials by out-gassing) (Elder et al, 2017;Schultz et al, 2006), and some geological process other than Copernican-age lava flow emplacement (Neish et al, 2017). However, these subsequently and previously proposed IMP origin models are either very general (e.g., Bennett et al, 2015;Elder et al, 2017;Neish et al, 2017) or have not been able to reproduce all the observed IMP characteristics (e.g., Schultz et al, 2006;Garry et al, 2012;Braden et al, 2014; see a more detailed assessment in Qiao et al, 2018). Wilson and Head (2017a) pointed out that lunar volcanic eruptions occur in conditions very different from those on Earth, especially in the consideration of lower lunar gravity and lack of an atmosphere Wilson & Head, 2017b), which results in unusual volcanic deposits neither predicted by models nor observed on Earth in the final phases of eruptions.…”

Section: Subsequent and Additional Interpretations For The Origin Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cauchy 5 Small, Low‐Volume Lunar Shield Volcano: Evidence for Volatile Exsolution‐Eruption Patterns and Type 1/Type 2 Hybrid Irregular Mare Patch Formation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lunar shield volcano Cauchy 5, sitting at the low diameter‐height‐volume end of the population, is the only known example containing two different types of Irregular Mare Patches (IMPs) in very close association: (1) the pit crater interior Type 1 IMP composed of bleb‐like mounds surrounded by a hummocky and blocky floor unit and (2) Type 2 IMPs, small, often optically immature pits less than ~5 m deep, located on the generally block‐deficient shield flanks. A four‐phase lunar magma ascent/eruption model predicts that during a relatively brief eruption, low magma rise rates maximize volatile exsolution in lava filling the pit crater. Bubble‐rich magmas overtop the pit crater and form extremely vesicular flows on the shield flanks. Exposure of the flanking flows to vacuum produces a fragmental layer of exploded glassy bubble walls. Subsequent second boiling upon cooling of the flanking flow interiors releases additional volatiles which migrate and collect, forming magmatic foams and gas pockets. As magma rise rates slow, trapped gas and magmatic foam build up below the cooling pit crater floor. Magmatic foams are extruded to form Type 1 IMP deposits. Type 2 IMPs on the flanks are interpreted to be due primarily to subsequent impacts causing collapse of the flow surface layer into the extremely vesicle‐ and void‐rich flow interior. Anomalously young pit crater floor/shield flank crater retention ages compared with surrounding maria ages may be due to effects of Cauchy 5 substrate characteristics (extreme micro‐ and macroporosity, foamy nature, and glassy auto‐regolith) on superposed crater formation and retention.

show abstract

Section: Subsequent and Additional Interpretations For The Origin Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cauchy 5 Small, Low‐Volume Lunar Shield Volcano: Evidence for Volatile Exsolution‐Eruption Patterns and Type 1/Type 2 Hybrid Irregular Mare Patch Formation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neish et al () compared the surface physical properties of Ina mounds and lunar impact melt flows at Korolev X via LROC NAC digital terrain model (DTM) topography and Mini‐RF S‐Band radar images and found that Ina mounds have similar physical properties (e.g., Hurst exponent and root mean square slope) to lunar impact melt flows at the meter scale (both appear smooth ). However, Ina mounds appear much smoother than lunar impact melt flows at decimeter scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Elder et al (2017) proposed that some form of explosive activity, either pyroclast deposition (Carter et al, 2013) or another style of outgassing (Schultz et al, 2006) was likely to have been involved in the formation of Ina, though the possibility of lava flow inflation (Garry et al, 2012) or regolith drainage into subsurface void space (Qiao et al, 2016) could not be precluded; however, the specific formation mechanism and emplacement sequences of the various morphologic units within Ina were not detailed by Elder et al (2017). Neish et al (2017) compared the surface physical properties of Ina mounds and lunar impact melt flows at Korolev X via LROC NAC digital terrain model (DTM) topography and Mini-RF S-Band radar images and found that Ina mounds have similar physical properties (e.g., Hurst exponent and root mean square slope) to lunar impact melt flows at the meter scale (both appear smooth). However, Ina mounds appear much smoother than lunar impact melt flows at decimeter scale.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geological Characterization of the Ina Shield Volcano Summit Pit Crater on the Moon: Evidence for Extrusion of Waning‐Stage Lava Lake Magmatic Foams and Anomalously Young Crater Retention Ages

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ina, a distinctive ~2 × 3 km D‐shaped depression, is composed of unusual bulbous‐shaped mounds surrounded by optically immature hummocky/blocky floor units. The crisp appearance, optical immaturity, and low number of superposed impact craters combine to strongly suggest a geologically recent formation for Ina, but the specific formation mechanism remains controversial. We reconfirm that Ina is a summit pit crater/vent on a small shield volcano ~3.5 billion years old. Following detailed characterization, we interpret the range of Ina characteristics to be consistent with a two‐component model of origin during the waning stages of summit pit eruption activities. The Ina pit crater floor is interpreted to be dominated by the products of late‐stage, low‐rise rate magmatic dike emplacement. Magma in the dike underwent significant shallow degassing and vesicle formation, followed by continued degassing below the solidified and highly microvesicular and macrovesicular lava lake crust, resulting in cracking of the crust and extrusion of gas‐rich magmatic foams onto the lava lake crust to form the mounds. These unique substrate characteristics (highly porous aerogel‐like foam mounds and floor terrains with large vesicles and void space) exert important effects on subsequent impact crater characteristics and populations, influencing (1) optical maturation processes, (2) regolith development, and (3) landscape evolution by modifying the nature and evolution of superposed impact craters and thus producing anomalously young crater retention ages. Accounting for these effects results in a shift of crater size‐frequency distribution model ages from <100 million years to ~3.5 billion years, contemporaneous with the underlying ancient shield volcano.

show abstract

“…Field observations have long been used in the study of surface roughness of lava flow [2][3][4][5][6]. These analyses are mostly based on in situ measurements, which require extended time in the field [2,[6][7][8]. In practice, a grid is laid out on the sample surface, and heights are measured manually or with a profiling instrument [2][3][4] and continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These analyses are mostly based on in situ measurements, which require extended time in the field [2,[6][7][8]. In practice, a grid is laid out on the sample surface, and heights are measured manually or with a profiling instrument [2][3][4] and continuous Global Positioning System (GPS) [7]. Lava roughness reflects the morphology of lava flow, and some flows can be distinguished by roughness [2,7,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lava Flow Roughness on the 2014–2015 Lava Flow-Field at Holuhraun, Iceland, Derived from Airborne LiDAR and Photogrammetry

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roughness can be used to characterize the morphologies of a lava flow. It can be used to identify lava flow features, provide insight into eruption conditions, and link roughness pattern across a lava flow to emplacement conditions. In this study, we use both the topographic position index (TPI) and the one-dimensional Hurst exponent (H) to derive lava flow unit roughness on the 2014–2015 lava field at Holuhraun using both airborne LiDAR and photogrammetric datasets. The roughness assessment was acquired from four lava flow features: (1) spiny lava, (2) lava pond, (3) blocky surface, and (4) inflated channel. The TPI patterns on spiny lava and inflated channels show that the intermediate TPI values correspond to a small surficial slope indicating a flat and smooth surface. Lava pond is characterized by low to high TPI values and forms a wave-like pattern. Meanwhile, irregular transitions patterns from low to high TPI values indicate a rough surface that is found in blocky surface and flow margins. The surface roughness of these lava features falls within the H range of 0.30 ± 0.05 to 0.76 ± 0.04. The roughest surface is the blocky, and inflated lava flows appear to be the smoothest surface among these four lava units. In general, the Hurst exponent values in the 2014–2015 lava field at Holuhraun has a strong tendency in 0.5, both TPI and Hurst exponent successfully derive quantitative flow roughness.

show abstract

Terrestrial analogues for lunar impact melt flows

Cited by 27 publications

References 46 publications

The Cauchy 5 Small, Low‐Volume Lunar Shield Volcano: Evidence for Volatile Exsolution‐Eruption Patterns and Type 1/Type 2 Hybrid Irregular Mare Patch Formation

The Cauchy 5 Small, Low‐Volume Lunar Shield Volcano: Evidence for Volatile Exsolution‐Eruption Patterns and Type 1/Type 2 Hybrid Irregular Mare Patch Formation

Geological Characterization of the Ina Shield Volcano Summit Pit Crater on the Moon: Evidence for Extrusion of Waning‐Stage Lava Lake Magmatic Foams and Anomalously Young Crater Retention Ages

Lava Flow Roughness on the 2014–2015 Lava Flow-Field at Holuhraun, Iceland, Derived from Airborne LiDAR and Photogrammetry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About