160 likes | 287 Views
This study explores the spatial heterogeneity of Mercury's surface, focusing on the formation and classification of its crust. It distinguishes between primary and secondary crust based on Taylor's definitions and compares them to lunar examples. Recognizing crust composition is crucial for inferring mantle composition and understanding Mercury's origins. This research utilizes data from BepiColombo and MESSENGER missions to evaluate crustal variations and the implications of different crust types, highlighting features such as fresh ejecta and deposits in significant craters.
E N D
Spatial heterogeneityin Mercury’s surface David Rothery, Dept of Earth & Environmental Sciences D.A.Rothery@open.ac.uk With thanks to the ESA Mercury Surface & Composition Working Group
The final embryo-embryo collision? Simulations from Horner et al. (2006)
Primary & Secondary crust defined by Taylor, S. R. (1982, 1989)
Lunar crust examples Primary crust (70% of nearside) Secondary crust (30% of nearside) Mixed crust types(if you don’t recognise the distinction!)
We cannot back-track from crust composition to mantle composition unless we: • recognise how the crust formed • measure and model primary crust • and secondary crust separately Mantle composition is essential for understanding Mercury’s origin.
Primary crust?(probably not in this example) Secondary crust < 350 km > Mariner-10 PIA02443
Scale of variation within secondary crust(Caloris, MESSENGER) Fresh ejecta Older Younger Deposit on floor of Sander crater Dark halo < 40 km >