A ‘Melted’ Moon Makes for Bad Future Landing Sites

by Irene Antonenko on March 2, 2012

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Very rough melts show up as red in the mini-RF data (left), but still appear smooth in the corresponding LRO wide angle camera image (right). These impact melts are located just outside Tycho crater, whose rim is visible at the top left. Image Credit Left: Carter et al. Image Credit Right: NASA/GSFC/ASU

The miniature radio frequency (min-RF) radar instrument aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is revealing some interesting things about how impact melts form around craters on the Moon. Impacts produce a crater, ejecta (pulverized rock that is thrown around the crater), and melt. A lot is known about craters and ejecta, because they form such spectacular features on the planetary surfaces. But melt is a fairly minor component of the impact process, and so is not as easily observed. Relatively little is therefore known about impact melts. Now, new data from the mini-RF radar instrument is helping to fill this knowledge gap and also offering insight into future landing spots on the Moon.

Radar is an active remote sensing system, meaning it transmits a signal and then records what bounces back, providing information about the surfaces that were encountered. If the transmitted signal hits a smooth surface, then the returned signal will have a polarization direction that is opposite to what was transmitted. But, if the surface is rough, the signal may bounce more than once, switching polarization each time, so the returned polarization will be the same as the transmitted signals. By controlling the polarization of the transmitted signal and monitoring the polarization of the returned signals, researchers can calculate the ratio of same-sense to opposite sense circular polarization, a parameter called CPR. Smooth surfaces will have a low CPR, while rough surfaces will have a high CPR.

Tycho Melt close up view with LROC data

Pressure ridges can be seen in the rough part of this melt, where the underlying fluid pushed the chilled crust and bunched it up like a table cloth. But even the smooth parts of this melt contain numerous bits of rock, which can't be seen at the scale of this LRO narrow angle camera image.
Image credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University.
Click on the image to explore the LROC data from this area in greater detail.

The mini-RF transmits in the radar S band, at wavelengths of 12.6 cm, and so tells us about surface roughness at the 12.6 cm scale. For example, a sandy beach covered with sand grains that are about 1-2 mm in size (much smaller than the transmitted wavelength) will appear smooth to the Mini-RF (have low CPR values). But, a beach covered with hand-sized pebbles (about the size of the transmitted wavelength) will appear rough (have high CPR values). It is important to note that this kind of information is not currently available from our existing image data, which even at its best can only resolve things on the 50 cm scale. Furthermore, the mini-RF radar can penetrate up to 1 m below the surface, providing information about buried surfaces as well.

Working with the mini-RF data, Dr. Lynn Carter and a team of researchers from NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, Johns Hopkins University, and the Lunar and Planetary Institute have taken a look at impact melts around a variety of craters. They found that impact melt ponds and flows tend to have CPR values that are greater than surrounding non-melt regions. This means that mini-RF data can be used to help find and identify melt materials, including buried ones! From their limited survey, Dr. Carter and her team have found that impact melt ponds and flows are more common on the Moon than was previously known. With more work, they will be able to better catalogue the number and size of melt ponds and flows around lunar craters, improving our understanding of how much melt is produced by impacts and how it travels.

Dr. Carter and her team also found that, within individual melt ponds or flows, roughness values can vary. Rough surfaces may represent bunching up of a partially cooled crust as it is pushed by the still fluid melt underneath. Such pressure ridges are seen in terrestrial lava flows. Smooth surfaces may represent melts that cooled quickly, or the last melts to arrive at a pond (and so not subject to pushing from more inflowing melt). But, even the “smooth” melts, which appear quite flat in visual imagery, tend to have very high CPR values, indicating that they are, in fact, very rough. There is probably a lot of solid rock and ejecta debris (something we can’t see in the currently available imagery) entrained in the melt material to make them so rough at this scale. To understand what this kind of surface might look like, we can consider terrestrial a’a flows (which are actually slightly less rough than lunar melts).

This work has important implications for future lunar exploration. Imagine how difficult landing on a surface as rugged at an a’a flow would be. This is why site selection scientists work very hard at identifying smooth areas for spacecraft to land. However, if surfaces that look extremely smooth in visual imagery are actually rough like an a’a flow, this can present a problem. Mini-RF data could be helpful in identifying such rough regions and eliminating them from consideration.

Even "smooth" impact melt flows are rougher than this a'a flow, produced by the Kamoamoa fissure eruption in Hawaii. Image Credit: U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Source: Initial observations of lunar impact melts and ejecta flows with the Mini-RF radar, Carter et al., Journal of Geophysical Research V117, 2012, doi:10.1029/2011JE003911.


Dr. Irene Antonenko is a planetary geologist who studies the subsurface of the Moon. Irene is very excited about her research and enjoys sharing her passion with the general public; she has presented numerous public lectures, is involved in citizen science projects, and has worked as a community liaison for NASA missions.

Joel Raupe March 2, 2012 at 11:03 PM

We took a VERY close look at this same slash melt pool, just beyond the southeast rim of Tycho, last November. You can see for yourself how smooth these fields appear through the LROC NAC, here: http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2011/11/tychos-flash-frozen-inferno.html

Joel Raupe March 2, 2012 at 11:03 PM

We took a VERY close look at this same slash melt pool, just beyond the southeast rim of Tycho, last November. You can see for yourself how smooth these fields appear through the LROC NAC, here: http://lunarnetworks.blogspot.com/2011/11/tychos-flash-frozen-inferno.html

IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE March 3, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Torbjörn Larsson March 3, 2012 at 1:35 PM

A’aha’a! Nature is more diverse than one experience in a lifetime. (But I do remember the roughness from an Hawaiian visit.)

Btw, apparently Antonenko prefer her article template with comments in large letters, this is the 2nd time. Could it be dialed down a few points as it makes for less readability?

(And while you are at it, Antonenko’s name is punctuated in the byline.)

NancyAtkinson March 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

We’re looking into it, but there’s some sort of issue that we can’t figure out with a couple of authors accounts that causes a weird layout on their articles, with large fonts in the comments. And we know about the punctuation — it’s on purpose for a reason too long to go into here, but hopefully we can get all the issues figured out soon.

Torbjörn Larsson March 5, 2012 at 6:44 PM


Smaller would be worse, if it is an issue it is one we can live with.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: