Geology topics
Publications and source records attributed to Sean C. Solomon.
This white paper focuses on the scientific rationale for deploying a global, long-lived network of geophysical instruments on the surface of the Moon to understand the nature and evolution of the lunar interior from the crust to the core.
Map Descriptions Sheet 1 : This image mosaic is based on observations acquired by the Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS; Hawkins and others, 2009), an instrument on the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, Geochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft (Solomon and others, 2007). The Mercator projection is used between latitudes ±57°, with a central meridian at 0° longitude and latitude equal to the nominal scale at 0°. The polar stereographic projection is used for the regions north of the +55° parallel and south of the –55° parallel, with a central meridian set for both at 0° and a latitude of true scale at +90° and –90°, respectively. All features greater than 100 km in diameter or length were included unless they were not visible at the printed map scale. Some selected well-known features less than 100 km in diameter or length were also included. For listed references, please open the full PDF. Sheet 2 : This map is based on data acquired by the Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS; Hawkins and others, 2009) and Mercury Laser Altimeter (MLA; Cavanaugh and others, 2007) instruments on the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, Geochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft (Solomon and others, 2007). The topographic shaded-relief maps were generated from the original MDIS- and MLA-based DEMs with a sun angle of 45° from horizontal and a sun azimuth of 270°, as measured clockwise from north, with no vertical exaggeration. The DEM values were then mapped to a global color look-up table, with each color representing a range of 1 km of elevation. The shaded-relief and color files were then merged and scaled to 1:20,000,000 for the Mercator portion and 1:12,157,366 for the two polar stereographic parts with a resolution of 300 pixels per inch. The two projections have a common scale at ±56° latitude. The Mercator projection is used between latitudes ±57°, with a central meridian at 0° longitude and latitude equal to the nominal scale at 0°. The polar stereographic projection is used for the regions north of the +55° parallel and south of the –55° parallel, with a central meridian set for both at 0° and a latitude of true scale at +90° and –90°, respectively. All features greater than 200 km in diameter or length were included unless they were not visible at the printed map scale. Some selected well-known features less than 200 km in diameter or length were also included. Sheet 2 is offered digitally as a layered PDF with two elevation color ramp options—the original printed version and a multicolored ramp developed by the MESSENGER team for their global products. For listed references, please open the full PDF.
As part of the Rivera Ocean Seismic Experiment, a network of ocean bottom seismometers and hydrophones was deployed in order to determine the seismic characteristics of the Orozco transform fault in the central eastern Pacific. We present hypocentral locations and source mechanisms for 70 earthquakes recorded by this network. All epicenters are within the transform region of the Orozco Fracture Zone and clearly delineate the active plate boundary. About half of the epicenters define a narrow line of activity parallel to the spreading direction and situated along a deep topographic trough that forms the northern boundary of the transform zone (region 1). Most focal depths for these events are very shallow, within 4 km of the seafloor; several well-determined focal depths, however, are as great as 7 km. No shallowing of seismic activity is observed as the rise-transform intersection is approached; to the contrary, the deepest events are within 10 km of the intersection. First motion polarities for most of the earthquakes in region 1 are compatible with right-lateral strike slip faulting along a nearly vertical plane, striking parallel to the spreading direction. Another zone of activity is observed in the central part of the transform (region 2). The apparent horizontal and vertical distribution of activity in this region is more scattered than in the first, and the first motion radiation patterns of these events do not appear to be compatible with any known fault mechanism. Pronounced lateral variations in crustal velocity structure are indicated for the transform region from refraction data and measurements of wave propagation directions. The effect of this lateral heterogeneity on hypocenters and fault plane solutions is evaluated by tracing rays through a three-dimensional velocity grid. While findings for events in region 1 are not significantly affected, in region 2, epicentral mislocations of up to 10 km and azimuthal deflections of up to 45° may result from assuming a laterally homogeneous velocity structure. When corrected for the effects of lateral heterogeneity, the epicenters and fault plane solutions for earthquakes in region 2 are compatible with predominantly normal faulting along a topographic trough trending NW–SE; the focal depths, however, are poorly constrained. These results suggest an en echelon spreading center or leaky transform regime in the central transform region.
What are the most important challenges facing solid Earth science today and over the next two decades? And what is the best approach for NASA, in partnership with other agencies, to address those challenges? A new report, Living on a Restless Planet, provides a blueprint for answering these questions. The top priority for a new spacecraft mission in the area of solid Earth science over the next 5 years, according to this report, is a satellite dedicated to Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR). At the request of NASA, the Solid Earth Science Working Group (SESWG) developed a strategy for the highest priority objectives in solid Earth science for the space agency over the next 25 years. The strategy addresses six challenges that are of fundamental scientific importance, have strong implications for society, and are amenable to substantial progress through a concerted series of scientific observations from space.
This article presents a comparison of sediment input by rivers and by coastal erosion into both the Laptev Sea and the Canadian Beaufort Sea (CBS). New data on coastal erosion in the Laptev Sea, which are based on field measurements and remote sensing information and existing data on coastal erosion in the CBS as well as riverine sediment discharge into both the Laptev Sea and the CBS are included. Strong regional differences in the percentages of coastal ero- sion and riverine sediment supply are observed. The CBS is dominated by the riverine sediment discharge (64.45x106 t a-1) mainly of the Mackenzie River. which is the largest single source of sediments in the Arctic. Riverine sediment discharge into the Laptev Sea amounts to 24.10x106 t a-1, more than 70% of which are related to the Lena River. In comparison with the CBS. the Laptev Sea coast on average delivers approximately twice as much sediment mass per kilometer, a result of higher erosion rates due to higher cliffs and seasonal ice melting. In the Laptev Sea sediment input by coastal erosion (58.4x106 t a-1) is therefore more important than in the CBS and the ratio between riverine and coastal sediment input amounts to 0.4. Coastal erosion supplying 5.6x106 t a-1 is less significant for the sediment budget of the CBS where riverine sediment discharge exceeds coastal sediment input by a factor of ca. 10.