| Summary: | The South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin is the stratigraphically oldest identifiable lunar basin and is therefore one of the most important targets for absolute age-dating to help understand whether ancient lunar bombardment history smoothly declined or was punctuated by a cataclysm. The SPA basin also has another convenient property, a geochemically distinct interior, unobscured by extensive mare basalt fill. A case has been made for the possible origin of the Dhofar 961 lunar meteorite in the South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin, based on comparing its composition with Lunar Prospector gamma-ray data for the interior of the SPA basin. Dhofar 961 contains several different impact-melt (IM) lithologies. Jolliff et al. described two classes of mafic impact-melt lithologies, one dominated by olivine (Lithology A) and the other by plagioclase (An 95-96.5) (Lithology B). Broad-beam analyses of these lithologies yielded (is) approximately 14.0 wt% FeO, 11.7 wt% MgO, and 15.4 wt% Al2O3. Lithologies A and B differ by approximately 2.5% Al2O3, 1.5% FeO and 1.5% MgO, consistent with the occurrence of olivine phenocrysts in A and plagioclase clasts in B. Both lithologies are considerably more mafic than the Apollo mafic impact-melt breccias, corresponding to olivine gabbronorite. Joy et al. used U-Pb dating to investigate phosphate fragments in the Dhofar 961 matrix and impact-melt clasts. Matrix phosphates have 4.34 to 4 Ga ages, consistent with ancient KREEP-driven magmatic episodes and Pre-Nectarian ((is) greater than 3.92 Ga). Phosphates found within Dhofar 961 crystalline impact melt breccia clasts range from 4.26 to 3.89 Ga, potentially recording events throughout the basin forming epoch of lunar history. The youngest reset ages in the Dhofar 961 sample represent an upper limit for the time of formation of the meteorite. Joy et al suggested this age represents the final impact that mixed and consolidated several generations of precursor rocks into the Dhofar meteorite group, although they note that further age dating of all the stones is required to test this hypothesis. We received a split of Dhofar 961 from R. Zeigler consisting of a large clast of IM Lithology B, with some light-colored, friable matrix clinging to the external margins of the impact-melt clast. This lithology was not present in the samples investigated by Joy et al. and thus does not have corresponding U-Pb ages on it. We created multiple subsplits of both the IM and matrix lithologies, each weighing several tens of micrograms. We conducted Ar-40 Ar-39 dating of this candidate SPA material by high-resolution step heating and comparing it with the regolith that surrounds it.
|
|---|