Why. history. features. 1. Fractures. not as wide. the lowered. Graben refers to. complex. This. Mars index_0.html :07

Transcription

1 I. Introduction What is your science question? What is the differencee in the depth, width and length of fractures associated with volcanic activity compared to fractures thatt are associated with tectonism (tensional/ Graben)? Why is this question important and interesting? This question iss important for the following reasons: 1. Through relative dating, we could learn of recent lava flows and paint a clearer picture of the tectonic history. 2. Could provide us with more dataa on the volcanic effects on pre existing geologic features. 3. Could provide us with new data that can help describe the formation of fractures. List any hypotheses you may have had of what the answer(s) might be to your science question. 1. Fractures associated with a volcanic formation will be shallower and not as wide due to the infilling of them from lava flows. II. Background Systems Nili is a graben system on Mars, northeast of the Syrtis Major volcanic province, on the northwestern edge of the giant Isidis impact basin. Graben refers to the lowered terrain between two parallel faults or fractures in the rocks thatt collapses when tectonic forces pull the area apart. The Nilii system contains numerous graben concentrically oriented around the edges of the basin : , Mars Express seess deep fractures on Mars, 6 May 2011, (retrieved Sept 2012) http: :// index_0.html Image ID # V E, :07 Associated with Volcanism Cerberus is comprised of several long fractures radial to the Elysium Volcanic complex. This fracture appears to have been a vent for some of the local lavaa flows. Christensen, P.R., N.S. Gorelick, G.L. Mehall, and K.C. Murray, THEMIS Public Data Releases, Planetary Dataa System node, Arizona State University, < data.asu.edu>.

2 III. Methods What specific spacecraft and camera did you use to collect data for your research? 1. THEMIS 2. MOLA Colorized Elevation 3. JMARS The focus of our research was investigating craters in the South Pole Region near the ice cap. We used the JMARS data base platform. 1. Open the following layers: THEMIS Stamps, MOLA Colorized Elevation Maps, Nomenclature Nomenclature: (Looking for tensional derived fractures) (Looking for volcanically derived fractures) 2. We broke into groups that each individually recorded the necessary observations. We decided the following data was important to collect in order to answer our hypothesis. Latitude and Longitude This is important to know exact location and can be used to determine (in degrees) the distance relative to other geologic features and to the other data collected. MOLA Cross Section Profile Line We collected width, depth and total fracture length for each fracture observed. THEMIS Images Provided details and background descriptions that allowed us to categorize the fractures. IV. Data Region Image ID# Long, Lat Length Cross Section 1 (Width/Depth) Cross Section 2 (Width/ Depth) Cross Section 3 (Width/ Depth) Hephaestus E, km 4km/ 120m 5km/ 500m 14km/ 950m Nectaris E, km 7km/ 140m 7km/ 750m 7.5km/ 1050m Tithoniae E, km 55km/ 4800m 48km/ 6000m 11.5km/ 2000m Nia E, km 100km/ 7500m 300km/ 9400m 110km/ 6800m Tempe E, km 13km/ 1250m 20km/ 980m 22.5km/ 850m Volcanic Region Image ID# Elysium E, km 15.5km/ 3300m 21.5km/3250m 8.5km/ 350m Centari E, km 35km/ 1750m 40km/ 1000m 39km/ 625m Albor E, km 5.5km/ 275m 4.5km/ 305m 4km/ 580m

3 (T) Vs. Volcanic (V)) Total Length (km) Albor E, Centari Elysium Tempe Nia Tithoniae Nectaris Hephaest us E, E, E, E, E, E, E, Series1 Hephaestus E, Nectaris E, Tithoniae E, Nia E, Tempe E, V Elysium E, Centari E, Albor E,

4 (T) Vs. Volcanic (V) Depth (m) Albor E, Series3 Series2 Beginning Middle Profile Lines Series1 End Centari E, Elysium E, Tempe E, Nia E, Tithonia e E, Nectaris E, Hephaes tus E, (T) Vs. Volcanic c (V) Width (km) Series1 Series2 Beginningg Middle Profile Lines Series3 End E, Hephaestus E, E, Nectaris Tithoniae E, Nia E, Tempe e E, E, E, Elysium Centari Albor

5 V. Discussion Could there be inaccuracies and misinterpretations? If so, please explain. 1. The Fracture measurements were completed with MOLA. In a lot off cases, theree were not THEMIS images available to provide the high detail and resolution to be extremely precise and accurate. 2. Human error: We had 8 separatee groups collecting data. Each group had their own intrinsic level of effort and focus on detail. 3. There also could have been misinterpretations of wheree the fracture began, ended or where the edgess of the fracture were. 4. We question the reliability of JMARS. We would get a different number of THEMIS images for any one region each time we would open the THEMIS stamp layer. 5. We also have an extremely small sample of data compared to the total number of fractures on mars. This could have a huge impact on our results. (T) Vs. Volcanic (V) Depth (m) Volcanicc Centar Albor AVG DEPTH i Monte Elysiu m Temp e AVG DEPTH Nia Foassa Tithon iae Nectar is Hepha estus e s E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, Series3 Series2 Series1 Beginning Middle End Profile Lines Observations of Data: 1. No clear Pattern 2. The average depth was greater within the tensional fracture which does support our hypothesis however the overall size of the fractures varied widely 3. Does not strongly support or refutee our hypothesis more data and observations are necessary.

6 VI. Conclusions What is your science question? What is the difference in the depth, width and length of fractures associated with volcanic activity compared to fractures that are associated with tectonism (tensional/ Graben)? We hypothesized that the fractures associated with volcanic formations would be shallower and not as wide due to the infilling of them from lava flows. We found that are observations and analysis of the data does not strongly support or refute our hypothesis. 1. The average depth for volcanic associated fractures was less than the average depth for tensional fractures which does support our hypothesis however we had cases where looking at individual fractures the opposite was true. 2. There was no relationship evident between length and width comparing the two different fractures types. 3. The total average length of tensional fractures were longer but we had cases where looking at individual fractures the opposite was true. We need more data: This represents areas of future research that could be valuable in answering our hypothesis. 1. Mineral and geologic composition to identify lava flows within fractures. 2. More THEMIS images of fractures on the surface of mars to conduct further detailed investigations. 3. Similar study with more detailed data collection (THEMIS images) and a larger data sample to analyze and draw conclusions from. Acknowledgements 1. Jessica Swann (Coordinator of program) 2. JMARS *See references 3. THEMIS *See references 4. MSIP and ASU *See references VI. References Mars Express sees deep fractures on Mars, 6 May 2011, (retrieved Sept 2012) Christensen, P.R., N.S. Gorelick, G.L. Mehall, and K.C. Murray, THEMIS Public Data Releases, Planetary Data System node, Arizona State University, < data.asu.edu>. Christensen, P.R., B.M. Jakosky, H.H. Kieffer, M.C. Malin, H.Y. McSween, Jr., K. Nealson, G.L. Mehall, S.H. Silverman, S. Ferry, M. Caplinger, and M. Ravine, The Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) for the Mars 2001 Odyssey Mission, Space Science Reviews, 110, , Watt, K. (2002). Mars Student Imaging Project: Resource Manuel. Retrieved June 29, 2006, retrieved Sept 2012 from Arizona State University, Mars Student Imaging Project Web site: