CV chondrites: More than one parent body

1J.Gattacceca,2L.Bonal,1C.Sonzogni,1J.Longerey
Earth and Planetary Science 547, 116467 Link to Article [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2020.116467]
1CNRS, Aix Marseille Univ, IRD, INRAE, CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France
2Institut de Planétologie et d’Astrophysique de Grenoble, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS CNES, 38000 Grenoble, France
Copyright Elsevier

CV chondrites are one of the most studied group of carbonaceous chondrites. Based on a number of mineralogical features, they have been divided into three sub-groups: CVOxA, CVOxB, and CVRed. These sub-groups are classically interpreted as coming from a single parent body, with a common protolith affected by significant parent body fluid-assisted metasomatism occurring at different temperatures and/or redox conditions. In this work, we studied a set of 53 CV chondrites. We classified them into the three sub-groups, measured their apparent chondrule sizes and their matrix modal abundance. We measured the triple oxygen isotopic composition for 17 of them. The distributions of chondrule size and matrix abundances in CVOxA and CVOxB cannot be statistically distinguished. Conversely, CVRed and CVOx have distinct distributions. These two robust and simple petrographic indicators combined with the previous knowledge of the peak metamorphic temperatures experienced by these meteorites show that CVOx and CVRed originate from two distinct parent bodies. On the other hand, CVOxA and CVOxB likely originate from the same parent body, with CVOxA representing deeper, more metamorphosed levels. For clarification of the chondrite classification scheme, in which one group should ultimately represent a single parent body, we propose to divide the CV group into two proper groups (and not subgroups as in the current scheme), keeping the names CVRed and CVOx. These two groups can be readily separated by estimating the average nickel content of their sulfides.

Constraining the Evolutionary History of the Moon and the Inner Solar System: A Case for New Returned Lunar Samples

1Romain Tartèse,2,3Mahesh Anand,4Jérôme Gattacceca,1Katherine H. Joy,2James I. Mortimer,1John F. Pernet-Fisher,3Sara Russell,5Joshua F. Snape,6Benjamin P. Weiss
Space Science Reviews 215, 54 Link to Article [DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-019-0622-x]
1Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
2Planetary and Space Sciences, School of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
3Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK
4CNRS, Aix-Marseille Univ, IRD, Coll France, INRA, CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France
5Faculty of Sciences, Department of Earth Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
6Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

Organic Matter in the Solar System—Implications for Future on-Site and Sample Return Missions

1Zita Martins,2Queenie Hoi Shan Chan,3Lydie Bonal,4Ashley King,5Hikaru Yabuta
Space Science Reviews 216, 54 Link to Article [DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-020-00679-6]
1Centro de Química Estrutural, Departamento de Engenharia Química, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal
2Planetary and Space Sciences, School of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
3Institut de Planétologie et d’Astrophysique de Grenoble, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, CNES, 38000, Grenoble, France
4The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK
5Department of Earth and Planetary Systems Science, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima, 739-8526, Japan

We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here