^1,2Pau Grèbol-Tomàs, ³Jordi Ibáñez-Insa, ^1,2Josep Maria Trigo-Rodríguez, ³Abigail Jiménez-Franco, ¹Lysa Chizmadia, ^4,5,6Jordi Sort
The Planetary Science Journal, 7, 252
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/aeb1ae]

¹Institut de Ciències de l’Espai (ICE-CSIC), C/Can Magrans s/n, Cerdanyola del Vallès, E-08193, Catalonia, Spain
²Institut d’Estudis Espacials de Catalunya (IEEC), C/ Esteve Terradas 1, Parc Mediterrani de Tecnologia (PMT), Campus Baix Llobregat-UPC, Castelldefels, E-08860, Catalonia, Spain
³Geosciences Barcelona (GEO3BCN-CSIC), C/ Lluís Solé i Sabarís s/n, Barcelona, E-08028, Catalonia, Spain
⁴Departament de Física, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, E-08193, Catalonia, Spain
⁵Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICN2), CSIC and BIST, Bellaterra, E-08193, Catalonia, Spain
⁶Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Pg. Lluís Companys 23, Barcelona, E-08010, Catalonia, Spain
We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

¹Anicia Arredondo, ^1,2Aaron P. Deleon, ¹Tracy M. Becker, ³Maggie M. McAdam
The Planetary Science Journal, 7, 220
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/ae9ec4]

¹Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX 78238, USA
²University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
³NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

¹Qing Zhang, ^1,2Jian-Yang Li, ³Yazhou Yang, ^3,4Minge Liu, ^3,4Yang Liu
The Planetary Science Journal, 7, 234
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/aea791]

¹Planetary Environment and Astrobiological Research Laboratory (PEARL), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, People’s Republic of China
²Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, People’s Republic of China
³State Key Laboratory of Solar Activity and Space Weather, National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
⁴College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

¹Rosemary M. Killen, ²Petr Pokorný, ³Ronald J. Vervack, Jr., ⁴Matthew H. Burger
The Planetary Science Journal, 7, 256
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/aeb006]

¹NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
²The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064, USA
³The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, USA
⁴Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

¹G. P. Markov, ²R. Zhang, ¹V. E. Pavlov
Solar System Research, 60, 6
Link to Article [DOI: 10.1134/S003809462560088X]
¹Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
²College of Geography and Environmental Science, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China

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

¹Pei Ma, ¹Zhiyong Xiao, ¹Jian-Yang Li, ¹Yunhua Wu
The Astronomical Journal, 172, 199
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae9a73]

¹Planetary Environment and Astrobiological Research Laboratory, School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, People’s Republic of China
We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

¹Lorraine Roselló Del Valle, ¹Kerri L. Donaldson Hanna, ²Bertrand Chazallon, ²Cristian Fosca, ²Claire Pirim, ¹Christopher Bennett
The Planetary Science Journal, 7, 204
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.3847/PSJ/ae96b5]

¹Department of Physics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
²Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8523, PhLAM – Physique des Lasers Atomes et Molécules, F-59000 Lille, France
We currently do not have a copyright agreement with this publisher and cannot display the abstract here

¹S. R. Burnette, ¹K. L. Donaldson Hanna, ¹A. Dove, ²J. M. Sunshine, ³L. Santori, ⁴S. N. Valencia
Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 131, e2026JE009717
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.1029/2026JE009717]

¹University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
²University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
³Purdue University, Lafayette, IN, USA
⁴University of Maryland College Park/NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA
Published by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons

Lunar “red spots” have been inferred to be regions of extrusive silicic volcanism based on the analysis of remote sensing observations that suggest S⁢i⁢O2$$-rich, FeO-poor composition and morphologies similar to terrestrial silicic domes. Outstanding, however, is the formation mechanism of these features, which can be constrained based on the mineralogical and elemental composition of the volcanic silicic features. Previous studies have shown an inverse correlation between mafic content and single scattering albedo, which can be used to estimate the silica content through Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) observations. Here, we present single scattering albedo maps of the nearside silicic sites (i.e., Gruithuisen domes, Mairan domes, Lassell Massif, and Hansteen Alpha) and characterize the variation across each volcanic construct and between sites to estimate their relative S⁢i⁢O2$$ contents, which, in turn, aids in determining the type of rocks making up these volcanic features. We find that the average single scattering albedos of the nearside silicic sites are similar among sites and are notably lower than single scattering albedo for the farside silicic site, the Compton Belkovich Volcanic Complex (CBVC). Our results therefore suggest that the nearside silicic sites may be intermediate in silicic composition, indicating a difference in formation mechanism from CBVC, or their highly silicic composition has been contaminated by mafic material via mare ejecta, intrusion into a pre-existing mafic crust, or simultaneous eruption of mafic and silicic magmas.

¹Jennifer R. Davis, ¹Carolyn A. Crow, ²Timmons M. Erickson, ¹Jeffrey Benowitz
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 698, 120443
Open Source Link to Article [DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2026.120443]

¹Department of Earth Science, University of Colorado Boulder, 2200 Colorado Ave, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
²Amentum-JETS II, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, USA
Copyright Elsevier

Dating meteorite impact structures is confounded by shock-temperature heterogeneity and potential long-lived (>10⁶ years) post-event hydrothermal systems. Meteorite-impact airfall ejecta may provide independent material for corroborating an impact age or establishing a primary impact event age. However, dating ejecta deposits may be complicated by the presence of detrital and/or unreset target-rock material. Post-depositional heating and fluid flow may further disturb isotopic systems. To further our ability to date ejecta material, here we present the results of a test-of-concept, coordinated microstructural (using electron backscatter diffraction [EBSD]; N_zircon=217) and in-situ U-Pb geochronology (via secondary ion mass spectrometry [SIMS]; N_spots=116 on 92 zircons) survey of ZrSiO₄ from Chicxulub ejecta in the Raton Basin of southern Colorado and northern New Mexico (USA). Seventy-three ZrSiO₄ grains were identified as Chicxulub-derived based on the presence of mechanical microtwins, reidite, granular recrystallization, and/or FRIGN (former reidite in granular neoblastic) zircon microtextures, of which 42 were selected for geochronology. U-Pb spots (N = 12) on only partially granular grains were generally older (>230 Ma) than spots on fully granular grains (N = 38). ∼75% of the Chicxulub grains that experienced ≥90% Pb loss contained FRIGN zircon domains. Our results suggest that a microstructural survey of zircons and targeted in-situ geochronology of fully granular zircons with FRIGN domains is a viable method for determining the age of an impact event from distal ejecta materials. Furthermore, a compilation of paired ejecta-crater (N = 11) dates demonstrates overlap, and such dual dating should be considered best practice for dating meteorite impact events when both materials are present.