Comparative erosion. Consider the influence of three fundamental properties of a
ID: 115264 • Letter: C
Question
Comparative erosion. Consider the influence of three fundamental properties of a planet (size, distance from the Sun and rotation rate) on the four terrestrial worlds other than Earth: Mercury, Venus, the Moon and Mars. a. Which of the four would you expect, based on these properties, to have the greatest amount of erosional features? Explain which planetary property is primarily responsible for the absence of substantial erosion on the other three worlds? b. Think now about the four worlds with the factual knowledge we now have. What additional facts or information would you add to “size, distance from the star and rotation rate” to get a more complete ability to predict erosion on unseen planets?Explanation / Answer
A)
Mercury, Venus, Moon and Mars surface illustrates the process of erosion on the innermost planet. At present on Earth, the dominant agents that work to wear down the background are flowing water, moving ice (glaciers), and blowing wind. These four worlds lacks these agents, and its environment is far too slim to offer shield from space impacts. As a result, In all these 4 worlds outer is showing to impact cratering by objects range from micrometer-sized sand motes to multi-kilometre asteroids and comets. Here we see craters in a variety of stages of degradation. Some craters have been damaged down to mere dimples, while other, younger, impacts still retain their original shapes. Craters that have a non-circular shape or that arise in clusters are almost certainly inferior craters formed when material expelled from primary impacts falls back to the plane.
B)
What liquid was responsible for the erosion that formed the channels, and where did it come from? Hypothesis held that the fluid was liquid water (pure, salty, acidic, etc.) that came to the surface where slopes intersect conduits of groundwater.
Such slopes comprise crater walls, valley walls, hill, massifs and crater middle peaks. Later investigators explore the opportunity that rather than liquid groundwater, the basis was ground ice, which, under some weather conditions, melt to produce liquid runoff.
Still others noted that broad mantles covered a division of the gully-bearing slopes, signifying that the mantles were very old, dust-covered snow or ice pack that might melt at the base to make liquid water runoff. Water was not the only fluid considered by various generations; carbon dioxide can be fluid at some pressures and temperatures.
Fluid carbon dioxide was also future as a applicant fluidizing cause. Even dry mass association or land downhill, of unconsolidated coarse material can display some fluid-like manners. Such mass actions were measured as an account for the gully.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.