Image Details

Choose export citation format:

Insights into Lunar Regolith Maturity Differences and Shallow Regolith Evolution from Multisource Spectra

  • Authors: Hanwei Wu, Qiquan Yang, Yi Xu, Sizhe Zhao, Renrui Liu, Tianyi Xu, Xiaoping Zhang, Bohan Zhou

Hanwei Wu et al 2026 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 1011 .

  • Provider: AAS Journals

Caption: Figure 5.

Exposure age and SW fluxes. (a) The exposure Age (Myr) versus the maturity index Is/FeO. The exposure age data for the CE5 and CE6 landing sites were obtained from R. Liu et al. (2025); the data for Apollo 11 10,084 and Apollo 16 67,701 were obtained from L. P. Keller et al. (2021). All of the Apollo 17 data came from J. A. McFadden & M. S. Thompson (2026). The maturity index Is/FeO of all Apollo samples is provided by R. Morris (1978b). (b) The relationship between the maturity index Is/FeO and J (which represents the average normalized SW number flux). (c) The maturity index Is/FeO versus E (which represents the average normalized SW energy flux). Due to partial shielding by lunar magnetic anomalies, the Apollo 16 soils exhibit lower E (A. Vorburger et al. 2012; L. Xie et al. 2023; R. Liu et al. 2025). The maturity of Apollo 16 soils represents the average value compiled from six samples provided by LSCC. The maturity data of Apollo 11 soils is the average value sourced from R. Morris (1978b).

Other Images in This Article

Show More

Copyright and Terms & Conditions

Additional terms of reuse