Paper detail

Investigating S-type asteroid surfaces through reflectance spectra of Ordinary Chondrites

We present an in-depth study of the reflectance spectra of 39 equilibrated and 41 unequilibrated ordinary chondrites. We demonstrate that consistent measuring conditions are vital for the direct comparison of spectral features between chondrites, otherwise hampering any conclusions. We include a comparison with a total of 466 S-type asteroid reflectance spectra. We analyze (i) if a difference between EOCs and UOCs as well as between H, L and LL can be seen, (ii) if it is possible to identify unequilibrated and equilibrated S-type asteroid surfaces and (iii) if we can further constrain the match between OCs and S-type asteroids all based on reflectance spectra. We checked the classification of the 31 Antarctic UOCs analyzed in the present work, using petrography and magnetic measurements, and evidenced that 74% of them were misclassified. Reflectance spectra were compared between EOCs and UOCs as well as between H, L and LL chondrites using a set of spectral features including band depths and positions, peak reflectance values, spectral slopes and the Ol/(Ol + Px) ratio. UOCs and EOCs reflectance spectra show no clear-cut dichotomy, but a continuum with some EOCs showing stronger absorption bands and peak reflectance values, while others are comparable to UOCs. We show by the example of 6 EOCs that their band depths decrease with decreasing grain size. Based on reflectance spectra alone, it is thus highly challenging to objectively identify an unequilibrated from an equilibrated S-type surface. There is no clear distinction of the chemical groups: only LL EOCs of petrographic type > 4 can be distinguished from H and L through less deep 2-mic band depths and 1-mic band positions at longer wavelengths. Lastly, an anti-correlation between the diameter of the asteroids and their 1000 nm band depth is found indicating that larger sized S-type asteroids show finer grained surfaces.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.