GRAIL Refinements to Lunar Seismic Structure

No abstract availabl

Planetary Seismology

Of the many geophysical means that can be used to probe a planet's interior, seismology remains the most direct. In addition to Earth, seismometers have been installed on Venus, Mars, and the Moon. Given that the seismic data gathered on the Moon (now over 40 years ago) revolutionized our understanding of the Moon and are still being used today to produce new insight into the state of the lunar interior, it is no wonder that many future missions, both real and conceptual, plan to take seismometers to other planets. To best facilitate the return of high-quality data from these instruments, as well as to further our understanding of the dynamic processes that modify a planet's interior, various modeling approaches are used to quantify parameters such as the amount and distribution of seismicity, tidal deformation, and seismic structure of the terrestrial planets. In addition, recent advances in wavefield modeling have permitted a renewed look at seismic energy transmission and the effects of attenuation and scattering, as well as the presence and effect of a core, on recorded seismograms. In this talk I will discuss some of these methods and review the history of planetary seismology

Recovery of Deep Moonquake Focal Mechanisms

Deep moonquakes are clustered not only in space but also in time: their recurrence times correspond to the durations of the anomalistic and draconic months, with some clusters preferring one of the two periods, while others are active with both periods. A key constraint for the understanding of the connection between the orbital motion of the Moon and its seismic activity is the focal mechanism: the orientation of the fault surface on which failure occurs during the quake. Due to the small aperture of the Apollo seismic network and the strong scattering of seismic waves within the lunar crust, the evaluation of P wave first motions to constrain the strike and dip of the fault planes is not feasible. Instead we evaluate the amplitude ratios of P and S waves. Seismograms are rotated into the P-SV-SH coordinate frame and amplitudes are determined as averages over short time windows after the arrival to reduce the impact of the scattering coda, which is independent of the source orientation. We allow for reversals of the fault motion, as observed for some clusters in previous studies, by taking into account the absolute amplitude only, without sign. An empirical site correction factor is applied to correct for amplitude distortions in the crust. We construct ensembles of fault plane solutions using an exhaustive grid search by accepting all orientations that reproduce the measured amplitude ratios within the observed standard deviations. Since all events of a given cluster are supposed to share the same fault plane, the combination of the individual inversion results further constrains the orientation. We evaluate 106 events from 25 different moonquake clusters. The most active cluster A001 contributes 37 events, while others contribute 1 to 9 events per cluster. Comparison of fault orientations with the variation of the tidal stress results in preferred orientations

Thermal Moonquake Identification and Localization from Apollo 17's Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment

No abstract availabl

Mass Wasting in Planetary Environments: Implications for Seismicity

On Earth, mass wasting events such as rock falls and landslides are well known consequences of seismic activity. Here we investigate the regional effects of seismicity in planetary environments with the goal of determining whether such surface features on the Moon, Mars, and Mercury could be triggered by fault motion

GRAIL Refinements to Lunar Seismic Structure

Joint interpretation of disparate geophysical datasets helps reduce drawbacks that can result from analyzing them individually. The Apollo seismic network was situated on the lunar nearside surface in a roughly equilateral triangle having sides approximately 1000 km long, with stations 12/14 nearly co-located at one corner. Due to this limited geographical extent, near-surface ray coverage from moonquakes is low, but increases with depth. In comparison, gravity surveys and their resulting gravity anomaly maps have traditionally offered optimal resolution at crustal depths. Gravimetric maps and seismic data sets are therefore well suited to joint inversion, since the complementary information reduces inherent model ambiguity. Previous joint inversions of the Apollo seismic data (seismic phase arrival times) and Clementine- or Lunar Prospector-derived gravity data (mass and moment of inertia) attempted to recover the subsurface structure of the Moon by focusing on hypothetical lunar compositions that explored the density/velocity relationship. These efforts typically searched for the best fitting thermodynamically calculated velocity/density model, and allowed variables like core size, velocity, and/or composition to vary freely. Seismic velocity profiles derived from the Apollo seismic data through travel time inversion vary both in the depth of the crust and mantle layers, and the seismic velocities and densities assigned to those layers. The lunar mass and moment of inertia likewise only constrain gross variations in the density profile beyond that of a uniform density sphere. As a result, composition and structure models previously obtained by jointly inverting these data retain the original uncertainties inherent in the input data sets. We perform a joint inversion of Apollo seismic delay times and gravity data collected by the GRAIL lunar gravity mission, in order to recover seismic velocity and density as a function of latitude, longitude, and depth within the Moon. We relate density (p) to seismic velocity (v) using a depth-dependent linear relationship. The corresponding coefficient (B) can reflect a variety of material properties, including temperature and composition. The inversion seeks to recover the set of p, v, and B perturbations that minimize (in a least-squares sense) the difference between the observed and calculated data

Grail Refinements to Lunar Seismic Structure

To probe a planet's interior, seismology provides the most direct constraints on the variables that govern the dynamic properties of the body. However, the GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory) mission's high-resolution measurements of the lunar gravity field provide constraints on crustal thickness, mantle structure, core radius and stratification, and core state (solid vs. molten). These data complement seismic investigations, and joint interpretation permits improved constraints on the Moon's internal structure. Joint interpretation of disparate geophysical datasets helps reduce drawbacks that can result from analyzing them individually. The Apollo seismic network was situated on the lunar nearside surface in a roughly equilateral triangle having sides approximately 1000 km long, with stations 12/14 nearly co-located at one corner. Due to this limited geographical extent, near-surface ray coverage from moonquakes is low, but increase with depth. In comparison, gravity surveys and their resulting gravity anomaly maps have traditionally offered optimal resolution at crustal depths. Gravimetric maps and seismic data sets are therefor well suited to joint inversion, since the complementary information reduces inherent model ambiguity. We will perform a joint inversion of Apollo seismic delay times and gravity data collected by GRAIL lunar gravity mission, in order to recover seismic velocity and density as a function of latitude, longitude and depth within the Moon. We will relate density (rho) to seismic velocity (v) using a linear relationship that is allowed to be depth-dependent. The corresponding coefficient (B) can reflect a variety of material properties that vary with depth, including temperature and composition. The inversion seeks to recover the set of rho, v, and B perturbations that minimize (in a least-squares sense) the difference between the observed and calculated data

GRAIL Refinements to Lunar Seismic Structure

Joint interpretation of disparate geophysical datasets helps to reduce drawbacks that can result from analyzing them individually. The Apollo seismic network was situated on the lunar nearside surface in a roughly equilateral triangle having sides approximately 1000 km long, with stations 12/14 nearly colocated at one corner. Due to this limited geographical extent, nearsurface ray coverage from moonquakes is low, but increases with depth. In comparison, gravity surveys and their resulting gravity anomaly maps have traditionally offered optimal resolution at crustal depths. Gravimetric maps and seismic data sets are therefore well suited to joint inversion, since the complementary information reduces inherent model ambiguity. Previous joint inversions of the Apollo seismic data (seismic phase arrival times) and Clementine or Lunar Prospectorderived gravity data (mass and moment of inertia) attempted to recover the subsurface structure of the Moon by focusing on hypothetical lunar compositions that explore the density/velocity relationship. These efforts typically search for the best fitting thermodynamically calculated velocity/density model, allowing variables like core size, velocity, and/or composition to vary freely. Seismic velocity profiles previously derived from the Apollo seismic data through inversion of travel times vary both in the depth of the crust and mantle layers, and the seismic velocities and densities assigned to those layers. The lunar mass and moment of inertia likewise only constrain gross variations in the density profile beyond that of a uniform density sphere. As a result, composition and structure models previously obtained by jointly inverting these data retain the original uncertainties inherent in the input data sets. We will perform a joint inversion of Apollo seismic delay times and gravity data collected by the GRAIL lunar gravity mission, in order to recover seismic velocities and density as a function of latitude, longitude, and depth within the Moon. We will relate density to seismic velocity using a linear relationship that is allowed to be depthdependent. The corresponding coefficient (B) can reflect a variety of material properties that vary with depth, including temperature and composition. The inversion seeks to recover the set of density, velocity, and Bcoefficient perturbations that minimize (in a leastsquares sense) the difference between the observed and calculated data

Analysis of variation in charges and prices paid for vaginal and caesarean section births: a cross-sectional study

This is the publisher's version. To view the original publication, see http://bmjopen.bmj.comThis article aims to examine the between-hospital variation of charges and discounted prices for uncomplicated vaginal and caesarean section deliveries, and to determine the institutional and market-level characteristics that influence adjusted charges. Using data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all privately insured patients admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery (diagnosis-related group (DRG) 775) or uncomplicated caesarean section (DRG 766). Hospital charges and discounted prices were adjusted for each patient's clinical and demographic characteristics. We analysed 76,766 vaginal deliveries and 32,660 caesarean sections in California in 2011. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, we found that the average California woman could be charged as little as US$3,296 or as much as US$37,227 for a vaginal delivery and US$8,312–US$70,908 for a caesarean section depending on which hospital she was admitted to. The discounted prices were, on an average, 37% of the charges. We found that hospitals in markets with middling competition had significantly lower adjusted charges for vaginal deliveries, while hospitals with higher wage indices and casemixes, as well as for-profit hospitals, had higher adjusted charges. Hospitals in markets with higher uninsurance rates charged significantly less for caesarean sections, while for-profit hospitals and hospitals with higher wage indices charged more. However, the institutional and market-level factors included in our models explained only 35–36% of the between-hospital variation in charges. These results indicate that charges and discounted prices for two common, relatively homogeneous diagnosis groups—uncomplicated vaginal delivery and caesarean section—vary widely between hospitals and are not well explained by observable patient or hospital characteristics

The InSight Mission Exploring the Interior of Mars

No abstract availabl