Lu-Hf Chronology in Chondrites and the Role of Phosphates.

第2回極域科学シンポジウム/第34回南極隕石シンポジウム 11月17日（木） 国立国語研究所 2階講

Where are Hf and REE hosted in CV – CK chondrites? Clues to understanding the εHf heterogeneities in CHUR.

第3回極域科学シンポジウム/第35回南極隕石シンポジウム 11月30日（金） 国立国語研究所 2階講

Renewed Search for Evidence of 26Al as the Heat Source for Igneous Differentiation in Achondrites.

第2回極域科学シンポジウム/第34回南極隕石シンポジウム 11月18日（金） 国立国語研究所 2階講

Belgian-Japanese search for Antarctic meteorites during the 2010.2011 field season.

第2回極域科学シンポジウム/第34回南極隕石シンポジウム 11月17日（木） 国立国語研究所 2階講

Lu-Hf and Sm-Nd Isotopic Studies of Shergottites and Nakhlites: Implications for Martian Mantle Sources

We present a new Lu-Hf and Sm-Nd isotope systematics study of four enriched shergottites (Zagami, Shergotty, NWA856 and Los Angeles), and three nakhlites (Nakhla, MIL03346 and Yamato 000593) in order to further understand processes occurring during the early differentiation of Mars and the crystallization of its magma ocean. Two fractions of the terrestrial petrological analogue of nakhlites, the Archaean Theo's flow (Ontario, Canada) were also measured. The coupling of Nd and Hf isotopes provide direct insights on the mineralogy of the melt sources. In contrast to Sm/Nd, Lu/Hf ratios can be very large in minerals such as garnet. Selective partial melting of garnet bearing mantle sources can therefore lead to characteristic Lu/Hf signatures that can be recognized with Hf-176/Hf-177Hf ratios

A large meteoritic event over Antarctica ca. 430 ka ago inferred from chondritic spherules from the Sør Rondane Mountains

Large airbursts, the most frequent hazardous impact events, are estimated to occur orders of magnitude more frequently than crater-forming impacts. However, finding traces of these events is impeded by the difficulty of identifying them in the recent geological record. Here, we describe condensation spherules found on top of Walnumfjellet in the Sør Rondane Mountains, Antarctica. Affinities with similar spherules found in EPICA Dome C and Dome Fuji ice cores suggest that these particles were produced during a single-asteroid impact ca. 430 thousand years (ka) ago. The lack of a confirmed crater on the Antarctic ice sheet and geochemical and 18O-poor oxygen isotope signatures allow us to hypothesize that the impact particles result from a touchdown event, in which a projectile vapor jet interacts with the Antarctic ice sheet. Numerical models support a touchdown scenario. This study has implications for the identification and inventory of large cosmic events on Earth

Planet TOPERS: Planets, Tracing the Transfer, Origin, Preservation, and Evolution of Their Reservoirs

peer reviewedAn overview is given of the Planet TOPERS project addressing habitability in our solar system.PAI PLANET TOPER

The plan of the search for Antarctic Meteorites on the Nansen Ice Field by the Joint Expedition between JARE-54 and BELARE 2012-2013.

第3回極域科学シンポジウム/第35回南極隕石シンポジウム 11月29日（木）、30日（金） 国立国語研究所 2階講

Is there such a thing as a biosignature?

The concept of a biosignature is widely used in astrobiology to suggest a link between some observation and a biological cause, given some context. The term itself has been defined and used in several ways in different parts of the scientific community involved in the search for past or present life on Earth and beyond. With the ongoing acceleration in the search for life in distant time and/or deep space, there is a need for clarity and accuracy in the formulation and reporting of claims. Here, we critically review the biosignature concept(s) and the associated nomenclature in light of several problems and ambiguities emphasized by recent works. One worry is that these terms and concepts may imply greater certainty than is usually justified by a rational interpretation of the data. A related worry is that terms such as “biosignature” may be inherently misleading, for example, because the divide between life and non-life—and their observable effects—is fuzzy. Another worry is that different parts of the multidisciplinary community may use non-equivalent or conflicting definitions and conceptions, leading to avoidable confusion. This review leads us to identify a number of pitfalls and to suggest how they can be circumvented. In general, we conclude that astrobiologists should exercise particular caution in deciding whether and how to use the concept of biosignature when thinking and communicating about habitability or life. Concepts and terms should be selected carefully and defined explicitly where appropriate. This would improve clarity and accuracy in the formulation of claims and subsequent technical and public communication about some of the most profound and important questions in science and society. With this objective in mind, we provide a checklist of questions that scientists and other interested parties should ask when assessing any reported detection of a “biosignature” to better understand exactly what is being claimed