Lithologic distribution and geologic history of the Apollo 17 site: The record in soils and small rock particles from the highland massifs
Authors: Jolliff Bradley L. , Rockow Kaylynn M. , Korotev Randy L. , Haskin Larry A. 
Published: August 2012

Abstract— Through analysis by instrumental neutron activation (INAA) of 789 individual lithic fragments from the 2 mm–4 mm grain‐size fractions of five Apollo 17 soil samples (72443, 72503, 73243, 76283, and 76503) and petrographic examination of a subset, we have determined the diversity and proportions of rock types recorded within soils from the highland massifs. The distribution of rock types at the site, as recorded by lithic fragments in the soils, is an alternative to the distribution inferred from the limited number of large rock samples. The compositions and proportions of 2 mm–4 mm fragments provide a bridge between compositions of <1 mm fines, and types and proportions of rocks observed in large collected breccias and their clasts. The 2 mm–4 mm fraction of soil from South Massif, represented by an unbiased set of lithic fragments from station‐2 samples 72443 and 72503, consists of 71% noritic impact‐melt breccia, 7% incompatible‐trace‐element‐(ITE)‐poor highland rock types (mainly granulitic breccias), 19% agglutinates and regolith breccias, 1% high‐Ti mare basalt, and 2% others (very‐low‐Ti (VLT) basalt, monzogabbro breccia, and metal). In contrast, the 2 mm–4 mm fraction of a soil from the North Massif, represented by an unbiased set of lithic fragments from station‐6 sample 76503, has a greater proportion of ITE‐poor highland rock types and mare‐basalt fragments: it consists of 29% ITE‐poor highland rock types (mainly granulitic breccias and troctolitic anorthosite), 25% impact‐melt breccia, 13% high‐Ti mare basalt, 31% agglutinates and regolith breccias, 1% orange glass and related breccia, and 1% others. Based on a comparison of mass‐weighted mean compositions of the lithic fragments with compositions of soil fines from all Apollo 17 highland stations, differences between the station‐2 and station‐6 samples are representative of differences between available samples from the two massifs.

From the distribution of different rock types and their compositions, we conclude the following: (1) North‐Massif and South‐Massif soil samples differ significantly in types and proportions of ITE‐poor highland components and ITE‐rich impact‐melt‐breccia components. These differences reflect crudely layered massifs and known local geology. The greater percentage of impact‐melt breccia in the South‐Massif light‐mantle soil stems from derivation of the light mantle from the top of the massif, which apparently is richer in noritic impact‐melt breccia than are lower parts of the massifs. (2) At station 2, the 2 mm–4 mm grain‐size fraction is enriched in impact‐melt breccias compared to the <1 mm fraction, suggesting that the <1 mm fraction within the light mantle has a greater proportion of lithologies such as granulitic breccias which are more prevalent lower in the massifs and which we infer to be older (pre‐basin) highland components. (3) Soil from station 6, North Massif, contains magnesian troctolitic anorthosite, which is a component that is rare in station‐2 South‐Massif soils. (4) Compositional differences between poikilitic impact‐melt breccias from the two massifs suggest broad‐scale heterogeneity in impact‐melt breccia interpreted by most investigators to be ejecta from the Serenitatis basin.

We have found rock types not previously recognized or uncommon at the Apollo 17 site. These include (1) ITE‐rich impact‐melt breccias that are compositionally distinct from previously recognized “aphanitic” and “poikilitic” groups at Apollo 17; (2) regolith breccias that are free of mare components and poor in impact melt of the types associated with the main melt‐breccia groups, and that, if those groups derive from the Serenitatis impact, may represent the pre‐Serenitatis surface; (3) several VLT basalts, including an unusual very‐high‐K basaltic breccia; (4) orange‐glass regolith breccias; (5) aphanitic‐matrix melt breccias at station 6; (6) fragments of alkali‐rich composition, including alkali anorthosite, and monzogabbro; (7) one fragment of 72275‐type KREEP basalt from station 3; (8) seven lithic fragments of ferroan‐anorthositic‐suite rocks; and (9) a fragment of metal, possibly from an L chondrite. Some of these lithologies have been found only as lithic fragments in the soils and not among the large rock samples. In contrast, we have not found among the 2 mm–4 mm lithic fragments individual samples of certain lithologies that have been recognized as clasts in breccias (e.g., dunite and spinel troctolite).

The diversity of lithologic information contained in the lithic fragments of these soils nearly equals that found among large rock samples, and most information bearing on petrographic relationships is maintained, even in such small samples. Given a small number of large samples for “petrologic ground truth,” small lithic fragments contained in soil “scoop” samples can provide the basis for interpreting the diversity of rock types and their proportions in remotely sensed geologic units. They should be considered essential targets for future automated sample‐analysis and sample‐return missions.