· |- ∞ ſ- ---- 02 JCT 161918 The University. of Michigan Astronomy, Library. las NASA SP-423 Authors and Editors Merton E. Davies, chief Donald E. Gault The Rand Corporation Ames Research Center National Aeronautics Stephen E. Dwornik and Space Administration Lunar and Planetary Programs Office Headquarters Robert G. Strom National Aeronautics Lunar and Planetary Laboratory and Space Administration University of Arizona Associates JEANNE DUNN JURRIE VAN DER WOUDE Text Editor Photographic Preparation The Rand Corporation Jet Propulsion Laboratory NANCY EVANS ROBIN GREAVES Photographic Layout and Coordinator Graphic Design Jet Propulsion Laboratory Jet Propulsion Laboratory Prepared for the Office of Space Sciences, JOEL MOSHER National Aeronautics National Aeronautics tº Photographic Computer Processing and Space Administration and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Scientific and Technical Information Office 1978 Astronomy Dedication This Atlas is dedicated to the members of the Televi- sion Science Team. It was their efforts, started almost five years before the spacecraft reached Mercury, that made this Atlas possible. Their technical and scientific capabili- ties, coupled with their dedicated motivation, produced the high quality photographs included in this book. The photographs will be used by scientists the world over to study and understand the processes that have shaped the surface of Mercury. Bruce C. Murray, Team Leader Michael J.S. Belton G. Edward Danielson Merton E. Davies Donald E. Gault Bruce W. Hapke Gerard P. Kuiper Brian O'Leary Robert G. Strom Verner R. Suomi Newell J. Trask Associates James L. Anderson Audouin Dollfus John E. Guest Robert J. Krauss For sale by the Superintendent of IDocuments, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 033—000–00695–1 ! \ N. } \ - - ! . . . . | N) lºº ' ' -- ~~ - - \ .z - f w The Mariner 10 mission to Venus and Mercury scored many firsts. It was the first multiple-planet mission, bor- rowing energy from the gravity of Venus to make possible a flight to Mercury otherwise unachievable. This required navigation of a precision never before attempted—equiva- lent to shooting a rifle bullet through a 2-inch knothole more than 100 miles away. During its Venus swingby, Mariner 10 took the first close-up photographs of Venus, revealing the intricate spiral structure in its cloud layers that confirmed the classic circulation theory hypothesized by the astronomer Hadley more than 200 years ago and believed to be the basic driving mechanism behind weath- er on Earth. On the way from Venus to Mercury, Mariner 10 also made the first practical use of Solar sailing, a novel technique that I predict will be used increasingly in the future to replace more expensive space propulsion sys- tems. And as it flew by Mercury, Mariner 10 entered an orbit that, for the first time, provided two subsequent flyby revisits. The hard-working Mariner 10 team also scored a num- ber of management firsts. It was the first space project team to ever receive a NASA performance award prior to launch—a tribute to their determination and skill in pio- neering daring techniques to cut the cost of space missions at the same time they were actually upgrading the quality of the science return. Of all the firsts, undoubtedly the outstanding achieve- ment of the Mariner 10 mission was the spectacular un- veiling of the planet Mercury. Mercury's closeness to the Sun makes it an almost impossible object for astronomical study, and the total knowledge of Mercury prior to Mari- ner 10 was miniscule. Even its rate of rotation was not determined until 1965. Mercury's surface was almost to- tally unknown, with considerable conjecture that total surface melting could have left Mercury as smooth as a billiard ball. Then came the tiny Mariner 10 spacecraft, a bright sunlit speck of a solar sailing craft speeding in from the blackness of space. Aboard was an imaging system born of the ingenuity and close cooperation between space sys- tems engineers and the scientists of the imaging experi- ment team. Using a narrow-angle television camera, it could take only postage-stamp-size pictures of the surface. But it could flash them back to Earth with such rapidity that it was possible to map the entire lighted portion of the planet with excellent resolution. This Atlas is a tribute to the accomplishments of that highly productive team effort. As you turn its pages you will see the face of Mercury as it was unveiled to mankind for the very first time. If it is not a beautiful face, it is nevertheless a most fascinating one, marked with a char- acter all its own, including "wrinkles” over 2000 km long. Even its noticeable similarities to the Moon are fascinat- ing—why should both the Moon and Mercury have the smooth mare areas located predominantly on one face with rough highlands on the other? Why should Mercury, so far from the asteroid belt, have a surface just as pocked by bombardment as the Moon? Clearly, adding the por- trait of Mercury to our gallery of terrestrial planets will contribute greatly to our knowledge of the violent accre- tion process that formed the planets. Even with the two revisits of Mariner 10 to Mercury, we have seen only one side of the planet—a limitation imposed by Mercury's harmonic rotational lock to the Sun. I wait with eager anticipation for the day when we return to see the other face of Mercury. Robert S. Kraemer Director, Lunar and Planetary Programs /Vational Aeronautics and Space Administration October 7,976 Foreword iii Contents The Planet Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mariner 10 Mission and Spacecraft. . . Topographic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surface Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Atlas Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1 Borealis Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-2 Victoria Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . H-3 Shakespeare Quadrangle . . . . . . . . * H-6 Kuiper Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-7 Beethoven Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . H-8 Tolstoj Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . H-11 Discovery Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . 20 26 32 40 58 74 82 94 H-12 Michelangelo Quadrangle . . . . . . . H-15 Bach Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gazetteer s = e = s. s = e º s e º ºs e e s & e s e º s a º º 'º 8 a. * * * g e º 'º e = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 108 116 122 124 126 127 iv Introduction HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The planet Mercury played an important role in the religious life of many ancient civilizations. Although Mer- cury was probably seen by prehistoric man, the first recorded observation was by Timocharis in 265 B.C. The early Greeks believed that the east and west elongations of Mercury represented two separate objects which they called Hermes (evening star) and Apollo (morning star). When later Greeks recognized that Mercury was one ob- ject, they designated it Hermes, the messenger of the gods and god of twilight and dawn who announced the rising of Zeus. The ancient Egyptians, however, first discovered that Mercury (called by them Sabkou) orbited the Sun. To the Teutonic peoples Mercury was known as Woden, and our anglicized version of the midweek day Wednesday is derived from the original Woden's Day. The present name Mercury is derived directly from the Latin name Mercuri- us, which is the Roman designation for the Greek name Hermes.'” The Italian astronomer Zupus first observed the phases of Mercury in 1639. They were later observed independ- ently by Hevelius in 1644. The transit of the Sun by Mer- cury, first predicted by Kepler in 1630, was observed by Gassendi, and the first recorded observations of surface markings were by Schröter and Harding in 1800. In the same year, Schröter incorrectly measured a rotation pe- riod of 24 hours with a rotation axis inclined 70° to the orbital plane. Another incorrect rotation period of 88 days determined by Schiaparelli' 80 years later was not cor- rected until the advent of recent radar observations, which in turn were confirmed by measurements made by Mariner 10.” MERCURY Of all the planets in the solar system, Mercury is clos- est to the Sun (Figure 1). Because it is never more than 28 angular degrees from the Sun as viewed from the Earth, telescopic observations must be made during daytime or at twilight through a long path length of the Earth's at- mosphere. As a consequence, telescopic observations are poor compared with those of most other planets. Mercury is the smallest terrestrial planet, with a diam- eter of 4878 km (Figure 2). In size it lies between the Moon and Mars. Its orbit has greater eccentricity (0.205) and inclination to the ecliptic plane (7°) than any other planet except Pluto. This pronounced eccentricity causes the ap- parent solar intensity at Mercury to vary by more than a factor of two throughout a Mercurian year. Table 1 lists the best current values of the more important orbital and physical properties of the planet. Table 1 Orbital and Physical Data for Mercury Orbital Data Semimajor axis . . . . . . . . . . 0.3871 AU (5.79 X 107 km) Perihelion distance . . . . . . . 0.3075 AU (4,60 X 107 km) Aphelion distance . . . . . . . 0.4667 AU (6.98 X 107 km) Sidereal period . . . . . . . . . . 87.97 days Synodic period . . . . . . . . . . 115.88 days Orbital eccentricity . . . . . . . 0.20563 Inclination of orbit to ecliptic. 7.004 deg Mean orbital velocity . . . . . . 47.87 km/s Rotational period . . . . . . . . 58.646 days Physical Data Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2439 km Surface area . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.475 X 107 km.” Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,077 X 10°km” Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.302 X 10°g Mean density . . . . . . . . . . . 5.44 g/cm’ Surface gravity . . . . . . . . . . 370 cm/s” Escape velocity . . . . . . . . . . 4.25 km/s Surface temperature extremes. T-100 to 700°K (–173 to 427°C) Normal albedo. . . . . . . . . . . 0.125 Magnetic dipole moment . . . . 4.8 (+0.5) X 10° gauss cn” Mercury tº Mors Figure 1 Orbits of the terrestrial planets. The best Earth-based and Mariner 10 measurements indicate that the rotation period (58.64 days) is in two- thirds resonance with the orbital period (87.97 days), as shown schematically in Figure 3. Therefore, at Mercury's equator, longitudes 0° and 180° are subsolar points near alternate perihelion passages and are called “hot poles,” whereas equatorial longitudes 90° and 270° are subsolar points near alternate aphelion passages and are called “warm poles” because they receive less Solar energy per “day” on Mercury (175 terrestrial days) than do the “hot poles. The equatorial temperatures vary from about 100°K at local midnight to 700°K at local noon at perihe- lion, or a range of 600°K during a Mercurian “day. This temperature range is greater than that of any other planet or satellite in the solar system. In the past, Earth-based observations at visible, infra- red, and microwave wavelengths led most observers to conclude that the Mercurian atmosphere was, at best, tenuous, with a total pressure < 0.1 mb. Mariner 10's ultraviolet spectroscopy and radio science experiments confirmed this inference, but extended the upper limit estimates downward by seven orders of magnitude to 10-12 bar. A very thin (10-15 bar) helium atmosphere was detected, and the question of its origin is now under dis- cussion.” The natural decay of uranium and thorium in crustal rocks may have resulted in the generation of the Venus Mercury helium, or it may have accreted from the solar wind. If the observed helium is internally generated, then a crustal thickness can be estimated. Before the Mariner 10 mission, it was generally be- lieved that, because of Mercury's slow rotation and pre- sumed interaction with the solar wind, its magnetic field would be similar to that of the Moon. One of the most important discoveries made by Mariner 10 on its first encounter with Mercury was the existence of a planet- related magnetic field, as indicated by the detection of a bow shock and magnetosphere together with accelerated protons and electrons in the interaction region. The first encounter data did not give a unique answer on the origin of the magnetic field, i.e., whether it was internally gener- ated or induced by a complex interaction with the solar wind. However, Mariner 10's third Mercury encounter provided strong evidence that the field is of internal ori- gin.6 The magnetic field data obtained during the third encounter duplicated those predicted on the basis of an intrinsic field model. Furthermore, the correlative plasma data showed the Mercurian magnetosphere to be a scaled- down (1/30) replica of the Earth's.7 Therefore, Mercury has an intrinsic dipole magnetic field with a moment 4 × 10-4 that of the Earth's dipole moment. The maximum field intensity is 400 gammas, or 20 times larger than the interplanetary field at Mercury's distance from the Sun.6 Earth Moon Figure 2 Relative sizes of the Moon and terrestrial planets. Their approximate core sizes are indicated by the stippling. 25 º l O ©, ()24 16 () Il () (D 4 (923 17C . 10G) © 20 Figure 3 Mercury rotates on its axis three times while it circles the Sun twice. This synchronous rotation can be followed in the schematic diagram by observing the position of the dot (which represents a fixed point on Mercury's surface) as the planet moves from position 1 to 2, 2 to 3, ..., 25 to 1. The precise mechanism for field generation remains un- known, as fossil magnetization and an active internal dynamo cannot be distinguished from the data. The mag- netic field observations provide independent evidence that Mercury possesses a large, metal-rich core. Probably the most anomalous property of Mercury is its high mean density of 5.44 g/cm3, which is comparable to that of the Earth (5.52 g/cm3). However, Mercury is only about one-third the size of the Earth; its uncom- pressed average density of 5.3 is considerably greater than that of the Earth (4.04). This indicates that Mercury is composed of 65 to 70 percent by weight of metal phase (probably iron), and only some 30 percent by weight of silicate phase. Therefore, Mercury apparently contains twice as much iron (in terms of percentage composition) as any other planet in the solar system. Measurements of the magnetic field and evidence of volcanism in the Mari- ner 10 photography suggest that Mercury is chemically differentiated.” If this is correct and most of the iron is concentrated in a core, then the core volume is about 50 percent of the total volume, and its radius is about 70 to 80 percent of the radius of the planet. As a consequence of Mercury's high mean density, its surface gravity (370 cm/s2) is virtually the same as that of Mars, although it is considerably smaller. The gravity scaling of surface processes is the same for both bodies. The photometric, polarimetric, and thermal properties of Mercury derived from Earth-based measurements are very similar to those of the Moon and indicate a surface covered by a dark, porous, fine-grained particulate layer.9 The thermal properties of the Mercurian surface mea- sured by the Mariner 10 infrared radiometer are also consistent with the presence of a lunar-like regolith of tens of centimeters. However, spatial variations in the thermophysical properties of this layer suggest large- scale regions of enhanced thermal conductivity which could be areas of more compacted soil, or areas in which boulders or outcroppings of rock are exposed.10 The best Earth-based telescopic photographs of Mer- cury have a resolution of about 700 km. These photo- graphic and visual observations show that the surface of Mercury consists of dark and light regions somewhat similar to the maria and highlands of the Moon seen at comparable resolution. Although radar altitude profiles and reflectivity maps in the equatorial regions suggested the presence of a cratered surface, it was not known be- fore the Mariner 10 mission that the topography was simi- lar to that of the Moon." Most planetologists believed that Mercury would show a cratered surface, although the amount of cratering was in dispute. Some believed that the crater density would be much less than that on the Moon or Mars because of Mercury's great distance from the asteroid belt, whereas others believed it would show a crater density comparable to that of the Moon. Ques- tions concerning the presence or absence of volcanism, the tectonic framework, and the surface history were un- resolved. Mariner 10 dispelled many mysteries about Mercury and exposed its surface to detailed studies previously pos- sible only for the Moon and Mars. The best pictures of Mercury acquired by Mariner 10 have a resolution of 100 m, an improvement by a factor of about 7000 over Earth- based resolution. As demonstrated by the pictures con- tained in this Atlas, the tremendous increase in resolu- tion has resulted in a quantum jump in man's knowledge of the planet. insulating silicate particles constituting at least the upper Mariner 10 Mission and Spacecraft The Mariner 10 spacecraft was launched on the first day of the scheduled launch period, November 3, 1973, at 0045 Eastern Standard Time (0545 Greenwich Mean Time) from Cape Canaveral, Florida, using an Atlas/Cen- taur D1-A launch vehicle.” The spacecraft received a gravity assist from Venus on February 5, 1974 and en- countered Mercury on March 29, 1974, 146 days after launch (Figure 4). The exploration of Mercury was the primary objective of the mission and the basis for the selection of the Mariner 10 experiment complement. Experimenters wished to determine, at least in general terms, several of the important properties of this little- known planet. In particular, it was desired to ascertain the nature of Mercury's surface morphology; whether an atmosphere is present, and, if so, the constituents; the planet's interaction with the solar wind; and a refinement of its mass and radius. Because solar wind data can pro- vide important information on a planet's bulk properties, the study of the interaction between Mercury and the solar wind was given a high scientific priority, and a dark- side passage at 705 km altitude was selected for the flyby. encounter 2/5 / 74 encounters 3/29/74 9/21/74 3/16/75 Figure 4 Mariner 10 trajectory. An aim point within the solar occultation zone made pos- sible a sensitive search for a tenuous neutral atmosphere by observation of the extinction of solar extreme ultravio- let radiation and by a favorable ground-track for studying the infrared thermal emission of the surface from midaft- ernoon to midmorning, local time. Mariner 10 passed through the region in which Earth is occulted by Mercury (as viewed from the spacecraft) to permit a dual-frequency (X- and S-band) radio occultation probe in search of an ionosphere and to measure the radius of the planet. After completing a 176-day solar orbit following its first Mercury flyby, the Mariner 10 spacecraft successfully en- countered Mercury for a second time on September 21, 1974 (Figure 4). The reencounter was at the same position in the solar system, 0.46 AU from the Sun. The spacecraft passed by the sunlit side of Mercury at an altitude of 48,069 km. The main objective of this second flyby was to extend the photographic coverage of Mercury. The new photographs obtained were used to tie together the incom- ing and outgoing portions of Mercury photographed dur- ing the first encounter and provided new views of the South polar area. - Mariner 10 passed Mercury for the third time on March 16, 1975, at 327 km altitude. This encounter yield- ed the most accurate celestial mechanics data of the mis- sion because of the close passage and the absence of an Earth occultation. The main objective of the third encoun- ter was to define the source of the weak magnetic field discovered on the first encounter. Like the first encounter, it was a dark-side pass. Photographs at a resolution of about 100 m were obtained during the third encounter. Partial-frame pictures were acquired in areas not previ- ously photographed at this resolution. THE SPACECRAFT Figure 5 is a schematic of the Mariner 10 spacecraft. The weight of the spacecraft was 504 kg, which included 20 kg of hydrazine fuel and 79.4 kg of scientific experi- ments. When fully deployed, the spacecraft measured 3.7 m from the top of the low-gain antenna to the bottom of the heat shield of the thrust vector control assembly of the propulsion subsystem. Its total span was 8.0 m with the two solar panels extended. Each panel measured 2.69 m long and 0.97 m wide and was attached to outriggers on the octagonal bus. The high-gain antenna, magnetometer boom, and the plasma science experiment boom also were attached to the bus. The two-degrees-of-freedom scan plat- form contained the two television cameras and the ul- traviolet airglow spectrometer. The high-gain antenna was an aluminum, honey- combed parabolic dish reflector antenna 1.37 m in diame- ter with a focal distance of 0.55 m. Right-handed, circular- ly polarized radiating feeds were attached to the antenna to allow transmission at both S-band (2295 MHz) and X- band (84.15 MHz) frequencies. Transmissions from Earth were received at an S-band frequency of 2113 MHz. The antenna was attached to a deployable support boom and was driven by two-degrees-of-freedom actuators to obtain optimum pointing toward Earth. SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS The scientific experiments (Table 2) were selected to take advantage of the opportunity to encounter Mercury and to approach the Sun more closely than ever before. The television science and infrared radiometry experi- ments provided measurements of the surface of the planet. The plasma science, charged particles, and mag- netic field experiments supplied measurements of the en- vironment around the planet and the interplanetary medium. The dual-frequency radio science and ultraviolet spectroscopy experiments were designed for detection and measurement of the characteristics of Mercury's neutral atmosphere and ionosphere. The celestial mechanics ex- periment provided measurements of planetary mass char- acteristics and tests of the theory of relativity. Although all experiments were designed and selected to achieve the scientific objectives at Mercury, important data were ob- tained during the Venus encounter and during the cruise phase. The arrangement of these experiments on the spacecraft is shown in Figure 5. Television Science. Because Mariner 10's trajectory at Mercury passed through the solar occultation regions (Figure 6), the closest approach to the planet occurred lovy GAIN ANTENNA WIl 7 ABL & SOLAR PANtl § AAAGNEWOAAEWERS - Y Ul IRAVIOUET w SPECTROAAE ſtº At RGLOvv Pl ASAAA SCIENCE TELEVISION CAAAERAS ExPERIAAENT . . S. º Cº Fº N .cº. - Ul IRAVIOUEY SPECTROAAt 7 tº -- º *r-JO OCCUt f ATION Sºfº, X BANO Yºº ANSAIT TER - a - CHARGED PARTICLE TElt SCOPE Y .” ºº …”& ! - ACQUISIT ION SUN SE NSOR . 4. % ſº % º Šs HIGH GAIN ANTENNA - CANOPUS TRACKER as )-- X SS REACTION CONTROL jt TS Figure 5 The Mariner 10 spacecraft. Mercury's surface Mercury 3 (R = 2439 km) 8 = -700 H = 327 km Earth (M1 & M3) gº Z Z Z 'S& Z.Z. & occultation & % &% XO & % KXXXXXXXX O'DXXXXXXXXXXXXX, ©OXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXS. A Sun -— k & & 24CXXCCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; \vº 2233& \ Earth N 2^\ SN occultation / Mercury 2 Mercury l 9 = 140° 6 = 8.4° N H = 48,069 km H = 705 km Figure 6 Mercury flyby points. when the cameras could not see the sunlit portion of Mer- cury. Consequently, the cameras were equipped with 1500-mm focal length lenses so that high-resolution pic- tures could be taken during the approach and post-en- Table 2 Mariner 10 Scientific Experiments Principal Experiment Investigator Television science B. C. Murray Infrared radiometry C. S. Chase Ultraviolet spectoscopy A. L. Broadfoot Celestial mechanics and radio science H. T. Howard Magnetic field N. F. Ness Plasma science H. S. Bridge Charged particles J. A. Simpson Institution California Institute of Technology Santa Barbara Research Corporation Kitt Peak National Observatory Stanford University Goddard Space Flight Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Chicago Instrument Twin 1.5 m telescopes, vidicon cameras Infrared radiometer Airglow spectrometer and occulation spectrometer X-band transmitter Two triaxial fluxgate magnetometers Scanning electrostatic analyzer and electron spectrometer Charged particle telescope counter phases. The schematic view of the television cam- era is shown in Figure 7, and the camera characteristics are given in Table 3. WIDE-ANGLE OPTICS FL 62 mm SHUTTER º ğ a U2 º 210 mm FILTER WHEEL. WITH MIRROR FOR WIDE-ANGLE IMAGE PRIMARY MIRROR NARROW-ANGLE OPTICS FL 1500 mm APERTURE (178 mm) CORRECTOR LENSES (2) WTH SECONDARY REFLECTOR (CONVEX) Figure 7 Schematic view of Mariner 10 television Caſſlera. The imaging sequence was initiated 7 days before the encounter with Mercury when about half of the illuminat- ed disk was visible and the resolution was better than that achievable with Earth-based telescopes. Photography of the planet continued until some 30 min before closest approach, providing a smoothly varying sequence of pic- tures of increasing resolution and decreasing areal cover- age. Pictures with resolutions on the order of 2 to 4 km were obtained for both quadratures on the first encounter (Figures 18 and 19). Variation in resolution, ranging be- tween several hundred kilometers to approximately 100 m, assisted in the extrapolation of large-scale features observed at high resolution over broad areas photo- graphed at lower resolution. The highest resolution photo- graphs were obtained approximately 30 min prior to and following closest approach on the first and third encoun- ters. Pictures taken in a number of spectral bands enabled the determination of regional color differences. The second Mercury encounter (Figure 6) provided a unique opportunity to observe regions of Mercury with more favorable viewing geometry than was possible dur- ing the first encounter. In order to permit a third encoun- ter, it was necessary to target the bright-side encounter for a south polar pass. This trajectory allowed unfore- shortened views of the south polar region, the exploration of areas not previously accessible for study, a geologic and cartographic tie in the southern hemisphere between the two sides of Mercury photographed on the first encounter, \\ t , 52- Y’WSº VIDICON CAMERA and the acquisition of stereoscopic coverage of the south- ern hemisphere. Because of the small field of view result- ing from the long focal length optics, it was necessary to increase the periapsis altitude to about 48,000 km to en- sure sufficient overlapping coverage to make a reliable geologic and cartographic tie. The resolution of the photo- graphs taken during closest approach ranged from 1 to 3 km (Figure 20). Table 3 Television Camera Characteristics Focal length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500 mm (62 mm)a Focal number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f/8.4 Shutter speed range . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 ms to 11.7 s Angular field of view . . . . . . . . . 0.38° X 0.47° (9° x 11°)* Vidicon target image area . . . . . . 9.6 X 12.35 mm Scan lines per frame . . . . . . . . . . 700 Image elements per line . . . . . . . . 832 Bits per image element . . . . . . . . 8 Frame time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 s - Spectral filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blue, ultraviolet, ultraviolet polarizing, orange, minus ultraviolet, and clear *Wide-angle optics. The third Mercury encounter was targeted to optimize the acquisition of magnetic and Solar wind data. There- fore, the viewing geometry on the third encounter was very similar to that on the first encounter. However, the third encounter presented the opportunity to target high- resolution pictures to areas of geologic interest seen previ- ously at lower resolution. Because of ground communica- tion problems, these pictures were acquired as quarter frames. Infrared Radiometry. The primary goal of the infra- red radiometry experiment was to measure infrared ther- mal radiation emanating from the surface of Mercury between late afternoon and early morning. These temper- ature measurements taken on the first encounter provid- ed much more accurate values for the average thermal properties of the planet than can be obtained from ground-based studies. An important secondary objective was to search for possible correlations between thermal anomalies and topographic features. Ultraviolet Spectroscopy. The occultation spec- trometer provided a sensitive detection of any atmosphere present, and of its composition, with a detection threshold improved by a factor of about 107 over current ground- based studies. The airglow spectrometer provided quan- titative information on the abundance of H, He, Het, C, O, Ne, and A in the atmosphere of Mercury by measuring the intensity and spatial distribution of their ultraviolet emission lines. Data were taken on the first and third encounterS. Celestial Mechanics and Radio Science. The celes- tial mechanics experiment provided improved measure- ments of the mass and gravitational characteristics of Mercury. The planet's close proximity to the Sun, large orbital eccentricity, and unusual spin-orbit resonance made this experiment of primary interest. The occultation of the spacecraft by Mercury on the first encounter afforded an opportunity to probe the at- mosphere and to measure the radius of the planet. Phase changes in the S-band radio signal allowed measurement of an atmosphere with about 1016 molecules per cm3. A more sensitive but less direct measurement of atmospher- ic gas density was provided by the ionospheric refractivity measurementS. Magnetic Field and Plasma Science. Vector mag- netic field and plasma measurements were made to study the interaction of Mercury with the solar wind. Because of the nature of the Solar wind and the physical processes under investigation, these phenomena are strongly inter- related and mutually supporting. Data were taken on the first and third encounters. Charged Particles. The charged particle telescope was designed to detect high-energy particles at Mercury. This experiment complemented and extended the mag- netic field and plasma science measurements of the in- teraction of Mercury with the solar wind. 10 Topographic Features and Surface History Although Mercury is remarkably similar to the Moon, it is different from it in many respects. This paradox was not unexpected based on observations from Earth predat- ing the Mariner 10 mission. On the one hand it was known that Mercury reflects sunlight and radar waves in the same manner as does the Moon. This similarity combined with the probable absence of any appreciable atmosphere suggested a cratered surface and a lunar-like regolith of pulverized rock mantling the surface of the planet as the result of meteoritic bombardment. On the other hand, the bulk density of the planet was known to be almost the same as that of Earth and about 60 percent greater than that of the Moon, implying that Mercury was a body greatly enriched in the heavy elements and, like Earth, perhaps having an iron-rich core. The surface of Mercury, like that of the Moon, was indeed found to be pockmarked with impact craters. How- ever, not expected was the discovery that Mercury, unlike the Moon, has a weak but nevertheless Earth-like mag- netic field whose origin is undoubtedly related to a large iron-rich core.6 Paradoxically, Mercury has a Moon-like exterior and an Earth-like interior. The illuminated surface observed by Mariner 10 as it first approached Mercury is dominated by craters and basins. This region of Mercury, included in the Victoria, Kuiper, Discovery, and Bach quadrangles (H-2, H-6, H-11, and H-15), shows a heavily cratered surface that at first glance could be mistaken for the lunar highlands. In marked contrast to this view of Mercury, the surface photographed after the flyby, as the spacecraft receded from Mercury, exhibited features totally different from those shown on the incoming views, including large basins and extensive relatively smooth areas with few craters. This coverage fell in the Borealis, Shakespeare, Beetho- ven, Tolstoj, and Michelangelo quadrangles (H-1, H-3, H-7, H-8, and H-12). The smooth surfaces are clearly younger than the heavily cratered ground seen in the incoming views of Mercury. The most striking feature in this region of the planet is a huge circular basin, 1300 km in diameter, that was undoubtedly produced from a tre- mendous impact comparable to the event that formed the Imbrium basin on the Moon. This prominent Mercurian structure in the Shakespeare (H-3) and Tolstoj (H-8) quad- rangles, named Caloris Planitia, is filled with material forming a smooth surface or plain that appears similar in many respects to the lunar maria. Mercury, much like the Moon, can thus present two totally different faces; one is a heavily cratered surface like the highlands on the back side of the Moon, and the second shows a region of large basins filled with smooth plains similar to the front side of the Moon.” Both the heavily cratered regions of Mercury and the craters themselves, however, differ from their lunar coun- terparts. Mercury's heavily cratered surfaces exhibit rela- tively smooth areas or plains between the craters and basins, whereas the lunar highlands display closely packed and overlapping craters. In many cases, these “in- tercrater” plains appear to predate that time when most of the large Mercurian craters were formed.” The lunar and Mercurian heavily cratered surfaces are probably different because the force of gravity on Mercury is twice that on the Moon. 14 The ballistic range of material ejected from a primary crater on Mercury is less than that on the Moon and, consequently, covers, depending on the ejec- tion velocity, an area from a fifth to a twentieth smaller for craters of the same size. As a result, ejecta deposits and secondary craters on Mercury are confined more closely around the primary crater than on the Moon; thus, the early cratering record stored in the surface features of Mercury may be better preserved than on the Moon.” Ejecta-forming secondaries from the most recent large basin events on the Moon have been superposed on the earlier record of primary craters, increasing the density of craters and obliterating the earlier activity. * The difference in the gravity fields is also probably re- sponsible for the variation in the geometry of craters of the same size on the two bodies.” In both cases, the small- est craters are bowl-shaped and with increasing size ex- hibit central peaks and develop terraces on their inner walls. At the larger sizes, the central peaks become com- plex structures and undergo a transition into an inner mountain ring that is concentric with the crater rim. Al- though this progressive change in crater geometry is the same on both the Moon and Mercury, the change from one type to another occurs with smaller diameters on Mer- cury and apparently reflects gravitationally induced modifications to the original excavation crater. An additional important difference between the heavi- ly cratered surfaces of Mercury and the Moon are the lobate scarps or cliffs that are several kilometers high and extend for hundreds of kilometers across the Mercurian surface. The scarp named Discovery, by which the H-11 quadrangle is known, is one of the best examples of this feature. Its shape and transection relationships suggest that scarps are thrust faults resulting from compressive stresses, perhaps due to cooling and shrinkage of the iron- rich core, and causing crustal shortening on a global scale. 15 Regardless of the mechanism for forming these escarpments, their presence in the large, well preserved craters establishes an approximate relative time scale for their age and eliminates the possibility that planet-wide melting or Earth-like movement of crustal plates has taken place since the heavily cratered ground was created. The extensive areas of smooth surfaces or plains on Mercury have been classified into three types.” The most widespread type forms a level to gently rolling ground between and around large craters and basins. These “in- tercrater” plains are characterized by an extremely high density of superposed small (5 to 10 km) craters, which are frequently elongate, shallow, and suggestive of being of secondary origin. A second type, “hummocky” plains, oc- curs within a broad ring that is 600 to 800 km wide and circumscribes the Caloris Planitia. These plains consist of low, closely spaced to scattered hills, and have been inter- preted” to be material ejected during the cratering event that produced the Caloris basin. “Smooth” plains are the third type and form relatively level tracts with a very low population of craters, both within and external to Caloris Planitia as well as in some of the Smaller basins (e.g., Borealis Planitia in the Borealis quadrangle). The smooth plains are similar to the lunar maria and, if analo- gous, result from extensive lava flows that would reflect an extended period of volcanism on Mercury after the Caloris event.” In addition to the cratered surfaces and plains regions, several other distinctive topographic features occur. A system of linear hills and valleys that extends up to 300 km cut through or modify some parts of the heavily crat- ered and intercrater areas in the Discovery quadrangle (H-11). These valleys are scalloped and range up to 10 km wide. The best example of this type of feature extends more than 1000 km to the northeast from the mountain- ous rim, Caloris Montes, in the Shakespeare quadrangle (H-3). Both examples are similar to the so-called lunar Imbrium sculpture. It is generally believed that this type of lineated surface feature resulted from excavations by secondary projectiles when the large basins were formed and, possibly, fracturing and faulting of the planet's crust during the basin formation. The basin associated with the lineations in the Discovery quadrangle is unknown, but it may be found in the darkened hemisphere that was hid- den from Mariner 10's cameras. 13 Some of the most peculiar and interesting landforms seen on Mercury are in another region in the Discovery quadrangle that has been termed “hilly and lineated.” The hills are 5 to 10 km wide and vary from a few hundred meters up to almost 2 km in height. This region includes many old degraded craters whose rims have been broken up into hills and valleys. Similar surfaces are known at two sites on the Moon. In all three cases, the regions are antipodal to the youngest large basins (Imbrium and Orientale on the Moon and Caloris on Mercury). For this reason, there could be a genetic relationship between the formation of the basins and the hilly and lineated terrain. It has been suggested that seismic waves generated by the basin impacts are focused in the antipodal region and are the cause of the peculiar surfaces. 17 Well defined bright streaks or ray systems radiating away from craters constitute another distinctive feature of the Mercurian surface, again in remarkable similarity to the Moon. The rays cut across and are superposed on all other surface features, indicating that the source crat- ers are the youngest topographic features on the surface of Mercury.” The basin and ray systems are shown in Figure 8. Despite some differences, the striking duplication of surface features between Mercury and the Moon suggests that although an absolute time scale for the development of the Mercurian surface must remain uncertain, the rela- tive sequence of events for the two bodies must have been very similar, if not contemporary. The greatest uncertain- ty in the Mercurian absolute time scale is: When did the heavy bombardment forming the heavily cratered sur- faces (lunar highlands) and the large basins (lunar Imbri- um and Orientale) come to an end? Within these uncertainties, Mercury's evolution can be divided into five stages or epochs.” The first epoch in- cludes the interval of time at the earliest stage of the solar system, condensation of the solar nebula into solids, and the accumulation of the solid material into the main mass of Mercury. It is not known whether the planet ac- cumulated heterogeneously or homogeneously; i.e., whether it formed directly as an iron core with a silicate crust, or whether the proto-Mercury was initially a mix- ture of iron and silicates which subsequently melted and separated into the core and crust configuration. Regard- less of how the planet accumulated, all crustal melting must have been completed well before the craters in the heavily cratered surfaces were formed to have preserved their shapes and geometries to the present time. More- over, if Mercury ever had been enveloped in an atmos- phere either during or immediately after accumulation, 11 6O2 4O9 2O° –2Oo -40° -6O° 18O” 15O2 90° oftºn Perº gºt sºsºme calor; ) / RODIN *T- ––? O ºylWALDIT L^ . .* 8. | º MENA & "º ºf E mme º sdoderal: H* sº ++ º : | `- ". ſº - .." ... '" ; w – ' —— —O *Tº ſº; #ºr *—VALMK-1––MATSSÉ-º-º: -> - 1 || |x| |&#khov (postoevskij || @ | | COPLEY -* . s - g ——H-M1CHELANGELO * | * : . . ENDES + PINTof . . .His (PUSHKIN_ 18O° I5O° I2O2 90° 6O” 3Oo O° 3Oo MENDES USHKIN IT. PINTO —o. 12 Basin and ray systems. Figure 8 aeolian degradation of craters would have occurred, simi- lar to that seen on Mars. Because such degradation has not been recognized, any atmosphere must have disap- peared before the oldest cratered surfaces were formed. The second epoch following accumulation and chemical separation was a period of heavy bombardment by large objects from an unknown source that produced the heavi- ly cratered surfaces and the large basins; this epoch was terminated by the time of the Caloris event. It is not certain whether this last period of heavy bombardment was the terminal phase of the accumulation of Mercury, or whether it was a second episode of bombardment un- related to the accretionary phase.19 The “intercrater” plains probably represent an older surface that predates this second epoch,” or they may have been emplaced dur- ing the period of heavy bombardment. Because the lobate scarps are prevalent in the intercrater areas and some- times pass through and deform some of the older craters, core shrinkage and crustal shortening may have occurred during the end of the first epoch and extended into at least the early part of the second. A convenient and well delineated point in Mercury's history is the time of the impact that formed the Caloris basin. This massive event marks the onset of the third epoch. It produced the mountainous ring Caloris Montes and the basin Caloris Planitia, as well as the ejecta depos- its and sculpturing of the older heavily cratered surface that can be traced more than 1000 km from the ring of mountains. If the Caloris basin were contemporary with the Moon's two youngest basins, Imbrium and Orientale, an absolute time for the Caloris event would be about 4 billion years ago. The start of the fourth epoch followed an indetermi- nate, but probably short, period after the Caloris event. During this time broad plains were formed, most probably as a result of widespread volcanism grossly similar to that which produced the lunar maria. It has been suggested, however, that the smooth plains surrounding the Caloris Planitia (i.e., the Suisei, Odin, and Tir Planitia) are ejecta from Caloris that were melted by the impact.” If the smooth plains are analogous to lunar maria, this fourth epoch may represent the period of time from 4 to 3 billion years ago. If the plains are impact melt, they must be contemporary with the Caloris event, about 4 billion years in age. The fifth and final epoch in what can be recognized in Mercurian history probably extends from about 3 billion years ago to the present. Little has happened on Mercury during this period except for a light “dusting” of meteorit- ic debris which has produced many of the prominent rayed craters. The crater population on the smooth plains is very similar to that on the lunar maria. The apparent similarity in the sequence of events for the Moon and Mercury is especially significant for inter- preting and understanding evolutionary processes of the terrestrial planets. It is now clear that Mercury, in com- mon not only with the Moon, but also with Mars, was subjected to an early, intense crater-producing bombard- ment (including basin events) that was followed by volcan- ism and, in turn, by a greatly reduced impact flux. Be- cause the orbital distances to the Sun for these three bodies are significantly different, their cratering records suggest that a similar impact history is basic to all terres- trial planets. If this is correct, then an important step has been made in developing a theory of the origin and evolu- tion of the planets. By implication, for example, the Earth in its early history must also have displayed a surface of craters and basins. Thus, from the observations of Mari- ner 10 there is evolving a new, more complete and unified understanding of our own planet and the solar system in general. 13 14 Surface Mapping MAP PROJECTIONS Many different projections are used in making maps; the choice depends on the purpose of the map and the type of distortions which can be tolerated.” Some form of dis- tortion is always present when a sphere or spheroid is mapped into a plane, and the selection of the best projection for a particular cartographic product must re- flect a compromise of the allowed distortions and the use of the map. Most map projections are designed to give a proper representation of distance (equidistance), shape (conformal), or area (equivalence); however, a projection cannot possess more than one of these properties. There are three common projection surfaces—the cyl- inder, the cone, and the plane. Normally the cylinder is tangent to the sphere at the equator; sometimes, however, the transverse or oblique positions are used. With the transverse position the line of tangency is at a selected meridian; with the oblique position the line of tangency is at an angle to the equator and all meridians. When a conical surface is used, it is generally either tangent to the sphere along a particular latitude or it cuts the sphere along two lines of latitude. When a plane is used as a projection surface, it is usually tangent to the sphere at a single point such as the north or south pole. Over the centuries a great many projections have been devised and employed in making maps of the Earth and its many regions. Land-water boundaries, political areas, roads, or cities are frequently of primary interest. For other planets, these considerations are irrelevant and the center of interest is mainly in the topographic forms and positions. Because it is important to represent accurately the shapes of the topographic features, the map projection should be conformal. Computers are frequently used to project a picture or mosaic into a map. If the projection is conformal, the craters will be round, thus providing a check on the computer program. All of the maps in this Atlas use conformal projections. The most popular cylindrical projection is the Merca- tor, which is conformal; the cylinder is usually oriented tangent to the reference sphere at the equator. The trans- verse Mercator is becoming increasingly popular for Earth cartography and, together with oblique Mercators, will likely find application on other planets. The Lambert normal conical projection is conformal and is useful with one or two standard parallels in the midlatitudes. The stereographic plane projection is conformal and is com- monly used in the polar regions with the point of tangency at the pole. Occasionally this projection has the point of tangency at the equator. It has recently been exploited in special maps of large basins found on the Moon, Mars, and Mercury. NOMENCLATURE Since the time of Schiaparelli, a number of astronom- ers have drawn maps of the surface markings on Mercury; however, only Lowell (1896)23 and Antoniadi (1934) gave names to the features on their sketches. Lowell's map is shown as Figure 9 and Antoniadi's is presented as Figure 10. To the extent that nomenclature was used prior to the flight of Mariner 10, Antoniadi's was generally accepted. At the 1973 meeting of the International Astronomical Union, a Working Group for Planetary System Nomencla- ture was established. Recommendations made by the Task Group for Mercury Nomenclature” must be ap- º - * -** ** - ! ºr ºxº -- - * * **** -- * 4… % -º w22. % - Index to Map of Mercury. 1 Maia-regio 11 Serpentis regio 21 ºneiropomº re- 2 Parameses regio 12 Anguis regio 22 Hyphates 3 Cyllenes regio 13 Parametes regio 23 Pleet----- + Mercatºrum regio 14 Chelydorea-regio 2+ A* tº º Petasi regio 15 Testudinis regio 25 Tatarium tº tº Trites regio 15 Lyrae regio - *--------- 7 'ter reºlo 17 Psychopomp regio 27 ºn tº * Nºtes rºo 18 Larae revio -- ------ º Cºlucci regio 19 ºneiration reviº - *----- | - ºn Parlºs reº Figure 9 Lowell's map of Mercury. 23 proved first by the Working Group and then by the Execu- tive Committee of the International Astronomical Union. For the convenience of telescopic observers, the names of albedo features shown in Figure 11 have been adopted by the Task Group from names originally given by An- toniadi to markings on the surface of Mercury. The rela- Figure 10 Antoniadi's map of Mercury. ' tionship of the markings to the topography is very differ- ent from that on the Moon, where the dark markings correspond to the maria—the large flooded basins. On Mercury, the albedo variations seem to be due to the brightness of the extensive ray systems, because the al- bedos of the large flooded basins do not differ greatly from those of the surrounding cratered terrain. The assignment of new names to topographic features is a continuing activity, with additions made as users re- quire them. Maps are commonly used to locate and iden- tify named features. Although cartographers are the pri- mary source for requests for new names, photogeologists working with pictures and maps also require names for important features. Thus, the Task Group for Mercury Nomenclature must maintain close contact with scien- tists actively studying Mercury in order to supply names as required. The large craters on Mercury are named after authors, artists, and musicians. Typical names are Homer, Renoir, and Bach. Two exceptions to this general rule are Kuiper and Hun Kal. Kuiper is named after Dr. Gerard Kuiper of the University of Arizona, a member of the original Mariner Venus/Mercury Imaging Team who died in Mex- ico City in December 1973 before Mariner 10 reached Venus. The crater Kuiper is located at 11°S and 31°W, is 60 km in diameter, and has an extensive bright ray sys- 36 O 27 O 9 O O + 6 ol--- –H --- _CADUCEAIA H - tºo APOLLONIA \ * --- º - º AURORA + 3 OH-I-H -- - | 4–30 | **ooks - **C. ſº yº "Nº Skº Nº. Y. º º - º-ºº: - - & ºf: - ºf -- º |- ºr- ----- - - º ºf Cº #2 7 - 2-F3 Footprints of pictures 2-5 through 2–8, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, and 2-17 on the shaded relief map. 2-F5 Footprints of pictures 2-9 through 2-12 and 2-15 on the shaded relief map. 2-9 -- º - :* - - - º º º º -º-º-º-º-º- * º - º T; (2 - º º .* - - - -- Zºº - - - --- º º . - --- - - --- --- -- … --- - -- - º -*. º |-- -- º --- º - - º º, ſº - * {{..., - º "-ſº 38 - - ---- |-|---- | - | ---- 2-12 TH: 39 2-15 Tº I-3 SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE SHAKESPEARE QUADRANGLE OF (CADUCEATA ALBEDO PROVINCE) H-3 H 5M 45/135 R 1977 MERCURY 40 3-A COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE SHAKESPEARE QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY H-3 Tº ſº 41 º, 3-B Enlarged view of the northwest region of the H-3 photomosaic … （… 3-C Enlarged view of the northeast region of the H-3 photomosaic 43 Zººlºº º - -- - - - º --- - - - - - - - - - - ------- … - - --- - - - … - - - -- 1 through 3-14 on the shaded relief map Footprints of pictures 3 3-F1 ſae tſ <+ <+ |- º -- * * 12 3 3-11 3-13 3 1 4 48 3-D Enlarged view of the southwest region of the H-3 photomosaic ſae |- ·| – №ae,|× |-|-| . " |×| – |-ſº：，|- ，№. *№vae |- ~ |- |× 3-E Enlarged view of the southeast region of the H-3 photomosaic 49 Footprints of pictures 3-15 through 3-35 on the shaded relief map 3-F2 3-15 8 1 3 3-17 3-22 º º R º 3–24 3–26 3–25 3-27 3–28 - - - º 3-30 3-29 º 3-32 Tº ſº |- |× ---- |-ſae 55 -36 through 3-43 on the Caloris photomosaic. Footprints of pictures 3 3-F3 56 3-F Computer photomosaic of the Caloris basin (stereographic projection) ， tſ 57 T; (5 # MERCaton PROJEction 3oo -oo. soo º -ooo SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE KUIPER QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY (TRICRENA. ALBEDO PROVINCE) H-6 H 5M 0/36 R 1976 58 6-A COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE KUIPER QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY H-6 T; (5 59 6-B Enlarged view of the northwest region of the H-6 photomosaic |- -· （ ） ae|- - | 6-C Enlarged view of the northeast region of the H-6 photomosaic T; (5 62 The 20° meridian on Mercury passes through the center of the crater Hun Kal *_ |-- --- - Kºº º º . - |-- --- º: & Footprints of pictures 6-12, 6-13, 6-15, and 6-16 on the shaded relief map. 6-F2 6-14 - - º º - º, º º - 6-D Enlarged view of the southwest region of the H-6 photomosaic -- " . . . -- ºº: "...'G' --- |-- * * * - - º .. - - O º - " º - - - -- --- * . -- - -- - - - Imhotep () - - ºlº. ºº...a 6-F3 Footprints of 20 on the shaded relief map º, º 6-18 6-19 6-20 º Dº * º º º * A - Enlarged view of the southeast region of the H-6 photomosaic Footprints of pictures 6-21 through 6-29 on the shaded relief map. 6-F4 6-22 6–23 T; (5 70 - …º.º.º.º. --~~~~ - º { º º º º -- ſº -- º * … º _º º º --- * - - N º º -- - - º -º- -- - º º " º - --. -- - º º º º ..º.º. º - - º º º º -- tº º º º, º º º º ºn- º - - º º - --- - º º º tºº, - - - º º º º - - - - º º º Jº º - º º T- º - - º - º --- L - --~~ -- --~~~~ - tº º wºº Tºº - - 4. -- . - º - º º: º º º º º -- - --- - *º- - º- --- ºº:: º º lº º º º º . - ºf º º º º º ſºlº º’. º - . - - º º § 75° º, - - Tº tº jº Kºº ſº - - - - º - * -- *. º º - -- - -- - - - - - &sº - - - - - . - |- jº. jº §§§ & Sº º - - - - - J. sº º - Ö - -º-º: fº . Sºº-y MERCATOR PROJECTION 400 500 boo 700 H-7 H 5M 0/108 R 900 tood SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE BEETHOVEN QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY (SOLITUDO LYCAONIS ALBEDO PROVINCE) -- - ". Y. º - º º º ſº a - - º caſt is se - . - %. - -º-º: º R - - - | --- º, - º ". ... . - --~~~~º- 'º, - º º - . * Azºº.º.º.º. ºf 90° 85- - Bo” 75° - ( ºl 25 | * * * ,- - - º - 2. Q º - - º Mickiewicz - - - º -- - º - -- - .* H. ~ - - - - -- º - º - --- T . *T. . -20° c º - --- - - º - C. c. Q) ſº ** - - - º º," - º º - * . º - º º - - - C. C & M. º | N. -* cº-c -o - & . -- - - -- - ºn--> V, i v a d , ºr . . Q) K. : * * - - - - - - --- - - - O - O. º' - - Ö. \\ - . . - º ºf lººs- -- " - Y - - - - Oº *... it’ \, . . . - * - -*, * º º - C) º º º ( sº, º º ºlº º ‘… º. ºº (, ºl. º ºf .º *... ºf ºt. - - - - - "º. CŞ Mº- º ſ * ... º º: - Q C. * * *.cº. * : * ~ *d, * cº º Sº - º - É 1976 7-A COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE BEETHOVEN QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY H-7 THIT 75 |- ： （） |- （ ） ---- |×|×|× |-：-）* （ ） ſae |- 7-B Enlarged view of the northwest region of the H-7 photomosaic º º º - - - * - º º, Zºº º - * º º: º, * * * -- º - - - - - Enlarged view of the northeast region of the H-7 photomosaic THT 7-D º - º - Enlarged view of the southwest region of the H-7 photomosaic 78 THIT Enlarged view of the southeast region of the H-7 photomosaic 7-E 79 - - º º --- ſº º - º º - º ºº: - -- ** -- º, 80 7-F2 Footprints of pictures 7-1 through 7-4 as they appear on the limb THIT 81 zºº 25° 150° - |- - - - - - - - º - - - º - º … 145° 144° - 25 2-10- 205- 200- 195° - 20- — 15- -- - - 200- 10- l -- -o- SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE TOLSTOJ QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY D * I. A. - - º - - * - * 9. º º º º 5- - º : o- +-O--- -5- to- +- —t --10°r T - 200- 15° -20- T - 216- 215- 2.10- 205- 200- 195* too so THI8 82 MERCaroR PROJECTION O -Lowe TREs too 400 soo boo 900 to- o- 1000 (PHAETHONTIAS ALBEDO PROVINCE) H-8 H 5M 0/180 R | | ... º 145° 144- 1976 8-A COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE TOLSTOJ QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY H-8 Tº (8 83 . . .” - * º | - º - - - ºr- T; (8 8-B Enlarged view of the northwest region of the H-8 photomosaic 84 T; (8 Enlarged view of the southwest region of the H-8 photomosaic 8-D 85 Footprints of pictures 8-1 through 8-3 on the shaded relief map 8-F1 © tſ Ko CO 8-F2 Footprint of the H-8 quadrangle plotted on a mosaic compiled from pictures taken by the departing spacecraft within 2 hours after closest approach. . 3. ... -- Pictures 8-4 and 8-5 were taken by the departing spacecraft 12 hours after the 8–5 pictures compiling the mosaic shown in 8-F2. Additional topography, in partic- ular the crater Mozart, is shown as it emerges from the morning terminator. Tº (8 87 * - - º º º - º | º - - - |- * - º -- T; (8 8-C Enlarged view of the northeast region of the H-8 photomosaic 88 ºr- 8-E Enlarged view of the southeast region of the H-8 photomosaic THI8 89 º "…” º º - - 8-F3 Footprints of pictures 8-6 through 8-19 on the shaded relief map 8.10 8-13 8-12 8-17 8-16 8-18 Zºº, º - - --- - - -- . º -a-º-º-º-o-º-o-wa-ºn-tº-run- SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE DISCOVERY QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY (SOLITUDO HERMAE TRIS MEGISTI ALBEDO PROVINCE) H-11 H 5M 45/45R Tº III ...is/ 94 A COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE DISCOVERY QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY 11 1 Tº III 95 |- - |- （ ）|- ， ！ - |- - \, ， ， - - |-- |- §. |× ） Tº III 96 11-B Enlarged view of the northwest region of the H-11 photomosaic … ） \， . |-§.|× ， ， ， ， , （№ |- ， |× Tº III 11-C Enlarged view of the southwest region of the H-11 photomosaic 97 11-1 ------- - º, ºt -*** - - - - - \***** º 11-F1 Footprints of pictures 11-1 through 11-10 on the shaded relief map - -. . - - - - - - - - º - ºfºº ...º. %. … --- - - º º º - - - - - . | | _ 11-10 ！ ！ tſ 99 11-D Enlarged view of the northeast region of the H-11 photomosaic T: I 11-E Enlarged view of the southeast region of the H-11 photomosaic 101 ºfºº º - -- }º º º ºf: - }º - - - - º º - ---- º * * * º, º ºr- . 7+ - ºw. IIll Nº. º 102 º-º-º-º-º- 11-12 ſae.|-ſae |- ：:：：：：:：：: 11-15 Tº III 103 11-16 11-19 11-18 11-20 11-21 11-F3 Footprints of pictures 11-22, 11-23, 11-24, and 11-30 on the shaded relief map 11-22 → → tſ: 105 | 1-23 11-F4 Footprints of pictures 11-25 through 11-29 on the shaded relief map º º º - r ". º - º º - º Tº III - -- tº - - º - 106 - - - - - - - - - º - - - - º - , º, º - Tº III 107 T; (12 LaMarat co-º-o-au-Pºo-º-º-to- ----------- SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE MICHELANGELO QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY (SOLITUDO PROMENTHEI ALBEDO PROVINCE) H-12 H 5M –45/135 R 1977 108 COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE MICHELANGELO QUADRANGLE OF MERCURY 12-A T; (12 H-12 109 - º º º | -- - º º º -** . - º º - º T; (12 110 12-B Enlarged view of the northwest region of the H-12 photomosaic 12-C Enlarged view of the northeast region of the H-12 photomosaic 111 - --- º - - º º *** * º - * * * º º - - º |- A º Sº, º 'º º - º 'º º º S.S., º § - - º R. º T: [12 112 12-D Enlarged view of the southwest region of the H-12 photomosaic º s 12-E Enlarged view of the southeast region of the H-12 photomosaic 12-7 12-8 - - º Hºs. 12.9 12-11 POLAR STEREOGRAPHIC PROJECTION –65° UTTTTTTTTTT I I Z Z - Z 27 75° H- I I 7 Z Z Z 2T) UTTTTTT I I I I I I I I / Z z Z Z Z 85° RTTTTTTTIII | | I | { ſ { f Z_ 100 50 O KILOMETRES 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 SHADED RELIEF MAP OF THE BACH AREA OF MERCURY (AUSTRALIA. ALBEDO PROVINCE) H-15 T; 15 H 5M -90/0 R 116 3. º 1976 15-A COMPUTER PHOTOMOSAIC OF THE BACH AREA OF MERCURY H-15 #15 117 * --- |- - … -- - 15-B Enlarged view of the west region of the H-15 photomosaic 15-C Enlarged view of the east region of the H-15 photomosaic T; (15 119 º - º º - - - º - º º, º References . Antoniadi, E. M., La Planète Mercure, Gauthier-Vil- lars, Paris, 1934. English translation by Patrick Moore, Keith Reid, Ltd., Shaldon, England, 1974. . Sandner, Werner, The Planet Mercury, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1963. . Klaasen, K. P., “Mercury Rotation Period Determined from Mariner 10 Photography,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2415-2416. . Klaasen, K. P., “Mercury's Rotation Axis and Period,” Icarus, Vol. 28, No. 4, August 1976, pp. 469-478. . Broadfoot, A. L., S. Kumar, M. J. S. Belton, and M. B. McElroy, “Mercury's Atmosphere from Mariner 10: Preliminary Results,” Science, Vol. 185, No. 4146, July 12, 1974, pp. 166-169. . Ness, N. F., K. W. Behannon, R. P. Lepping, and Y. C. Whang, “Magnetic Field of Mercury Confirmed, Na- ture, Vol. 255, 1975, pp. 204-206; see also N. F. Ness, K. W. Behannon, R. P. Lepping, and Y. C. Whang, “Obser- vations of Mercury's Magnetic Field,” Icarus, Vol. 28, No. 4, August 1976, pp. 479-488. . Ogilvie, K. W., J. D. Scudder, R. E. Hartle, G. L. Siscoe, H. S. Bridge, A. J. Lazarus, J. R. Asbridge, S. J. Bame, and C. M. Yeates, “Observations at Mercury Encounter by the Plasma Science Experiment on Mariner 10, Science, Vol. 185, No. 4146, July 12, 1974, pp. 145-151; see also R. E. Hartle, K. W. Ogilvie, J. D. Scudder, H. S. Bridge, C. L. Siscoe, A. J. Lazarus, V. M. Vasyliunas, and C. M. Yeates, “Preliminary Interpretation of Pias- ma Electron Observations at the Third Encounter of Mariner 10 with Mercury,” Nature, Vol. 255, No. 5505, May 15, 1975, pp. 206-208. . Murray, B.C., R. G. Strom, N.J. Trask, and D. E. Gault, “Surface History of Mercury: Implications for Terres- trial Planets,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2508-2514; see also B. C. Murray, M. J. S. Belton, G. E. Danielson, M. E. Davies, D. E. Gault, B. Hapke, B. O'Leary, R. G. Strom, V. Suomi, and N. Trask, “Mercury's Surface: Preliminary Description and Interpretation from Mariner 10 Pictures,” Science, Vol. 185, No. 4146, July 12, 1974, pp. 169-179. . The Planet Mercury, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Report SP-8085, March 1972. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. . Chase, S. C., E. D. Miner, D. Morrison, G. Munch, G. Neugebauer, and M. Schroeder, “Preliminary Infrared Radiometry of the Night Side of Mercury from Mariner 10, Science, Vol. 185, No. 4146, July 12, 1974, pp. 142- 145. Zohar, S., and R. M. Goldstein, “Surface Features on Mercury,” Astron. J., Vol. 79, No. 85, 1974, pp. 85-91. Dunne, James A., “Mariner 10 Mercury Encounter.” Science, Vol. 185, No. 4146, July 12, 1974, pp. 141-142. Trask, N. J., and J. E. Guest, “Preliminary Geologic Terrain Map of Mercury,”J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2461-2477. Gault, D. E., J. E. Guest, J. B. Murray, D. Dzurisin, and M. C. Malin, “Some Comparisons of Impact Craters on Mercury and the Moon,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2444-2460. Trask, N. J., and R. G. Strom, “Additional Evidence of Mercurian Volcanism,” Icarus, Vol. 28, No. 4, Au- gust 1976, pp. 559-563. Strom, R. G., N. J. Trask, and J. E. Guest, “Tectonism and Volcanism on Mercury,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2478-2507. Schultz, P. H., and D. E. Gault, “Seismic Effects from Major Basin Formations on the Moon and Mercury,” The Moon, Vol. 12, February 1975, pp. 159-177. Murray, B. C., “Mercury,” Scientific American, Vol. 233, No. 3, September 1975, pp. 58-68. Chapman, C. R., “Chronology of Terrestrial Planet Evolution: The Evidence from Mercury,” Icarus, Vol. 28, No. 4, August 1976, pp. 523-536. Guest, J. E., and D. E. Gault, “Crater Populations in the Early History of Mercury,” Geophys. Res. Letters, Vol. 3, No. 3, March 1976, pp. 121-123. Wilhelms, D. E., “Mercurian Volcanism Questioned,” Icarus, Vol. 28, No. 4, August 1976, pp. 551-558. Richardus, P., and R. K. Adler, Map Projections, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1972. Lowell, Percival, Memoirs of the American Academy of Sciences, Vol. 12, 1897 (1902), p. 431; or Popular As- 122 tronomy, Vol. 4, 1896-7, Plate 32, p. 360. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Morrison, David, “IAU Nomenclature for Topograph- ic Features on Mercury, Icarus, Vol. 28, No. 4, August 1976, pp. 605-606. Transactions of the International Astronomical Union, Vol. 16B, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1977. Map prepared by A. Dollfus. Rudaux, M. Lucien, “La Planète Mercure,” Bulletin de la Société astronomique de France et revue mensuelle d'astronomie, de météorologie et de physique du globe, Paris, 1928, p. 191. The Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Vol. 46, No. 10, October 1936, Plate I: Planispheres of Mercury drawn by Jarry-Desloges in 1920, facing p. 357. McEwen, H., “Mercury, Part III,” The Journal of the British Astronomical Association, A.S.D. Maunder (ed.), Vol. 39, No. 8, London, 1928-1929, Plate 8, Figure 4, facing p. 311. McEwen, H., “The Markings of Mercury,” The Jour- nal of the British Astronomical Association, Peter Doig (ed.), Vol. 36, Neill and Co., Ltd., Edinburgh, 1936, pp. 382-389. Cruikshank, D. P., and C. R. Chapman, “Mercury's 31. 32. 34. 36. Rotation and Visual Observations,” Sky and Telescope, Vol. 34, July 1967, p. 25. Camichel, Henri, and Audouin Dollfus, “La Rotation et la cartographie de la planete Mercure,” Icarus, Vol. 8, 1968, p. 221. Murray, J. B., A. Dollfus, and B. Smith, “Cartography of the Surface Markings of Mercury,” Icarus, Vol. 17, 1972, p. 581. . Davies, M. E., and R. M. Batson, “Surface Coordinates and Cartography of Mercury, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2417-2430. Davies, M. E., and F. Y. Katayama, The Control Net of Mercury: November 1976, The Rand Corporation, R-2089-NASA, November 1976. . Danielson, G. E., Jr., K. P. Klaasen, and J. L. Ander- son, “Acquisition and Description of Mariner 10 Televi- sion Science Data at Mercury,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 1975, pp. 2357-2393. Soha, J. M., D. J. Lynn, J. J. Lorre, J. A. Mosher, N. N. Thayer, D. A. Elliot, W. D. Benton, and R. E. Dewar, “IPL Processing of the Mariner 10 Images of Mercury,” J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, No. 17, June 10, 1975, pp. 2394-2414. 123 Gazetteer Craters Abu Nuwas Africanus Horton Ahmad Baba Alencar Al-Hamadhani Al-Jāhiz Amru Al-Qays Andal Aristoxenes Asvaghosa Bach Balagtas Balzac Bartók Bashö Beethoven Bello Bernini Boccaccio Boethius Botticelli Brahms Bramante Bronte Brunelleschi Byron Callicrates Camdes Carducci Cervantes Chaikovskij Chao Meng-Fu Chekov Chiang K’ui Chöng Ch’él Chopin Chu Ta Coleridge Copley Couperin Dario Degas Delacroix Derzhavin Despréz Dickens Donne Dostoevskij Dowland Durer Dvořák Eitoku Equiano Futabatei Gauguin Ghiberti Giotto Gluck Goethe Goya Guido d'Arezzo Handel Harunobu Hawthorne Haydn Heine Hesiod Hiroshige Hitomaro Holbein Holberg Homer Horace Hugo Hun Kal Ibsen Ictinus Imhotep lves Jokai Quadrangle 1 2, H-15 -11 *:w H -1 2 ; 1 i H 1 2 ; 2, H-15 ; | H - 1 2 i H-12, H-13 H-12, H-13 H-3, H-7 H-6 H-8, H-12 H-11 H-7 H-1, H-3 H-11 H-6 H-2 H-1 H-8 H-11 H-6 H-7 H-12 H-11 H-3 H-1 1 H-6 H-6 | I-2 H-11, H-15 H-6 H-1 1 , | I-15 H-2 H-6, H-11 H-15 H-6 H-12 H-1 Latitude (deg) 17.5 -50.5 58.5 -63.5 39 1.5 13 -47 82 11 -69 -22 11 -29 -32 -20 - 18.5 -79.5 -87.5 -64.5 -:44.5 44.5 81 -73 -:44.5 22 -9.5 -21.5 -39 -15.5 66.5 -.48 12.5 37.5 79.5 -6.5 -38 15.5 -51 -26.5 33 -13 -16 35.5 -66.5 -68 5 39 -0.5 -24 - 17.5 -32.5 72.5 Longitude (deg) 21 42 127 104 89.5 22 176 38.5 11 21 103 14 145 135 170.5 124 120.5 136 30 74 1 10 177 62 126.5 22.5 33 32 70 90 122 50.5 132 61.5 103 116 124 106 66.5 85.5 152 10 127 129.5 35.5 92 153 177 180 119.5 12.5 157.5 31 83.5 97 80 56 18.5 4.4 1 52.5 19 3.4 1.41 116 71.5 12.4.5 35.5 27 1 (5 29 61 36.5 52 .# 7.5 20 36 1.65 37.5 1 12 136 Diameter (km) 115 120 115 3.4() 135 50 15() 100 100 230 (55 90 1-40 105 85 ($6 320 .18 19() 1.5 160 1 10 160 20 85 Page 108, 116 58, 108 74, 108 Craters Judah Ha-Levi Kālidasá Keats Kenkö Khansa Kuan Han-ch'ing Kuiper Kurosawa Leopardi Lermontov Liang K'ai Li Ch'ing-Chao Li Po Lu Hsun Lysippus Ma Chih-Yuan Machaut Mahler Mansart Mansur March Mark, Twain Marti Martial Matisse Melville Mena Mendes Pinto Michelangelo Mickiewicz Milton Mistral Mofolo Molière Monet Monteverdi Mozart Murasaki Mussorgskij Myron Nampeyo Nervo Neumann Nizami Ovid Petrarch Phidias Philoxenus Pigalle. Po Chu-l PO Ya Polygnotus Praxiteles Proust Puccini Purcell Pushkin Rabelais Rajnis Rameau Raphael Renoir Repin Riemenschneider Rilke Rodin Rubens Rublev Rudaki Sadi Saikaku Sarmiento Sayat-Nova Scarlatti Schoenberg Schubert Scopas Sei Shakespeare Shelley Quadrangle i ; : 1 : 1 1 H -4 i , H-15 1:o 1 1 H 1 5 1, H-15 1 1 H- 6 5 : : * H-12 2 Latitude (deg) 11.5 - 17.5 -69.5 -21 -44.5 23.5 -25.5 -37 16 44 64 -12 71 -39.5 43 -36.5 71.5 -69.5 -30 -37 -6.5 -45.5 27 -64.5 81 -59.5 -54 - 19.5 - 18 - 19 -52.5 -44.5 22 59.5 -14.5 .775 73 -28.5 -27.5 40.5 -15.5 -42 -63.5 48.5 -47.5 Longitude (deg) 108 180 154 16.5 52 53 Diameter (km) 85 110 110 90 100 155 60 180 69 160 105 60 120 95 150 170 105 100 75 75 55 140 63 45 210 1.45 20 170 200 115 175 100 90 1 40 250 130 225 125 115 30 40 50 100 70 40 160 155 95 130 60 90 130 175 140 110 80 200 130 85 50 350 220 95 120 70 240 180 125 120 60 80 115 125 135 30 160 95 130 350 1.45 108, 116 58, 9.4 40, 74 82, 108 94, 116 9.4, 116 32, 58 124 Quadrangle H-11 : ; , H-15 i i : i 1 3. H- 6 - 1 ;y H- 3 H- 1 2 5 H- 3 2, H-15 1 2 5 Longitude (deg) 47 86.5 30 83.5 146.5 141.5 165 159 135 169 143 86 Mountains (Montes) Caloris Plains (Planitiae) Borealis Budh Caloris Odin Sobkou Suisei Tir Ridges (Dorsa) Antoniadi Schiaparelli Scarps (Rupes) Adventure Astrolabe Discovery Endeavour Fram Gjóa Heemskerck Hero Mirni Pourquois-Pas Resolution Santa Maria Victoria Vostok Zarya Zeehaen Valleys (Valles) Arecibo Goldstone Haystack Simeiz Quadrangle H-3, H-4 H-8 i i 3: sº º º #. ; H- 6 esºe i * 2 2 1 ;i i : 1 Craters Shevchenko Sholem Aleichem Sinan Snorri Sophocles Sor Juana Sötatsu Spitteler Stravinsky Strindberg Sullivan Sür Dās Surikov Takayoshi Tansen Thakur Theophanes Tintoretto Titian Tolstoj Ts'ai Wen-chi Ts'ao Chan Tsurayuki Tung Yuan Turgenev Tyagaraja Unkei Ustad Isa Valmiki Van Dijck Van Eyck Van Gogh Velázquez Verdi Vincente Vivaldi Vyāsa Wagner Wang Meng Wergeland Wren Yakovlev Yeats Yun Sön-Do Zeami Zola Latitude (deg) 114 104 56.5 36 163.5 109 148 178 Diameter (km) 130 190 140 20 145 80 130 32, 58 Latitude (deg) 22 40 -27 -15 5 -12.5 Longitude (deg) 180 180 80 148 195 171 130 150 177 30 164 Page 40, 82 94 58 58 58 125 Acknowledgments We would like to express our thanks and appreciation to Raymond M. Batson, Chief Cartographer of the Mer- cury series of maps, and to airbrush artists Jay L. Inge, Patricia M. Bridges, and Susan L. Davis, all of the U.S. Geological Survey (Branch of Astrogeological Studies) at Flagstaff, Arizona, for their help and patience in adapting their maps to the Atlas format. Inge was re- sponsible for the H-1, H-6, and H-15 maps, Bridges for the H-3, H-7, H-8, and H-12 maps and Davis for the H-2 and H-11 maps. We are grateful to the many people at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Boeing Aircraft Company who made the Mariner 10 mission a success. We recognize that the project was in existence for many years and that the “team” consisted of hundreds of people who contributed to the design, manufacture, and testing of the space- craft, to mission operations, and to mission management. We would like to mention a few of the people we worked with during this phase of our lives. At NASA Head- quarters, N. William Cunningham efficiently managed the program. Also contributing were Arnold C. Belcher, Maurice E. Binkley, Stephen C. Hiett, Henry E. Holt, James C. Hood, Diane M. Mangel, Nicholas W. Panagakos, Guenter K. Strobel, Margaret S. Ware, and Althea R. Washington. . At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, we valued our as- sociation with W. Eugene Giberson, the project manager, his deputies John R. Casani and Victor C. Clarke, Jr., and project scientist James A. Dunne, and appreciate their dedication to the project. We worked with many out- standing people at JPL on the project and would like to mention a few: Dallas F. Beauchamp, Wailen E. Bennett, Frank E. Bristow, Frank Colella, Virgil B. Combs, Vincent L. Evanchuk, Richard M. Goldstein, William B. Green, Mark Herring, A. Adrian Hooke, Ralph A. Johansen, Jeremy B. Jones, Kenneth P. Klaasen, Lawrence K. Koga, Susan K. La Voie, Gerald S. Levy, Donald J. Lynn, Robert J. MacMillin, David D. Norris, Donna Shirley Pivirotto, William I. Purdy, Jr., Michael J. Sander, James M. Soha, Anthony J. Spear, Ronald C. Spriestersbach, Gael F. Squibb, Norma J. Stetzel, David L. Thiessen, Robert I. Toombs, Fred E. Vescelus, Peter B. Whitehead, and Steven J. Zawacki. From the Boeing Aircraft Corporation we appreci- ated the efforts of James M. Ellis, James J. Farrell, Merlyn J. Flakus, Charles W. Luke, and Rod A. Zieger. We are indebted to James A. Dunne, JPL, John F. McCauley, USGS, and Ermine van der Wyk, JPL, for valuable and timely review of draft manuscripts. Finally we would like to recognize Bruce C. Murray for his energetic and dedicated leadership of the tele- vision team and his encouragement in the preparation of this Atlas. 126 To order copies of the photographs and mosaics in this Atlas, send the picture number (left column below) to the National Space Science Data Center, Code 601, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771. The shaded, relief maps are reproductions of the U.S. Geological Survey 1:5,000,000 series; they may be or- dered by I number from Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey, 1200 So. Eads Street, Arlington, Virginia 22202 or Box 25286, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225. The I number may be found from the H number appearing on the map, as follows: H-1 . . . . . . . . . . I-1056 H-8 . . . . . . . . . . I-993 H-2 . . . . . . . . . . I-1057 H-11 . . . . . . . . . I-1030 H-3 . . . . . . . . . . I-1066 H-12 . . . . . . . . . I-1067 H-6 . . . . . . . . . . I-960 H-15 . . . . . . . . . I-959 H-7 . . . . . . . . . . I-1029 $1.50 for each map Figure Page Photomosaic Page 17 21 3-D 48 18 22 3-E 49 19 23 3-F . 56 20 24 6-A 59 21 25 6-B 60 Shaded Relief Map : . H-1 26 {- 6-E 68 H-2 32 7-A 75 H-3 40 7-B 76 H-6 58 7-C 77 H-7 74 7-D 78 H-8 82 7-E 79 H-11 94 8-A 83 H-12 108 H-15 116 8-B 84 8-C 85 Photomosaic 8-D 88 1-A 27 8-E 89 1-B 28 11-A 95 2-A 33 11-B 96 2-B 34 11-C 97 2-C 35 11-D 100 3-A 41 11-E 101 3-B 42 12-A 109 Photomosiac 12-C 12-D 12-E 15-A 15-B 15-C Footprint 1-F1 1-F2 2-F1 2-F2 2-F3 2-F4 2-F5 3-F1 3-F2 3-F3 6-F1 6-F2 6-F3 6-F4 6-F5 7-F1 7-F2 8-F1 8-F2 8-F3 11-F1 11-F2 11-F3 11-F4 12-F1 15-F1 Picture 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 2-1 2-2 FDS 152 148 164 81 529078 529082 85 83 89 529086 5290.98 •w Page 111 112 113 117 118 119 29 30 36 36 37 37 38 44 50 56 62 65 67 69 71 80 80 86 87 90 98 102 105 106 114 120 29 29 30 30 31 31 31 31 31 36 36 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 2-13 2-14 2-15 2-16 2-17 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3–23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-32 Picture FDS 529108 5288.13 528817 528875 528814 27328 27325 27342 27327 528876 528874 27341 5288.25 5288.18 90 80 81 91 92 93 94 79 98 99 95 96 100 97 78 77 102 103 104 105 106 107 74 42 108 109 43 44 72 47 71 49 Page 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 39 39 44 44 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 50 50 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 54 54 54 54 Index 3-C 43 12-B 110 127 2-3 55 529105 529104 36 3-33 128 Picture FDS 3-34 5.29094 3-35 180 . 3-36 529038 3-37 529057 3-38 529056 3-39 528971 3-40 528998 3-41 528996 3-42 529054 3-43 529055 6-1 27457 6-2 27456 6-3 27455 6-4 27453 6-5 27452 6-6 27.445 6-7 27.447 6-8 27448 6-9 27439 6-10 27475 6-11 27459 6-12 528877 6-13 5288.78 6-14 27449 6-15 528879 6-16 528880 6-17 27476 6-18 166638 166775 6-19 27.301 166643 6-20 27.301 166649 6-21 27304 166478 6-22 27477 6-23 27473 6-24 274.71 6-25 27.472 6–26 528921 6-27 528922 6-28 27436 6–29 27474 6-30 27.462 6-31 1048575 6-32 000 Page 55 55 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 65 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 71 R. L Page 72 72 72 72 72 73 73 73 73 73 80 80 80 80 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 86 86 86 87 87 90 90 91 91 91 91 92 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 98 98 27421 166601 166651 27387 166592 27.420 27387 166667 166603 166658 274.17 166672 166733 274.17 166652 27424 27.426 27.427 27428 27370 27470 27370 1664.79 27423 27422 27.463 27.469 27.465 27419 274.18 274.64 27466 27398 166481 528881 528882 528883 528884 27401 1666.25 27.399 166613 27381 1664.79 166850 232 :: : . Page 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 102 102 102 103 103 103 103 103 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 106 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 114 114 12-2 12-3 12-4 12-5 12-6 12-7 12-8 12-9 12-10 12-11 12-12 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 15-6 15-7 15-8 15-9 15-10 15-11 15-12 Picture FDS 166842 233 166844 236 167015 240 166904 238 1668.33 242 166605 166723 166672 166727 166725 1668.23 166750 166836 166750 166841 166604 166672 1666.17 166687 1666.23 166756 1666.23 166755 1666.28 166690 166616 166677 166684 166822 27.285 1666.15 1666.21 166687 1666.28 166689 166688 166751 27405 1666.27 27292 Page 114 114 114 114 114 114 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 Picture FDS 6-33 27431 27430 6-34 27461 6-35 527907 527908 6-36 528914 6-37 27.460 6-38 528912 6-39 528913 6-40 27434 7-1 529020 7-2 529017 7-3 529102 7-4 5291.10 7-5 166815 207 7-6 166815 207 7-7 166792 208 7-8 166822 211 7-9 166697 166778 7-10. 166696 166794 8-1 115 8-2 123 8-3 119 8-4 1223 8-5 1229 8-6 120 8-7 63 8-8 125 8-9 60 8–10 62 8-11 57 8-12 116 8-13 68 8-14 54 8-15 67 8-16 112 8-17 49 8-18 69 8-19 51 11-1 27403 166614 Picture FDS 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 11-11 11-12 11-13 11-14 11-15 11-16 11-17 11-18 11-19 11-20 11-21 11-22 11-23 11-24 11-25 11-26 11-27 11-28 11-29 11-30 12-1 1666.26 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1978 O–247–681 |||||||||I|| 5 01717 4734 00T 9 1979 THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN DATE DUE net 7 gig *R 1 0 1983 § A . . º: * JUN 19 2000 - DO NOT REMOVE [JR MUTILATE GARD