Large impact cratering during lunar magma ocean solidification

The lunar cratering record is used to constrain the bombardment history of both the Earth and the Moon. However, it is suggested from different perspectives, including impact crater dating, asteroid dynamics, lunar samples, impact basin-forming simulations, and lunar evolution modelling, that the Moon could be missing evidence of its earliest cratering record. Here we report that impact basins formed during the lunar magma ocean solidification should have produced different crater morphologies in comparison to later epochs. A low viscosity layer, mimicking a melt layer, between the crust and mantle could cause the entire impact basin size range to be susceptible to immediate and extreme crustal relaxation forming almost unidentifiable topographic and crustal thickness signatures. Lunar basins formed while the lunar magma ocean was still solidifying may escape detection, which is agreeing with studies that suggest a higher impact flux than previously thought in the earliest epoch of Earth-Moon evolution.

Crustal porosity reveals the bombardment history of the Moon

Planetary bombardment histories provide critical information regarding the formation and evolution of the Solar System and of the planets within it. These records evidence transient instabilities in the Solar System’s orbital evolution, giant impacts such as the Moon-forming impact, and material redistribution. Such records provide insight into planetary evolution, including the deposition of energy, delivery of materials, and crustal processing, specifically the modification of porosity. Bombardment histories are traditionally constrained from the surface expression of impacts — these records, however, are degraded by various geologic processes. Here we show that the Moon’s porosity contains a more complete record of its bombardment history. We find that the terrestrial planets were subject to double the number of ≥20-km-diameter-crater-forming impacts than are recorded on the lunar highlands, fewer than previously thought to have occurred. We show that crustal porosity doesn’t slowly increase as planets evolve, but instead is generated early in a planet’s evolution when most basins formed and decreases as planets evolve. We show that porosity constrains the relative ages of basins formed early in a planet’s evolution, a timeframe for which little information exists. These findings demonstrate that the Solar System was less violent than previously thought. Fewer volatiles and other materials were delivered to the terrestrial planets, consistent with estimates of the delivery of siderophiles and water to the Moon. High crustal porosity early in the terrestrial planets’ evolution slowed their cooling and enhanced their habitability. Several lunar basins formed early than previously considered, casting doubt on the existence of a late heavy bombardment.

History of the Terminal Cataclysm Paradigm: Epistemology of a Planetary Bombardment That Never (?) Happened

This study examines the history of the paradigm concerning a lunar (or solar-systemwide)terminal cataclysm (also called “Late Heavy Bombardment” or LHB), a putative, brief spikein impacts at ~3.9 Ga ago, preceded by low impact rates. We examine origin of the ideas, why theywere accepted, and why the ideas are currently being seriously revised, if not abandoned. Thepaper is divided into the following sections:1. Overview of paradigm.2. Pre-Apollo views (1949-1969).3. Initial suggestions of cataclysm (ca. 1974).4. Ironies.5. Alternative suggestions, megaregolith evolution (1970s).6. Impact melt rocks “establish” cataclysm (1990).7. Imbrium redux (ca. 1998).8. Impact melt clasts (early 2000s).9. Dating of front-side lunar basins?10. Dynamical models “explain” the cataclysm (c. 2000s).11. Asteroids as a test case.12. Impact melts predating 4.0 Ga ago (ca. 2008-present.).13. Biological issues.14. Growing doubts (ca. 1994-2014).15. Evolving Dynamical Models (ca. 2001-present).16. Connections to lunar origin.17. Dismantling the paradigm (2015-2018).18. “Megaregolith Evolution Model” for explaining the data.19. Conclusions and new directions for future work.The author hopes that this open-access discussion may prove useful for classroom discussionsof how science moves forward through self-correction of hypotheses.

Lunar impact basins revealed by Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory measurements

Observations from the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission indicate a marked change in the gravitational signature of lunar impact structures at the morphological transition, with increasing diameter, from complex craters to peak-ring basins. At crater diameters larger than ~200 km, a central positive Bouguer anomaly is seen within the innermost peak ring, and an annular negative Bouguer anomaly extends outward from this ring to the outer topographic rim crest. These observations demonstrate that basin-forming impacts remove crustal materials from within the peak ring and thicken the crust between the peak ring and the outer rim crest. A correlation between the diameter of the central Bouguer gravity high and the outer topographic ring diameter for well-preserved basins enables the identification and characterization of basins for which topographic signatures have been obscured by superposed cratering and volcanism. The GRAIL inventory of lunar basins improves upon earlier lists that differed in their totals by more than a factor of 2. The size-frequency distributions of basins on the nearside and farside hemispheres of the Moon differ substantially; the nearside hosts more basins larger than 350 km in diameter, whereas the farside has more smaller basins. Hemispherical differences in target properties, including temperature and porosity, are likely to have contributed to these different distributions. Better understanding of the factors that control basin size will help to constrain models of the original impactor population.

Craters and Tsunamis

Until the lunar explorations began in earnest in the 1960s, the Barringer crater in Arizona was believed to be one of the few, if not the only, impact crater on earth. Before the moon landings, many scientists thought that lunar craters were volcanic in origin and that the moon might be covered in a layer of volcanic dust meters thick so that astronauts would sink up to their eyeballs when disembarking from their space capsules. A pleasant sense of relief greeted the news that the first unmanned lunar spacecraft did not disappear into the dust. For a century or more it was doubted that lunar craters were produced by impacts because it was assumed that such craters would seldom be circular. It seemed obvious that circular craters could only be produced by objects falling straight down, a rare situation, since meteorites are likely to approach from random directions, especially on the moon where there is no atmosphere to slow them down before impact. W. M. Smart in 1928 stated this explicitly: “Objections to lunar craters being caused by meteors is that the craters are round and there is no a priori reason why meteors should fall vertically and in no other direction.” He also shuddered at the notion that the impactors would have to be as large as asteroids to create the lunar basins. At about the same time, Thomas Chamberlin ruled out impacts on the moon because there was no evidence for an appropriate population of objects anywhere in the solar system that could have made the craters That was in 1928 when near-earth asteroids had not yet been found, and when little was known about the history of the moon or the formation of the solar system. Richard A. Proctor in 1896, however, had concluded that because so many meteors continued to fall to earth that the planet and the solar system were still forming. To him, this made more sense than to blame the formation of the planets on “the creative fiats of the Almighty.” There is merit to his point of view, because today’s bombardment merely represents a faint, ongoing manifestation of the process of accretion that assembled the planets in the first place.