1 / 29

Clark R. Chapman

Also see: Chapman, Cohen, Grinspoon (2007), Icarus 189 , 233-245. Late Heavy Bombardment: Evidence From Cratering Histories of the Moon, Planets, Satellites, and Asteroids. Clark R. Chapman. Southwest Research Institute, Boulder CO.

porter
Download Presentation

Clark R. Chapman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Also see: Chapman, Cohen, Grinspoon (2007), Icarus 189, 233-245. Late Heavy Bombardment: Evidence From Cratering Histories of the Moon, Planets, Satellites, and Asteroids Clark R. Chapman Southwest Research Institute, Boulder CO 39th AAS/DPS Meeting Orlando, Florida “Exploring the Lunar Late Heavy Bombardment” #46.01, 10:30 a.m., 11 October 2007

  2. Lunar Impact Basins Basins are common on Mars, Mercury, Ganymede, Callisto, Iapetus, Rhea, Tethys, Vesta, and other bodies. But (except possibly Vesta), we have no absolute radiometric ages for these basins. While they may all have been created during the same epoch, interpretations about when they formed come only from indirect dynamical and geophysical arguments. • The Moon, like most solid-surfaced bodies in the solar system, is covered with multi-ringed impact basins. • Paul Spudis’ map (lower left) shows only the most prominent ones. • Wilhelms, Spudis, and Wood believe that there are at least 45 basins, many highly degraded. • Nectaris and younger frontside basins have been approximately dated, from argued geological associations with dated lunar rocks. • At least 2/3rds of all basins are pre-Nectarian.

  3. Late Heavy Bombardment… or “Terminal Cataclysm” After Wilhelms (1987) • Proposed in 1973 by Tera et al. who noted a peak in radiometric ages of lunar samples between ~4.0 and ~3.8 Ga • Wilhelms (1987) documents a sharply declining basin-formation rate between Nectaris (~3.92 Ga) and final basin, Orientale (~3.82 Ga) • There are few rock ages, and virtually noimpact melt ages, prior to 3.92 Ga (probable Nectaris age) (Ryder, 1990) • Basins produce copious melts (~10% of involved materials) • Small craters produce small amounts of melt because efficiency of melt-production increases with crater size and basin-forming projectiles volumetrically dominate shallow SFD • So impact melts should be a robust marker of the history of basin formation (Cohen, last talk) ? (Cumulative) Crater Density Implies: short, 50-100 Myr bombardment, with minimal earlier basin formation between crustal formation and this LHB LHB

  4. Schematic Representations of Lunar Cratering History Alternatives • Can various steady declining flux models have a high enough rate at 3.9 Ga without being too massive early on? (Destroy the crust, contaminate it…or require unrealistically massive projectile population.) • From cratering/age-dating perspective, we can’t observe the history before 4.0 Ga. Strom et al. (2006) Zahnle et al. (2007)

  5. What Happened Before Nectaris? (i.e. before 3.90 - 3.92 [4.1?] Ga) • Fragmentary geology remains from earlier times. • 50% of Wilhelms’ “definite” basins pre-date Nectaris (and 70% of all “definite”+“probable”+“possible” ones). • Surprisingly, almost no impact melts pre-date Nectaris Basin. How could the earlier basins not produce melts? Perhaps those melts are somehow “hidden” from being collected! (Even though some pre-Nectarian rocks exist.) • During the long period from crustal solidification until the oldest known basins, there was (or was not) a “lull” in basin formation (and thus a cataclysm). • Weak contraints: • Lunar crust intact (constrains top-heavy size-distribution) • Minimal meteoritic contamination (perhaps projectile material preferentially lost)

  6. Large Crater (Basin) on Vesta • “Crater”, seen edge-on with prominent central peak in HST image, is ~460 km in diameter, nearly as large as Vesta itself: it is a basin! • It is plausible, but unproven, that this basin was the source of the numerous “Vestoid” asteroids and thus for the HED achondritic meteorites. • Ar-Ar ages for eucrites range from 4.3 to 3.2 Ga, an interval much longer than the lunar LHB, but centered on the same epoch. • However, the “fresh”, fairly un-space-weathered spectra of Vesta and Vestoids suggest that the basin formed recently. • Yet a long-standing mystery is that Vesta wasn’t cratered even more: its basaltic crust has remained largely intact. Smaller bodies have comparatively large craters, too. But Stickney (10 km diam.) is not a “basin”.

  7. Lunar, HED Rock Resetting Ages The LHB, as defined by basin ages, is a narrow range (100 Myr LHB shown by pink box). Predominant lunar rock ages range from 3.6 to 4.2 Ga. (Impact melts are restricted to <4.0 Ga.) So rock ages correlate poorly with basin ages. HED meteorite ages range from 3.2 to 4.3 Ga. So bombardment in the asteroid belt extended ~300 Myr after end of lunar rock degassings… or there are selection biases. [Data summarized by Bogard (1995)] Moon HED Parent Body(Vesta?) Age span for small lunar melts (Cohen et al., 2000) Time 3.3 4.4

  8. A New Look at the “Stonewall”: Is the LHB a “Misconception”? • Saturation by 30-100 km craters would have pulverized/destroyed early melt-rocks (Hartmann, 1975, 2003), creating artificial rock-age spike. • But “it is patently not the case” that all rocks would have been reset or “pulverized to fine powder” (Hartmann et al., 2000 [presumably one of his co-authors]). • Comminution by a couple generations of large-crater saturation is NOT like modern churning of uppermost meters of regolith [next slide]. • Grinspoon’s (1989) mathematical model seemed to verify the stonewall effect. • But it is a 2-D model; he converts 100% of crater floor to melt while the real percent (volumetrically) is much less. • If melt preferentially veneers surface and older veneers are covered up, then the 2-D model could approximate the 3-D reality.

  9. Size Distributions: Values of Differential Power-Law Index b

  10. Crater Production Function: Areal and Volumetric Implications Standard Function from Neukum & Ivanov (1994) b= - 4: equal mass b= - 3: equal area, saturation equilibrium   .: ::. :..: • Crater size distribution is not a simple power-law • Areal saturation is dominated by • craters 100 meters to 2 km diameter (surficial regolith) • craters 30 km to 100 km diameter (which penetrate down kilometers) • Volumetric processing is dominated by largest craters/basins • “Steep” size distribution for <1 km craters churns/comminutes upper few meters of lunar soil (particle sizes <100 microns)   .: ::.    .: ::.    .: ::.   .: ::.

  11. We Need to Model the 3-D Emplacement/Collection of Melts • Model needs: (building on work by L. Haskin and students) • %-tage melt production as function of diameter • 3-D mapping of emplacement of melts and other ejecta • time-history of megaregolith excavation, deposition, and “churning”, varying the impactor size-distribution • gardening/impact destruction near surface over last ~3.5 Gyr • analysis of collection/selection criteria and biases • Some qualitative sampling biases are clear: • if each new basin distributes its melts uniformly throughout the volume of the megaregolith, and churns earlier melts uniformly, then impact melts collected at the surface should sample the basin formation history in an unbiased fashion. • If each new basin distributes melts in a surface veneer, and older melts are covered by ejecta blankets, then surface sampling will be dominated by most recent basin.

  12. South Pole-Aitken, Orientale:What are their Absolute Ages? • South-Pole Aitken is relatively old and very large: is its age 4.3 or 4.0 Ga? • Orientale is the youngest basin. But is its age 3.72 or 3.84? • If the “Vision” lunar program is able to date samples that are unambiguously associated with these basins, then we can determine the duration of the LHB. • The crater Cantor is in between the two basins and close to both. We could sample near it.

  13. Basin Ages (Stöffler & Ryder, 2001, Space Science Reviews: critical re-evaluation of isotopic ages of lunar geologic units.) • Numerous un-certainties remain in the association of dated samples to specific basins • Bottke et al. (2007) explore extremes: Nectaris as old as 4.12 Ga, Imbrium as young as 3.72 Ga

  14. Production of Late Basins? • Planetesimals left over after terrestrial planet formation have a main-belt-like size distribution. • They are dynamically depleted (just like modern-day Near-Earth Asteroids) and collisionally evolve. • The lunar impact flux declines by 4 orders of mag. by the time visible lunar basins formed. • In order to form the 4 largest, most reliably dated basins during broadest allowed time interval for LHB, initial planetesimal population must have ~1 to 10 Earth masses! • To avoid a ridiculously massive solar nebula in the terrestrial planet region, there must be a late cataclysm to produce even a few basins around 3.9 Ga. (Bottke et al., 2007, Icarus: Can planetesimals left over from planetary formation form basins as late as 4.1 to 3.7 or 3.8 Ga?)

  15. Basin Degradation due to Viscous Relaxation (Baldwin, 2006) Baldwin’s Crater Degradation Classes • Lunar viscosity 1025 poises at 4.3 Ga, increased factor of 4 by time Orientale formed • Viscosity would have had to increase an (unphysical) factor of ~40 if all basins were formed during a short LHB • Assumption: degradation is by viscosity only; not by erosion, filling, crater overlap, etc. Basin Class Calc. Age Orientale 2 3.8 Ga Imbrium 3 3.84 Ga Crisium 4 3.91 Ga Nectaris 7 4.1 Ga Humorum 9 4.23 Ga Werner–Airy 10 4.3 Ga

  16. “Recent” Basins on Terrestrial Bodies The single Martian meteorite with a resetting age ~4.0 Ga Caloris on Mercury Orientale on the Moon Argyre on Mars

  17. Martian Basins and Chronology • Mars has prominent basins (Argyre, Hellas, etc.) • Frey et al. (2007), who have been studying Quasi-Circular Depressions (QCDs) from MOLA, find numerous old basin-sized features • There is a tendency for the Mars community to regard these features as being very old, pre-Noachian, perhaps ~4.3 Ga (using the widely adopted cratering chronologies of Neukum and Hartmann, both of whom are skeptical of a cataclysmic LHB). • But the chronology for ancient Mars is unknown, except for the resetting age of a single rock of unknown provenance. • If an LHB spike occurred on the Moon after 4.0 Ga, then it probably occurred on Mars (and Mercury, and throughout the inner solar system) as well, and all of Frey’s QCDs could be younger than 4.0 Ga. • The pre-Noachian and Noachian could be very compressed in time, perhaps with a burst of impact-produced heating and watery climate.

  18. Main-Belt Asteroids Caused the LHB (Strom et al., 2005) • Shape of main-belt asteroid SFD matches lunar highland craters • Shape of NEA SFD matches lunar maria craters • Size-selective processes bring NEAs from main belt to Earth/Moon • A solely gravitational process bringing main-belt asteroids into Earth-crossing orbits could produce highland SFD (e.g. resonance sweeping) • BUT, main-belt SFD may not be unique…could reflect a collisionally evolved population anywhere in the solar system • The “Nice Model” could produce a comet shower followed by an asteroid shower (Morbidelli, next talk)

  19. Basins on Galilean Satellites Valhalla on Callisto Gilgamesh on Ganymede

  20. Odysseus on Tethys

  21. Iapetus Iapetus

  22. Cratering in the Jovian System (R. Strom) Approx. SFD for Ganymede (Galileo)

  23. Saturn Satellite Cratering (in a Solar System Context) Closed symbols = Hyperion Open symbols = Phoebe Cassini counts by P. Thomas (J. Richardson, this meeting) From Chapman & McKinnon (1986)

  24. Saturnian Impactor Population Asteroidal impactors for inner solar system (Bottke et al. 2005, O’Brien et al. 2005) Phoebe Saturnian system impactor population (Jim Richardson, this meeting)

  25. The Neukum Model • The size-distribution (SFD) of craters on the lunar highlands is the same as on the maria. • The SFD of asteroids that struck the Moon has been the same from 4.3 Ga through the LHB period to the present day. • Satellites of Saturn and Jupiter have the same SFD as do craters on the Moon (with a “shift”). • Therefore, outer solar system (OSS) cratering was mainly by asteroids, not comets. • The “shift”? The OSS SFD may match the lunar SFD, but only by shifting it, in the sense that the asteroids strike at low, planetocentric velocities! • To Neukum, the LHB is mainly an unremarkable stage in a generally monotonically declining flux beginning when the lunar crust solidified; on many bodies (Mars, Iapetus) we can see back to 4.3 to 4.4 Ga according to Neukum. ? Saturn’s moons are cratered by asteroids in Saturnicentric orbits???

  26. It is not just the interpretations that differ: the data disagree! • Neukum says lunar/Martian production function shape was the same during LHB and present; Strom says it changed dramatically Strom We need to understand why these differences persist! Neukum

  27. Outer Solar System Basins • Crater size distribution differences between terrestrial planets and OSS satellites suggest – consistent with dynamical simulations – that OSS cratering is primarily by comets/KBOs. But, there are caveats: • Basin SFD could reflect viscous relaxation of features • Planetocentric impactors could be important (Pop. 2) • Comet/KBO size distribution is poorly known • We have zero direct knowledge of the absolute geological chronology for OSS satellites. • If there was no OSS LHB, the observable basins could have formed as soon as crusts solidified. • For heavily cratered terrains, we don’t know how many generations of super-saturation have happened. • If the cratering rate has remained high (perhaps augmented by cratering by planetocentric bodies), then OSS basins could be unexpectedly young… consistent with a cumulative history of bombardment that might have destroyed small moons, creating even more planetocentric bombardment. • Studies of OSS cratering statistics provide information on relative stratigraphic chronology only!

  28. Conclusions • Basin formation has been ubiquitous in the solar system • On the Moon, many basins formed just before an abrupt halt 3.8 Ga • Plausibly a cataclysm 4.0 – 3.8 Ga • But bombardment flux is uncertain between 4.3 and 4.0 Ga • Earth must have undergone same LHB • Plausibly, Mars, Mercury, and Venus had same LHB (asteroidal) • But there is no direct age data • Mercury could have had later vulcanoid bombardment • Observable Martian geological record formed since 4.0 Ga • Outer solar system bombardment was by different, non-asteroidal impactor population/s • Presumably comets, possibly at similar epoch as LHB (e.g. Nice model) • Saturation, planetocentric cratering adds complexity • Virtually no chronological constraints

  29. Qualitative Features of LHBs (divide by 3 if Nectaris is 4.1 Ga) K-T • On Earth, 1 “Chicxulub” (K-T boundary event, 100 million MT) every 10,000 years. • Each kills virtually every complex lifeform, most fossilizable species go extinct, radiation of many new species • One basin-forming event (10 billion MT!) every 500,000 years. • Each erodes atmosphere, transforms ecosphere, boils oceans • Total LHB: ~100 basins, 1000s of K-T events. The 100 Myr bom-bardment would devastate life. What does it take to sterilize planet Earth???

More Related