Some Comparisons of Impact Craters on Mercury and the Moon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOL. 80, NO. 17 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH JUNE 10, 1975 Some Cømparisonsof Impact Craters on Mercury and the Moon DONALD E. GAULT,x JOHN E. GUEST,9' JOHN B. MURRAY,2 DANIEL DZURISIN,a AND MICHAEL C. MALINa Although the general morphologiesof fresh mercurian and lunar craters are remarkably similar, comparisonsof ejectadeposits, interior structures, and changesin morphologywith sizereveal important differencesbetween the two populationsof craters.The differencesare attributableto the differentgravity fieldsin whichthe craterswere formed and have significant implications for theinterpretation of cratering processesand their effectson all planetarybodies. INTRODUCTION impactvelocities, possibly thermal history, etc., may have con- With additionalevidence from the Mariner 10 photography tributed some different effects, but the influenceof these of Mercury[Murray et al., 1974a,b], as Well as the recent radar variablesshould be of second-orderimportance, at best,i n observationsof Venus[Rumsey et al., 1974],it is now firmly es- comparisonwith the gravitationaleffects. There are, for exam- tablishedthat impact crateringhas been a geologicprocess of ple, compellingarguments [Murray et al., 1974b,1975] that the primary significancein the evolution of all the terrestrial fresh mercuriancraters, which are of interestfor comparative planets (and undoubtedlyall planetary objects).The heavily purposes,have been formed in silicatesat least grosslysimilar cratered surfacesof Mercury, the moon, and Mars document to those of the moon and, hence, would provide similar the earliest stagesof their planetary histories,and it is clear physicalproperties and responseduring crateringat the scale that a thoroughunderstanding of crateringprocesses and for- of impact events of interest (diameters greater than a few mation is essentialfor gaining further insightinto the early kilometers).Similarly, although impact velocities in excessof history and subsequent development of all the terrestrial 130 km/s are possiblefor Mercury, the averagemercurian im- planets. Although the early cratering record of earth has been pact velocitiesfor comparativepurposes are probably in the erasedirrevocably and lost by the action of other more active range of 25-30 km/s, within a factor of 2 greaterthan typical geologicprocesses, the recent and relatively young terrestrial lunar values [Wetherill, 1975]. Higher impact velocitieswill impact structureshave been important for an understanding provide increasesin the vapor and melt productsof the mer- and interpretationof lunar (and martian) cratersand cratering curian events,but the effectson the styleof crateringand final processes[e.g., Shoemaker,1962; Baldwin, 1963]. Conversely, crater morphology should be negligible. studies of lunar (martian) craters offer a means for com- It is the purpose of this paper therefore to present first parisonswith terrestrialcraters and crateringphenomena in resultsof somecomparisons of the morphologyof mercurian general [e.g., Hartmann, 1972]. However, suchempirical ap- and lunar cratersin order to explore differencesin cratering proachesto the study and evaluationof crateringon different style and final landforms caused by what are probably planetary bodieshave limitations;impact crateringis a com- predominatelydifferences in gravitational forcesand induced plex physicalprocess that is dependenton many parameters, stresses.In what follows, the morphology and examplesof and unless the functional dependences are known or mercuriancraters which were studiedin detail are followedby recognizedand relationshipsare established,cratering criteria a brief considerationof scaling(crater size) relationships, com- developedfrom cratersformed in one planetaryenvironment parisonsof quantitativemeasurements of ejectadeposits sur- may not be applicable to similar processesand effectsin a rounding craters, comparisonsof statisticsof interior crater different environment. Moreover, erosion of martian and ter- morphologicalelements, and discussionwith implicationsfor restrial craters by agents foreign to the moon has been so planetary cratering in general. severethat it seemsquestionable whether valid comparisons MORPHOLOGY OF MERCURIAN CRATERS can be made between craters on the three bodies; that is, the lack of fresh, sharp impact structureson earth and Mars The morphologyof mercuriancraters is grosslysimilar to precludes,or at leastobscures, evaluation of any differencesin that of lunar craters;i.e., the morphologicelements (rim facies, satelliticcraters, inner terracedwalls, central peak(s)and inner the cratering processesand crater forms arising from differencesin their planetary environment. mountain rings) that characterizelunar impact cratersare all In marked contrast, however, the mercurian craters from associatedwith craterson Mercury. As with the moon, it can the Mariner 10 photography provide comparisonswith lunar be demonstratedthat with increasingage the morphologyof craters under almost ideal 'experimental' conditions.With no cratersbecomes less sharp until most of the crater elementsare appreciableatmosphere having envelopedeither body since barely recognizableand the crater is degradedto a low rim the very earlieststages of their history nor any fluvial action superposedwith large numbersof impact craters.The domi- [Murray et al., 1974b,1975], only one prime crateringvariable nant denudation processis apparently, as on the moon, the has been different between the two crater populations, sameprocess which producedthe original crater, erosionand gravitationalacceleration. Differences in physicalproperties, sedimentationby meteoritic bombardment. The freshestcraters away from the terminator have well- developedand extensivebright ray systems,many of them ex- • Ames ResearchCenter, NASA, Moffett Field, California 94035. 2 University of London Observatory, Mill Hill Park, London, tendingfor hundredsof kilometersand a few extendingin ex- England. cessof 1000 km (Figure 1). Some cratersare also surrounded 3 Division of Geological and PlanetarySciences, California Institute by dark halos resemblingthose associatedwith such lunar of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109. craters as Tycho and Aristarchus; these are best seennear the Copyright¸ 1975by the AmericanGeophysical Union. limb underconditions approaching zero phaselighting. Other 2444 GAULT ET AL..' MARINER 10 MISSION 2445 .. %'•-•-".......•.- }, •. :-'"•:•:•,? :'7'.;.::'•.':'.7 '.': '., ' .•:•::':""....:-•3•.....--.:>•:•"•', • •,'" .:.-....-•.-'•< ,- ...... ., •...:.:•,• ': ..>Y:'•.•::•........... .... -. %' • ", .. C" :.-...... •'....•:: ?• '...:......•::•.,•: •.'•.' .'-.•. • '• •'• :--:•:•....:.•f: •.-....... •.•::•".:' .'.•..• .. ':', , :•.• , .• ' ..... ., . .?½:y....::..: :. ..•,..• . ., ,. r•:••.... ,.• :5' • "'. • -:'.:•.½ , ,:' ...."'::' ,.-•" ':'"•....• ":• : )• •' .•;•:..:.,•? ..•.:..:-•::.•. :..•,..::•..;.:-•::•.•) t. •,. ... • , -7:.•':.:..:•-.,.......•.;..... .:• • ,. •.• ., , • '• .... ..:.) .•....... ß . • :•.."•.,.,. •..: ....•.•,-•.-.... t::: "'•;•6::.::....,:•:?:"•• .." •,...... ,.'•'.' •..... .• - ........ -:•-:t ;::...:.:...... .•...• ..... , :::' '" ::::•'"'• :•..* . '.c': 4"•: -. ::• ..:'.-;: ..-½::...,•.• .......:., >,.,.. • .. , •, • .: -•, :::::•:•:.....•;•:•........ :--.:-:. .......:•:•:. :•..•.:.:: g:•'-.½ :•.•..-...::-,:•..,..-..' t•.--,-•y½ •% ,3•.....:•' ,.-, • ' ,, :'•.-•;:•::.-:... :;:• ..:':.•....-;•::•., - •,.,.. >.•,•............ ,.. ;.• ::.:••,:•;• ..:•,•,•1 • ..•:.. .,::•:•.-• %..':•::...::• •. ½•,.., ,.... ,. •:.'•. ':::- ••-•:•_•: • .? "• :• 2.•:, -•7: ;:: :?•" .:• ....::•'":":'s- ....•'•:•-..•'.•-:•.•''•t'::"•_&•: "-.. .• I -•:...,.-•:?"•:,• •. '..,,:,:• ' ':' '-" •"' .•...:• '7?Z.:f::"::*.'.'* ":'•:-•4'::•:•' :':*'.. .... '::,•¾•'--:';•,...,•.• :•: G-f?.•', '?-•'"' ."'" ': ....'•':'..,':•- •:'•:::/•:::•' :s'•:-.:':-•;•;- •:",-. •'•':• - ' ::•..:2..... :•:.. ""*-'':-• L .•f.• .. .•--::•, ' . :- .................... •::•:•:.:..-• •f:-•• •-.•• ,•: ,-:•.•' ..-• ::.•::..•::,.:.• .... :,•?.•::•.,:' :}•:>,...:::•.• ß .... •::::•':•:•:•::*':k:•,,.:.: 3-...::..Li[ ,•'•.:: "::..> ............ • .:::½,,:.:•:::•...•,.:.-•.:. ::•;:::.•:.-•::.•::.,• '-'::•:•.....•. .[:••..:- :....• ..........•:::•.... :,•!• ....•: .:,•.:• ,.•,•..•-•..' ,, ., '::"• • • :••:•:• ...........• "-:; • -:...... /• •-• •:• ., • ..... •; • .... •:. .•::..•:,:::-:• -.•,•:• •::•:• _ :.:•::.•4!'::'::•:• ' •..--•;.• :'::•.7 :':•-.': ' :"'•'," .....===============================.... - •:•-•:•'• "•:"' :k'"•"'•;•: ':'•:" .....-:.::•....... :::- • ;.•,:•-,,...•:•;•:• :,. •..-• ...... ....::: ....... Fig. la. Preencounterview of planet with eveningterminator. Fig. 1. Photomosaicsof Mercuryshowing location of cratersselected for detailedstudy of their morphologyand ejecta deposits. Coordinates and diameters of craters are listed in Table 1. 2446 GAULT ET AL.: MARINER 10 MISSION .• ß,, ,, .½'j.:r':f.;.½•..'½ :•* ...?'..• ......•.:.•:::½ .•..: ':"{'""'":;J'-'• -:--?;•...--.-.-:•.•.'.;•:,,,- •. •• "• '24 ":'e' '':"; ';":::'::,,' ;;::"{ZI:•;:;• '.................. •-•,•--•-•%?M:! , .--.'½"½:'""• :......::?'[.. •%:•:•;•'•":*: ':•:.•-':-•:""-"..:• ': ....... ..... "" -;L'.• •i•'*-"' :x"'Z:,..,.: -•" ...... •.-:,.&•?-':':'L<•f.•..:•::•--• ....: ½• •,• • . ,•-:.•--., :•' •"-:-'-.'-. ..'•'..:::'.;?':z:a"'"'.,•.•....??•..•:,.:,•:? ...:?, %..':::..:':;•;?• -•.•..• •. :?..-.......,? c::.•'• .... .-.;½;.•;:..; .:.?:.. , . ., ..,.•...'.•;.•':.?:, .•..-::?. ß.... .......... -- •,.:....,,...•: ,•. ......,..•:.. ............,.½....... ., ß• •-%. , • x