Paper detail

Impact bombardment chronology of the terrestrial planets from 4.5 Ga to 3.5 Ga

Subsequent to the Moon's formation, late accretion to the terrestrial planets modified their silicate crusts and mantles. We combine dynamical N-body and Monte Carlo simulations to determine impact probabilities, impact velocities, and expected mass augmentation onto the terrestrial planets from three sources: planetesimals left over from primary accretion, asteroids from the E-belt, and comets arriving from the outer Solar System. We present estimates of the amount of cometary material striking the terrestrial planets in an early episode of planetesimal-driven giant planet migration (Mojzsis et al., 2019). The Moon and Mars suffer proportionally higher cometary accretion than Venus and Earth. The background mass addition from small leftover planetesimals to Earth and Mars is far less than independent estimates based on their mantle abundances of highly-siderophile elements. This supports the theory that both planets were struck by single large bodies that delivered most of their mass augmentation since primary accretion. We present fits to the impact chronologies valid from 4500 Ma to ca. 3700 Ma. The lunar timeline thus obtained is at odds with both the calibrated Neukum (Neukum et al., 2001) and Werner (Werner et al., 2014; Werner, 2019) chronologies. For Mars, the match with its calibrated Werner chronology is no better; by increasing the mass of the E-belt by a factor of four the dynamical lunar and martian chronologies are in line with that of Werner (2019) and match constraints from the current population of Hungaria asteroids. Yet, neither of our dynamical timelines fit well with that of Neukum. The dynamical lunar and martian chronologies are also different from each other. Consequently, the usual extrapolation of such chronologies from one planetary body to the other is technically inappropriate.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.