Paper detail

Re-examining the main asteroid belt as the primary source of ancient lunar craters

It has been hypothesized that the impactors that created the majority of the observable craters on the ancient lunar highlands were derived from the main asteroid belt in such a way that preserved their size-frequency distribution. A more limited version of this hypothesis, dubbed the E-belt hypothesis, postulates that a destabilized contiguous inner extension of the main asteroid belt produced a bombardment limited to those craters younger than Nectaris basin. We investigate these hypotheses with a Monte Carlo code called the Cratered Terrain Evolution Model (CTEM). We find that matching the observed number of lunar highlands craters with Dc~100 km requires that the total number of impacting asteroids with Di>10 km be no fewer than 4x10-6 km-2. However, this required mass of impactors has <1% chance of producing only a single basin larger than the ~1200 km Imbrium basin; instead, these simulations are likely to produce more large basins than are observed on the Moon. This difficulty in reproducing the lunar highlands cratering record with a main asteroid belt SFD arises because the main belt is relatively abundant in the objects that produce these "megabasins" that are larger than Imbrium. We also find that the main asteroid belt SFD has <16% chance of producing Nectarian densities of Dc>64 km craters while not producing a crater larger than Imbrium, as required by the E-belt hypothesis. These results suggest that the lunar highlands were unlikely to have been bombarded by a population whose size-frequency distribution resembles that of the currently observed main asteroid belt. We suggest that the population of impactors that cratered the lunar highlands had a somewhat similar size-frequency distribution as the modern main asteroid belt, but had a smaller ratio of objects capable of producing megabasins compared to objects capable of producing ~100 km craters.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.