Clark R. Chapman (SwRI), R.G. Strom, J.W. Head, C.I. Fassett, W.J. Merline, S.C. Solomon, D.T. Blewett, T.R. Watters Clark R. Chapman (SwRI), R.G. Strom, J.W. Head, C.I. Fassett, W.J. Merline, S.C. Solomon, D.T. Blewett, T.R. Watters Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Session P4: “1 st Global View of the Geology of Mercury” Portland, Oregon, 20 October 2009 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Session P4: “1 st Global View of the Geology of Mercury” Portland, Oregon, 20 October 2009 Cratering on Mercury

Origins of Craters on the Moon & Mercury Primary impact cratering High-velocity comets (sun-grazers, Jup.-family, long-period) Near-Earth, Aten, and Inter-Earth asteroids Ancient, possibly depleted, impactor populations (accretionary remnants, Late Heavy Bombardment, vulcanoids) Secondary cratering (<8 km diameter, + basin secondaries) Endogenic craters (volcanism, etc.) Basins: dozens of multi-hundred km peak-ring and multi-ring basins tentatively identified by Mariner 10 (lower bound due to 45% coverage and high sun) Highlands craters: like heavily cratered terrains on the Moon, but fewer craters <40 km diameter (due to embayment by widespread “intercrater plains,” which may simply be older “smooth plains”) Lighter cratering of younger “smooth plains.” 2 alternatives for plains: Basin ejecta plains (like Cayley plains on the Moon) Volcanic lava flows (preferred origin, based on analysis of 3 MESSENGER flybys) Secondary craters: chains and clusters of small craters (<8 km diameter) associated with large craters and basins Mercury’s Crater Populations

Stratigraphy/Chronology Stratigraphy/relative age-dating Cross-cutting relationships Spatial densities of primary craters (absolute ages relative to cratering rate) Absolute chronology On the Moon, crater densities calibrated by dated samples with specific geologic associations with counting surfaces On Mercury, it is difficult and indirect Classic approach: assume cratering rate changed with time just as on the Moon and that sources were the same as on the Moon (with minor adjustments, e.g. for higher vel.) Direct approach: use known impact rates of asteroids/comets (only good to factor of 2 and only for recent epochs)

Lunar Absolute Chronology. South Pole- Aitken (oldest basin), Orientale (youngest basin) 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 Ga? Apollo/Luna samples have dated some basins and maria between 3.9 and 3.0 Ga.

Mercury’s Geological History Determined from Crater Record First Goal: Determine the relative stratigraphic history from superimposed crater densities. Second Goal: Determine the absolute geological chronology. Most visible lunar basins formed during the latter part of the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) or “Cataclysm” (Strom et al. 2006) Approach First, measure crater size-frequency distri- butions (SFDs) on various geological units. Determine spatial densities of craters, emphasizing larger craters, which are less likely to be secondaries. Determine spatial densities of craters, emphasizing larger craters, which are less likely to be secondaries (temporally/spatially variable). Interpret the relative stratigraphic ages in terms of absolute ages by applying models (e.g. lunar cratering chronology, modified by differences in Moon/Mercury cratering flux and other geophysical or dynamical constraints).

Smooth Plains West of Caloris: Craters, “Hills” ~ 770 craters, green ~ 770 craters, green ~ 190 positive relief features (PRFs), yellow ~ 190 positive relief features (PRFs), yellow (Small Craters)

R-Plots of SFDs for Small Craters on Four M1 Flyby Frames Statistics are poor at D>10 km, but cratered terrain is oldest, with order-of-magnitude more craters than on floor of the Raditladi basin pink Slopes of SFDs for craters <10 km vary regionally; perhaps due to varying contributions of the very steep SFD for secondaries (pink) Craters reach empirical saturation densities at large diameters in heavily cratered terrain and at diameters < a few km in the heavily cratered terrain and in a region rich in secondary craters Note extreme youth of Raditladi double-ring basin This “R-Plot” is a differential size-frequency plot divided by D -3 such that the vertical axis shows log of “spatial density” (vs. log diameter).

Interpretation Framework: Impactors (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) The “Nice Model” could produce a comet shower followed by an asteroid shower yielding the LHB Pop. 1 Pop. 2 Late LHB = Population 1 = Main-Belt Asteroids As LHB declines, cratering by modern NEAs dominates = Population 2

Interpretational Framework: Cratering Components

Caloris Basin Cratering Stratigraphy Caloris mountains on rim (measured by Caleb Fassett) show old, Pop. 1 signature Crater density much higher than on plains SFD shape resembles Pop. 1 on highlands of Moon and Mercury Hence interior plains must have later volcanic origin, cannot be contemporaneous impact melt (other evidence) Interior plains have low density, flat Pop. 2- dominated signature …so they formed mainly after the LHB had ended

Caloris Exterior Plains ~25% Younger than Interior Plains Important result: If exterior plains are even younger than the Caloris interior plains, then they are certainly volcanic flows. Thus the interpretation of knobby texture of the Odin Formation as Cayley-Plains-like Caloris ejecta is wrong. Caloris Basin

“Twin” Young Basins on Mercury Both basins ~260 km diam. Similar inner peak rings Lightly cratered floors with circumferential extensional troughs Similar rim morphologies Newly Seen Basin Revealed on M3 Flyby Raditladi Basin Seen on M1 Flyby

A Closer Look at the Newly Seen “Twin” Basin Compare very low crater density inside peak ring with slightly higher crater density between peak ring and rim Lighter colored interior floor has breached peak ring on the bottom Both basins have fairly young ejecta blankets and many surround- ing secondary craters (next slide)

Ejecta and Secondary Craters of Raditladi and its “Twin”; Volcanically Active Region? Raditladi Basin Newly Seen “Twin” Basin Note “orange” color within peak ring, like other young volcanic plains on Mercury. Also note the proximity of “Twin” basin to what may be a large volcanic vent (in the very bright region northeast of the basin). 100 km

Craters on Floor of “Twin” Basin

Craters on Floor of Rembrandt

New Basin Floor Crater Data Issues D Diam. (km) Rembrandt Raditladi floor “Twin” outer floor “Twin” inner floor No secondaries, poor statistics 8170(40)70(0) Better statistics, possible secondary contamination 54500(40)140(<40) Near/below resolution limit, good statistics, secondaries probably dominate 2.5X Summary: Relative Density Cumulative # craters > D per million sq. km. Caveat! Small craters may be non-uniform secondaries! Preliminary

Basins: Approx. Relative Stratigraphy : Highlands craters : Caloris rim = Rembrandt rim [note poor statistics: same to within 50%] : Floor of Rembrandt : Floor of Caloris (volcanic) : Caloris exterior plains (volcanic) : Outer floor of “Twin” : Floor of Raditladi = rim of Raditladi (is floor recent volcanism or impact melt?) : Inner floor of “Twin” (unexpectedly recent volcanism) Relative Crater Density Relative Crater Density (varies by factor >100!)

Intercrater Plains (Strom, 1977) Deficiency of smaller Mercurian craters due to plains volcanism

Intercrater Plains (Strom, 2009) M1 approach mosaic Mostly intercrater plains Deficiency on Mercury <30 km diam. relative to Moon due to “flooding” of smaller craters by plains- forming volcanism (?)

Thicker Intercrater Plains (Strom, 2009) M2 departure mosaic Deficiency of craters <100 km diam. suggests thicker intercrater plains volcanism erased larger craters than in M1 approach mosaic

Mercury’s Absolute Chronology: Raditladi Example (applying lunar chronology) Sequence: Heavily cratered highlands → Intercrater plains → Caloris basin → Smooth plains → Raditladi basin/plains → “Twin” interior floor If lunar chronology applies, then red arrows If smooth plains formed early (3.9 Ga), then Raditladi is 3.8 Ga (red arrows) green arrows If smooth plains formed ~3.75 Ga then Raditladi’s age is <1 Ga! (green arrows) Preferred!

Possible Role of Vulcanoids Zone interior to Mercury’s orbit is dynamically stable (like asteroid belt, Trojans, Kuiper Belt) If planetesimals originally accreted there, mutual collisions may (or may not) have destroyed them If they survived, Yarkovsky drift of >1 km bodies to impact Mercury could have taken several Gyr (Vokroulichy et al., 2000), cratering Mercury (alone) long after the LHB That would compress Mercury’s geological chronology toward the present (e.g. thrust-faulting might be still ongoing) Telescopic searches during last 25 years have not yet set stringent limits on current population of vulcanoids [MESSENGER is looking during spacecraft’s perihelia passages]; but their absence today wouldn’t negate their possible earlier presence Vulcanoid belt? ♀ ♀ ♂♂ ☼☼ Jupiter orbit Asteroid belt

Two Chronologies for Mercury NOW Formation to magma ocean/crustal solidification Bombardment, LHB, intercrater plains formation Smooth plains volcanism “Twin” plains Cratering, rays Lobate scarps, crustal shortening Formation to magma ocean solidification Bombardment, LHB Vulcanoid bombardment, intercrater plains Smooth plains volcanism “Twin”… Cratering, ray formation Lobate scarps, crustal shortening Classical (Lunar) Chronology Vulcanoid Chronology Example Age before present, Ga CALORISCALORISCALORISCALORIS CALORISCALORISCALORISCALORIS

Some Important Cratering Issues Are current production functions (and those in the past) the same on Mercury and the Moon? What are relationships between “Class 1” fresh craters, rayed craters, and straigraphically young craters? Are Mercury’s secondaries unusual? Why? Are basins saturated, as Mariner 10 suggested? Are intercrater plains simply older smooth plains? Are there independent clues about absolute chronology?

Conclusion: We must wait for orbital mission for good stratigraphic studies Mariner 10 imaged 45% of surface? (I don’t think so.) MESSENGER has almost completed coverage? Not YET for robust geological analysis Mariner 10 Image & Shaded Relief MESSENGER image