2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11084-017-9536-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cataclysm No More: New Views on the Timing and Delivery of Lunar Impactors

Abstract: If properly interpreted, the impact record of the Moon, Earth’s nearest neighbour, can be used to gain insights into how the Earth has been influenced by impacting events since its formation ~4.5 billion years (Ga) ago. However, the nature and timing of the lunar impactors – and indeed the lunar impact record itself – are not well understood. Of particular interest are the ages of lunar impact basins and what they tell us about the proposed “lunar cataclysm” and/or the late heavy bombardment (LHB), and how thi… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
69
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 140 publications
(310 reference statements)
3
69
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Whether impact events during this basin-forming period largely occurred as a cataclysmic spike at ca. 3.9 Ga ago (e.g., Ryder 1990;Cohen et al 2000;Marchi et al 2012) or decayed monotonically after the end of planetary accretion from ∼4.3-4.2 Ga until ∼3.9-3.8 Ga ago (e.g., Hartmann 1970;Neukum et al 2001;Werner 2014;Morbidelli et al 2018), or even after (e.g., Fernandes et al 2013;Zellner 2017), remains highly debated. One of the explanations for the apparent concentration of chronometric dates at ca.…”
Section: Timing Of Lunar Bombardmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whether impact events during this basin-forming period largely occurred as a cataclysmic spike at ca. 3.9 Ga ago (e.g., Ryder 1990;Cohen et al 2000;Marchi et al 2012) or decayed monotonically after the end of planetary accretion from ∼4.3-4.2 Ga until ∼3.9-3.8 Ga ago (e.g., Hartmann 1970;Neukum et al 2001;Werner 2014;Morbidelli et al 2018), or even after (e.g., Fernandes et al 2013;Zellner 2017), remains highly debated. One of the explanations for the apparent concentration of chronometric dates at ca.…”
Section: Timing Of Lunar Bombardmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The possibility of explaining the heavy bombardment of the Moon dated at ~3.9 Gyr was one of the main arguments in support of the Nice model of the planetary system formation. However, it is necessary to mention here that the model, explaining the heavy bombardment of the Moon by asteroids, also faces criticism (Minton et al, 2015;Johnson et al, 2016); and, moreover, it has been questioned whether or not a sharp peak in the bombardment of the Moon around 3.9 Gyr is real (Zellner, 2017;Michael et al, 2018). Second, in the papers by Agnor and Lin (2012) and Kaib and Chambers (2016), it is pointed out that the present configuration of the inner planets could hardly survive the late dynamical instability of the giants.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Mercer et al (2015) and Crow et al (2017) interpreted strong signals in Ar-Ar of Apollo 17 impact melt breccias at 3.81-3.83 Ga and in U-Pb ages of lunar zircons at 3.9-4.1 Ga as signatures of Imbrium, once again providing ages in the range of interest, but not settling the question of whether Imbrium was the only contributor to the apparent ages in that range. Zellner (2017), too, has suggested the duration of lunar bombardment extends from 3.5 to 4.2 Ga, based on a collation of sample and remote sensing data with dynamic models of impactor fluences.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%