4.8 Article

High-velocity collisions from the lunar cataclysm recorded in asteroidal meteorites

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 303-307

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1769

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA Lunar Science Institute (Center for Lunar Origin and Evolution at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado- NASA) [NNA09DB32A]
  2. NASA Lunar Science Institute (Center for Lunar Science and Exploration at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas)
  3. Helmholtz-Alliance 'Planetary Evolution and Life'
  4. Agenzia Spaziale Italiana
  5. NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Moon experienced an intense period of impacts about 4 Gyr ago. This cataclysm is thought to have affected the entire inner Solar System and has been constrained by the radiometric dating of lunar samples: 40Ar-39Ar ages reflect the heating and degassing of target rocks by large basin-forming impacts on the Moon. Radiometric dating of meteorites from Vesta and the H-chondrite parent body also shows numerous 40Ar-39Ar ages between 3.4 and 4.1 Gyr ago, despite a different dynamical context, where impacts typically occur at velocities too low to reset geochronometers. Here we interpret the 40Ar-39Ar age record in meteorites to reflect unusually high impact velocities exceeding 10 km s(-1). Compared with typical impact velocities for main-belt asteroids of about 5 km s(-1), these collisions would produce 100-1,000 times more highly heated material by volume. We propose that the 40Ar-39Ar ages between 3.4 and 4.1 Gyr ago from Vesta, the H-chondrite parent body and the Moon record impacts from numerous main-belt asteroids that were driven onto high-velocity and highly eccentric orbits by the effects of the late migration of the giant planets. We suggest that the bombardment persisted for many hundreds of millions of years and affected most inner Solar System bodies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据