A Martian Crater With Lobate Ejecta
A Mars orbiter returns images of a 60 km diameter impact crater in the southern highlands. The crater has a central peak, terraced inner walls, and an ejecta blanket with lobate, flow-like margins. Crater counts on the ejecta surface give 3.5 ± 0.7 craters larger than 1 km per 10^4 km². Nearby smooth plains give 0.4 ± 0.2 craters larger than 1 km per 10^4 km². The region shows few fresh gullies, but some slopes are dust-covered. One team argues the crater formed about 3.8 billion years ago because the ejecta is heavily cratered; another argues it is about 1 billion years old because the lobate ejecta requires subsurface ice, which should not survive that long near the equator. You are asked to separate what the morphology, crater counts, and preservation state each can and cannot establish.
1. Identify the crater morphology and explain what it implies about target properties and crater size.
Read the worked answer
A 60 km diameter crater is well above the simple-to-complex transition on Mars (roughly 5–10 km), so a central peak and terraced walls are expected for a complex crater. The lobate, flow-like ejecta indicates that the target contained subsurface volatiles, likely water ice, which fluidized the ejecta. That tells us about target properties and the impact process, not the crater's absolute age. The morphology is not by itself evidence for a young age: lobate ejecta can be preserved for billions of years in a cold, dry environment, especially if buried or mantled. It also does not prove the object is a recent impact; it only says the substrate was volatile-rich at impact time.
2. Use the crater counts to compare relative ages. Do they establish the absolute ages claimed by either team?
Read the worked answer
The ejecta has 3.5 ± 0.7 craters per 10^4 km², while the plains have 0.4 ± 0.2. Assuming similar crater production and preservation, the ejecta surface is older than the plains; the count ratio is about 8.8, and the error bars do not overlap. That is a relative-age statement. The absolute ages require a Martian cratering chronology and a size-frequency distribution, not a single count. Secondary craters from the 60 km impact can inflate the ejecta count; resurfacing can lower the plains count; and the count areas may not be statistically representative. So the '3.8 Ga' claim is not established by these numbers alone, and the '1 Ga' claim is even less supported by lobate ejecta, which indicates volatiles rather than youth.
3. What observations would test the young-versus-old hypotheses for this crater?
Read the worked answer
To test old versus young, look for impact melt and fresh ejecta textures that would be degraded over billions of years; measure crater size-frequency distributions over larger areas and compare to isochrons; search for superimposed small craters with preserved rims; and use radar or orbital spectroscopy to map subsurface ice. If the lobate ejecta is young, it should retain original flow morphology and little superposed cratering; if old, it should be heavily degraded and perhaps buried. High-resolution stereo can measure slope and degradation. The key is to separate the age of the impact from the age of the surface mantle, and to avoid counting secondaries.