Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The timeline of the lunar bombardment: Revisited

Open access
Morbidelli, A., Nesvorny, D., Laurenz, V., Marchi, S., Rubie, D.C., Elkins-Tanton, L., Wieczorek, M., Jacobson, S.·2018·Icarus

Abstract

Abstract The timeline of the lunar bombardment in the first Gy of Solar System history remains unclear. Basin-forming impacts (e.g. Imbrium, Orientale), occurred 3.9–3.7 Gy ago, i.e. 600–800 My after the formation of the Moon itself. Many other basins formed before Imbrium, but their exact ages are not precisely known. There is an intense debate between two possible interpretations of the data: in the cataclysm scenario there was a surge in the impact rate approximately at the time of Imbrium formation, while in the accretion tail scenario the lunar bombardment declined since the era of planet formation and the latest basins formed in its tail-end. Here, we revisit the work of Morbidelli et al. (2012) that examined which scenario could be compatible with both the lunar crater record in the 3–4 Gy period and the abundance of highly siderophile elements (HSE) in the lunar mantle. We use updated numerical simulations of the fluxes of asteroids, comets and planetesimals leftover from the planet-formation process. Under the traditional assumption that the HSEs track the total amount of material accreted by the Moon since its formation, we conclude that only the cataclysm scenario can explain the data. The cataclysm should have started ∼ 3.95 Gy ago. However we also consider the possibility that HSEs are sequestered from the mantle of a planet during magma ocean crystallization, due to iron sulfide exsolution (O’Neil, 1991; Rubie et al., 2016). We show that this is likely true also for the Moon, if mantle overturn is taken into account. Based on the hypothesis that the lunar magma ocean crystallized about 100–150 My after Moon formation (Elkins-Tanton et al., 2011), and therefore that HSEs accumulated in the lunar mantle only after this timespan, we show that the bombardment in the 3–4 Gy period can be explained in the accretion tail scenario. This hypothesis would also explain why the Moon appears so depleted in HSEs relative to the Earth. We also extend our analysis of the cataclysm and accretion tail scenarios to the case of Mars. The accretion tail scenario requires a global resurfacing event on Mars ∼ 4.4 Gy ago, possibly associated with the formation of the Borealis basin, and it is consistent with the HSE budget of the planet. Moreover it implies that the Noachian and pre-Noachian terrains are ∼ 200 My older than usually considered.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.046

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 125 references

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Authors
Morbidelli, A., Nesvorny, D., Laurenz, V., Marchi, S., Rubie, D. C., Elkins-Tanton, L., Wieczorek, M., & Jacobson, S.
Venue
Icarus
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
305
Pages
262-276
ISSN
0019-1035 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2782794416
Cited by
266
References
125
FWCI
17.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The timeline of the lunar bombardment: Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.046
The paper
Morbidelli, A., Nesvorny, D., Laurenz, V., Marchi, S., Rubie, D. C., Elkins-Tanton, L., Wieczorek, M., & Jacobson, S. (2018). The timeline of the lunar bombardment: Revisited. Icarus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2017.12.046

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.