On the usefulness of optical maturity for relative age classification of fresh craters

Copernican and Eratosthenian craters represent the two most recent geologic periods in the lunar timescale, and their characterization is essential for understanding impact crater flux over the last 3 Gy. Craters from both periods exhibit crisp morphologies, but Copernican craters are 'rayed craters' per Wilhelms (1) classification scheme. Distinguishing compositional from maturity rays is possible using compositional estimates and the optical maturity parameter (OMAT; 2). From OMAT estimates, Grier et al. (3) classified 50 fresh craters (diameter (D) > 20 km) into young (OMAT > 0.22), intermediate, and old (OMAT < 0.16) classes. In this work we analyze morphology and optical maturity for a population of 12,000 craters (D> 10 km; 60 to investigate the applicability of OMAT for relative age classification among Copernican craters. Craters obtained from (4,5) were initially classified based on crispness of morphology (LROC WAC observations (6)) and then were then analyzed based on OMAT values averaged from rim out to one crater radius (n=2000). We found that typically craters larger than Copernicus (D = 95 km) were had lower OMAT values than Copernicus (OMAT = 0.17) except for Vavilov, Pythagorus, Fizeau and Moretus which had OMAT > 0.17. These large craters are clearly affected by rays from small, nearby craters. We estimate that at least 250 craters (D > 10 km; OMAT > 0.22) on the Moon are Copernican (> 2% of all craters analyzed) and of these at least 100 are as optically immature (or more so) than Tycho crater (OMAT >= 0.24). A calibration curve (OMAT vs Absolute Model Age) obtained for craters with known ages showed that OMAT <=0.15 displays little change with AMA and are thus unsuitable for estimating relative ages. Normalization by crater size was found to reduce the uncertainty associated with the relation between AMA and OMAT. 1) Wilhelms (1987), The Geologic History of the Moon, USGS, pp. 1348. 2) Lucey et al (2000), JGR, 105, 20377-20386. 3) Grier et al. (2001), JGR, 106, 847-862. 4) Povilaitis et al. (2013), NLSI, Session 5B. 5) Head et al. (2010), Science, 239, 1504-1506. 6) Boyd et al. (2013), AGU, P13B-1744.