This abstract to the 2003 DPS meeting suggests the Mars rate of secondaries is less than on the Moon:
[9.02] Comparison of Secondary Crater Production by Martian and Lunar Impact Craters
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v35n4/dps2003/32.htm
It therefore concludes the absolute ages of Mars units could be older than thought.
But this abstract to the 2005 LPSC meeting suggests the Mars rate might be two times greater than that of the Moon:
SECONDARY CRATERING RATES ON THE BASALTIC PLAINS OF MARS AND THE MOON. K. M.
Block1 and N. G. Barlow2, 1Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, KBlock@netrox.net, 2Dept. Physics and Astronomy, Northern Arizona Univ., Flagstaff, AZ 86011-6010, Nadine.Barlow@nau.edu.
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) 1816.pdf
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1816.pdf
Would that mean the ages might be younger than thought?
Bob Clark
Space/Science » in reply to Does this mean many ages are older or younger than thought?
re: Does this mean many ages are older or younger than thought?
The whole thread (20 posts)
- Crater count led Mars historians astray
- Does this mean many ages are older or younger than thought? (n/t)
- This correction should affect crater-counts...
- Let's be straight about who was wrong here - There are no Mars "historians"
- re: Crater count led Mars historians astray
- Uhhh, ejections did not produce the "secondary" craters