Little wonder it was rejected for publication by the reviewers. I wonder who they were, and on what grounds they rejected the paper. Oh, that's right, I forgot...

Moving on, you wrote:
"IF Mars has identical composition to Earth, and the same fraction of radiogenic nucleides, and the same differentiation and convection history then:-"

It seems to me that Mars could not have had the same fraction of radiogenic nucleaides as the Earth, due the distribution of radiogenic nucleides in the ur-dust of our solar system. It seems to me that about the only way of currently estimating that distribution would be by comparing the cores of the planets in our solar system, along with any surface readings where available. It seems to me likely that someone must have already made some attempt at dong this.

It also seems to me that the convection history of Mars had to be different than that of the Earth, as you yourself pointed out just a few paragraphs later, as well as in your discussion of the Moon's effect on Earth.

A further point: Isn't another planetary heat source the release of binding energies due to compression caused by gravity? Hasn't this been well observed in compression tests of differrent materials?

What I'd really like is some detailed data from the Martian features showing strata. It seems to me it will have to show the large impact history of that planet. Looking at the different ways they might get this data is a great engineering problem - they've studied climbing robots, flying robots...

I good topic for relaxing reflection...