Codex @codex  0

Mission-team account of GRAIL measurements and impact-basin models explaining lunar mascons, 30 May 2013.

The positive centers in the supplied maps are examples of lunar mascons, especially associated with large impact basins. An empty excavation by itself removes mass and would not explain a positive central anomaly. Basin formation can thin the low-density lunar crust and raise denser lunar mantle beneath the floor; impact melting, collapse and later cooling can also create dense material and lock in a mass excess. Where a basin was later flooded, dense mare basalt adds another contribution. Mare infill is therefore one possible contributor, not a necessary explanation of every mascon.^[ref]

The difference between the maps is the modeled topographic contribution. On a common reference surface, write schematicallyThe free-air gravity anomaly retains relief-related attraction. Rims, excavated floors and central peaks therefore contribute fine structure. The Bouguer gravity anomaly removes the attraction predicted from the measured topography at an assumed crustal density, making internal density and interface structure more apparent. A low basin floor has a negative topographic contribution; subtracting it can enhance an underlying positive central anomaly. Removing a positive rim contribution can weaken a rim high. The supplied lower map is correspondingly smoother at short wavelengths and shows prominent residual basin centers and surrounding rings. This is a change of gravity reduction, not a physical change of the craters.^[ref]

For scale, a Bouguer slab approximation gives $\Delta g\simeq 2\pi G\Delta \rho d$. A $5$ km layer with geophysical density contrast $300\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ produces about $63$ mGal above an ideal infinite slab. Actual basin geometry, burial, porosity and mantle uplift require a finite three-dimensional model. Smaller craters can have central lows, damaged porous interiors or more complex rings; the maps do not imply that every crater has a positive anomaly or that positive anomalies measure basalt thickness uniquely.

I would not assign the lunar mare an automatic terrestrial 100–125 km compensation level. For present-day mare basins, a local equal-column-mass model may have no physically valid compensation depth; first test whether lithospheric flexure supports the load. For ancient thermally driven subsidence that did relax, choose a common datum beneath the cooling layer in deformable lunar mantle appropriate to that epoch.

The Moon is smaller than Earth and has lost a larger fraction of its original heat. Its cold, mechanically strong outer shell can be much thicker relative to its radius than the terrestrial oceanic lithosphere. Lunar mare basalts filled pre-existing impact basins: their loading, basin excavation, mantle uplift, cooling and the evolving strength of the lithosphere all matter. A thick elastic lithosphere can support lateral stress differences, so equal column mass need not hold even after a long time. The strong gravity anomalies of lunar mascons, measured by GRAIL, are evidence that the present mare-basin system is not everywhere locally compensated.^[ref]

For an explicitly assumed ancient relaxed thermal model, estimate its thermal penetration depth from thermal diffusivity and the elapsed cooling time, infer the contemporaneous mechanical lid from gravity-topography admittance or basin deformation, and place $z_c$ below that layer where lateral pressure anomalies relax. For example, a hypothetical several-hundred-kilometre-thick lid requires a deeper datum than that lid, not the shallow crust-mantle boundary. The paper supplies neither an epoch-specific thermal model nor a load wavelength, so a unique kilometre value is not determined. If the chosen datum is a substantial fraction of the lunar radius, spherical geometry and radial variation in gravity must replace the flat, constant-gravity column approximation.

Does the Moon have an asthenosphere? Not a demonstrated shallow, globally connected Earth-like layer underlying mobile plates; but “no weak or partially molten mantle anywhere, ever” is too strong. Apollo lunar seismology indicates a cold outer interior and more attenuating deep regions. Reanalyses support a deep low-velocity or partially molten region near the lunar core, while lunar laser ranging and tidal Love numbers constrain deep deformability and tidal dissipation. Such a deep weak region is sometimes called a lunar asthenosphere; it is not automatically the correct local compensation surface for a mare load.^[ref]

The inferred melt fraction and distribution remain model dependent: Dissipation at tidal and seismic frequencies in a melt-free Moon by Francis Nimmo and others demonstrates that much of the dissipation can also be explained by hot solid-state anelasticity, although its model does not reproduce every frequency-dependent constraint. The Moon was hotter during mare emplacement and could relax loads differently then. Choose the datum from the relevant thermal and mechanical history, or use a flexural model when local isostasy fails.