<p>This is a rather a complementary answer to Stuart's already excellent answer. If we talk about numbers, then according to <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23531431-600-point-of-impact/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this site</a>, 5% of lunar craters are elongated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>About 5 per cent of craters are noticeably elongated, such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Fecunditatis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Messier crater in Mare Fecunditatis</a></strong>. But the rest are circular because when an impactor hits, the immense kinetic energy is nearly instantaneously converted to heat and compression. The impactor and surface fail to contain this and simply explode in a circular area between 10 and 1000 times the diameter of the actual impactor – so the impact angle is hidden.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_craters" rel="nofollow noreferrer">IAU recognizes 9137 lunar craters.</a> If we take those numbers, then around <strong>450</strong> of them are elongated.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-19T11:24:37.407Z
Thanks for the new perspective! It helped me finding a [reference](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7755906/) speaking of over 100k new craters (above a diameter of 8km).
B--rian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-19T11:28:29.967Z
Yes, new craters have been identified using new technologies. Currently, IAU recognizes 9137 of them. Let me change the wording in my answer.
Nilay Ghosh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-19T11:36:15.833Z
It was no critics at all, it was very clear to me that you cited the number recognised by IAU.
B--rian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-21T03:54:07.037Z
Tiny pedantic quibble: The word "recognizes" is not quite true. The IAU names things, and it has officially named 9137 lunar craters (or whatever the most current number is).  It has no actual role in "recognizing" them and in fact has some rather substantial errors in it (well, at least one). Further, names are only submitted for craters by the community when the crater is important for some scientific reason. Given interest in elliptical craters, it's not unlikely that the number one might consider "elliptical" is higher in the IAU's named features than the overall population.
Stuart Robbins
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-19T11:10:50.710Z
2021-05-19T11:28:52.673Z
2021-05-19T11:28:52.673Z
Nilay Ghosh
<p>Elliptical craters can be studied three ways:  Laboratory simulations, computer simulations, and observations.</p>
<p>Laboratory simulations have not really been done in detail for this problem in decades (I don't know why, I'm not an experimentalist).  The most recent big modeling study that I know about is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X11004390" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Collins et al. (2011)</a> and <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JE004477" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Eibeshausen et al. (2013)</a>.  The former tried to determine what fraction of craters should be elliptical on different solar system bodies, while the latter looked more at that impact angle dependence as a function of other model parameters like pressure.  <strong>I suggest going to the Eibenhausen et al. link which is open-access and Fig. 5 shows ellipticity versus impact angle (yes, there is a continuum to answer your question) for a few different pressure regimes.</strong></p>
<p>Observationally, this is rarely studied when building impact crater databases.  Primarily, the reason is that it's of less interest and it requires more effort.  Usually, people will just try to find craters that <em>look</em> elliptical and then, effectively, eyeball the axes and record the major and minor axes lengths.  The problem with this approach is that one must visually recognize the crater is elliptical and then one must subjectively choose those axes.  This then could be compared with a &quot;background&quot; crater population if one has also measured craters that are more circular.  An example of this work would be by <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103599963236" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bottke et al. (2000)</a>.</p>
<p>A better way to do this (in my opinion) is how I have attempted to study this question.  It begins by tracing the crater rim and then fitting an ellipse to that trace as well as a circle, and doing this for all craters.  I did this with <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JE003966" rel="nofollow noreferrer">my Mars crater database (Robbins &amp; Hynek, 2012)</a>, though the ellipse analysis is in that Collins et al. (2011) paper.  In doing this, there are some problems, though.  One is that any bias in how the rims are traced is going to bias the ellipse results, which are <strong>much</strong> more sensitive to inaccurate rim traces than circle fits because there are more free parameters.  Another problem is exactly what technique is used to fit an ellipse.  There are lots of different algorithms out there, and many that are the most popular are severely biased in various ways.</p>
<p>I tried to quantify both of those effects <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JE005592" rel="nofollow noreferrer">in my lunar crater database (Robbins, 2019)</a> by doing a lot of different analyses and playing with a lot of different ellipse fit algorithms.  <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1029%2F2018JE005592&amp;file=jgre21054-sup-0001-2018JE005592-SI.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The supplemental material that discusses most of that is not behind a paywall.</a>  After all those things are factored in, the conclusion is that more craters are &quot;elliptical&quot; than are predicted by simulations, but here again there's a problem: What is &quot;elliptical?&quot;  Is it when the major axis is 10% larger than the minor?  20%?  50%?  100%?  This gets to that problem I mentioned with the Bottke et al. (and similar) studies – when is something visually elliptical enough to count it as &quot;elliptical?&quot;</p>
<p>That said, there is also a problem of studying elliptical craters in the question of: Did the craters form that way?  Differential erosion could cause craters to erode more in one direction and thus become more elliptical as they degrade, especially if they are on slopes.  Another problem is that secondary craters – craters that form from the ejecta of larger, primary craters – form at lower velocities / energy and so are almost always more elongated, so removing those from a primary crater population before studying their ellipticity would also be desired.  This gets to be a problem on the Moon where we might have lots of unrecognized, multi-tens-of-kilometers secondaries from basins that affect what would otherwise be interpreted as primary elliptical craters.</p>
<p>I suppose if I had to summarize all of this, it would be that <strong>elliptical craters are, indeed, studied in and of themselves, but there are relatively few of those studies</strong>, in part because there is not necessarily too much new science there (is it worth spending a year on a computer to slightly refine percentages? or $millions in a vertical gun lab to refine things slightly?), and in part because the observational study of them is quite difficult due to the time-consuming nature of gathering the data and then understanding the biases in those data before any analysis can be done.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-24T08:56:49.097Z
Just a quick remark: The first thing I found long ago are actually experiments (on a much smaller scale), see e.g. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/bu-pce041918.php
B--rian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-24T08:44:48.813Z
2021-02-24T08:44:48.813Z
Stuart Robbins
<p>Many craters on Moon have circular shape as a result of the explosion upon impact. I got interested in oblong craters created by impacts striking the surface at a very low angle. <strong>Is there any statistics on the number of elongated craters on the Moon available?</strong></p>
<p>An article on an <a href="http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/698" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Oval Crater</a> captured by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Non-circular (oval or elliptical) impact craters can form when the impacting bolide trajectory to the surface is &lt;15° from horizontal or when the bolide impacts a sloped region on the (or some combination of both factors).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How well-studied is that threshold impact angle? Is there a phase transition from no explosion if below 15°, to explosion if impact angle is steeper?</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/are-all-impact-craters-circular">Are all impact craters circular?</a></li>
<li>Lunar and Planetary Institute: <a href="https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/shaping_the_planets/impact-cratering/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shaping the Planets: Impact Cratering</a></li>
</ul>

<the-moon><impact><crater>
Elongated Moon crater statistics?
B--rian
# Elongated Moon crater statistics?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-23)

Many craters on Moon have circular shape as a result of the explosion upon impact. I got interested in oblong craters created by impacts striking the surface at a very low angle. **Is there any statistics on the number of elongated craters on the Moon available?**

An article on an [Oval Crater](http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/698) captured by the [Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter) states:

> Non-circular (oval or elliptical) impact craters can form when the impacting bolide trajectory to the surface is <15° from horizontal or when the bolide impacts a sloped region on the (or some combination of both factors).

How well-studied is that threshold impact angle? Is there a phase transition from no explosion if below 15°, to explosion if impact angle is steeper?

### References

* [Are all impact craters circular?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/25380/are-all-impact-craters-circular)
* Lunar and Planetary Institute: [Shaping the Planets: Impact Cratering](https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/shaping_the_planets/impact-cratering/)

**Tags:** the-moon, impact, crater


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-02-24. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

Elliptical craters can be studied three ways: Laboratory simulations, computer simulations, and observations.

Laboratory simulations have not really been done in detail for this problem in decades (I don't know why, I'm not an experimentalist). The most recent big modeling study that I know about is [Collins et al. (2011)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X11004390) and [Eibeshausen et al. (2013)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013JE004477). The former tried to determine what fraction of craters should be elliptical on different solar system bodies, while the latter looked more at that impact angle dependence as a function of other model parameters like pressure. **I suggest going to the Eibenhausen et al. link which is open-access and Fig. 5 shows ellipticity versus impact angle (yes, there is a continuum to answer your question) for a few different pressure regimes.**

Observationally, this is rarely studied when building impact crater databases. Primarily, the reason is that it's of less interest and it requires more effort. Usually, people will just try to find craters that *look* elliptical and then, effectively, eyeball the axes and record the major and minor axes lengths. The problem with this approach is that one must visually recognize the crater is elliptical and then one must subjectively choose those axes. This then could be compared with a "background" crater population if one has also measured craters that are more circular. An example of this work would be by [Bottke et al. (2000)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103599963236).

A better way to do this (in my opinion) is how I have attempted to study this question. It begins by tracing the crater rim and then fitting an ellipse to that trace as well as a circle, and doing this for all craters. I did this with [my Mars crater database (username_2 & Hynek, 2012)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JE003966), though the ellipse analysis is in that Collins et al. (2011) paper. In doing this, there are some problems, though. One is that any bias in how the rims are traced is going to bias the ellipse results, which are **much** more sensitive to inaccurate rim traces than circle fits because there are more free parameters. Another problem is exactly what technique is used to fit an ellipse. There are lots of different algorithms out there, and many that are the most popular are severely biased in various ways.

I tried to quantify both of those effects [in my lunar crater database (username_2, 2019)](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JE005592) by doing a lot of different analyses and playing with a lot of different ellipse fit algorithms. [The supplemental material that discusses most of that is not behind a paywall.](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1029%2F2018JE005592&file=jgre21054-sup-0001-2018JE005592-SI.pdf) After all those things are factored in, the conclusion is that more craters are "elliptical" than are predicted by simulations, but here again there's a problem: What is "elliptical?" Is it when the major axis is 10% larger than the minor? 20%? 50%? 100%? This gets to that problem I mentioned with the Bottke et al. (and similar) studies – when is something visually elliptical enough to count it as "elliptical?"

That said, there is also a problem of studying elliptical craters in the question of: Did the craters form that way? Differential erosion could cause craters to erode more in one direction and thus become more elliptical as they degrade, especially if they are on slopes. Another problem is that secondary craters – craters that form from the ejecta of larger, primary craters – form at lower velocities / energy and so are almost always more elongated, so removing those from a primary crater population before studying their ellipticity would also be desired. This gets to be a problem on the Moon where we might have lots of unrecognized, multi-tens-of-kilometers secondaries from basins that affect what would otherwise be interpreted as primary elliptical craters.

I suppose if I had to summarize all of this, it would be that **elliptical craters are, indeed, studied in and of themselves, but there are relatively few of those studies**, in part because there is not necessarily too much new science there (is it worth spending a year on a computer to slightly refine percentages? or $millions in a vertical gun lab to refine things slightly?), and in part because the observational study of them is quite difficult due to the time-consuming nature of gathering the data and then understanding the biases in those data before any analysis can be done.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Just a quick remark: The first thing I found long ago are actually experiments (on a much smaller scale), see e.g. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/bu-pce041918.php  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-05-19. Score: 1

This is a rather a complementary answer to username_2's already excellent answer. If we talk about numbers, then according to [this site](https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg23531431-600-point-of-impact/), 5% of lunar craters are elongated:

> **About 5 per cent of craters are noticeably elongated, such as the [Messier crater in Mare Fecunditatis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mare_Fecunditatis)**. But the rest are circular because when an impactor hits, the immense kinetic energy is nearly instantaneously converted to heat and compression. The impactor and surface fail to contain this and simply explode in a circular area between 10 and 1000 times the diameter of the actual impactor – so the impact angle is hidden.

[IAU recognizes 9137 lunar craters.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_craters) If we take those numbers, then around **450** of them are elongated.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the new perspective! It helped me finding a [reference](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7755906/) speaking of over 100k new craters (above a diameter of 8km).  
> **username_1**: Yes, new craters have been identified using new technologies. Currently, IAU recognizes 9137 of them. Let me change the wording in my answer.  
> **username_0**: It was no critics at all, it was very clear to me that you cited the number recognised by IAU.  
> **username_2**: Tiny pedantic quibble: The word "recognizes" is not quite true. The IAU names things, and it has officially named 9137 lunar craters (or whatever the most current number is).  It has no actual role in "recognizing" them and in fact has some rather substantial errors in it (well, at least one). Further, names are only submitted for craters by the community when the crater is important for some scientific reason. Given interest in elliptical craters, it's not unlikely that the number one might consider "elliptical" is higher in the IAU's named features than the overall population.  

---

