Lesson 2 of 6 · Reading its surface and interior
Read Mercury from the outside inward
9 minute lesson · 3 checks along the way
Your goal for this lessonUse surface relationships and complementary measurements to distinguish observations from models of Mercury’s history.
Follow a linked name to explore its archive card. “Back to your lesson” brings you to the same part of the reading.
Words with a dotted underline open a short definition right here in the lesson.
A cratered surface preserves overlapping events
Mercury’s craters record impacts, but the surface is not simply an unchanging collection of holes. Smooth volcanic plains cover portions of older terrain. Cliffs called lobate scarps record shortening of the crust as the planet cooled and contracted. Different processes leave different geometries. A circular depression with ejecta, a plain that buries crater rims, and a fault cutting across a crater need not have the same origin or age.
starts with relationships. A feature that cuts another formed after the part it cuts; material covering a surface was deposited later than that surface. These statements order events without assigning numerical ages. Crater counts can add age information only with assumptions about impact rates, preservation, resurfacing, and detection. Comparing a sharp close-up with a blurry global image without matching the detection threshold can create a false difference in crater abundance.
Hollows are a clue rather than a solved label
MESSENGER revealed shallow, irregular depressions called hollows, often associated with bright material. Their shapes and relationships differ from ordinary impact craters. Loss of -bearing material is a leading explanation, but the detailed substances and processes remain under investigation. Here volatile means a material that can be mobilized or lost under the relevant conditions; it does not automatically mean water or familiar terrestrial ice.
The accompanying MESSENGER photograph shows a crater inside the Caloris basin, with an etched-looking floor and strong shadows. It records surface texture and reflected light, not a direct chemical analysis. A bright patch might motivate targeted spectroscopy, while repeated images under comparable illumination could test for change. The responsible inference is a set of testable explanations, rather than identifying a substance from brightness alone.
MESSENGER recorded this crater within the Caloris basin on October 28, 2011. The source identifies hollows on its etched-looking floor. Sunlit slopes and deep shadows emphasize relief; the image records reflected light, not a chemical map. The photographed area is within Caloris, away from the polar ice deposits discussed in the previous lesson.
Look closely
Which visible features would you map before proposing an explanation for the irregular floor?
See what to notice
Map the hollow outlines, their relation to floor material and crater structures, and the lighting direction. A material-loss explanation must account for those relationships. Brightness by itself does not identify the volatile substance or prove that the feature contains ice.
Check 1 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Work through a decision
Choose observations that break a tie
Consider two fictional explanations for an irregular depression: an impact excavated it, or loss of material caused the ground to collapse. A single dark patch fits neither uniquely. A mapped ejecta blanket and raised rim would strengthen the impact explanation. A shallow irregular shape expanding within particular bright deposits, without the expected ejecta pattern, would strengthen material loss. Neither test becomes definitive by ignoring resolution or alternative geological processes.
Suppose an old image resolves features only down to 100 metres across, while a newer image resolves 20 metres. A newly visible 40-metre is not, on that evidence alone, newly formed. It was below the old detection limit. Reimage at comparable geometry and resolution, document the earlier upper limits, and look for an actual change in a feature that both datasets could resolve. Better eyesight is not necessarily faster geology.
Check 2 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Look inside without drilling through the planet
Mercury’s unusually high suggests a large metallic interior, but density alone cannot uniquely specify its layers. Radio tracking measures changes in a spacecraft’s motion and constrains the gravity field. and imaging measure small variations in the planet’s rotation, called libration. Together with its magnetic field, these observations support a large core with a liquid part; models also support a solid inner core.
A core diagram summarizes an inference from those observations and material models, not a photograph through the crust. Different compositions or layer assumptions can change the inferred sizes. Combining gravity, rotation, and magnetic evidence is powerful because one model must explain all of them. Mercury’s surface provides the sequence of exposed events; its motion and fields supply complementary constraints on an interior that cameras cannot directly see.
Check 3 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Put it together
Your lesson progress
Each check connects to a part of the story. Complete all 3 to earn your 25-point lesson bonus.
Go to the source
Explore the evidence behind this lesson. These optional readings and videos open in a new tab.