It has been a while, and it is fair to look back and see how I did:
Starting with Deep Impact: This prediction is spot on, although it would have helped if I would have quantified with numbers - the Deep impact site was barely discernable, a modest 100 meter diameter crater with no only a few meters of discernable depth - about what an impact of an object on the moon would have created.Originally Posted by jerry
It is clear from Mark's blogs entries at planetary.org the approach was a trial-and-error exercise. I hoped, as meticulously as he details the mission, he would have reported the nature of the challenge; but he instead focused on how well the software adjusted to the challenge.
Finally Mercury: Yes, they are having a devil of a time modeling the surface, the Newtonian dynamics require a thin skin, flowing mantle very close to the surface. This should have led to mascons much like what we see on/in the moon, but so far, there is little evidence of mascons. So it is curious.
As for the predictions of under-dense peaks and over-dense low-lands; preliminary data seem to indicate exactly the opposite - so it is back to the drawing board.