Only impact craters?

[imported_Frank]

Are we only interested in mapping impact craters? (ie. not interested in mapping volcanic craters.)

The relatively new impact craters are lots easier to spot. Are the scientific goals here interested more in the newer ones, or are the goals to look at the more ancient ones too?

I've noticed that it takes me quite a while longer to define the outlines of the 'flat floor' craters. Those whose rims are deteroriated or broken by another impacts may be important. Just how much time should I be taking on these elder craters?

BTW...enjoying my experiences here very much. Thanks

[astrostu]

Hi Frank - we're interested in all kinds of craters. Most craters you find will be impact craters. Very few in these regions (if any) will be volcanic, but if you find one you think is volcanic, please flag it as an "Interesting Feature." That will help draw our attention to it to check it.

But yeah, all the science goals for MoonMappers at the moment need complete crater counts, the new and the old. The highly degraded can be very difficult to spot. If you're not sure about a crater, use your best judgement -- everyone else should be, too, so hopefully we'll get an aggregate "best judgement." If you're spending 30 seconds trying to decide if a feature is a crater or not, then move on. We don't want you to be losing sleep over just one crater.

Now, losing sleep because identifying craters is addicting is a different issue ...

[imported_Frank]

Thanks Stu.