The combination of petrographic analysis of drill core from the recent International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP)–U.S Geological Survey (USGS) drilling project and results from numerical simulations provides new constraints for reconstructing the kinematic history and duration of different stages of the Chesa-peake Bay impact event. The numerical model, in good qualitative agreement with previous seismic data across the crater, is also roughly consistent with the stratigraphy of the new borehole. From drill core observations and modeling, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The lack of a shock metamorphic overprint of cored basement lithologies suggests that the drill core might not have reached the parautochthonous shocked crater floor but merely cored basement blocks that slumped off the rim of the original cavity into the crater during crater modification. (2) The sequence of polymict lithic breccia, suevite, and impact melt rock (1397–1551 m) must have been deposited prior to the arrival of the 950-m-thick resurge and avalanche-delivered beds and blocks within 5–7 min after impact. (3) This short period for transportation and deposition of impactites may suggest that the majority of the impactites of the Eyreville core never left the transient crater and was emplaced by ground surge. This is in accordance with observations of impact breccia fabrics. However, the uppermost part of the suevite section contains a pronounced component of airborne material. (4) Limited amounts of shock-deformed debris and melt fragments also occur throughout the Exmore beds. Shard-enriched intervals in the upper Exmore beds indicate that some material interpreted to be part of the hot ejecta plume was incorporated and dispersed into the upper resurge deposits. This suggests that collapse of the ejecta plume was contemporaneous with the major resurge event(s). Modeling indicates that the resurge flow should have been concluded some 20 min after impact; hence, this also likely marked the end of the major episode of deposition from the ejecta plume.

The diameter of an impact crater is one of the most basic and important parameters used in energy scaling and numerical modeling of the cratering process. However, within the impact and geological communities and literature, there is considerable confusion about crater sizes due to the occurrence of a variety of concentric features, any of which might be interpreted as defining a crater's diameter. The disparate types of data available for different craters make the use of consistent metrics difficult, especially when comparing terrestrial to extraterrestrial craters. Furthermore, assessment of the diameters of terrestrial craters can be greatly complicated due to post-impact modification by erosion and tectonic activity. We analyze the terminology used to describe crater geometry and size and attempt to clarify the confusion over what exactly the term “crater diameter” means, proposing a consistent terminology to help avert future ambiguities. We discuss several issues of crater-size in the context of four large terrestrial examples for which crater diameters have been disputed (Chicxulub, Sudbury, Vredefort, and Chesapeake Bay) with the aim of moving toward consistent application of terminology.