4.5 Article

Quantifying the Ejecta Thickness From Large Complex Craters on (1) Ceres

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS
Volume 128, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022JE007663

Keywords

Ceres; impact cratering; ejecta thickness; water ice; fluidization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We estimated the ejecta thickness of five complex craters on Ceres' equatorial region by analyzing smaller, simple craters in their ejecta deposits. The ejecta thickness ranges from 3 to 73 m around complex craters and 96-223 m at their rim crest localities. The thinner ejecta thicknesses on Ceres compared to the Moon are likely due to the presence of meltwater, which is supported by previous studies on subsurface water ice melting.
Quantifying the ejecta thickness distribution from complex craters is key to understanding surface-evolving processes on Ceres. Using the Park et al. (2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2018.10.024) shape model, we estimated the ejecta thickness of five complex craters located in Ceres' equatorial region by analyzing 1,778 smaller, simple craters in their continuous ejecta deposits. In addition, we constrained their rim-crest ejecta thickness following Sharpton (2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JE004523). The ejecta thicknesses range from similar to 3 to 73 m and similar to 96-223 m around complex craters and at their rim crest localities, respectively. We find that ejecta thicknesses on Ceres are thinner than those on the Moon. Meltwater likely facilitates thin ejecta deposits on Ceres, given that fluid pressure conditions allow transient liquid water stability at shallow depths (similar to 1.8 m). Such water must be short-lived because the atmospheric pressure on Ceres is too low (greater than or similar to 2.09 x 10(-8) Pa) to allow a stable liquid phase. Our findings are consistent with previous work that ascribes fluidized appearing ejecta morphologies to the melting of subsurface water ice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available