4.3 Article

Crater density differences: Exploring regional resurfacing, secondary crater populations, and crater saturation equilibrium on the moon

期刊

PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 41-51

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2017.05.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Project
  2. German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft-und Raumfahrt) [50OW0901, 50OW1504]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The global population of lunar craters >20 km in diameter was analyzed by Head et al., (2010) to correlate crater distribution with resurfacing events and multiple impactor populations. The work presented here extends the global crater distribution analysis to smaller craters (5-20 km diameters, n = 22,746). Smaller craters form at a higher rate than larger craters and thus add granularity to age estimates of larger units and can reveal smaller and younger areas of resurfacing. An areal density difference map generated by comparing the new dataset with that of Head et al., (2010) shows local deficiencies of 5-20 km diameter craters, which we interpret to be caused by a combination of resurfacing by the Orientale basin, infilling of intercrater plains within the nearside highlands, and partial mare flooding of the Australe region. Chains of 5-30 km diameter secondaries northwest of Orientale and possible 8-22 km diameter basin secondaries within the farside highlands are also distinguishable. Analysis of the new database indicates that craters 57-160 km in diameter across much of the lunar highlands are at or exceed relative crater densities of R = 0.3 or 10% geometric saturation, but nonetheless appear to fit the lunar production function. Combined with the observation that small craters on old surfaces can reach saturation equilibrium at 1% geometric saturation (Xiao and Werner, 2015), this suggests that saturation equilibrium is a size-dependent process, where large craters persist because of their resistance to destruction, degradation, and resurfacing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据