Abstract

AbstractThe crater record of a planetary surface unit is often analyzed by its cumulative size‐frequency distribution (CSFD). Measuring CSFDs involves traditional approaches, such as traditional crater counting (TCC) and buffered crater counting (BCC), as well as geometric corrections, such as nonsparseness correction (NSC) and buffered nonsparseness correction (BNSC). NSC and BNSC consider the effects of geometric crater obliteration on the CSFD. On the Moon, crater obliteration leads to two distinct states in which obtained CSFDs do not match the production CSFD—crater equilibrium and nonsparseness. Crater equilibrium occurs when each new impact erases a preexisting crater of the same size. It is clearly observed on lunar terrains dominated by small simple craters with steep‐sloped production CSFDs, such as Imbrian to Eratosthenian‐era mare units. Nonsparseness, on the other hand, is caused by the geometric overlap of preexisting craters by a new impact, which is also known as “cookie cutting.” Cookie cutting is most clearly observed on lunar terrains dominated by large craters with shallow‐sloped production CSFDs, such as the pre‐Nectarian lunar highlands. We use the Cratered Terrain Evolution Model (CTEM) to simulate the evolution of a pre‐Nectarian surface unit. The model was previously used to simulate the diffusion‐induced equilibrium for small craters of the lunar maria. We find that relative to their size, large craters contribute less to the diffusion of the surrounding landscape than small craters. Thus, a simple scale dependence cannot account for the per‐crater contribution to degradation by small simple and large complex craters.

Highlights

  • The Evolution of Lunar Surface UnitsThe surface evolution of the Moon is largely controlled by impact cratering

  • One big challenge is that the impact record of the most ancient lunar terrains is incomplete due to crater degradation and erasure processes. This circumstance has led to a long debate about the bombardment history of the Moon, during the Nectarian and pre‐Nectarian periods. Investigations on such ancient lunar surface units showed a change in the cumulative size‐frequency distribution (CSFD) slope, which has been attributed to the RIEDEL ET AL

  • In order to investigate how topographic diffusion contributes to lunar surface evolution, we model the evolution of a pre‐Nectarian surface unit that contains larger craters than those investigated by Minton et al (2019)—with diameters between 15.4 and 905 km

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The surface evolution of the Moon is largely controlled by impact cratering. Its surface provides a well‐preserved cratering record that has long been used to understand the surface evolution of planetary bodies in the inner solar system (e.g., Baldwin, 1964; Hiesinger et al, 2012; Neukum, 1983; Neukum et al, 2001; Öpik, 1960; Stöffler et al, 2006; Stöffler & Ryder, 2001). Minton et al (2019) concluded that sandblasting by primary impactors alone is not effective enough to induce the equilibrium CSFD to be

Modeling Crater Degradation
Cookie Cutting
Modeling Topographic Diffusion With CTEM
Simulation 1
Simulation 2
Simulation 3
Results
Interpretations
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call