Impact cratering records of the mid-sized, icy saturnian satellites

Abstract

Resolution of Voyager 1 and 2 images of the mid-sized, icy saturnian satellites was generally not much better than 1 km per line pair, except for a few, isolated higher resolution images. Therefore, analyses of impact crater distributions were generally limited to diameters ( D) of tens of kilometers. Even with the limitation, however, these analyses demonstrated that studying impact crater distributions could expand understanding of the geology of the saturnian satellites and impact cratering in the outer Solar System. Thus to gain further insight into Saturn’s mid-sized satellites and impact cratering in the outer Solar System, we have compiled cratering records of these satellites using higher resolution Cassini ISS images. Images from Cassini of the satellites range in resolution from tens m/pixel to hundreds m/pixel. These high-resolution images provide a look at the impact cratering records of these satellites never seen before, expanding the observable craters down to diameters of hundreds of meters. The diameters and locations of all observable craters are recorded for regions of Mimas, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, and Phoebe. These impact crater data are then analyzed and compared using cumulative, differential and relative ( R) size-frequency distributions. Results indicate that the heavily cratered terrains on Rhea and Iapetus have similar distributions implying one common impactor population bombarded these two satellites. The distributions for Mimas and Dione, however, are different from Rhea and Iapetus, but are similar to one another, possibly implying another impactor population common to those two satellites. The difference between these two populations is a relative increase of craters with diameters between 10 and 30 km and a relative deficiency of craters with diameters between 30 and 80 km for Mimas and Dione compared with Rhea and Iapetus. This may support the result from Voyager images of two distinct impactor populations. One population was suggested to have a greater number of large impactors, most likely heliocentric comets (Saturn Population I in the Voyager literature), and the other a relative deficiency of large impactors and a greater number of small impactors, most likely planetocentric debris (Saturn Population II). Meanwhile, Tethys’ impact crater size-frequency distribution, which has some similarity to the distributions of Mimas, Dione, Rhea, and Iapetus, may be transitional between the two populations. Furthermore, when the impact crater distributions from these older cratered terrains are compared to younger ones like Dione’s smooth plains, the distributions have some similarities and differences. Therefore, it is uncertain whether the size-frequency distribution of the impactor population(s) changed over time. Finally, we find that Phoebe has a unique impact crater distribution. Phoebe appears to be lacking craters in a narrow diameter range around 1 km. The explanation for this confined “dip” at D = 1 km is not yet clear, but may have something to do with the interaction of Saturn’s irregular satellites or the capture of Phoebe.