Paper detail

Modeling the chronologies and size distributions of Ceres and Vesta craters

We infer the crater chronologies of Ceres and Vesta from a self-consistent dynamical model of asteroid impactors. The model accounts for planetary migration/instability early in the solar system history and tracks asteroid orbits over 4.56 Gy. It is calibrated on the current population of the asteroid belt. The model provides the number of asteroid impacts on different worlds at any time throughout the solar system history. We combine the results with an impactor-crater scaling relationship to determine the crater distribution of Ceres and Vesta and compare these theoretical predictions with observations. We find that: (i) The Ceres and Vesta chronologies are similar, whereas they significantly differ from the lunar chronology. Therefore, using the lunar chronology for main belt asteroids, as often done in previous publications, is incorrect. (ii) The model results match the number and size distribution of large (diameter $>90$ km) craters observed on Vesta, but overestimate the number of large craters on Ceres. This implies that large crater erasure is required for Ceres. (iii) In a model where planetary migration/instability happens early, the probability to form the Rheasilvia basin on Vesta during the last 1 Gy is 10\%, a factor of $\sim1.5$ higher than for the late instability case and $\sim2.5$ times higher than found in previous studies. Thus, while the formation of the Rheasilvia at $\sim1$ Gy ago (Ga) would be somewhat unusual, it cannot be ruled out at more than $\simeq1.5σ$. In broader context, our work provides a self-consistent framework for modeling asteroid crater records.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.