Paper detail

Resurfacing processes constrained by crater distribution on Ryugu

Understanding the geological modification processes on asteroids can provide information concerning their surface history. Images of small asteroids from spacecraft show a depletion in terms of smaller craters. Seismic shaking was considered to be responsible for crater erasure and the main driver modifying the geology of asteroids via regolith convection or the Brazil nut effect. However, a recent artificial impact experiment on the asteroid Ryugu by the Japanese Hayabusa2 mission revealed minimal seismic activity. To investigate whether a seismic shaking model can reproduce the observed crater record, the crater distribution on Ryugu was analyzed using crater production functions under cohesionless conditions. Crater retention ages were estimated as a function of crater diameter for Ryugu, Itokawa, Eros, and Bennu using the crater size-frequency distribution and crater production function estimated for those asteroids. We found that the power-law indices "a" are inconsistent with diffusion processes (e.g., seismic shaking, a=2). This result suggests that seismic shaking models based on diffusion equations cannot explain the crater distribution on small asteroids. Alternative processes include surface flows, possibly at the origin of geomorphological and spectral features of Ryugu. We demonstrate that the vertical mixing of material at depths shallower than 1 m occurs over 10^3-10^5 yr by cratering and obliteration. The young surface age of Ryugu is consistent with the slow space weathering that results from cratering, as suggested in previous studies. The timescale (10^4-10^6 yr) required for resurfacing at depths of 2-4 m can be compared with the cosmic-ray exposure ages of returned samples to constrain the distribution of impactors that collide with Ryugu.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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.

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 graph slice

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.