Population of Degrading Small Impact Craters in the Chang’E-4 Landing Area Using Descent and Ground Images
"> Figure 1
<p>Flow chart of the analysis of impact crater population degradation.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Visual identification criteria of impact crater features. (<b>a</b>) Crescent-like bright and dark regions. (<b>b</b>) Circular shape, yellow arrows mark the impact crater boundaries.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Diagram of impact craters with diameters of 5 pixels (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and 10 pixels (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), with (<b>c</b>) a C2 type impact crater and (<b>d</b>) a C3 type impact crater. Yellow arrows mark the impact crater boundaries.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Examples of craters at four degradation levels, where (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) correspond to impact craters of types C1, C2, C3, and C4, respectively. Yellow arrows mark the impact crater boundaries. The diameters of the impact craters are written in the figures.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Comparison of impact craters on the LCAM mosaic image (<b>b</b>) and the TCAM images (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>: cylindrical projection). Circled in red and blue are two impact craters with different degradation levels (red circles are C3 type impact craters and blue circles are C4 type impact craters) shown in LCAM mosaic image and in TCAM images, respectively.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>The mosaicked LCAM image with boundaries of areas defined by different sizes of visible craters. The red, the yellow, the aquamarine, and the pink outlined areas correspond to impact craters with a minimum diameter of 0.15, 0.5, 1, and 2 m that can be identified, respectively, as constrained by the limitations of the resolution of descent images.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Histogram of the crater diameter distribution in each study region, where the red line is the median of the crater diameter distribution, and the black and the green dashed lines are the diameters corresponding to 2.5% and 97.5% of the number of impact craters, respectively. The interval between the two dashed lines corresponds to the diameter distribution of 95% of the impact craters. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) show histograms of the crater diameter distribution of the red, yellow, aquamarine, and pink outlined areas, respectively.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Crater distribution map with different degradation levels in different study areas. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) show the red, yellow, aquamarine, and pink outlined study areas. Red, aquamarine, yellow, and green circles are C1, C2, C3, and C4 impact craters.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>The corresponding impact craters in the TCAM and LCAM mosaic images. (<b>a</b>) Part of the enhanced ground TCAM image (cylindrical projection), corresponding to the area shown in the blue dashed box in (<b>b</b>). The red dashed arrow shows the direction of ejection from crater a1’ to crater a’. (<b>b</b>) Ground TCAM image (azimuthal projection). The red solid lines show 12 corresponding craters with different degradation levels. Aquamarine, yellow, and green outlined areas in (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) are C2, C3, and C4 craters. The areas within the white circles in (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) are the study areas where TCAM images were used to verify the degradation level of impact craters. (<b>c</b>) The LCAM mosaic image. (<b>d</b>) Distribution of LCAM impact craters corresponding to the TCAM image. The green pentagram is the Chang’e-4 landing site.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>DOM (<b>a</b>) and DEM (<b>b</b>) of the third lunar day PCAM of Yutu-2, where the red impact craters are the corresponding craters of the PCAM and LCAM, and the blue represents impact craters not identified by the LCAM. The areas shown in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) correspond to the red area of the LCAM mosaic image thumbnail in the lower left corner of the figure.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Craterstats2 program calculated cumulative SFD and equilibrium lines in the red, yellow, aquamarine, pink outlined areas. EF refer to the equilibrium function of Hartmann [<a href="#B44-remotesensing-14-03608" class="html-bibr">44</a>]. PF and CF refer to the production function and the chronology function of Neukum et al. [<a href="#B48-remotesensing-14-03608" class="html-bibr">48</a>], respectively. Red dashed lines show the inflection points. The equilibrium lines (criterions from Hartmann [<a href="#B44-remotesensing-14-03608" class="html-bibr">44</a>]) are displayed as black lines in (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>). (<b>a</b>) Red outlined area. (<b>b</b>) Yellow outlined area. (<b>c</b>) Aquamarine outlined area. (<b>d</b>) Pink outlined area.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Impact craters of C1, C2, C3, and C4 degradation levels at the centimeter to meter scale in the Chang’e-4 landing area were acquired based on LCAM mosaic imagery.
- (2)
- The impact crater degradation level classification was qualitatively verified from a side-view perspective using TCAM images, and the crater depth-to-diameter ratio calculated by DEM using PCAM of Yutu-2 was used to quantitatively verify the impact crater degradation level.
- (3)
- The equilibrium state of the centimeter to meter impact crater population in the Chang’e-4 landing area was evaluated. Moreover, the local surface resurfacing was analyzed.
2. Methodology
2.1. The Mosaic and Registration of the Images from the LCAM
2.2. Identification of Impact Craters
2.3. Classification of Degradation Levels of Impact Craters
- (1)
- C1 type: fresh craters, with obvious rays or clear edges, and a sharp contrast between bright and dark.
- (2)
- C2 type: slightly degraded craters, with clear edges, and a relatively clear contrast between bright and dark.
- (3)
- C3 type: moderately degraded craters, which show clear signs of degradation with small differences between bright and dark, raised crater floors due to filling, and fuzzy circular outlines.
- (4)
- C4 type: severely degraded craters with unclear outlines, shallow crater floors, and a circular outline that can be distinguished when the image is stretched.
2.4. Qualitative and Quantification Analysis of the Degradation Level of Impact Craters Using Ground TCAM Images and DEMs Acquired by Yutu-2 PCAM
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Study Area and Data
3.2. The Mosaic of the Descent Images
3.3. Impact Crater Distribution Results
3.4. Impact Crater Degradation and Crater Size
- (1)
- For each study area, the proportion of C4 type impact craters is the highest, exceeding 50% for most areas, while the proportion of fresh impact craters is less than 10%, indicating that impact crater degradation in the Chang’e-4 landing area is severe. The sizes of the craters in the landing area were relatively small (the maximum diameter was 67 m).
- (2)
- As the size of the impact craters increased, the proportions of C1, C2, and C3 craters all gradually increased, while the proportion of C4 craters gradually decreased. The C3 + C4 impact craters show the same degradation pattern, which is consistent in all four study areas (for the effective statistical interval, i.e., diameter range corresponding to 95% of the impact crater samples in the study area).
3.5. In Situ Qualitative and Quantitative Validation
4. Discussion
5. Future Research Considerations
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- The crater population is severely degraded, with over 90% of the craters being moderately degraded (C3) and severely degraded (C4). Moreover, like the degradation pattern of the large crater population, the smaller the crater size, the more severe the degradation.
- (2)
- The red and yellow outlined areas cover more small-sized craters (with minimum crater diameters of 0.15 and 0.5 m, respectively) than the other two study areas in this paper; unlike previous findings, they have more difficulty reaching equilibrium (cumulative SFD slopes of −2.696 and −2.392 for these two areas). This may be due to secondary craters and/or resurfacing events caused by ejecta from adjacent craters.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, C.; Zuo, W.; Wen, W.; Zeng, X.; Gao, X.; Liu, Y.; Fu, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Su, Y.; Ren, X. Overview of the Chang’e-4 mission: Opening the frontier of scientific exploration of the lunar far side. Space Sci. Rev. 2021, 217, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Di, K.; Li, J.; Xie, J.; Cui, X.; Xi, L.; Wan, W.; Peng, M.; Liu, B.; Wang, Y. Landing site topographic mapping and rover localization for Chang’e-4 mission. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 2020, 63, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, C.; Zhao, H.; Bruzzone, L.; Benediktsson, J.A.; Liang, Y.; Liu, B.; Zeng, X.; Guan, R.; Li, C.; Ouyang, Z. Lunar impact crater identification and age estimation with Chang’E data by deep and transfer learning. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guo, D.; Fa, W.; Wu, B.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y. Millimeter-to Decimeter-Scale Surface Roughness of the Moon at the Chang’e-4 Exploration Region. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2021GL094931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Li, Y.; Liu, W.C.; Wang, Y.; Li, F.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, H. Centimeter-resolution topographic modeling and fine-scale analysis of craters and rocks at the Chang’E-4 landing site. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2021, 553, 116666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, M.; Di, K.; Yue, Z.; Liu, B.; Wan, W.; Niu, S.; Liu, J.; Cheng, W.; Lin, Y. Multi-scale morphologic investigation of craters in the Chang’e-4 landing area. Icarus 2021, 355, 114164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiesinger, H.V.; Van Der Bogert, C.; Pasckert, J.; Funcke, L.; Giacomini, L.; Ostrach, L.; Robinson, M. How old are young lunar craters? J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2012, 117, E00H10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geiss, J.; Rossi, A.P. On the chronology of lunar origin and evolution. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 2013, 21, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massironi, M.; Cremonese, G.; Marchi, S.; Martellato, E.; Mottola, S.; Wagner, R.J. Mercury’s geochronology revised by applying Model Production Function to Mariner 10 data: Geological implications. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, L21204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Basilevsky, A.T. On the evolution rate of small lunar craters. In Proceedings of the 7th Lunar Planetary Science Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 15–19 March 1976; Volume 1, pp. 1005–1019. [Google Scholar]
- Craddock, R.A.; Howard, A.D. Simulated degradation of lunar impact craters and a new method for age dating farside mare deposits. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2000, 105, 20387–20401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molaro, J.; Byrne, S. Rates of temperature change of airless landscapes and implications for thermal stress weathering. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2012, 117, E10011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fassett, C.I.; Thomson, B.J. Crater degradation on the lunar maria: Topographic diffusion and the rate of erosion on the Moon. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2014, 119, 2255–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhelms, D.E.; John, F.; Trask, N.J. The Geologic History of the Moon; USGS Professional Paper 1348; Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 1987; pp. 2330–7102.
- Xiao, Z.; Werner, S.C. Size-frequency distribution of crater populations in equilibrium on the Moon. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2015, 120, 2277–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, M.; Xiao, Z.; Xu, A. Time-dependent production functions of lunar simple craters on layered targets with consideration of topographic degradation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019, 46, 10987–10996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, M.; Zhu, M.H.; Xiao, Z.; Wu, Y.; Xu, A. Effect of topography degradation on crater size-frequency distributions: Implications for populations of small craters and age dating. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 10171–10179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, C.; Head, J.; Cintala, M. Crater degradation on Mercury and the moon-Clues to surface evolution. In Proceedings of the 8th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Proceedings, Houston, TX, USA, 14–18 March 1977; Volume 3, pp. 3503–3520. [Google Scholar]
- Ivanov, M.; Basilevsky, A. Morphology and size–frequency distribution of kilometer-scale impact craters on Callisto and Ganymede derived from Galileo data. Sol. Syst. Res. 2002, 36, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, K. Study on Small-Scale Lunar Craters’ Morphology and Degradation; Wuhan University: Wuhan, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, A.D. Simulating the development of Martian highland landscapes through the interaction of impact cratering, fluvial erosion, and variable hydrologic forcing. Geomorphology 2007, 91, 332–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kreslavsky, M.A.; Head, J.W.; Neumann, G.A.; Rosenburg, M.A.; Aharonson, O.; Smith, D.E.; Zuber, M.T. Lunar topographic roughness maps from Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) data: Scale dependence and correlation with geologic features and units. Icarus 2013, 226, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, M.; Liu, T.; Xu, A. Ballistic Sedimentation of Impact Crater Ejecta: Implications for the Provenance of Lunar Samples and the Resurfacing Effect of Ejecta on the Lunar Surface. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2020, 125, e06113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, L.; Ling, Z.; Fu, X.; Li, B. Geological characterization of the Chang’e-4 landing area on the lunar farside. Icarus 2019, 333, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, C. The system of lunar craters. Quadr. I Comm. 1963, 2, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
- Hirabayashi, M.; Minton, D.A.; Fassett, C.I. An analytical model of crater count equilibrium. Icarus 2017, 289, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Povilaitis, R.; Robinson, M.; Van der Bogert, C.; Hiesinger, H.; Meyer, H.; Ostrach, L. Crater density differences: Exploring regional resurfacing, secondary crater populations, and crater saturation equilibrium on the moon. Planet. Space Sci. 2018, 162, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minton, D.A.; Fassett, C.I.; Hirabayashi, M.; Howl, B.A.; Richardson, J.E. The equilibrium size-frequency distribution of small craters reveals the effects of distal ejecta on lunar landscape morphology. Icarus 2019, 326, 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salaün, Y.; Marlet, R.; Monasse, P. Line-based robust SfM with little image overlap. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), Qingdao, China, 10–12 October 2017; pp. 195–204. [Google Scholar]
- Li, R.; Fei, M.; Xu, F.; Matthies, L.H.; Olson, C.F.; Arvidson, R.E. Localization of Mars rovers using descent and surface-based image data. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2002, 107, FIDO 4-1–FIDO 4-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Z.Z.; Zhang, Z.X.; Yang, F.L. Relative Orientation and Epipolar Arrangement based on Forward Moving Image Pairs along the Optical Axis. Acta Geod. Cartogr. Sin. 2007, 36, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
- Barlow, N.G. Constraining geologic properties and processes through the use of impact craters. Geomorphology 2015, 240, 18–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Ming, D.; Cheng, W.; Sensing, R. Identification of Multiscale Spatial Structure of Lunar Impact Crater: A Semivariogram Approach. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. 2021, 14, 2731–2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.H.; Minton, D.A.; Hirabayashi, M.; Elliott, J.R.; Richardson, J.E.; Fassett, C.I.; Zellner, N.E. Heterogeneous impact transport on the Moon. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2017, 122, 1158–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kinczyk, M.J.; Prockter, L.M.; Byrne, P.K.; Susorney, H.C.; Chapman, C.R. A morphological evaluation of crater degradation on Mercury: Revisiting crater classification with MESSENGER data. Icarus 2020, 341, 113637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, Z.; Qiao, L.; Liu, C.; Cao, H.; Bi, X.; Lu, X.; Zhang, J.; Fu, X.; Li, B.; Liu, J. Composition, mineralogy and chronology of mare basalts and non-mare materials in Von Kármán crater: Landing site of the Chang’E−4 mission. Planet. Space Sci. 2019, 179, 104741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di, K.; Zhu, M.H.; Yue, Z.; Lin, Y.; Wan, W.; Liu, Z.; Gou, S.; Liu, B.; Peng, M.; Wang, Y. Topographic evolution of Von Kármán crater revealed by the lunar rover Yutu-2. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019, 46, 12764–12770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrick-Bethell, I.; Zuber, M.T. Elliptical structure of the lunar South Pole-Aitken basin. Icarus 2009, 204, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Li, F.; Hu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, P.; Li, Y.; Liu, W.C.; Chen, L.; Ge, X. Topographic and Geomorphological Mapping and Analysis of the Chang’E-4 Landing Site on the Far Side of the Moon. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2020, 86, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Xie, M.; Xiao, Z.; Cui, J. The minimum confidence limit for diameters in crater counts. Icarus 2020, 341, 113645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melosh, H.J. Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1989; pp. 1–255. [Google Scholar]
- Richardson, J.E. Cratering saturation and equilibrium: A new model looks at an old problem. Icarus 2009, 204, 697–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gault, D.E. Saturation and equilibrium conditions for impact cratering on the lunar surface: Criteria and implications. Radio Sci. 1970, 5, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, W.K. Does crater ‘saturation equilibrium’ occur in the solar system? Icarus 1984, 60, 56–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michael, G.; Neukum, G. Planetary surface dating from crater size–frequency distribution measurements: Partial resurfacing events and statistical age uncertainty. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2010, 294, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clauset, A.; Shalizi, C.R.; Newman, M.E. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 2009, 51, 661–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Crater Analysis Techniques Working Group. Standard techniques for presentation and analysis of crater size-frequency data. Icarus 1979, 37, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neukum, G.; Ivanov, B.; Hartmann, W.K. Cratering records in the Inner solar system in relation to the lunar reference system. Space Sci. Rev. 2001, 96, 55–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, H.J. Density of small craters on the lunar surface. In United States Geological Survey Astrogeology Studies; Annual Program Report: Washington, DC, USA, 1964; pp. 34–51. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, Z.; Strom, R.G. Problems determining relative and absolute ages using the small crater population. Icarus 2012, 220, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di, K.; Liu, Z.; Liu, B.; Wan, W.; Peng, M.; Wang, Y.; Gou, S.; Yue, Z.; Xin, X.; Jia, M. Chang’e-4 lander localization based on multi-source data. J. Remote Sens. 2019, 23, 177–184. [Google Scholar]
- Thomson, B.J.; Grosfils, E.B.; Bussey, D.B.J.; Spudis, P.D. A new technique for estimating the thickness of mare basalts in Imbrium Basin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, L12201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Data Range | 0–25% | 25–50% | 50–75% | 75–100% | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Diameter (m) | 0.268–0.430 | 0.430–0.547 | 0.547–0.714 | 0.714–1.725 | 0.268–1.725 | |
Red outlined area (4334 m2) | C1 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.18% | 0.84% |
C2 | 1.26% | 1.08% | 1.26% | 4.68% | 6.00% | |
C3 | 19.28% | 20.68% | 23.38% | 31.47% | 28.91% | |
C4 | 79.46% | 78.24% | 75.36% | 63.67% | 64.25% | |
C3 + C4 | 98.74% | 98.92% | 98.74% | 95.14% | 93.16% | |
Data range | 0–25% | 25–50% | 50–75% | 75–100% | Total | |
Diameter (m) | 0.512–0.627 | 0.627–0.800 | 0.800–1.059 | 1.059–2.612 | 0.512–2.612 | |
Yellow outlined area (9569 m2) | C1 | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.39% | 0.40% |
C2 | 0.97% | 1.56% | 1.95% | 5.86% | 4.06% | |
C3 | 19.49% | 25.00% | 29.63% | 36.13% | 28.30% | |
C4 | 79.53% | 73.44% | 68.42% | 57.62% | 67.24% | |
C3 + C4 | 99.03% | 98.44% | 98.05% | 93.75% | 95.54% | |
Data range | 0–25% | 25–50% | 50–75% | 75–100% | Total | |
Diameter (m) | 1.026–1.381 | 1.381–1.829 | 1.829–2.597 | 2.597–8.963 | 1.026–8.963 | |
Aquamarine outlined area (71,763 m2) | C1 | 0.14% | 0.00% | 0.14% | 1.29% | 0.10% |
C2 | 1.44% | 3.31% | 2.88% | 8.62% | 2.59% | |
C3 | 26.01% | 25.90% | 28.39% | 32.90% | 27.56% | |
C4 | 72.41% | 70.79% | 68.59% | 57.18% | 69.76% | |
C3 + C4 | 98.42% | 96.69% | 96.97% | 90.09% | 97.32% | |
Data range | 0–25% | 25–50% | 50–75% | 75–100% | Total | |
Diameter (m) | 2.040–2.492 | 2.492–3.141 | 3.141–4.408 | 4.408–15.449 | 2.040–15.449 | |
Pink outlined area (146,687 m2) | C1 | 0.21% | 0.21% | 0.63% | 2.30% | 0.04% |
C2 | 2.51% | 4.80% | 5.43% | 11.27% | 2.07% | |
C3 | 24.63% | 31.11% | 29.85% | 30.06% | 23.71% | |
C4 | 72.65% | 63.88% | 64.09% | 56.37% | 74.18% | |
C3 + C4 | 97.29% | 94.99% | 93.95% | 86.43% | 97.89% |
Depth-to-Diameter Ratio (×10−3) | Crater Number | Diameter (m) | Depth (cm) | Crater Degradation Levels |
---|---|---|---|---|
0.023 | 19 | 2.015 | 0.005 | C4 |
0.043 | 5 | 1.907 | 0.008 | C4 |
0.288 | 14 | 1.017 | 0.029 | C4 |
0.321 | 12 | 1.592 | 0.051 | C4 |
0.363 | 13 | 1.744 | 0.063 | C4 |
0.385 | 7 | 1.123 | 0.043 | C4 |
0.390 | 0 | 1.466 | 0.057 | C3 |
0.432 | 10 | 1.798 | 0.078 | C3 |
0.450 | 6 | 1.531 | 0.069 | C3 |
0.465 | 18 | 1.499 | 0.070 | C3 |
0.495 | 9 | 1.734 | 0.086 | C3 |
0.518 | 8 | 1.673 | 0.087 | C3 |
0.557 | 3 | 1.176 | 0.065 | C3 |
0.601 | 4 | 1.374 | 0.083 | C3 |
0.700 | 11 | 2.040 | 0.143 | C3 |
0.794 | 2 | 1.256 | 0.100 | C3 |
0.804 | 1 | 1.295 | 0.104 | C3 |
1.121 | 16 | 1.752 | 0.196 | C3 |
Counting Areas | Cumulative SFD Slopes of Crater Population in Equilibrium | Deq (m) |
---|---|---|
Red outlined area | −2.696 | 0.779 |
Yellow outlined area | −2.392 | 0.810 |
Aquamarine outlined area | −1.952 | 2.090 |
Pink outlined area | −1.917 | 3.037 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hu, T.; Yang, Z.; Kang, Z.; Lin, H.; Zhong, J.; Zhang, D.; Cao, Y.; Geng, H. Population of Degrading Small Impact Craters in the Chang’E-4 Landing Area Using Descent and Ground Images. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 3608. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153608
Hu T, Yang Z, Kang Z, Lin H, Zhong J, Zhang D, Cao Y, Geng H. Population of Degrading Small Impact Craters in the Chang’E-4 Landing Area Using Descent and Ground Images. Remote Sensing. 2022; 14(15):3608. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153608
Chicago/Turabian StyleHu, Teng, Ze Yang, Zhizhong Kang, Hongyu Lin, Jie Zhong, Dongya Zhang, Yameng Cao, and Haomin Geng. 2022. "Population of Degrading Small Impact Craters in the Chang’E-4 Landing Area Using Descent and Ground Images" Remote Sensing 14, no. 15: 3608. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14153608