Modelling reconstruction and boulder size-frequency distribution of a young (<5 Myr) landslide located in Simud Vallis floor, Mars

Anticipated Geological Assessment of the (65803) Didymos–Dimorphos System, Target of the DART–LICIACube Mission

“…Various forms of mass wasting have been observed in the solar system, not only on Earth but also on multiple other bodies, such as the Moon (e.g., Bart 2007;Xiao et al 2013), Mars (e.g., Crosta et al 2018;Pajola et al 2022), Mercury (e.g., Malin & Dzurisin 1978), Venus (e.g., Malin 1992), the Martian moon Phobos (e.g., Shi et al 2016), Jovian moons (e.g., Schenk & Bulmer 1998;Moore et al 1999), Saturnian moons (e.g., Singer et al 2012), and Charon (Beddingfield et al 2020). In addition, mass-wasting features have also been detected and investigated on the surfaces of minor bodies, such as on comets and asteroids (e.g., Figure 8(A), (B); Sullivan et al 1996;Thomas et al 2002;Miyamoto et al 2007; Barnouin-Jha et al 2008;Massironi et al 2012;Pajola et al 2017b;Schmidt et al 2017;Barnouin et al 2019;Lucchetti et al 2019;Walsh et al 2019;Daly et al 2020a;Jawin et al 2020;Barnouin et al 2022).…”

“…Today, the boulder SFD analysis is a widely accepted and used tool to test and investigate some of the geomorphological processes that shaped a planetary surface (e.g., Grant et al 2006;Yingst et al 2007;Golombek et al 2008;Yingst et al 2010;Pajola et al 2017cPajola et al , 2022. This approach is not only used for planets, indeed there is increasing literature documenting the SFD of boulders on minor bodies and satellites such as the Martian Phobos and Deimos (e.g., Lee et al 1986); on asteroids (243) Ida (Geissler et al 1996), (433) Eros (Thomas et al 2001), (25143) Itokawa (Michikami et al 2008;Mazrouei et al 2014), (21) Lutetia (Küppers et al 2012), (4) Vesta (Schröder et al 2020), (101955) Bennu (Daly et al 2020a;Burke et al 2021), and (162173) Ryugu (Michikami et al 2019); on the dwarf planet Ceres (Schröder et al 2021); on the Moon (Bart & Melosh 2010); on Enceladus (Pajola et al 2021); and, more recently, on cometary nuclei, such as 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and 103P/Hartley 2 (Pajola et al 2015(Pajola et al , 2016a(Pajola et al , 2016b.…”

Pre-landslide topographic reconstruction in Baetis Chaos, mars using a CaSSIS Digital Elevation Model

“…Guimpier et al (2021) described and reconstructed the pre-landslide topography for three small landslides in the Nilosyrtis Mensae region, with a volume less than 10 7 m 3 . A similar reconstruction process was also used in Pajola et al (2022). These two studies used HiRISE DEM data, with 1 m vertical resolution and 1-2 m/pix spatial sampling.…”

“…When compared with the vertical and horizontal distances travelled, the volume of the sliding mass can be used as a measure of the event mobility and used to compare it to other landslide events (Lucas and Mangeney, 2007). Moreover, the mass distribution of the deposit can be compared with the outputs of 3D flow simulations of landslides (Crosta et al, 2018b;Magnarini et al, 2019;Guimpier et al, 2021;Pajola et al, 2022), which can be used to better understand the physical mechanisms involved in the mass movement. In the case of recent terrestrial landslides, these volume calculations can be obtained by differencing Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) from pre-and post-landslide (Tsutsui et al, 2007).…”

“…These authors used HRSC DEMs with spatial sampling of 15 m/pix allowing the study of landslide < 10 km, yet the vertical resolution leads to significant uncertainty in the volume calculation for smaller landslides. Finally, elevation data from the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) with 1-2 m/pix spatial sampling and <1 m vertical resolution has been used to perform topographic reconstruction for kilometre-scale gullies (Conway and Balme, 2014;de Haas et al, 2015) and landslides (Guimpier et al, 2021;Pajola et al, 2022). However, features larger than 6 km cannot generally be accommodated in a single DEM due to relatively narrow HiRISE imaging swath (McEwen et al, 2007).…”