Numerical Analysis of Putative Rock Glaciers on Mount Sharp, Gale Crater, Mars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, see the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Summary
The paper describes potential rock glacier features on the northern slopes of Aeolis Mons, within Gale crater. Morphological analyses were conducted on these features, in order to evaluate their origin. The acquired data allowed to analyze flow rates and formation times for a range of possible ice/rock mixtures.
The work is clear and well organized. The paper is certainly a valid contribution in the study of potential glacial features on Mars. In my opinion, some aspects should be integrated to clarify unclear traits and make the work complete. I suggest the publication with minor revision.
General comments
- In the paper are describer 11 lobes, while in the figures only 10 are numerated. The eleventh, if I understand correctly, it is the one furthest to the right in the image and is partially covered by another lobe. reading the whole text carefully, you can roughly understand this aspect, but initially it leaves the reader a little confused. I suggest to indicate this eleventh lobe both in the images and in the captions. Even with a different symbol from the numbering of the other 10, in order to allow an easy understanding of this aspect.
- I did not understand if the thickness H was considered from the edge of the section or from the edge of the glacier rock (or if these correspond). The margin of the rock glacier should be indicated in the relative images and this aspect on the calculation should be clarified. If the rock glacier is smaller than the section, perhaps H could be overestimated.
Line-by-line comments
- Lines 21-22: the keywords must be fixed, the numbers must be removed and possibly reduced.
- Line 33: among the relevant works on the subject there are also Megè and Bourgeois (2011), Equatorial glaciations on Mars revealed by gravitational collapse of Valles Marineris wallslopes, and Gourronc et al. (2014), One million cubic kilometers of fossil ice in Valles Marineris: Relicts of a 3.5 Gy old glacial landsystem along the Martian equator.
- Lines 36-39: Who “using a high-resolution climate simulation model and assuming a modern Mars water cycle” and who “found that mid-latitude, and even low-latitude, sites could maintain water ice at obliquity angles approaching 45°”? The reference (17-20) are put before, so it is difficult to understand the articles in which these hypothesis are described. If they are the same authors, perhaps it would be convenient to insert the citations at the end of the sentence. Alternatively, other references should be indicated.
- Line 40: these features where also find by Brunetti et al. (2014), Analysis of a new geomorphological inventory of landslides in Valles Marineris, Mars.
- Line 134: “emanates” is an unclear term. I suggest using another term.
- Line 135: in text are described “11 lobate features” and reference to Fig.1d are made. But in this image is difficult to see these number of features. Perhaps it is better to remove the reference to the figure in this part, it is not needed. Also, because Fig.1d is already reported in the previous line and may be sufficient.
- Lines 176-179: this figure is very explanatory of what is described in the paragraph, but I never find it mentioned in the text. A reference to this figure should be added in the text.
- Lines 201-202: having specified that they are 3 categories, it is better to put a list. E.g., (i) glacial (or 201 former/relict glacial), (ii) permafrost, or (iii) landslide (mass-wasting).
- Line 203: isn't it better to put letters to indicate the diagram in the figure instead of writing to the left or right? I think it is better to put a), b), c), and so on in the figure and refer to them. Also, in the rest of text.
- Line 215: “ameliorate” is a bit unclear. Please, consider rewriting this part.
- Lines 226-227: it would be clearer to write in the caption that the rock glacier features are indicated in red.
- Line 271: m3.
- Lines 288-290: it is better to start the caption indicated what is mapped and then insert the reference to the background images. The way it is written is difficult to understand.
- Figure 6: in the caption are described 11 lobes, while in the figure I see 10 lobes (are numerated from 1 to 10). Please, control the figure and the number of lobes. In the following it seems to me that one lobe is partially overlapped. However, it should be indicated in some way, both in the figure and in the caption, in order not to confuse the reader.
- Figure 7: it would be useful to see the edges of the rock glacier in the figure. Maybe they are the grey ones, but it's not clear. Also, if the margins of the rock glacier are small than the section, shouldn't the thickness h be calculated between the center of the rock glacier and its edge? Instead of the section margin?
- Figure 10: Also in this case, I think it is better to highlight the eleventh lobe, maybe with a different symbol.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your meticulous work to improve the manuscript. I have only several very minor comments remaining, which can be found in the attached pdf file. I recommend accepting the paper once these are solved.
regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made great improvements to the original manuscripts and have addressed all major concerns with the methods raised in the first review. I commend the authors on their efforts.
Author Response
Again, we would like to thank the reviewer for their extremely useful suggestions, references and data on this manuscript as they have proven to be invaluable to this work and we feel it is now a much stronger contribution. We feel that the conclusions are adequately supported by the results of the manuscript.
