Day‐night variations in the magnetic field at Mars have been previously observed at satellite altitudes. The InSight Fluxgate Magnetometer (IFG) has provided the first evidence for diurnal magnetic field variations at the martian surface. IFG data show diurnal variations with typical peak amplitudes of 20–40nT in the early morning to midmorning; the amplitude of the magnetic field varies over the first 389 sols of the mission and peaks between sols 50 and 100. Temperature variations, solar array currents, and lander activities all generate magnetic fields. Particularly, the first two of these also produce signals with clear diurnal variations. We first assess the IFG data calibration and conclude that temperature and solar array currents have only minimal effects on the variability we observe in the final calibrated magnetic field data. We use satellite magnetic field data and a Mars global circulation model to make predictions for the temporal evolution of wind‐driven fields in the ionosphere. Such fields vary due to seasonal changes in the ionization profile and the winds, and in the altitude range of the dynamo region, that is, the region in which electric currents can be produced. We find that the amplitude and seasonal variability of the surface magnetic fields are generally consistent with those predicted from wind‐driven currents. Moreover, a regional dust storm in the vicinity of the InSight landing site, which started around sol 45, might be responsible for the higher magnetic field amplitudes observed in the IFG data in the early part of the mission.
The magnetometer of the InSight mission operated on the Martian surface from November 2018 until May 2022. Previously, satellites have provided information on the Martian magnetic field environment from orbit; however, the degree to which external fields penetrate to and interact with the surface could not be studied prior to the InSight landing. Here, we present an overview of the complete surface magnetic field data from InSight sols 14 to 1241 that display different external magnetic field phenomena, transient and periodic. Periodic observations range from short period waves (100–1000s of seconds), diurnal variations, ∼26 sol Carrington rotations, to seasonal fluctuations. Transient events are observed in response to space weather and dust movement. We find that ionospheric variations are the dominant contribution as seen from the surface, while contributions from the undisturbed interplanetary magnetic field are more subtle. We discuss limitations associated with a single point measurement and opportunities that future missions could enable. Including magnetometers on future missions at a variety of locations for long‐duration continuous observations will be of great value in understanding a range of external field phenomena and will enable further investigations in different crustal magnetic field settings.
<p>InSight landed on Mars in November 2018<sup>1</sup>&#160;and carries the InSight FluxGate Magnetometer, IFG<sup>2</sup>&#160;which has provided the first surface magnetic field measurements on Mars<sup>1,3</sup>. Previous magnetic field measurements taken at orbital altitudes have provided global coverage, with limited spatial resolution. Laboratory analyses of meteorites provide information on magnetic properties of martian rocks, but without detailed local context for their provenances<sup>4</sup>. Advances from the IFG are thus unique and complementary science, specifically characterizing the crustal ambient static and external time-varying fields at a single location on Mars. External fields provide information on the planet&#8217;s interaction with the interplanetary magnetic field and the ionosphere. Crustal magnetic fields carry information about the ancient dynamo and crustal conditions at the time at which magnetization was acquired, and on how the crust has been modified by subsequent exogenic and endogenic processes<sup>4</sup>. IFG data for sols 14-736 were collected almost continuously, with some data gaps from electronics anomalies. After sol 736, the magnetometer was operational for shorter periods due to power constraints (Fig. 1)<sup> 5</sup>. A range of studies have been enabled by IFG data, supported by results from other instruments such as the seismometer, and we summarize those.</p><p>Strong crustal fields provide evidence for an ancient dynamo. The IFG measured a surface magnetic field strength of ~2000 nT, ~10x stronger than predicted from satellite data<sup>3,6</sup>&#160;and consistent with an ancient Earth-like dynamo<sup>3</sup>. The strong surface field indicates that magnetization at wavelengths shorter than those resolvable from current satellite data (~150 km) contribute substantially to the overall magnetic field. Characterization of the crust through seismic measurements<sup>7</sup>&#160;and geologic inferences<sup>3</sup>&#160;of subsurface layering allow assessment of magnetization of the crust (Fig. 2). Depending on the depth at which the magnetization is carried, specifically whether it is in the seismically-determined deep layer of Noachian origin or also in the shallow Hesperian-aged crust, the minimum magnetization required to explain the surface field is ~2 A/m or ~0.4 A/m. Seismic characterization of crustal structure<sup>8 </sup>indicates a deep subsurface layer (> 20 km, Fig. 2) of no porosity, while the upper crust (<20 km, Fig. 2) is less porous<sup>8</sup>. Magnetization of these layers require an early active dynamo (>~4 Ga). &#160;Fractured, less porous material could have provided pathways for hydrothermal circulation and chemical remanent magnetization<sup>4,8,10</sup>. Magnetization of the most surficial layer of Hesperian age would be consistent with a long-lasting (up to ~3.7 Ga) dynamo<sup>9</sup>. &#160;</p><p>IFG data also reveal time-varying fields at the planetary surface that include contributions with different periods and origins. External fields have been observed and characterized from orbit<sup>11&#8211;13</sup>. However, the degree to which external fields penetrate to and interact with the surface could not be studied prior to the InSight landing. Static and long-duration observations from a surface magnetometer are advantageous because, unlike satellite measurements, temporal variability in the field is not mixed with spatial variability. Here, we summarize different external magnetic field phenomena, transient and periodic that have been observed in IFG data (Fig. 3). Periodic variations include short period waves (100s-1000s<sup>3,14</sup>), diurnal variations<sup>15</sup>, the ~26 sol Carrington period associated with solar rotation<sup>16</sup>,&#160; and seasonal<sup>15,17</sup>&#160;fluctuations. Transient events are observed in response to space weather<sup>18</sup>&#160;and dust movement<sup>19,20</sup>.</p><p>The inclusion of the magnetometer on InSight has provided unique and substantial scientific contributions to the overall mission results, as well as a starting point for future planetary surface magnetic field investigations. To overcome limitations of current data sets, we look forward to Mars sample return, as well as possible near-surface investigations. Including magnetometers on future missions at a variety of surface locations for long duration observations will be of great value in understanding a range of external field phenomena, including the influence of crustal magnetic fields on ionospheric currents and the effects of space weather during different phases of a solar cycle. We further advocate for regional investigations for example via a helicopter<sup>20</sup>&#160;that can provide local magnetic field measurements at a spatial scale commensurate with detailed geological knowledge, to further constrain evolution of Mars&#8217; ancient dynamo and explore the magnetic properties of the crust.</p><p>&#160;</p><p><img src="https://contentmanager.copernicus.org/fileStorageProxy.php?f=gnp.efa5905fb48266986682561/sdaolpUECMynit/2202CSPE&app=m&a=0&c=aadd4ac595c9efb226f8701a8b59b97d&ct=x&pn=gnp.elif&d=1" alt="" width="928" height="716"></p><p><strong>Figure 1:</strong><strong>&#160;</strong>a) Martian years 1 (blue) and 2 (red) of the magnetic field amplitude, B, versus solar longitude (<em>l</em><sub>s</sub>). All data up to sol 1106 of InSight operations are included (PDS release 13). The blue vertical dashed line marks the beginning of the mission. (b) Corresponding sol numbers.</p><p>&#160;</p><p><img src="https://contentmanager.copernicus.org/fileStorageProxy.php?f=gnp.52cfec5fb48268096682561/sdaolpUECMynit/2202CSPE&app=m&a=0&c=2685cbe79396fe714178815a7051c88e&ct=x&pn=gnp.elif&d=1" alt="" width="853" height="557"></p><p><strong>Figure 2:</strong><strong>&#160;</strong>The minimum magnetization required by B=2013 nT (within its 99% confidence intervals)<sup>21</sup>&#160;for the crust below InSight<sup>8</sup>. Burial depth describes the depth extent of the unmagnetized layers above the top of the magnetized layer. A burial depth of 200 m (blue), corresponds to burial beneath the young (H: Hesperian, HNt: Hesperian-Noachian transition) near-surface lava flow<sup>3</sup>&#160;and magnetizations are at least ~0.4 A/m if the entire underlying crust is magnetized. A burial depth of 10 km (blue) requires magnetizations >1 A/m, hosted by Noachian units. The velocity profiles show the seismically-determined interface depths<sup>7</sup>.</p><p>&#160;</p><p><img src="https://contentmanager.copernicus.org/fileStorageProxy.php?f=gnp.11662e6fb48266296682561/sdaolpUECMynit/2202CSPE&app=m&a=0&c=a901e5d8cb2787758f4b9f1efb44430f&ct=x&pn=gnp.elif&d=1" alt="" width="856" height="601"></p><p><strong>Figure 3:</strong>&#160;A composite power spectral density (PSD) plot for the surface magnetic field strength at the InSight landing site. Estimates for longer periods are derived using a Lomb-Scargle algorithm (black), shorter periods (purple) show a Welch spectrum.</p><p>[1] Banerdt, W. <em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>Nat. Geosci.</em>&#160;(2020).<sup></sup>[2] Banfield, D.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>SSR&#160;</em>(2019).&#160;[3] Johnson, C. L.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;&#160;<em>Nat. Geosci.</em>(2020).&#160;[4]<sup></sup>Mitteholz, A. & Johnson, C. L.&#160;<em>Frontiers </em>(2022).&#160;[5] Joy, S. <em>et. al.</em>&#160;(2019).&#160;[6] Smrekar, S. <em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>SSR</em>&#160;(2018).&#160;[7] Knapmeyer-Endrun, B.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>Science</em>&#160;(2021).&#160;[8] Wieczorek, M.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>JGR</em>&#160;(2022).&#160;[9] Mittelholz, A.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>Sci. Adv.</em>&#160;(2020).&#160;[10] Gyalay, S. et al.&#160;<em>GRL</em>&#160;(2020).&#160;[11] Mittelholz, A.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>JGR</em>&#160;(2017).&#160;[12] Ramstad, R.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>Nat. Astron.</em>&#160;(2020). &#160;[13] Brain, D.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>JGR</em>&#160;(2003).&#160;[14] Chi, P. <em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>LPSC</em>&#160;(2019).&#160;[15] Mittelholz, A.&#160;<em>et al.&#160;</em>JGR&#160;(2020).&#160;[16] Luo, H.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>JGR</em>&#160;(2022).&#160;[17] Mittelholz, A.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>LPSC&#160;</em>(2021).&#160;[18] Mittelholz, A.&#160;<em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>GRL </em>(2021).&#160;[19] Thorne, S. <em>et al.</em>&#160;<em>PSS</em>&#160;(2022). &#160;[20] Bapst, J.&#160;<em>et al.&#160;AAS</em>&#160;(2021). [21] Parker, R. <em>JGR</em>&#160;(2003).&#160;</p><p>&#160;</p>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.