Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature Geoscience
  • Perspective
  • Published:

Initial results from the InSight mission on Mars

Nature Geosciencevolume 13, pages183–189 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

NASA’s InSight (Interior exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) mission landed in Elysium Planitia on Mars on 26 November 2018. It aims to determine the interior structure, composition and thermal state of Mars, as well as constrain present-day seismicity and impact cratering rates. Such information is key to understanding the differentiation and subsequent thermal evolution of Mars, and thus the forces that shape the planet’s surface geology and volatile processes. Here we report an overview of the first ten months of geophysical observations by InSight. As of 30 September 2019, 174 seismic events have been recorded by the lander’s seismometer, including over 20 events of moment magnitudeMw = 3–4. The detections thus far are consistent with tectonic origins, with no impact-induced seismicity yet observed, and indicate a seismically active planet. An assessment of these detections suggests that the frequency of global seismic events below approximatelyMw = 3 is similar to that of terrestrial intraplate seismic activity, but there are fewer larger quakes; no quakes exceedingMw = 4 have been observed. The lander’s other instruments—two cameras, atmospheric pressure, temperature and wind sensors, a magnetometer and a radiometer—have yielded much more than the intended supporting data for seismometer noise characterization: magnetic field measurements indicate a local magnetic field that is ten-times stronger than orbital estimates and meteorological measurements reveal a more dynamic atmosphere than expected, hosting baroclinic and gravity waves and convective vortices. With the mission due to last for an entire Martian year or longer, these results will be built on by further measurements by the InSight lander.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

9,800 Yen / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscription info for Japanese customers

We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go tonatureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Context Map.

MOLA Science Team.

Fig. 2: The InSight weather station’s continuous high-frequency coverage monitors the atmospheric activity from large-scale weather to small-scale turbulence.
Fig. 3: Multiple phenomena contribute to the magnetic field measured by the IFG.
Fig. 4: Marsquakes have similarities and differences with earthquakes.
Fig. 5: Cumulative annual activity rate for Mars compared with Earth, the Moon and pre-mission predictions for Mars.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data shown in the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors W.B.B. or S.E.S. upon reasonable request. The InSight Mission raw and calibrated data sets are available via NASA’s Planetary Data System (PDS). Data are delivered to the PDS according to the InSight Data Management Plan available in the InSight PDS archive. All datasets can be accessed athttps://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/insight/index.html. The InSight seismic event catalogue4 and waveform data3 are available from the IRIS-DMC and SEIS-InSight data portal (https://www.seis-insight.eu/en/science). Seismic waveforms as well as data from all other InSight instruments and MOLA topographic data are available from NASA PDS (https://pds.nasa.gov/). The terrestrial stations CH.DAVOX and CH.FIESA are part of the Swiss Seismic Network44. The data from these stations are accessible from the Incorporated Research Institutes for Seismology (IRIS) athttps://www.iris.edu/hq.

References

  1. Lognonné, P. et al. Constraints on the shallow elastic and anelastic structure of Mars from InSight seismic data.Nat. Geosci.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0536-y (2020).

  2. Giardini, D. et al. The seismicity of Mars.Nat. Geosci.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0539-8 (2020).

  3. SEIS Raw Data, InSight Mission (InSight Mars SEIS data Service, 2019);https://doi.org/10.18715/SEIS.INSIGHT.XB_2016

  4. Mars Seismic Catalogue, InSight Mission V1 2/1/2020 (InSight Marsquake Service, 2020);https://doi.org/10.12686/a6

  5. Golombek, M. et al. Geology of the InSight landing site on Mars.Nat. Commun.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14679-1 (2020).

  6. Banfield, D. et al. The atmosphere of Mars as observed by InSight.Nat. Geosci.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0534-0 (2020).

  7. Johnson, C. L. et al. Crustal and time-varying magnetic fields at the InSight landing site on Mars.Nat. Geosci.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0537-x (2020).

  8. Lognonné, P. et al. SEIS: InSight’s seismic experiment for internal structure of Mars.Space Sci. Rev.215, 12 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Spohn, T. et al. The Heat Flow and Physical Properties Package (HP3) for the InSight mission.Space Sci. Rev.214, 96 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Folkner, W. M. et al. The Rotation and Interior Structure Experiment on the InSight mission to Mars.Space Sci. Rev.214, 100 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vaucher, J. et al. The volcanic history of central Elysium Planitia: implications for Martian magmatism.Icarus204, 418–442 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burr, D. M., Grier, J. A., McEwen, A. S. & Keszthelyi, L. P. Repeated aqueous flooding from the Cerberus Fossae: evidence for very recently extant, deep groundwater on Mars.Icarus159, 53–73 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Golombek, M. P. et al. Selection of the InSight landing site.Space Sci. Rev.211, 5–95 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Golombek, M. P. et al. Geology and physical properties investigations by the InSight lander.Space Sci. Rev.214, 84 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kedar, S. et al. Analysis of regolith properties using seismic signals generated by InSight's HP3 penetrator.Space Sci. Rev.211, 315–337 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lorenz, R. D. et al. Seismometer detection of dust devil vortices by ground tilt.Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.105, 3015–3023 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kenda, B. et al. Modeling of ground deformation and shallow surface waves generated by martian dust devils and perspectives for near-surface structure inversion.Space Sci. Rev.211, 501–524 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Morgan, P. et al. A pre-landing assessment of regolith properties at the InSight landing site.Space Sci. Rev.214, 104 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Spiga, A. et al. Atmospheric science with InSight.Space Sci. Rev.214, 109 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Teanby, N. A. et al. Seismic coupling of short-period wind noise through Mars’ regolith for NASA’s InSight lander.Space Sci. Rev.211, 485–500 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mimoun, D. et al. The noise model of the SEIS seismometer of the InSight mission to Mars.Space Sci. Rev.211, 383–428 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Murdoch, N. et al. Evaluating the wind-induced mechanical noise on the InSight seismometers.Space Sci. Rev.211, 429–455 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Murdoch, N., Alazard, D., Knapmeyer-Endrun, B., Teanby, N. A. & Myhill, R. Flexible mode modelling of the InSight lander and consequences for the SEIS instrument.Space Sci. Rev.214, 117 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Banfield, D. et al. InSight Auxiliary Payload Sensor Suite (APSS).Space Sci. Rev.215, 4 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Acuña, M. H. et al. Global distribution of crustal magnetization discovered by the Mars Global Surveyor MAG/ER experiment.Science284, 790–793 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mittelholz, A., Johnson, C. L. & Morschhauser, A. A new magnetic field activity proxy for Mars from MAVEN data.Geophys. Res. Lett.45, 5899–5907 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Smrekar, S. E. et al. Pre-mission InSights on the interior of Mars.Space Sci. Rev.215, 3 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Langlais, B., Thébault, E., Houliez, A., Purucker, M. E. & Lillis, R. J. A new model of the crustal magnetic field of Mars using MGS and MAVEN.J. Geophys. Res. Planets124, 1542–1569 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Daubar, I. et al. Impact-seismic investigations of the InSight mission.Space Sci. Rev.214, 132 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Teanby, N. A. et al. Impact detection with InSight: updated estimates using measured seismic noise on Mars.Lunar Planet. Sci.50, 1565 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Daubar, I. J. et al. Impact science on the InSight mission—current status.Int. Conf. Mars9, 6198 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Golombek, M. P., Banerdt, W. B., Tanaka, K. L. & Tralli, D. M. A prediction of Mars seismicity from surface faulting.Science258, 979–981 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Golombek, M. P. A revision of Mars seismicity from surface faulting.Lunar Planet. Sci.43, 1244 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Phillips, R. J. & Grimm, R. E. Martian seismicity.Lunar Planet. Sci.22, 1061 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Knapmeyer, M. et al. Working models for spatial distribution and level of Mars’ seismicity.J. Geophys. Res.111, E11006 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Plesa, A. C. et al. Present-day Mars’ seismicity predicted from 3-D thermal evolution models of interior dynamics.Geophys. Res. Lett.45, 2580–2589 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Anderson, D. L. et al. Seismology on Mars.J. Geophys. Res.82, 4524–4546 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Goins, N. R. & Lazarewicz, A. R. Martian seismicity.Geophys. Res. Lett.6, 368–370 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Oberst, J. Unusually high stress drops associated with shallow moonquakes.J. Geophys. Res.92(B2), 1397–1405 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Okal, E. A. & Sweet, J. R. Frequency-size distributions for intraplate earthquakes.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.425, 59–71 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Petruccelli, A. et al. The influence of faulting style on the size-distribution of global earthquakes.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.527, 115791 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sasajima, R. & Ito, T. Strain rate dependency of oceanic intraplate earthquakeb-values at extremely low strain rates.J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth121, 4523–4537 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Marzocchi, W. & Sandri, L. A review and new insights on the estimation of theb-value and its uncertainty.Ann. Geophys.46, 1271–1282 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Knapmeyer, M. et al. Estimation of the seismic moment rate from an incomplete seismicity catalog, in the context of the InSight mission to Mars.Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.109, 1125–1147 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith, D. E. et al. Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter: Experiment summary after the first year of global mapping of Mars.J. Geophys. Res. Planets106, 23689–23722 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. National Seismic Networks of Switzerland (Swiss Seismological Service, 1983);https://doi.org/10.12686/sed/networks/ch

  47. Ekström, G., Nettles, M. & Dziewoński, A. M. The global CMT project 2004–2010: centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes.Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.200–201, 1–9 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Clinton, J. et al. The Marsquake Service: securing daily analysis of SEIS data and building the Martian seismicity catalogue for InSight.Space Sci. Rev.214, 133 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Panning, M. P. et al. Verifying single-station seismic approaches using Earth-based data: preparation for data return from the InSight mission to Mars.Icarus527, 230–242 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Trebi-Ollennu, A. et al. InSight Mars lander robotics instrument deployment system.Space Sci. Rev.214, 93 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Maki, J. N. et al. The color cameras on the InSight lander.Space Sci. Rev.214, 105 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Dell’Agnello, S. et al. LaRRI: Laser Retro-Reflector for InSight Mars lander.Space Res. Today200, 25–32 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A portion of the work was supported by the InSight Project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We acknowledge NASA; CNES (Centre Nationale d’Etudes Spatiale); their partner agencies and Institutions UKSA (United Kingdom Space Agency), SSO (Swiss Space Office), DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt), JPL, IPGP-CNRS (Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), ETHZ (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich), IC (Imperial College), MPS-MPG (Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research-Max Planck Gesellschaft); INTA/CSIC-CAB (Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas-Centro Astrobioligía); and the flight operations team at JPL, SISMOC (SEIS on Mars Operations Center), MSDS (Mars SEIS Data Service), IRIS-DMC (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology-Data Management Center) and PDS (Planetary Data Service) for providing the SEED (Standard for the Exchange of Earthquake Data) SEIS data used in the seismicity analysis. French co-authors acknowledge the French Space Agency CNES, CNRS and ANR (Agence Nationale pour la Recherche) (ANR-10-LABX-0023, ANR-11-IDEX-0005-0). The Swiss co-authors were jointly funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF-ANR project 157133), the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SEFRI project “MarsQuake Service-Preparatory Phase”) and ETH Research grant ETH-06 17-02. This is LPI (Lunar and Planetary Institute) Contribution No. 2250. LPI is operated by USRA under a cooperative agreement with NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. This is InSight Contribution Number 100.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

    W. Bruce Banerdt, Suzanne E. Smrekar, Matthew Golombek, Sami Asmar, Ingrid Daubar, William Folkner, Troy Hudson, Sharon Kedar, Justin N. Maki & Mark Panning

  2. Cornell Center for Astrophysics and Planetary Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Don Banfield

  3. Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Domenico Giardini, Simon C. Stähler, John Clinton & Martin van Driel

  4. Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Catherine L. Johnson & Anna Mittelholz

  5. Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Catherine L. Johnson & Matt Siegler

  6. Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Université de Paris, CNRS, Paris, France

    Philippe Lognonné, Clément Perrin, Mélanie Drilleau, Taichi Kawamura, Sébastien Rodriguez & Eléanore Stutzmann

  7. Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France

    Philippe Lognonné, Aymeric Spiga, Chloe Michaut & Sébastien Rodriguez

  8. Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (LMD/IPSL), Sorbonne Université, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), École Polytechnique, École Normale Supérieure (ENS), Paris, France

    Aymeric Spiga

  9. German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Planetary Research, Berlin, Germany

    Tilman Spohn, Matthias Grott, Martin Knapmeyer, Nils T. Mueller & Ana-Catalina Plesa

  10. Sorbonne Université, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR CNRS 7590, Institut de Minéralogie, de Physique des Matériaux et de Cosmochimie (IMPMC), Paris, France

    Daniele Antonangeli

  11. Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Caroline Beghein, Peter Chi & Christopher T. Russell

  12. Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Space Research Association, Houston, TX, USA

    Caroline Beghein

  13. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Neil Bowles

  14. Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA

    Ebru Bozdag & Paul Morgan

  15. Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Göttingen, Germany

    Ulrich Christensen

  16. Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Gareth S. Collins

  17. Royal Observatory of Belgium, Directorate “Reference Systems and Planetology”, Brussels, Belgium

    Véronique Dehant

  18. Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Véronique Dehant

  19. Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Matthew Fillingim

  20. Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace SUPAERO, Toulouse, France

    Raphaël F. Garcia, David Mimoun & Naomi Murdoch

  21. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA

    Jim Garvin

  22. Center for Earth and Planetary Studies, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA

    John Grant

  23. Astronika Sp. z o.o., Warsaw, Poland

    Jerzy Grygorczuk

  24. Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Jessica C. E. Irving & Jeroen Tromp

  25. Space Research Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Graz, Austria

    Günter Kargl

  26. Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Scott King

  27. Bensberg Observatory, University of Cologne, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany

    Brigitte Knapmeyer-Endrun

  28. Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

    Mark Lemmon

  29. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, USA

    Ralph Lorenz

  30. Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, CNRS, CNES, Toulouse, France

    Ludovic Margerin

  31. Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Scott M. McLennan

  32. Laboratoire de Géologie de Lyon - Terre, Planètes, Environnement, Université de Lyon, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, UCBL, CNRS, Lyon, France

    Chloe Michaut

  33. Laboratoire de Planétologie et Géodynamique, UMR6112, Université de Nantes, Université d’Angers, CNRS, Nantes, France

    Antoine Mocquet

  34. Colorado Geological Survey, Wilsonville, OR, USA

    Paul Morgan

  35. Department of Geosciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Seiichi Nagihara

  36. Aeolis Research, Chandler, AZ, USA

    Claire Newman

  37. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Francis Nimmo

  38. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    W. Thomas Pike

  39. Centro de Astrobiología, CSIC‐INTA, Madrid, Spain

    Jose Antonio Rodriguez-Manfredi

  40. Department of Geology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Nicholas Schmerr

  41. Department of Earth Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

    Matt Siegler

  42. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Sabine Stanley

  43. School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Nicholas Teanby

  44. Department of Geological Sciences, State University of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, NY, USA

    Nicholas Warner

  45. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, AL, USA

    Renee Weber

  46. Université Côte d’Azur, Laboratoire Lagrange, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Nice, France

    Mark Wieczorek

Authors
  1. W. Bruce Banerdt

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne E. Smrekar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Don Banfield

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Domenico Giardini

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew Golombek

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Catherine L. Johnson

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philippe Lognonné

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Aymeric Spiga

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tilman Spohn

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Clément Perrin

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. Simon C. Stähler

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. Daniele Antonangeli

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sami Asmar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  14. Caroline Beghein

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  15. Neil Bowles

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  16. Ebru Bozdag

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  17. Peter Chi

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  18. Ulrich Christensen

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  19. John Clinton

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  20. Gareth S. Collins

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  21. Ingrid Daubar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  22. Véronique Dehant

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  23. Mélanie Drilleau

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  24. Matthew Fillingim

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  25. William Folkner

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  26. Raphaël F. Garcia

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  27. Jim Garvin

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  28. John Grant

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  29. Matthias Grott

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  30. Jerzy Grygorczuk

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  31. Troy Hudson

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  32. Jessica C. E. Irving

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  33. Günter Kargl

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  34. Taichi Kawamura

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  35. Sharon Kedar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  36. Scott King

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  37. Brigitte Knapmeyer-Endrun

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  38. Martin Knapmeyer

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  39. Mark Lemmon

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  40. Ralph Lorenz

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  41. Justin N. Maki

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  42. Ludovic Margerin

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  43. Scott M. McLennan

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  44. Chloe Michaut

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  45. David Mimoun

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  46. Anna Mittelholz

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  47. Antoine Mocquet

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  48. Paul Morgan

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  49. Nils T. Mueller

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  50. Naomi Murdoch

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  51. Seiichi Nagihara

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  52. Claire Newman

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  53. Francis Nimmo

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  54. Mark Panning

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  55. W. Thomas Pike

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  56. Ana-Catalina Plesa

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  57. Sébastien Rodriguez

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  58. Jose Antonio Rodriguez-Manfredi

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  59. Christopher T. Russell

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  60. Nicholas Schmerr

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  61. Matt Siegler

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  62. Sabine Stanley

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  63. Eléanore Stutzmann

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  64. Nicholas Teanby

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  65. Jeroen Tromp

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  66. Martin van Driel

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  67. Nicholas Warner

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  68. Renee Weber

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  69. Mark Wieczorek

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The scientific results of the InSight mission are the result of a team effort, with all the listed authors contributing to aspects of the design, implementation and analysis of results. W.B.B. and S.E.S. are the Principal Investigator and Deputy Principal Investigator, respectively, of the InSight mission, and jointly and equally supervised and participated in the work described in the manuscript, as well as contributed substantially to writing the manuscript. P.L., along with D.G. and W.T.P., co-led the design and implementation of the SEIS experiment. U.C., D.M. and J.T. contributed to the design and implementation of SEIS. C.B., E.B., J.C., J.C.E.I., S. Kedar, B.K.-E., M.K., L.M., A. Mocquet, F.N., M.P., A.-C.P., M.P., N.S. and R.W. contributed to seismic data analysis. P.L. and W.T.P. led the SEIS performance testing, assisted by M.D., B.K.-E., R.F.G., S. King, T.K., D.M. and N.M. D.B. and A.S. co-led the atmospheric science investigation and contributed to writing the manuscript, with N.B., M.L. and C.N. providing input. J.A.R.-M. contributed to the design, implementation and analysis of the atmospheric science investigation. R.F.G. and R.L. contributed to the joint interpretation of the seismic and atmospheric science investigations. J.N.M. led the imaging experiment and contributed to interpretation of results. M. Golombek led the geology investigation and contributed to writing the manuscript, with J. Garvin, J. Grant, S.R. and N.W. providing input. C.L.J. and C.T.R. co-led the magnetic investigation and contributed to writing the manuscript, with input from P.C., M.F. and A. Mittelholz. I.D. led the impact cratering investigation, interpretation of results and write-up for this manuscript, with G.S.C. and N.T. providing contributions. V.D. and W.F. co-led the geodesy investigation and contributed to interpretation of the results, with S.A. providing contributions. T.S. led the heat flow investigation and contributed to writing the manuscript. M. Grott, J. Grygorczuk, T.H., G.K., P.M., N.T.M., S.N., M.S. and S.E.S. contributed to the design, implementation and analysis of the heat flow investigation. C.P. led the analysis and the writing of the regolith properties from ground deformation described in the Supplementary Discussion, with contributions from N.M., M.D., S.R., M.L., E.S., T.K., P.L., A.S. and D.B. S.C.S. led the analysis and writing of the seismic activity estimate described in the Methods, with M.K., M.v.D. and D.G. providing contributions. D.A., S. King, S.M.M., C.M., S.S. and M.W. contributed to the interpretation of the planetary interior results.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence toW. Bruce Banerdt orSuzanne E. Smrekar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editors: Tamara Goldin; Stefan Lachowycz.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Instrument Payload.

Description of the complete set of scientific instruments carried by the InSight lander[8,9,10,25,50,51,52].

Extended Data Fig. 2 Probability of marsquake detection.

Probability to detect a marsquake of a certain distance and magnitude, given the expected source spectrum2 and the distribution of ambient noise over sols 85-325. The colored crosses mark the 13 events described in the main article with their uncertainties in distance and magnitudeMw; numerical labels refer to event names in Giardini et al.2 (e.g., 167a corresponds to event S0167a). The black region is where the event would have never surpassed the ambient noise, the grey region is where it would have been observable only 10% of the time.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Correction of numbers of events for variable noise across observation window.

Events with magnitudeMw = 2.8 are counted 4 times, events with MW = 3.8 are counted 2 times, with linear interpolation in between. Distances and magnitudes are based on waveform alignment and the spectral magnitudeMMaFB (see Giardini et al.2 for a full discussion of marsquake magnitudes).

Extended Data Fig. 5 Corrected distribution of events with magnitude.

Distribution of events across magnitudeMw, with the corrections described in the text.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion

Rights and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banerdt, W.B., Smrekar, S.E., Banfield, D.et al. Initial results from the InSight mission on Mars.Nat. Geosci.13, 183–189 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0544-y

Download citation

This article is cited by

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Associated content

Collection

InSight at Mars

Geology of the InSight landing site on Mars

  • M. Golombek
  • N. H. Warner
  • W. B. Banerdt
Nature CommunicationsArticleOpen Access

Constraints on the shallow elastic and anelastic structure of Mars from InSight seismic data

  • P. Lognonné
  • W. B. Banerdt
  • P. Zweifel
Nature GeoscienceArticle

The seismicity of Mars

  • D. Giardini
  • P. Lognonné
  • C. Yana
Nature GeoscienceArticle

Crustal and time-varying magnetic fields at the InSight landing site on Mars

  • Catherine L. Johnson
  • Anna Mittelholz
  • William B. Banerdt
Nature GeoscienceArticle

The atmosphere of Mars as observed by InSight

  • Don Banfield
  • Aymeric Spiga
  • W. Bruce Banerdt
Nature GeoscienceArticle

Rebirth of extraterrestrial seismology

  • Yosio Nakamura
Nature GeoscienceComment

InSight’s first look inside Mars

  • James Tuttle Keane
Nature GeoscienceNews & Views

Mars gets geophysical

Nature GeoscienceEditorial

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for theNature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp