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
  • Article
  • Published:

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

Nature Geosciencevolume 13, pages213–220 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Mars’s seismic activity and noise have been monitored since January 2019 by the seismometer of the InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) lander. At night, Mars is extremely quiet; seismic noise is about 500 times lower than Earth’s microseismic noise at periods between 4 s and 30 s. The recorded seismic noise increases during the day due to ground deformations induced by convective atmospheric vortices and ground-transferred wind-generated lander noise. Here we constrain properties of the crust beneath InSight, using signals from atmospheric vortices and from the hammering of InSight’s Heat Flow and Physical Properties (HP3) instrument, as well as the three largest Marsquakes detected as of September 2019. From receiver function analysis, we infer that the uppermost 8–11 km of the crust is highly altered and/or fractured. We measure the crustal diffusivity and intrinsic attenuation using multiscattering analysis and find that seismic attenuation is about three times larger than on the Moon, which suggests that the crust contains small amounts of volatiles.

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: Spectrograms of the vertical, north and east components of acceleration from 0.02 to 50 Hz versuslmst for typical sol 194–195.
Fig. 2: Statistical comparison of Martian, terrestrial and lunar seismic noise.
Fig. 3: Pressure and seismic signature of two convective vortices compared with models.
Fig. 4: Inversion results of the regolith thickness andVP of the underlying bedrock.
Fig. 5: Comparison of seismic scattering, attenuation and seismograms on Earth, Moon and Mars.
Fig. 6: RF analysis for the Martian upper crust.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All InSight SEIS data63 used in this paper are available from the IPGP Data Center, IRIS-DMC and NASA PDS; all InSight APSS data are available from NASA PDS (https://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/insight/index.htm). The data used for Fig.2 have been obtained from IRIS/DMC for Black Forest Observatory64 and from IPGP Data Center for lunar data (Code XA,http://datacenter.ipgp.fr/data.php). The data displayed in Fig.5 correspond to the following events. A is a broadband (1–10-Hz) shallow Moonquake waveform recorded on 13 March 1973, at Apollo Station 15; the inferred hypocentre is latitude −84°, longitude −134° (ref.65). B are S0128 and S0173 events described in the main text. C is a broadband (1–10-Hz) regional crustal earthquake waveform recorded on 28 April 2016, at the broadband station ATE (https://doi.org/10.15778/RESIF.FR); the hypocentre is latitude 46.04°, longitude −1.04°, depth 15 km (BCSF bulletin,http://renass.unistra.fr). D is a broadband (1–10-Hz) waveform recorded on 22 February 2000, at Mount St. Helens station ESD66 (now EDM); the hypocentre is latitude 46.1472°, longitude −122.1457°, depth = 10.4 km (event 10495398, PNSN bulletin,https://pnsn.org). P and S arrival times for S0128a, S0173a and S0235b are from the MQS47 catalogue27. The S–P travel-time difference used in the scattering analysis is 75 s, compatible with the reported27 value of 84 ± 28 s. Subsets for the models proposed for the subsurface and a summary for the upper crust are available (Supplementary Tables1 and2 for subsurface, Supplementary Table3 for upper crust). See Supplementary Discussions2 and4 respectively for more details.

Code availability

SeeMethods for publicly available codes and for associated algorithms. The multiple-scattering simulation codes used in Supplementary Discussion3 are available on request from L.M. (ludovic.margerin@irap.omp.eu).

References

  1. Banerdt, B. et al. Initial results from the InSight mission on Mars.Nat. Geosci.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0544-y (2020).

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  5. Lognonné, P. et al. SEIS: InSight’s Seismic Experiment for Internal Structure of Mars.Space Sci. Rev.215, 12 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Peterson J.Observations and Modelling of Background Seismic Noise Open-File Report 93-322 (US Geological Survey, 1993).

  11. Lognonné, P. & Johnson, C. L. inTreatise on Geophysics 2nd edn, Vol. 10 (ed. Schubert, G.) 65–120 (Elsevier, 2015).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lognonné, P. & Mosser, B. Planetary seismology.Surv. Geophys.14, 239–302 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Murdoch, N. et al. Estimations of the seismic pressure noise on Mars determined from Large Eddy Simulations and demonstration of pressure decorrelation techniques for the InSight mission.Space Sci. Rev.211, 457–483 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Murdoch, N. et al. Flexible mode modelling of the InSight lander and consequences for the SEIS instrument.Space Sci. Rev.214, 117 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Fayon, L. et al. A numerical model of the SEIS leveling system transfer matrix and resonances: application to SEIS rotational seismology and dynamic ground Interaction.Space Sci. Rev.214, 119 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brinkman, N. et al. The first active seismic experiment on Mars to characterize the shallow subsurface structure at the InSight landing site.SEG Tech. Prog. Expand. Abstr. 4756–4760 (2019).

  23. Sorrells, G. G. A preliminary investigation into the relationship between long-period seismic noise and local fluctuations in the atmospheric pressure field.Geophys. J. Int.26, 71–82 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. Delage, P. et al. An investigation of the mechanical properties of some Martian regolith simulants with respect to the surface properties at the InSight mission landing site.Space Sci. Rev.211, 191–213 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. InSight Marsquake ServiceMars Seismic Catalogue: InSight Mission V1 2/1/2020 (ETHZ, IPGP, JPL, ICL, ISAE-Supaero, MPS, Univ. Bristol, 2020).

  28. Dainty, A. M. et al. Seismic scattering and shallow structure of the moon in oceanus procellarum.Moon9, 11–29 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Margerin, L., Campillo, M., Van Tiggelen, B. & Hennino, R. Energy partition of seismic coda waves in layered media: theory and application to Pinyon Flats observatory.Geophys. J. Int.177, 571–585 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Margerin, L., Campillo, M., Shapiro, N. & van Tiggelen, B. A. Residence time of diffuse waves in the crust as a physical interpretation of codaQ: application to seismograms recorded in Mexico.Geophys. J. Int.138, 343–352 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Romanowicz, B. A. & Mitchell, B. J. inTreatise on Geophysics 2nd edn, Vol. 1 (ed. Schubert, G.) 789–827 (Elsevier, 2015).

  32. Gillet, K., Margerin, L., Calvet, M. & Monnereau, M. Scattering attenuation profile of the moon: implications for shallow moonquakes and the structure of the megaregolith.Phys. Earth Planet. Int.262, 28–40 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Langston, C. A. Structure under Mount Rainier, Washington, inferred from teleseismic body waves.J. Geophys. Res.84, 4749–4762 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Abt, D. L. et al. North American lithospheric discontinuity structure imaged by Ps and Sp receiver functions.J. Geophys. Res.115, B09301 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vinnik, L., Chenet, H., Gagnepain-Beyneix, J. & Lognonné, P. First seismic receiver functions on the Moon.Geophys. Res. Lett.28, 3031–3034 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lognonné, P., Gagnepain-Beyneix, J. & Chenet, H. A new seismic model of the Moon: implication in terms of structure, formation and evolution.Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.112, 27–44 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Knapmeyer-Endrun, B., Ceylan, S. & van Driel, M. Crustal S-wave velocity from apparent incidence angles: a case study in preparation of InSight.Space Sci. Rev.214, 83 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kolb, J. & Lekic, V. Receiver function deconvolution using transdimensional hierarchical Bayesian inference.Geophys. J. Int.197, 1719–1735 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Panning, M. P. et al. Planned products of the Mars Structure Service for the InSight mission, Mars.Space Sci. Rev.211, 611–650 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Panning, M. P. et al. Verifying single-station seismic approaches using Earth-based data: preparation for data return from the InSight mission to Mars.Icarus248, 230–242 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Khan, A. M. et al. Single-station and single-event marsquake location and inversion for structure using synthetic Martian waveforms.Phys. Earth Planet. Inter.258, 28–42 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Baratoux, D., Toplis, M. J., Monnereau, M. & Gasnault, O. Thermal history of Mars inferred from orbital geochemistry of volcanic provinces.Nature472, 338–341 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tittmann, B. R., Clark, V. A., Richardson, J. M. & Spencer, T. W. Possible mechanism for seismic attenuation in rocks containing small amounts of volatiles.J. Geophys. Res.85, 5199–5208 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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 

  48. Knapmeyer, M. TTBox: a MatLab toolbox for the computation of 1D teleseismic travel times.Seismol. Res. Lett.75, 726–733 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith, D. E. et al. Mars Orbiter laser altimeter: experiment summary after the first year of global mapping of Mars.J. Geophys. Res.106, 23689–23722 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Drilleau, M. et al. A Bayesian approach to infer radial models of temperature and anisotropy in the transition zone from surface wave dispersion curves.Geophys. J. Int.195, 1165–1183 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mosegaard, K. & Tarantola, A. Monte Carlo sampling of solutions to inverse problems.J. Geophys. Res.1001, 12431–12448 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H. & Teller, E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.J. Chem. Phys.21, 1087–1091 (1953).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hastings, W. K. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications.Biometrika57, 97–109 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sorrells, G. G., McDonald, J. A., Der, Z. A. & Herrin, E. Earth motion caused by local atmospheric pressure changes.Geophys. J. Int.26, 83–98 (1971).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kennett, B. L. N. The removal of free surface interactions from three-component seismograms.Geophys. J. Int.104, 53–163 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ligorria, J. P. & Ammon, C. J. Iterative deconvolution and receiver-function estimation.Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.89, 1395–1400 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tauzin, B., Phạm, T. S. & Tkalčić, H. Receiver functions from seismic interferometry: a practical guide.Geophys. J. Int.217, 1–24 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kind, R., Kosarev, G. L. & Petersen, N. V. Receiver functions at the stations of the German Regional Seismic Network (GRSN).Geophys. J. Int.121, 191–202 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hannemann, K., Krüger, F., Dahm, T. & Lange, D. Structure of the oceanic lithosphere and upper mantle north of the Gloria Fault in the eastern mid-Atlantic by receiver function analysis.J. Geophys. Res.122, 7927–7950 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wathelet, M. An improved Neighborhood Algorithm: parameter conditions and dynamic scaling.Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L09301 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shibutani, T., Sambridge, M. & Kennett, B. Genetic algorithm inversion for receiver functions with application to crust and uppermost mantle structure beneath eastern Australia.Geophys. Res. Lett.23, 1829–1832 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sambridge, M. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm—I. Searching a parameter space.Geophys. J. Int.138, 479–494 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. SEIS Raw Data: InSight Mission (InSight Mars SEIS Data Service, IPGP, JPL, CNES, ETHZ, ICL, MPS, ISAE-Supaero, LPG, MSFC, 2019);https://doi.org/10.18715/SEIS.INSIGHT.XB_2016

  64. Black Forest Observatory Data (GFZ Data Services, Black Forest Observatory, 1971);https://doi.org/10.5880/BFO

  65. Nakamura, Y. et al. Shallow moonquakes: Depth, distribution and implications as to the present state of the lunar interior. InProc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 10th Vol. 3, 2299–2309 (Pergamon Press, 1979).

  66. Pacific Northwest Seismic Network (International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks, Univ. Washington, 1963).https://doi.org/10.7914/SN/UW

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge NASA, CNES, their partner agencies and institutions (UKSA, SSO, DLR, JPL, IPGP-CNRS, ETHZ, IC, MPS-MPG) and the flight operations team at JPL, SISMOC, MSDS, IRIS-DMC and PDS for providing SEED SEIS data. The French team acknowledge the French Space Agency CNES, which has supported and funded all SEIS-related contracts and CNES employees, as well as CNRS and the French team universities for personal and infrastructure support. SEIS VBB testing and development have also been supported by SESAME (Ile de France, Université Paris Diderot, IPGP, CNES) in the frameworks Centre de simulation Martien I-07–603 and Pole Terre Planètes 11015893. Additional support was provided by ANR (ANR-14-CE36-0012-02, ANR-19-CE31-0008-08 for SEIS science support and ANR-11-EQPX-0040 for RESIF data access) and for the IPGP team by the UnivEarthS Labex program (ANR-10-LABX-0023) and IDEX Sorbonne Paris Cité (ANR-11-IDEX-0005-0). Regolith stratigraphy inversion used HPC resources of CINES under allocation A0050407341 attributed by GENCI (Grand Equipement National de Calcul Intensif). Research described in this paper was partially carried out by the InSight Project, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA. Additional work was supported by NASA’s InSight Participating Scientist Program and LPI (LPI is operated by USRA under a cooperative agreement with the Science Mission Directorate of the NASA). The Swiss coauthors were jointly funded by (1) the Swiss National Science Foundation and French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (SNF-ANR project 15713, Seismology on Mars), (2) the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SEFRI project MarsQuake Service—Preparatory Phase) and (3) ETH Research grant ETH-06 17-02. Additional support came from the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) under project s992. The Swiss contribution in implementation of the SEIS electronics was made possible through funding from the federal Swiss Space Office (SSO), the contractual and technical support of the ESA-PRODEX office. SEIS-SP development and delivery were funded by UKSA. The SEIS levelling system development and operation support at MPS was funded by the DLR German Space Agency. B.T. and L. Pan acknowledge funding from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreements 793824 and 751164. This paper is InSight Contribution 101, LPI contribution 2249 and IPGP Contribution 4099.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    P. Lognonné, T. Kawamura, S. Barkaoui, M. Drilleau, B. Kenda, C. Perrin, S. Menina, S. Rodriguez, E. Stutzmann, N. Fuji, A. Jacob, T. Nebut, S. de Raucourt, O. Robert & S. Tillier

  2. Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France

    P. Lognonné, S. Rodriguez, A. Spiga & C. Michaut

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

    W. B. Banerdt, S. Kedar, M. Panning, S. Tharimena, I. Daubar, M. Golombek, K. Hurst, S. Krasner, S. Smrekar & E. Barrett

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

    W. T. Pike, C. Charalambous, J. McClean & A. Stott

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

    D. Giardini, F. Bissig, N. Brinkman, S. Ceylan, M. van Driel, A. Khan, C. Schmelzbach, D. Sollberger, S. Stähler, F. Andersson, M. Böse, J. Clinton, J. ten Pierick, J. Robertsson, D. Mance, F. Euchner & P. Zweifel

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

    U. Christensen, J.-R. Scholz, R. Joshi & M. Bierwirth

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

    R. F. Garcia, D. Mimoun, N. Murdoch, B. Pinot, N. Compaire & G. Mainsant

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

    B. Knapmeyer-Endrun

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

    L. Margerin & M. Calvet

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

    F. Nimmo & L. Pou

  11. Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, ENS, CNRS, Laboratoire de Géologie de Lyon—Terre, Planètes, Environnement, Villeurbanne, France

    B. Tauzin, L. Pan & C. Quantin-Nataf

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

    D. Antonangeli

  13. Laboratoire de Planétologie et Géodynamique, UMR6112, Université de Nantes, Université dAngers, CNRS, Nantes, France

    E. Beucler, V. Ansan & A. Mocquet

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

    P. Davis, C. Beghein & C. T. Russell

  15. Space Exploration Institute, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    L. Fayon

  16. Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    A. Khan

  17. DLR Institute of Planetary Research, Berlin, Germany

    M. Knapmeyer, M. Grott, J. Knollenberg, C. Krause, A.-C. Plesa & T. Spohn

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

    V. Lekic & N. Schmerr

  19. 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

    A. Spiga

  20. Black Forest Observatory, Stuttgart University, Wolfach, Germany

    R. Widmer-Schnidrig

  21. Department of Geophysics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, USA

    E. Bozdag

  22. Ecole des Ponts ParisTech, Laboratoire Navier/CERMES, CNRS, Marne la Vallée, France

    P. Delage

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

    A. Horleston, R. Myhill & N. Teanby

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

    J. Irving & J. Tromp

  25. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, USA

    R. Lorenz

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

    C. Michaut

  27. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    T. Nissen-Meyer

  28. Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France

    L. Rochas, J. Vallade, N. Verdier, L. Kerjean, G. Pont, P. Laudet, A. Sylvestre-Baron & C. Yana

  29. Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera (ICTJA), Barcelona, Spain

    M. Schimmel

  30. International Space Science Institute, Bern, Switzerland

    T. Spohn

  31. Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Technical University of Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    C. Vrettos

  32. NASA MSFC, NSSTC, Huntsville, AL, USA

    R. Weber

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

    D. Banfield

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

    S. Calcutt

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

    C.L. Johnson

  36. Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA

    C.L. Johnson

  37. Centro de Astrobiologia—Instituto Nacional de Tecnica Aeroespacial, Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain

    J. A Rodriguez Manfredi

  38. Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    T. Warren

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

    M. Wieczorek

Authors
  1. P. Lognonné

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. B. Banerdt

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. T. Pike

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Giardini

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. U. Christensen

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. F. Garcia

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. Kawamura

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. Kedar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. B. Knapmeyer-Endrun

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. L. Margerin

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. F. Nimmo

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. M. Panning

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. B. Tauzin

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  14. J.-R. Scholz

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  15. D. Antonangeli

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  16. S. Barkaoui

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  17. E. Beucler

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  18. F. Bissig

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  19. N. Brinkman

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  20. M. Calvet

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  21. S. Ceylan

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  22. C. Charalambous

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  23. P. Davis

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  24. M. van Driel

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  25. M. Drilleau

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  26. L. Fayon

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  27. R. Joshi

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  28. B. Kenda

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  29. A. Khan

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  30. M. Knapmeyer

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  31. V. Lekic

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  32. J. McClean

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  33. D. Mimoun

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  34. N. Murdoch

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  35. L. Pan

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  36. C. Perrin

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  37. B. Pinot

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  38. L. Pou

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  39. S. Menina

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  40. S. Rodriguez

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  41. C. Schmelzbach

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  42. N. Schmerr

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  43. D. Sollberger

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  44. A. Spiga

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  45. S. Stähler

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  46. A. Stott

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  47. E. Stutzmann

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  48. S. Tharimena

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  49. R. Widmer-Schnidrig

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  50. F. Andersson

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  51. V. Ansan

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  52. C. Beghein

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  53. M. Böse

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  54. E. Bozdag

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  55. J. Clinton

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  56. I. Daubar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  57. P. Delage

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  58. N. Fuji

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  59. M. Golombek

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  60. M. Grott

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  61. A. Horleston

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  62. K. Hurst

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  63. J. Irving

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  64. A. Jacob

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  65. J. Knollenberg

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  66. S. Krasner

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  67. C. Krause

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  68. R. Lorenz

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  69. C. Michaut

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  70. R. Myhill

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  71. T. Nissen-Meyer

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  72. J. ten Pierick

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  73. A.-C. Plesa

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  74. C. Quantin-Nataf

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  75. J. Robertsson

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  76. L. Rochas

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  77. M. Schimmel

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  78. S. Smrekar

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  79. T. Spohn

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  80. N. Teanby

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  81. J. Tromp

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  82. J. Vallade

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  83. N. Verdier

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  84. C. Vrettos

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  85. R. Weber

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  86. D. Banfield

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  87. E. Barrett

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  88. M. Bierwirth

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  89. S. Calcutt

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  90. N. Compaire

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  91. C.L. Johnson

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  92. D. Mance

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  93. F. Euchner

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  94. L. Kerjean

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  95. G. Mainsant

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  96. A. Mocquet

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  97. J. A Rodriguez Manfredi

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  98. G. Pont

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  99. P. Laudet

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  100. T. Nebut

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  101. S. de Raucourt

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  102. O. Robert

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  103. C. T. Russell

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  104. A. Sylvestre-Baron

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  105. S. Tillier

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  106. T. Warren

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  107. M. Wieczorek

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  108. C. Yana

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  109. P. Zweifel

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P. Lognonné leads the SEIS experiment and the VBB sensors. He designed the higher-level requirements of the experiment together with D. Mimoun. He led the manuscript team effort, contributed to severalSupplementary Discussions and integrated all contributions. W.B.B. leads the InSight mission and the US contribution to SEIS. W.T.P., D.G. and U.C. lead the SP, Ebox and LVL respectively. W.T.P. contributed to severalSupplementary Discussions. D.B., J.M. and C.T.R. lead the APSS, TWINS and IFG instruments. E. Barrett contributes to the SEIS operation at JPL, together with C.Y. at CNES. M. Bierwirth for the LVL, S. Calcutt for the SP, D. Mance and P.Z. for the Ebox, K.H. for the tether-shielding and S. de R., T.N., O.R. and S. Tillier for the VBB contributed to the SEIS subsystems and the SEIS Mars deployment and commissioning. L.K., G.P., P. Laudet and A.S.-B. contributed to the SEIS overall management and SEIS Mars deployment and commissioning. J.C., M. Böse, C.C., S. Ceylan, M. van D., A.H., A.K., T.K., G.M., J.-R.S. and S. Stähler contribute to the MQS frontline activity, and D.G., W.B.B., P. Lognonné, D.B., R.F.G., D.G., S.K., M.P., W.T.P., S. Smrekar, A. Spiga and R.W. to the MQS review. E. Beucler, F.E., C.P. and S. Stähler contribute to the MQS and ERP operations. N.C. and C.J. contributed to the SEIS analysis and Mars deployment. C.B., E. Bozdag, I.D., M. Golombek, J.I., A.-C.P., R.L. and J.T. reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and commented on the manuscript. W.T.P. and P. Lognonné led the analysis of Supplementary Discussion1. C.C., R.F.G., A. Stott, J.McC., C.P., S.B. and L. Pou analysed the data. D. Mimoun provided the environmental noise model. S. Ceylan provided the seismic event catalogue data. E.S. and M.S. provided the polarization analysis. L. Pou provided the VBB-POS output analysis. A. Spiga and D.B. provided the environmental data. P. Lognonné and S. Kedar led the analysis of Supplementary Discussion2. L.F. developed the LVL inversion methodology with the support of P. Lognonné. P. Delage and P. Lognonné discussed the results and P. Delage provided additional laboratory experiment support. L.F. and M. van D. performed the resonances analysis. T.S. leads the HP3 experiment and contributed to the execution of the HP3-SEIS experiment and the interpretation of the results. D.S. and F.A. implemented in collaboration with C.S. and J.R. the aliased-data reconstruction algorithm developed by D.S., F.A. and J.R. N.B., J. ten P. and C.S. implemented the clock time processing in collaboration with D.S. N.B., C.S., D.S. and M. van D. processed and interpreted the travel-time data in collaboration with J.R. C.S. and M. van D. contributed to the writing of the main text section related to the subsurface, and N.B., D.S., C.S. and M. van D. in collaboration with J.R. and F.A. wrote Supplementary Discussion2. A.H. contributed to the HP3-SEIS analysis. S. Krasner, J.K., C.K., L.R., J.V. and N.V. developed the timing tools between the lander, HP3 and SEIS. B.K. and N.M. developed the modelling and inversion tools for dust devils, processed the corresponding data and wrote Supplementary Discussion2-3. C.P. and S.R. developed the automatic HiRise dust devil track software. M.D. developed the subsurface inversion tool with contributions from B.K. and P. Lognonné and wrote Supplementary Discussion2-4. All authors discussed the overall results. N.T. and C.V. contributed to the discussion on regolith and duricrust properties. Supplementary Discussion3 was written and led by L.M., T.K. and N.S. The scattering and attenuation scenarios for the sol 128 and sol 173 events were developed by T.K., P. Lognonné and L.M. R.F.G. provided deglitched waveforms. E.S., M.S. and E. Beucler analysed the polarization and incidence angle of the sol 173 event. Diffusion calculations were performed by W.T.P., N.S., L.M., P. Lognonné and M.P. Radiative transfer models were developed by L.M. M.C. and S.M. compiled the measurements and waveforms pertaining to Supplementary Fig.3-12. The results were interpreted by P. Lognonné, T.K. and L.M. Reviews were provided by C.B., T.N.-M., A.-C.P. and R.W. B.K.-E., B.T. and M.P. coordinated the RF study in Supplementary Discussion4. B.K.-E. (Method D), V.L. (Method A), B.T. (Method B), S. Tharimena (Method C) and A.K. and F.B. (Method E) calculated RFs using various methods, discussed the results, contributed to the interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. R.J. performed the inversion of S0173a data. B.K.-E. and B.T. calculated synthetic RFs. M.P. contributed to the interpretation and participated in discussions and writing. P. Davis, P. Lognonné, B.P., R.F.G. and J.-R.S. contributed deglitched waveforms for S0173a. S. Stähler provided the probability distribution of ray parameters for S0173a. M.K. produced the schematic diagrams in Fig.6 and participated in discussions. The elastic property compilation was provided by C.P., L. Pan, D.A., A.J., C.M., M. Golombek, A.K., N.F. and C.Q.-N. C.B. and J.I. reviewed this supplementary material. J.-R.S. coordinated Supplementary Discussion5 with P. Davis and R.W.-S. F.N. and P. Lognonné led the glitch-focused working group. P. Davis, P. Lognonné, L. Pou, B.P. and R.F.G. developed the glitch-removal algorithm based on the instrument transfer function. S.B., P. Lognonné and E.S. developed the glitch-removal algorithm based on the deep scattering tool. J.-R.S. developed the glitch-removal algorithm based on the discrete wavelet transform. All authors analysed the glitches, discussed the removal strategies and approved of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toP. Lognonné.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Stefan Lachowycz.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussions 1–5 and Tables 1–3.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lognonné, P., Banerdt, W.B., Pike, W.T.et al. Constraints on the shallow elastic and anelastic structure of Mars from InSight seismic data.Nat. Geosci.13, 213–220 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0536-y

Download citation

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

Initial results from the InSight mission on Mars

  • W. Bruce Banerdt
  • Suzanne E. Smrekar
  • Mark Wieczorek
Nature GeosciencePerspective

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