Anna Mittelholz ([email protected].

ch)

Mars' Ancient Dynamo and Crustal Remanent Magnetism

A presentation to the 2021 National Academies Decadal Survey of
Planetary Science
 Why is the crustal magnetic field important?
1. The formation and evolution of the crust, including its mineralogy and modification over the past
~4.5 Gyr, by tectonic, impact, fluvial, hydrothermal and magmatic processes (MEPAG Goal III A+B)

2. The evolution of the core dynamo, and its implications for core composition and dynamics,
interior evolution including early global heat flow, mantle dynamics and tectonic regime (e.g.,
whether Mars had an early phase of plate tectonics) (MEPAG Goal III B)

3. The link between atmosphere evolution and the extinction of the martian dynamo and thus
important information on habitability (MEPAG Goal II C)

4. Implications for future human exploration (MEPAG Goal IV A)

The crustal magnetic field holds broad implications for Mars’ early habitability, interior structure,
thermal history, for the fundamental physics of planetary dynamos, and human exploration.
Towards new science opportunities exploring the martian magnetic field
(1) What do(n’t) we (3) Recommendation:
know?

> 100 km
Planning and implementation of
Nature of martian magnetometers on aerial platforms
crustal magnetism? such as airplanes, drones and/or long-
No coverage lived balloons to obtain low-altitude
Magnetization (2) Available Data / magnetic measurements over
acquisition processes? Current Limitations kilometers to hundreds of kilometers.

Characteristics of the
martian Dynamo?
0 km

Exploration + Meteorites Hall et al.,

2007
 (1) What do(n’t) we know?

The global crustal magnetic field

• No current global field (Acuna et al.,

1999; 2001)

• Strong crustal fields

• Inhomogeneous distribution

What can we learn from this?

Models:
Cain et al., 2003; Langlais et al., 2004;
2019; Morschhauser et al., 2014;
Mttelholz et al., 2018
Some MAG background
Rocks acquire remanent magnetization when exposed to a magnetic field via these
mechanisms:

1) Thermal (TRM)  cooling below Tc

2) Shock (SRM)  impact
3) Chemical (CRM)  magnetic alteration products

Magnetic OR: Not Magnetic

 (1) What do(n’t) we know?

The global crustal magnetic field

• Inhomogeneous distribution

Observation What can we learn from this?

Southern One-hemisphere dynamo? (Stanley et al., 2008)

hemisphere Difference in mineralogy? (Quesnel et al., 2009)
Crustal thickness? (Neumann et al., 2004)
 (1) What do(n’t) we know?

The global crustal magnetic field

• Inhomogeneous distribution

Geologic Features What can we learn from this?

Southern One-hemisphere dynamo? (Stanley et al., 2008)

hemisphere Difference in mineralogy? (Quesnel et al., 2009)
Crustal thickness? (Neumann et al., 2004)

- Tharsis Correlations of magnetic field with geological

- HUIA features that can be associated with a heat
- + other craters and/or shock (de)magnetization process
and volcanoes  Timing! (Mittelholz et al., 2020; Vervelidou et al.,
2017; Hood et al., 2013; Lillis et al., 2013)
 (2) Available Data / Current Limitations

The global crustal magnetic field

Resolution matters
150 km altitude ~ 3km altitude Spatial resolution of these models is
approx. the altitudes of orbital
Earth example observations.

robust modeling of crustal magnetic

fields globally is currently limited to
spatial scales of ~135 km.
Value of low altitude measurements:
near-surface magnetic surveys detected
the prominent north-south magnetic
“stripes” along mid oceanic ridges.
 (2) Available Data / Current Limitations

The global crustal magnetic field

Resolution matters

MGS (1997-2006): mainly in a circular

orbit at 400 km (Mapping Orbit = MO) in
2am/pm orbit

MAVEN (since 2014): elliptic orbit

covering variety of altitudes (periapsis: 135
km) and local times
 (2) Available Data / Current Limitations

The global crustal magnetic field

Correlations of the
Resolution matters magnetic field with geology
(age!), mineralogy,
gravimetry, … allow asking
questions about dynamo
timing, carrier distribution,
source depth, …

Recent suggestion of a dynamo at 4.5 and 3.7 Ga

Mittelholz et al., 2020
InSight not meant to do magnetic field science  Useful addition!! (1) What do(n’t) we know?

The magnetic field from the surface

Crustal field 10x stronger than predicted from orbital data

Magnetization (M) age and strength?

• Free parameters are burial depth and thickness of magnetized layer.
Constraints: geology & crustal thickness
1. Deep-burial, hosted by Noachian units
 M > ~1.8 Am-1
B = 2013 ± 158 nT  compatible with dynamo cessation by ~4.1 Ga (e.g. Lillis
et al., 2008) or longer-lived, depending on basement age
2. Shallow burial, partly hosted in younger HNt units
 M < 1 Am-1 unless magnetized layer entirely within HNt
unit
 longer-lived or restarted dynamo (Mittelholz et al., 2020;
Hemingway and Driscoll, 2020).
(Johnson et al., 2020; Mittelholz et al., 2020b)
InSight not meant to do magnetic field science  Useful addition!! (2) Available Data / Current Limitations

The magnetic field from the surface

single data point
Crustal field 10x stronger than predicted from orbital data

Magnetization (M) age and strength?

• Free parameters are burial depth and thickness of magnetized layer.
Constraints: geology & crustal thickness
1. Deep-burial, hosted by Noachian units
 M > ~1.8 Am-1
B = 2013 ± 158 nT  compatible with dynamo cessation by ~4.1 Ga (e.g. Lillis
et al., 2008) or longer-lived, depending on basement age
2. Shallow burial, partly hosted in younger HNt units
 M < 1 Am-1 unless magnetized layer entirely within HNt
unit
 longer-lived dynamo (Mittelholz et al., 2020; Hemingway and
Driscoll, 2020)
(Johnson et al., 2020; Mittelholz et al., 2020)
 (1) What do(n’t) we know?
Advantage:
Meteorites Radiometric dating

• Timing of the dynamo: ALH 84001 suggest Earth-like paleointensities at ~4

Ga, consistent with the hypothesis of an early dynamo (Weiss et al., 2002;
2008; Gattacceca et al., 2014)

• A variety of potential magnetic carriers suggested including magnetite,

hematite, titanohematite, titanomagnetite and pyrrhotite (Dunlop et al.,
2005; Rochette et al., 2005)
From Rochette et al., 2001
 (2) Available Data / Current Limitations
Advantage:
Meteorites Radiometric dating

• Timing of the dynamo: ALH 84001 suggest Earth-like paleointensities at ~4

Ga, consistent with the hypothesis of an early dynamo (Weiss et al., 2002;
2008; Gattacceca et al., 2014)

• A variety of potential magnetic carriers suggested including magnetite,

hematite, titanohematite, titanomagnetite and pyrrhotite (Dunlop et al.,
2005; Rochette et al., 2005)

From Rochette et al., 2001

Limitations:
- limited constraints on the provenance of the samples (i.e., where on Mars they came from)
- complex histories, including exposure to shock and multiple reheating events.
- This lack of context also contributes to uncertainty as to whether the magnetization was acquired in a crustal magnetic field or
dynamo magnetic field.
 (3) Recommendation

How can we make progress?

> 100 km

● (1) We recommend that a magnetometer be mounted on a

(preferentially) mobile surface and/or low altitude aerial platform 
spatially continuous measurements of crustal magnetic fields. 
Preference: helicopter, aircraft or balloon will allow high resolution
No coverage

spatial coverage over spatial scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers,

offering access to areas that might be hazardous or inaccessible from the
surface.

● (2) Use opportunities!

Typical phase A-D costs are only a few million $ (and even less for class D).

Magnetic cleanliness is important but often relatively easy (e.g. a boom)

0 km

+ Meteorites
 (1) What do(n’t) we know?
Future Exploration
Emoto et al., 2018

(1) Resource Exploration:

Magnetic fields as proxy for subsurface variations 
Association with Iron bearing minerals
Identification and Characterization of building materials

(2) Ions are a radiation hazard:

• Come from the sun and deep space.
• Deflected by magnetic fields
• >~100 MeV reach the surface.
• >~10 MeV can penetrate spacesuits.

• Depend strongly on crustal field geometry and angular/energy distribution of particles.

• Need to be modeled at high resolution with better crustal magnetic field maps.

 Realistic high resolution modeling needed.

 (3) Recommendation

MEPAG Goals and magnetic fields

GOAL III: UNDERSTAND THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF MARS AS A GEOLOGICAL SYSTEM
Objective A: Document the geologic record preserved in the crust and investigate the processes that have created and
modified that record.
 NRM records the time at which a dynamo was present (2)
 NRM is dependent on surface conditions (3)
Objective B: Determine the structure, composition, and dynamics of the interior and how it has evolved.
 Dynamo cessation (1)

GOAL II: UNDERSTAND THE PROCESSES AND HISTORY OF CLIMATE ON MARS

Objective C: Characterize Mars’ ancient climate and underlying processes.
 NRM is dependent on surface conditions / climate (1, 3)

GOAL IV: PREPARE FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION

Objective A: Obtain knowledge of Mars sufficient to design and implement human landing at the designated human landing site with
acceptable cost, risk and performance.
 Geophysical exploration – iron bearing minerals (4)
 Small scale crustal fields as radiation shields? (4)
 Broad Interest in Mars’ Magnetic Field
• Support from 11 co-authors and 33 signatories from 28 institutions
• Involvement in 2 further Decadal whitepapers

THANK YOU! Rapin et al.: “Critical knowledge gaps in the Martian

geological record: A rationale for regional-scale in situ
exploration by rotorcraft mid-air deployment”)
Bapst et al.: “Mars Science Helicopter”

Hall et al., 2007

Backup
 (1) What do(n’t) we know?
Mars Crustal Magnetism: Puzzles
1) Dynamo

1) Timing, mechanism, strength, polarity change, …

2) TRM dominant? CRM a viable alternative? Surface conditions / type of environment during
dynamo?

3) magnetic properties of the carriers? Distribution? What is the global pattern of Mars' crustal
magnetic fields (~km)? How does it correlate with characteristics such as topography, gravity,
morphology and stratigraphy?

2) Acquisition Mechanism 3) Magnetic Carrier

(4) Radiation, astrobiology

4) Future Exploration Efforts implications, resource
identification, …
 (3) Recommendation

MEPAG Goals and magnetic fields

What could we learn?
Some examples

GOAL III: UNDERSTAND THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF MARS AS A GEOLOGICAL SYSTEM
(3) (2) Objective A: Document the geologic record preserved in the crust and investigate the processes that have created and modified that record.
(1) Objective B: Determine the structure, composition, and dynamics of the interior and how it has evolved.

(1) GOAL II: UNDERSTAND THE PROCESSES AND HISTORY OF CLIMATE ON MARS
(3) Objective C: Characterize Mars’ ancient climate and underlying processes.

(4) GOAL IV: PREPARE FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION

Objective A: Obtain knowledge of Mars sufficient to design and implement human landing at the designated human landing site with acceptable
cost, risk and performance.
Different data sets