How Good is “Good Enough?” Major Element Chemical Analyses of Planetary Basalts by Spacecraft Instruments

Abstract

Abstract Bulk chemical composition is a fundamental property of a planetary material, rock or regolith, and can be used to constrain the properties and history of a material, and by extension its parent body, including its potential for habitability. Here, we investigate how uncertainties in bulk major element analyses can affect inferences derived from those analyses, including rock classification by total-alkalis–silica (TAS); Chemical Index of Alteration (CIA); a tectonic discriminant for magma genesis; and the inferred mantle pressure and temperature of a basaltic magma’s origin. Uncertainties for actual spacecraft instruments (Mars Exploration Rover and Mars Science Laboratory (MER/MSL), Alpha Proton X-Ray Spectroscopy (APXS), and Mars Science Laboratory: Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (MSL LIBS)) and a suggested uncertainty level for analyses on Venus (Venus Exploration Targets (VExT) Workshop) are higher than those of standard Earth-based analyses (e.g., by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICPOES)). We propagate the uncertainties from each analysis type to the derived parameters, both implicitly and via boot-strap (Monte Carlo) methods. Our calculations show that the uncertainties of APXS and VExT are greater than those for ICPOES, but they still allow useful inferences about rock type and history. Our results show that the uncertainties of MSL LIBS analyses are significantly larger than the other techniques, and can provide only limited constraints on rock types or histories. Any instruments chosen for future mission must have uncertainties of the chemical analyses small enough to meet the mission’s overall scientific objectives.