Detecting carbonate minerals on Mars is one of the clearest ways to learn about ancient water, past climate, and where the planet may have trapped CO₂ over time. Carbonates are like geological notebooks: they record the chemistry of the fluids that made them and sometimes protect organic molecules. Remote sensing — the art of reading light and other signals from orbiters and landers — is the first line of investigation. But not all remote sensing is the same.
Different techniques “listen” to different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, each with strengths and limits. In this long, friendly guide I’ll walk you through the remote sensing tools scientists use to find carbonates on Mars, how and why they work, practical challenges (like dust and mixed minerals), examples of successful detections, and what the future holds. I’ll keep it simple, but detailed — imagine geology explained over a long cup of coffee.
What a “carbonate” looks like to a sensor
At the molecular level, carbonates are made of the carbonate ion (CO₃²⁻) bonded to cations such as magnesium, calcium, or iron. That chemical group vibrates and absorbs light at characteristic wavelengths. Remote sensors detect those absorptions or the way a rock emits heat. For carbonates, the most diagnostic remote signatures are absorption bands around ~2.3 and ~2.5 micrometers in reflected sunlight (VNIR–SWIR) and specific features in the thermal infrared (TIR). These fingerprints are the basis for identifying carbonate-bearing rocks from orbit.
VNIR–SWIR imaging spectroscopy: CRISM and OMEGA — the direct detectives
Imaging spectrometers that operate in the visible to shortwave infrared (VNIR–SWIR) are the primary tools for mapping carbonates from orbit. Instruments like CRISM (on NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) and OMEGA (on Mars Express) measure reflected sunlight in many narrow wavelength channels, producing a spectrum for each pixel. Carbonates show distinctive absorption features near 2.3 and 2.5 µm (and sometimes at 3.4 and 3.9 µm), which strongly point to carbonate minerals when detected cleanly. VNIR–SWIR is powerful because it reads the vibrational modes of the carbonate ion directly and can map mineral distributions at regional scales.
Thermal infrared spectroscopy: TES and the heat-based story
Thermal infrared (TIR) spectrometers detect a planet’s emitted heat and are sensitive to the fundamental vibrational modes of mineral lattices. TES on Mars Global Surveyor pioneered this approach for Mars, and it yielded broad compositional maps of the surface. In the TIR, carbonate minerals have diagnostic emissivity features (for example in the mid-infrared) that can indicate their presence even when VNIR signals are ambiguous. However, TIR signals depend on temperature, surface roughness, and the physical form of the carbonate (massive versus powdery), and sometimes massive carbonates show muted spectral contrasts, complicating detection.
High-resolution imaging (HiRISE and context cameras): finding targets, not minerals
High-resolution cameras like HiRISE do not measure mineral spectra, but they are essential for remote sensing workflows. HiRISE images reveal rock exposures, layering, fractures, and geomorphology at sub-meter resolution, allowing scientists to pick promising outcrops for spectral analysis or rover visits. In other words, imaging doesn’t identify carbonates directly, but it tells you where to point the spectral instruments and where to send rovers that can confirm the mineralogy.
Radar sounding (SHARAD, MARSIS): probing below the surface
Radar instruments such as SHARAD (on MRO) and MARSIS (on Mars Express) send low-frequency radio waves that penetrate the near-subsurface and reflect off layers. While radar cannot identify carbonate chemistry directly, it maps subsurface stratigraphy and bright reflectors that may correspond to layering, ice, or compositional contrasts. Radar can reveal buried basins or sub-surface layering where carbonate-rich deposits might be preserved, guiding further spectral study or landing site selection. Recent studies have used radar to reveal stratigraphy that supports interpretations of mineralized layers.
Active instruments on rovers: LIBS, Raman, XRD — the close-up confirmers
Rovers carry active spectrometers that probe rocks at centimeter or micrometer scales. LIBS (Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy), used by ChemCam and SuperCam, measures elemental composition by ablating tiny spots. Raman spectroscopy (SHERLOC on Perseverance) detects specific molecular vibrations and is very sensitive to carbonate vibrational modes, particularly for hydrated carbonates and organics. X-ray diffraction (CheMin on Curiosity) gives definitive crystal-structure identification — it can confirm and quantify carbonate minerals in a powdered sample. These techniques are crucial because orbital detections must ultimately be tested and refined with ground truth. Recent in-situ rover work has indeed confirmed carbonate-bearing rocks that orbiters had hinted at.
Spectral features to trust: the 2.3 and 2.5 µm bands and beyond
The most relied-upon carbonate indicators in reflected sunlight are absorptions near 2.3 and 2.5 µm. These arise from combination/overtone bands of the carbonate ion and shift slightly depending on the cation (Mg, Fe, Ca). Additional bands at 3.4 and 3.9 µm are also helpful where instruments cover those wavelengths. Thermal infrared provides complementary features in the mid-IR related to lattice vibrations. Combining VNIR–SWIR and TIR observations increases confidence: if both wavelength windows point to carbonate signatures in the same region, that’s a strong detection.
Why detection is hard: dust, coatings, and mixed minerals
Mars’ surface is messy. Fine dust, coatings of alteration products, and intimate mixing of minerals can mask or change spectral signatures. Dust is a particularly pernicious problem: a thin layer of fine-grained dust can dominate the reflected light and hide carbonate bands, or it can add its own spectral slope and features that interfere. Additionally, some sulfate minerals (e.g., Mg-sulfates) or iron oxides can obscure the carbonate bands in VNIR data. Recognizing these interferences and modeling their effects is an active area of research.
Spectral mixing and the difference between areal and intimate mixtures
Spectral signals often come from mixed surfaces. If carbonate occurs as patches big enough to be resolved by an instrument’s pixel, that’s an areal mixture and easier to detect using unmixing techniques. If carbonate is intimately mixed at fine scales with other minerals or dust, the spectral signature is non-linear and much harder to separate. Imaging spectrometers and unmixing algorithms aim to separate these components, but their success depends on spatial resolution and robust endmember libraries that include dusty and altered forms of minerals.
Processing tricks: continuum removal, band-depth mapping, and automated detection
Remote sensing experts use various spectral-processing methods to highlight carbonate features. Continuum removal normalizes spectra to reveal absorption shapes more clearly. Band-depth maps measure the relative strength of specific absorption features across images to isolate candidate carbonate pixels. Automated detection algorithms screen thousands of spectra to flag potential carbonate-bearing spots for human review. Such approaches underpin global carbonate surveys and local target selection. Recent work has used automated CRISM screening to generate updated carbonate candidate databases.
Case study: Nili Fossae and Isidis — orbital carbonate discoveries
One of the early and strongest orbital carbonate findings came from Nili Fossae and the Isidis rim region, where CRISM and OMEGA mapped strong carbonate absorption features associated with olivine-rich bedrock. These detections are important because they link bedrock composition (olivine ultramafics) with alteration processes that produce carbonate minerals. Nili Fossae remains a key example of how imaging spectroscopy can reveal regional carbonate provinces that guide further investigation.
Case study: Jezero area — combining instruments and ground truth
The Jezero crater region is a great illustration of multi-technique success. Orbiters flagged carbonates and phyllosilicates around the delta and fan deposits, and those detections helped justify Perseverance’s landing there. Now rover instruments (SHERLOC, SuperCam, PIXL, and others) have provided in-situ confirmations and added nuance — including reports of hydrated carbonate phases detected by SHERLOC in margin sediments. This is the ideal remote-to-ground workflow: orbital mapping → targeted landing → close-up confirmation.
Case study: Gale Crater and Curiosity — buried carbonates discovered by drill
Gale crater taught an important lesson: orbital non-detection doesn’t mean absence. Curiosity’s drilling and on-board labs (CheMin and SAM) identified siderite (an iron carbonate) in drilled powders from Mount Sharp despite orbital maps being dominated by sulfate signatures. This shows that carbonates can be buried beneath later layers or masked at the surface; rover-based sampling is essential to expose subsurface archives.
Complementary remote methods: neutron and gamma spectroscopy, thermal inertia
Neutron and gamma-ray spectrometers map bulk elemental composition at coarse scales, helping to identify hydrogen (which correlates with hydration) and elements relevant to carbonate formation. Thermal inertia maps (from thermal observations and diurnal temperature behavior) highlight rock versus dust — low thermal inertia suggests fine dust or powdery materials, while high thermal inertia signals exposed bedrock or consolidated sediments where carbonate exposures are more likely. These complementary datasets help prioritize targets for spectral follow-up.
Laboratory analogs and spectral libraries: the foundation of interpretation
Remote detections rely on comparing observed spectra with laboratory spectra of known minerals, including dusty and altered forms. Creating spectral libraries for hydrated carbonates, mixed Mg–Fe carbonates, sulfate-carbonate mixtures, and dust-coated rocks is crucial. Laboratory experiments also explore how grain size, temperature, and mixture ratios change spectral contrast, guiding how we interpret weak or shifted bands in orbiter data. Recent studies emphasize the importance of hydrous carbonate spectra for interpreting rover detections.
Algorithmic advances: automated detection, machine learning, and uncertainty quantification
As datasets grew, scientists developed automated screening and machine-learning approaches to find carbonate candidates across thousands of CRISM cubes. New algorithms quantify detection confidence and flag ambiguous cases for expert review. Machine learning helps recognize subtle or masked carbonate signals that classical band-depth methods might miss, but models must be trained on realistic mixed and dusty examples to avoid false positives. Recent work includes automated CRISM searches and updated global carbonate databases.
Limitations and failure modes: when remote sensing can mislead
Remote sensing is powerful but not infallible. Thin dust, overlain sulfates, or spectral confusion with other minerals can produce false negatives. Intimate mixing or unusual crystal structures can shift absorption centers and confuse identifications. Thermal contrast and roughness can mute TIR features. The safe scientific practice is conservative: remote detections generate hypotheses that in-situ instruments or sample return must test. Several studies caution that some carbonate occurrences may be masked by co-occurring minerals like Mg-sulfates that hide the 2.3 and 2.5 µm absorptions.
What in-situ confirmation adds: the power of ground truth
Rover instruments provide the confirmation that remote sensing alone cannot. LIBS and Raman can detect carbonates on the spot; XRD gives definitive mineral ID and quantification; evolved-gas experiments (SAM) can show CO₂ release consistent with carbonate decomposition. In other words, remote sensing narrows the search and in-situ tools read the book. The synergy of orbiters and rovers is what has led to secure identifications of carbonate-bearing rocks on Mars in recent years.
Future and proposed instruments: what will improve carbonate detection?
Upcoming improvements include higher spectral and spatial resolution from orbit, combined VNIR–TIR sensors on single platforms, better photometric correction algorithms, and more capable rover payloads. Advances in machine learning for spectral unmixing and better spectral libraries that include dusty variants will improve detection reliability. Ultimately, sample return is the gold standard: bringing carbonate-bearing rocks to Earth enables isotope geochemistry and ultrasensitive organic detection that remote sensing can only suggest. Recent mission papers underscore the scientific value of returned carbonate samples.
Practical strategy: how teams combine techniques to find carbonates
Field teams combine imagery, VNIR–SWIR mapping, TIR maps, thermal inertia, neutron/gamma data, and structural imaging to prioritize targets. Then they use spectral band-depth mapping, automated screening, and contextual geology to refine choices. For landing missions, the plan then moves to in-situ inspection, abrasion, laser shots, and — if available — drilling/coring. This multi-tiered workflow maximizes the chance of finding and confirming carbonate deposits rather than chasing false positives or missing covered deposits.
Conclusion
No single remote sensing technique does it all. VNIR–SWIR imaging spectroscopy (CRISM, OMEGA) is indispensable for directly detecting carbonate absorptions near 2.3 and 2.5 µm. TIR techniques (TES and successors) provide complementary lattice-structure information and thermal context. High-resolution imaging (HiRISE) guides where to look, radar (SHARAD/MARSIS) reveals subsurface structure, neutron/gamma sensors map bulk elements, and rover-based active tools (Raman, LIBS, XRD) confirm and quantify minerals at the scale that matters.
The reliable detection of carbonates on Mars comes from integrating these tools, modeling how dust and mixtures affect spectra, and ultimately validating remote picks with in-situ measurements or returned samples. As instruments and algorithms improve, and as rover missions continue to provide ground truth, our map of Martian carbonates — and what they tell us about Mars’ watery past — will only get richer.
FAQs
Which orbital instrument is best at detecting carbonates?
Imaging spectrometers working in the VNIR–SWIR range (like CRISM and OMEGA) are the primary tools because they directly detect the carbonate absorption features near ~2.3 and ~2.5 µm. Thermal-IR instruments (TES and successors) are complementary and can detect carbonate lattice features in emitted heat. Combining both windows produces the most confident identifications.
Can radar detect carbonate chemistry beneath the surface?
Radar (SHARAD, MARSIS) cannot identify carbonate chemistry directly. Instead, it reveals subsurface layering and reflectors that help locate buried sedimentary or alteration units where carbonates may be preserved. Radar is valuable for mapping structure and targets for follow-up spectral or landing missions.
Why do some orbital maps miss carbonates that rovers find?
Orbital sensors read the very top surface and can be fooled by dust, coatings, or later sulfate/oxide layers that mask carbonate bands. Rovers can abrade, drill, or analyze fresh material below the surface, revealing carbonates that were spectrally hidden from orbit. Curiosity’s discovery of siderite in Gale crater is a good example.
Do dust and grain size really change detection?
Yes. Very thin dust layers and small particle sizes scatter light strongly in VNIR and can dominate the reflected spectrum. Dust composition also matters — iron-oxide–rich dust or sulfate coatings can obscure carbonate bands. Laboratory studies and modeling show that grain size and dust coatings significantly reduce band depths and complicate detection.
What’s the next big step to improve carbonate detection on Mars?
Advances include higher-resolution VNIR–TIR mapping from orbit, better spectral libraries that include dusty and mixed materials, improved machine-learning unmixing algorithms, and, crucially, returning carbonate-bearing rock samples to Earth for high-precision isotope and organic analyses. Recent rover findings of hydrated and igneous-hosted carbonates underscore the value of sample return and coordinated orbital-to-ground campaigns.
Thomas Fred is a journalist and writer who focuses on space minerals and laboratory automation. He has 17 years of experience covering space technology and related industries, reporting on new discoveries and emerging trends. He holds a BSc and an MSc in Physics, which helps him explain complex scientific ideas in clear, simple language.
Leave a Reply