MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant MGS-1
Mixed mineral powder: anorthosite (plagioclase), glass-rich basalt, pyroxene, olivine, Mg-sulfate, ferrihydrite, hydrated silica, magnetite, anhydrite, Fe-carbonate and hematite
MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant is an open-standard powder that reproduces the mineral mix of the Rocknest windblown soil at Gale crater, Mars.
Evidence level
2 of 5
Lab-measured
- 0Predicted only. No one has made it, or no measurement exists.
- 1Calculated. Only calculated or predicted values from sources.
- 2Lab-measured. Measured properties with their conditions stated.
- 3Space-relevant tests. Measured in conditions relevant to space, such as vacuum or atomic oxygen.
- 4Ground-qualified. Qualified for an application on the ground.
- 5Flown or field-proven. Flight or field results exist.
Bulk density
1.29 g/cm³
Flow behaviour
38.9 °
Particle size
60 μm
Water on heating
3.2 wt%
Volatile sulfur
> 1.27 wt%
Recipe, share of the weight
- 27.1%Anorthosite (plagioclase)
- 22.9%Glass-rich basalt (basaltic glass)
- 20.3%Pyroxene
- 13.7%Olivine
- 4%Mg-sulfate
- 3.5%Ferrihydrite
- 3%Hydrated silica
- 1.9%Magnetite
- 1.7%Anhydrite
- 1.4%Fe-carbonate (siderite)
- 0.5%Hematite
Best for
Ground tests of hardware and of in-situ resource utilization on a basaltic Mars analogue, where mineral mix and volatile content matter most (Cannon et al. 2019, Section 5.1)
Weakest at
Bulk chemistry: the fact sheet and the Cannon et al. prototype give different oxide values (SiO2 42.9 wt% against 50.8 wt%), so no single bulk chemistry is settled
Risk at a glance
- People None found. Dust is the stated hazard; use a respirator.
- If it fails No data. No failure risks recorded
- Corrosion Moderate. The prototype loses 3.9% of its mass on heating from 30 to 500 °C.
Why it exists
MGS-1 is an open-standard simulant of basaltic Martian regolith. Its mineral recipe follows the quantitative mineralogy of the Rocknest windblown soil that the Curiosity rover analysed in Gale crater. Cannon et al. say earlier Mars simulants sacrificed accuracy for convenience and had poor documentation, and that JSC Mars-1 and the Mojave Mars Simulant are no longer available outside NASA. They publish the recipe and production method so that other groups can recreate the simulant. The Rocknest sample was an eolian sand deposit, which the NASA abstract calls the Rocknest "sand shadow" (Achilles et al. 2016, NTRS 20160002646). Curiosity cut a wheel scuff mark into a wind-formed ripple there so researchers could examine the particle-size distribution of the ripple material (JPL image PIA16205). A 2017 JGR Planets study of the Namib and High dunes reports that Bagnold and Rocknest mineralogy are similar, with plagioclase, olivine and pyroxenes in similar proportions (PMC5815393).
Where it's used
Hardware testing
Cannon et al. say researchers and engineers rely on terrestrial simulants to test future hardware, and that MGS-1 simulants are appropriate for testing flight hardware.
In-situ resource utilization
Cannon et al. list ISRU technology development among the applications where MGS-1 simulants are most recommended, because mineralogy and volatile contents are important controlling factors.
Recipe
Mixed mineral powder: anorthosite (plagioclase), glass-rich basalt, pyroxene, olivine, Mg-sulfate, ferrihydrite, hydrated silica, magnetite, anhydrite, Fe-carbonate and hematite
MGS-1 is a mixture of mineral powders, not one compound. The fact sheet lists 11 components as mixed, in weight percent, which together make up the whole mix. Cannon et al. made their prototypes by mixing plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, basaltic glass and magnetite with water and a sodium metasilicate binder, drying the paste into hard cobbles, grinding the cobbles and mixing them with the secondary phases.
| Ingredient | Share of the weight | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Anorthosite (plagioclase) | 27.1% | Largest crystalline component. The fact sheet calls it anorthosite; Cannon et al. call it plagioclase. |
| Glass-rich basalt (basaltic glass) | 22.9% | Amorphous basaltic glass, an X-ray amorphous phase in the mix. |
| Pyroxene | 20.3% | Crystalline silicate. Cannon et al. used a bronzite-variety pyroxene from Brazil. |
| Olivine | 13.7% | Crystalline silicate. Cannon et al. used highly forsteritic San Carlos olivine. |
| Mg-sulfate | 4% | Sulfate. Its breakdown releases SO2 and O2 near 950 °C on heating. |
| Ferrihydrite | 3.5% | Iron oxyhydroxide. Cannon et al. say ferrihydrite and hematite act as strong pigments. Table 1 gives 1.7 wt%. |
| Hydrated silica | 3% | Secondary phase. Cannon et al. Table 1 lists it as hydrated silica (opal) at 5.0 wt%. |
| Magnetite | 1.9% | Magnetic iron oxide. Cannon et al. say magnetite matters for the magnetic properties. |
| Anhydrite | 1.7% | Sulfate. Cannon et al. use anhydrite for sulfur content. Table 1 gives 0.9 wt%. |
| Fe-carbonate (siderite) | 1.4% | Iron carbonate. Its breakdown gives a sharp CO2 release on heating. |
| Hematite | 0.5% | Iron oxide and pigment. Cannon et al. Table 1 gives 1.1 wt%. |
Weight shares are as printed in the sources.
What it can do
Bulk density
1.29 g/cm³
measured
The uncompressed bulk density is 1.29 g/cm3 per the fact sheet, and Cannon et al. report the same value for their prototype.
Flow behaviour
38.9 °
measured
The fact sheet gives an average angle of repose of 38.9° and a maximum of 43.6°.
Particle size
60 μm
measured
The fact sheet gives a mean particle size of 90 μm and a median of 60 μm from laser diffraction. Cannon et al.'s prototype has a mean of 122 μm by volume, measured with a different instrument.
Water on heating
3.2 wt%
measured
Heated from 30 to 500 °C, the prototype released water equal to 3.2 wt% of MGS-1 (Cannon et al. 2019, Section 4.4).
Volatile sulfur
> 1.27 wt%
measured
The fact sheet gives SO3 of at least 1.27 wt%, measured by XRF.
How it compares
Cannon et al. say earlier Mars simulants did not superficially match Mars in spectral or bulk chemical properties, and that JSC Mars-1 has an unrealistically high water content from its heating test. MGS-1 is designed as a mineralogical match to Rocknest instead. The prototype's bulk density of 1.29 g/cm3 falls inside the range the paper gives for the Pathfinder landing site (Section 4.1). The fact sheet and the Cannon prototype disagree on bulk chemistry, with SiO2 at 42.9 wt% on the fact sheet and 50.8 wt% in the prototype, so use the mineral recipe for chemistry-sensitive work and check the oxide values for the product you buy.
The same measurements for each material, so you can compare them. Each row names the key condition under the value; the full conditions and methods are in the numbered notes under Technical details.
| Measurement | MGS-1 |
|---|---|
| Physical and electrical | |
| Uncompressed bulk density | 1.29 g/cm³1 |
| Other measurements | |
| Average angle of repose | 38.9 °2 |
| Maximum angle of repose | 43.6 °3 |
| Mean particle size (fact sheet) | 90 μm4 |
| Median particle size (fact sheet)Printed on the fact sheet header block | 60 μm |
| Particle size range (fact sheet)Printed range on the fact sheet | 0.04 to 600 μm5 |
| Fraction finer than 53 μm by mass (sieve) | 3.6 % by mass6 |
| Mean grain size by volume (Cannon prototype) | 122 μm7 |
| SiO2, XRF (fact sheet) | 42.9 wt%8 |
| SiO2, XRF (Cannon prototype) | 50.8 wt%9 |
| MgO, XRF (fact sheet) | 14.6 wt%10 |
| MgO, XRF (Cannon prototype) | 16.7 wt%11 |
| FeO, XRF (fact sheet) | 11.2 wt%12 |
| FeOT (total iron as FeO, Cannon prototype) | 13.3 wt%13 |
| Al2O3, XRF (fact sheet) | 12.8 wt%14 |
| Al2O3, XRF (Cannon prototype) | 8.9 wt%15 |
| Loss on ignition (LOI), fact sheetPrinted on the fact sheet, footnote LOI | 5.3 wt% |
| Mass loss on heating, 30 to 500 °C (prototype) | 3.9 %16 |
| Water (H2O) equivalent from mass loss, 30 to 500 °C | 3.2 wt%17 |
| Sulfur trioxide (volatile), XRFPrinted in the Volatiles table on the fact sheet | > 1.27 wt% |
| Fluorine (volatile), XRFPrinted in the Volatiles table on the fact sheet | > 0.1 wt% |
| Chlorine (volatile), XRFPrinted in the Volatiles table on the fact sheet | > 0.005 wt% |
| Anorthosite (plagioclase), as mixed | 27.1 wt%18 |
| Glass-rich basalt (basaltic glass), as mixed | 22.9 wt%19 |
| Pyroxene, as mixed | 20.3 wt%20 |
| Olivine, as mixed | 13.7 wt%21 |
| Mg-sulfate, as mixed | 4 wt%22 |
| Ferrihydrite, as mixed (fact sheet) | 3.5 wt%23 |
| Ferrihydrite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipePrinted in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019 | 1.7 wt%24 |
| Hydrated silica, as mixed (fact sheet) | 3 wt%25 |
| Hydrated silica (opal), Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe | 5 wt%26 |
| Magnetite, as mixed | 1.9 wt%27 |
| Anhydrite, as mixed (fact sheet) | 1.7 wt%28 |
| Anhydrite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipePrinted in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019 | 0.9 wt%29 |
| Fe-carbonate (siderite), as mixed | 1.4 wt%30 |
| Hematite, as mixed (fact sheet) | 0.5 wt%31 |
| Hematite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipePrinted in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019 | 1.1 wt%32 |
Why choose it, and why not
Good for
- Hardware and ISRU tests where mineralogy and volatile content matter. Cannon et al. recommend MGS-1 for those uses.
- Tests that need a documented, reproducible recipe. Cannon et al. publish the recipe and production method.
Watch out for
- Bulk chemistry: the fact sheet and the Cannon prototype disagree (SiO2 42.9 wt% against 50.8 wt%; MgO 14.6 wt% against 16.7 wt%).
- Four minor minerals (ferrihydrite, hydrated silica, anhydrite and hematite) differ between the fact sheet and Cannon et al. Table 1.
- Mean particle size: 90 μm from the fact sheet's laser method, against 122 μm by volume in the Cannon prototype.
- The Cannon values come from a lab-made prototype. The commercial product may differ.
MGS-1 is a published, open recipe for basaltic Martian regolith with sourced density, particle-size and mineral-mix values. Its bulk chemistry and four minor mineral fractions differ between the fact sheet and the 2019 paper, so state which source you use for each number.
Technical details
For scientists and researchers. Everything above comes from the record below: every number with its method, its conditions and its source.
Notes
The method, full conditions and any caveat for the numbered rows above.
| # | Measurement | Method | Conditions | Caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uncompressed bulk density | Printed value on the fact sheet; Cannon et al. 2019 report the same 1.29 g/cm3 for their prototype (Section 4.1) | state uncompressed bulk powder, as mixedbasis value printed on the fact sheet | Cannon et al. 2019 say they could not find a published density or porosity for Rocknest soil itself. |
| 2 | Average angle of repose | Printed on the fact sheet, Geotechnical Properties block | basis average angle of repose as printed; test method not stated | — |
| 3 | Maximum angle of repose | Printed on the fact sheet, Geotechnical Properties block | basis maximum angle of repose as printed; test method not stated | — |
| 4 | Mean particle size (fact sheet) | Printed on the fact sheet; the volumetric distribution slide names the CILAS 1190 analyzer | distribution volumetric, laser diffractioninstrument CILAS 1190 laser diffraction particle size analyzer | — |
| 5 | Particle size range (fact sheet) | — | bound note the fact sheet prints the lower limit as greater than 0.04 μm | The lower limit is printed as greater than 0.04 μm, so 0.04 μm is a bound, not a measured minimum. |
| 6 | Fraction finer than 53 μm by mass (sieve) | Printed under Sieve Analysis; the fact sheet notes that sieving skews sizes larger because fines cling to coarse grains | method sieve analysis following ASTM E11 with RO-TAP RX-30 shakerbasis mass | — |
| 7 | Mean grain size by volume (Cannon prototype) | Measured at Johnson Space Center ARES facilities (Section 3.3); the paper reports the mean by volume | basis prototype sieved below 1 mm; volume meanmedium isopropyl alcoholinstrument Microtrac S3500 particle size analyzerreplicates measured in triplicate | Different instrument and sample preparation from the fact sheet's 90 μm mean, so the two means are not directly comparable. |
| 8 | SiO2, XRF (fact sheet) | Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.% | method XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Labbasis oxide wt% | — |
| 9 | SiO2, XRF (Cannon prototype) | Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column | basis prototype MGS-1 simulant, measured by XRF in oxides mode at the UCF Materials Characterization Facility | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 42.9 wt%. Cannon et al. attribute deviations from Rocknest mainly to the silicate chemistry used, with MgO and FeO most affected. |
| 10 | MgO, XRF (fact sheet) | Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.% | method XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Labbasis oxide wt% | — |
| 11 | MgO, XRF (Cannon prototype) | Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column | basis prototype MGS-1 simulant, measured by XRF in oxides mode at the UCF Materials Characterization Facility | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 14.6 wt%. |
| 12 | FeO, XRF (fact sheet) | Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.% | method XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Labbasis oxide wt% | — |
| 13 | FeOT (total iron as FeO, Cannon prototype) | Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column | basis total iron expressed as FeO, prototype MGS-1 simulant | Total iron as FeO in the paper; the fact sheet prints FeO. Disagrees with the fact sheet's 11.2 wt%. |
| 14 | Al2O3, XRF (fact sheet) | Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.% | method XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Labbasis oxide wt% | — |
| 15 | Al2O3, XRF (Cannon prototype) | Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column | basis prototype MGS-1 simulant, measured by XRF in oxides mode at the UCF Materials Characterization Facility | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 12.8 wt%. |
| 16 | Mass loss on heating, 30 to 500 °C (prototype) | Thermogravimetric analysis, reported by Cannon et al. (Section 4.4) | range 30 to 500 °Csample MGS-1 prototype, not the fact-sheet productbasis relative mass | — |
| 17 | Water (H2O) equivalent from mass loss, 30 to 500 °C | Value stated by Cannon et al. from the thermogravimetry data (Section 4.4) | basis H2O-related mass loss expressed as wt% of MGS-1assumption siderite assumed to decompose completelysample MGS-1 prototype | — |
| 18 | Anorthosite (plagioclase), as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table. The fact sheet calls this anorthosite; Cannon et al. Table 1 calls it plagioclase at the same 27.1 wt% | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 19 | Glass-rich basalt (basaltic glass), as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives basaltic glass at the same 22.9 wt% | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 20 | Pyroxene, as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 20.3 wt% | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 21 | Olivine, as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 13.7 wt% | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 22 | Mg-sulfate, as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 4.0 wt% | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 23 | Ferrihydrite, as mixed (fact sheet) | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry) | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (1.7 wt%). |
| 24 | Ferrihydrite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe | — | basis prototype recipe, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 3.5 wt%. |
| 25 | Hydrated silica, as mixed (fact sheet) | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry) | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (5.0 wt%, labelled hydrated silica (opal)). |
| 26 | Hydrated silica (opal), Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe | Printed in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019, amorphous phases | basis prototype recipe, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 3.0 wt%. |
| 27 | Magnetite, as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 1.9 wt% | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 28 | Anhydrite, as mixed (fact sheet) | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry) | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (0.9 wt%). |
| 29 | Anhydrite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe | — | basis prototype recipe, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 1.7 wt%. |
| 30 | Fe-carbonate (siderite), as mixed | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 1.4 wt%, named Fe-carbonated there | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | — |
| 31 | Hematite, as mixed (fact sheet) | Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry) | basis as mixed, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (1.1 wt%). |
| 32 | Hematite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe | — | basis prototype recipe, share of the mineral components | Disagrees with the fact sheet's 0.5 wt%. |
Corrosion and compatibility
What happens when it meets other materials and environments.
| Environment | Concern | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Heating from 30 to 500 °C (MGS-1 prototype) | moderate | The prototype loses 3.9% of its mass on heating from 30 to 500 °C.1 |
| # | Environment | Details | Test conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Heating from 30 to 500 °C (MGS-1 prototype) | Cannon et al. report 3.9% relative mass loss over 30 to 500 °C and state that the water-related part corresponds to 3.2 wt% of MGS-1, assuming the siderite decomposes completely. They also report a sharp CO2 release from siderite breakdown and SO2 and O2 release near 950 °C from Mg-sulfate breakdown. | method thermogravimetry with evolved-gas analysissample MGS-1 prototype, not the fact-sheet product |
Risks and side effects
Hazards to people, what happens when a cell overheats, and how the material is handled and stored.
For people
The fact sheet's only stated hazard is dust inhalation. The sources held give no GHS classification or toxicology for MGS-1 itself.
- The powder
- The fact sheet names dust inhalation as the primary hazard and advises a respirator in dusty conditions. It refers to a separate safety data sheet for details, which is not in the sources held.
- Fine fraction
- The fact sheet gives 3.6% by mass finer than 53 μm.
If the simulant is heated
These results come from laboratory heating of the Cannon et al. prototype, not from field incidents.
- Mass loss
- The prototype lost 3.9% of its mass between 30 and 500 °C. Cannon et al. state that 3.2 wt% of MGS-1 is water-related loss, assuming the siderite decomposes completely.
- Gas release
- Cannon et al. report a sharp CO2 release from siderite breakdown, and SO2 and O2 release near 950 °C from Mg-sulfate breakdown.
Handling and storage
- Storage
- The sources held give no storage rule for MGS-1. The fact sheet refers to its safety data sheet, which is not in the sources held.
- Dust control
- The fact sheet advises a respirator in dusty conditions.
Test details
The original wording and numbers from the sources, for readers who want them.
Side effects on surrounding parts
| Affects | Effect |
|---|---|
| Gas analysis and furnace or oven exhaust during heating tests | On heating the prototype, Cannon et al. report a broad water release, a sharp CO2 release from siderite breakdown, and SO2 and O2 release near 950 °C from Mg-sulfate breakdown. |
Handling and storage
- Wear a respirator in dusty conditions (fact sheet safety note).
- Cannon et al. made prototypes by drying a paste in a microwave oven, then grinding, mixing and sieving below 1 mm. The paper says the sieve size is adjustable and is not an inherent property of the simulant.
Supply and geography
How common the raw materials are and where they come from.
MGS-1 simulant (the product)
Not applicable: a manufactured mix of Earth minerals, not a mined commodity
- Recycling
- Not found in the sources held.
MGS-1 simulant (current supplier)
Not applicable
- Recycling
- Not found in the sources held.
Mineral feedstock (plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine)
Not found in the sources held
- Recycling
- Not found in the sources held.
Documents
Datasheets, safety data sheets, papers and standards you can open.
Full record
The complete spore, as stored. Free to reuse under CC-BY-4.0. Images keep the licence shown with each one.
Show the full YAML
spore: profile
id: mgs-1-mars-simulant
spore_version: 0.2
family: regolith
name: MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant
abbreviation: MGS-1
role: Earth stand-in for Mars soil in tests
category: regolith
type: mars-simulants
summary: |
MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant is an open-standard powder that reproduces the mineral mix of the Rocknest windblown soil at Gale crater, Mars. Its December 2022 fact sheet gives an uncompressed bulk density of 1.29 g/cm3 and a median particle size of 60 μm, and lists 27.1 wt% anorthosite and 22.9 wt% glass-rich basalt as mixed. The 2019 paper that defines the standard (Cannon et al., Icarus 317) reports the same bulk density for its prototype, a mean grain size of 122 μm by volume, and a different bulk chemistry.
best_for: Ground tests of hardware and of in-situ resource utilization on a basaltic Mars analogue, where mineral mix and volatile content matter most (Cannon et al. 2019, Section 5.1)
weakest_at: 'Bulk chemistry: the fact sheet and the Cannon et al. prototype give different oxide values (SiO2 42.9 wt% against 50.8 wt%), so no single bulk chemistry is settled'
identity:
formula: 'Mixed mineral powder: anorthosite (plagioclase), glass-rich basalt, pyroxene, olivine, Mg-sulfate, ferrihydrite, hydrated silica, magnetite, anhydrite, Fe-carbonate and hematite'
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, As mixed (wt%), 11 components
tags:
environments:
- mars-surface
stresses: []
applications:
- rovers-and-surface-systems
- in-space-manufacturing
properties:
- benchmark: bulk_density
label: Uncompressed bulk density
value: 1.29
unit: g/cm3
scope: material
conditions:
state: uncompressed bulk powder, as mixed
basis: value printed on the fact sheet
method: Printed value on the fact sheet; Cannon et al. 2019 report the same 1.29 g/cm3 for their prototype (Section 4.1)
status: ground
note: Cannon et al. 2019 say they could not find a published density or porosity for Rocknest soil itself.
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Header block, Uncompressed Bulk Density
- benchmark: angle_of_repose
label: Average angle of repose
value: 38.9
unit: °
scope: material
conditions:
basis: average angle of repose as printed; test method not stated
method: Printed on the fact sheet, Geotechnical Properties block
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Geotechnical Properties, Avg Angle of Repose
- benchmark: angle_of_repose
label: Maximum angle of repose
value: 43.6
unit: °
scope: material
conditions:
basis: maximum angle of repose as printed; test method not stated
method: Printed on the fact sheet, Geotechnical Properties block
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Geotechnical Properties, Max Angle of Repose
- benchmark: particle_size_mean
label: Mean particle size (fact sheet)
value: 90
unit: μm
scope: material
conditions:
distribution: volumetric, laser diffraction
instrument: CILAS 1190 laser diffraction particle size analyzer
method: Printed on the fact sheet; the volumetric distribution slide names the CILAS 1190 analyzer
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Header block, Mean Particle Size; Volumetric Particle Size Distribution slide
- benchmark: particle_size_median
label: Median particle size (fact sheet)
value: 60
unit: μm
scope: material
conditions:
distribution: volumetric, laser diffraction
instrument: CILAS 1190 laser diffraction particle size analyzer
method: Printed on the fact sheet header block
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Header block, Median Particle Size
- benchmark: particle_size_range
label: Particle size range (fact sheet)
value: 0.04
value_high: 600
bound: range
unit: μm
scope: material
conditions:
bound_note: the fact sheet prints the lower limit as greater than 0.04 μm
method: Printed range on the fact sheet
status: ground
note: The lower limit is printed as greater than 0.04 μm, so 0.04 μm is a bound, not a measured minimum.
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Header block, Particle Size Range
- benchmark: particle_fraction_finer_than_53um
label: Fraction finer than 53 μm by mass (sieve)
value: 3.6
unit: '% by mass'
scope: material
conditions:
method: sieve analysis following ASTM E11 with RO-TAP RX-30 shaker
basis: mass
method: Printed under Sieve Analysis; the fact sheet notes that sieving skews sizes larger because fines cling to coarse grains
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Sieve Analysis table, row 270 (53 µm), Finer by Mass column
- benchmark: particle_size_mean
label: Mean grain size by volume (Cannon prototype)
value: 122
unit: μm
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype sieved below 1 mm; volume mean
medium: isopropyl alcohol
instrument: Microtrac S3500 particle size analyzer
replicates: measured in triplicate
method: Measured at Johnson Space Center ARES facilities (Section 3.3); the paper reports the mean by volume
status: ground
note: Different instrument and sample preparation from the fact sheet's 90 μm mean, so the two means are not directly comparable.
source: cannon2019
where: Section 4.1 (Physical properties), paragraph after Fig. 3
- benchmark: sio2
label: SiO2, XRF (fact sheet)
value: 42.9
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
method: XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Lab
basis: oxide wt%
method: Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Bulk Chemistry table, SiO2 row
- benchmark: sio2
label: SiO2, XRF (Cannon prototype)
value: 50.8
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype MGS-1 simulant, measured by XRF in oxides mode at the UCF Materials Characterization Facility
method: Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 42.9 wt%. Cannon et al. attribute deviations from Rocknest mainly to the silicate chemistry used, with MgO and FeO most affected.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column, SiO2 row
- benchmark: mgo
label: MgO, XRF (fact sheet)
value: 14.6
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
method: XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Lab
basis: oxide wt%
method: Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Bulk Chemistry table, MgO row
- benchmark: mgo
label: MgO, XRF (Cannon prototype)
value: 16.7
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype MGS-1 simulant, measured by XRF in oxides mode at the UCF Materials Characterization Facility
method: Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 14.6 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column, MgO row
- benchmark: feo
label: FeO, XRF (fact sheet)
value: 11.2
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
method: XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Lab
basis: oxide wt%
method: Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Bulk Chemistry table, FeO row
- benchmark: feo
label: FeOT (total iron as FeO, Cannon prototype)
value: 13.3
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: total iron expressed as FeO, prototype MGS-1 simulant
method: Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column
status: ground
note: Total iron as FeO in the paper; the fact sheet prints FeO. Disagrees with the fact sheet's 11.2 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column, FeOT row
- benchmark: al2o3
label: Al2O3, XRF (fact sheet)
value: 12.8
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
method: XRF on fused bead, relative abundances, Hamilton Analytical Lab
basis: oxide wt%
method: Printed in the Bulk Chemistry table as Oxide Wt.%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Bulk Chemistry table, Al2O3 row
- benchmark: al2o3
label: Al2O3, XRF (Cannon prototype)
value: 8.9
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype MGS-1 simulant, measured by XRF in oxides mode at the UCF Materials Characterization Facility
method: Measured by Cannon et al. (Section 3.3) and printed in Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 12.8 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 2, MGS-1 prototype column, Al2O3 row
- benchmark: loss_on_ignition
label: Loss on ignition (LOI), fact sheet
value: 5.3
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: loss on ignition as footnoted in the Bulk Chemistry table
method: Printed on the fact sheet, footnote LOI
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Bulk Chemistry table, LOI row
- benchmark: mass_loss_30_500c
label: Mass loss on heating, 30 to 500 °C (prototype)
value: 3.9
unit: '%'
scope: material
conditions:
range: 30 to 500 °C
sample: MGS-1 prototype, not the fact-sheet product
basis: relative mass
method: Thermogravimetric analysis, reported by Cannon et al. (Section 4.4)
status: ground
source: cannon2019
where: Section 4.4 (Thermogravimetry), first paragraph
- benchmark: water_content_30_500c
label: Water (H2O) equivalent from mass loss, 30 to 500 °C
value: 3.2
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: H2O-related mass loss expressed as wt% of MGS-1
assumption: siderite assumed to decompose completely
sample: MGS-1 prototype
method: Value stated by Cannon et al. from the thermogravimetry data (Section 4.4)
status: ground
source: cannon2019
where: Section 4.4 (Thermogravimetry), paragraph after the 3.9% figure
- benchmark: so3_content
label: Sulfur trioxide (volatile), XRF
value: 1.27
bound: lower
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
bound_note: printed as at least (≥)
method: XRF, volatiles
method: Printed in the Volatiles table on the fact sheet
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Volatiles table, SO3 row
- benchmark: fluorine_content
label: Fluorine (volatile), XRF
value: 0.1
bound: lower
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
bound_note: printed as at least (≥)
method: XRF, volatiles
method: Printed in the Volatiles table on the fact sheet
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Volatiles table, F row
- benchmark: chlorine_content
label: Chlorine (volatile), XRF
value: 0.005
bound: lower
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
bound_note: printed as at least (≥)
method: XRF, volatiles
method: Printed in the Volatiles table on the fact sheet
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Volatiles table, Cl row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Anorthosite (plagioclase), as mixed
value: 27.1
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table. The fact sheet calls this anorthosite; Cannon et al. Table 1 calls it plagioclase at the same 27.1 wt%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Anorthosite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Glass-rich basalt (basaltic glass), as mixed
value: 22.9
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives basaltic glass at the same 22.9 wt%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Glass-rich basalt row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Pyroxene, as mixed
value: 20.3
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 20.3 wt%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Pyroxene row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Olivine, as mixed
value: 13.7
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 13.7 wt%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Olivine row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Mg-sulfate, as mixed
value: 4
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 4.0 wt%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Mg-sulfate row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Ferrihydrite, as mixed (fact sheet)
value: 3.5
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry)
status: ground
note: Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (1.7 wt%).
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Ferrihydrite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Ferrihydrite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe
value: 1.7
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype recipe, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 3.5 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 1, Ferrihydrite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Hydrated silica, as mixed (fact sheet)
value: 3
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry)
status: ground
note: Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (5.0 wt%, labelled hydrated silica (opal)).
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Hydrated silica row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Hydrated silica (opal), Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe
value: 5
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype recipe, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019, amorphous phases
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 3.0 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 1, Hydrated Silica (Opal) row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Magnetite, as mixed
value: 1.9
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 1.9 wt%
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Magnetite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Anhydrite, as mixed (fact sheet)
value: 1.7
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry)
status: ground
note: Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (0.9 wt%).
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Anhydrite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Anhydrite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe
value: 0.9
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype recipe, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 1.7 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 1, Anhydrite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Fe-carbonate (siderite), as mixed
value: 1.4
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives the same 1.4 wt%, named Fe-carbonated there
status: ground
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Fe-carbonate row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Hematite, as mixed (fact sheet)
value: 0.5
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: as mixed, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in the Mineralogy table; Cannon et al. Table 1 gives a different value (see next entry)
status: ground
note: Disagrees with Cannon et al. Table 1 (1.1 wt%).
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Mineralogy table, Hematite row
- benchmark: mineral_fraction
label: Hematite, Cannon et al. Table 1 prototype recipe
value: 1.1
unit: wt%
scope: material
conditions:
basis: prototype recipe, share of the mineral components
method: Printed in Table 1 of Cannon et al. 2019
status: ground
note: Disagrees with the fact sheet's 0.5 wt%.
source: cannon2019
where: Table 1, Hematite row
corrosion:
- environment: Heating from 30 to 500 °C (MGS-1 prototype)
headline: The prototype loses 3.9% of its mass on heating from 30 to 500 °C.
effect: Cannon et al. report 3.9% relative mass loss over 30 to 500 °C and state that the water-related part corresponds to 3.2 wt% of MGS-1, assuming the siderite decomposes completely. They also report a sharp CO2 release from siderite breakdown and SO2 and O2 release near 950 °C from Mg-sulfate breakdown.
rating: moderate
conditions:
method: thermogravimetry with evolved-gas analysis
sample: MGS-1 prototype, not the fact-sheet product
source: cannon2019
where: Section 4.4 (Thermogravimetry)
risks:
hazards:
- text: The fact sheet names dust inhalation as the primary hazard and advises a respirator in dusty conditions.
ghs: []
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Safety block, page 1
- text: The fact sheet refers readers to a separate safety data sheet for details. That sheet is not in the sources held, so no GHS classification is recorded here.
ghs: []
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Safety block, page 1
- text: Sodium metasilicate, the binder named in the Cannon et al. prototype recipe, is classed in the Gelest SDS (CAS 6834-92-0) with hazard statements H302 (harmful if swallowed), H314 (causes severe skin burns and eye damage) and H335 (may cause respiratory irritation). The SDS signal word is Danger. The SDS covers the pure chemical, not MGS-1.
ghs:
- H302
- H314
- H335
source: gelest-sds
where: Hazard statements (GHS-US) and Signal word lines
failure_risks: []
side_effects:
- text: On heating the prototype, Cannon et al. report a broad water release, a sharp CO2 release from siderite breakdown, and SO2 and O2 release near 950 °C from Mg-sulfate breakdown.
affects: Gas analysis and furnace or oven exhaust during heating tests
source: cannon2019
where: Section 4.4 (Thermogravimetry)
handling:
- text: Wear a respirator in dusty conditions (fact sheet safety note).
source: mgs1-spec-sheet
where: Safety block, page 1
- text: Cannon et al. made prototypes by drying a paste in a microwave oven, then grinding, mixing and sieving below 1 mm. The paper says the sieve size is adjustable and is not an inherent property of the simulant.
source: cannon2019
where: Section 3.2 (Simulant preparation)
mitigations: []
uses:
- application: rovers-and-surface-systems
device: Ground hardware testing
example: Cannon et al. say researchers and engineers rely on terrestrial simulants to test future hardware, and that MGS-1 simulants are appropriate for testing flight hardware.
source: cannon2019
where: Abstract; Section 5.1 (Applications)
- application: in-space-manufacturing
device: In-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology development
example: Cannon et al. list ISRU technology development among the applications where MGS-1 simulants are most recommended, because mineralogy and volatile contents are important controlling factors.
source: cannon2019
where: Section 5.1 (Applications)
supply:
- subject: MGS-1 simulant (the product)
abundance: 'Not applicable: a manufactured mix of Earth minerals, not a mined commodity'
producers: []
critical_lists: []
recycling: Not found in the sources held.
substitutes: []
note: Cannon et al. say modest amounts will be produced by the Center for Lunar & Asteroid Surface Science (CLASS) Exolith Lab to distribute to other researchers. No producer shares by country were found.
source: cannon2019
where: Abstract
- subject: MGS-1 simulant (current supplier)
abundance: Not applicable
producers: []
critical_lists: []
recycling: Not found in the sources held.
substitutes: []
note: The UCF simulant page states that UCF has ceased production and that Space Resource Technologies now offers the simulant. The page was read as text in a later run; the wording here is paraphrased.
source: ucf-mgs1
where: MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant section (read as page text)
- subject: Mineral feedstock (plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine)
abundance: Not found in the sources held
producers: []
critical_lists: []
recycling: Not found in the sources held.
substitutes: []
note: 'Cannon et al. name the feedstock: plagioclase from North Carolina, a bronzite-variety pyroxene from Brazil, and highly forsteritic San Carlos olivine. Measured chemistries for the silicates are in their Supplementary Table 1.'
source: cannon2019
where: Section 3.1
documents:
- title: MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant | Fact Sheet (December 2022)
type: datasheet
url: https://www.sshade.eu/file/2023/06/10/686b4bf4-0361-5d31-a051-f244efd51649/mgs-1-spec-sheet-Dec2022.pdf
year: 2022
- title: 'Mars global simulant MGS-1: A Rocknest-based open standard for basaltic martian regolith simulants (Icarus 317, 470-478)'
type: paper
url: https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/11/Cannon2019.pdf
year: 2019
- title: Sodium metasilicate, safety data sheet (Gelest product SIS6982.0, CAS 6834-92-0)
type: sds
url: https://www.gelest.com/wp-content/uploads/product_msds/SIS6982.0-msds.pdf
- title: 'Chemistry, mineralogy, and grain properties at Namib and High dunes, Bagnold dune field, Gale crater, Mars: A synthesis of Curiosity rover observations'
type: paper
url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5815393/
year: 2017
- title: Mineralogy of Eolian Sands at Gale Crater
type: paper
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160002646
year: 2016
- title: 'First X-Ray Diffraction Results from Mars Science Laboratory: Mineralogy of Rocknest Aeolian Bedform at Gale Crater (LPSC 2013 abstract)'
type: paper
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20130009935
year: 2013
gaps:
- The fact sheet and the Cannon et al. 2019 paper were read as full text. The UCF simulant page was read as page text in this run, so its production-status statement is quoted, not paraphrased.
- The fact sheet's safety data sheet is not in the sources held. No GHS classification, toxicology, storage rule or failure-mode data for MGS-1 is recorded.
- No humidity, UV, long-term storage or ageing data for the simulant were found in the sources held.
- Cannon et al. 2019 say no published density or porosity was found for the Rocknest soil itself. Porosity and specific surface of the simulant were not found.
- The fact sheet and Cannon et al. 2019 disagree on the four oxides listed side by side (SiO2, MgO, FeO, Al2O3) and on four minor minerals (ferrihydrite, hydrated silica, anhydrite, hematite). Both values are listed; neither is resolved. Other oxides from the fact sheet's Bulk Chemistry table are not transcribed.
- The fact sheet's trace-element table (Ni, Cr, V and others) and its reflectance and FTIR spectra are not transcribed here.
- 'Particle-size methods differ: the fact sheet uses CILAS 1190 laser diffraction and sieving, and Cannon et al. use a Microtrac S3500. The two mean sizes are not directly comparable.'
- Feedstock shares by country and critical-mineral status for the plagioclase, pyroxene and olivine sources were not found in the sources held. The USGS and EU critical-mineral lists were not checked for this profile.
- 'Five further sources were read in this run: the JPL Rocknest wheel-scuff caption, the NTRS 2016 Rocknest eolian-sand abstract, the 2017 JGR Planets Namib and High dunes paper, the Gelest sodium metasilicate SDS and the NTRS 2013 Bish et al. Rocknest abstract. The Achilles et al. 2017 Rocknest mineralogy paper that Cannon et al. cite was not opened.'
- The NTRS 2013 Bish et al. abstract does not print the Rocknest phase values, so no Rocknest CheMin phase values are transcribed.
- The Space Resource Technologies product page returned HTTP 429 on every attempt in this run, so its price and stock status are not recorded.
- The PubChem record for sodium metasilicate could not be opened (browser check). The binder hazard entry therefore comes from the Gelest SDS for the pure chemical, not from MGS-1 or PubChem.
- 'Property names not in spores/property-canon.yaml, used as short snake_case names: bulk_density, angle_of_repose, particle_size_mean, particle_size_median, particle_size_range, particle_fraction_finer_than_53um, sio2, mgo, feo, al2o3, loss_on_ignition, mass_loss_30_500c, water_content_30_500c, so3_content, fluorine_content, chlorine_content and mineral_fraction.'
sources:
mgs1-spec-sheet:
title: MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant | Fact Sheet
id: Fact sheet, December 2022 (PDF hosted on sshade.eu)
url: https://www.sshade.eu/file/2023/06/10/686b4bf4-0361-5d31-a051-f244efd51649/mgs-1-spec-sheet-Dec2022.pdf
year: 2022
kind: datasheet
license: publisher-supplied; cited, not reproduced
cannon2019:
title: 'Mars global simulant MGS-1: A Rocknest-based open standard for basaltic martian regolith simulants'
id: doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.019 (Icarus 317, 470-478)
url: https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/11/Cannon2019.pdf
year: 2019
kind: paper
license: publisher copyright; cited, not reproduced
ucf-mgs1:
title: MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant (UCF simulant page)
id: University of Central Florida, class simulant page
url: https://sciences.ucf.edu/class/simulant_marsglobal/
kind: web
license: web page; cited, not reproduced
jpl-rocknest-scuff:
title: Wheel scuff mark at Rocknest (JPL image PIA16205)
id: NASA JPL image PIA16205
url: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia16205-wheel-scuff-mark-at-rocknest
year: 2012
kind: web
ntrs-eolian-2016:
title: Mineralogy of Eolian Sands at Gale Crater
id: NASA NTRS 20160002646 (Achilles, Vaniman, Blake et al., 2016 abstract)
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160002646
year: 2016
kind: paper
namib-2017:
title: 'Chemistry, mineralogy, and grain properties at Namib and High dunes, Bagnold dune field, Gale crater, Mars: A synthesis of Curiosity rover observations'
id: J Geophys Res Planets 122(12), 2510-2543; PMC5815393
url: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5815393/
year: 2017
kind: paper
gelest-sds:
title: Sodium metasilicate, safety data sheet (Gelest product SIS6982.0, CAS 6834-92-0)
id: Gelest SIS6982.0 SDS, CAS 6834-92-0
url: https://www.gelest.com/wp-content/uploads/product_msds/SIS6982.0-msds.pdf
kind: datasheet
ntrs-bish-2013:
title: 'First X-Ray Diffraction Results from Mars Science Laboratory: Mineralogy of Rocknest Aeolian Bedform at Gale Crater (LPSC 2013 abstract)'
id: NASA NTRS 20130009935 (Bish, Blake, Vaniman et al., 2013)
url: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20130009935
year: 2013
kind: paper
license: CC-BY-4.0
updated: '2026-11-01'
review:
status: draft
method: assistant
checked_values: 37
unreachable: 0
caveats: 1
note: Written by an AI assistant on 2026-11-01 from the December 2022 fact sheet and the Cannon et al. 2019 PDF, both read as text. The UCF page was read as page text and used for supplier status. Deepened in a later run with five more sources (JPL PIA16205, NTRS 20160002646, NTRS 20130009935, a 2017 JGR Planets paper on the Namib and High dunes, and the Gelest sodium metasilicate SDS for the binder hazards); the quality bar now passes. verify-values found all 37 values in the cited source text (0 not found).
story:
recipe:
line: MGS-1 is a mixture of mineral powders, not one compound. The fact sheet lists 11 components as mixed, in weight percent, which together make up the whole mix. Cannon et al. made their prototypes by mixing plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, basaltic glass and magnetite with water and a sodium metasilicate binder, drying the paste into hard cobbles, grinding the cobbles and mixing them with the secondary phases.
parts:
- name: Anorthosite (plagioclase)
share_percent: 27.1
role: Largest crystalline component. The fact sheet calls it anorthosite; Cannon et al. call it plagioclase.
- name: Glass-rich basalt (basaltic glass)
share_percent: 22.9
role: Amorphous basaltic glass, an X-ray amorphous phase in the mix.
- name: Pyroxene
share_percent: 20.3
role: Crystalline silicate. Cannon et al. used a bronzite-variety pyroxene from Brazil.
- name: Olivine
share_percent: 13.7
role: Crystalline silicate. Cannon et al. used highly forsteritic San Carlos olivine.
- name: Mg-sulfate
share_percent: 4
role: Sulfate. Its breakdown releases SO2 and O2 near 950 °C on heating.
- name: Ferrihydrite
share_percent: 3.5
role: Iron oxyhydroxide. Cannon et al. say ferrihydrite and hematite act as strong pigments. Table 1 gives 1.7 wt%.
- name: Hydrated silica
share_percent: 3
role: Secondary phase. Cannon et al. Table 1 lists it as hydrated silica (opal) at 5.0 wt%.
- name: Magnetite
share_percent: 1.9
role: Magnetic iron oxide. Cannon et al. say magnetite matters for the magnetic properties.
- name: Anhydrite
share_percent: 1.7
role: Sulfate. Cannon et al. use anhydrite for sulfur content. Table 1 gives 0.9 wt%.
- name: Fe-carbonate (siderite)
share_percent: 1.4
role: Iron carbonate. Its breakdown gives a sharp CO2 release on heating.
- name: Hematite
share_percent: 0.5
role: Iron oxide and pigment. Cannon et al. Table 1 gives 1.1 wt%.
risk_groups:
- title: For people
level: 0
verdict: Dust is the stated hazard; use a respirator.
lead: The fact sheet's only stated hazard is dust inhalation. The sources held give no GHS classification or toxicology for MGS-1 itself.
points:
- label: The powder
line: The fact sheet names dust inhalation as the primary hazard and advises a respirator in dusty conditions. It refers to a separate safety data sheet for details, which is not in the sources held.
- label: Fine fraction
line: The fact sheet gives 3.6% by mass finer than 53 μm.
- title: If the simulant is heated
lead: These results come from laboratory heating of the Cannon et al. prototype, not from field incidents.
points:
- label: Mass loss
line: The prototype lost 3.9% of its mass between 30 and 500 °C. Cannon et al. state that 3.2 wt% of MGS-1 is water-related loss, assuming the siderite decomposes completely.
- label: Gas release
line: Cannon et al. report a sharp CO2 release from siderite breakdown, and SO2 and O2 release near 950 °C from Mg-sulfate breakdown.
- title: Handling and storage
points:
- label: Storage
line: The sources held give no storage rule for MGS-1. The fact sheet refers to its safety data sheet, which is not in the sources held.
- label: Dust control
line: The fact sheet advises a respirator in dusty conditions.
why: MGS-1 is an open-standard simulant of basaltic Martian regolith. Its mineral recipe follows the quantitative mineralogy of the Rocknest windblown soil that the Curiosity rover analysed in Gale crater. Cannon et al. say earlier Mars simulants sacrificed accuracy for convenience and had poor documentation, and that JSC Mars-1 and the Mojave Mars Simulant are no longer available outside NASA. They publish the recipe and production method so that other groups can recreate the simulant. The Rocknest sample was an eolian sand deposit, which the NASA abstract calls the Rocknest "sand shadow" (Achilles et al. 2016, NTRS 20160002646). Curiosity cut a wheel scuff mark into a wind-formed ripple there so researchers could examine the particle-size distribution of the ripple material (JPL image PIA16205). A 2017 JGR Planets study of the Namib and High dunes reports that Bagnold and Rocknest mineralogy are similar, with plagioclase, olivine and pyroxenes in similar proportions (PMC5815393).
uses:
- where: Hardware testing
line: Cannon et al. say researchers and engineers rely on terrestrial simulants to test future hardware, and that MGS-1 simulants are appropriate for testing flight hardware.
- where: In-situ resource utilization
line: Cannon et al. list ISRU technology development among the applications where MGS-1 simulants are most recommended, because mineralogy and volatile contents are important controlling factors.
can_do:
- label: Bulk density
benchmark: bulk_density
line: The uncompressed bulk density is 1.29 g/cm3 per the fact sheet, and Cannon et al. report the same value for their prototype.
- label: Flow behaviour
benchmark: angle_of_repose
line: The fact sheet gives an average angle of repose of 38.9° and a maximum of 43.6°.
- label: Particle size
benchmark: particle_size_median
line: The fact sheet gives a mean particle size of 90 μm and a median of 60 μm from laser diffraction. Cannon et al.'s prototype has a mean of 122 μm by volume, measured with a different instrument.
- label: Water on heating
benchmark: water_content_30_500c
line: Heated from 30 to 500 °C, the prototype released water equal to 3.2 wt% of MGS-1 (Cannon et al. 2019, Section 4.4).
- label: Volatile sulfur
benchmark: so3_content
line: The fact sheet gives SO3 of at least 1.27 wt%, measured by XRF.
compare: Cannon et al. say earlier Mars simulants did not superficially match Mars in spectral or bulk chemical properties, and that JSC Mars-1 has an unrealistically high water content from its heating test. MGS-1 is designed as a mineralogical match to Rocknest instead. The prototype's bulk density of 1.29 g/cm3 falls inside the range the paper gives for the Pathfinder landing site (Section 4.1). The fact sheet and the Cannon prototype disagree on bulk chemistry, with SiO2 at 42.9 wt% on the fact sheet and 50.8 wt% in the prototype, so use the mineral recipe for chemistry-sensitive work and check the oxide values for the product you buy.
compare_rows:
- label: Bulk density
benchmark: bulk_density
- label: Median particle size
benchmark: particle_size_median
- label: Angle of repose (average)
benchmark: angle_of_repose
handling:
- Wear a respirator where there is dust. The fact sheet names dust inhalation as the primary hazard.
- Store it as the supplier's safety data sheet directs. That sheet is not in the sources held, so no storage rule is recorded here.
- Heating releases water, CO2, SO2 and O2 in the Cannon et al. tests. Plan the exhaust for that.
good_for:
- Hardware and ISRU tests where mineralogy and volatile content matter. Cannon et al. recommend MGS-1 for those uses.
- Tests that need a documented, reproducible recipe. Cannon et al. publish the recipe and production method.
watch_out:
- 'Bulk chemistry: the fact sheet and the Cannon prototype disagree (SiO2 42.9 wt% against 50.8 wt%; MgO 14.6 wt% against 16.7 wt%).'
- Four minor minerals (ferrihydrite, hydrated silica, anhydrite and hematite) differ between the fact sheet and Cannon et al. Table 1.
- 'Mean particle size: 90 μm from the fact sheet''s laser method, against 122 μm by volume in the Cannon prototype.'
- The Cannon values come from a lab-made prototype. The commercial product may differ.
verdict: MGS-1 is a published, open recipe for basaltic Martian regolith with sourced density, particle-size and mineral-mix values. Its bulk chemistry and four minor mineral fractions differ between the fact sheet and the 2019 paper, so state which source you use for each number.
References
Every number above carries a reference number. Click one to see the source and where in it the value comes from.
| # | Source | Type | Year | Used for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant | Fact Sheet | datasheet | 2022 | 30 values | |
| Mars global simulant MGS-1: A Rocknest-based open standard for basaltic martian regolith simulants | paper | 2019 | 18 values | |
| MGS-1 Mars Global Simulant (UCF simulant page) | web | 1 value | ||
| Wheel scuff mark at Rocknest (JPL image PIA16205) | web | 2012 | 0 values | |
| Mineralogy of Eolian Sands at Gale Crater | paper | 2016 | 0 values | |
| Chemistry, mineralogy, and grain properties at Namib and High dunes, Bagnold dune field, Gale crater, Mars: A synthesis of Curiosity rover observations | paper | 2017 | 0 values | |
| Sodium metasilicate, safety data sheet (Gelest product SIS6982.0, CAS 6834-92-0) | datasheet | 1 value | ||
| First X-Ray Diffraction Results from Mars Science Laboratory: Mineralogy of Rocknest Aeolian Bedform at Gale Crater (LPSC 2013 abstract) | paper | 2013 | 0 values |
Updated