Nokia is putting the first cellular network on the moon

Later this month, Intuitive Machines, the private company behind the first commercial lander that touched down on the moon, will launch a second lunar mission from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. The plan is to deploy a lander, a rover, and hopper to explore a site near the lunar south pole that could harbor water ice, and to put a communications satellite on lunar orbit. 

But the mission will also bring something that’s never been installed on the moon or anywhere else in space before—a fully functional 4G cellular network. 

Point-to-point radio communications, which need a clear line of sight between transmitting and receiving antennas, have always been a backbone of both surface communications and the link back to Earth, starting with the Apollo program. Using point-to-point radio in space wasn’t much of an issue in the past because there never have been that many points to connect. Usually, it was just a single spacecraft, a lander, or a rover talking to Earth. And they didn’t need to send much data either.

“They were based on [ultra high frequency] or [very high frequency] technologies connecting a small number of devices with relatively low data throughput”, says Thierry Klein, president of Nokia Bell Labs Solutions Research, which was contracted by NASA to design a cellular network for the moon back in 2020. 

But it could soon get way more crowded up there: NASA’s Artemis program calls for bringing the astronauts back to the moon as early as 2028 and further expanding that presence into a permanent habitat in 2030s. 

The shift from mostly point-to-point radio communications to a full-blown cell network architecture should result in higher data transfer speeds, better range, and increase the number of devices that could be connected simultaneously, Klein says. But the harsh conditions of space travel and on the lunar surface  make it difficult to use Earth-based cell technology straight off the shelf. 

Instead, Nokia designed components that are robust against radiation, extreme temperatures, and the sorts of vibrations that will be experienced during the launch, flight, and landing. They put all these components in a single “network in a box”, which contains everything needed for a cell network except the antenna and a power source.

“We have the antenna on the lander, so together with the box that’s essentially your base station and your tower”, Klein says. The box will be powered by the lander’s solar panels.

During the IM-2 mission, the 4G cell network will allow for communication between the lander and the two vehicles. The network will likely only work for a few days— the spacecraft are not likely to survive after night descends on the lunar surface. 

But Nokia has plans for a more expansive 4G or 5G cell network that can cover the planned Artemis habitat and its surroundings. The company is also working on integrating cell communications in Axiom spacesuits meant for future lunar astronauts. “Maybe just one network in a box, one tower, would provide the entire coverage or maybe we would need multiple of these. That’s not going to be different from what you see in terrestrial cell networks deployment”, Klein says. He says the network should grow along with the future lunar economy. 

Not everyone is happy with this vision. LTE networks usually operate between 700 MHz and 2.6 GHz, a region of the radiofrequency spectrum that partially overlaps with frequencies reserved for radio astronomy. Having such radio signals coming from the moon could potentially interfere with observations.

“Telescopes are most sensitive in the direction that they are pointing–up towards the sky”, Chris De Pree, deputy spectrum manager at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) said in an email. Communication satellites like Starlink often end up in the radio telescopes’ line of sight. A full-scale cell network on the moon would add further noise to the night sky. 

There is also a regulatory hurdle that must be worked around. There are radio bands that have been internationally allocated to support lunar missions, and the LTE band is not among them. “Using 4G frequencies on or around the moon is a violation of the ITU-R radio regulations”, NRAO’s spectrum manager Harvey Liszt explained in an email.

To legally deploy the 4G network on the moon, Nokia received a waiver specifically for the IM-2 mission. “For permanent deployment we’ll have to pick a different frequency band,” Klein says. “We already have a list of candidate frequencies to consider.” Even with the frequency shift, Klein says Nokia’s lunar network technology will remain compatible with terrestrial 4G or 5G standards.

And that means that if you happened to bring your smartphone to the moon, and it somehow survived both the trip and the brutal lunar conditions, it should work on the moon just like it does here on Earth. “It would connect if we put your phone on the list of approved devices”, Klein explains. All you’d need is a lunar SIM card.

The dream of offshore rocket launches is finally blasting off

Want to send something to space? Get in line. The demand for rides off Earth is skyrocketing, pushing even the busiest spaceports, like Florida’s Kennedy Space Center, to their operational limits. Orbital launches worldwide have more than doubled over the past four years, from about 100 to 250 annually. That number is projected to spiral further up this decade, fueled by an epic growth spurt in the commercial space sector.

To relieve the congestion, some mission planners are looking to the ocean as the next big gateway to space. China has sent more than a dozen space missions from ocean platforms since 2019, most recently in January 2025. Italy’s space program has announced it will reopen its ocean launchpad off the coast of Kenya, while German space insiders envision an offshore spaceport in the North Sea. In the US, the idea of sea launches has attracted attention from heavyweights like SpaceX and inspired a new startup called the Spaceport Company

Launching rockets from offshore platforms like barges or oil rigs has a number of advantages. For one thing, it dramatically expands potential locations to lift off from, especially along the equator (this provides rockets with a natural speed boost because, thanks to geometry, the equator moves faster than the poles). At the same time, it is potentially safer and more environmentally friendly, placing launches further from population centers and delicate ecosystems. 

Ocean launches have taken place on and off for decades. But the renewed interest in offshore spaceports raises a host of questions about the unique regulatory, geopolitical, and environmental trade-offs of sea-based launches. It also offers a glimpse of new technologies and industries, enabled by a potentially limitless launch capacity, that could profoundly reshape our lives.

“The best way to build a future where we have dozens, hundreds, or maybe thousands of spaceports is to build them at sea,” says Tom Marotta, CEO and founder of the Spaceport Company, which is working to establish offshore launch hubs. “It’s very hard to find a thousand acres on the coast over and over again to build spaceports. It’s very easy to build the same ship over and over again.”

The saga of sea launches

The vision of oceanic spaceports is almost as old as rocketry itself. The first large rocket to take off from sea was a V2, the notorious missile developed by Germany in World War II and subsequently adopted by the United States, which the US Navy launched from the aircraft carrier USS Midway south of Bermuda on September 6, 1947. 

As it turned out, the inaugural flight was a bit of a mixed bag. Neal Casey, an 18-year-old technician stationed on the Midway, later recalled how the missile tilted dangerously starboard and headed toward  the vessel’s own command center, known as the island.

“I had no problem tracking the rocket,” said Casey, according to the USS Midway Museum. “It almost hit the island.”

Despite this brush with disaster, the test was considered a success because it proved that launching rockets from sea platforms was technically feasible. That revelation enabled the proliferation of missile-armed vessels, like warships or submarines, that have prowled the sea ever since.

Of course, missiles are designed to hit targets on Earth, not venture into space. But in the early 1960s Robert Truax, an American rocketry engineer, began pursuing a spectacular vision: the Sea Dragon. 

Standing nearly 500 feet tall, it would have been by far the biggest rocket in history, towering over the Apollo Program’s Saturn V or SpaceX’s Starship. No launchpad on land could withstand the force of its liftoff. A rocket this gargantuan could only be launched from a submerged position beneath the sea, rising out of the water like a breaching whale and leaving whirlpools swirling in its wake.

Truax proposed this incredible idea in 1963 while he was working at the rocket and missile manufacturer Aerojet General. He was even able to test a few small prototypes, including the Sea Bee, which was fired from under the waters of San Francisco Bay. Though the Sea Dragon never became a reality, the concept captured the imaginations of space dreamers for decades; most recently, it was depicted bursting from the ocean in the Apple+ series For All Mankind.  

Truax was eerily prescient about many future trends in spaceflight, and indeed, various governments and private entities have developed offshore launch platforms to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the seas.

“The most wanted launching sites are close to the equator,” says Gerasimos Rodotheatos, an assistant professor of international law and security at the American University in the Emirates who has researched sea-based launches. “Many countries there are hard to deal with because of political instability or because they don’t have the infrastructure. But if you’re using a platform or a vessel, it’s easier to select your location.”

Another major advantage is safety. “You’re far away from cities,” Rodotheatos adds. “You’re far away from land. You’re minimizing the risk of any accidents or any failures.”

For these reasons, rockets have intermittently lifted off from sea for nearly 60 years, beginning with Italy’s Luigi Broglio Malindi Space Center, a retrofitted oil rig off the coast of Kenya that launched orbital missions from the 1960s to the 1980s and may soon reopen after a nearly 40-year hiatus. 

Sea Launch, a multinational company founded in 1995, launched dozens of missions into orbit from the LP Odyssey, another repurposed drilling rig. The company might still be in business if Russia had not annexed Crimea in 2014, a move that prompted the venture—a partnership between Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and Norway—to shutter later the same year. 

The saga of Sea Launch proved that offshore launches could be commercially profitable, but it also exposed gray areas in international marine and space law. For instance, while Sea Launch was a venture between four spacefaring nations, it registered its rig and vessels to Liberia, which has been interpreted as a flag of convenience. Such strategies could present the opportunity for companies or other entities to evade certain labor laws, tax obligations, and environmental regulations.  

“Some states are very strict on the nationality and transparency of ownership, and other states less strict,” says Alla Pozdnakova, a professor of law at the University of Oslo’s Scandinavian Institute for Maritime Law, who has researched sea-based launches. “For now, it seems that it hasn’t been really that problematic because the United States, for example, would require that if you’re a US citizen or a US company, then you have to apply for a license from the US space authorities, regardless of where you want to launch.”

But if the US imposes strict oversight on launches, other nations might apply different standards to licensing agreements with launch providers. “I can imagine that some unauthorized projects may become possible simply because they are on the seas and there is no real authority—by contrast to land-based space launches—to supervise those kinds of launches,” Pozdnakova says.

Boeing, which managed Sea Launch, was fined $10 million in 1998 by the US Department of State for allegedly sharing information about American defense technology with its foreign partners in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. In addition to the legal and national security risks posed by Sea Launch, Pacific Island nations raised concerns to the United Nations in 1999 that the company’s offshore rockets could damage the environment by, for instance, creating oil slicks from unused fuel in discarded boosters. 

The complex issues that offshore spaceports raise for international law, environmental protection, and launch access have never been more relevant. SpaceX, which is famous for pioneering offshore rocket landings, has also flirted with sea-based launches. The company went so far as to purchase two oil rigs for $3.5 million apiece in 2020. They were renamed Deimos and Phobos after the two moons of Mars.

“SpaceX is building floating, superheavy-class spaceports for Mars, moon & hypersonic travel around Earth,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posted on Twitter (when it was still Twitter) in 2020. 

SpaceX eventually abandoned this project and sold the rigs, though Gwynne Shotwell, its president and COO, said in 2023 that sea-based launches were likely to be part of the company’s future. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment. 

The company might need to move launch operations offshore if it wants to carry through on its aspirations for Starship, which is the most powerful rocket ever developed and the keystone of SpaceX’s future plans to send humans to the moon and Mars. “We have designed Starship to be as much like aircraft operations as we possibly can get it,” she said at a conference in 2023, according to SpaceNews. “We want to talk about dozens of launches a day, if not hundreds of launches a day.” 

The environmental impact of launching hundreds of rockets a day, either from sea or land, is not known. While offshore launches pose fewer direct risks to local environments than land launches, very little is understood about the risks that rocket emissions and chemical pollution pose to the climate and human health at current levels, much less exponentially higher ones. 

“It’s hard to deny that launching or emitting anything further from people is usually better,” says Sebastian Eastham, the senior lecturer in sustainable aviation at Imperial College London, who studies aerospace emissions and their environmental impacts. “But when we say that we’re concerned about the emissions, it is incomplete to say that we’re not launching near people, so people aren’t going to be affected.”

“I really hope that we find out that the impacts are small,” he continues. “But because you have this very rapid growth in launch emissions, you can’t sample now and say that this is representative of what it’s going to be like in five years. We’re nowhere near a steady state.”

In other words, rocket launches have been largely overlooked as a source of greenhouse-gas emissions and air pollution, simply because they have been too rare to be considered a major contributor. As space missions ramp up around the world, experts must aim to constrain the impact on climate change, the ozone layer, and pollution from spent parts that burn up in the atmosphere

The McDonald’s of spaceports

Offshore launches are almost routine in China, where companies like Galactic Energy, Orienspace, and the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation have expanded orbital liftoffs from barges. (None of these companies responded to a request for comment.) 

But at the moment, sea-based launches are limited to small rockets that can deploy payloads of a few thousand pounds to orbit. No ocean spaceport is currently equipped to handle the world’s most powerful rockets, like SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, which can deliver more than 140,000 pounds to orbit. There are also currently no public plans to invest in sea-based infrastructure for heavy-lift rockets, but that may change if smaller offshore spaceports prove to be reliable and affordable options.

“All the activities now are based on off-the-shelf technologies,” Rodotheatos says, meaning facilities like oil rigs or barges. “If one company makes an investment to design and implement a floating platform from zero, specifically fitted for that purpose, I expect to see a big change.” 

Tom Marotta founded the Spaceport Company in 2022 with a similar long-term vision in mind. After working both for the space company Astra and on the regulatory side at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Marotta observed what he calls a “spaceport bottleneck” that had to be addressed to keep pace with the demands of the commercial space sector.  

To that end, the Spaceport Company procured a former US Navy training vessel, named the Once in a Lifetime after the Talking Heads song, as its first launchpad. The company is currently serving customers for suborbital space missions and missile tests, but its broader vision is to establish a network of scalable orbital spaceports across the ocean.

“We want to be the McDonald’s of spaceports, and build a model that can be repeated and copied-and-pasted all around the world,” Marotta says.

Marotta sees boundless applications for such a network. It could expand launch capacity without threatening coastal ecosystems or provoking pushback from local communities. It could serve as a reliable backup option for busy spaceports on land. It could give nations that normally don’t have access to spaceflight an affordable option for their own launch services. 

“Many nations want their own sovereign orbital launch capability, but they don’t want to spend a billion dollars to build a launchpad that might only be used once or twice,” Marotta says. “We see an opportunity there to basically give them a launchpad on demand.”

Marotta also has another dream in mind: ocean platforms could help to enable point-to-point rocket travel, capable of transporting cargo and passengers anywhere on Earth in under 90 minutes.

“You’re going to need dedicated and exclusive use of rockets off the coasts of major cities to serve that point-to-point rocket travel concept,” Marotta says. “This is science fiction right now, but I would not be surprised if in the next five years we see [organizations], particularly the military, experimenting with point-to-point rocket cargo.” 

Offshore launches currently represent a small tile in the global space mosaic, but they could dramatically change our lives in the coming decades. What that future might look like, with all of its risks and benefits, depends on the choices that companies, governments, and the public make right now.

Becky Ferreira is a science reporter based in Ithaca, NY. She writes the weekly Abstract column for 404 Media and is the author of the upcoming book First Contact, about the search for alien life.

How the Rubin Observatory will help us understand dark matter and dark energy

MIT Technology Review Explains: Let our writers untangle the complex, messy world of technology to help you understand what’s coming next. You can read more from the series here.

We can put a good figure on how much we know about the universe: 5%. That’s how much of what’s floating about in the cosmos is ordinary matter—planets and stars and galaxies and the dust and gas between them. The other 95% is dark matter and dark energy, two mysterious entities aptly named for our inability to shed light on their true nature. 

Cosmologists have cast dark matter as the hidden glue binding galaxies together. Dark energy plays an opposite role, ripping the fabric of space apart. Neither emits, absorbs, or reflects light, rendering them effectively invisible. So rather than directly observing either of them, astronomers must carefully trace the imprint they leave behind. 

Previous work has begun pulling apart these dueling forces, but dark matter and dark energy remain shrouded in a blanket of questions—critically, what exactly are they?

Enter the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, one of our 10 breakthrough technologies for 2025. Boasting the largest digital camera ever created, Rubin is expected to study the cosmos in the highest resolution yet once it begins observations later this year. And with a better window on the cosmic battle between dark matter and dark energy, Rubin might narrow down existing theories on what they are made of. Here’s a look at how.

Untangling dark matter’s web

In the 1930s, the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky proposed the existence of an unseen force named dunkle Materie—in English, dark matter—after studying a group of galaxies called the Coma Cluster. Zwicky found that the galaxies were traveling too quickly to be contained by their joint gravity and decided there must be a missing, unobservable mass holding the cluster together.

Zwicky’s theory was initially met with much skepticism. But in the 1970s an American astronomer, Vera Rubin, obtained evidence that significantly strengthened the idea. Rubin studied the rotation rates of 60 individual galaxies and found that if a galaxy had only the mass we’re able to observe, that wouldn’t be enough to contain its structure; its spinning motion would send it ripping apart and sailing into space. 

Rubin’s results helped sell the idea of dark matter to the scientific community, since an unseen force seemed to be the only explanation for these spiraling galaxies’ breakneck spin speeds. “It wasn’t necessarily a smoking-gun discovery,” says Marc Kamionkowski, a theoretical physicist at Johns Hopkins University. “But she saw a need for dark matter. And other people began seeing it too.”

Evidence for dark matter only grew stronger in the ensuing decades. But sorting out what might be behind its effects proved tricky. Various subatomic particles were proposed. Some scientists posited that the phenomena supposedly generated by dark matter could also be explained by modifications to our theory of gravity. But so far the hunt, which has employed telescopes, particle colliders, and underground detectors, has failed to identify the culprit. 

The Rubin observatory’s main tool for investigating dark matter will be gravitational lensing, an observational technique that’s been used since the late ’70s. As light from distant galaxies travels to Earth, intervening dark matter distorts its image—like a cosmic magnifying glass. By measuring how the light is bent, astronomers can reverse-engineer a map of dark matter’s distribution. 

Other observatories, like the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope, have already begun stitching together this map from their images of galaxies. But Rubin plans to do so with exceptional precision and scale, analyzing the shapes of billions of galaxies rather than the hundreds of millions that current telescopes observe, according to Andrés Alejandro Plazas Malagón, Rubin operations scientist at SLAC National Laboratory. “We’re going to have the widest galaxy survey so far,” Plazas Malagón says.

Capturing the cosmos in such high definition requires Rubin’s 3.2-billion-pixel Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). The LSST boasts the largest focal plane ever built for astronomy, granting it access to large patches of the sky. 

The telescope is also designed to reorient its gaze every 34 seconds, meaning astronomers will be able to scan the entire sky every three nights. The LSST will revisit each galaxy about 800 times throughout its tenure, says Steven Ritz, a Rubin project scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The repeat exposures will let Rubin team members more precisely measure how the galaxies are distorted, refining their map of dark matter’s web. “We’re going to see these galaxies deeply and frequently,” Ritz says. “That’s the power of Rubin: the sheer grasp of being able to see the universe in detail and on repeat.”

The ultimate goal is to overlay this map on different models of dark matter and examine the results. The leading idea, the cold dark matter model, suggests that dark matter moves slowly compared to the speed of light and interacts with ordinary matter only through gravity. Other models suggest different behavior. Each comes with its own picture of how dark matter should clump in halos surrounding galaxies. By plotting its chart of dark matter against what those models predict, Rubin might exclude some theories and favor others. 

A cosmic tug of war

If dark matter lies on one side of a magnet, pulling matter together, then you’ll flip it over to find dark energy, pushing it apart. “You can think of it as a cosmic tug of war,” Plazas Malagón says.

Dark energy was discovered in the late 1990s, when astronomers found that the universe was not only expanding, but doing so at an accelerating rate, with galaxies moving away from one another at higher and higher speeds. 

“The expectation was that the relative velocity between any two galaxies should have been decreasing,” Kamionkowski says. “This cosmological expansion requires something that acts like antigravity.” Astronomers quickly decided there must be another unseen factor inflating the fabric of space and pegged it as dark matter’s cosmic foil. 

So far, dark energy has been observed primarily through Type Ia supernovas, a special breed of explosion that occurs when a white dwarf star accumulates too much mass. Because these supernovas all tend to have the same peak in luminosity, astronomers can gauge how far away they are by measuring how bright they appear from Earth. Paired with a measure of how fast they are moving, this data clues astronomers in on the universe’s expansion rate. 

Rubin will continue studying dark energy with high-resolution glimpses of Type Ia supernovas. But it also plans to retell dark energy’s cosmic history through gravitational lensing. Because light doesn’t travel instantaneously, when we peer into distant galaxies, we’re really looking at relics from millions to billions of years ago—however long it takes for their light to make the lengthy trek to Earth. Astronomers can effectively use Rubin as a makeshift time machine to see how dark energy has carved out the shape of the universe. 

“These are the types of questions that we want to ask: Is dark energy a constant? If not, is it evolving with time? How is it changing the distribution of dark matter in the universe?” Plazas Malagón says.

If dark energy was weaker in the past, astronomers expect to see galaxies grouped even more densely into galaxy clusters. “It’s like urban sprawl—these huge conglomerates of matter,” Ritz says. Meanwhile, if dark energy was stronger, it would have pushed galaxies away from one another, creating a more “rural” landscape. 

Researchers will be able to use Rubin’s maps of dark matter and the 3D distribution of galaxies to plot out how the structure of the universe changed over time, unveiling the role of dark energy and, they hope, helping scientists evaluate the different theories to account for its behavior. 

Of course, Rubin has a lengthier list of goals to check off. Some top items entail tracing the structure of the Milky Way, cataloguing cosmic explosions, and observing asteroids and comets. But since the observatory was first conceptualized in the early ’90s, its core goal has been to explore this hidden branch of the universe. After all, before a 2019 act of Congress dedicated the observatory to Vera Rubin, it was simply called the Dark Matter Telescope. 

Rubin isn’t alone in the hunt, though. In 2023, the European Space Agency launched the Euclid telescope into space to study how dark matter and dark energy have shaped the structure of the cosmos. And NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch in 2027, has similar plans to measure the universe’s expansion rate and chart large-scale distributions of dark matter. Both also aim to tackle that looming question: What makes up this invisible empire?

Rubin will test its systems throughout most of 2025 and plans to begin the LSST survey late this year or in early 2026. Twelve to 14 months later, the team expects to reveal its first data set. Then we might finally begin to know exactly how Rubin will light up the dark universe. 

Vera C. Rubin Observatory: 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2025

WHO

US Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, US National Science Foundation

WHEN

6 months

The next time you glance up at the night sky, consider: The particles inside everything you can see make up only about 5% of what’s out there in the universe. Dark energy and dark matter constitute the rest, astronomers believe—but what exactly is this mysterious stuff? 

A massive new telescope erected in Chile will explore this question and other cosmic unknowns. It’s named for Vera Rubin, an American astronomer who in the 1970s and 1980s observed stars moving faster than expected in the outer reaches of dozens of spiral galaxies. Her calculations made a strong case for the existence of dark matter—mass we can’t directly observe but that appears to shape everything from the paths of stars to the structure of the universe itself. 

Explore the full 2025 list of 10 Breakthrough Technologies.

Soon, her namesake observatory will carry on that work in much higher definition. The facility, run by the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the US National Science Foundation, will house the largest digital camera ever made for astronomy. And its first mission will be to complete what’s called the Legacy Survey of Space and Time. Astronomers will focus its giant lens on the sky over the Southern Hemisphere and snap photo after photo, passing over the same patches of sky repeatedly for a decade. 

By the end of the survey, this 3.2-gigapixel camera will have catalogued 20 billion galaxies and collected up to 60 petabytes of data—roughly three times the amount currently stored by the US Library of Congress. Compiling all these images together, with help from specialized algorithms and a supercomputer, will give astronomers a time-lapse view of the sky. Seeing how so many galaxies are dispersed and shaped will enable them to study dark matter’s gravitational effect. They also plan to create the most detailed three-dimensional map of our Milky Way galaxy ever made. 

If all goes well, the telescope will snap its first science-quality images—a special moment known as first light—in mid-2025. The public could see the first photo released from Rubin soon after. 

The Vera C. Rubin Observatory is ready to transform our understanding of the cosmos

High atop Chile’s 2,700-meter Cerro Pachón, the air is clear and dry, leaving few clouds to block the beautiful view of the stars. It’s here that the Vera C. Rubin Observatory will soon use a car-size 3,200-megapixel digital camera—the largest ever built—to produce a new map of the entire night sky every three days.

Generating 20 terabytes of data per night, Rubin will capture fine details about the solar system, the Milky Way, and the large-scale structure of the cosmos, helping researchers to understand their history and current evolution. It will capture rapidly changing events, including stellar explosions called supernovas, the evisceration of stars by black holes, and the whiz of asteroids overhead. Findings from the observatory will help tease apart fundamental mysteries like the nature of dark matter and dark energy, two phenomena that have not been directly observed but affect how objects in the universe are bound together—and pushed apart.  

Rubin is the latest and most advanced entrant into the illustrious lineage of all-sky surveyors—instruments that capture, or survey, the entire sky, over and over again. Its first scientific images are expected later this year. In a single exposure, Rubin will capture 100,000 galaxies, the majority invisible to other instruments. A quarter-­century in the making, the observatory is poised to expand our understanding of just about every corner of the universe.  

The facility will also look far outside the Milky Way, cataloguing around 20 billion previously unknown galaxies and mapping their placement in long filamentary structures known as the cosmic web.

“I can’t think of an astronomer who is not excited about [Rubin],” says Christian Aganze, a galactic archeologist at Stanford University in California.

The observatory was first proposed in 2001. Then called the Large-Aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), it grew out of an earlier concept for an instrument that would study dark matter, the enigmatic substance making up 85% of the matter in the universe. LSST was later reenvisioned to focus on a broader set of scientific questions, cataloguing the night sky over the course of a decade. Five years ago, it was renamed in honor of the late American astronomer Vera Rubin, who uncovered some of the best evidence in favor of dark matter’s existence in the 1970s and ’80s. 

During operations, Rubin will point its sharp eyes at the heavens and take a 30-second exposure of an area larger than 40 full moons. It will then swivel to a new patch and snap another photo, rounding back to the same swath of sky after about three nights. In this way, it can provide a constantly updated view of the universe, essentially creating “this huge video of the southern sky for 10 years,” explains Anais Möller, an astrophysicist at the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.

a man in a clean room suit shines a light at a device that spans the room.
A view of the back of the Rubin Observatory’s massive LSST camera, which boasts six filters designed to capture light from different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
SPENCER LOWELL
diagram of light hitting an exploded view of mirrors and lenses
1) Secondary mirror (M2); 2) Lenses; 3) Primary Mirror (M1); 4) Tertiary mirror (M3)
GREG STEWART/SLAC NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY/NSF/DOE/RUBIN OBSERVATORY/AURA

To accomplish its work, Rubin relies on an innovative three-mirror design unlike that of any other telescope. Its primary mirror is actually made up of two separate surfaces with different curvatures. The outer section, 8.4 meters wide, captures light from the universe and reflects it onto a 3.4-meter-wide secondary mirror located above it. This bounces the light back onto the inner part of the primary, which stretches five meters across and is considered a tertiary mirror, before being reflected into a digital camera. The compact configuration allows the enormous instrument to be powerful but nimble as it shifts around to take roughly 1,000 photos per night. 

“It has five seconds to go to the next position and be ready,” says Sandrine Thomas, the deputy director for the observatory’s construction and project scientist for the telescope. “Meaning that it doesn’t move. It doesn’t vibrate. It’s just rock solid, ready to take the next image.” 

Technicians reinstall a cover on the secondary telescope mirror, to protect it before installation.
The observatory’s three mirrors and the housing of the LSST camera are mounted on a structure called the Telescope Mount Assembly. The assembly has been carefully engineered for stability and precision, allowing the observatory to track celestial objects and carry out its large-scale survey of the sky.
The primary and tertiary telescope mirrors are positioned below a chamber at the Rubin Observatory that is used to apply reflective coatings.
A view of the Telescope Mount Assembly from above, through the observatory’s protective dome shutter.

Rubin’s 3,000-kilogram camera is the most sensitive ever created for an astronomical project. By stacking together images of a piece of sky taken over multiple nights, the telescope will be able to spot fainter and fainter objects, peering deeper into the cosmos the longer it operates. 

Each exposure creates a flood of data, which has to be piped via fiber-optic cables to processing centers around the world. These use machine learning to filter the information and generate alerts for interested groups, says Möller, who helps run what are known as community brokers, groups that design software to ingest the nightly terabytes of data and search for interesting phenomena. A small change in the sky—of which Rubin is expected to see around 10 million per night—could point to a supernova explosion, a pair of merging stars, or a massive object passing in front of another. Different teams will want to know which is which so they can aim other telescopes at particular regions for follow-up studies. 

The focal plane of the LSST has a surface area large enough to capture a portion of the sky about the size of 40 full Moons. Its resolution is so high that you could spot a golf ball from 24 km (15 miles) away.

clusters of galaxies
Matter in the universe can warp and magnify the light from more distant objects. The Rubin Observatory will use this phenomenon, called gravitational lensing, to study dark matter— an as-yet-unidentified substance that makes up most of the universe’s matter.
ESA, NASA, K. SHARON/TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY AND E. OFEK/CALTECH

With its capacity to detect faint objects, Rubin is expected to increase the number of known asteroids and comets by a factor of 10 to 100. Many of them will be objects more than 140 meters in diameter with orbits passing near Earth’s, meaning they could threaten our world. And it will catalogue 40,000 new small icy bodies in the Kuiper Belt, a largely unexplored region beyond Neptune where many comets are born, helping scientists better understand the structure and history of our solar system. 

“We have never had such a big telescope imaging so wide and so deep.”

Anais Möller, astrophysicist, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

Beyond our solar system, Rubin will see telltale flickers that signal exoplanets passing in front of their parent stars, causing them to briefly dim. It should also find thousands of new brown dwarfs, faint objects between planets and stars in size, whose positions in the Milky Way can provide insight into how the environments in which stars are born affect the size and type of objects that can form there. It will discover never-before-seen dim dwarf galaxies orbiting our own and look closely at stellar streams, remnant trails of stars left behind when the Milky Way tore other, similar galaxies apart.

The facility will also look far outside the Milky Way, cataloguing around 20 billion previously unknown galaxies and mapping their placement in long filamentary structures known as the cosmic web. The gravitational pull of dark matter directly affects the overall shape of this web, and by examining its structure, cosmologists will glean evidence for different theories of what dark matter is. Rubin is expected to observe millions of supernovas and determine their distance from us, a way of measuring how fast the universe is expanding. Some researchers suspect that dark energy—which is causing the cosmos to expand at an accelerated rate—may have been stronger in the past. Data from more distant, and therefore older, supernovas could help bolster or disprove such ideas and potentially narrow down the identity of dark energy too.  

An overhead view of the observatory.
SPENCER LOWELL

In just about every way, Rubin will be a monumental project, explaining the near-universal eagerness for those in the field to see it finally begin operations. 

“We have never had such a big telescope imaging so wide and so deep,” says Möller. “That’s an incredible opportunity to really pinpoint things that are changing in the sky and understand their physics.”  

Adam Mann is a freelance space and physics journalist who lives in Oakland, California.

The world’s next big environmental problem could come from space

Early on a Sunday morning in September, a team of 12 sleep-deprived, jet-lagged researchers assembled at the world’s most remote airport. There, on Easter Island, some 2,330 miles off the coast of Chile, they were preparing for a unique chase: a race to catch a satellite’s last moments as it fell out of space and blazed into ash across the sky.

That spacecraft was Salsa, one of four satellites that were part of the European Space Agency (ESA) Cluster constellation. Salsa and its counterparts had been studying Earth’s magnetic field since the early 2000s, but its mission was now over. Months earlier, the spacecraft had been set on a spiral of death that would end with a fiery disintegration high up in Earth’s atmosphere about a thousand miles away from Easter Island’s coast.

Now, the scientists were poised to catch this reentry as it happened. Equipped with precise trajectory calculations from ESA’s ground control, the researchers took off in a rented business jet, with 25 cameras and spectrometers mounted by the windows. The hope was that they’d be able to gather priceless insights into the physical and chemical processes that occur when satellites burn up as they fall to Earth at the end of their missions.

Researchers were able to monitor the reentry of Cluster Salsa from a rented business jet.

This kind of study is growing more urgent. Some 15 years ago, barely a thousand satellites orbited our planet. Now the number has risen to about 10,000, and with the rise of satellite constellations like Starlink, another tenfold increase is forecast by the end of this decade. Letting these satellites burn up in the atmosphere at the end of their lives helps keep the quantity of space junk to a minimum. But doing so deposits satellite ash in the middle layers of Earth’s atmosphere. This metallic ash can harm the atmosphere and potentially alter the climate. Scientists don’t yet know how serious the problem is likely to be in the coming decades.

The ash from the reentries contains ozone-damaging substances. Modeling studies have shown that some of its components can also cool down Earth’s stratosphere, while others can warm it. Some worry that the metallic particles could even disrupt Earth’s magnetic field, obscure the view of Earth-observing satellites, and increase the frequency of thunderstorms.

“We need to see what kind of physics takes place up there,” says Stijn Lemmens, a senior analyst at ESA who oversaw the campaign. “If there are more [reentering] objects, there will be more consequences.”

A community of atmospheric scientists scattered all over the world is awaiting results from these measurements, hoping to fill major gaps in their understanding. 

The Salsa reentry was only the fifth such observation campaign in the history of spaceflight. The previous campaigns, however, tracked much larger objects, like a 19-ton upper stage from an Ariane 5 rocket.  

Cluster Salsa, at 550 kilograms, was quite tiny in comparison. And that makes it of special interest to scientists, because it’s spacecraft of this general size that will be increasingly crowding Earth orbit in the coming years.

The downside of mega-constellations

Most of the forecasted growth in satellite numbers is expected to come from satellites roughly the same size as Salsa: individual members of mega-constellations, designed to provide internet service with decent speed and latency to anyone, anywhere.

SpaceX’s Starlink is the biggest of these. Currently consisting of about 6,500 satellites, the fleet is expected to mushroom to more than 40,000 at some point in the 2030s. Other mega-constellations, including Amazon Kuiper, France-based E-Space, and the Chinese projects G60 and Guowang, are in the works. Each could encompass several thousand satellites, or even tens of thousands. 

Mega-constellation developers don’t want their spacecraft to fly for two or three decades like their old-school, government-funded counterparts. They want to replace these orbiting internet routers with newer, better tech every five years, sending the old ones back into the atmosphere to burn up. The rockets needed to launch all those satellites emit their own cocktail of contaminants (and their upper stages also end their life burning up in the atmosphere).

The amount of space debris vaporizing in Earth’s atmosphere has more than doubled in the past few years, says Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has built a second career as a leading space debris tracker..

“We used to see about 50 to 100 rocket stages reentering every year,” he says. “Now we’re looking at 300 a year.” 

In 2019, some 115 satellites burned up in the atmosphere. As of late November, 2024 had already set a new record with 950 satellite reentries, McDowell says.

The mass of vaporizing space junk will continue to grow in line with the size of the satellite fleets. By 2033, it could reach 4,000 tons per year, according to estimates presented at a workshop called Protecting Earth and Outer Space from the Disposal of Spacecraft and Debris, held in September at the University of Southampton in the UK.

Crucially, most of the ash these reentries produce will remain suspended in the thin midatmospheric air for decades, perhaps centuries. But acquiring precise data about satellite burn-up is nearly impossible, because it takes place in territory that is too high for meteorological balloons to measure and too low for sounding instruments aboard orbiting satellites. The closest scientists can get is remote sensing of a satellite’s final moments.

Changing chemistry

None of the researchers aboard the business jet turned scientific laboratory that took off from Easter Island in September got to see the moment when Cluster Salsa burst into a fireball above the deep, dark waters of the Pacific Ocean. Against the bright daylight, the fleeting explosion appeared about as vivid as a midday full moon. The windows of the plane, however, were covered with dark fabric (to prevent light reflected from inside to skew the measurements), allowing only the camera lenses to peek out, says Jiří Šilha, CEO of Slovakia-based Astros Solutions, a space situational awareness company developing new techniques for space debris monitoring, which coordinated the observation campaign.

“We were about 300 kilometers [186 miles] away when it happened, far enough to avoid being hit by any remaining debris,” Šilha says. “It’s all very quick. The object reenters at a very high velocity, some 11 kilometers [seven miles] per second, and disintegrates 80 to 60 kilometers above Earth.”

nfographic that describes the reentry of the first of four Cluster satellites

ESA

The instruments collected measurements of the disintegration in the visible and near-infrared part of the light spectrum, including observations with special filters for detecting chemical elements including aluminum, titanium, and sodium. The data will help scientists reconstruct the satellite breakup process, working out the altitudes at which the incineration takes place, the temperatures at which it occurs, and the nature and quantity of the chemical compounds it releases.

The dusty leftovers of Cluster Salsa have by now begun their leisurely drift through the mesosphere and stratosphere—the atmospheric layers stretching at altitudes from 31 to 53 miles and 12 to 31 miles, respectively. Throughout their decades-long descent, these ash particles will interact with atmospheric gases, causing mischief, says Connor Barker, a researcher in atmospheric chemical modeling at University College London and author of a satellite air pollution inventory published in early October in the journal Scientific Data

Satellite bodies and rocket stages are mostly made of aluminum, which burns into aluminum oxide, or alumina—a white, powdery substance known to contribute to ozone depletion. Alumina also reflects sunlight, which means it could alter the temperature of those higher atmospheric layers.

“In our simulations, we start to see a warming over time of the upper layers of the atmosphere that has several knock-on effects for atmospheric composition,” Barker says. 

For example, some models suggest the warming could add moisture to the stratosphere. This could deplete the ozone layer and could cause further warming, which in turn would cause additional ozone depletion.

The extreme speeds of reentering satellites also produces “a shockwave that compresses nitrogen in the atmosphere and makes it react with oxygen, producing nitrogen oxides,” says McDowell. Nitrogen oxides, too, damage atmospheric ozone. Currently, 50% of the ozone depletion caused by satellite burn-ups and rocket launches comes from the effects of nitrogen oxides. The soot that rockets produce alters the atmosphere’s thermal balance too.

In some ways, high-altitude atmospheric pollution is nothing new. Every year, about 18,000 tons of meteorites vaporize in the mesosphere. Even 10 years from now, if all planned mega-constellations get developed, the quantity of natural space rock burning up during its fall to Earth will exceed the amount of incinerated space junk by a factor of five.

That, however, is no comfort to researchers like McDowell and Barker. Meteorites contain only trace amounts of aluminum, and their atmospheric disintegration is faster, meaning they produce less nitrogen oxide, says Barker. 

“The amount of nitrogen oxides we’re getting [from satellite reentries and rocket launches] is already at the lower end of our yearly estimates of what the natural emissions of nitrogen oxides [from meteorites] are,” said Barker. “It’s certainly a concern, because we might soon be doing more to the atmosphere than naturally occurs.”

The annual amount of alumina from satellite reentries is also already approaching that arising from incinerated meteorites. Under current worse-case scenarios, the human-made contribution of this pollutant will be 10 times the amount from natural sources by 2040.

Impact on Earth?

What exactly does all this mean for life on Earth? At this stage, nobody’s certain. Studies focusing on various components of the air pollution cocktail from satellite and rocket activity are trickling in at a steady rate. 

Barker says computer modeling puts the current contribution of the space industry to overall ozone depletion at a minuscule 0.1%. But how much this share will grow 10, 20, or 50 years from now, nobody knows. There are way too many uncertainties in this equation, including the size of the particles—which will affect how long they will take to sink—and the ratio of particles to gaseous by-products.

“We have to make a decision, as a society, whether we prioritize reducing space traffic or reducing emissions,” Barker says. “A lot of these increased reentry rates are because the global community is doing a really good job of cleaning up low-Earth-orbit space debris. But we really need to understand the environmental impact of those emissions so we can decide what is the best way for humanity to deal with all these objects in space.”

A ground antenna captured radar data of some of the final moments of the ESA satellite Aeolus, as it reentered Earth’s atmosphere in July 2023.
FRAUNHOFER FHR

The disaster of 21st-century climate change was set in motion when humankind began burning fossil fuels in the mid-19th century. Similarly, it took 40 years for chlorofluorocarbons to eat a hole in Earth’s protective ozone layer. The contamination of Earth by so-called forever chemicals—per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances used in manufacturing nonstick coatings and firefighting foams—started in the 1950s. Researchers like McDowell are concerned the story may repeat yet again.

“Humanity’s activities in space have now gotten big enough that they are affecting the space environment in a similar way we have affected the oceans,” McDowell says. “The problem is that we’re making these changes without really understanding at what stage these changes will become concerning.”

Previous observation campaigns mostly analyzed the physical disintegration of reentering satellites. With the Cluster constellation, scientists hope to begin unraveling the chemical side of this elusive process. For researchers like Barker, that means finally getting data that could validate and further improve their models. The Cluster constellation will provide three more opportunities to fill the blanks in this environmental puzzle when the siblings of Salsa reenter in 2025 and 2026. 

“The great thing with Cluster is that we have four satellites that are identical and that we know every detail about,” says Šilha. “It’s a scientist’s dream, because we can repeat the experiment and learn from every previous campaign.”

What’s next for NASA’s giant moon rocket?

MIT Technology Review’s What’s Next series looks across industries, trends, and technologies to give you a first look at the future. You can read the rest of them here.

NASA’s huge lunar rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), might be in trouble. As rival launchers like SpaceX’s Starship gather pace, some are questioning the need for the US national space agency to have its own mega rocket at all—something that could become a focus of the incoming Trump administration, in which SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is set to play a key role.

“It’s absolutely in Elon Musk’s interest to convince the government to cancel SLS,” says Laura Forczyk from the US space consulting firm Astralytical. “However, it’s not up to him.”

SLS has been in development for more than a decade. The rocket is huge, 322 feet (98 meters) tall, and about 15% more powerful than the Saturn V rocket that took the Apollo astronauts to the moon in the 1960s and 70s. It is also expensive, costing an estimated $4.1 billion per launch.

It was designed with a clear purpose—returning astronauts to the moon’s surface. Built to launch NASA’s human-carrying Orion spacecraft, the rocket is a key part of the agency’s Artemis program to go back to the Moon, started by the previous Trump administration in 2019. “It has an important role to play,” says Daniel Dumbacher, formerly a deputy associate administrator at NASA and part of the team that selected SLS for development in 2010. “The logic for SLS still holds up.”

The rocket has launched once already on the Artemis I mission in 2022, a test flight that saw an uncrewed Orion spacecraft sent around the moon. Its next flight, Artemis II, earmarked for September 2025, will be the same flight but with a four-person crew, before the first lunar landing, Artemis III, currently set for September 2026.

SLS could launch missions to other destinations too. At one stage NASA intended to launch its Europa Clipper spacecraft to Jupiter’s moon Europa using SLS, but cost and delays saw the mission launch instead on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket in October this year. It has also been touted to launch parts of NASA’s new lunar space station, Gateway, beginning in 2028. The station is currently in development.

NASA’s plan to return to the moon involves using SLS to launch astronauts to lunar orbit on Orion, where they will rendezvous with a separate lander to descend to the surface. At the moment that lander will be SpaceX’s Starship vehicle, a huge reusable shuttle intended to launch and land multiple times. Musk wants this rocket to one day take humans to Mars.

Starship is currently undergoing testing. Last month, it completed a stunning flight in which the lower half of the rocket, the Super Heavy booster, was caught by SpaceX’s “chopstick” launch tower in Boca Chica, Texas. The rocket is ultimately more powerful than SLS and designed to be entirely reusable, whereas NASA’s rocket is discarded into the ocean after each launch.

The success of Starship and the development of other large commercial rockets, such as the Jeff Bezos-owned firm Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, has raised questions about the need for SLS. In October, billionaire Michael Bloomberg called the rocket a “colossal waste of taxpayer money”. In November, journalist Eric Berger said there was at least a 50-50 chance the rocket would be canceled.

“I think it would be the right call,” says Abhishek Tripathi, a former mission director at SpaceX now at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s hard to point to SLS as being necessary.”

The calculations are not straightforward, however. Dumbacher notes that while SpaceX is making “great progress” on Starship, there is much yet to do. The rocket will need to launch possibly up to 18 times to transfer fuel to a single lunar Starship in Earth orbit that can then make the journey to the moon. The first test of this fuel transfer is expected next year.

SLS, conversely, can send Orion to the moon in a single launch. That means the case for SLS is only diminished “if the price of 18 Starship launches is less than an SLS launch”, says Dumbacher. SpaceX was awarded $2.9 billion by NASA in 2021 for the first Starship mission to the moon on Artemis III, but the exact cost per launch is unknown.

The Artemis II Core Stage moves from final assembly to the VAB at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, July, 6, 2024.

MICHAEL DEMOCKER/NASA

NASA is also already developing hardware for future SLS launches. “All elements for the second SLS for Artemis II have been delivered,” a NASA spokesperson said in response to emailed questions, adding that SLS also has “hardware in production” for Artemis III, IV, and V.

“SLS can deliver more payload to the moon, in a single launch, than any other rocket,” NASA said. “The rocket is needed and designed to meet the agency’s lunar transportation requirements.”

Dumbacher points out that if the US wants to return to the moon before China sends humans there, which the nation has said it would do by 2030, canceling SLS could be a setback. “Now is not the time to have a major relook at what’s the best rocket,” he says. “Every minute we delay, we are setting ourselves up for a situation where China will be putting people on the moon first.”

President-elect Donald Trump has given Musk a role in his incoming administration to slash public spending as part of the newly established Department of Government Efficiency. While the exact remit of this initiative is not yet clear, projects like SLS could be up for scrutiny.

Canceling SLS would require support from Congress, however, where Republicans will have only a slim majority. “SLS has been bipartisan and very popular,” says Forczyk, meaning it might be difficult to take any immediate action. “Money given to SLS is a benefit to taxpayers and voters in key congressional districts [where development of the rocket takes place],” says Forczyk. “We do not know how much influence Elon Musk will have.”

It seems likely the rocket will at least launch Artemis II next September, but beyond that there is more uncertainty. “The most logical course of action in my mind is to cancel SLS after Artemis III,” says Forczyk.

Such a scenario could have a broad impact on NASA that reaches beyond just SLS. Scrapping the rocket could bring up wider discussions about NASA’s overall budget, currently set at $25.4 billion, the highest-funded space agency in the world. That money is used for a variety of science including astrophysics, astronomy, climate studies, and the exploration of the solar system.

“If you cancel SLS, you’re also canceling the broad support for NASA’s budget at its current level,” says Tripathi. “Once that budget gets slashed, it’s hard to imagine it’ll ever grow back to present levels. Be careful what you wish for.”

The moon is just the beginning for this waterless concrete

If NASA establishes a permanent presence on the moon, its astronauts’ homes could be made of a new 3D-printable, waterless concrete. Someday, so might yours. By accelerating the curing process for more rapid construction, this sulfur-based compound could become just as applicable on our home terrain as it is on lunar soil. 

Artemis III—set to launch no earlier than September 2026—will not only mark humanity’s return to the moon after more than 50 years, but also be the first mission to explore the lunar South Pole, the proposed site of NASA’s base camp. 

Building a home base on the moon will demand a steep supply of moon-based infrastructure: launch pads, shelter, and radiation blockers. But shipping Earth-based concrete to the lunar surface bears a hefty price tag. Sending just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of material to the moon costs roughly $1.2 million, says Ali Kazemian, a robotic construction researcher at Louisiana State University (LSU). Instead, NASA hopes to create new materials from lunar soil and eventually adapt the same techniques for building on Mars. 

Traditional concrete requires large amounts of water, a commodity that will be in short supply on the moon and critically important for life support or scientific research, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. While prior NASA projects have tested compounds that could be used to make “lunarcrete,” they’re still working to craft the right waterless material.

So LSU researchers are refining the formula, developing a new cement based on sulfur, which they heat until it’s molten to bind material without the need for water. In recent work, the team mixed their waterless cement with simulated lunar and Martian soil to create a 3D-printable concrete, which they used to assemble walls and beams. “We need automated construction, and NASA thinks 3D printing is one of the few viable technologies for building lunar infrastructure,” says Kazemian. 

curved wall being built in a lab by a 3D printing arm withwaterless concrete
A curved wall is 3D printed from waterless concrete.
COURTESY OF ALI KAZEMIAN

Beyond circumventing the need for water, the cement can handle wider temperature extremes and cures faster than traditional methods. The group used a pre-made powder for their experiments, but on the moon and Mars, astronauts might extract sulfur from surface soil. 

To test whether the concrete can stand up to the moon’s harsh environment, the team placed its structures in a vacuum chamber for weeks, analyzing the material’s stability at different temperatures. Originally, researchers worried that cold conditions on the dark side of the moon might cause the compound to turn into a gas through a process called sublimation, like when dry ice skips its liquid phase and evaporates directly. Ultimately, they found that the concrete can handle the lunar South Pole’s frigid forecast without losing its form. 

Some conditions, like reduced gravity, could even work toward the concrete’s advantage. The experiment tested structures like walls and small circular towers, each made by stacking many layers of concrete. “One of the main challenges in larger-scale 3D printing is a distortion of these thick, heavy layers,” says Kazemian “But when you have lower gravity, that can actually help keep the layers from deforming.” 

Kazemian and his colleagues recently transferred the technology to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, to implement their design on a larger-scale robotic system and test construction in larger vacuum chambers. If adopted, the concrete will most likely be used for taller lunar structures like habitats and radiation shields. Flatter designs, like a landing pad, will probably use laser-based technologies to melt down lunar soil into a ceramic structure. 

There may only be so much testing we can do on Earth, however. According to Philip Metzger, a planetary physicist at University of Central Florida who recently retired from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, the concrete’s efficacy may falter with the shift from simulant to real soil. “There’s chemistry in the samples of these planets that the simulants cannot perfectly replicate,” he says. “When we send missions to these planetary bodies to test the technology using the real soil, we may find that we need to further improve the technology to get it to work in that environment.”

But Metzger still sees the sulfur-based concrete as a vital foundation for the tall orders of upcoming planetary projects. Future missions to Mars could demand roads to drive back and forth from ice-mining sites and pavement around habitats to create dust-free work zones. This new concrete brings these distant goals a touch closer to reality. 

It could benefit construction on Earth, too. Kazemian sees the new material as a potential alternative for traditional concrete, especially in areas with water scarcity or a surplus of sulfur. Parts of the Middle East, for example, have abundant sulfur as a result of oil and gas production. 

The technology could become especially useful in disaster areas with broken supply chains, according to Metzger. It could also have military applications for rapid construction of structures like storage buildings. “This is great for people out there working on another planet who don’t have a lot of support,” Metzger says. “But there are already plenty of analogs to that here on Earth.”

Life-seeking, ice-melting robots could punch through Europa’s icy shell

At long last, NASA’s Europa Clipper mission is on its way. After overcoming financial and technological hurdles, the $5 billion mission launched on October 14 from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center. It is now en route to its target: Jupiter’s ice-covered moon Europa, whose frozen shell almost certainly conceals a warm saltwater ocean. When the spacecraft gets there, it will conduct dozens of close flybys in order to determine what that ocean is like and, crucially, where it might be hospitable to life.

Europa Clipper is still years away from its destination—it is not slated to reach the Jupiter system until 2030. But that hasn’t stopped engineers and scientists from working on what would come next if the results are promising: a mission capable of finding evidence of life itself.

This would likely have three parts: a lander, an autonomous ice-thawing robot, and some sort of self-navigating submersible. Indeed, several groups from multiple countries already have working prototypes of ice-diving robots and smart submersibles that they are set to test in Earth’s own frigid landscapes, from Alaska to Antarctica, in the next few years

But Earth’s oceans are pale simulacra of Europa’s extreme environment. To plumb the ocean of this Jovian moon, engineers must work out a way to get missions to survive a  never-ending rain of radiation that fries electronic circuits. They must also plow through an ice shell that’s at least twice as thick as Mount Everest is tall.

“There are a lot of hard problems that push up right against the limits of what’s possible,” says Richard Camilli, an expert on autonomous robotic systems at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Deep Submergence Laboratory. But you’ve got to start somewhere, and Earth’s seas will be a vital testing ground. 

“We’re doing something nobody has done before,” says Sebastian Meckel, a researcher at the Center for Marine Environmental Sciences at the University of Bremen, Germany, who is helping to develop one such futuristic Europan submersible. If the field tests prove successful, the descendants of these aquatic explorers could very well be those that uncover the first evidence of extraterrestrial life.

Hellish descent

The hunt for signs of extraterrestrial biology has predominantly taken place on Mars, our dusty, diminutive planetary neighbor. Looking for life in an icy ocean world is a whole new kettle of (alien) fish, but exobiologists think it’s certainly worth the effort. On Mars, scientists hope to find microscopic evidence of past life on, or just under, its dry and frozen surface. But on Europa, which has a wealth of liquid water (kept warm by Jupiter, whose intense gravity generates plenty of internal friction and heat there), it is possible that microbial critters, and perhaps even more advanced small aquatic animals, may be present in the here and now.

The bad news is that Europa is one of the most hostile environments in the solar system—at least, for anything above its concealed ocean. 

When NASA’s Clipper mission arrives in 2030, it will be confronted by an endless storm of high-energy particles being whipped about by Jupiter’s immense and intense magnetic field, largely raining down onto Europa itself. “It’s enough to kill a regular person within a few seconds,” says Camilli. No human will be present on Europa, but that radiation is so extreme that it can frazzle most electronic circuits. This poses a major hazard for Europa Clipper, which is why it’s doing only quick flybys of the moon as its orbit around Jupiter periodically dips close.

Clipper has an impressive collection of remote sensing tools that will allow it to survey the ocean’s physical and chemical properties, even though it will never touch the moon itself. But almost all scientists expect that uncovering evidence of biological activity will require something to pierce through the ice shell and swim about in the ocean.

A cross-section view of an ice-melting probe called PRIME on the surface of the moon, with small robots being deployed in the subsurface ocean, against the backdrop of Jupiter.
An illustration of two Europa exploration concepts from NASA. An ice-melting probe called PRIME sits on the surface of the moon, with small wedge-shaped SWIM robots deployed below.
NASA/JPL-CALTECH

The good news is that any Europan life-hunting mission has a great technological legacy to build upon. Over the years, scientists have developed and deployed robotic subs that have uncovered a cornucopia of strange life and bizarre geology dwelling in the deep. These include remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), which are often tethered to a surface vessel and are piloted by a person atop the waves, and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), which freely traverse the seas by themselves before reporting back to the surface.

Hopeful Europa explorers usually cite an AUV as their best option—something that a lander can drop off and let loose in those alien waters that will then return and share its data so it can be beamed back to Earth. “The whole idea is very exciting and cool,” says Bill Chadwick, a research professor at Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Oregon. But on a technical level, he adds, “it seems incredibly daunting.”

Presuming that a life-finding robotic mission is sufficiently radiation-proof and can land and sit safely on Europa’s surface, it would then encounter the colossal obstacle that is Europa’s ice shell, estimated to be 10 to 15 miles thick. Something is going to have to drill or melt its way through all that before reaching the ocean, a process that will likely take several years. “And there’s no guarantee that the ice is going to be static as you’re going through,” says Camilli. Thanks to gravitational tugs from Jupiter, and the internal heat they generate, Europa is a geologically tumultuous world, with ice constantly fragmenting, convulsing and even erupting on its surface. “How do you deal with that?”

Europa’s lack of an atmosphere is also an issue. Say your robot does reach the ocean below all that ice. That’s great, but if the thawed tunnel isn’t sealed shut behind the robot, then the higher pressure of the oceanic depths will come up against a vacuum high above. “If you drill through and you don’t have some kind of pressure control, you can get the equivalent of a blowout, like an oil well,” says Camilli—and your robot could get rudely blasted into space.

Even if you manage to pass through that gauntlet, you must then make sure the diver maintains a link with the surface lander, and with Earth. “What would be worse than finally finding life somewhere else and not being able to tell anyone about it?” says Morgan Cable, a research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

Pioneering probes

What these divers will do when they breach Europa’s ocean almost doesn’t matter at this stage. The scientific analysis is currently secondary to the primary problem: Can robots actually get through that ice shell and survive the journey? 

A simple way to start is with a cryobot—a melt probe that can gradually thaw its way through the shell, pulled down by gravity. That’s the idea behind NASA’s Probe using Radioisotopes for Icy Moons Exploration, or PRIME. As the name suggests, this cryobot would use the heat from the radioactive decay of an element like plutonium-238 to melt ice. If you know the thickness of the ice shell, you know exactly how many tablespoons of radioactive matter to bring aboard. 

Once it gets through the ice, the cryobot could unfurl a suite of scientific investigation tools, or perhaps deploy an independent submersible that could work in tandem with the cryobot—all while making sure none of that radioactive matter contaminates the ocean. NASA’s Sensing with Independent Micro-Swimmers project, for example, has sketched out plans to deploy a school of wedge-shaped robots—a fleet of sleuths that would work together to survey the depths before reporting back to base.

These concepts remain hypothetical. To get an idea of what’s technically possible, several teams are building and field-testing their own prototype ice divers. 

One of the furthest-along efforts is the Ocean Worlds Reconnaissance and Characterization of Astrobiological Analogs project, or ORCAA, led by JPL. After some preliminary fieldwork, the group is now ready for prime time; next year, a team will set up camp on Alaska’s expansive Juneau Icefield and deploy an eight-foot tall, two-inch wide cryobot. Its goal will be to get through 1,000 feet of ice, through a glasslike upper layer, down into ancient ices, and ultimately into a subglacial lake.

A shows two team members near a supraglacial lake (a body of water on top of the glacier), where biologists could take water samples and compare them to samples taken from the borehole.
ORCAA team members stand by a lake on top of a glacier during Alaska fieldwork.
NASA/JPL-CALTECH

This cryobot won’t be powered by radioactive matter. “I don’t see NASA and the Department of Energy being game for that yet,” says Samuel Howell, an ocean worlds scientist at JPL and the ORCAA principal investigator. Instead, it will be electrically heated (with power delivered via a tether to the surface), and that heat will pump warm water out in front of the cryobot, melting the ice and allowing it to migrate downward.

The cryobot will be permanently tethered to the surface, using that link to communicate its rudimentary scientific data and return samples of water back to a team of scientists at base camp atop the ice. Those scientists will act as if they are an astrobiology suite of instruments similar to what might eventually be fitted on a cryobot sent to Europa. 

The 2025 field experiment “has all the pieces of a cryobot mission,” says Howell. “We’re just duct-taping them together and trying to see what breaks.”

Space scientists and marine engineers are also teaming up at Germany’s Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM) to forge their own underwater explorer. Under the auspices of the Technologies for Rapid Ice Penetration and Subglacial Lake Exploration project, or TRIPLE, they are developing an ice-thawing cryobot, an astrobiological laboratory suite, and an AUV designed to be used in Earth’s seas and Europa’s ocean.

Their cryobot is somewhat like the one ORCAA is using; it’s an electrically heated thawing machine tethered to the surface. But onboard MARUM’s “ice shuttle” will be a remarkably small AUV, just 20 inches long and four inches wide. The team plans to deploy both on the Antarctic ice shelf, near the Neumayer III station, in the spring of 2026. 

Model of the miniature underwater vehicle being developed at MARUM with partners from industry. It will have a diameter of around ten and a length of about 50 centimeters.
Germany’s Center for Marine Environmental Sciences is developing a small AUV that it plans to deploy in Antarctica in 2026.
MARUM – CENTER FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN.

From a surface station, the ice shuttle will thaw its way down through the ice shell, aiming to reach the bitingly cold water hundreds of feet below. Once it does so, a hatch will open and the tiny AUV will be dropped off to swim about (on a probably preprogrammed route), wirelessly communicating with the ice shuttle throughout. It will take a sample of the water, return to the ice shuttle, dock with it, and recharge its batteries. For the field test, the ice shuttle, which will have some rudimentary scientific tools, will return the water sample back to the surface for analysis; for the space mission itself, the idea is that an array of instruments onboard the shuttle will examine that water.

As with ORCAA, the scientific aspect of this is not paramount. “What we’re focusing on now is form and function,” says project member Ralf Bachmayer, a marine robotics researcher at MARUM. Can their prototype Europan explorer get down to the hidden waters, deploy a scout, and return to base intact?

Bachmayer can’t wait to find out. “For engineers, it’s a dream come true to work on this project,” he says.

Swarms and serpents

A submersible-like AUV isn’t the only way scientists are thinking of investigating icy oceanic moons. JPL’s Exobiology Extant Life Surveyor, or EELS, involves a working, wriggling, serpentine robot inspired by the desire to crawl through the vents of Saturn’s own water-laden moon, Enceladus. The robotic snake has already been field-tested; it recently navigated through the icy crevasses and moulins of the Athabasca Glacier in Alberta, Canada.

Although an AUV-like cryobot mission is likely to be the first explorer of an icy oceanic moon, “a crazy idea like a robotic snake could work,” says Cable, the science lead for EELS. She hopes the project is “opening the eyes of scientists and engineers alike to new possibilities when it comes to accessing the hard-to-reach, and often most scientifically compelling, places of planetary environments.”

It might be that we’ll need such creative, and perhaps unexpected, designs to find our way to Europa’s ocean. Space agencies exploring the solar system have achieved remarkable things, but “NASA has never flown an aqueous instrument before,” says Howell.

But one day, thanks to this work, it might—and, just maybe, one of them will find life blooming in Europa’s watery shadows.

Robin George Andrews is an award-winning science journalist and doctor of volcanoes based in London. He regularly writes about the Earth, space, and planetary sciences, and is the author of two critically acclaimed books: Super Volcanoes (2021) and How To Kill An Asteroid (October 2024).

The quest to figure out farming on Mars

Once upon a time, water flowed across the surface of Mars. Waves lapped against shorelines, strong winds gusted and howled, and driving rain fell from thick, cloudy skies. It wasn’t really so different from our own planet 4 billion years ago, except for one crucial detail—its size. Mars is about half the diameter of Earth, and that’s where things went wrong.

The Martian core cooled quickly, soon leaving the planet without a magnetic field. This, in turn, left it vulnerable to the solar wind, which swept away much of its atmosphere. Without a critical shield from the sun’s ultraviolet rays, Mars could not retain its heat. Some of the oceans evaporated, and the subsurface absorbed the rest, with only a bit of water left behind and frozen at its poles. Unrelenting radiation, along with electrostatic discharge from planet-wide dust storms, drove chemical reactions in the arid Martian dirt, ultimately leaving it rich in pesky toxic salts called perchlorates. If ever a blade of grass grew on Mars, those days are over. 

But could they begin again? What would it take to grow plants to feed future astronauts on Mars? In science fiction, it isn’t much of a problem. Matt Damon’s character in the 2015 movie The Martian simply had to build a greenhouse, spread out human excrement, add water, and wait. The film got a lot of things right—bacteria in the human biome will be useful—but it didn’t account for the perchlorates. The potato plants that sustained him would never have grown, but even if they had, two years of eating contaminated, carcinogenic potatoes would have nuked his thyroid, boxed his kidneys, and damaged his cells—though he might not have realized it, because perchlorates are also neurotoxic. It would have been Matt Damon’s finest death scene.

At the time Andy Weir was writing the book on which the film was based, no one really knew just how plentiful and ubiquitous the chemicals were. Though they were first discovered by NASA’s Phoenix lander in 2008, it took subsequent rovers, and compilation of historic data, to confirm that not only are perchlorates everywhere on Mars, but they are, in fact, abundant. Overall, Mars’s surface has perchlorate concentrations of about 0.5% by weight. On Earth, the concentration is often a millionth that amount.

For NASA, that’s a devastating issue. The ultimate goal of the agency’s Artemis program is to land astronauts on Mars. And for the last decade, the agency has pursued a long-term plan of establishing an “Earth independent” human presence on the Red Planet. More ambitiously, if less plausibly, Elon Musk, the chief executive officer of SpaceX, has stated that he expects a million people to live on Mars in the next 20 years.

Any notion of an independent Mars means the perchlorate problem must be solved, because humans have to eat. Resupply missions are, by definition, Earth dependent, and hydroponics are inadequate for feeding people in large numbers.

“We can sustain crews of 10, maybe 20, very comfortably with hydroponics, but it doesn’t scale much larger than that,” says Rafael Loureiro, an associate professor at Winston-Salem State University who specializes in plant stress physiology. Hydroponics systems must be built on Earth, and they require energy-inefficient pumps and constant monitoring for bacterial and fungal infections. “Once the system is infected, you lose your entire crop, because it’s a closed-loop system,” he says. “You have to discard everything and reset.”

The only real path forward, says Loureiro, is farming the land: “The perchlorate problem is something that we will inevitably have to deal with.” 

There is no soil on Mars. Just dusty, poisonous regolith—the mixture of loose rock, sand, and dust that makes up the planetary surface. On Earth, the regolith is replete with billions of years’ worth of broken-­down organic biomass—soil—that just doesn’t exist on Mars. To grow food there, we can’t just drop seeds in the ground and add water. We will need to create a layer of soil that can support life. And to do that, we first have to get rid of those toxic salts.   

There’s more than one way to remove perchlorates. You can burn them out; the compounds break down around 750 °F, but for that, you’ll likely need power sources like nuclear reactors, and a lot of ancillary equipment. You can literally wash the perchlorates from the regolith, but, Loureiro explains, “the amount of water that you need to do that is ungodly, and water is a limited resource as far as we know.” That process would likewise take a significant amount of energy. “That’s something that’s not feasible long term,” he tells me. The ideal solution is not something dependent on heavy machinery. Rather, it would rely on something small—microscopic, in fact. 

NASA and the National Science Foundation are funding research into how future astronauts on Mars might use microbial life not only to remove perchlorates from the planet’s dirt, but also to shape and enrich the regolith into arable soil. The work builds on years of effort to do the same thing in different places on Earth, and if successful, it will improve farming on two planets for the price of one.

“If we are able to grow plants in Martian regolith, we can do it anywhere on Earth.”

Rafael Loureiro, associate professor, Winston-Salem State University

It’s easy to dismiss the idea of Martian agriculture as a distant issue for a fictional future, but scientists must solve these sorts of problems before the rockets launch, not after humans are on their way. And as with much of NASA’s research, solving problems “up there” applies directly to life “down here.” Simply put, what we learn from Mars could find use here on Earth to turn infertile wastelands into rich agricultural zones. On Earth, natural perchlorate levels are highest in desert regions.  In other areas, high levels are usually due to industrial waste. The toxins harm Earthen plants as much as they would prospective Martian ones. Which means it’s not just NASA that is interested in remediation—even the US Department of Agriculture is paying for such research. 

“If I’m able to grow plants in a completely alien environment, the technology that I create to do that is one hundred [percent] transferrable to places here on Earth that are food insecure. To places that are extremely arid and unfit for agriculture. To places that have been affected by mining companies that have polluted the soil,” says Loureiro.

“If we are able to grow plants in Martian regolith, we can do it anywhere on Earth.”

Thinking small

The science laboratory at Arizona State University’s Biodesign Institute looks like a large version of every biology classroom in America: long black tables, myriad microscopes, racks of vials. When you look closer, though, you realize that the microscopes are a little fancier, and there are high-tech instruments like gas chromatographs and organic carbon analyzers in the mix.

Anca Delgado, a microbiologist, meets me at the entrance, where we don white lab coats and goggles. “We don’t plan to splatter you with anything today, but we want to be safe,” she says. 

Earth’s soil is wet and wiggly, teeming with life, and its mineral composition is highly diverse, thanks in part to tectonic action, microbial activity, and the rock cycle. But you can just look at Mars and tell something is way off: The core of the diminutive planet cooled before much of its iron had a chance to sink to its center. As a result, Martian regolith is packed with iron-rich minerals, which over time have oxidized. The planet’s exterior is literally rusted. Without water, it changes primarily via mechanical weathering, driven by wind and temperature; and without life, it is entirely inorganic.

Despite all this, Delgado, her graduate students, and colleagues across the country have found a possible path to solving the perchlorate problem and making Martian regolith arable. 

Perchlorates are salts made out of a negatively charged ion of chlorine and oxygen, bonded with a positive ion such as sodium. (There is also perchloric acid, which contains that same negatively charged ion.)Where perchlorates are abundant on Earth, it is often because we put them there. Everything from military manufacturing to the fireworks spectacular at Disneyland has contributed. They weren’t the only chlorinated compounds the US went wild about around the time of World War II. The United States for decades made heavy use of organic chlorinated solvents in everything from dry cleaning and metal degreasing to clothing dyes and medicine. 

MEREDITH MIOTKE | PHOTO: NASA/JPL-CALTECH/MSSS

Industry overall had a laissez-­faire attitude toward the management of waste products, leading to contamination of the nation’s groundwater. “After the Clean Water Act and later legislation in the 1970s prevented or banned the use of some of these chemicals, that’s when we discovered the extent of this contamination,” Delgado tells me. Some water pollution was obvious. The Cuyahoga River in Ohio routinely caught on fire. But other contamination remained hidden. Residents of Love Canal, a neighborhood in the city of Niagara Falls, New York, reported abnormally high rates of leukemia markers and birth defects before anyone recognized that the 20,000 tons of chemicals dumped into a canal in the 1940s might be responsible. 

It wasn’t enough to stop dumping toxic chemicals in waterways and landfills, however. Scientists had to find alternatives—Disney developed a fireworks launcher in 2004 that eliminated its perchlorate emissions, for example—and they also had to find ways to clean up the pollution that was already there. In the case of perchlorates, they can do so chemically. Rain and artificial irrigation can wash the compounds away, though this only transfers the problem to groundwater. Another strategy is to grow woody plants like willow and cottonwood in contaminated lands. These draw perchlorates from the ground and can then be harvested, removing them from the contamination cycle.

Another biological approach is to go small, using microorganisms to turn toxic chemicals into harmless ones. The poster child for this concept is a bacterium called Dehalococcoides mccartyi, which specifically feeds on organic chlorinated solvents and spits out dechlorinated ethene (a simple, nontoxic hydrocarbon) and harmless chloride ions, which are found naturally in the environment. Delgado studied D. mccartyi during her doctoral program. Her interests were strictly terrestrial. But the process, while highly effective, was not perfect. It took an incredibly long time to work in nature.

“We were looking at treatment times of months to decades,” Delgado tells me. Her research sought to culture D. mccartyi at much higher densities, which would translate to improved rates of action and faster treatment times for abandoned American waste sites. Her work has since been applied at multiple field sites in Arizona, New Jersey, and California.

Delgado walks me through the lab, which is arranged in an open plan. From the Biodesign Institute’s inception in 2004, she says, the idea was to bring researchers who would not normally interact into the same physical space. That means microbiologists working with wastewater samples, sludges, and soils are next door to scientists who do DNA origami. 

The leap from cleaning up Earth’s toxic waste dumps to making the Martian surface arable began in 2017, a month before Delgado started her new job at the university. She had read an article about Mars and idly looked into the chemical elements that had been detected so far on that planet. “I like microbes, and I wanted to see if Mars could fulfill their nutritional requirements,” she says. “I’m sort of a sci-fi geek.”

While attending a university retreat designed to get researchers talking about their work, she decided to “put it out there” that “I would be interested at some point to look at whether microorganisms would be able to grow in Martian conditions.” 

A paper she read in the journal Nature finally spurred her into action. Soil organic matter, which is necessary for growing plants, is itself made of decomposing plant and animal material. That would seem to preclude Martian agriculture from ever being achieved. But researchers had demonstrated for the first time that you can actually form soil organic matter with microorganisms alone—no decaying plants needed. The microbes themselves, and their tissues and excretions, could synthesize soil.  

Delgado realized that perchlorates could be the initial catalyst, the thing that microbes could thrive on and break down. Eventually the process could make the Martian regolith ready for planting. 

She applied for an Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation grant from the National Science Foundation to explore the idea. NASA recognized her proposal’s implications and co-funded the grant; the project received $1.9 million total in 2022. It was intended as a multiyear, multi-institution effort, with Delgado as principal investigator. The plan was that ASU, the lead institution, would explore using microbes to lower the concentration of perchlorates in Mars-like dirt. The University of Arizona in Tucson would investigate the soil organic matter formed by those microbes during their breakdown of the perchlorates, and the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida, would figure out how to grow the plants.

Testing the dirt

One problem with studying Martian regolith is that we simply don’t have any of it here on Earth. NASA’s entire campaign of Mars exploration for 50 years has been in service of characterizing the Red Planet as a possible site for life. The agency has long sought to get a pristine sample of regolith from Mars into a clean room on Earth for analysis. But so far it has failed to develop a credible mission to do so. In April, Bill Nelson, the administrator of NASA, essentially admitted defeat, asking outside research institutions and the private sector for proposals on how an affordable Mars sample return might be achieved.

In the meantime, scientists have to make do with simulated Martian dirt to study ways to diminish levels of perchlorates, including heat, radiation, and microbial methods.

Delgado’s lab at ASU includes an incubator and a confocal microscope inside a custom-built anaerobic chamber, for analyzing microorganisms that are sensitive to oxygen. At a research station lined with sealed glassware of various sizes, plus syringes, pipettes, and other equipment, she introduces me to two of her doctoral students: Alba Medina, who is studying environmental engineering, and Briana Paiz, who studies biological design. Both are lead researchers on the project.

In sealed bottles on the table are solutions of various colors ranging from tan to black. In the more transparent solutions, a red material sits at the bottom that looks suspiciously similar in color to the dirt on Mars. “These are called microcosm bottles,” Delgado says. “To maintain the integrity of the chemicals and composition, anything that needs to be put in or taken out of the bottles has to be done by syringe and needle.”

The bottles contain nutrients, water (a requirement for life), and artificial Mars dirt. With no Martian regolith available, Delgado uses an “analogue” called MGS-1—Mars Global Simulant—with chemical and mineral composition, proportions, and physical properties engineered to match up with the specs measured by the Mars rover Curiosity. The simulant is made by a company called Space Resource Technologies and is publicly available. You can buy it online.

“It’s the most expensive dirt you’ll ever buy,” Delgado says with a laugh. After handing me a latex glove so I don’t get my hands dirty, she offers me a bag. It feels like the sort of sand you’d expect to find at beaches too expensive to visit. It is very fine; it looks and feels like cocoa powder.

All researchers have to add to the microcosm bottles are perchlorates, which come as a white powder. With that, they have Mars in a jar. 

“Then,” says Paiz, “we add the microbes.” She shows me around the various experiments. “Those microcosm bottles have Dechloromonas, and the ones in the back are actually pure cultures of Haloferax denitrificans”—a bacterium that thrives in salty environments. The team is also experimenting with myriad microbes in mixed communities, each interacting with different elements and compounds, yielding different chemical compositions in their respective microcosms. It’s why some bottles are the color of chocolate and others are the color of peanut butter.

“They all started off the same color,” says Medina. “The black color of this one is like a visual signature confirmation of activity by sulfate-reducing microorganisms, for example.” 

Bacteria eat the things they like and ignore the things they don’t. Delgado’s group is looking for the ideal combinations not only to eliminate perchlorates, but to do so efficiently. Perchlorates present opportunities as well. When Delgado’s microbes break those compounds down, they form chloride and oxygen. 

Astronauts could potentially use them to produce a “major source of oxygen on Mars,” says Delgado. “Maybe the biggest source. One of the things we have been thinking about is how we could capture it.”

Microbial cultures and strains need not be brought to Mars in giant vats. Microorganisms grow exponentially fast. With less than a gram of material—not even the weight of a paper clip—a scientist on Mars could propagate it infinitely. A few drops in a test tube could theoretically yield entire orchards.

But the ideal microbial transport systems are astronauts themselves. Our bodies already contain perchlorate-eating microbes in our gut biomes. Delgado’s group does its perchlorate research using microbial communities from sludge acquired from wastewater plants. So Matt Damon’s character in The Martian was, to an extent, on the right track. 

But even if the proper microbes for breaking down perchlorates are present, that does not mean they will be able to do their job. “Those communities already have perchlorate reducers, but they also come in with friends and enemies,” says Delgado. The thousands of strains of bacteria in our microbiomes compete for nutrients, making them inefficient. The trick is to find ways to help microbes that eat the bad stuff and reduce the population of microbes that get in the way. 

For now, regolith in very small batches is prepped at her lab. Successful perchlorate reduction brings the concentration from about five grams per kilogram (the original 0.5%) to five to 20 micrograms per kilogram—or less. Existing literature suggests that this concentration range does not inhibit seed germination. For comparison, soils in the Arizona desert have a background concentration of perchlorate ranging from 0.3 to five micrograms per kilogram. In the Atacama Desert, that figure can be up to 2,500 micrograms per kilogram. 

But removing perchlorates is not enough for Martian plants to thrive. “Once you get perchlorates out, you’re still left with the issue of how to convert Mars regolith to soil,” says Andrew Palmer, an associate professor of biology at the Florida Institute of Technology and a co-­investigator on Delgado’s project. 

MEREDITH MIOTKE | PHOTO: NASA/JPL-CALTECH/MSSS

Palmer explains that regolith, with or without perchlorates, is an inert substrate. Soil, strictly speaking, is a substrate that has been acted on by biology and acts on it in turn. But in the regolith simulant—and one day, perhaps, in actual Martian regolith—the microbial activity responsible for eliminating perchlorates might also be able to transform minerals and release other useful plant nutrients like potassium and phosphorus. Finding the best way to do this is one of the Delgado team’s goals in studying different microbial strains and sludge.

“The biological process for removing perchlorates should not only get rid of them, but should also help us put other nutrients into the soil,” Palmer tells me. “We are trying to put an ecological cycle into the regolith.”

Early signs are promising, but it is a years-long endeavor. Researchers have reduced perchlorates in regolith samples. They have increased concentrations of organics in samples. They have changed the structure of regolith. They have grown plants in it. Their goal is to do all those things at once. “The whole grant, the whole process with everybody involved, is turning regolith with perchlorates into soil that is amenable to plant growth,” says Palmer, “and that’s very powerful.” 

If all goes well, the regolith simulant should have a total organic carbon concentration two to five times higher than it did at the outset, thanks to the organic residues formed by microbes. Ultimately, it should also have better water-­holding capacity as the organic carbons change the physical properties of the otherwise clay-like regolith, making it less dense and more beneficial for plants and their root systems.

Once the regolith is ready and the scientists satisfied, the simulated Mars material heads to Palmer’s laboratory in Florida to see what might grow.

Tomatoes and quinoa

Palmer admits he wasn’t particularly interested in the problem of growing plants on Mars when representatives from NASA first approached him seven years ago. The work seemed boring to him: “Plants grow in dirt—film at 11,” he joked.

The more they talked, however, and the more NASA scientists explained the challenges of working with Mars simulants and issues such as the perchlorate problem, the more his curiosity was piqued. How were we going to provide a sufficient food supply there, anyway? He and his researchers at Florida Tech’s Palmer Lab of Chemical Ecology and Astrobiology began growing plants, fungi, and bacteria in lunar and Martian regolith simulants, exploring how to remodel regolith into soil that is amenable to plant growth. 

“Mars is six to nine months away. If you lose a food source, you may not be able to survive the wait for a resupply mission.”

Andrew Palmer, associate professor of biology, the Florida Institute of Technology

In addition to incubators, they use a room they’ve dubbed “the red house,” which is a semi-controlled environment.

“It’s a giant room, all artificial lighting and artificial environmental controls, and the plants we grow in there have never seen the light of day, which is what we think the situation would be like off Earth,” he says. Anything grown on Mars, which lacks a meaningful atmosphere and is colder than Antarctica, would likewise be grown in enclosed, controlled environments with artificial lighting.

Plants are grown and regrown in Mars simulants so that Palmer and his team can get a sense for how the regolith evolves simply from the growth process over time. Currently the researchers are growing romaine lettuce, bell peppers, tomatoes, and clover “pretty regularly” in commercially available Mars simulants. This semester, he says, they’ve also begun experimenting with peanuts and quinoa.

Because the project is still in its early stages, they do not have results to share related to the preliminary material they received from Arizona. On that, they are presently conducting germination assays. 

“We are still trying to understand how the simulant behaves physically, because when you add water, it can cake up—become really solid and dense—and that can stifle roots. It’s a really challenging problem,” he says.

One of the things they have found is that over time, growing plants in Mars simulant makes its texture “fluffier.” Palmer plans to use electron microscopy to study samples from Delgado’s lab. “Regolith grains are actually pretty jagged,” he tells me. This applies to both Martian and lunar regolith. “After things grow in it for a little while, usually bacteria will kind of make those particles more rounded.” This is because microorganism growth in regolith often results in the deposition of biofilms and other organic compounds, as well as etching or corrosion of grain surfaces. All this is beneficial for plant growth.

Palmer considers food security to be paramount for a mission to Mars, and the project’s research so far leaves him optimistic.

“Mars is six to nine months away. If you lose a food source, you may not be able to survive the wait for a resupply mission,” he says. The solution is diversity. There should be frozen food rations. Some things should be grown hydroponically. Some things should be grown in regolith. If one system fails, you still have the others to help you restart. It’s just good safety practice, he says, but more than that, if we are serious about making Mars a home, we must use the skills that make us special. Agriculture must surely be at the top of that list.

“There is something about cultivating a land that I think speaks to being a human,” Palmer says. “It means you have mastered that place. You only have control over a place when you have control over the soil.”

David W. Brown is a writer based in New Orleans. His next book, The Outside Cats, is about a team of polar explorers and his expeditions with them to Antarctica. It will be published in 2026 by Mariner Books.