For the majority, rocks are merely rocks. For geologists, they represent something far greater: crystal-laden time capsules capable of unveiling the state of the Earth at the precise moment of their formation.
For years, NASA has undertaken an unparalleled quest for a time capsule—one that spans Mars.
The rovers have traversed a horrifying ocher desert that, billions of years ago, hosted rivers, lakes, and possibly seas and oceans. They aim to resolve a crucial question: At some point, did microbial life flourish on its surface?
Then, in July 2024, after over three years on the planet, the Perseverance rover encountered an unusual rocky formation. Instead of the typical crystals or sediment layers, this outcrop exhibited spots. Specifically two types: one resembling poppy seeds and another akin to those found on leopards. It’s conceivable that mere chemical reactions could have created these peculiar characteristics. However, on Earth, such markings are generally produced by microbial life.
To put it simply: Wow.
Admittedly, those speckles do not serve as conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life. Yet, they present the most substantial clue thus far that life might not be an isolated event in the universe. This raises the most profound question of all—Are we alone?—which could soon be answered. “Achieving this would change human history forever,” asserts Casey Dreier, head of space policy at the Planetary Society, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting planetary exploration, defense, and the search for extraterrestrial life.
However, the only method to verify if these seeds and spots are the fossilized evidence of alien biology is to return a sample of that rock to analyze it.
Perseverance marked the initial phase of an ambitious plan to accomplish just that—in effect, to execute a space heist. The mission—termed Mars Sample Return and devised by the US along with its European partners—aimed to deploy a Rube Goldberg-like series of robotic missions to capture pristine rocks from the planet. The rover’s task was to locate the most promising stones and extract samples; then it would hand them off to another robot—the getaway driver—to transport them off Mars and return them to Earth.
Yet, just a year and a half later, the endeavor is on life support, with no funding anticipated for 2026 and scant support remaining in Congress. Consequently, those highly promising rocks may remain stranded indefinitely.
“We’ve dedicated 50 years preparing to retrieve these samples. We’re ready,” states Philip Christensen, a planetary scientist at Arizona State University closely collaborating with NASA. “Now, we’re two feet away from the finish line—Oh, sorry, we’re not completing the job.”
This also indicates that, in the quest for extraterrestrial evidence, America has effectively relinquished its leading position to its primary geopolitical competitor: China. The superpower is advancing rapidly with its own version of MSR. It’s more streamlined than the mission developed by the U.S. and Europe, although the rock samples it procures from Mars may not be of the same quality. Nonetheless, that will likely not be the narrative remembered—the one chronicled in scientific journals and history books. “If we proceed as we are, there’s a solid chance they’ll succeed before we do,” Christensen laments. “Being first is what holds significance.”
This narrative is part of MIT Technology Review’s “America Undone” series, which explores how the foundational elements of U.S. success in science and innovation are currently at risk. Read the entire series here.
Indeed, any discovery of extraterrestrial life enhances humanity’s understanding broadly, irrespective of the discoverers’ identity. Yet, there’s the not insignificant issue of pride in the context of an already intense nationalistic rivalry, not to mention that numerous scientists in America (alongside U.S. lawmakers) may not wish to see their upcoming research and scientific advancements governed by a foreign power. Even for those who aren’t particularly anxious about the potential discovery of alien microbes, MSR and the comparable Chinese undertaking constitute technological milestones toward a long-cherished vision shared by many beyond Elon Musk: placing astronauts on the Red Planet and eventually establishing permanent bases there. It would be a tremendous setback to arrive just after a competitor had already set up operations…or not to reach there at all.
“If we can’t manage this, how do we expect to send humans there and ensure their safe return?” questions Victoria Hamilton, a planetary geologist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and chair of the NASA-affiliated Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group.
Or as Paul Byrne, a planetary scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, articulates: “If you plan to bring humans back from Mars, you must figure out how to retrieve the samples first.”
Nearly a dozen project insiders and scientists from both the U.S. and China shared insights with me regarding how America fell behind in the new space race. This narrative encompasses grand visions and promising findings, alongside mismanagement, staggering costs, and ultimately, frustration and disillusionment.
“I’ve dedicated much of my career to studying Mars,” Christensen remarks. There are countless aspects of it that captivate him. However, he believes that by studying it, we can significantly advance in the epic quest to comprehend how life began.
Admittedly, today’s Mars is a post-apocalyptic wasteland, an arid and frigid desert inundated with dangerous radiation. Yet billions of years ago, water flowed against the slopes of fiery volcanoes that erupted under a benign sky. Subsequently, its geological interior cooled rapidly, altering everything. Its global magnetic field collapsed like a deflating balloon, and its protective atmosphere was stripped away by solar radiation.
Its surface is now incredibly inhospitable to life as we recognize it. Yet deep underground, where it’s protected from space and where it’s warmer and more humid, there may be microbes bustling about.
Scientists have long retained a number of Martian meteorites hurled in our direction, but none remain unblemished; all suffered damage from cosmic radiation during their journey before being calcined in Earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, there’s another hurdle: “We currently possess no sedimentary rocks from Mars, the type that is likely to harbor fossils,” says Sara Russell, a planetary scientist at London’s Natural History Museum.
To acquire those, humans (or robots) would need to land on the surface.
NASA initially transformed the contents of sci-fi films into reality twenty years ago when two Viking landers descended onto the planet in 1976. One of their experiments introduced radioactively tagged nutrients into soil samples, operating under the premise that any present microbes would consume the nutrients and subsequently exhale radioactive waste gas detectable by the landers. Tantalizingly, this test suggested some microbe-like interaction with those nutrients—but the result was inconclusive (and today, most scientists do not attribute biology as the cause).
Nevertheless, that was enough to kindle scientists’ intrigue regarding the genuine possibility of life on Mars. Over subsequent decades, America dispatched an ever-growing fleet of robots to Mars—including orbiters, landers, and roving vehicles. However, despite their extensive studies of the planet’s rocks, they were never designed to definitively identify signs of life. For this, promising-looking rocks would need to be collected and, somehow, safely returned to Earth in meticulously sealed containers.
This became a top objective for the U.S. planetary science sector in 2003, following the issuance of the inaugural Planetary Decadal Survey, a census conducted at NASA’s request. The scientific rationale for the mission was unmistakable—even to those who didn’t believe they’d discover signs of life. “I doubt there’s life on Mars. But if there is, or was, it would be a monumental discovery,” says Christensen. And if not, “Why wouldn’t there be?”
He further states: “We may gain insight into why life emerged on Earth by examining why it potentially did not develop on Mars. What key differences exist between those two planets?”
Thus, MSR was conceived. America committed entirely, with the European Space Agency joining the initiative. Over the forthcoming decade or so, a complex blueprint was devised.
Initially, a NASA rover would touch down on Mars in a location once deemed potentially habitable—later confirmed to be Jezero Crater. It would navigate around, searching for layered rocks typical of lake and riverbed environments, extract samples from them, and store them in sealed containers. Then, a second NASA spacecraft would land on Mars, receive the rover’s sample tubes (through various methods), and pass the samples to a rocket that would launch them into Martian orbit. A European-provided orbiter would capture that rocket, much like a baseball glove, before returning home and dropping the rocks into Earth’s atmosphere, where they would be parachuted down to eagerly awaiting scientists by the mid-2030s.
“In essence, this represents the most scientifically meticulous sample collection mission to date, executed in one of Mars’ most promising locales to search for past signs of life,” states Jonathan Lunine, chief scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. “Should evidence of life be discovered in the sediments, it would be a historic find.”
The endeavor began auspiciously. On July 30, 2020, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, NASA’s Perseverance rover lifted off on a rocket from Cape Canaveral, Florida. At that time, the NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, expressed: “We are living in extraordinary times,” he conveyed to reporters, “yet we have successfully persevered and safeguarded this mission due to its critical importance.”
However, just earlier that month, the mission to Mars had transformed into a competition. China was preparing its own sample return vehicle.
From that moment onward, the situation for MSR began to deteriorate.
China was comparatively late to cultivate a competitive space program, but once it got underway, it swiftly gained momentum. In 2003, it launched its first astronaut into space via its custom-built rocket; over the ensuing two decades, it has established its own space station and dispatched numerous uncrewed craft to the moon—first orbiters, then landers—as part of its Chang’e Project, named after a lunar goddess.
A pivotal moment for China’s ambitions beyond Earth occurred in 2020, the same year Perseverance was launched to Mars.
In December, Chang’e-5 descended in the moon’s Ocean of Storms, a frozen lava expanse extending 1,600 miles. It secured approximately two-billion-year-old rocks, loaded them into a rocket, and propelled them into space. The samples were intercepted by a small orbiting spacecraft; importantly, the methodology wasn’t far from MSR’s concept of capturing samples in a similar manner. China’s lunar return mission marked the first instance of samples being retrieved from the moon since 1976, and it was executed flawlessly.
That same year, China initiated its first venture towards Mars, designated Tianwen-1, meaning “Questions to Heaven”—the inaugural thrust in a series of bold missions aimed at the Red Planet and nearby asteroids. Despite its uncertain odds of success, China was determined to accelerate the pace, launching both an orbiting spacecraft and a rover to Mars concurrently—an unprecedented feat for any nation on its first attempt.
As China escalated its exploration initiatives, certain members of the scientific community began to question whether NASA was unintentionally overpromising with MSR—and if the heist would justify the expense.
In 2020, the program’s budget escalated from an already steep $5.3 billion to an estimated $7 billion. (In comparison, NASA’s Near-Earth Object Surveyor mission, currently under development, carries an estimated cost of roughly $1.2 billion. This space observatory aims to locate Earth-bound asteroids and protect the 8 billion people on our planet from potential impacts.)
Nonetheless, Perseverance was en route to Mars. It wasn’t as if this costly endeavor could simply be halted. The mission’s supporters merely hoped it would reach its destination intact.
Although the U.S. had successfully entered Martian orbit previously, multiple other attempts at entry, descent, and landing on the planet had met with catastrophic failure; the primary challenge is the Martian atmosphere, which may induce spacecraft to spiral uncontrollably or heat up and ignite. Perseverance would propel itself at close to 12,500 miles per hour upon entering Mars’ atmosphere, necessitating significant deceleration, parachute deployment, rocket firing, and independent navigation to safely descend over Jezero Crater—before a levitating crane would lower the rover onto the surface.
Fortunately, Perseverance’s landing proceeded seamlessly. On February 18, 2021, Mars became its new domain—and the rover’s creators celebrated exuberantly in NASA’s control room.
As Lori Glaze, then director of NASA’s planetary science division, remarked at the time, “Now the exciting times truly begin.”
In that same month, China arrived at Mars for the very first time.
On February 10, 2021, Tianwen-1 entered Mars’s orbit. Subsequently, on May 14, it executed a precise drop to deliver a rover onto an expansive area called Utopia Planitia—providing Perseverance with a neighbor, albeit one 1,200 miles distant.
This explorer was significantly less advanced than Perseverance, and its mission objectives diverged considerably from a sample return endeavor. Equipped with cameras and instruments for environmental analysis, it resembled one of NASA’s earlier rovers. It was also intended to operate for only three months (although it ultimately survived a full year before succumbing to insidious Martian dust).
Nonetheless, Tianwen-1 represented a significant milestone for China, meriting admiration from the U.S. “This is a monumental achievement,” commented Roger Launius, NASA’s chief historian at the time.
And even if the prospect of seizing samples from Mars appeared increasingly realistic for China, it was already happening for the U.S. The Americans assumed the race was over before it had truly begun … or so they thought.
In the ensuing years, Perseverance enjoyed an adventurous extraterrestrial expedition. It roamed through frozen lava formations and traversed sediment fans once shaped by abundant liquid water. It extracted rocks that contained salty, muddy layers—environments that on Earth teem with microorganisms and organic materials.
“Jezero Crater undoubtedly fulfills the astrobiological criteria for a sampling site where life may have existed once,” claims Lunine from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Rocks of a similar age and environment on Earth have yielded some of the most ancient evidence for life on our planet.”
Then, in September 2023, while Perseverance navigated across the remnants of what could have been a microbial city, an independent panel of researchers released a report unequivocally indicating that MSR was the opposite of acceptable.
The panel concluded that the project had become too fragmented among NASA’s numerous centers, resulting in ambiguity regarding who was truly in command. At its current trajectory, MSR would delay returning Mars rocks home until at least the 2040s—potentially a full decade late compared to prior expectations—and it could cost as much as $11 billion, effectively more than doubling the original budget.
“MSR was established with impractical budget and schedule assumptions from the outset,” the report states. “MSR has also been organized under a cumbersome structure. Consequently, there is currently no credible, coherent technical, nor adequately margined schedule, cost, and technical baseline achievable with the likely available funding.”
Members of Congress began expressing doubts about the possibility of canceling MSR entirely, and the scientific community that once passionately supported the mission encountered a critical moment of reflection.
Byrne, the planetary scientist from Washington University in St. Louis, has always been a bit of a rebel, never fully endorsing NASA’s lengthy, over-the-top obsession with Mars. The solar system, he contended, boasts numerous intriguing worlds to explore—especially Venus, a nearby rocky planet that was previously quite Earth-like. Couldn’t NASA allocate some of its budget to ensure exploration of Venus as well?
Nonetheless, like many concerned colleagues, Byrne did not wish to see MSR terminated. The report’s conclusions didn’t invalidate the fact that Perseverance was diligently working around the clock on the mission’s initial stages. What purpose would it serve to collect all those samples if they were to remain on Mars? The community, Byrne elaborates, needed to answer one pressing inquiry: “How can this be accomplished in a swifter and more economical manner?”
In April 2024, NASA made a public appeal for assistance from its industry partners in the space sector: Could anyone devise a solution to salvage MSR? Various participants with spaceflight experience, including Lockheed Martin, submitted proposals for consideration.
Then, just a few months later in July 2024, Perseverance made a pivotal discovery, locating those distinctive leopard-spotted and speckled rocks in an ancient river valley—a beacon of hope that NASA had been fervently pursuing. The agency’s cry for assistance now became more pressing—these rocks needed to be returned home. After numerous panels evaluated plans capable of effectively salvaging MSR, two possible options for a quicker, more streamlined, and less expensive approach were highlighted at a press briefing in January 2025.
One suggestion utilized proven technology: Since Perseverance had been safely deployed to the Martian surface through a hovering platform called a sky crane, it was proposed that the sample-gathering lander for MSR could also be delivered using this method, simplifying this stage and decreasing the overall program’s cost. The alternate proposal suggested that the lander could be dispatched to Mars through a spacecraft from a commercial spaceflight firm. The lander design itself could also be made more efficient, and adjustments could be applied to the rocket tasked with launching the samples back into space.
The proposals required further examination, but the prospect of these approaches could potentially facilitate sample retrieval in the 2030s rather than the 2040s. Crucially, “it was feasible to reduce the costs,” remarks Jack Mustard, an Earth and planetary scientist at Brown University and a member of one of the two proposal-review panels. However, the savings weren’t substantial: They could execute MSR for $8 billion.
“What we devised was very rational, logical, and significantly more straightforward,” states Christensen, a member of the same review panel. “And $8 billion appears to be a reasonable estimate that would ensure its success.”
While the U.S. grappled with its interplanetary challenges, China continued to excel.
In June 2024, the sixth phase of the Chang’e project achieved historical significance. It was another lunar sample return operation, but this one accomplished a feat no one had managed in the history of space exploration: landing on the arduous, hidden far side of the moon and retrieving samples from it.
China executed this with apparent ease, resulting in a capsule containing samples from this previously untouched area safely landing in Inner Mongolia. Long Xiao, a planetary geoscientist at the China University of Geosciences, informed reporters that the mission’s success was “a cause for celebration for all of humanity.”
However, this also delivered a significant blow to NASA. Yes, the moon is much nearer to Earth, and it lacks the atmospheric challenges that Mars poses. Nevertheless, China was progressing rapidly while the U.S. appeared to be distracted.
Then, in May 2025, China launched Tianwen-2. This mission targeted a near-Earth asteroid, with plans to collect samples of its primordial materials and return them to Earth by late 2027. Given China’s track record of success, many believe this mission will also prove successful.
However, the most striking setback for the U.S. occurred in June 2025: China unveiled its definitive intentions regarding sample retrieval from Mars—and the potential to explore the possibility of life beyond Earth. Chinese researchers presented an ambitious plan for Tianwen-3 in the journal Nature Astronomy. “Searching for signs of life, or conducting astrobiological research, is the top priority,” says Yuqi Qian, a lunar geologist at the University of Hong Kong. While many had long been aware of this goal, its formal articulation in a research paper rendered it real.
“Determining the landing site is still underway,” states Li Yiliang, an astrobiologist at the University of Hong Kong, a Tianwen-3 study author, and a member of the landing site selection team. But the paper clearly indicates the mission will progress at a tremendous pace. “Tianwen-3 aims to gather at least 500 grams of samples from Mars and return them to Earth around 2031.”
2031. Even on an initial, faster timeline, America’s MSR initiative wouldn’t retrieve samples by that year. So, how is China planning to achieve it?
Qian clarifies that Tianwen-3 is leveraging the knowledge acquired from the lunar sample return program. Undertaking something similar for Mars presents a formidable technological challenge (involving two rockets instead of one)—but he contends, “the underlying technologies are analogous.”
The strategy involves dispatching two rockets from Earth in 2028. The first will carry the lander-ascender duo, or LAC. The second rocket is the orbiter-returner combination, or ORC. The LAC will arrive at Mars, deploy a lander along with a small helicopter that will scout promising locations while using a claw to retrieve several small samples before returning to the lander.
The LAC will then proceed to the site of greatest interest. The lander’s drill, capable of reaching around seven feet beneath the surface, is the mission’s most critical component. At that depth, the likelihood of capturing remnants of past life is significantly heightened. Once at least 500 grams of pristine rocks are collected, they will be launched into space, where the orbiter will be poised to capture them and return them to Earth around 2031.
“The returned samples will undergo strict quarantine in a facility still in development near Hefei city,” states Yiliang. In those bio-secure labs, researchers may discover the initial definitive indications of extraterrestrial life, whether from the past or present.
In the very month that Chinese researchers unveiled their ambitious plans for Mars sample retrieval, the newly instituted Trump administration introduced a drastic NASA budget for Congressional consideration—one that ignited widespread anxiety within the planetary science community.
If enacted, this budget would have resulted in a historical disaster for the esteemed space agency, granting NASA its smallest budget since 1961. This would have necessitated significant workforce reductions, slashing the agency’s science program budget by 50%, and canceling 19 missions currently operational. MSR was under serious threat as well.
“Bleak is an understatement,” remarks Dreier of the Planetary Society.
In the ensuing months, Congress resisted the attempted dismantling of NASA primarily to safeguard ongoing solar system exploration missions. MSR was not regarded as an active initiative; at this juncture, Perseverance functioned largely as an independent scientific scout. A counterproposal from the House allocated $300 million for MSR, but there was no enthusiastic support for it. (The U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, did not respond to requests for comment.)
“Mars Sample Return doesn’t currently have many advocates,” notes Byrne. The project “isn’t prominent in anyone’s discussions amidst the existential crises confronting NASA.” All individuals involved in NASA missions hoped their efforts, along with their spacecraft, would endure the threats. As Byrne adds: “[People are] simply trying to maintain a low profile.”
Researchers in America suddenly found themselves at a crossroads. “The assault on science, and specifically NASA science, has been alarmingly effective in demoralizing the scientific community,” claims Christensen. “Everyone is in a state of disbelief.”
When I reached out to NASA in July regarding MSR’s status, which was then mired in a months-long standoff, I was informed that experts were unavailable for comment. Instead, spokesperson Roxana Bardan provided a statement: “Under President Trump’s America First strategy, NASA is committed to enduring U.S. space leadership. We will continue to innovate, explore, and excel to ensure America’s primacy in space.” (The agency did not respond to a follow-up inquiry.)
This message stood in stark contrast to Christensen’s sentiments at the same time. “The U.S. has led Mars exploration for 50 years,” he emphasized. “Now, as we approach a pivotal moment for discovery, we are about to relinquish that leadership to another nation.”
From China’s viewpoint, the mismanagement of MSR is more puzzling than anything. “NASA has meticulously prepared for the MSR mission in terms of technology and science, and my colleagues and I have gained tremendous insights from NASA’s scientific teams,” states Yiliang.
And if China clinches a victory in the race because America stumbled? “That’s unfortunate,” he comments. “If it occurs, I suspect the Chinese won’t take any joy in winning in this fashion.”
Nevertheless, Tianwen-3 will encounter many of the same obstacles MSR faces. For instance, no organization has successfully launched a rocket from Mars’s surface autonomously. However, confidence in China’s potential success is growing, especially given their rapid advancements. Christensen, for his part, initially anticipated several of their earlier robotic missions to fail—but “their successful execution on the first attempt speaks volumes about their engineering capabilities,” he elaborates.
Mustard concurs: “They understand how to land; they understand how to depart. I have great faith that they’ll leverage the knowledge gleaned from their lunar endeavors.”
Additionally, Tianwen-3’s architecture appears less complex than the U.S.-European mission. It encompasses fewer components, thus reducing potential failure points. However, this also suggests that the quality of the samples obtained may not be as robust. Tianwen-3 will retrieve samples from only a limited area of Mars. In contrast, Perseverance is exploring a wide, geologically diverse landscape, collecting samples along the way, which translates into “significantly more scientific insights than what will emerge from the Chinese samples,” points out Christensen.
Nonetheless, China might fortuitously select a biologically rich section of the planet. Hamilton from the Southwest Research Institute posits that the mission could “uncover something entirely unexpected and, perhaps, miraculous.”
The most probable outcome remains that neither nation will uncover fossilized microbes, but China will likely retrieve Mars samples first. Ultimately, that’s the narrative that will resonate with Americans (and Europeans): “You’re coming in second. You lost,” asserts Mustard.
Like many of his colleagues, Christensen is frustrated by the prospect of losing the race to Mars, viewing it as a self-inflicted setback. The U.S. has been dispatching robots to the planet for decades and has invested billions in developing the necessary technology to facilitate MSR’s success. Suddenly, “the Chinese come along and state, Thank you for the groundwork; we’ll build a mission and accomplish what you’ve laid the foundation for,” Christensen laments. “As a taxpayer, I find this approach foolish.”
Even the skeptics of MSR acknowledge that such a defeat would carry significant consequences. Byrne expresses concern that if MSR can be easily sidelined, what assurance is there that upcoming significant missions—to Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond—won’t face the same fate? In essence, the failure of MSR would severely undermine “the capability of the planetary community to aspire to great achievements,” he warns. “If we fail in this endeavor, what does that imply? Will we abandon ambitious, costly, and challenging initiatives?”
Another bold, expensive, and complex endeavor? Sending humans to Mars. Both critics and proponents of MSR concur that it serves as an essential preparatory exercise. Ensuring that we can safely launch a rocket from Mars is crucial for validating the longevity of various equipment on the planet’s unforgiving surface.
China has similarly recognized this. As stated in the introductory line of the Tianwen-3 study, “Mars is the most promising planet for humanity’s extension beyond Earth, given its potential for future habitability and available resources.”
Although such expansion remains a distant aspiration, it’s clear that losing the contest here would place the U.S. at a stark disadvantage. Members of America’s planetary science community have been attempting to persuade politicians of their case, framing MSR as a national security matter. Yet they’ve struggled to gain traction. “We’ve engaged with decision-makers who appear unaware of this perspective,” shares Dreier from the Planetary Society.
“It’s surprising that this viewpoint doesn’t carry more influence,” Mustard adds.
Despite the protracted uncertainty, the stinging realization arrived in January. In the appropriations bill draft for a vital spending bill, House and Senate prioritizers shielded NASA from the most severe proposed cuts, thereby preserving numerous space exploration missions and sustaining a significant portion of the agency’s planetary scientific endeavors. However, the bill contained zero political or financial backing for MSR. It became evident: America’s ambition to orchestrate a groundbreaking heist on Mars had come to an end. The legislation was enacted in January, and it appears Perseverance is destined to wander the Red Planet alone until its nuclear battery depletes.
This harsh truth stands in stark contrast to the lofty goals articulated in the first Planetary Decadal Survey, generated just over twenty years ago. It asserted that the U.S.’s exploration of the solar system offers “a glorious past, a productive present, and an auspicious future.” It also emphasized that “answers to profound inquiries regarding our origins and our future may be within our grasp.”
Now, those answers seem nearly out of reach. Even as Perseverance continues its journey, it becomes increasingly likely we’ll never witness those intriguing speckled rocks with human eyes, nor will we encounter any other fascinating rocks the rover discovers. It is far more plausible that in the near future, likely in the early 2030s, Perseverance will gaze up at the night sky from Jezero Crater. It might catch sight of a small twinkle: the orbiter from Tianwen-3, preparing to return ancient rocks to Earth. Meanwhile, Perseverance’s own sample tubes—perhaps containing evidence of life—will remain stranded on the Martian surface, accumulating dust.
This presents a sobering thought for Christensen. “One day, we’ll awaken and wonder: What happened?” he expresses. “How did we allow this to transpire?”
Robin George Andrews is an award-winning science journalist and doctor of volcanoes based in London. He frequently writes about Earth, space, and planetary sciences, and is the author of two critically acclaimed books: Super Volcanoes (2021) and How to Kill An Asteroid (2024).
