Martian Rock Sells for Millions

Image (Credit): Mars rock NWA 16788. (Sotheby’s)

NASA may face problems getting Martian rocks back to Earth, but the rocks that already made it this far are being sold to the highest bidder.

Earlier this week a rock from Mars sold for $5.3 million at a Sotheby’s New York auction. Officially named NWA 16788, the meteorite weighs 54 pounds. Located in the Sahara Desert in 2023, it is believed to have traveled to Earth after being blasted off the Martian surface by an incoming asteroid.

So who bought it? That information has not been shared, but if Elon Musk bought it I would consider that cheating. He needs to get to Mars on his own and fulfill his destiny (while giving the rest of us a break).

Space Quote: What’s the Strategy, NASA?

Credit: Image by Petra from Pixabay.

“You’re losing the managerial and core technical expertise of the agency…What’s the strategy and what do we hope to achieve here?”

-Comment by Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, regarding recent news that 2,145 senior-ranking NASA employees will be departing NASA as part of the ongoing downsizing of the agency. It is not clear whether these cuts align with the White House’s earlier statements that it wanted to put humans on the Moon and Mars. The saying used to be measure twice, cut once. With this White House it is cut twice and toss out the measuring tape.

Is Musk Taking a Chainsaw to SpaceX?

Credit: Image by Mostafa Elturkey from Pixabay.

The press is all abuzz about Elon Musk’s latest statements regarding his establishment a new political party called the America Party. Some of the stories also relate to his continued inattention to his companies, particularly Tesla. Fortune magazine quoted one security tech analyst who stated:

Very simply Musk diving deeper into politics and now trying to take on the Beltway establishment is exactly the opposite direction that Tesla investors/shareholders want him to take during this crucial period for the Tesla story.

The same concerns exist with SpaceX, even it if is a private company. Elon Musk has been distracted by politics for too long as his companies take a back seat. His budget-cutting work for President Trump tanked Tesla sales around the world while his recent divorce with the White House caused President Trump to ask whether the government needed to cut off contracts to SpaceX. Throughout, it has been a roller coaster for his customers and investors.

Surprisingly, even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent commented on the board of directors at Tesla and SpaceX during CNN’s State of the Union, noting:

I imagine that those boards of directors did not like this announcement yesterday (Saturday) and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities.

AInvest also ssued this warning over the weekend:

Musk’s political pivot is a gamble with no clear playbook. While his companies’ technological prowess and market dominance provide a cushion, the interplay of regulatory risks, political spending, and third-party uncertainty demands vigilance.

It also doesn’t help that some of President Trump’s friends are now calling for the nationalization of SpaceX. For example, Trump advisor Steve Bannon has already suggested the White House should consider using the Defense Production Act to take control SpaceX. That would be an extremely serious step.

Mr. Musk does seem to have trouble keeping focus on his businesses, so maybe it makes sense for him to hand over more control to other managers while he goes off and plays with politics. He is a man who is no longer driven by Mars the planet but instead by Mars the god or war, in this case political wars.

His many distractions are not good for NASA, the space industry, or SpaceX investors.

Study Findings: Carbonate Formation and Fluctuating Habitability on Mars

Image (Credit): Mars as captured by NASA Mars Global Surveyor MOC wide angle cameras. (NASA/JPL/MSSS)

Nature abstract of the study findings:

The cause of Mars’s loss of surface habitability is unclear, with isotopic data suggesting a ‘missing sink’ of carbonate. Past climates with surface and shallow-subsurface liquid water are recorded by Mars’s sedimentary rocks, including strata in the approximately 4-km-thick record at Gale Crater. Those waters were intermittent, spatially patchy and discontinuous, and continued remarkably late in Mars’s history—attributes that can be understood if, as on Earth, sedimentary-rock formation sequestered carbon dioxide as abundant carbonate (recently confirmed in situ at Gale). Here we show that a negative feedback among solar luminosity, liquid water and carbonate formation can explain the existence of intermittent Martian oases. In our model, increasing solar luminosity promoted the stability of liquid water, which in turn formed carbonate, reduced the partial pressure of atmospheric carbon dioxide and limited liquid water. Chaotic orbital forcing modulated wet–dry cycles. The negative feedback restricted liquid water to oases and Mars self-regulated as a desert planet. We model snowmelt as the water source, but the feedback can also work with groundwater as the water source. Model output suggests that Gale faithfully records the expected primary episodes of liquid water stability in the surface and near-surface environment. Eventually, atmospheric thickness approaches water’s triple point, curtailing the sustained stability of liquid water and thus habitability in the surface environment. We assume that the carbonate content found at Gale is representative, and as a result we present a testable idea rather than definitive evidence.

Citation: Kite, E.S., Tutolo, B.M., Turner, M.L. et al. Carbonate formation and fluctuating habitability on Mars. Nature 643, 60–66 (2025).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09161-1

Study-related stories:

University of Chicago – “Was Mars Doomed to be a Desert? Study Proposes New Explanation”

Science Alert – “NASA Discovery Could Explain Why We’ve Never Found Life on Mars”

The Register – “Mars Was Once a Desert with Intermittent Oases, Curiosity Data Suggests”

Study Findings: The Influence of Passing Field Stars on the Solar System’s Dynamical Future

Credit: Image by Yol Gezer from Pixabay.

Icarus abstract of the study findings:

The long-term dynamical future of the Sun’s planets has been simulated and statistically analyzed in great detail, but most prior work considers the solar system as completely isolated, neglecting the potential influence of field star passages. To understand the dynamical significance of field star encounters, we simulate several thousand realizations of the modern solar system in the presence of passing field stars for 5 Gyrs. We find that the impulse gradient of the strongest stellar encounter largely determines the net dynamical effect of field stars. Because the expected strength of such an encounter is uncertain by multiple orders of magnitude, the possible significance of field stars can be large. Our simulations indicate that isolated models of the solar system can underestimate the degree of our giant planets’ future secular orbital changes by over an order of magnitude. In addition, our planets and Pluto are significantly less stable than previously thought. Field stars transform Pluto from a completely stable object over 5 Gyrs to one with a ∼5% instability probability. Furthermore, field stars increase the odds of Mercury’s instability by ∼50%–80%. We also find a ∼0.3% chance that Mars will be lost through collision or ejection and a ∼0.2% probability that Earth will be involved in a planetary collision or ejected. Compared to previously studied instabilities in isolated solar systems models, those induced by field stars are much more likely to involve the loss of multiple planets. In addition, they typically happen sooner in our solar system’s future, making field star passages the most likely cause of instability for the next 4–4.5 Gyrs.

Citation: Kaib, Nathan A. and Raymond, Sean N., The influence of passing field stars on the solar system’s dynamical future, Icarus (2005).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2025.116632

Study-related stories:

The New York Times

Science News

Planetary Science Institute