Search

Direct analysis of the composition of Mars is possible through delivery of meteorites to Earth. Martian meteorites include ∼165 to 2400 Ma shergottites, originating from depleted to enriched mantle sources, and ∼1340 Ma nakhlites and chassignites, formed by low degree partial melting of a depleted mantle source. To date, no unified model has been proposed to explain the petrogenesis of these distinct rock types, despite their importance for understanding the formation and evolution of Mars. Here we report a coherent geochemical dataset for shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites revealing fundamental differences in sources. Shergottites have lower Nb/Y at a given Zr/Y than nakhlites or chassignites, a relationship nearly identical to terrestrial Hawaiian main shield and rejuvenated volcanism. Nakhlite and chassignite compositions are consistent with melting of hydrated and metasomatized depleted mantle lithosphere, whereas shergottite melts originate from deep mantle sources. Generation of martian magmas can be explained by temporally distinct melting episodes within and below dynamically supported and variably metasomatized lithosphere, by long-lived, static mantle plumes.

Direct analysis of the composition of Mars is possible through delivery of meteorites to Earth. Martian meteorites include ∼165 to 2400 Ma shergottites, originating from depleted to enriched mantle sources, and ∼1340 Ma nakhlites and chassignites, formed by low degree partial melting of a depleted mantle source. To date, no unified model has been proposed to explain the petrogenesis of these distinct rock types, despite their importance for understanding the formation and evolution of Mars. Here we report a coherent geochemical dataset for shergottites, nakhlites and chassignites revealing fundamental differences in sources. Shergottites have lower Nb/Y at a given Zr/Y than nakhlites or chassignites, a relationship nearly identical to terrestrial Hawaiian main shield and rejuvenated volcanism. Nakhlite and chassignite compositions are consistent with melting of hydrated and metasomatized depleted mantle lithosphere, whereas shergottite melts originate from deep mantle sources. Generation of martian magmas can be explained by temporally distinct melting episodes within and below dynamically supported and variably metasomatized lithosphere, by long-lived, static mantle plumes.

Spurred by the discovery of water in lunar volcanic glasses about a decade ago, the accessory mineral apatite became the primary target to investigate the abundance and source of lunar water. This is due to its ability to contain significant amounts of OH in its structure, along with the widespread presence of apatite in lunar rocks. There is a general understanding that crustal cumulate rocks of the lunar magnesian (Mg) suite are better candidates for recording the original isotopic compositions of volatile elements in their parental melts compared to eruptive rocks, such as mare basalts. Consequently, water-bearing minerals in Mg-suite rocks are thought to be ideal candidates for discerning the primary hydrogen isotopic composition of water in the lunar interior. Mg-suite rocks and most other Apollo samples that were collected at the lunar surface display variable degrees of shock-deformation. In this study, we have investigated seven Apollo 17 Mg-suite samples that include troctolite, gabbro and norite lithologies, in order to understand if shock processes affected the water abundances and/or H isotopic composition of apatite. The measured water contents in apatite grains range from 31 to 964 ppm, with associated δD values varying between −535 ±134‰ and +147 ±194‰(2σ). Considering the full dataset, there appears to be no correlation between H2O and δD of apatite and the level of shock each apatite grain has experienced. However, the lowest δD was recorded by individual, water-poor (<∼100 ppm H2O) apatite grains that are either directly in contact with an impact melt or in its proximity. Therefore, the low-δD signature of apatite could be a result of interactions with D-poor regolith (solar wind derived H), facilitated by shock-induced nanostructures that could have provided pathways for migration of volatiles. In contrast, in relatively water-rich apatites (>∼100 ppm H2O), regardless of the complexity of the shock-induced nanostructures, there appears to be no ev

The Mars Sample Return Planning Group 2 (MSPG2) was tasked with identifying the steps that encompass all the curation activities that would happen within the MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) and any anticipated curation-related requirements. An area of specific interest is the necessary analytical instrumentation. The SRF would be a Biosafety Level-4 facility where the returned MSR flight hardware would be opened, the sample tubes accessed, and the martian sample material extracted from the tubes. Characterization of the essential attributes of each sample would be required to provide enough information to prepare a sample catalog used in guiding the preparation of sample-related proposals by the world’s research community and informing decisions by the sample allocation committee. The sample catalog would be populated with data and information generated during all phases of activity, including data derived concurrent with Mars 2020 sample-collecting rover activity, sample transport to Earth, and initial sample characterization within the SRF. We conclude that initial sample characterization can best be planned as a set of three sequential phases, which we have called Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC), Basic Characterization (BC), and Preliminary Examination (PE), each of which requires a certain amount of instrumentation. Data on specific samples and subsamples obtained during sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations would also be added to the catalog. There are several areas where future work would be beneficial to prepare for the receipt of samples, which would include the design of a sample tube isolation chamber and a strategy for opening the sample tubes and removing dust from the tube exteriors.

The most important single element of the “ground system” portion of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign is a facility referred to as the Sample Receiving Facility (SRF), which would need to be designed and equipped to receive the returned spacecraft, extract and open the sealed sample container, extract the samples from the sample tubes, and implement a set of evaluations and analyses of the samples. One of the main findings of the first MSR Sample Planning Group (MSPG, 2019a) states that “The scientific community, for reasons of scientific quality, cost, and timeliness, strongly prefers that as many sample-related investigations as possible be performed in PI-led laboratories outside containment.” There are many scientific and technical reasons for this preference, including the ability to utilize advanced and customized instrumentation that may be difficult to reproduce inside in a biocontained facility, and the ability to allow multiple science investigators in different labs to perform similar or complementary analyses to confirm the reproducibility and accuracy of results. It is also reasonable to assume that there will be a desire for the SRF to be as efficient and economical as possible, while still enabling the objectives of MSR to be achieved. For these reasons, MSPG concluded, and MSPG2 agrees, that the SRF should be designed to accommodate only those analytical activities that could not reasonably be done in outside laboratories because they are time- or sterilization-sensitive, are necessary for the Sample Safety Assessment Protocol (SSAP), or are necessary parts of the initial sample characterization process that would allow subsamples to be effectively allocated for investigation. All of this must be accommodated in an SRF, while preserving the scientific value of the samples through maintenance of strict environmental and contamination control standards.

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign must meet a series of scientific and technical achievements to be successful. While the respective engineering responsibilities to retrieve the samples have been formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between ESA and NASA, the roles and responsibilities of the scientific elements have yet to be fully defined. In April 2020, ESA and NASA jointly chartered the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2) to build upon previous planning efforts in defining 1) an end-to-end MSR Science Program and 2) needed functionalities and design requirements for an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). The challenges for the first samples brought from another planet include not only maintaining and providing samples in pristine condition for study, but also maintaining biological containment until the samples meet sample safety criteria for distribution outside of biocontainment. The MSPG2 produced six reports outlining 66 findings. Abbreviated versions of the five additional high-level MSPG2 summary findings are: Summary-1. A long-term NASA/ESA MSR Science Program, along with the necessary funding and human resources, will be required to accomplish the end-to-end scientific objectives of MSR. Summary-2. MSR curation will need to be done concurrently with Biosafety Level-4 containment. This would lead to complex first-of-a-kind curation implementations and require further technology development. Summary-3. Most aspects of MSR sample science can, and should, be performed on samples deemed safe in laboratories outside of the SRF. However, other aspects of MSR sample science are both time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive and would need to be carried out in the SRF. Summary-4. To meet the unique science, curation, and planetary protection needs of MSR, substantial analytical and sample management capabilities would be required in an SRF. Summary-5. Because of the long lead-time for SRF design, construction, and certification, it is important

Dust transported in the martian atmosphere is of intrinsic scientific interest and has relevance for the planning of human missions in the future. The MSR Campaign, as currently designed, presents an important opportunity to return serendipitous, airfall dust. The tubes containing samples collected by the Perseverance rover would be placed in cache depots on the martian surface perhaps as early as 2023–24 for recovery by a subsequent mission no earlier than 2028–29, and possibly as late as 2030–31. Thus, the sample tube surfaces could passively collect dust for multiple years. This dust is deemed to be exceptionally valuable as it would inform our knowledge and understanding of Mars’ global mineralogy, surface processes, surface-atmosphere interactions, and atmospheric circulation. Preliminary calculations suggest that the total mass of such dust on a full set of tubes could be as much as 100 mg and, therefore, sufficient for many types of laboratory analyses. Two planning steps would optimize our ability to take advantage of this opportunity: (1) the dust-covered sample tubes should be loaded into the Orbiting Sample container (OS) with minimal cleaning and (2) the capability to recover this dust early in the workflow within an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) would need to be established. A further opportunity to advance dust/atmospheric science using MSR, depending upon the design of the MSR Campaign elements, may lie with direct sampling and the return of airborne dust.

Samples returned from Mars would be placed under quarantine at a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) until they are considered safe to release to other laboratories for further study. The process of determining whether samples are safe for release, which may involve detailed analysis and/or sterilization, is expected to take several months. However, the process of breaking the sample tube seal and extracting the headspace gas will perturb local equilibrium conditions between gas and rock and set in motion irreversible processes that proceed as a function of time. Unless these time-sensitive processes are understood, planned for, and/or monitored during the quarantine period, scientific information expected from further analysis may be lost forever. At least four processes underpin the time-sensitivity of Mars returned sample science: (1) degradation of organic material of potential biological origin, (2) modification of sample headspace gas composition, (3) mineral-volatile exchange, and (4) oxidation/reduction of redox-sensitive materials. Available constraints on the timescales associated with these processes supports the conclusion that an SRF must have the capability to characterize attributes such as sample tube headspace gas composition, organic material of potential biological origin, as well as volatiles and their solid-phase hosts. Because most time-sensitive investigations are also sensitive to sterilization, these must be completed inside the SRF and on timescales of several months or less. To that end, we detail recommendations for how sample preparation and analysis could complete these investigations as efficiently as possible within an SRF. Finally, because constraints on characteristic timescales that define time-sensitivity for some processes are uncertain, future work should focus on: (1) quantifying the timescales of volatile exchange for core material physically and mineralogically similar to samples expected to be returned from Mars, and (2) identif

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign represents one of the most ambitious scientific endeavors ever undertaken. Analyses of the martian samples would offer unique science benefits that cannot be attained through orbital or landed missions that rely only on remote sensing and in situ measurements, respectively. As currently designed, the MSR Campaign comprises a number of scientific, technical, and programmatic bodies and relationships, captured in a series of existing and anticipated documents. Ensuring that all required scientific activities are properly designed, managed, and executed would require significant planning and coordination. Because there are multiple scientific elements that would need to be executed to achieve MSR Campaign success, it is critical to ensure that the appropriate management, oversight, planning, and resources are made available to accomplish them. This could be achieved via a formal MSR Science Management Plan (SMP). A subset of the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2)—termed the SMP Focus Group—was tasked to develop inputs for an MSR Campaign SMP. The scope is intended to cover the interface to the Mars 2020 mission, science elements in the MSR flight program, ground-based science infrastructure, MSR science opportunities, and the MSR sample and science data management. In this report, a comprehensive MSR Science Program is proposed that comprises specific science bodies and/or activities that could be implemented to address the science functionalities throughout the MSR Campaign. The proposed structure was designed by taking into consideration previous management review processes, a set of guiding principles, and key lessons learned from previous robotic exploration and sample return missions.

Impact cratering on the Moon and the derived size-frequency distribution functions of lunar impact craters are used to determine the ages of unsampled planetary surfaces across the Solar System. Radiometric dating of lunar samples provides an absolute age baseline, however, crater-chronology functions for the Moon remain poorly constrained for ages beyond 3.9 billion years. Here we present U–Pb geochronology of phosphate minerals within shocked lunar norites of a boulder from the Apollo 17 Station 8. These minerals record an older impact event around 4.2 billion years ago, and a younger disturbance at around 0.5 billion years ago. Based on nanoscale observations using atom probe tomography, lunar cratering records, and impact simulations, we ascribe the older event to the formation of the large Serenitatis Basin and the younger possibly to that of the Dawes crater. This suggests the Serenitatis Basin formed unrelated to or in the early stages of a protracted Late Heavy Bombardment.

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign represents one of the most ambitious scientific endeavors ever undertaken. Analyses of the martian samples would offer unique science benefits that cannot be attained through orbital or landed missions that rely only on remote sensing and in situ measurements, respectively. As currently designed, the MSR Campaign comprises a number of scientific, technical, and programmatic bodies and relationships, captured in a series of existing and anticipated documents. Ensuring that all required scientific activities are properly designed, managed, and executed would require significant planning and coordination. Because there are multiple scientific elements that would need to be executed to achieve MSR Campaign success, it is critical to ensure that the appropriate management, oversight, planning, and resources are made available to accomplish them. This could be achieved via a formal MSR Science Management Plan (SMP). A subset of the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2)—termed the SMP Focus Group—was tasked to develop inputs for an MSR Campaign SMP. The scope is intended to cover the interface to the Mars 2020 mission, science elements in the MSR flight program, ground-based science infrastructure, MSR science opportunities, and the MSR sample and science data management. In this report, a comprehensive MSR Science Program is proposed that comprises specific science bodies and/or activities that could be implemented to address the science functionalities throughout the MSR Campaign. The proposed structure was designed by taking into consideration previous management review processes, a set of guiding principles, and key lessons learned from previous robotic exploration and sample return missions.

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign must meet a series of scientific and technical achievements to be successful. While the respective engineering responsibilities to retrieve the samples have been formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between ESA and NASA, the roles and responsibilities of the scientific elements have yet to be fully defined. In April 2020, ESA and NASA jointly chartered the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2) to build upon previous planning efforts in defining 1) an end-to-end MSR Science Program and 2) needed functionalities and design requirements for an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). The challenges for the first samples brought from another planet include not only maintaining and providing samples in pristine condition for study, but also maintaining biological containment until the samples meet sample safety criteria for distribution outside of biocontainment. The MSPG2 produced six reports outlining 66 findings. Abbreviated versions of the five additional high-level MSPG2 summary findings are: Summary-1. A long-term NASA/ESA MSR Science Program, along with the necessary funding and human resources, will be required to accomplish the end-to-end scientific objectives of MSR. Summary-2. MSR curation will need to be done concurrently with Biosafety Level-4 containment. This would lead to complex first-of-a-kind curation implementations and require further technology development. Summary-3. Most aspects of MSR sample science can, and should, be performed on samples deemed safe in laboratories outside of the SRF. However, other aspects of MSR sample science are both time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive and would need to be carried out in the SRF. Summary-4. To meet the unique science, curation, and planetary protection needs of MSR, substantial analytical and sample management capabilities would be required in an SRF. Summary-5. Because of the long lead-time for SRF design, construction, and certification, it is important

The Mars Sample Return Planning Group 2 (MSPG2) was tasked with identifying the steps that encompass all the curation activities that would happen within the MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) and any anticipated curation-related requirements. An area of specific interest is the necessary analytical instrumentation. The SRF would be a Biosafety Level-4 facility where the returned MSR flight hardware would be opened, the sample tubes accessed, and the martian sample material extracted from the tubes. Characterization of the essential attributes of each sample would be required to provide enough information to prepare a sample catalog used in guiding the preparation of sample-related proposals by the world’s research community and informing decisions by the sample allocation committee. The sample catalog would be populated with data and information generated during all phases of activity, including data derived concurrent with Mars 2020 sample-collecting rover activity, sample transport to Earth, and initial sample characterization within the SRF. We conclude that initial sample characterization can best be planned as a set of three sequential phases, which we have called Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC), Basic Characterization (BC), and Preliminary Examination (PE), each of which requires a certain amount of instrumentation. Data on specific samples and subsamples obtained during sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations would also be added to the catalog. There are several areas where future work would be beneficial to prepare for the receipt of samples, which would include the design of a sample tube isolation chamber and a strategy for opening the sample tubes and removing dust from the tube exteriors.

The most important single element of the “ground system” portion of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign is a facility referred to as the Sample Receiving Facility (SRF), which would need to be designed and equipped to receive the returned spacecraft, extract and open the sealed sample container, extract the samples from the sample tubes, and implement a set of evaluations and analyses of the samples. One of the main findings of the first MSR Sample Planning Group (MSPG, 2019a) states that “The scientific community, for reasons of scientific quality, cost, and timeliness, strongly prefers that as many sample-related investigations as possible be performed in PI-led laboratories outside containment.” There are many scientific and technical reasons for this preference, including the ability to utilize advanced and customized instrumentation that may be difficult to reproduce inside in a biocontained facility, and the ability to allow multiple science investigators in different labs to perform similar or complementary analyses to confirm the reproducibility and accuracy of results. It is also reasonable to assume that there will be a desire for the SRF to be as efficient and economical as possible, while still enabling the objectives of MSR to be achieved. For these reasons, MSPG concluded, and MSPG2 agrees, that the SRF should be designed to accommodate only those analytical activities that could not reasonably be done in outside laboratories because they are time- or sterilization-sensitive, are necessary for the Sample Safety Assessment Protocol (SSAP), or are necessary parts of the initial sample characterization process that would allow subsamples to be effectively allocated for investigation. All of this must be accommodated in an SRF, while preserving the scientific value of the samples through maintenance of strict environmental and contamination control standards.

Dust transported in the martian atmosphere is of intrinsic scientific interest and has relevance for the planning of human missions in the future. The MSR Campaign, as currently designed, presents an important opportunity to return serendipitous, airfall dust. The tubes containing samples collected by the Perseverance rover would be placed in cache depots on the martian surface perhaps as early as 2023–24 for recovery by a subsequent mission no earlier than 2028–29, and possibly as late as 2030–31. Thus, the sample tube surfaces could passively collect dust for multiple years. This dust is deemed to be exceptionally valuable as it would inform our knowledge and understanding of Mars’ global mineralogy, surface processes, surface-atmosphere interactions, and atmospheric circulation. Preliminary calculations suggest that the total mass of such dust on a full set of tubes could be as much as 100 mg and, therefore, sufficient for many types of laboratory analyses. Two planning steps would optimize our ability to take advantage of this opportunity: (1) the dust-covered sample tubes should be loaded into the Orbiting Sample container (OS) with minimal cleaning and (2) the capability to recover this dust early in the workflow within an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) would need to be established. A further opportunity to advance dust/atmospheric science using MSR, depending upon the design of the MSR Campaign elements, may lie with direct sampling and the return of airborne dust.

Impact cratering on the Moon and the derived size-frequency distribution functions of lunar impact craters are used to determine the ages of unsampled planetary surfaces across the Solar System. Radiometric dating of lunar samples provides an absolute age baseline, however, crater-chronology functions for the Moon remain poorly constrained for ages beyond 3.9 billion years. Here we present U–Pb geochronology of phosphate minerals within shocked lunar norites of a boulder from the Apollo 17 Station 8. These minerals record an older impact event around 4.2 billion years ago, and a younger disturbance at around 0.5 billion years ago. Based on nanoscale observations using atom probe tomography, lunar cratering records, and impact simulations, we ascribe the older event to the formation of the large Serenitatis Basin and the younger possibly to that of the Dawes crater. This suggests the Serenitatis Basin formed unrelated to or in the early stages of a protracted Late Heavy Bombardment.