NASA Researchers Discover What Happened to Mars’ Water
“New NASA research reveals that Mars’ water didn’t just vanish into space — much of it is still hidden beneath the surface and locked in minerals, reshaping our understanding of the Red Planet’s history.”
NASA Researchers Discover What Happened to Mars’ Water
For years, scientists have been puzzled by a pressing question: if ancient Mars once had vast oceans, rivers, and lakes, where did all that water go? New research from NASA may finally be solving this Martian mystery.
A Watery Past
Billions of years ago, Mars was a very different planet. It had a thick atmosphere, a magnetic field, and large bodies of water on its surface. Observations from orbiters and rovers like NASA's Curiosity and Perseverance have revealed signs of ancient riverbeds, lake basins, and mineral formations that could only form in the presence of water. The evidence strongly suggests that Mars was once warm and wet — a potential haven for microbial life.
Yet today, Mars is a cold, dry desert with a thin atmosphere and only traces of water, mostly locked up in polar ice caps and possibly beneath the surface. So what happened to all the water?
Atmospheric Escape: A Major Clue
One of the leading theories is that much of Mars’ water was lost to space due to atmospheric escape. Unlike Earth, Mars lost its global magnetic field billions of years ago. Without this protective shield, the planet’s atmosphere was gradually stripped away by solar wind — streams of charged particles ejected from the Sun.
NASA's MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) spacecraft has been studying this process since 2014. It confirmed that when the atmosphere thinned, water vapor in the upper atmosphere was broken apart by ultraviolet sunlight into hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The lightweight hydrogen atoms then escaped into space. This ongoing loss has been happening for billions of years and accounts for a significant portion of the missing water.
Not Just Lost to Space — But Hidden Underground
However, scientists now believe that not all of Mars’ water escaped into space. According to new research based on data from orbiters and landers, including the InSight mission and Curiosity rover, a large amount of water may still exist — not on the surface, but underground.
NASA researchers found that minerals in the Martian crust contain hydrogen atoms, which are a key component of water. These minerals, such as clays and sulfates, likely absorbed water and chemically bound it during Mars' early history. Some estimates suggest that 30% to 99% of Mars’ original water could still be trapped within the planet’s crust.
Furthermore, radar data from orbiters like ESA’s Mars Express and NASA’s MRO suggest that liquid water may still exist beneath the polar ice caps. In 2018, scientists detected what appears to be a subsurface lake under Mars’ south pole — kept liquid by pressure and possibly salts.
Recent Discoveries from Curiosity and Perseverance
NASA's Curiosity rover, which has been exploring Gale Crater since 2012, has uncovered strong evidence of a once-habitable lake that existed for millions of years. It has also found rock formations rich in clay — another indicator of prolonged water presence.
Meanwhile, the Perseverance rover, currently operating in Jezero Crater, is investigating an ancient river delta. This location was carefully chosen because it once hosted a flowing river that emptied into a lake. By studying the sediment layers and collecting rock samples, scientists hope to gain more precise insights into Mars’ climate history and whether life ever emerged there.
What It Means for the Search for Life
The discovery that water still exists underground is a major breakthrough. Water is essential for life as we know it, and its presence — even deep below the surface — raises the possibility that microbial life may have survived in these hidden reservoirs. NASA plans to bring samples collected by Perseverance back to Earth in the next decade, where they will be analyzed in laboratories for signs of ancient life.
Additionally, knowing where water exists on Mars is critical for future human missions. Underground ice and water sources could be used for drinking water, oxygen, and even rocket fuel — making Mars a more accessible destination for astronauts.
Conclusion
While Mars may appear dry and lifeless today, the Red Planet's past — and possibly even its present — tells a different story. Thanks to years of dedicated research and new data from NASA missions, we are closer than ever to understanding what happened to Mars’ water. Much of it may have escaped into space, but a large portion remains locked in the crust and beneath the surface, waiting to reveal more secrets about the planet’s history and its potential to support life.
About the Creator
Adnan Rasheed
Author & Creator | Writing News , Science Fiction, and Worldwide Update| Digital Product Designer | Sharing life-changing strategies for success.
Keep reading
More stories from Adnan Rasheed and writers in Earth and other communities.
China and Russia Sign Landmark Deal to Build Nuclear Power Plant on the Moon
China and Russia Sign Landmark Deal to Build Nuclear Power Plant on the Moon China and Russia join forces to build a nuclear-powered lunar base by 2036, challenging U.S. dominance in space exploration and paving the way for long-term human presence on the Moon.
By Adnan Rasheed8 months ago in Earth
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami3 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.