Rocket Lab says NASA lacks leadership on Mars Sample Return
Rocket Lab has been on a roll lately, with multiple Electron launches, plans for an ocean platform for its Neutron rocket, and a second mission for in-space manufacturing business Varda under its belt. However, NASA has apparently rejected the company’s Mars Sample Return mission proposal. Why?
“We don’t want to poke anyone in the eye,” says Richard French, Vice President, Business Development and Strategy, Space Systems at Rocket Lab, “but it’s clear that there’s a lack of recognition that the technologies and the experience of the commercial sector are capable of doing these things.”
French is talking about NASA’s Mars Sample Return mission. The elaborate plans to return the samples scooped up by the rovers to Earth were attached to a ballooning budget and the project had to be revised. NASA whittled it down to two options earlier in 2025. One was a proposal from the agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the other was from a commercial provider.
Rocket Lab’s concept, which did not make the cut, came in under the $4 billion mark and would mean samples returned from Mars by 2031, according to the company. The plan would involve three dedicated launches from Earth: an Earth Return Orbiter (ERO), a lander with an ascent vehicle, and a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (MTO).
The MTO would launch first to provide a communication relay. Then the lander with the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) would reach the surface and stash the samples. The MAV, which would house the samples, would then be launched from Mars and rendezvous with the ERO. The samples would then be returned to Earth.
It sounds simple enough, and Rocket Lab reckons it has sufficient experience. For example, it demonstrated it can return payloads to Earth safely as part of the Varda missions and has plenty of experience in building rockets and spacecraft. It also contributed hardware and software used by the successful Firefly Blue Ghost lunar lander.
However, after a year of study, NASA elected to think about it for another year. “That’s not leadership,” says French.
Perhaps the issue is risk. While Rocket Lab has an enviable track record and has contributed to many missions, it is yet to demonstrate all the technology needed for a Mars Sample Return mission in one place.
French is, unsurprisingly, not convinced. “What’s the threshold you’re holding people to?” he asks. “For some reason, we decided to take a huge risk on human lives with human exploration, but we’re not willing to do that with some Mars samples?
“It’s certainly the case that we’ve invested a lot into these samples, but we have to find a way to [transport the samples to Earth] affordably … I would argue that the capabilities of Rocket Lab to do the mission as they stand today, relative to what SpaceX would have been judged to be able to do for human space flight when they were selected to do … quite frankly, we’re much further. It’s unfortunate that that’s not more obvious to people.”
French is disappointed Rocket Lab didn’t receive much feedback with regard to the company’s proposal, although he noted that the way NASA Headquarters ran the study didn’t mean there would be any. He also gives credit to the NASA centers, such as Ames and Goddard, with which Rocket Lab partnered on elements of its proposal.
Despite the apparent rejection, work carries on. French tells us that the company continues to improve its plans in the background with an eye on NASA’s impending leadership change.
“We’re asking for leadership,” he says. French wants an open competition and a commercial procurement for Mars Sample Return.
“We’re not even asking them to sole-source it to us. We’re fine with an open competition. We think open competition is how the best ideas come about. So I’ll just say that I’m hopeful.” ®
