NASA is preparing to hand out one of its most-watched contracts in years — a spacecraft destined to orbit Mars and serve as a communications relay back to Earth. But a quietly circulated internal document, obtained by Ars Technica, paints a picture that will disappoint planetary scientists: actual science appears to be an afterthought.
Key Takeaways:
- NASA’s internal objectives document for the Mars Telecommunications Network lists only communication-related goals, with science payloads described as “not precluded” but not required.
- The $700 million mission, mandated by legislation linked to Senator Ted Cruz, must be awarded by September 2026 and launched by late 2028.
- A small new contract awarded to Rocket Lab from the same NASA center managing the orbiter could trigger conflict-of-interest protests from competitors.
The agency posted a “pre-solicitation” this week — not yet a formal request for proposals, but a call for industry feedback on the mission’s objectives and requirements. That objectives document, 24 pages long, was initially marked “controlled” and kept off the public record. After the first report on its contents, NASA made it publicly available.
Inside, four top-level objectives are laid out, and every single one revolves around communications. The spacecraft must relay data between Mars-based assets and Earth through 2035. It needs to provide Doppler, range, and time-transfer capabilities for navigation. It must support existing missions at Mars. And it has to handle communications during future Entry, Descent, and Landing demonstrations.
No scientific goal made the top-level list.
The spacecraft — recently renamed from Mars Telecommunications Orbiter to Mars Telecommunications Network — traces its funding back to the “One Big Beautiful Bill” legislation pushed by Senator Ted Cruz in the summer of 2025. That bill earmarked $700 million for the project and required NASA to award the contract before the end of fiscal year 2026, which falls on September 30. Multiple sources told Ars the legislation appeared tailored to benefit Rocket Lab specifically, though sloppy drafting accidentally opened the door to broader competition.
Buried at the very bottom of 14 “ground rules and assumptions” sits the only mention of science. Ground rule number 14 reads: “SMD payload is not precluded, and schedule risk is critically important.” SMD stands for Science Mission Directorate, NASA’s arm responsible for scientific exploration.
The phrasing is telling. “Not precluded” is a long way from “encouraged” or “required.” Bidders can propose adding instruments — a high-resolution camera, a space weather sensor, a magnetometer to probe Mars’ remnant magnetic field, or a spectrometer hunting near-surface water ice. According to a science official, three solid instruments could be added for roughly $200 million, well within the generous $700 million budget.
But the document’s emphasis on schedule risk sends a clear signal. Any science payload that threatens the late-2028 launch window will count against a bid, not for it. Given that this may be NASA’s only major Mars mission for the remainder of this decade — and the sole large spacecraft the agency can realistically send to Mars during the current presidency — the sidelining of science has generated real frustration within the research community.
The contractor battle brewing around this mission is fierce. Rocket Lab and Blue Origin have both run aggressive public campaigns showcasing their solutions. SpaceX wants the contract as a proving ground for Starship. Lockheed Martin brings decades of Mars hardware experience, though at premium prices.
Speed matters enormously here. The next Mars launch window closes in late 2028, and any industry protest following the contract award could stall the project for months — potentially killing the timeline entirely.
A new wrinkle appeared Monday when NASA awarded Rocket Lab a modest $390,936 contract to study “Mars End-to-End Communication Service Architectures.” The dollar amount is trivial, but the optics are not. The contract came from Goddard Space Flight Center — the very same office managing the Mars Telecommunications Network competition. One source told Ars this creates a potential conflict of interest. If Rocket Lab wins the larger contract, competitors will almost certainly file protests pointing to this simultaneous arrangement as grounds for challenge.
The coming months will determine whether NASA can thread an exceptionally tight needle: awarding a politically charged contract, keeping competitors from clogging the process with protests, hitting a rigid planetary launch window, and deciding just how much science — if any — actually makes it aboard.
Written by Alius Noreika