Mars is a dry, desert world devoid of any life (that we know of). But once upon a time, that wasn’t the case. Data collected by the robotic emissaries we’ve sent to explore the planet on our behalf indicate that the red planet was once a lush and wet world.
However, scientists are still trying to piece together Martian history to understand what happened to the planet’s water. While we know much of it was lost when the planet’s atmosphere was stripped away, what we don’t know is where the water originated from. Researchers uncovered a crucial clue in Martian meteorites found here on Earth.
“A lot of people have been trying to figure out Mars’ water history,” Jessica Barnes, an assistant professor of planetary sciences in the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, said in a statement. “Like, where did water come from? How long was it in the crust (surface) of Mars? Where did Mars’ interior water come from? What can water tell us about how Mars formed and evolved?”
Like the Earth, Mars is made of different layers: a crust, mantle, and a core. Meteorites, like the ones that fell to Earth, are made of the Martian crust, which can tell us a lot about the planet’s composition when the pieces are analyzed. According to a study published this week in Nature Geoscience, there could be at least two distinct reservoirs of ancient water lurking below the Martian surface. Each with its own (different) chemical signature.
This means that Mars probably never had a global ocean of magma beneath its surface like we do on Earth.
For this study, Barnes and her team looked for clues as to the Mars’ water history by analyzing the ratio of two types (isotopes) of hydrogen. They’re not the first to do so, but previous results have been very inconsistent.
To better understand how the planet formed and where its water came from, the researchers examined two different meteorites: a coin-sized sample known as Black Beauty (or NWA 7034), which formed when a huge impact cemented together various pieces of the Martian crust, and Allan Hills 84001 (ALH84001), a sample once thought to contain Martian microbes. The data shows that water comes from two different sources.
The team was searching for different isotopes of hydrogen — light hydrogen and heavy hydrogen — which can help trace the origin of water in rocks. (Isotopes are variations of chemical elements, with different numbers of neutrons.)
“Light hydrogen” contains one proton (and no neutrons) in its nucleus, whereas “heavy hydrogen,” also known as deuterium, contains one proton and one neutron in its core. The ratio of these two isotopes act like a fossil record of water, telling a planetary scientist its origin.
Here on Earth, protium (or light hydrogen) is the most abundant isotope. It’s found in the atmosphere, in rocks, and the ocean. On Mars, however, deuterium (heavy hydrogen) is the most abundant in the atmosphere, while Martian rocks contain a range of ratios from Earth-like to Mars-like.
To better understand the vast variation, Barnes and her team decided to focus on samples they knew came from the Martian crust — Black Beauty and Alan Hills. The team found that both samples interacted with water at different point in Mars’ history, but had similar isotope ratios, that was very similar to younger rocks analyzed by the Curiosity rover.
This data suggested a surprising result: that the chemical composition of that water hasn’t changed for nearly 4 billion years.
“Martian meteorites basically plot all over the place, and so trying to figure out what these samples are telling us about water in the mantle of Mars has historically been a challenge,” Barnes said.”The fact that our data for the crust was so different prompted us to go back through the scientific literature and scrutinize the data.”
So the team compared their results to previous isotope studies, where the meteorites originated in the Martian mantle. They discovered that the isotope ratios were consistent with two types of volcanic rock, known as shergottite, that’s found in the Martian mantle.
This means that the water within the meteorite samples came from two different sources. It also indicates that Mars lacked a global magma ocean, which would have made the mantle more consistent in its composition.
“These two different sources of water in Mars’ interior might be telling us something about the kinds of objects that were available to coalesce into the inner, rocky planets,” Barnes said.
Meaning two distinct planetary precursors with vastly different water contents could have collided, but never thoroughly mixed. And understanding how Mars formed is essential for understanding its past habitability and potential for life.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
