Energy sustainability and redundancy for surface habitats, life support systems and scientific instrumentation represent one of the highest-priority issues for future crewed missions to Mars. However, power sources utilized for the current class of robotic missions to Mars may be potentially dangerous near human surface habitats (for example, nuclear) or lack stability on diurnal or seasonal timescales (for example, solar) that cannot be easily compensated for by power storage. Here, we evaluate the power potential for wind turbines as an alternative energy resource on the Mars surface. Using a state-of-the-art Mars global climate model, we analyse the total planetary Martian wind potential and calculate its spatial and temporal variability. We find that wind speeds at some proposed landing sites are sufficiently fast to provide a stand-alone or complementary energy source to solar or nuclear power. While several regions show promising wind energy resource potential, other regions of scientific interest can be discarded based on the natural solar and wind energy potential alone. We demonstrate that wind energy compensates for diurnal and seasonal reductions in solar power particularly in regions of scientific merit in the midlatitudes and during regional dust storms. Critically, proposed turbines stabilize power production when combined with solar arrays, increasing the percent time that power exceeds estimated mission requirements from ~40% for solar arrays alone to greater than 60–90% across a broad fraction of the Mars surface. We encourage additional study aimed at advancing wind turbine technology to operate efficiently under Mars conditions and to extract more power from Mars winds.

1. Nature Astronomy
natureastronomy
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
Article
Assessmentofwindenergyresource
potentialforfuturehumanmissionstoMars
V. L. Hartwick 1
, O. B. Toon2,3
, J. K. Lundquist2,4,6
, O. A. Pierpaoli 5
&
M. A. Kahre 1
Energysustainabilityandredundancyforsurfacehabitats,lifesupport
systemsandscientificinstrumentationrepresentoneofthehighest-priority
issuesforfuturecrewedmissionstoMars.However,powersources
utilizedforthecurrentclassofroboticmissionstoMarsmaybepotentially
dangerousnearhumansurfacehabitats(forexample,nuclear)orlack
stabilityondiurnalorseasonaltimescales(forexample,solar)thatcannot
beeasilycompensatedforbypowerstorage.Here,weevaluatethepower
potentialforwindturbinesasanalternativeenergyresourceontheMars
surface.Usingastate-of-the-artMarsglobalclimatemodel,weanalysethe
totalplanetaryMartianwindpotentialandcalculateitsspatialandtemporal
variability.Wefindthatwindspeedsatsomeproposedlandingsitesare
sufficientlyfasttoprovideastand-aloneorcomplementaryenergysourceto
solarornuclearpower.Whileseveralregionsshowpromisingwindenergy
resourcepotential,otherregionsofscientificinterestcanbediscarded
basedonthenaturalsolarandwindenergypotentialalone.Wedemonstrate
thatwindenergycompensatesfordiurnalandseasonalreductionsinsolar
powerparticularlyinregionsofscientificmeritinthemidlatitudesand
duringregionalduststorms.Critically,proposedturbinesstabilizepower
productionwhencombinedwithsolararrays,increasingthepercenttime
thatpowerexceedsestimatedmissionrequirementsfrom~40%forsolar
arraysalonetogreaterthan60–90%acrossabroadfractionoftheMars
surface.Weencourageadditionalstudyaimedatadvancingwindturbine
technologytooperateefficientlyunderMarsconditionsandtoextractmore
powerfromMarswinds.
Future crewed missions to Mars will require sustained sources of
energy,includingsolar,nuclearandwind.Siteselectionandriskassess-
ment strategies must critically assess the available energy resources
on both long-term and shorter diurnal and seasonal timescales. The
drivingprinciplebehindsiteselectionforhumanmissionstoMarsthus
farhascentredaroundphysicalresourceallocationand,inparticular,
the surface or near-surface availability of water ice and the distribu-
tion of volcanic lava tubes that can serve as long-term habitats. Man-
datesto‘followthewater’and‘findshelter’directattentiontoregions
with evidence of surface liquid water as in recurring slope lineae in
the Valles Marineris, Mawrth Vallis and midlatitudes1–3
, close to large
near-subsurfaceicedepositsasintheNorthernHemispherepolarand
Received: 31 March 2022
Accepted: 31 October 2022
Published online: xx xx xxxx
Check for updates
1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA, USA. 2
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. 3
Laboratory of Atmospheric and Space Physics, Boulder, CO, USA. 4
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. 5
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington-Seattle, Seattle, WA, USA. 6
Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Institute, Boulder, CO, USA. e-mail: victoria.hartwick@nasa.gov

2. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
the use of wind power as an additional energy resource for future
human missions to Mars.
Wind energy has historically been disregarded as an alternative
energyresourceduetoMars’lowatmosphericdensity,whichreduces
the force associated with winds of all magnitudes by approximately
99% compared with Earth. A recent study by ref. 14
examined the wind
powerpotentialassociatedwithwindsattheVikingLander2siteduring
the1977bglobalduststorm.Theyconcludedthatlowenergeticyields
fromsimpleturbineswouldruleoutwindenergyasaprimaryoreven
secondarybackuppowerresource.However,siteselectionformissions
with the most reliable wind measurements (for example, the Viking
and Insight landers) have prioritized quiescent environments with
lowwindspeedsthatwouldotherwisecomplicatelandingoperations
orcontributetoinstrumentnoise15,16
.Toevaluatetheimpactofhigher
wind speeds, for example along crated rims or at higher altitudes,
other studies have assessed power production by a fixed wind speed
distribution bounded by theorized Martian minimum and maximum
wind speeds16–21
. However, static wind fields do not capture critical
diurnal and seasonal variability that would augment the local power
potentialorcomplementtime-varyingsolarenergy.Withoutacurrent
orforthcomingglobalnetworkofsurfacewindspeedmeasurements,
globalclimatemodels(asusedinthisresearch)providethebestoppor-
tunity to assess the impact on potential wind power yields of varying
topography, surface thermal properties, seasonal and diurnal solar
heatinganddustopacity.
In recent years, there has been an increased focus on methods to
efficientlyextractpowerfromlow-velocitywindfields21–27
andmaintain
turbine operations in extreme environments28,29
. Both factors favour
midlatitudes4–8
orwithinlarge-scalemagmadepositssuchasalongthe
Tharsis volcanic plateaus9,10
.
However,regionsofscientificinterestorwiththegreatestdiver-
sityofphysicalresourcesmaynotoverlapwithregionswiththehigh-
est energy production potential. The very characteristics that make
the current class of proposed landing sites or regions attractive,
including their geology, theorized mineralogical history and avail-
ability of local resources, often limit traditional energy resources.
Solar energy requires that a sufficient proportion of solar radiation
reachestheplanetarysurfaceonaper-Marsday(sol)basis.Available
solar power varies with time of day, season and latitude. If potential
landingsitesmovepoleward,wherewatericedepositsaremoreread-
ily available, the seasonal variability of solar energy increases and
the need for a secondary energy resource is amplified. During dust
events, atmospheric optical depths (a measure of the attenuation of
light transmitted through the atmosphere) can reach prohibitively
highvalues>10invisiblewavebands11
andgreatlyreducesolarenergy
on short to multi-sol timescales12
. Dust accumulation on solar cells
will further decrease efficiency (by ~0.2–2% per sol13
based on lander
and rover histories). Solar energy is further limited by time of day;
solarcellsarenotoperationalduringnighttimehours,whilemission
and life support systems remain critical. Remediation of seasonal
and shorter-term, multi-sol power outages with nuclear power has
its own risks, such as the safety of nuclear devices near human set-
tlements and long-term waste disposal. If mission plans prioritize
localphysicalresourcesandscientificinterestabovetheoreticalsolar
energy yields, and if power storage is limited, engineering multiple
redundantenergysourceswillbecritical.Inthisresearchwepropose
30
0
Latitude
–30
–60
60
120
100
80
(W
m
–2
)
60
40
20
0
140
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
3.5
240
180
60 120 300 240
180
60 120 300
50 m Wind:Solar
50 m
5 m
Longitude
30
0
Latitude
–30
–60
60
240
180
60
0 20 40 60 80
(W m–2
)
100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80
(W m–2
)
100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80
(W m–2
)
100 120 140
120 300
Longitude
240
180
60 120 300
Longitude
240
180
60 120 300
Longitude
Longitude
30 m 100 m
a b
e
c d
Fig.1|Windpowerpotentialvarieswithaltitudeabovethesurface.At50 m
theratioofwindtosolarpowercanexceed1. a,Annualaverage(MY24)wind
powerdensity(W m−2
)atthereferencealtitudeforourbaseturbine,50 mabove
thesurface.b,Theratioofwindtosolarpower,alsoat50 m.Solidcontoursinall
panelsshowsurfacetopography.Forreference,(c)–(e)showthesamemapfor
threeotheraltitudes(5 m(c),30 m(d)and100 m(e),respectively).

3. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
a Martian application. At the same time, a greater number of options
for turbine types (for example, vertical-axis and airborne or balloon
turbines), hub heights and sizes are available. These options provide
flexibility depending on the energetic requirements for individual
missionsandengineeringconsiderationsfortransportationandinsitu
assembly. It is beyond the scope of this work to assess the ultimate
feasibilityofturbinetransport,insituconstructionandoperationson
Mars; rather, we intend this article to serve as a proof of concept. We
encourage future work on this topic, including in-depth engineering
studiesthatreduceturbineweightandmaximizeefficiency.Weexplore
specificengineeringuncertaintiesrelatedtotransportandoperation
onMarsintheSupplementaryInformation.
In this paper, we use a state-of-the-art Mars global climate
model (GCM) to assess the planetary wind power potential and its
short-term and seasonal variability using two basic metrics: the wind
power density (WPD) and the power generated by specific analogue
turbines. The WPD represents the maximum possible power produc-
tion per unit area for an idealized or 100% efficient turbine. The WPD
has the added benefit of being technology agnostic and therefore
remainsusefulasturbinetechnologycontinuestoadvance.Addition-
ally, the WPD is the most straightforward tool to help compare wind
and solar energy without complicating considerations of array or
turbine size and efficiency. We also calculate the power return from
a medium-scale base turbine, the Enercon E33, and three additional
turbines ranging from microscale to industry scale. We compare the
turbine power generation alone and in combination with a theoreti-
cal solar array to the hypothesized power requirements for a crewed
missiontoMars.Weevaluatethesurfacedistributionandseasonality
of these metrics and identify potential regions of interest for future
landing sites.
Ls = 80−100°, NH summer solstice Ls = 170−190°, NH fall equinox
Ls = 260−280°, NH winter solstice Ls = 350−10°, NH spring equinox
Longitude Longitude
120
100
80
(W
m
–2
)
60
40
20
0
140
120
120
100
80
(W
m
–2
)
60
60
40
20
0
140
240 300
180 120
60 240 300
180
120
100
80
(W
m
–2
)
60
40
20
0
140
120
100
80
(W
m
–2
)
60
40
20
0
140
30
0
Latitude
–30
–60
60
30
0
Latitude
–30
–60
60
b
a
d
c
120
60
80
80
60
80
40
40
20
100
120
120
1
4
0
140
80
60
60
40
20
20
20
100
120 120
60
100
40
40
80
80
60
40
0
20
40
20
0
140
160
160
180
140
140
120
120
120
140 160
180
180
140
140
100
100
100
Fig.2|Windpowerdensityexceedssolarpowerdensityparticularlyinthe
winterhemispheremid-topolarlatitudes.Seasonalwindpowerdensity
(W m−2
)at50 mfortheMarscardinalseasonsin20°Ls bins,atNHsummersolstice
(a),NHfallequinox(b),NHwintersolstice(c)andNHspringequinox(d).Solid
contoursshowthesurfacesolarpowerdensity(W m−2
)forthesameseason
(increasingfrombluetoyellowbetween0and180 W m−2
withastepof20 W m−2
).
Solarpowervarieslatitudinallywithseason.Baroclinicwaveactivityadjacentto
thewinterpolarvortexacceleratesatmosphericwindspeedswhensolarenergy
yieldsaredepleted.NH,NorthernHemisphere.
a b
WPD
60
30
0
–30
–60
60 120 180 240
Longitude
–180 –120 –60 0 60 120
(W m–2
)
180 240 300 360 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40
(W m–2
)
60 –5.0 –2.5 0 2.5 5.0
300 60 120 180 240
Longitude
300 60 120 180 240
Longitude
300
Latitude
SPD c Dust optical depth
Fig.3|Windenergyincreasesduringglobalduststormswhilesolarpowerisreduced.Differenceinwindpowerdensity(WPD)(a),solarpowerdensity(SPD)(b)
anddustopticaldepth(c)foraglobalduststormyear(MY28)minusanon-globalduststormyear(MY24)atperihelion(Ls = 260°–280°).

4. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
WPDdemonstratesthemaximumavailableenergy
Windpower(W m−2
)isproportionaltoatmosphericdensityρ(kg m−3
)
andwindspeed(u)cubed((m s−1
)3
)(equation(1)).Marshasathinatmos-
phere and, in general, weaker winds than on Earth. As a result, power
return from any wind-based energy system will be proportionally
less. For the same wind speed, the Mars WPD will be ~1% of the Earth
WPD, due to the large difference in atmospheric density, as given by
equation (1). Figure 1 shows the annual average WPD at 5, 30, 50 and
100 mforanon-duststormyear.Ingeneral,windspeedsincreasewith
height,andthereforethepowerpotentialincreasesastheturbinehub
height(altitudeoftheturbineblades)increasesfromaglobalaverage
of 6 W m−2
at 5 m to 55.7 W m−2
at 100 m. Wind turbines on Earth have
hubheightsashighas100–150 m;however,engineeringortransport
restrictionswilllikelylimitthemaximumhubheightonMars.Wethere-
fore choose a moderate hub height altitude of 50 m, an average hub
height for medium-scale turbines. For power calculations that use
turbine-specificpowercurves(SupplementaryData1–4),wevaryhub
height from 5 to 100 m to match individual turbine specifications:
WPD =
1
2
ρu3
(1)
At all altitudes, baroclinic wave activity drives high wind speeds
associatedwiththewinterhemispherepolarvortexandthedescend-
ingbranchoftheseasonalHadleycirculation.Baroclinicwavestravel
towards the equator and summer hemisphere through north/south
topographicchannels.Asaresult,theWPDishighestalongregionswith
largetopographicgradients,suchasalongcraterrimsandthroughout
the volcanic highlands. Wind power is similarly enhanced in regions
with high thermal variability. During Northern Hemisphere winter,
winds blow from cooler surface ice deposits to warm regolith. This
effect,analogoustoa‘seabreeze’,maybeparticularlyimportantatpro-
posed high-latitude sites adjacent to seasonal ice deposits. In several
locations,theannualaveragewindpowerexceedsavailablesolarpower
byupto3.4times(Fig.1e).Whilethe50 mMarsannualaverageWPDis
low (typically less than 100 W m−2
, global average 31 W m−2
), on short
timescales and in some locations, the instantaneous WPD is greater
than1,000 W m−2
for~10%oftheMarsyearandcanexceed3,000 W m−2
(<1%ofyear,SupplementaryTable1).Largevaluesmustbeconsidered
inthecontextofoverallresourcestability,whichisusedasacriterion
fortheidentificationofpotentialsitesofinterestlaterinthisstudy.
The WPD represents the upper bound of available power; sites
that are discarded based on the available WPD should be eliminated
regardlessofpotentialturbinetype.
Windpowervariability
TemporalaveragingusedtoproducetheannualaverageWPDmasksthe
predictedresourcepotentialinregionswithlargeseasonaland/ordiur-
nalvariability.Figure2andSupplementaryVideo1showthewindand
solar power density at the Mars cardinal seasons. We draw particular
attentiontothepotentialsolarandwindenergyyieldsinthepolarand
midlatitudes in the solstitial winter hemispheres. When solar energy
isseasonallyreduced(Fig.2a,c),windenergyrepresentsanimportant
energy backup. Fortuitously, when wind energy is potentially most
important, wind energy yields are also at their highest—for example,
asalongtheHellas(42.74° S,70.5° E)andArgyre(49° S,318° E)impact
basinsatthesolarlongitude90°(Ls ~90°,timeofthenorthernsummer
solstice) and northwards of approximately 40° N latitude at Ls ~270°
(northernwintersolstice).Intheseregions,theseasonalaveragewind
powerregularlyexceeds100 W m−2
,whilesolarpowerisreducedtoval-
uesbelow25–50 W m−2
.Todemonstratethisseasonalcyclingbetween
solarandwindpower,weplotthewindin5°longitudebandsandzonal
average solar power versus time at several latitudes (Supplementary
Fig.1).Windpowermorethancompensatesforreducedsolarpowerin
thewinterhemisphere.ReductionsintheSouthernHemispheresolar
power between Ls ~220° and 240° are associated with regional storm
activity (Supplementary Fig. 1d,e).
During global dust storm years, higher atmospheric dust levels
are positively correlated with greater wind power production, as we
show with explicit calculations summarized in Fig. 3. At the time of
the most intense dust storm activity (Ls = 260°–280°), wind power in
MarsYear(MY)28(aglobalduststormyear)exceedsMY24(atypical,
non-global dust storm year) wind power production by greater than
60 W m−2
onaverageandbyupto300 W m−2
.Thiselevatedwindpower
occurs simultaneously with an approximate 25 W m−2
(22%) global
decrease in solar power due to high atmospheric dust opacity. The
extent to which turbines remain efficient if dust accumulates during
localstormsrequiresadditionalstudy29
.
0 40 80 120
(W m–2
)
160 200
(W m–2
)
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0
60 120 180 240
Longitude
300 60 120 180 240
Longitude
300 60 120 180 240
Longitude
300
60
30
0
–30
–60
Latitude
a
Nighttime wind Daytime wind Night:Day
b c
Fig.4|Windpowerisgreatestatnightwhensolarpowerisataminimum. a–c,Annualaveragenighttime(17–8LT)(a)anddaytime(8–17LT)(b)windpower
density,andtheirratio(c).

5. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
The most fundamental limitation for solar power development
is its diurnal variability. If excess energy cannot be easily stored, then
power redundancies during nighttime hours will be required. Wind
energy is particularly suited to address this problem because winds
on Mars are generally fastest at dawn and dusk. In Fig. 4, we show the
annual average day and night WPD and the ratio. Night is defined in
our simulations as local time (LT) 17–8; one Mars hour is calculated
by dividing the Mars sol into 24 equal segments of 3,696 s. Nighttime
windpowerexceedstheavailabledaytimewindenergybyuptoafac-
tor of 53.9 and on average by a factor of ~2. Supplementary Fig. 2 and
SupplementaryVideo2showtheannualaveragesolarandwindpower
density in one-Mars-hour intervals. Solar power exceeds 140 W m−2
duringdaytimehours(~8–17LT),whilewindpowermaximizesatnight
(~17–8 LT). Wind power could be a valuable resource, particularly at
night, during local and global dust events and seasonally in the mid-
latitudesandpolarregions.
EnerconE33powerandenergycalculations
The degree to which power production will depart from the WPD or
theoreticalmaximumdependsonboththeturbineefficiencyandthe
areasweptbyitsblades(equation(2)).Here,ρistheatmosphericden-
sity,uisthewindspeedattheturbinehuborbladeheight,Aistherotor
sweptareaandCp isthewindspeed-dependentpowercoefficient30
.The
efficiency has an upper bound of 59%, the Betz limit, which is further
reduced by aerodynamic and engineering losses:
Power =
1
2
ρu3
CpA (2)
To account for turbine-specific engineering with complex effi-
ciency factors that shift energy production from equation (2) (for
example, at different wind speeds), turbine documentation includes
themeasuredpowercurve.Thepowercurveprovidestheanticipated
power return in wind speed bins at standard sea-level conditions
(Supplementary Data 1–4). Power curves are unique to each turbine
and consider variations of the power coefficient with wind speed, as
wellasthresholdwindspeedsrequiredtoinitiate(cutin)andstop(cut
off) energy production. Simulated wind speeds are corrected based
on the relative air density and therefore wind-generated force before
being used as inputs for power curves (equation (3)). This density
adjustment is common practice for high-altitude sites on Earth and
follows the International Electrotechnical Commission Standard31
.
While additional factors may need to be considered under Martian
conditions (for example, blade dynamics in a low-Reynolds-number
atmosphere), power curves represent a meaningful improvement
over theoretical power yields that are highly generalizable but often
inaccurate. For example, many turbines have higher operational effi-
ciency at wind speeds below the rated wind speed32
(Supplementary
Data 3). Calculations using a constant efficiency factor (equation (2))
underpredictthepowergenerationatlowwindspeedsandoverpredict
the power generation at high wind speeds near the cut-off threshold
(Supplementary Fig. 3, purple curve versus blue curve). Here, we use
theEnerconE33powercurve,whichiscurrentlyusedattheRossIsland
WindFarm,ananaloguesiteforpresent-dayMars33
.Turbinespecifica-
tionsaresummarizedinSupplementaryTable2.
uadjusted = uoriginal × (
ρmars
ρearth
)
1
3
(3)
Theturbineenergeticyieldquantifiesthecumulativepowerpro-
duced over some amount of time (for example, per sol, seasonally or
annually).SupplementaryFig.4showstheannualenergyproduction
(AEP), or the total power at each location summed over the duration
oftheMarsyear.Valuesinregionswithhighwindpotentialexceed1.6
GWh (2,589 kWh per sol), while the global average equals 0.169 GWh
(959.96 kWh per sol). While this value is small compared to the aver-
age energy generated by an Earth turbine (~27,715 kWh per day34
), it
comparesfavourablywithexpectedenergyproductionbysolararrays,
60 120 180 240
Longitude
>2.2 kW >14.2 kW >24 kW ROIs
300
–6
–3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
(km)
60
30
0
–30
–60
Latitude
Fig.5|Regionswherewindenergycouldprovidepowerforhumanmissions.
Redsquaresshowregionsthatproduce5-soldiurnalaveragepowerlevelsgreater
than24 kWcontinuouslythroughayear.Bluetrianglesshowregionsthatcould
powerthelifesupportsystems(greaterthan14.2 kW).Openblackcirclesshow
regionsthatcouldpowerscientificinstrumentation(>2.2 kW)36
.Solidblue
circlesshowproposedlandingsitesfromtheNASAHLS2Workshop.Contour
linesshowregionswheretheannualmeanwindpowerproductionisgreater
than14.2(orange)and24 kW(blue).Filledcontoursshowthetopography(see
SupplementaryData5).

6. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
whichgenerateaglobalaverageof0.775GWhfora2,500m2
arraywith
Cp = 0.2 (ref. 35
) (equation (4)), as well as estimates for human mission
energyrequirements(576–840kWhpersol36
).Wecomparetheglobal
wind and solar AEP and approximate solar panel array dimensions
requiredtogeneratethesametotalannualenergyateachlocation.In
regions with the highest wind AEP, solar arrays need to exceed 7,000
m2
tomatchthehighestAEP.TomatchtheaverageAEPwouldrequire
solararraysizesgreaterthan600m2
.SupplementaryFig.5showsthe
MY28windandsolarAEP.
IntheSupplementaryInformation,weexplorethetimingofpower
generation—for example, continuously or intermittently (turbine
loadduration).Wealsodiscussthepoweroutputfromfouradditional
turbines,scalingfrommicro-toindustryscale(alternativeturbines).
PotentialROIforfuturehumanmissionstoMars
Windenergywillonlybeusefulifitcanbeproducedinregionsthatare
attractive for future human missions. Considerable work has already
beendonetoidentifypotentialhumanlandingsitesbasedongeology,
resource potential and engineering limitations. The NASA Human
Landing Site Study (HLS2) identified 50 potential regions of interest
(ROI) based on these criteria. The study did not consider the energy
availabilityofeachregionbeyondcoarselatituderestrictionstoavoid
polar night or excessive terrain shading that would limit agricultural
development.
Numerousstudieshaveadditionallyassessedtheenergyrequire-
ments for human missions of varied size and duration. The most
comprehensive of these studies36
calculates a 24–35 kW surface sys-
tem power requirement to support a six-crew, 500-sol mission. Red
squares in Fig. 5 (Supplementary Data 5) show locations where the
diurnal average wind power produced by the Enercon E33 turbine
in MY24 exceeds this limit at all simulated times. At these locations,
wind energy is theoretically sufficient to power the entire mission
on its own. Any human mission to Mars will include multiple redun-
dantenergysources,includingsolarandnuclear.Wesimilarlyassess
regions of the planet where our base turbine could power different
portionsofthemission—forexample,thesurfacehabitatandlifesup-
portsystems(12.1–17.258 kW)orscientificinstrumentation(2.2 kW)36
.
Theselocationsarewellsuitedforwindenergydevelopment,butneed
Wind Solar, 2,500 m2 Solar + Wind
a b c
d
30
0
Latitude
Latitude
Longitude
–30
–60
60
Longitude
120
60 240 300
180
Longitude
ROI
120
60 240 300
180
Longitude
120
60 240 300
180
80
70
60
50
Percentage
of
year
40
30
20
10
90
60
–60
0
>65% of year, Solar + Wind >40% of year, Wind
ROI New ROI
Crater ROI
>40% of Ls
= 270°, Wind >40% of Ls
= 90°, Wind
60 120 180 240 300 360
–90
0
30
–30
90
Fig.6|Weidentify13newpotentialregionsofinterest. a–c,Thepercentage
oftimeovertheMarsyearthatpowergenerationexceeds24 kWbasedon
productionfromtheEnerconE33turbine(a),atheoreticalsolararraywith
efficiencyfactor0.2andatotalareaof2,500 m2
(b)andboththeturbineand
solararray(c).d,Regionswherewindpowerexceeds24 kWformorethan40%
oftheMarsyear(orangecontours)orseason(Ls = 90°lightorange,Ls = 270°
purple).Greycontoursshowregionswherethecombinedsolarandwindpower
exceeds24 kWformorethan65%oftheMarsyear.Blackandwhiteboxesshow
newlyidentifiedROI.YellowcirclesshowROIthathavebeenspecificallyflagged
forfutureworkbasedonouranalysis(SupplementaryTable4).Bluecirclesshow
craterROIthatmayhavesubstantialtopographic-inducedwindsandshouldbe
studiedathigherresolution.ThebackgroundimageshowsresultsfromtheNASA
SubsurfaceWaterIceMapping2.0GlobalProductsdatarelease8
.Blueregions
indicateice1–5 mbelowthesurface.

7. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
furtherstudytoassesstheirscientificmerit,resourceaccessibilityand
engineering or landing site limitations.
Themajoradvantageofwindenergyisitsavailabilityasacomple-
menttosolarduringglobalduststorms,seasonallyinthewintermid-to
high latitudes or at night (Supplementary Fig. 6). At winter solstices,
windenergyisavaluableresourceparticularlynearthepolesandmid-
latitudes.Theincreaseinlocationswithhighwindenergyisinpartdue
tothereducedtimeperiodoverwhichtheenergyresourceisrequired
tostaystable(here,~50solsor20°Ls comparedwithFig.5,whichcovers
theentireMarsyear).Elevatedenergylevelsinthewinterhemisphere
correspond to seasonally enhanced wind speeds. Many sites at these
latitudeshavebeendismissedduetosolarenergeticlimitationsduring
polarnight.Wedemonstratethatiftheavailabilityofwateroutweighs
otherchallenges,windenergycouldactasthedominantenergysource
when solar energy is seasonally depleted, opening a large fraction of
the polar landscape to human exploration. Similarly, wind energy
resourcesmaximizeatnightwhensolarenergyisatitsminimum.
To demonstrate the combined resource potential from solar and
wind,weshowinFig.6a–cthepercentageoftimeovertheMarsyearthat
powergenerationexceeds24kWbasedonproductionfromtheEnercon
E33turbineandatheoreticalsolararray.Wecalculatesolarpowerusing
asolarpanelefficiencyfactorof0.2,atthehighendoftherangeforcom-
mercialtechnology35
,notaccountingforreductionsinefficiencydueto
surfacedustaccumulation,whichcanexceed89%(ref.37
).Simulatedsolar
arrayshaveatotalareaof2,500m2
basedonthe2017NASASmallBusiness
InnovationResearchsolicitation38
,butmaybesmaller32,39
(Supplemen-
tary Fig. 7). Solar arrays of this size generate the requisite power about
40% of the time in a broad zonal band from ~60° S to 60° N. This makes
sensebecausesolarpowerisunavailableatnight(~50%ofthetime)and
isfurtherreducedinthewinterhemisphereandduringlocaldustevents.
The Enercon E33 generates power with equivalent or greater stability
(>24 kW for 30%–50% of the year), but peaks are more highly localized.
Combinedpercentagescanexceed90%,whichindicatesthatwindpower
ismostactivewhensolarpowerisreduced,ratherthangeneratinguseful
butredundantpoweratthesametimesofthedayandyear.
Basedonthesemetrics,weidentifyfavourablelocationsforwind
energydevelopmentonitsownandasacomplementtoseasonallyand
diurnally varying solar output. Of the 50 ROI identified in the HLS2, a
single Enercon E33 turbine at Deuteronilus Mensae 2 (35° N, 23° E),
Protonilus Mensae (38° N, 48° E) and Ismenius Lacus (29° N, 17° E)
could produce 24 kW more than 35% of the year (and >75% of the year
when combined with solar power) and therefore represent the most
attractivesitesfromawindresourceperspective.Afurthersevensites
generatesubstantialwindenergyseasonallyandcontributemorethan
50% of the total power generation either in the winter hemisphere or
in the dusty Southern Hemisphere at Ls = 270°. Supplementary Table
4 highlights ROIs from the HLS2 that represent the best candidates
for wind energy development. We note that if wind power is used to
maintainpowerforscientificinstrumentation(2.2 kW)36
,onlytenROI
areexcludedbya50%seasonalwindpowertimerequirement.Wealso
identifyseveralnewbroadROIforhumanexplorationthatgeneratethe
missionenergyrequirements>40%ofthetime(or>65%ofthetimewith
solar) annually or seasonally, and therefore compensate for reduced
solaroutput.FindingsareshowninFig.6d.
Conclusion
Wind energy represents a valuable but previously dismissed energy
resource for future human missions to Mars, which will be useful as
a complementary energy source to solar power. Wind is particularly
valuablewhensolarpowerisreduced,suchasatnighttime,duringlocal
or large-scale dust events and at higher latitudes that are attractive
due to their proximity to water resources but that experience large
seasonalvariabilityinsolarpower.GCMstudiesthatcapturethewind
field’sseasonalanddiurnalvariabilityenableacomprehensiveprobing
of the global wind resource potential and aid in the identification or
exclusionofpotentiallandingsitesforfuturehumanmissions.Wefind
thatwindpowerrepresentsastable,sustainedenergyresourceacross
large portions of the Mars surface. Based on wind energy analysis, we
identify 13 new ROI for human exploration of Mars and highlight ten
ofthe50previouslyidentifiedHLS2ROIthathavegoodwindresource
potential.ThebestcandidatesareDeuteronilusMensae2(35° N,23° E),
Protonilus Mensae (38° N, 48° E) and Ismenius Lacus (29° N, 17° E).
Methods
Summary of global climate model set-up
We use the new NASA Ames Mars GCM, which couples the National
OceanicandAtmosphericAdministrationGeophysicalFluidDynamics
Laboratory cubed-sphere finite volume dynamical core with physics
packages from the NASA Ames Legacy model described in refs. 40,41
.
Simulations are performed with 1 × 1-degree resolution and 30 verti-
calatmosphericlevelsbetween724and0.35 Pa.Theverticalpressure
gridandcorrespondingaltitudesabovethesurfaceareshowninSup-
plementaryTable4.Themodelusestopographic,thermalinertiaand
albedo maps from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter and Viking and
MarsGlobalSurveyorThermalEmissionSpectrometerobservations,
respectively.Thesurfaceroughnessisfixedto0.01 m(ref.40
).Toassess
both wind and solar energy resources during a nominal background
dustcycle(MY24)andduringaglobalstorm(MY28),weusedustopac-
itymapsthatmatchtheobserveddustopticaldepthsfromMY24and
MY28 (Supplementary Fig. 8 (ref. 42
)). The model has been previously
validated by comparison with Mars Climate Sounder atmospheric
temperatureandsurfacepressureobservations(describedinref.43
).
Near-surface winds are strongly influenced by the local environ-
ment, including small-scale topography, surface thermal properties
andshort-termvariationstotheatmosphericthermalprofileanddust
heating.Asaresult,onecannotusesimpleanalyticwindspeedprofiles
toassesstheavailablepower.Manyoftheseprocessesoccurbelowthe
resolutionoftheGCMandarebestcapturedwithveryhigh-resolution
mesoscale models. However, we can broadly evaluate model perfor-
mancebycomparisonwithobservationsatlandingsiteswithrelatively
flat topography, which demonstrates the model’s ability to simulate
large-scale forcing and winds. Simulated wind speeds reproduce the
observed annual wind cycle at the Insight Lander (4.5° N, 135° E), the
mostrecentandcomprehensivesetofwindobservations(Supplemen-
tary Fig. 9 (ref. 44
)). For regions with more complex topography, as at
JezeroCrater,windsfollowtrendspredictedbyotherstate-of-the-art
MarsGCMs45
.Withoutamorecomprehensivedatasetofobservedwind
speeds on Mars, error estimation for simulated winds is non-trivial.
However, since the wind power scales with the wind speed cubed, the
potentialerroronthepredictedwindpowercanbelarge.Forexample,
a10%erroronthesimulatedwindstranslatestoa33%erroronthewind
powerdensity.Thisfurthermotivatestheuseofmesoscalemodelsfor
in-depthcharacterizationandenergyanalysisofpotentialROI.Future
missions that provide a network of meteorological stations would
furtherimproveourabilitytomorecarefullytestthemodel.
Calculationofwindpowerdensityandturbine-specific
poweroutput
Diagnostic variables including atmospheric temperature and zonal
and meridional wind fields are calculated every 15 min and averaged
over 5 sols in one-Mars-hour (3,696 s) increments to capture diurnal
variability,andtheninterpolatedtoaltitudeabovethesurfacetoassess
poweroutputsathubheightsbetween5and100 mabovethesurface.
The wind power density and turbine power and energy calculations
use the wind speed (u) = (u2
z + u2
m)
0.5
, where uz is the zonal wind and um
is the meridional wind. One cannot use simple analytic wind speed
profiles to assess the available power. Because winds are so tightly
connected to varying atmospheric conditions (temperature, dust
heating,surfacetopographyandthermalproperties,planetarywaves
andthermaltides)thatcanvaryonshorttimescales,aGCMisthebest

8. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
waytoevaluatethepotentialWPDacrosstheplanetarysurfaceandits
seasonalanddiurnalvariability.
Tocalculatepoweroutputsfromindividualturbines(Supplemen-
taryTable2),weuseindustrypowercurves,whichmeasuretheturbine
poweroutputversuswindspeedatstandardatmospherictemperature
and pressure (Supplementary Data 1–4). Power curves account for
varyingturbineefficiencywithwindspeedandotherturbine-specific
engineering factors that impact the expected power output. Estima-
tions of available power using the power curve are therefore more
accurate than assessments using a theoretical turbine that assume a
constantefficiencyfactor.
DuetoMars’low-densityatmosphere,windsarelessforceful(and
thereforegeneratelesspower)thanwindsofthesamespeedonEarth.
To account for this difference, simulated wind speeds are first scaled
based on the relative atmospheric densities of Mars and Earth using
a simple wind speed transformation for high-altitude sites on Earth
(equation(3)(refs.29,31
)).TheadjustedwindspeedrepresentstheEarth
wind speed that would generate an equivalent force as the simulated
windonMarsandisusedastheinputforthepowercurve.So,forexam-
ple, a ~15 m s−1
wind on Mars generates the same equivalent force as a
3.9 m s−1
wind on Earth and therefore would produce 9 kW based on
thepowercurvefora330 kWturbine.Inthesamemanner,theturbine
cut-inwindspeed—thewindspeedatwhichpowerproductionbegins—
is shifted to higher wind speeds on Mars than on Earth. Assuming the
averageatmosphericdensities(0.2 kg m−3
forMarsand1.125 kg m−3
for
Earth),thedensity-adjustedcut-inwindspeedfortheEnerconE33wind
turbinewouldbe~4.45 m s−1
onMarscomparedto2.5 m s−1
onEarth.The
global annual average wind speed distribution and the adjusted wind
speed distribution are shown in Supplementary Fig. 3. The adjusted
wind speeds are used as inputs for the various power curves (Supple-
mentaryFig.3,solidlines).Inequation(3),ρearth = 1.125 kg m−3
.Because
Mars’ atmospheric density (ρmars) varies dramatically with location as
wellaswithtimeofyear,thewindspeedadjustmentisperformedatthe
highest output frequency (5-sol, hourly average) and uses simulated
densityfieldsthatvarybylocationandatmosphericlevel.
OurbaseturbineistheEnerconE33330 kWturbine46
.Additional
turbines discussed in the Supplementary Information scale from
small-scale,household-sizedturbines(20 kW)47
toindustrialturbines
(5 MW)48
. We also include an analysis of a microturbine, the Aeolos-V
300 W turbine49
. Wind turbine power curves, engineering specifica-
tions (hub height, weight, blade radius) and cut-in, rated and cut-off
windspeedsareprovidedbytechnicaldocumentation.
Comparisonwithsolarpower
Solar power for a theoretical solar array is estimated using equation
(4) (ref. 17
), where A is the total area of the solar panel array = 2,500 m2
(ref. 38
), ϕ is the solar power density or solar irradiance incident on a
horizontalsurface(W m−2
)andCp isthepanelefficiencyfactor.Forthis
study,Cp = 0.2.Thesolarirradianceiscalculatedwithinthemodeland
varies based on the cosine of the solar zenith angle, the total atmos-
phericcolumnandabsorptionandscatteringbyatmosphericgasand
aerosols41
. Future studies may consider inclined panels that would
increase the incident solar flux50
. The current work does not include
depletions in solar array efficiency due to dust accumulation. Taking
into account the proposed size of arrays (2,500 m2
in ref. 30
) and the
complexityandresourceexpenditureforastronautexcursionsoutside
ofthesurfacehabitat,webelieveperiodicdustclearingcouldrepresent
aconsiderabletimesink.However,itisoutsidethescopeofthispaper
tospeculateonthecostorrelativeeaseofspecifictasks.
Solar Power = A ϕ Cp (4)
Energeticyield
Theturbineenergeticyieldiscalculatedbysummingtheturbinehourly
powerproduction,P(kW),overaspecifieddurationoftime.Weinclude
amultiplicativefactorinequation(5)toconvertfromthemodeloutput
5-sol average to the total power production. For the annual energy
production,thepowerissummedovertheMarsyear.
Energetic Yield [kWh] = 5 ⋅ ∑P (5)
Turbineloadduration
Neither the WPD nor the AEP quantify the intermittency of power
production that will be critical for supporting long-term human mis-
sions. For example, two sites with the same AEP may generate energy
very differently: slowly over the entire year or in high-magnitude but
sporadic bursts. To better understand the stability of wind resources
over the Martian year, we calculate the power duration curves at pro-
posedlandingsites.
The power duration curve measures the percentage of time at
which a turbine is functioning at some percentage of its rated power.
Most turbines operate at varying capacity throughout the year. The
optimaloperationalcapacitywillvarywitheachturbine,siteandmis-
sion. For example, using a larger turbine with a higher-rated power
thatoperatesatalowercapacitymaybemoredesirableandultimately
generate more power than using a small turbine that operates near
capacity.Therefore,whenevaluatingpowerdurationinthiswork,we
focusonthedistributionofenergyproduction(forexample,smooth
orstochastic)ratherthantheexactcapacityfactor.
We show the global average annual and seasonal power duration
curves as well as the power duration curves at three potential land-
ing sites in Supplementary Fig. 10. The global average load duration
(SupplementaryFig.10a)isgenerallylow,operatingatlessthan~2–4%
capacity for 50% of the time. For the Enercon E33 wind turbine, this
translatestoanaverageoperationalpowerofapproximately10 kW.As
expected,loaddurationsvarysubstantiallywithseasonandlocation.At
ProtonilusMensae(38° N,48° E),aproposedlandingsiteintheNorth-
ernHemispheremidlatitudes,thecapacityfactorexceeds20%for~22%
oftheyearandincreasestoabove40%capacityfor9.66%and6.56%of
thetimeduringNorthernHemispherespringandfallequinoxes(Ls = 0°
and180°,respectively),whensolarpoweryieldsarereduced.Seasonal
curvesshowthetimeaverageover20°Ls orapproximately30–50 sols.
Power duration curves suggest that wind power generation occurs at
lowlevelsbutconsistentlyratherthansporadicallyovertheMarsyear.
This is critical because energy storage capabilities on Mars are still
limited. Consistent, low-power generation makes wind energy more
valuablethansubstantialenergyproductioninshort,sporadicbursts.
Alternativeturbines
Wind turbine power production will vary with turbine specifications,
including turbine hub height, blade area and engineering specifica-
tions,thatdeterminecut-in,cut-offandratedwindspeeds,aswellasthe
windspeed-dependentpowercoefficient.Todemonstratethisvariabil-
ity,weincludeanalysisofthreeadditionalturbines(seeSupplementary
Table 2 for a description of turbine hub height and rotor diameter).
The Jacobs 31-20 turbine is the smallest turbine considered here47
.
Its primary use is single-family, local residences or small-occupancy
powerneeds.Attheotherextreme,wealsoshowthepowerreturnofan
industry-standard5 MWturbineusedinoffshorewindfarmsonEarth
topowerlargeindustriesorpopulationcentres48
.Thelargestturbines
on Earth now produce up to 15 MW (ref. 51
). Each turbine has different
advantagesanddisadvantagesforoperationataninterplanetaryscale.
Forexample,theNationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory5 MWturbine
generatesthehighesttheoreticalpowerbyalargemargin;however,it
is also the largest and most difficult to transport, set up and maintain
onMars.
SupplementaryTable5liststheglobalaverageAEPforeachwind
turbine. As expected, smaller turbines with lower hub heights and
lesser-rated power produce less energy. Similarly, an industrial-scale

9. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
turbine such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 MW tur-
bine produces large amounts of energy nearly uniformly across the
entireMarssurface(SupplementaryFig.11).Thesmallestturbinesare
best suited to act as a backup power resource for solar arrays, while
larger turbines could act as independent power sources. The most
important takeaway is that even a small turbine will produce enough
energytopowersomeportionofahumanmissiontoMars.
Inadditiontolargeindustrialorhouseholdwindturbines,micro-
turbines could potentially act as auxiliary power for scientific instru-
ments or to recharge batteries. For example, we consider the power
required to maintain operation of the Opportunity Rover during the
2018 (MY34) global dust storm. On 6 July 2018, the solar flux incident
ontherover’spanelsfellbelowthethresholdrequiredtomaintaincom-
municationwiththerover(22 Wh)(~0.86 W)52
.Solarpanelpowergen-
erationremainedreducedforatleasttwomonthsfollowingthestorm
and recovery was ultimately impossible. This provides a unique test
formicrowindturbinesaspowerfailsafesforsolar-poweredmissions.
By contrast with crater landing sites for the MSL Curiosity and Mars
2020Perseverancerovers,thetopographicenvironmentofMeridiani
Planumlendsconfidencetothemodel’sabilitytosimulatewindswith
reasonableaccuracy.
The Aeolos-V turbine was selected based on its moderate weight
and low cut-in wind speed. In theory, it could be mounted directly on
therover,providingahubheightofapproximately5 m.Wesimulated
the 5 m power output of the Aeolos-V turbine at the mission end date
(Ls = 190.4°,MY34dustmap)andfounda5-soldiurnallyresolvedaver-
agepowerproductionof207 Wh(SupplementaryFig.12).Thisamount
ofenergywouldbesufficienttomaintaintheroverclock(butnotdrive)
throughthemostintenseperiodoftheduststormoruntilsolarpower
couldberestored.
Engineeringuncertaintiesandalternatives
Additional study is required to assess engineering restrictions on the
transport and construction of turbines on Mars, as well as the opera-
tionalefficiencyofturbinessubjecttoMars’extremeenvironment.We
provide a brief discussion here of potential engineering caveats that
couldimpactpotentialpowerreturnandmeritcloseconsiderationfor
futurestudies.First,transportofturbinestoMarsmayrequiresubstan-
tialweightreduction.Whiletheturbinenacellewouldlikelyneedtobe
constructedonEarth,bladesaretypicallycomposedoffibreglassand
thereforecouldpotentiallybefabricatedinsitu,substantiallyreducing
theoveralltransportedsizeandweight.Fabric-coveredbladeshavealso
beenproposed53
.However,insitumanufacturingandassemblywould
require additional equipment, including, for example, blade moulds
orframesandlarge-scaleexcavatorsorcranes.Someturbinecompo-
nents, including the tower, rotor hub, gearbox and frame, have been
constructedoutofaluminiumalloyversusthetraditionalsteel54,55
.The
useofalternativeturbinetypes(forexample,airborneorvertical-axis)
or placing turbines on rovers or crater rims would reduce the overall
heightoftowersandcouldthereforefurtherreducethetotalweight56
.
Tower foundations are typically composed of concrete with footing
depthsupto3.5 m(ref.57
).Whileconcretealternativesincludingaltered
Marsregolithcouldbeused58
,excavationequipmentwouldlikelyalso
needtobetransported.However,drillingequipmentcouldbeusedfor
multiplepurposes,includingaccessingsubsurfacewatericedeposits
at similar depths. Site planning for missions with multiple turbines
wouldneedtoevaluateoptimalturbinespacing,includingtheeffects
ofwake-inducedefficiencydegradation.OnEarth,thegeneralruleof
thumb is to space turbines greater than seven rotor diameters apart,
sofortheEnerconE33,thiswouldequatetoapproximately234 m.On
Mars,spacingwouldlikelybealteredduetoMars’thinneratmosphere
andlowReynoldsnumbers.
A major outstanding question for the application of this work is
theoperationalefficiencyandtechnicalviabilityofturbinessubjectto
Mars’environment.Forexample,weproposethatwindpowerwouldbe
particularlyvaluableasacomplementtosolarpoweratnightandinthe
winterhemispheremidlatitudesandpolarregions(asatAntarcticand
Arcticanaloguesites28
).However,astemperaturesfall,somefractionof
generatedpowermayneedtobeutilizedtowarmturbineelectronics.
Heatingmechanismsoralternativeturbinebladecoatingsthatreduce
icingmustalsobeconsidered59,60
.Similarly,variousfactorswillimpact
blade rotation dynamics and therefore power output, including the
operationofelectronics,lubricantsandrotatingpartsatverylowtem-
peratures,dustaccumulationinsideandabrasionofturbinemechanics
particularlyduringlocalduststorms29,61
anddensitydifferencesacross
theturbinebladelength.Weencouragefuturetestingofbothcurrently
available technology and/or newly developed, specialized turbines
in Mars wind tunnels or environmental chambers, as in refs. 18–21,62–64
,
includinggeneratingMars-specificpowercurvesthataccountforMars’
reducedgravity,lowatmosphericdensityandlowReynoldsnumbers.
For example, additional study is required to understand the chang-
ing lift and drag on turbine blades in laminar or transitional airflow
regimes associated with low-Reynolds-number atmospheres21
. Given
the success of previous missions to Mars, including instrumentation
measuringlocalmeteorologyatnight(forexample,theTWINSinstru-
mentonInsight)andtherecentsuccessfuldeploymentoftheMarsheli-
copter,Ingenuity,weareoptimisticabouttheengineeringprospects.
To illustrate the potential operating environment for wind turbines
on Mars, Supplementary Fig. 13 shows the temperature, dust optical
depth,densityandwindfieldsatDeuteronilusMensae2(35° N,23° E).
Dataavailability
ThedatathatsupportthefindingsofthisstudyareavailableonZenodo
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7246689).Sourcedataareprovided
withthispaper.
Codeavailability
Python scripts used to analyse data and generate figures in this
paper are available on Github (https://github.com/vhartwick/
Mars-Wind-Energy) with a copy deposited in Zenodo https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.7250530.ThisresearchalsomadeuseoftheMars
Climate Modeling Center Community Analysis Pipeline, available on
Github(https://github.com/alex-kling/amesgcm).
References
1. Stillman, D. E., Michaels, T. I., Grimm, R. I. & Harrison, K. P. New
observations of Martian southern mid-latitude recurring slope
lineae (RSL) imply formation by freshwater subsurface flows.
Icarus 223, 328–341 (2014).
2. Stillman, D. E., Micheals, T. I. & Grimm, R. E. Characteristics of the
numerous and widespread recurring slope lineae (RSL) in Valles
Marineris, Mars. Icarus 285, 195–210 (2017).
3. Bhardwaj, A., Sam, L., Martin-Torres, F. J. & Zorzano, M.-P.
Discovery of recurring slope lineae candidates in Mawrth Vallis,
Mars. Sci. Rep. 9, 2040 (2019).
4. Bramson, A. M. et al. Widespread excess ice in Arcadia Planitia,
Mars. J. Geophys. Res. 42, 6566–6574 (2015).
5. Mellon, M. T., Feldman, W. C. & Prettyman, W. C. The presence and
stability of ground ice in the Southern Hemisphere of Mars. Icarus
169, 324–340 (2004).
6. Dundas, C. M. et al. Widespread exposures of extensive clean
shallow ice in the midlatitudes of Mars. J. Geophys. Res. Planets
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JE006617 (2021).
7. Hibbard, S. M., Williams, N. R., Golombek, M. P., Osinki, G. R. &
Godin, E. Evidence for widespread glaciation in Arcadia Planitia,
Mars. Icarus 359, 114298 (2021).
8. Putzig, N. E. et al. in Handbook of Space Resources (eds Badescu,
V., Zacny, K. & Bar-Cohen, Y.) Ch. 18 (Springer Nature, 2023).
9. Perkins, S. Core concept: lava tubes as havens for ancient alien
life and future human explorers. PNAS 117, 17461–17464 (2020).

10. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
10. Esmaeili, S. et al. Resolution of lava tubes with ground penetrating
radar: the TubeX Project. J. Geophys. Res. Planets https://doi.org/
10.1029/2019JE006138 (2020).
11. Chen-Chen, H., Pérez-Hoyos, S. & Sánchez-Lavega, A. Dust
particle size, shape and optical depth during the 2018/
MY34 martian global dust storm retrieved by MSL Curiosity
rover navigation cameras. Icarus https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
icarus.2020.114021 (2021).
12. Appelbaum, J. & Landis, G. A. Photovoltaic arrays for Martian
surface power. Acta Astron 30, 127–142 (1993).
13. Lorenz, R. D. et al. Lander and rover histories of dust accumulation
on and removal from solar arrays on Mars. Planet. Space Sci. 207,
105337 (2021).
14. Schorbach, V. & Weiland, T. Wind energy as a backup energy
source for Mars missions. Acta Astron 191, 472–478 (2021).
15. Banerdt, W. B. et al. Initial results from the InSight mission on
Mars. Nat. Geosci. 13, 183–189 (2020).
16. Haslach, H. W. Jr Wind energy: a resource for a human mission to
Mars. JBIS 42, 171–178 (1989).
17. Delgado-Bonal, A., Martín-Torres, F. J., Vázquez-Martín, S. &
Zorzano, M.-P. Solar and wind exergy potentials for Mars. Geol.
Geophys. 102, 550–558 (2016).
18. James, G., Chamitoff, G. & Barker, D. Design and resource
requirements for successful wind energy production on Mars.
Paper presented at the Second International Mars Society
Convention, Boulder, CO, 1999. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.662.5775&rep=rep1&type=pdf
19. Lichter, M. D. & Viterna, L. A. Performance and feasibility
analysis of a wind turbine power system for use on Mars. Tech.
Rep. NASA/TM-1999-209390, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Glenn Research Center, 1999. https://ntrs.nasa.
gov/api/citations/19990081125/downloads/19990081125.pdf
20. Holstein-Rathlou, C. et al. Wind turbine power production under
current Martian atmospheric conditions. In: Mars Workshop on
Amazonian and Present Day Climate, 2086, 4004 (2018).
21. Kumar, V., Paraschivoiu, M. & Paraschivoiu, I. Low Reynolds
number vertical axis wind turbine for Mars. Wind Eng 34,
461–476 (2010).
22. Lee, J., Lee, K. & Kim, B. Aerodynamic optimal blade design and
performance analysis of 3-MW wind turbine blade with AEP
enhancement for low-wind-speed-sites. JRSE 8, 063303 (2016).
23. Fan, Z. & Zhu, C. The optimization and the application for the wind
turbine power-wind speed curve. Renew. Energy 140,
52–61 (2019).
24. Eisenhut, C., Krug, F., Schram, C. & Klockl, B. Wind-turbine model
for system simulations near cut-in wind speed. IEEE T. Energy
Conver 22, 414–420 (2007).
25. Kishore, R. A., Marin, A. & Priya, S. Efficient direct-drive
small-scale low-speed wind turbine. Energy Harvest. Syst. 1,
27–43 (2014).
26. Wright, A. K. & Hood, D. H. The starting and low wind speed
behaviour of a small horizontal axis wind turbine. J. Wind. Eng.
Ind. 92, 1265–1279 (2004).
27. Ajayi, O. O., Ojo, O. & Vasel, A. On the need for the development
of low wind speed turbine generator system. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth
Environ. Sci. 331, 012062 (2019).
28. Tin, T. et al. Energy efficiency and renewable energy under
extreme conditions: Case studies from Antarctica. Renew. Energy
35, 1715–1723 (2010).
29. Al-Khayat, M. et al. Performance analysis of a 10-MW wind farm
in a hot and dusty desert environments. Part 2: Combined dust
and high-temperature effects on the operation of wind turbines.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 47, 101461 (2021).
30. Manwell, J. F., McGowan, J. G. & Rogers, A. L. Wind Energy
Explained: Theory, Design and Application 2nd edn. (Wiley, 2002).
31. International Electrotechnical Commission. Wind turbines-power
performance measurements of electricity producing wind turbines.
Tech. Rep. IEC 61400-12-1 (IEC, 2005).
32. NASA SBIR 2018 Phase I Solicitation H5.01 Mars Surface Solar
Array Structures https://www.sbir.gov/node/1418573 (2018).
Accessed 2 February, 2022.
33. Forte, E. et al. Pressurized brines in continental Antarctica as a
possible analogue of Mars. Sci. Rep. 6, 33158 (2016).
34. Wiser, M. et al. Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition
(US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy, 2021). https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/
wind-market-reports-2021-edition
35. Mozumder, M. S., Mourad, A.-H. I., Pervez, H. & Surkatti, R.
Recent developments in multifunctional coatings for solar panel
applications: a review. Sol. Energy 189, 75–102 (2019).
36. Rucker, M. Integrated surface power strategy for Mars.
Paper presented at the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies
for Space, Albuquerque, NM, 2015. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/
citations/20150000526
37. Landis, G. A. Dust obscuration of Mars solar arrays. Acta Astronaut
38, 885–891 (1996).
38. NASA SBIR 2017 Phase I Solicitation H4.01 Mars Surface Solar
Array Structures. https://www.sbir.gov/node/1227185 (2017).
Accessed 2 February, 2022.
39. NASA SBIR 2019 Phase I Solicitation H6.01 Lunar Surface Solar
Array Structures. https://www.sbir.gov/node/1547861 (2019).
Accessed 2 February, 2022.
40. Kahre, M. A. et al. High resolution modeling of the dust and water
cycles with the NASA Ames Mars global climate model. American
Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2018 (2018).
41. Haberle, R. M. et al. Documentation of the NASA/Ames Legacy
Mars global climate model: simulations of the present seasonal
water cycle. Icarus 333, 130–164 (2019).
42. Montabone, L. et al. Eight-year climatology of dust on Mars. Icarus
251, 65–95 (2015).
43. Bertrand, T., Wilson, R. J., Kahre, M. A., Urata, R. & Kling, A.
Simulation of the 2018 global dust storm on Mars using the NASA
Ames Mars GCM: a multitracer approach. JGR Planets https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019JE006122 (2020).
44. Rodriguez-Manfredi, J. A. et al. InSight APSS TWINS Data
Product Bundle. NASA Planetary Data System https://doi.org/
10.17189/1518935 (2019).
45. Newman, C. E. et al. Multi-model meteorological and aeolian
predictions for Mars2020 and the Jezero Crater Region. Space
Sci. Rev. 217, 20 (2021).
46. Enercon E33-330. https://www.thewindpower.net/turbine_en_1_
enercon_e33-330.php. Accessed 3 February, 2022.
47. Jacobs Wind Electric 31-20. https://en.wind-turbine-models.
com/turbines/537-jacobs-wind-electric-31-20. Accessed
3 February, 2022.
48. Jonkman, J., Butterfield, S., Musial, W. & Scott, G. Definition of a
5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development.
Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-500-38060 (NREL, 2009). https://www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy09osti/38060.pdf
49. Aeolos. Aeolos-V vertical wind turbine brochure. https://
www.renugen.co.uk/content/micro_wind_turbine_brochures/
micro_wind_turbine_brochures/Aeolos%20Wind%20Turbine/
Aeolos-Aeolos-V-300w-300W-Wind-Trubine-Brohcure.pdf.
Accessed 3 February, 2022.
50. Appelbaum, J. & Flood, D. J. Solar radiation on Mars. Sol. Energy
45, 353–363 (1990).
51. SG 14-2222 DD Off-shore Wind Turbine (Siemens Gamesa
Renewable Energy, accessed 30 January 2022); https://www.
siemensgamesa.com/en-int/products-and-services/offshore/
wind-turbine-sg-14-222-dd

11. Nature Astronomy
Article https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4
52. Callas, J. L., Golombek, M. P. & Fraeman, A. A. Mars Exploration
Rover Opportunity End of Mission Report; National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, p 56 (JPL Publication, Pasadena, 2019);
http://hdl.handle.net/2014/47103
53. Bae, J.-S. et al. Preliminary study on a fabric-covered
wind turbine blade. In 2015 International Conference on
Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA)
1196–1200 (IEEE, 2015).
54. Ravikumar, S., Jaswanthvenkatram, V., Sai kumar, Y. J. N. V. & Md
Sohaib, S. Design and analysis of wind turbine blade hub using
aluminum alloy AA 6061-T6. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 197,
012044 (2017).
55. Okokpujie, I. P. et al. Implementation of multi-criteria decision
method for selection of suitable material for development of
horizontal wind turbine blade for sustainable energy generation.
Heliyon 6, e03142 (2020).
56. Dorminey, B. NASA eyes tiny wind turbines to power Martian
weather stations. Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/
brucedorminey/2020/08/30/nasa-eyes-tiny-wind-turbines-to-
power-martian-weather-stations/?sh=70949eb02c0d (2020).
57. Berndt, M. L. Sustainable Concrete for Wind Turbine Foundations.
BNL- 72488-2004-IR Informal Report (Energy Resources Division,
2004).
58. Hu, Z. et al. Research progress on lunar and Martian concrete.
Constr. Build. Mater. 343, 128117 (2022).
59. Shi, K. & Duan, X. A review of ice protection techniques for
structures in the Arctic and offshore harsh environments.
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 143, 064502 (2021).
60. Wei, K., Hongyan, Y. Y. & Zhong, Z. D. A review of ice detection
technology and ice elimination technology for wind turbine.
Wind Energy 23, 433–357 (2020).
61. Al-Dousari, A. et al. Solar and wind energy: Challenges and
solutions in desert regions. Energy 176, 184–194 (2019).
62. Veismann, M., Dougherty, C., Rabinovitch, R., Quon, A. & Gharib,
G. Low-density multi-fan wind tunnel design and testing for the
Ingenuity Mars Helicopter. Exp. Fluids 62, 193 (2021).
63. Anyoji, M. et al. Computational and experimental analysis of
a high-performance airfoil under low-Reynolds-number flow
condition. J. Aircr. 51, 1864–1872 (2014).
64. Dull, C., Wagner, L., Young, L. & Johnson, W. Hover and forward
flight performance modeling of the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter.
In VFS Aeromechanics for Advanced Vertical Flight Technical
Meeting, San Jose, CA (NASA, 2022); (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/
citations/20210026235/downloads/1529_Dull_123021.pdf
Acknowledgements
We thank C. St. Martin for suggestions during the initial
conceptualization of this project. Research was sponsored by
NASA through a contract with ORAU. The views and conclusions
contained in this document are those of the authors and should not
be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed
or implied, of NASA or the US government. The US government is
authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for government
purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein. This work
was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the US
Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308.
Funding was provided by the US Department of Energy Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind Energy Technologies
Office and by the National Offshore Wind Research and Development
Consortium under Agreement No. CRD-19-16351. The views expressed
in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the Department
of Energy or the US government. The publisher, by accepting the
article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains,
a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide licence to publish
or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do
so, for US government purposes. Additional funding for this research
was provided by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship, Grant No. 1144083 (V.L.H.), the NASA Postdoctoral
Fellowship Program (V.L.H.) through contracts with USRA and ORAU,
and the NASA Internship Program (O.A.P.).
Authorcontributions
V.L.H. was responsible for the conceptualization, experimental design
and primary investigation of the presented research. V.L.H. wrote
the original draft and generated visuals. Funding was provided by
V.L.H. O.B.T., J.K.L. and M.A.K. helped design the study methodology
and reviewed and edited the manuscript. O.A.P. assisted in the
investigation and visualization of work.
Competinginterests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additionalinformation
Supplementary information The online version
contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-022-01851-4.
Correspondence and requests for materialsshould be addressed
to V. L. Hartwick.
Peer review information Nature Astronomy thanks María-Paz Zorzano
and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the
peer review of this work.
Reprints and permissions informationis available at
www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with
the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited
2022