Asteroid 2024 YR4 now poses no significant threat to Earth
The latest telescopic observations have reduced the danger posed by 2024 YR4 to near-zero.
A small space rock named 2024 YR4 has been in the news a lot lately. Just after it was discovered, it soared to the top of NASA's Sentry table, which lists all known asteroids with any chance of hitting Earth sometime in the future, no matter how small that chance is.
Not only did 2024 YR4 have the highest chance of impact on December 22, 2032, starting off at just 1.3 per cent, but the odds of hitting Earth kept rising as more observations came in. As of February 18, they were over 3 per cent, or a 1 in 32 chance of impact. According to the ESA's Near-Earth Object Coordination Centre (NEOCC), that surpassed asteroid Apophis' record for highest impact probability, at 2.7 per cent or 1 in 37 odds, from back in 2004.
READ MORE:
New observations of 2024 YR4 over the past week, taken by various telescopes around the world, have significantly reduced the potential risk of this asteroid, as well.
The Sentry Risk table, from Jan. 29 (top) and Feb. 26 (bottom), showing that 2024 YR4 has gone from the top of the list (greatest risk on both Palermo and Torino scales) to 11th place, with significantly lower impact odds on Palermo scale, and down to 0 (safe) on the Torino scale. (NASA CNEOS)
Even a day after 2024 YR4 reached its highest impact probability, the odds of it hitting dropped down to only 1.5 per cent. The day after that, they plummetted to 0.27 per cent, and the asteroid's Torino Scale threat fell from a 3 (merits attention by astronomers) to a 1 (a routine discovery that will pass near, but poses no unusual level of danger).
Now, as of February 26, the potential danger from 2024 YR4 is all but gone. It's current risk stands at a 0.0011 per cent chance of Earth impact on December 22, 2032. That's only 1 in 91,000 odds, and there is now a 99.9989 per cent chance the asteroid will miss Earth entirely.
2024 YR4's Earth Impact Risk Summary as of Feb. 26, 2025, shows the very low odds of it actually being a danger to us now. (NASA CNEOS)
Right from the start, the odds of 2024 YR4 actually being a danger to us were fairly low. Additionally, because it has happened this way before, it was always very likely that the odds of impact from this space rock were going to diminish down to near-zero, or even be completely ruled out.
Watch below: How asteroids go from threat to no sweat
Due to the possible damage that such an asteroid could cause, though, astronomers are understandably concerned about any such rock that comes in high on their risk lists.
The 20-metre-wide asteroid that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, on February 15, 2013, shattered windows, damaged some buildings, and injured about 1,500 people. At roughly three times that size, an impact from 2024 YR4 would cause an airblast explosion powerful enough to level buildings across a wide area, resulting in far greater damage and potential loss of life.
Fortunately, Earth has been travelling around the solar system for over 4.6 billion years — long enough for it to have already scooped up the vast majority of large asteroids that could pose a real threat. Thus, as we get better at finding and cataloguing them, we discover most are not dangerous. At the same time, though, astronomers still keep an eye out for those that might be.
While the potential threat to Earth from 2024 YR4 is all but gone, as the uncertainties in its orbit have been narrowed down, it has actually become more likely that this asteroid will strike the Moon, instead.
The new uncertainy region for 2024 YR4's close enounter with the Earth-Moon system on December 22, 2032, computed as of February 24, 2025. While the asteroid's potential closest passes (orange dots) have completely cleared Earth, they are now nearly centred on the orbit of the Moon, with the most likely close pass (yellow dot) indicating a potential impact with the Moon. (ESA NEOCC)
"There still remains a very small chance for asteroid 2024 YR4 to impact the Moon on Dec. 22, 2032. That probability is currently 1.7%," Molly Wasser, the Outreach Coordinator for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, posted on the agency's Planetary Defense blog.
If such an impact were to take place, it would not cause any significant damage to the Moon. With the Moon in its Waning Gibbous phase on Dec. 22, 2032, we may not even see the flash of the strike from Earth, but any impact and resulting crater could be detected by a lunar orbiting spacecraft, such as NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
Click here to view the video
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Gizmodo
4 hours ago
- Gizmodo
NASA Pulls the Plug on Europa Lander, but Scientists Propose a Plan B
NASA engineers have spent the past decade developing a rugged, partially autonomous lander designed to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's most intriguing moons. The space agency got cold feet over the project, but engineers are now targeting a new destination for the probe: Enceladus. Europa has long been a prime target in the search for extraterrestrial biology because scientists suspect it harbors a subsurface ocean beneath its icy crust, potentially teeming with microbial life. But the robot—packed with radiation shielding, cutting-edge software, and ice-drilling appendages—won't be going anywhere anytime soon. In a recent paper in Science Robotics, engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) outlined the design and testing of what was once the Europa Lander prototype, a four-legged robotic explorer built to survive the brutal surface conditions of the Jovian moon. The robot was designed to walk—as opposed to roll—analyze terrain, collect samples, and drill into Europa's icy crust—all with minimal guidance from Earth, due to the major communication lag between our planet and the moon 568 million miles (914 million kilometers) away. Designed to operate autonomously for hours at a time, the bot came equipped with stereoscopic cameras, a robotic arm, LED lights, and a suite of specialized materials tough enough to endure harsh radiation and bone-chilling cold. Temperatures on the moon range from about -210 degrees Fahrenheit (-134 degrees Celsius) at its equator to as low as -370 degrees F (-223 degrees C) at its poles. After years of development—including testing in JPL's labs, advanced simulations, and a final field trial on icy terrain in Alaska—the Europa Lander aced its tests. It was ready to take on the solar system's frosty frontier. But the space agency has now pulled the plug on the mission. According to the team, the challenges of getting to Europa—its radiation exposure, immense distance, and short observation windows—proved too daunting for NASA's higher-ups. And that's before you take into consideration the devastating budget cuts planned by the Trump administration, which would see the agency's funding fall from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. The lander, once the centerpiece of a bold astrobiology initiative, is now essentially mothballed. But the engineers aren't giving up. They're now lobbying for the robot to get a second shot—on Enceladus, Saturn's ice-covered moon, which also boasts a subsurface ocean and has proven more favorable for robotic exploration. Enceladus is still frigid, but has lower radiation and better access windows than Europa. Whether the ice-walker gets a new lease on its semi-autonomous life remains to be seen. But the robot was built for a moonwalk—albeit a relatively rigid and clanky one—and it deserves its moment.
