Remember That Asteroid NASA Deflected in a Test of Saving Earth? We Have Bad News
The small spacecraft smashed into asteroid Didymos' moonlet Dimorphos at a violent 14,000 mph, knocking it severely off course.
But three years later, astronomers found that the collision had some unintended consequences. As detailed in a paper published last week in the Planetary Science Journal, a team led by the University of Maryland found that the DART spacecraft ejected a massive barrage of boulders, some of which carried more than three times the energy of the spacecraft itself.
"We succeeded in deflecting an asteroid, moving it from its orbit," said lead author and UMD research scientist Tony Farnham in a statement about the research. "Our research shows that while the direct impact of the DART spacecraft caused this change, the boulders ejected gave an additional kick that was almost as big."
The researchers warn that much like a game of pool, smashing a spacecraft into an asteroid to save the Earth could set off a powerful sequence of events that needs to be taken into account.
"That additional factor changes the physics we need to consider when planning these types of missions," Farnham added.
Pictures taken by a tiny spacecraft called LICIACube, developed by the Italian Space Agency and which has been hanging around the impact site to assess the aftermath, allowed astronomers to track 104 boulders, which ranged anywhere from 0.6 to 11.8 feet in radius, as they hurtled away from Dimorphos.
But the researchers observed something strange about the behavior of those boulders.
"We saw that the boulders weren't scattered randomly in space," Farnham explained. "Instead, they were clustered in two pretty distinct groups, with an absence of material elsewhere, which means that something unknown is at work here."
The team hypothesizes that "DART's solar panels likely hit two big boulders, called Atabaque and Bodhran, on the asteroid," as second author and UMD astronomy professor Jessica Sunshine explained, right before DART's main body made contact.
DART "hit a surface that was rocky and full of large boulders, resulting in chaotic and filamentary structures in its ejecta patterns," Sunshine added.
Fortunately, thanks to the European Space Agency's Hera mission, which is scheduled to rendezvous with the asteroid system next year, we could soon have "another direct view of the impact's aftermath," Farnham said.
The astronomer and his colleagues are hoping to use the latest data to help their peers make more informed decisions when it comes to future deflection missions like DART.
"If an asteroid was tumbling toward us, and we knew we had to move it a specific amount to prevent it from hitting Earth, then all these subtleties become very, very important," Sunshine explained.
"You can think of it as a cosmic pool game," she added. "We might miss the pocket if we don't consider all the variables."
More on DART: Debris From When NASA Smashed Asteroid Appears to Be Headed Back Toward Earth
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
21 minutes ago
- Medscape
Prevention, Screening, Treatment: Impact on Cancer Deaths
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm Dr Maurie Markman from City of Hope, and I'd like to discuss a very important study. I think many of you may have heard about this, but it's important to emphasize what these investigators reported in terms of the impact of what we are doing in the cancer world today and, in my opinion, what the focus needs to be on in the future. The paper I'm referring to is "Estimation of Cancer Deaths Averted From Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Efforts, 1975-2020," published in JAMA Oncology . This was a very interesting effort; there was modeling done, and assumptions were made, in order to do what these investigators did. But this is, I think, very high-quality and reasonable data science. The paper outlines the assumptions made in coming to the conclusions reached by these investigators. They looked at breast, cervix, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers — obviously, major cancers — and specifically looked at what the impact has been over the past 45 years of these three different strategies in averting deaths: prevention, screening, and actual treatment. The bottom line, as reported by these investigators, is that over this 45-year period, 5.94 million deaths have been averted in these five cancers combined, due to the efforts of countless numbers of individuals, researchers, clinicians, public health officials, government regulators, etc. It's an incredible and an enormously positive contribution to society and to individual patient health. They note, and this is a powerful message, that 8 of the 10 deaths, 80%, that had been averted were due to efforts in cancer prevention and screening. It may come as a surprise to some, but not to all, because of our often very intense focus and money spent on treatments for established and advanced cancers over the past decades. There's no intent either in this paper or by me to denigrate — in any way, shape, or form — the enormous efforts that have been made in treatment. But if you look at the question of deaths averted, the vast majority have come from prevention and screening efforts. And clearly, there's cost involved in these efforts, but far less than that associated with development of treatments. They're even more specific in this paper: Screening, according to these investigators, has been responsible for essentially all reduction in cervix cancer, which we certainly know from the enormous contributions of the Pap smear screening and now HPV screening: 25% of breast cancer deaths were averted due to screening; 56% from prostate cancer; 79% of deaths from colorectal cancer; and, of course, from lung cancer, 98% of the impacts on cancer deaths has resulted from a reduction in smoking. So, overall a tremendous impact, a positive impact. So many individuals and organizations avert deaths, but it's critical to remember the role of prevention and screening. And as we move forward to the future, as we look at the epidemic we have of obesity in this country and the concern about the risk of alcohol on the risk for cancer, it is important to remember the critical role to the present but also for the future of prevention and screening. Thank you for your attention.
Medscape
21 minutes ago
- Medscape
A Review of Transnasal Cooling for Migraine Relief
Transnasal evaporative cooling as an acute treatment for migraine has been tested in two randomized clinical trials showing some level of efficacy and tolerability as well as safety. CALM1 Accrual Issues The first, CALM 1, was presented as a virtual poster at the 2023 American Headache Society meeting. Although this study enrolled 87 patients with migraine with or without aura, only 24 were randomized to the CoolStat Transnasal Thermal Regulating Device (CoolTech LLC). This comprised 15 minutes of air flow as soon as they arrived at their local testing center during an attack. CoolStat device in use The primary endpoint was pain relief at 2 hours; pain freedom, relief of most bothersome symptom, and tolerability were also measured at 2 and 24 hours. Three air flow rates were tested: 24, 18, and 6 liters per minute (LPM). It was originally assumed that the 6 LPM flow rate would act as the sham, but it turned out to be the most effective rate. In this group, 8 of 9 patients reported pain relief at 2 hours with 4 of them being pain free. Patients treated with the other doses reported a similar rate of pain relief, but none were fully free of pain at 2 hours. There were no adverse events in the lowest flow rate group and only mild events in the other groups. The study was terminated due to insufficient accrual rates. The company decided to do a second study with a smaller portable device which patients could use at home earlier in the course of their migraine attack. CALM 2 At Home Treatment The CALM 2 study used a 2 LPM dose as the sham: This used an inactive drying agent and patients experienced the sensation of treatment including saline mist. This small, phase 2, dose range-finding trial tested active doses of 4, 6, and 10 LPM. Patients treated their migraine for 15 minutes within 1 hour of pain onset using the Mi-Helper, an investigational device similar in size to a sleep apnea machine. The Mi-Helper The Mi-Helper No other treatment was allowed for 2 hours. Of the 172 adults randomized, 128 used the device and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Only 74 were included in the efficacy analysis because the others did not fully follow the protocol for a variety of reasons. In this study, the 10 LPM air flow rate was the most effective, producing pain freedom at 2 hours in 8 of 17 patients, vs 4 of 25 sham-treated patients. This difference was statistically significant. Two-hour pain relief was seen in 70.6% of this group vs 56% of the sham group, a difference that did not reach statistical significance. Sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 hours with no rescue treatment was numerically but not significantly higher than sham with the 10 LPM dose. Results for the other air flow rates (4 and 6 LPM) were not statistically significant. The most common adverse events, scattered across the three active-treatment groups, were rhinorrhea, nasal irritation, ear pressure, nasal congestion, sore throat, and jaw pain. More events occurred in the 10 LPM group (with none in the sham group), but no patient discontinued the trial because of side effects. How Does it Work? The proposed mechanism of action for Mi-Helper, according to Steve Schaefer, the CEO of Cooltech, is that it 'noninvasively cools and inhibits structures of the pterygopalatine fossa, including the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) and the maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve.' The device delivers dry room-temperature air into one nostril with a nebulized saline mist for comfort and to facilitate evaporation. The evaporation from liquid to gas requires energy drawn from the surrounding tissues, particularly the vascularized membranes of the nasal turbinates. This purportedly results in a localized cooling effect targeting the structures of the pterygopalatine fossa, including the SPG and maxillary division of the trigeminal nerve (V2), both areas integrally involved with migraine and cluster headache. This hypothesis has yet to be corroborated; no preclinical trials have shown any electrical effect on the SPG. The Mi-Helper is not the same as remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) or other electrical stimulation devices that are already cleared by the FDA for the acute care and/or prevention of migraine attacks. REN uses electrical stimulators and works on various combinations of peripheral nerves involved with migraine. [By way of disclosure, I recently authored a poster on REN.] What Next CALM 3, a third, larger, phase 3 trial of the Mi-Helper is underway. It will test a 10 LPM dose of dehumidified air against a 2 LPM sham. According to CEO Steve Schaefer, it should be completed in September, 2025. I believe that we need to see data from at least two carefully done phase 3 trials at the correct flow rate (10 LPM), in an appropriate number of patients, before we will know if this device can successfully treat migraine, but the results so far are very promising.
Medscape
21 minutes ago
- Medscape
Higher BMI, Bigger Gains: Tirzepatide's Effects on HFpEF
TOPLINE: In patients with obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), tirzepatide reduced the risk for worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death regardless of their baseline BMI or fat distribution, with larger gains observed among those with higher BMI. Those who lost more weight with tirzepatide showed greater improvements in exercise capacity and symptom severity. METHODOLOGY: The SUMMIT trial previously showed significant benefits of tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist, in patients with obesity-related HFpEF. In this secondary analysis, researchers looked at whether the effects of tirzepatide varied with the severity and distribution of a patient's obesity or by the extent of weight loss achieved after treatment. The trial included 731 patients aged 40 years or older (mean age, 65.2 years; 53.8% women) with obesity-related HFpEF (defined by the New York Heart Association's functional classes II-IV) and a BMI of 30 or higher. Participants were randomly assigned to subcutaneously receive either 2.5 mg/wk of tirzepatide (n = 364) or a placebo (n = 367). Patients were categorized into tertiles of their baseline BMI and waist to height ratio. Primary endpoints were the time to first adjudicated cardiovascular death or an event of worsening HF and a change in the symptom status measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS) at 52 weeks. Secondary endpoints included changes in exercise capacity (measured using the 6-minute walk distance), body weight, and blood pressure. TAKEAWAY: Patients in the highest tertile of BMI were younger and most likely to be women and had more severe HF, a greater volume overload, and more severe inflammation. Those with a higher waist to height ratio showed similar patterns, as well as shorter 6-minute walk distances and more severe kidney disease. Use of tirzepatide vs placebo reduced the risk for cardiovascular death or worsening HF across all BMI ranges and waist to height ratios. Tirzepatide was associated with greater improvement in the 6-minute walk distance in patients in the highest range for BMI (37.5 m) than in those in the middle (26.3 m) and lower (9.9 m) ranges (P for trend = .025); improvements in weight loss and systolic blood pressure followed similar patterns. After 52 weeks on tirzepatide, those who lost more weight had bigger gains in their 6-minute walk distance and changes in the KCCQ-CSS (P < .0001 for both). The same benefits were seen in those with larger drops in waist circumference. IN PRACTICE: 'These data provide further evidence supporting the importance of excess body fat, particularly visceral fat, as driving HF severity in patients with the obesity phenotype of HFpEF,' the researchers reported. 'While these findings reinforce the role of incretin therapies in HFpEF management, these data, perhaps more importantly, highlight the urgent need for precision strategies to define obesity and direct therapy to those who will benefit most,' experts wrote in an editorial accompanying the journal article. SOURCE: This study was led by Barry A. Borlaug, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 21, 2025, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The researchers presented the findings at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2025. LIMITATIONS: Categorizing patients into tertiles of their BMI or waist to height ratio may have masked some trends. The trial included a higher proportion of women and participants from Latin America, limiting generalizability. Imaging-based methods could possibly offer more precise measurements of obesity. DISCLOSURES: The original trial was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The lead author reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and US Department of Defense, receiving research grants from and consulting for several pharmaceutical companies, and being a named inventor for tools and approach for procedure to treat HF. Several other authors reported being employees of or consultants for Eli Lilly and Company and several other companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
