Don't Miss This Weekend's Sky Show As The Moon And Mars Shine Together
In an alignment of celestial bodies, Mars was captured here rising out of a lunar occultation on 13 ... More January 2025 using the new Visitor Center 0.6-meter Shreve Telescope at the U.S. National Science Foundation Kitt Peak National Observatory (KPNO), a Program of NSF NOIRLab, near Tucson, Arizona.
Skywatchers will have two opportunities this weekend to see the moon form striking alignments in the post-sunset sky. On Saturday, June 28, a trio featuring the moon, Mars and the bright star Regulus will appear in a neat arc. Then, on Sunday, June 29, the moon and Mars will be in a very close conjunction — and in some parts of the world, Mars will be briefly occulted by the moon. Here's everything you need to know about what to see in the night sky this weekend.
Where And When to Look
Be outside looking to the western horizon about 45 minutes after sunset. You'll need a clear, unobstructed view since the moon and its companions will be low in the sky. The display will be short-lived, disappearing from view within about 45 minutes as twilight deepens — so good timing is imperative. Mars will appear dimmer than the moon, but it will be easy to find.
Saturday, June 28: Moon, Regulus And Mars
What You'll See
On Saturday, June 28, a 16%-lit crescent moon will be a spectacular sight. Slightly above and left of the moon will be Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation Leo, and farther away, the reddish dot of the planet Mars. The three objects will be spaced nearly evenly, forming a clear visual arc.
That arc will crumble after sunset on Sunday, June 29, when the now 24%-lit crescent moon will appear in conjunction with Mars — just 0.2 degrees apart as seen from North America. That's less than an outstretched little finger held against the night sky. From parts of the Pacific and northern South America, the moon will occult Mars for about an hour, according to In-The-Sky.org.
Sunday, June 29: Moon And Mars In Conjunction
Observing Tips
You just need naked eyes for this sky event, though a pair of binoculars will enhance the view, especially on Sunday, when the moon and Mars will be close enough to fit within the same field. However, a close-up of the moon on either night will reveal something beautiful on its night side — Earthshine, sunlight reflected from Earth's clouds, oceans and ice caps onto the lunar surface.
An open view to the west is essential both nights, especially during the first hour after sunset, when the celestial trio is visible.
Monday, June 30: Moon, Mars And Regulus
What's Next In The Night Sky
Although the arc of bright objects will be much looser, look west after sunset on Monday, June 30, and you'll see a 33%-lit crescent moon, this time on the other side of Mars and Regulus.
For exact timings, use a sunrise and sunset calculator for where you are, Stellarium Web for a sky chart and Night Sky Tonight: Visible Planets at Your Location for positions and rise/set times for planets.
Wishing you clear skies and wide eyes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
10 minutes ago
- Medscape
A Simple Way to Close Racial Gaps in Cancer Trial Enrollment
TOPLINE: In a single-center survey, patients with breast cancer from different racial and ethnic backgrounds were equally likely to discuss and participate in clinical trials when given the opportunity. Among patients who declined to participate, ineligibility and time commitment emerged as key barriers. METHODOLOGY: Clinical trials are crucial for advancing breast cancer care, but enrollment among Black and Hispanic women remains disproportionately low, resulting in study populations that do not reflect the diversity of patients with breast cancer. Some studies suggest that when given the opportunity, Black and Hispanic patients are just as willing to participate in clinical trials as their White counterparts. To better understand discussions, participation as well as patient attitudes surrounding clinical trials, researchers analyzed survey responses from 1150 patients with breast cancer who were enrolled in the Chicago Multiethnic Epidemiologic Breast Cancer Cohort and responded to a survey between July and September 2022. Among them, 4.4% were Asian, 19.5% Black, 3.1% Hispanic, and 73.0% White individuals; mean age at diagnosis was just under 54 years. Compared with White patients, Black patients had increased proportions of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC; 14.6% vs 25.0%) and grade 3 tumors (36.9% vs 55.5%). Outcomes of interest were discussions of clinical trials, actual participation, and barriers to participation. TAKEAWAY: Among survey respondents, 447 (38.9%) reported discussing trial participation with healthcare practitioners, with no significant differences between different racial/ethnic groups (adjusted odds ratios, 0.75 for Asian, 1.31 for Black, 0.73 for Hispanic patients compared to White patients). Of the 443 patients who were offered trials, 64.3% participated. Patients who were younger, had more advanced disease, or were diagnosed with TNBC or high-grade cancer were more likely to be offered a clinical trial. While there were differences in trial participation rates across racial and ethnic groups, they were not significantly different after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Among 158 patients who declined to participate, the primary reasons were ineligibility and lack of interest in trials (23.4% for both) as well as concerns about receiving placebo (10.8%) and the time requirement (10.1%). Patients with an annual household income below $150,000 were also significantly less likely to participate than those with an income of $150,000 or more but this association varied by income bracket, suggesting that financial barriers are more nuanced than annual income alone. IN PRACTICE: The study adds to evidence that patients from racial minority groups are just as willing to enroll in clinical trials when given the chance, according to an invited commentary by Joseph M. Unger, PhD, MS, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Seattle. The results also 'lend crucial validation' to prior findings showing that structural and clinical barriers — not patient refusal — are the main reasons for trial non-participation, according to Unger. 'Reducing barriers to enrollment of clinical trials is a scientific and ethical imperative for the cancer community,' the study authors said. SOURCE: This study, led by Nan Chen, MD, University of Chicago, Illinois, was published online in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: The study population may not have fully represented the broader population of patients with breast cancer in the US. The analysis also lacked sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in clinical trial discussion and participation between Asian or Hispanic patients and White patients given limited sample sizes. Additionally, survey-based data collection may have introduced selection bias as respondents were likely healthier or had positive experiences with clinical trial discussion or participation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported partly by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, National Cancer Institute, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving personal fees or grants from various sources, outside the submitted work. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Reliability Is The Hardest Problem In Physical AI
Dr. Jeff Mahler: Co-Founder, Chief Technology Officer, Ambi Robotics; PhD in AI and Robotics from UC Berkeley. getty Imagine your morning commute. You exit the highway and tap the brakes, but nothing happens. The car won't slow down. You frantically search for a safe place to coast, heart pounding, hoping to avoid a crash. Even after the brakes are repaired, would you trust that car again? Trust, once broken, is hard to regain. When it comes to physical products like cars, appliances or robots, reliability is everything. It's how we come to count on them for our jobs, well-being or lives. As with vehicles, reliability is critical to the success of AI-driven robots, from the supply chain to factories to our homes. While the stakes may not always be life-or-death, dependability still shapes how we trust robots, from delivering packages before the holidays to cleaning the house just in time for a dinner party. Yet despite the massive potential of AI in the physical world, reliability remains a grand challenge for the field. Three key factors make this particularly hard and point to where solutions might emerge. 1. Not all failures are equal. Digital AI products like ChatGPT make frequent mistakes, yet hundreds of millions of active users use them. The key difference is that these mistakes are usually of low consequence. Coding assistants might suggest a software API that doesn't exist, but this error will likely be caught early in testing. Such errors are annoying but permissible. In contrast, if a robot AI makes a mistake, it can cause irreversible damage. The consequences range from breaking a beloved item at home to causing serious injuries. In principle, physical AI could learn to avoid critical failures with sufficient training data. In practice, however, these failures can be extremely rare and may need to occur many times before AI learns to avoid them. Today, we still don't know what it takes in terms of data, algorithms or computation to achieve high dependability with end-to-end robot foundation models. We have yet to see 99.9% reliability on a single task, let alone many. Nonetheless, we can estimate that the data scale needed for reliable physical AI is immense because AI scaling laws show a diminishing performance with increased training data. The scale is likely orders of magnitude higher than for digital AI, which is already trained on internet-scale data. The robot data gap is vast, and fundamentally new approaches may be needed to achieve industrial-grade reliability and avoid critical failures. 2. Failures can be hard to diagnose. Another big difference between digital and physical AI is the ability to see how a failure occurred. When a chatbot makes a mistake, the correct answer can be provided directly. For robots, however, it can be difficult to observe the root causes of issues in the first place. Limitations of hardware are one problem. A robot without body-wide tactile sensing may be unable to detect a slippery surface before dropping an item or unable to stop when backing into something behind it. The same can happen in the case of occlusions and missing data. If a robot can't sense the source of the error, it must compensate for these limitations—and all of this requires more data. Long-time delays present another challenge. Picture a robot that sorts a package to the wrong location, sending it to the wrong van for delivery. The driver realizes the mistake when they see one item left behind at the end of the day. Now, the entire package history may need to be searched to find the source of the mistake. This might be possible in a warehouse, but in the home, the cause of failure may not be identified until the mistake happens many times. To mitigate these issues, monitoring systems are hugely important. Sensors that can record the robot's actions, associate them with events and find anomalies can make it easier to determine the root cause of failure and make updates to the hardware, software or AI on the robot. Observability is critical. The better that machines get at seeing the root cause of failure, the more reliable they will become. 3. There's no fallback plan. For digital AI, the internet isn't just training data; it's also a knowledge base. When a chatbot realizes it doesn't know the answer to something, it can search through other data sources and summarize them. Entire products like Perplexity are based on this idea. For physical AI, there's not always a ground truth to reference when planning actions in real-world scenarios like folding laundry. If a robot can't find the sheet corners, it's not likely to have success by falling back to classical computer vision. This is why many practical AI robots use human intervention, either remote or in-person. For example, when a Waymo autonomous vehicle encounters an unfamiliar situation on the road, it can ask a human operator for additional information to understand its environment. However, it's not as clear how to intervene in every application. When possible, a powerful solution is to use a hybrid AI robot planning system. The AI can be tightly scoped to specific decisions such as where to grasp an item, and traditional methods can be used to plan a path to reach that point. As noted above, this is limited and won't work in cases where there is no traditional method to solve the problem. Intervention and fallback systems are key to ensuring reliability with commercial robots today and in the foreseeable future. Conclusion Despite rapid advances in digital GenAI, there's no obvious path to highly reliable physical AI. It isn't just a technical hurdle; it's the foundation for trust in intelligent machines. Solving it will require new approaches to data gathering, architectures for monitoring/interventions and systems thinking. As capabilities grow, however, so does momentum. The path is difficult, but the destination is worth it. Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
WIRED
29 minutes ago
- WIRED
Space Elevators Could Totally Work—If Earth Days Were Much Shorter
Jun 27, 2025 9:00 AM What would it take to run a cable from the ISS to Earth? Depends how fast you want the Earth to rotate. Illustration:Suppose you could speed up Earth's rotation so that a day was only half as long? What would happen? Well, for starters we'd have to make new clocks that only have hours 1 to 6 for am and pm. If you had tickets to an 8 o'clock concert, you'd be out of luck: 8 o'clock no longer exists. But maybe a more germane question is, why do physicists ask nutty questions like this? It's never going to happen—just move on, right? Well, here's the deal. Thinking about counterfactual scenarios gives us insight into how things work here in reality. Plus, it's fun! Need I say more? OK, it might even help us build a working space elevator. Oh, you don't know what a space elevator is? It's a sci-fi staple, a tether from Earth up to an orbiting space station in geosynchronous orbit. A cable-climbing car would ride up and down, just like a regular elevator. Basically it's a way of getting out to space as easily and routinely as you ride an elevator to your office in the morning—no rockets required. Let's start off with some basic questions and build up to some more complicated physics. What Is a Day? You can't get more basic than that. But the answer isn't simple. If you said a day is 24 hours, you're right—and wrong. If you're standing outside, the time at which the sun is at its highest point in the sky is called local noon. If you stand there until the next local noon, the amount of elapsed time is defined as 24 hours. So an hour is 1/24th of the time between two local noons. But wait! This isn't the same as a complete revolution of the Earth. If you measured the time of a complete revolution, you'd find that it's not exactly 24 hours. The reason is that the Earth is doing two things at once: It's spinning on its axis, which causes the sun to appear to move across the sky. But it's also orbiting the sun over the course of a year, which means a complete rotation will not result in the sun being in the same position in the sky. There are actually two different types of days. The solar day is the one you are thinking of, and it's the one described above. The other type is called a sidereal day . Here's a totally not-to-scale diagram that will help you understand the difference: In position 1, there is a stick marking a location. That stick is pointing toward the sun so that this would be local noon. As the Earth moves to position 2, it makes one complete rotation. However it's not yet local noon, because the relative position of the sun has changed due to the Earth's orbital motion. This is called a sidereal day. Finally, the Earth moves a little bit beyond one complete revolution, so the stick again points towards the sun for a second local noon. The sidereal day is just a little bit shorter—approximately 23 hours and 56 minutes. Why does that matter? Well, if we are going to make a day half as long, we need to decide which one to divide by 2. Just for simplicity, let's say the solar day is 12 hours instead of 24 hours, but the orbit around the sun (and the length of a year) is the same. You'd Feel Lighter at the Equator There are many things that would change with a 12-hour day. Like, how long would you sleep? Would we still work 40 hours a week? Would a week still be seven days (and still named after objects in the sky?). But let's focus on some of the physics stuff. Here's the fun part. If you stood on a scale at the north pole and then did the same thing at the equator, the scale would give a higher value at the north pole. Actually, it's true for both a 24-hour day and a 12-hour day—but it's more noticeable with a shorter day. Let's start at the north pole. Here is a force diagram for a normal human standing on a scale: There are two forces acting on the person. First, there is the downward pulling gravitational force due to the interaction with the Earth. (This is the mass, m, multiplied by the gravitational field, g.) Second, there is the upward-pushing force from the scale (we call this a normal force since it's perpendicular to the ground). The reading on the scale is actually the magnitude of the normal force and not the weight. Newton's second law states that the net force on an object is equal to the product of the mass and acceleration. For a person at the north pole, the acceleration would be zero (they are just standing there). That means that the normal force is equal in magnitude to the gravitational force. What if you are instead standing on the equator? Here's a force diagram for that. Isn't it the same except sideways? No, it's different. Notice that in this case the normal force isn't as strong as the gravitational force (the arrow is shorter). This is because a person standing at the equator is not stationary. They're moving in a circular path as the Earth rotates. When an object moves in a circle, it has an acceleration toward the center. This centripetal acceleration has a magnitude that increases with the angular velocity (ω) as well as the radius of the circular path (r). The sum of the two forces (gravity and the scale) must equal the mass multiplied by the acceleration. This means that the force of the scale will be: Why is the north pole different? Yes, you are still rotating, but you are ON the axis of rotation, so the radius (your distance from the axis) is zero, and that gives you a zero acceleration. If you use an angular velocity for a 24-hour day, your effective weight at the equator is 99.7 percent of the value at the north pole. With a 12-hour day (which means the Earth is spinning twice as fast and your angular velocity is twice as high), the scale would read a value that's 98.6 percent of the actual gravitational force. The faster you spin, the lighter you are. Would you notice that in real life? I think that if you flew straight from the north pole to the equator, you might feel a change in effective weight of over 1 percent. With this lower weight, you could jump just a little bit higher and walk around with a lighter step. Space Elevators Let's think about orbits for a moment. If you put an object near the Earth, there will be a downward-pulling gravitational force. As you get farther away from the surface of the Earth, this gravitational force gets weaker. However, if you have an object in space that's initially at rest, the gravitational force will cause it to fall down and crash. But wait! If we use the same circular motion trick for the effective weight we can make the object move in a circle such that the mass multiplied by the centripetal acceleration is equal to the gravitational force. It would be the same as standing on a scale with an effective weight of zero. We call this a circular orbit. The rate that an object orbits depends on the distance from the center of the Earth (r). We can calculate that as: Here G is the universal gravitational constant and M is the mass of the Earth. If you put in a value of r that is 400 kilometers above the surface of the Earth, you get an angular velocity that would take the object 92 minutes to complete an orbit. Note: This is pretty much what the international space station (ISS) does. Wouldn't it be cool if the International Space System had a cable running down to the Earth? Unfortunately, the dangling cable would be whipping around the Earth so fast, you wouldn't be able to embark or disembark. Well, it's possible to fix this problem. Suppose you move the space station up to a distance of 36,000 kilometers instead of 400 kilometers? In that case, the angular velocity of the ISS would be the same as the rotation rate of the Earth. As seen from the surface of the Earth, the ISS would remain in the same spot in the sky because they would both take 24 hours to rotate. We call this a geostationary orbit—but it has to be directly over the equator so that the direction of the rotations are the same. With an object in geostationary orbit, you could run a cable down to the Earth. Boom —there's your space elevator. But wait! There are some problems. Can you imagine a cable that's 36,000 kilometers long? That's a LOT of cable. It's so much that you'd also have to counterbalance the weight of the cable with some big mass a little past the geostationary level. This system would require a tension in the material that exceeds the maximum value for the strongest steel cables. It could only work with something like a carbon nanotube cable—which we don't have (yet). OK, but what if we make the Earth spin twice as fast with a 12-hour day? In that case, a geostationary orbit would have a larger angular velocity (to match the faster Earth). If you crunch the numbers, the geostationary distance would be only 20,000 kilometers, or around 45 percent shorter. What if the Earth rotated so fast that the ISS was in a geostationary orbit just 400 kilometers above the surface? That might make the space elevator possible. Of course now we are going to have a MUCH shorter day of only 92 minutes. That's not worth it. Can you imagine having to get out bed every 92 minutes? I might even get dizzy. It's too bad because I really want a space elevator.
