logo
City-killer asteroid on a collision course with the moon could shower Earth with SHRAPNEL – causing 10-years of damage to satellites in just a few days, experts warn

City-killer asteroid on a collision course with the moon could shower Earth with SHRAPNEL – causing 10-years of damage to satellites in just a few days, experts warn

Daily Mail​7 hours ago

The world breathed a sigh of relief when NASA confirmed the city-killer asteroid 2024 YR4 was no longer likely to hit Earth.
But scientists now warn that the threat posed by this deadly space rock is far from over.
Astronomers say that the 60-metre asteroid still has a 4.3 per cent chance of slamming into the moon on December 22, 2032.
This collision would shower Earth with a wave of shrapnel that could wreak havoc on satellites in orbit.
According to simulations created by Dr Paul Wiegert, of the University of Western Ontario, the asteroid could hit the moon at over 29,000mph (46,800 kmph), carving out a 0.6 mile-wide crater in the biggest lunar impact in the last 5,000 years.
If the asteroid hits in the right place, Earth's gravity might funnel between 10 and 30 per cent of the ejected material directly towards our planet.
And this could have devastating consequences for the thousands of satelites in low-Earth orbit.
Dr Wiegert's calculations show that the shrapnel could cause up to a decade's worth of damage in just days.
2024 YR4 was first discovered in December 2024 and quickly caused concern among astronomers as the chances of an impact with Earth rose.
At its peak, astronomers predicted that the asteroid had a 3.1 per cent chance of hitting Earth in 2032.
While emergency observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) soon confirmed that the asteroid would miss Earth, it also revealed a surprisingly high probability of a lunar impact.
At around 60 metres wide, the city-killer's impact would unleash a blast 500 times larger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
On the moon, the absence of an atmosphere to slow the space rock's approach could mean an even bigger impact.
By simulating 10,000 possible impact scenarios, Dr Wiegert found that this would eject around 10,000 tonnes of material between 0.1 to 10 millimetres in size.
How much of this material travels towards us depends on where the asteroid lands, but the simulations suggest a scenario in which up to 10 per cent is delivered.
This would lead to the Earth experiencing rates of particle impacts between 10 and 1,000 times higher than normal.
Dr Wiergert told the New Scientist: 'We were a little bit surprised at the possibility of there being a substantial amount of material at the Earth.
'Intuitively, the Earth is actually quite a small target when seen from the moon, and so your intuition is that not very much material would actually hit the Earth, but it turns out that the Earth's gravity can focus that material under certain conditions.'
None of this material is likely to make it through Earth's atmosphere, but it would create a severe problem for satellites in low-Earth orbit and other spacecraft.
Dr Wiegert points out that this debris could even affect the operations of lunar-orbiting spacecraft such as NASA's planned Lunar Gateway.
Any debris that doesn't escape orbit would rain back down on the moon, damaging landers, rovers, and even threatening the lives of astronauts in the Artemis program.
However, this would be particularly dangerous for the large satellite constellations, such as SpaceX's Starlink satellites, currently in orbit.
In a preprint paper, submitted to the American Astronomy Society Journals, Dr Wiegert predicts that a lunar impact could lead to 'hundreds to thousands of impacts from mm-sized debris'.
If lots of satellites are hit at once, these impacts can easily combine to cause more widespread disruption.
Professor Burchell, a space scientist from the University of Kent, told MailOnline: 'A lot of satellites failing at once is worse than occasional failures spread over a decade, as the latter can be more readily managed without stretching resources.
'If all at once, it would risk temporarily overwhelming the response with short-term loss of provision.'
The impact from lunar debris would typically be small, but could cause problems that cannot easily be repaired.
Research conducted by Professor Mark Burchell suggests that debris just one millimetre across is large enough to damage solar cells, sever cables, and even penetrate astronaut space suits.
Pieces up to 10 millimetres in diameter are large enough to break into the interior of spacecraft and cause 'increasing damage'.
Professor Burchell told MailOnline: 'If a sensor is damaged, or a piece of cabling, the satellite as a whole is still there, but may lose performance or some essential capability.
'Think of this as the difference between a car crash which wrecks your car and getting a chip on the windscreen. The former is clearly bad, but a chip? It is liveable in most cases, but may fail.'
POTENTIAL METHODS FOR ELIMINATING THE THREAT OF AN ASTEROID
DART is one of many concepts of how to negate the threat of an asteroid that have been suggested over the years.
Multiple bumps
Scientists in California have been firing projectiles at meteorites to simulate the best methods of altering the course of an asteroid so that it wouldn't hit Earth.
According to the results so far, an asteroid like Bennu that is rich in carbon could need several small bumps to charge its course.
'These results indicate multiple successive impacts may be required to deflect rather than disrupt asteroids, particularly carbonaceous asteroids,' researchers said.
Nuke
Another idea, known simply as 'nuke', involves blowing up a nuclear explosive close to the asteroid.
However, this could create smaller but still potentially dangerous fragments of rock that could spin off in all directions, potentially towards Earth.
Ion Beam Deflection
With Ion Beam Deflection, plumes from a space probe's thrusters would be directed towards the asteroid to gently push on its surface over a wide area.
A thruster firing in the opposite direction would be needed to keep the spacecraft at a constant distance from the asteroid.
Gravity tractor
And yet another concept, gravity tractor, would deflect the asteroid without physically contacting it, but instead by using only its gravitational field to transmit a required impulse.
Professor Colin Snodgrass, an astronomer at the University of Edinburgh said: 'There have been a few concepts suggested, such as a 'gravity tractor' to slowly tow an asteroid away instead of pushing it with a kinetic impactor.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk downplays SpaceX Starship explosion
Elon Musk downplays SpaceX Starship explosion

The Independent

time27 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Elon Musk downplays SpaceX Starship explosion

Elon Musk 's SpaceX Starship rocket exploded into a massive fireball during a test flight in Texas on Wednesday night. Musk reacted to the failed test by writing "Just a scratch" on X, downplaying the incident. This explosion marks another failure for the Starship program, which aims to carry humans to the Moon and Mars, following similar test failures in May, March, and January. SpaceX stated the explosion was due to a "major anomaly" but confirmed all personnel were safe and accounted for, with no hazards to surrounding residents. The Starship program is a central project for SpaceX and is crucial to Nasa 's Artemis program.

Summer solstice 2025: When is it and what does it mean?
Summer solstice 2025: When is it and what does it mean?

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

Summer solstice 2025: When is it and what does it mean?

For some it marks a celebration at dawn. For others, it is the start of summer and the promise of warmer days to summer solstice is the longest day of the year, meaning the day with the most hours of year, the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere falls on Saturday, 21 with parts of the UK already experiencing their first heatwave of the year it's likely to be a warm one. Why does the date change? The solstice always occurs between June 20 and 22, and during a leap year, it typically falls on June exact date shifts slightly each year because the calendar year doesn't perfectly match the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the fact, the Earth takes nearly a quarter of a day longer to complete its orbit each year than our calendar accounts discrepancy is why we add a leap day every four years—to keep the calendar aligned with Earth's orbit Why does the amount of sunlight vary? Our planet does not spin on a perfectly vertical axis — it is tilt causes the amount of sunlight that reaches different regions of Earth to change throughout the year as it orbits the half the year, the northern half of the Earth is tilted toward the Sun. On the summer solstice, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted most directly toward the Sun, and the Sun appears directly overhead at the Tropic of this tilt, we would still experience weather, but not distinct seasons, as the amount of daylight would remain nearly constant throughout the word solstice comes from the Latin words sol (sun) and sistere (to stand still), referring to the apparent pause in the Sun's movement across the sky. How much daylight will there be? Due to the tilt of the Earth, the period of daylight will be longer at higher this time, Norway, Finland, Greenland, Alaska and other polar regions experience 'midnight sun'. And across the Arctic Circle, down to a latitude of 23.5 degrees from the North Pole (matching the tilt of the Earth), the Sun does not set at it may be the longest day but it is not the latest sunset or the earliest sunrise. The earliest sunrises happen before the summer solstice, and the latest sunsets happen after. Check sunrise and sunset times where you are on the BBC Weather app and website. Is this the start of summer? Meteorologically, we are nearly a month into summer. Astronomically, however, the solstice marks the beginning of most people refer to the first day of summer, they mean astronomical summer—the summer contrast, meteorologists define summer in the Northern Hemisphere as beginning on June 1 and ending on August seasons are divided into four three-month periods, which makes it easier to compare seasonal statistics. Will this be the warmest summer solstice on record? Some parts of the UK are already experiencing their first heatwave of the year and forecasters expect temperatures to peak at around 33C on it is unlikely to be the highest temperature experienced on the day of the summer solstice. That record was set in 2017 at Heathrow Airport when 34.5C was while the summer solstice is the day with the most sunlight, the UK's weather becomes hotter later in the summer, when more heat has accumulated in the air and the ground.

Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds
Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

Want to plant trees to offset fossil fuels? You'd need all of North and Central America, study finds

Planting trees has plenty of benefits, but this popular carbon-removal method alone can't possibly counteract the planet-warming emissions caused by the world's largest fossil-fuel companies. To do that, trees would have to cover the entire land mass of North and Central America, according to a study out Thursday. Many respected climate scientists and institutions say removing carbon emissions — not just reducing them — is essential to tackling climate change. And trees remove carbon simply by "breathing." But crunching the numbers, researchers found that the trees' collective ability to remove carbon through photosynthesis can't stand up to the potential emissions from the fossil fuel reserves of the 200 largest oil, gas and coal fuel companies — there's not enough available land on Earth to feasibly accomplish that. And even if there were, if those 200 companies had to pay for planting all those trees, it would cost $10.8 trillion, more than their entire combined market valuation of $7.01 trillion. The researchers also determined that the companies would be in the red if they were responsible for the social costs of the carbon in their reserves, which scientists compute around $185 per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 'The general public maybe understand offsetting to be a sort of magic eraser, and that's just not where we're at,' said Nina Friggens, a research fellow at the University of Exeter who co-authored the paper published in Communications Earth & Environment, a Nature Portfolio journal. Carbon offsetting essentially means investing in tree planting or other environmental projects to attempt to compensate for carbon emissions. Trees are one of the cheapest ways to do this because they naturally suck up planet-warming carbon. Fossil fuel corporations, along with other companies and institutions, have promoted tree-planting as key part of carbon offset programs in recent years. For example, TotalEnergies, a global energy company, said in a statement that it is 'investing heavily in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nature-based solutions (NBS) projects.' To do their calculations, the researchers looked at the 200 largest holders of fossil fuel reserves — the fuel that companies promise shareholders they can extract in the future — and calculated how much carbon dioxide would be released if this fuel is burned. The researchers also focused solely on tree planting because the expense and technological development needed for other forms of carbon capture are still mostly cost-prohibitive. Forestry expert Éliane Ubalijoro, who was not involved with the research, called the study 'elegant.' It 'gives people a sense of proportion around carbon,' said Ubalijoro, CEO of CIFOR-ICRAF, an international forestry research center. But she cautioned against oversimplifying the equation by looking only at carbon capture, noting that tree planting done right can foster food security and biodiversity and protect communities from natural disasters. The paper effectively makes the point that it's financially impossible to offset enough carbon to compensate for future fossil fuel burning, said Daphne Yin, director of land policy at Carbon180, where her team advocates for U.S. policy support for land-based carbon removal. And the idea that companies would ever be required to account for the downstream emissions from the fossil fuel they extract is a 'fantasy,' she said. The idea of planting trees is appealing to the public and to politicians because it's tangible — people can literally see the carbon being incorporated into branches and leaves as a tree grows, Friggens said. But she says other methods shouldn't be overlooked — microbes underground store carbon too, but they can't be seen. And it's a physically and mathematically inescapable fact, illustrated in part by this study, that there's no getting around it — we have to stop emitting carbon, said Jonathan Foley, the executive director of Project Drawdown, who also was not part of the study. Carbon emissions are like an overflowing bathtub, he says: Before you start cleaning up, you have to turn off the water. 'Trees are the sponges and the mops we use to clean up the mess," he said. "But if the taps are still running and the water's pouring out over the edges of your bathtub, destroying your bathroom and your home, maybe you've got to learn to turn off the taps too.' ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store