logo
The Odds of a City-Killing Asteroid Hitting Earth Keep Rising

The Odds of a City-Killing Asteroid Hitting Earth Keep Rising

WIRED20-02-2025

Eric Berger, Ars Technica Feb 20, 2025 10:00 AM The likelihood of 2024 YR4 colliding with the our planet in 2032 have ticked up to over 3 percent. Is it time to start worrying? ILLUSTRATION: NASA/JOHNS HOPKINS APL
An asteroid discovered late last year is continuing to stir public interest as its odds of striking planet Earth less than eight years from now continue to increase.
Two weeks ago, when Ars first wrote about the asteroid, designated 2024 YR4, NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies estimated a 1.9 percent chance of an impact with Earth in 2032. NASA's most recent estimate has the likelihood of a strike increasing to 3.2 percent. Now that's not particularly high, but it's also not zero.
This story originally appeared on Ars Technica, a trusted source for technology news, tech policy analysis, reviews, and more. Ars is owned by WIRED's parent company, Condé Nast.
Naturally the prospect of a large ball of rock tens of meters across striking the planet is a little worrisome. This is large enough to cause localized devastation near its impact site, likely on the order of the Tunguska event of 1908, which leveled some 500 square miles (1,295 square kilometers) of forest in remote Siberia.
To understand why the odds from NASA are changing and whether we should be concerned about 2024 YR4, Ars connected with Robin George Andrews, author of the recently published book How to Kill an Asteroid . Good timing with the publication date, eh?
Ars: Why are the impact odds increasing?
Robin George Andrews: The asteroid's orbit is not known to a great deal of precision right now, as we only have a limited number of telescopic observations of it. However, even as the rock zips farther away from Earth, certain telescopes are still managing to spy it and extend our knowledge of the asteroid's orbital arc around the sun. The odds have fluctuated in both directions over the last few weeks, but overall, they have risen; that's because the amount of uncertainty astronomers have as to its true orbit has shrunk, but Earth has yet to completely fall out of that zone of uncertainty. As a proportion of the remaining uncertainty, Earth is taking up more space, so for now, its odds are rising.
Think of it like a beam of light coming out of the front of that asteroid. That beam of light shrinks as we get to know its orbit better, but if Earth is yet to fall out of that beam, it takes up proportionally more space. So, for a while, the asteroid's impact odds rise. It's very likely that, with sufficient observations, Earth will fall out of that shrinking beam of light eventually, and the impact odds will suddenly fall to zero. The alternative, of course, is that they'll rise close to 100 percent.
What are we learning about the asteroid's destructive potential?
The damage it could cause would be localized to a roughly city-sized area, so if it hits the middle of the ocean or a vast desert, nothing would happen. But it could trash a city, or completely destroy much of one, with a direct hit.
The key factor here (if you had to pick one) is the asteroid's mass. Each time the asteroid gets twice as long (presuming it's roughly spherical), it brings with it 8 times more kinetic energy. So if the asteroid is on the smaller end of the estimated size range—40 meters—then it will be as if a small nuclear bomb exploded in the sky. At that size, unless it's very iron-rich, it wouldn't survive its atmospheric plunge, so it would explode in mid-air. There would be modest-to-severe structural damage right below the blast, and minor to moderate structural damage over tens of miles. A 90-meter asteroid would, whether it makes it to the ground or not, be more than 10 times more energetic; a large nuclear weapon blast, then. A large city would be severely damaged, and the area below the blast would be annihilated.
Do we have any idea where the asteroid might strike on Earth?
The 'risk corridor' is currently spread over parts of the eastern Pacific Ocean, northern South America, the Atlantic Ocean, parts of Africa, the Arabian Sea, and South Asia. Additional observations will ultimately narrow this down, if an impact remains possible.
What key observations are we still waiting for that might clarify the threat?
Most telescopes will lose sight of this 'small' asteroid in the coming weeks. But the James Webb Space Telescope will be able to track it until May. For the first time, it's been authorized for planetary defense purposes, largely because its infrared eye allows it to track the asteroid further out than optical light telescopes. JWST will not only improve our understanding of its orbit, but also constrain its size. First observations should appear by the end of March.
JWST may rule out an impact in 2032. But there's a chance we may be stuck with a few-percentage impact probability until 2028, when the asteroid makes its next Earth flyby. Bit awkward, if so.
NASA's DART mission successfully shifted an asteroid's orbit in 2022. Could this technology be used?
Not necessarily. DART—a type of spacecraft called a kinetic impactor—was a great success. But it still only changed Dimorphos' orbit by a small amount. Ideally, you want many years of advance notice to deflect an asteroid with something like DART to ensure the asteroid has moved out of Earth's way. I've often been told that at least 10 years prior to impact is best if you want to be sure to deflect a city-killing-size asteroid. That's not to say deflection is impossible; it just becomes trickier to pull off. You can't just hit it with a colossal spacecraft, because you may fragment it into several still-dangerously sized pieces. Hit it too softly, and it will still hit Earth, but somewhere that wasn't originally going to be hit. You have to be super careful here.
Some rather clever scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (which has a superb planetary defense contingent) worked out that, for a 90-meter asteroid, you need 10 years to confidently deflect it with a kinetic impactor to prevent an Earth impact. So, to deflect 2024 YR4, if it's 90 meters long and we have just a few years of time, we'd probably need a bigger impactor spacecraft (but don't break it!)—or we'd need several kinetic impactors to deflect it (but each has to work perfectly).
Eight years until impact is a little tight. It's not impossible that the choice would be made to use a nuclear weapon to deflect it; this could be very awkward geopolitically, but a nuke would impart a bigger deflection than an equivalent DART-like spacecraft. Or, maybe, they'd opt to try and vaporize the asteroid with something like a 1-megaton nuke, which LLNL says would work with an asteroid this size.
So it's kind of late in the game to be planning an impact mission?
This isn't an ideal situation. And humanity has never tried to stop an asteroid impact for real. I imagine that if 2024 YR4 does become an agreed-upon emergency, the DART team (JHUAP plus NASA, mostly) would join forces with SpaceX (and other space agencies, particularly ESA but probably others) to quickly build the right-mass kinetic impactor (or impactors) and get ready for a deflection attempt close to 2028, when the asteroid makes its next Earth flyby. But yeah, eight years is not too much time.
A deflection could work! But it won't be as simple as just hitting the asteroid really hard in 2028.
How important is NASA to planetary defense?
Planetary defense is an international security concern. But right now, NASA (and America, by extension) is the vanguard. Its planetary defenders are the watchers on the wall, the people most responsible for not just finding these potentially hazardous asteroids before they find us, but also those most capable of developing and deploying tech to prevent any impacts. America is the only nation with (for now!) a well-funded near-Earth object-hunting program, and is the only nation to have tested out a planetary defense technique. It's a movie cliché that America is the only nation capable of saving the world from cosmic threats. But, for the time being—even with amazing planetary defense mission contributions from ESA and JAXA—that cliché remains absolutely true.
This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The White House adviser who fueled the Trump-Musk NASA feud
The White House adviser who fueled the Trump-Musk NASA feud

Axios

time29 minutes ago

  • Axios

The White House adviser who fueled the Trump-Musk NASA feud

Shortly after President Trump unexpectedly withdrew Elon Musk 's pick to lead NASA last weekend, one name quickly surfaced as a major force behind the surprise decision: top White House aide Sergio Gor. Why it matters: Trump acknowledged Thursday that canceling Jared Isaacman 's NASA nomination had "upset" Musk, who's close to Isaacman. It was a factor, among many, that led to Thursday's shocking falling out between the president and his one-time "First Buddy," the world's richest person. Musk spent the afternoon flaming Trump on X. It left presidential advisers stunned — and some of them angry at Gor, whose tense relationship with Musk was a backdrop to the controversy. Senate Republicans also blamed Gor for helping undermine the NASA nomination to settle a score with Musk, who had been critical of Gor's management of the White House personnel office. Gor declined to comment. But one senior White House official called Axios on Gor's behalf to praise his "brilliance, hard work and dedication." Zoom in: Gor is one of the most influential Trump advisers in the White House, and co-founded Winning Team Publishing with Donald Trump Jr. The imprint publishes books by Trump and his allies, and put much-needed cash in Trump's pocket during his isolation after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Gor, a frequent presence at Mar-a-Lago, has a close relationship with former Marvel executive Ike Perlmutter, one of Trump's closest friends and a major donor. Gor was a top fundraising official on Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, and founded a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 campaign that spent nearly $72 million. Zoom out: As the man in charge of vetting political appointees, Gor implemented loyalty tests to make sure new hires support Trump's agenda wholeheartedly — and that they haven't given to Democrats. Of all of Trump's picks, Isaacman — a wealthy entrepreneur — stood out for having contributed to Democrats during the last election cycle. Trump cited that Saturday when he withdrew Isaacman's nomination. Trump, however, had been made aware of Isaacman's donations months ago and said nothing. Now, the nation's space agency won't have a chief confirmed by the Senate for at least nine months, officials say. Flashback: Musk and Gor had a tense relationship that surfaced in March during a heated Cabinet meeting in which Musk got into an argument with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, The New York Times reported at the time. Gor wasn't mentioned in the Times story, a conspicuous absence in the eyes of two senior administration officials who say Gor resented Musk's involvement in personnel matters. "Sergio let it be known he didn't like Musk's attitude ... and he didn't like getting called out [by Musk] in front of the Cabinet," said one White House official who attended the meeting. The intrigue: In a Wednesday discussion on the "All-In Podcast," Isaacman said he believes his fate was linked to Musk's deteriorating standing in the White House and "an influential adviser coming in and saying [to Trump]: 'Look, here's the facts and I think we should kill this guy.''' "It's crazy," a Trump adviser involved in the NASA director process said. "Isaacman is eminently qualified. He's a billionaire. He has been to space. He was a Democrat — exactly the type of voter we want. And now look at it." Gor has told others he wasn't responsible — and that GOP senators were, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees NASA. Advisers in several GOP Senate offices involved in the nomination, including Cruz's, say they didn't know of any senators or staffers who opposed Isaacman. Cruz, indeed, raised objections in December, when Musk persuaded Trump to nominate Isaacman to lead NASA. Cruz raised two issues then: Isaacman had contributed to Democrats opposing GOP senators Tim Sheehy of Montana and Bernie Moreno of Ohio last year. Isaacman, like Musk, wants NASA to focus on colonizing Mars, but Cruz is focused on moon exploration. The Texas senator wants to compete with the Chinese space efforts there — and keep the Johnson Space Center in Houston operational as mission control for the Artemis program. Behind the scenes: Musk called Cruz when he heard of his objections. Isaacman then promised he would prioritize Artemis. Sheehy and Moreno said they had no problems with Isaacman. Cruz held a confirmation hearing on April 30 for Isaacman, whose nomination was approved by the committee 19-9. Three Senate sources and two White House insiders said they expected Isaacman to get 70 or 80 votes on the Senate floor, a rarity in the closely divided chamber. "I thought we were going to confirm him this week," Cruz told Axios. Asked if he had any input in scuttling Isaacman's confirmation, Cruz said: "That's not accurate." Meanwhile, Gor"spun up the president by just constantly mentioning the donations," a Trump adviser said. On May 30, before a joint press conference with Musk to announce his departure from the White House — which appeared amicable at the time — Gor dropped off a background file on Isaacman with Trump at the Oval Office. Musk later entered the room and Trump asked him about Isaacman. "This guy gave to Democrats," Trump said to Musk, according to a person familiar with the meeting. "It's not like Elon really defended him. He said, 'He's really competent. But yeah, he gave to Democrats,'" the source said.

Moon over Musk
Moon over Musk

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Moon over Musk

Presented by The Spotlight The alliance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk — to borrow a phrase from the space community — has undergone a rapid unscheduled disassembly. Yet amid all the fireworks Thursday from the duo's public meltdown, one area of the space world seems to have a brighter future: the moon mission. Context: Musk, the SpaceX founder and well-known Mars enthusiast, has argued against returning astronauts to the lunar surface. But the stunning forced exit of the billionaire's hand-picked nominee for the top NASA job and Musk's massive rupture with the president has handed moon backers in Congress and industry an opening — and they're seizing it. What's happening, Part I: A ton of major space companies — just not SpaceX — are launching an ad campaign going big on the moon, according to two industry officials granted anonymity to discuss the effort. The move is the first sign of real pushback against the behemoth space company and its founder, who only days ago seemed to lock down government contracts every time he blinked. A television ad funded by the companies, who do not go by an umbrella name, will appear on television in the coming days with a pitch clearly aimed at Trump. A narrator, underlaid by dramatic images of America's Apollo missions, implores voters to call senators in support of the moon mission and 'keep America first in space.' A separate letter addressed to the Senate Commerce Committee and obtained by POLITICO backs investments in the moon, and is signed by a lengthy slate of prominent space companies — but not (you guessed it) SpaceX. What's happening, Part II: The Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday evening unveiled a new reconciliation bill that would channel $10 billion to NASA, much of it for the space agency's effort to return to the moon through the Artemis program. The White House's NASA budget had proposed major cuts to Artemis, including slashing a planned lunar space station and moon missions. 'Anybody who's following space will have noticed how deeply committed [the committee is] to getting back to the moon, particularly before the Chinese get there,' said a committee aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the bill. SpaceX'd Out: All of this is happening amid Musk's very public fall from grace. Trump, during the social media showdown with his former confidante, threatened to cancel Musk's contracts with the government. The SpaceX founder responded by saying he would end the Dragon spacecraft contract, which is the U.S.'s only reliable way of accessing the International Space Station. (But he also suggested late Thursday night that he might not actually do so.) And of course, Trump last week abruptly pulled the NASA administrator nomination for Musk ally Jared Isaacman, just days ahead of his likely confirmation by the Senate. Isaacman, speaking on a podcast this week, linked his ouster to Musk's provocative departure from the White House. 'I don't think the timing was much of a coincidence,' he said. What next: This all means Congress may now have a stronger hand in negotiations with the White House over the NASA budget, which was written before Musk's break from Trump and heavily favors Mars. The administration's budget proposes major cuts to spending for the moon in favor of nearly $1 billion for landing an astronaut on Mars. SpaceX, thanks to provisions in the bill, was likely to snag a lucrative contract to build the landing system for any red planet mission. That seems much less feasible now. Senators from states with large NASA centers — think Alabama and Louisiana — are particularly keen to latch onto moon funding. Trump has voiced support for a Mars mission, meaning the idea may not have completely faded. But with Musk's implosion and the latest moon push, a return to the lunar surface is on firmer ground than it was just a week ago. WELCOME TO POLITICO PRO SPACE. It's our inaugural edition and a telling time to start. We've seen deep slashes to NASA's budget, the space agency's nominee pulled, and a feud explode between the world's biggest space contractor and the president. We can't wait for next week. Email me at sskove@ with tips, pitches and feedback, and find me on X at @samuelskove. We're offering this newsletter for free over the next few weeks. After that, it will be available only to POLITICO Pro subscribers. Read all about what we're doing here. Galactic Government MAKE A DEAL: Florida Rep. Mike Haridopolos, who chairs the House's subcommittee on space and aeronautics, told me Wednesday that he was against the White House's massive NASA cuts — making him one of the first Republicans to publicly voice opposition. 'Will a 26 percent cut to NASA hold? Absolutely not,' he said. 'We're going to be talking with the president and his team, with OMB about the paramount importance of space.' China: Haridopolos emphasized competition with China as a driving reason not to slash the space agency's funding. The proposed cancellation of Gateway — a lunar space station partnership with the European Space Agency — opens the way for Chinese influence, he said. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who leads the committee that oversees NASA, underscored a remarkably similar message during Isaacman's confirmation hearing. The Florida lawmaker said he was optimistic that the cuts wouldn't come to fruition. Trump 'believes in the space program,' he said. 'He knows that we want there's no second place to space.' TICKET TO RIDE: Sens. John Cornyn, Ben Ray Luján, Rick Scott, and Mark Kelly introduced a bill Thursday that would streamline licensing processes for commercial space companies, opening the way to a boom in rocket launches. The bill, dubbed the Launch Act, would allow the Federal Aviation Administration to eliminate overly bureaucratic steps in the application process. The law would also create a streamlined process for licensing commercial satellites used to observe the Earth. And it would move the Office of Space Commerce from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and place it directly under the Transportation secretary, a move that would elevate the office's access to key decision makers. Why it matters: Companies such as SpaceX have long complained about the slow pace of launch licensing. Streamlining the process could lead to a significant uptick in an already booming schedule. Companies launched 145 U.S. rockets in 2024, up from 109 the previous year. Military SPACE COMMAND: Lawmakers pressed Air Force Secretary Troy Meink on Thursday to keep U.S. Space Command in Colorado as the Trump administration weighs moving the headquarters to Alabama. The Defense Department established the command in 2019 and temporarily placed it in Colorado while the Air Force evaluated permanent sites. Trump chose Alabama as the permanent headquarters but former President Joe Biden reversed that decision and selected Colorado. What he said: Meink, in a House Armed Services Committee hearing, conceded that Space Command would see civilian employees quit if the HQ moved from Colorado to Alabama. 'It would be very important that we manage that move over a period of time, if that occurs,' the Air Force chief said. Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) called for the Pentagon to resume headquarters construction at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs, calling it the 'most effective' home for Space Command. Context: Officials have paused construction because of a legal requirement to hold off until the Pentagon inspector general and the Government Accountability Office released their reports on the Biden administration's 2023 basing decision. Those reports are out, but Meink said the Air Force is still reviewing the GAO's findings. The Reading Room — Senate Commerce reconciliation bill proposes new space launch fee: POLITICO — Space Force awards BAE $1.2B for missile warning sats in MEO: Breaking Defense — Impulse Space Raises $300M Series C: Payload — Space Force shifts upfront range upgrade costs to commercial firms: Defense News — Some parts of Trump's proposed budget for NASA are literally draconian: Ars Technica Event Horizon TUESDAY: Axiom-4 launches private astronauts to the International Space Station. The Hudson Institute holds a discussio n on defending in outer space with Rep. Jeff Crank. Rep. George Whitesides speaks with SpaceNews on space issues. FRIDAY: The FAA ends public comments on a launch licensing-related issue. Photo of the Week

Japan's ispace fails second lunar landing mission
Japan's ispace fails second lunar landing mission

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Japan's ispace fails second lunar landing mission

Japan'sprivate moon mission was aborted on Friday after it was presumed that the unmanned Resilience spacecraft had crashed. Tokyo-based startup ispace had launched the mission in hopes of becoming the first private company outside the United States to achieve a controlled lunar landing. The Resilience spacecraft had begun its final descent, successfully firing its main engine "as planned to begin deceleration," ispace said. Mission control reported that the craft's position was "nearly vertical," but contact was then lost. ispace stated that the spacecraft had likely failed to decelerate sufficiently to reach the speed required for a soft lunar landing. "Based on the currently available data... it is currently assumed that the lander likely performed a hard landing. It is unlikely that communication with the lander will be restored, so it has been decided to conclude the mission," ispace said in a statement. As of 8:00 a.m. on June 6, 2025, mission controllers have determined that it is unlikely that communication with the lander will be restored and therefore completing Success 9 is not achievable. It has been decided to conclude the mission.'Given that there is currently no… — ispace (@ispace_inc) June 6, 2025 Before signing off, the livestream announcers said, "never quit the lunar quest." Less than two minutes before the scheduled landing, the once-celebratory gathering of 500 ispace employees, shareholders, sponsors, and government officials fell into stunned silence as contact with the spacecraft was lost. "Expectations for ispace will not waver," Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba posted on X. ispaceによる月面着陸は、残念ながら成功には至りませんが、この挑戦が持つ価値は一時的にできるものではありません。 ispaceに対する期待が揺らぐことはありません。そのためにも、すぐに課題を検証し、次なる飛躍につなげていただきたいと願っています。 — 石破茂 (@shigeruishiba) June 6, 2025 Two years ago, another lunar missionby the company had also ended in a crash. CEO Takeshi Hakamada told reporters he took the second failed attempt "seriously" and intended to use the outcome to inform future missions. He said they had a "strong will to move on, although we have to carefully analyze what happened." Resilience carried a four-wheeled rover built by ispace's Luxembourg subsidiary, along with five external payloads valued at a total of $16 million. The planned landing site was Mare Frigoris, a plain about 900 km (560 miles) from the moon's north pole. Lunar landings remain challenging due to the moon's rugged terrain. To date, only five nations have successfully achieved soft lunar landings: Russia, US, China, India and Japan. Private companies have recently entered the race to the moon, and ispace would have been the third such company to achieve it. The mission wanted to collect two lunar soil samples and sell them to NASA for $5,000 (€4373). In January, Resilience shared a SpaceX rocket launch with Firefly's Blue Ghost lander, which touched down successfully in March. A moon landing attempt by US-based company Intuitive Machines failed in March this year. Edited by: Louis Oelofse

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store