We're So Screwed, Even That "City Killer" Asteroid Doesn't Want to Destroy Earth Anymore
Over the following weeks, the probability of a collision grew steadily, eventually reaching 3.1 percent — or about a 1-in-32 chance — according to figures from NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies last week.
But fears over a space rock wiping out one of the most populous cities on Earth amounted to nothing. According to the JPL's "more precise models of the asteroid's trajectory," scientists came up with an updated impact probability only 0.004 percent.
"There is no significant potential for this asteroid to impact our planet for the next century," NASA wrote in a recent blog post. "The latest observations have further reduced the uncertainty of its future trajectory, and the range of possible locations the asteroid could be on December 22, 2032, has moved farther away from the Earth."
In short, not even a near-Earth asteroid was willing to finally put us out of our mystery.
At least we could soon get an even more precise glimpse of the slacker asteroid. Scientists are hoping to use NASA's groundbreaking James Webb Space Telescope to zoom in on the space rock next month.
Intriguingly, according to NASA, there's still a small 1.7 percent chance 2024 YR4 could impact the Moon on December 22, 2032, which could result in a massive collision that's visible from Earth.
"There is the possibility this would eject some material back out that could hit the Earth, but I highly doubt it would cause any major threat," University of Arizona asteroid hunter David Rankin told New Scientist earlier this month.
With a collision with Earth exceedingly unlikely, NASA is still excited to use the opportunity to "test planetary defense science and notification processes," according to the agency's latest update.
And the space agency already has some practice when it comes to fending off errant space rocks.
In September 2022, NASA smashed its Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft into a tiny asteroid called Dimorphos. The groundbreaking mission saw the space rock be knocked off its trajectory, releasing copious amounts of dust and loose rock in the process.
Fortunately, it doesn't look like the agency will have to do anything like with 2024 YR4, though.
More on the space rock: Killer Asteroid Could Be Headed for Some of the World's Most Populous Cities
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
20 minutes ago
- Fast Company
NASA is putting a nuclear reactor on the moon. It could reshape space governance
The first space race was about flags and footprints. Now, decades later, landing on the moon is old news. The new race is to build there, and doing so hinges on power. In April 2025, China reportedly unveiled plans to build a nuclear power plant on the moon by 2035. This plant would support its planned international lunar research station. The United States countered in August, when acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy reportedly suggested a U.S. reactor would be operational on the moon by 2030. While it might feel like a sudden sprint, this isn't exactly breaking news. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent years quietly developing small nuclear power systems to power lunar bases, mining operations, and long-term habitats. As a space lawyer focused on long-term human advancement into space, I see this not as an arms race but as a strategic infrastructure race. And in this case, infrastructure is influence. A lunar nuclear reactor may sound dramatic, but it's neither illegal nor unprecedented. If deployed responsibly, it could allow countries to peacefully explore the moon, fuel their economic growth, and test out technologies for deeper space missions. But building a reactor also raises critical questions about access and power. The legal framework already exists Nuclear power in space radioisotope generators that use small amounts of radioactive elements—a type of nuclear fuel— to power satellites, Mars rovers, and the Voyager probes. The United Nations' 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, a nonbinding resolution, recognizes that nuclear energy may be essential for missions where solar power is insufficient. This resolution sets guidelines for safety, transparency, and international consultation. Nothing in international law prohibits the peaceful use of nuclear power on the moon. But what matters is how countries deploy it. And the first country to succeed could shape the norms for expectations, behaviors, and legal interpretations related to lunar presence and influence. Why being first matters The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by all major spacefaring nations including the U.S., China, and Russia, governs space activity. Its Article IX requires that states act with 'due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.' That statement means if one country places a nuclear reactor on the moon, others must navigate around it, legally and physically. In effect, it draws a line on the lunar map. If the reactor anchors a larger, long-term facility, it could quietly shape what countries do and how their moves are interpreted legally, on the moon and beyond. Other articles in the Outer Space Treaty set similar boundaries on behavior, even as they encourage cooperation. They affirm that all countries have the right to freely explore and access the moon and other celestial bodies, but they explicitly prohibit territorial claims or assertions of sovereignty. At the same time, the treaty acknowledges that countries may establish installations such as bases—and with that, gain the power to limit access. While visits by other countries are encouraged as a transparency measure, they must be preceded by prior consultations. Effectively, this grants operators a degree of control over who can enter and when. Building infrastructure is not staking a territorial claim. No one can own the moon, but one country setting up a reactor could shape where and how others operate—functionally, if not legally. Infrastructure is influence where ice found in perpetually shadowed craters could fuel rockets and sustain lunar bases. These sought-after regions are scientifically vital and geopolitically sensitive, as multiple countries want to build bases or conduct research there. Building infrastructure in these areas would cement a country's ability to access the resources there and potentially exclude others from doing the same. Critics may worry about radiation risks. Even if designed for peaceful use and contained properly, reactors introduce new environmental and operational hazards, particularly in a dangerous setting such as space. But the U.N. guidelines do outline rigorous safety protocols, and following them could potentially mitigate these concerns. Why nuclear? Because solar has limits The moon has little atmosphere and experiences 14-day stretches of darkness. In some shadowed craters, where ice is likely to be found, sunlight never reaches the surface at all. These issues make solar energy unreliable, if not impossible, in some of the most critical regions. A small lunar reactor could operate continuously for a decade or more, powering habitats, rovers, 3D printers, and life-support systems. Nuclear power could be the linchpin for long-term human activity. And it's not just about the Moon—developing this capability is essential for missions to Mars, where solar power is even more constrained. A call for governance, not alarm The United States has an opportunity to lead not just in technology but in governance. If it commits to sharing its plans publicly, following Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirming a commitment to peaceful use and international participation, it will encourage other countries to do the same. The future of the moon won't be determined by who plants the most flags. It will be determined by who builds what, and how. Nuclear power may be essential for that future. Building transparently and in line with international guidelines would allow countries to more safely realize that future. A reactor on the moon isn't a territorial claim or a declaration of war. But it is infrastructure. And infrastructure will be how countries display power—of all kinds—in the next era of space exploration. Michelle L.D. Hanlon is a professor of air and space law at the University of Mississippi. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Six-Planet Parade On Wednesday: When And Where To See Four Bright Planets
Sky-watchers who saw the Venus-Jupiter conjunction on Tuesday, Aug. 12, will have glimpsed the first act of the six-planet 'planet parade' that's building in the eastern sky before sunrise. Best seen about an hour before sunrise, bright planets Venus and Jupiter — now beginning to draw away from each other — will dominate in the east while Saturn brightens in the south. Rising below Venus and Jupiter is Mercury, which will get higher each morning this week. Uranus and Neptune will also be in the sky, though neither is visible to the naked eye. A spectacular 'planet parade' (also called an alignment) featuring six planets is visible during August 2025. getty About an hour before sunrise, Venus and Jupiter will be very bright in the eastern sky. The two brightest planets in the solar system were in close conjunction in the pre-dawn hours of Tuesday, Aug. 12, separated by just 0.9 degrees. On Wednesday, Aug. 13, they will appear to begin to drift apart. Saturn will be visible in the southern sky. Mercury will be visible just above the eastern horizon about 45 minutes before sunrise. It's not easy to see because it appears very low, below 10 degrees altitude, according to NASA. It will be farthest from the sun (and, therefore, highest in the sky), on Aug. 19 and remain visible until around Aug. 26. The next highlight of the 'planet parade' will come on Wednesday, Aug. 20, when a slender crescent moon will shine very close to a brilliant Venus. The following 'planet parade' will happen during October 2028, when five planets will be visible together, again before sunrise. The planets an hour before sunrise on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, during the "planet parade." Stellarium Although Venus will be the brightest planet in the parade, it's now on the wane as it recedes from Earth. Over the coming months it will dim and become harder to see in the pre-dawn sky, having undertaken Earth on its 224-day orbit of the sun. The outer planets, however, are brightening. Saturn, the ringed planet, is currently getting brighter as it nears its annual 'opposition' on Sept. 21, when Earth will be between Saturn and the sun. That will be the best time to put a telescope on Saturn to see its rings. Jupiter will next be at its biggest, brightest and best on Jan. 10, 2026. Through binoculars or a telescope, you can glimpse some of its largest moons — Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto — lined up like tiny stars. In the wake of the Venus-Jupiter conjunction this week, the 'planet parade' will peak this weeked and into next week when it's joined by a waning crescent moon. On Monday, Aug. 18, a 26% crescent moon will be seen near Venus and Jupiter. On Tuesday, Aug. 19, Mercury will be at its highest in the morning sky as a 16%-lit crescent moon forms a curve with Venus and Jupiter. On Wednesday, Aug. 20, a 9%-lit crescent moon will be close to Venus, with Mercury below and Jupiter above. On Thursday, Aug. 21, a 4%-lit waning crescent moon will be beneath Jupiter and Venus, close to Mercury. Further Reading Forbes A Six-Planet Parade Is Coming — When To See It By Jamie Carter Forbes Perseid Meteor Shower Begins Next Week — When To Get The Best View By Jamie Carter Forbes Don't Miss This Week's Dazzling Venus-Jupiter Encounter By Jamie Carter
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Race to build nuclear reactor on moon raises galaxy of legal questions
Accelerated plans announced by NASA this month for the United States to put a nuclear reactor on the moon ahead of its geopolitical rivals would break new ground — not just on the lunar surface, but in the realm of space law. The vastness of space is governed by long-standing legal frameworks, parts of which have yet to be tested. NASA's efforts in that realm raise thorny questions around those rules, and the possibility for conflict as countries vie for a stepping stone on the path to Mars and beyond, some experts say. Earlier this month, Sean P. Duffy, the acting administrator of NASA and the U.S. transportation secretary, asked NASA to accelerate efforts to place a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030. The reactor technology will 'support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space,' Duffy wrote in a directive first reported by Politico. The NASA chief cited growing pressure from China and Russia as a reason for urgency on the project. Since 2024, both countries have repeatedly affirmed their plan to jointly install a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s. In his directive, Duffy wrote that the first country to place a nuclear energy source on the moon 'could declare a keep-out zone.' Although placing a nuclear reactor on the moon is not a new concept or a shocking leap for NASA — and the request for proposals calls for the construction of a rather small reactor — Duffy's framing of the move as relating to geopolitics and control raised questions among legal experts. 'There's a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best,' Duffy said in the news conference Tuesday. 'We want to get there first and claim that for America.' The United States' lunar activity is largely governed by the Outer Space Treaty, a legally binding agreement signed by all major moon faring nations in 1967, and the Artemis Accords, a set of nonbinding principles designed to guide civil space exploration launched in 2020. China and Russia are not signatories to the latter. Michelle Hanlon, the executive director for the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, said that certain clauses of the Outer Space Treaty have unintentionally created a first mover advantage for placing an energy source on the moon. Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty says that nations have to conduct activities with 'due regard' for the activities of others, she said, adding that Article 12 outlines the need for state to ask permission to work in an area where another nation has an installation. 'Whoever gets there first has this implicit greater right to exclude than anybody else,' Hanlon said. 'This raises a question of what exactly 'due regard' means.' Neither the treaty nor the accords mention a 'keep-out zone.' In fact, the treaty prohibits all nations from claiming territory on the moon or any celestial bodies. The accords, meanwhile, outline a 'safety zone' — areas where nations can conduct space operations with the assurance that their personnel and equipment will be safe from other nations. The size, scope and duration of the safety zones are left vague, however. 'The only practical and legal provision is that if you land on a particular spot, then the Russians or whomever else would not be entitled to land so closely as to prevent an actual operating risk,' said Frans von der Dunk, a professor of space law at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. If a nation claims more than a few kilometers as a 'safety zone,' other countries might begin to suspect that they aren't motivated by a desire for security but are instead using it as a 'sort of veiled approach to say everyone keeps out,' said von der Dunk. He added that it is too early to assess the proper size of a lunar safety zone, given how little is known about NASA's plans. The intention of the Outer Space Treaty, according to Erika Nesvold, an astrophysicist and author of 'Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space,' was to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts and accidents — not to help people 'looking to get a foothold for their nation's government or profit for their companies.' China is committed to 'the peaceful use of outer space,' said Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for China's embassy in Washington. 'China has no intention to engage in a space race, nor do we seek so-called edge in outer space.' Duffy's team forwarded The Washington Post's request for comment to NASA, which said in a statement that the nuclear reactor plans are meant to 'further advance U.S. competition and lunar surface leadership.' Bethany Stevens, a spokeswoman for the agency, said NASA would share additional details about the plans in the future. NASA has been eyeing areas around the moon's southern pole for science and exploration. There, the sun hovers below or just above the horizon in some parts, with looming mountains casting long shadows over the surface. Deep craters are expected to hold frozen water, an extremely valuable commodity in space. In his Tuesday news conference, Duffy pointed to the availability of ice and sunlight as motivating the push to 'claim' space on the moon. Even in sunlit regions of the South Pole area, solar panels would provide energy for only half the month because a night on the moon lasts roughly two weeks. Hanlon said that finding a nonsolar source of energy for rovers or even an eventual permanent human presence on the moon would be 'the right next step' for long-term lunar exploration efforts. 'We can't ship propane to the moon for energy,' she said. Though few details exist about the aim of the project, the request for proposals issued by Duffy calls on commercial companies to outline plans to build a reactor that could generate at least 100 kilowatts of power. 'That's the same amount of energy a 2,000-square foot home uses every 3½ days,' Duffy said Tuesday, describing the project's scale. 'We are not talking about massive technology.' Space experts are concerned that the urgency surrounding Artemis, NASA's return-to-the-moon program, is papering over a range of lunar legal issues. Nesvold, the astrophysicist, said there are concerns that racing to the moon could lead to a 'gold rush' mentality, conflicts over access to lunar resources, environmental losses and labor exploitation that would especially stem from the involvement of profit-motivated private companies mining on the moon. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization in Washington, said 'undue speed is not a friend of nuclear power development,' adding that rushing the process could result in 'safety incidents and reliability issues.' Lyman also raised questions about what might be done with radioactive waste on the moon. 'That type of waste could persist for hundreds of years,' Lyman said. 'It's going to be a mess frankly.'
