Scientists think 'city killer' asteroid could now hit the moon
An asteroid that could be up to 220 feet wide will now miss Earth - but the chances of the space rock slamming into the moon have doubled.
Asteroid 2024 YR4 briefly had a small chance of hitting our planet in 2032, but NASA has now reduced this chance to 0.004%.
However, the chances of the asteroid hitting the moon have doubled, from 1.7% to 3.8% based on new readings from the James Webb Space Telescope.
NASA said, 'Experts at NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies at the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have updated 2024 YR4's chance of impacting the moon on Dec. 22, 2032 from 1.7% as of late February to 3.8% based on the Webb data and observations from ground-based telescopes.
"There is still a 96.2% chance that the asteroid will miss the moon.'
Recent telescope observations have reduced the likely size of the asteroid, but it's still the size of a ten-storey building.
According to the latest data from the James Webb telescope, the asteroid is believed to be 174-220 feet across.
If it had hit the Earth, the energy released at its impact would have been similar to a nuclear weapon - leading many to brand it a 'city killer'.
So what would happen if it hit the moon? Obviously there are no cities to get in the way, but what is likely is it would just create a crater.
The moon's surface is dotted with evidence of thousands of such craters.
Crucially, according to NASA, it would not alter our satellite's orbit. But the impact could pose other issues, said astronomer and science writer David Whitehouse.
Whitehouse told Yahoo News: "It would be scientifically fascinating, but it would be a disaster on many fronts.
"The problem is that although a lot of the impact falls back to the moon very quickly, a lot of it wouldn't, and it would be dispersed into space and dispersed into the moon's orbit. And that would affect people travelling to the moon, and also eventually would start to rain down back and rain down on the earth. So it would affect satellites. It would increase the debris hazard considerably in orbit."
'Many' scientists are hoping that YR4 WILL hit the moon, simply so that they can observe its impact, the head of the European Space Agency's Planetary Defense Office said.
Richard Moissl, head of the ESA's planetary defense office, said, "The possibility of getting a chance for an observation of a sizeable moon impact is indeed an interesting scenario from a scientific point of view.'
The information from the impact could be 'valuable for planetary defence purposes', he said.
Astronomers will target the James Webb Space Telescope at YR24 to get better readings of its position and size.
The asteroid is currently heading away from Earth and it will pass out of view after May, and it will not be possible to get readings until it is on its return journey.
The asteroid is more than 50 metres (164ft) in diameter, which means that it would have triggered planetary defence missions if there was more than a 1% chance of it hitting Earth in 2032.
Among these options would be using a nuclear weapon to nudge the space rock into a different orbit.
The 'nuclear option' would be most likely to be used with larger asteroids more than half a mile in diameter.
Another option would be to use a large laser to evaporate the asteroid's surface, driving it onto a different trajectory, as suggested in a paper from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
By far the most likely option to be used is an 'impactor' - a spacecraft that would be flown into the asteroid to knock it off course, said Whitehouse.
NASA and the ESA have conducted research into how the trajectory of an asteroid can be changed by ramming it with a spacecraft.
In September 2022, NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission impacted the asteroid Dimorphos. The collision changed Dimorphos's orbit successfully, and now scientists hope to study the space rock close-up to understand how to launch similar missions.
The ESA's Hera spacecraft will enter the orbit of Dimorphos (and its larger companion Didymos) in October 2026. By analysing the results of DART, Hera will offer information which could be used to repeat the feat with other objects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NASA says no decision yet on whether next Boeing Starliner flight will carry crew
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The earliest Boeing's Starliner spacecraft could fly again is early 2026, NASA said on Friday, as it evaluates whether to put humans on board one year after propulsion system issues on the capsule forced its debut crew to stay on the International Space Station for roughly nine months.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A surprising study revealed biological activity on a distant planet. Weeks later, scientists say there's more to the story
Sign up for CNN's Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more. A tiny sign revealed in April seemed like it might change the universe as we know it. Astronomers had detected just a hint, a glimmer of two molecules swirling in the atmosphere of a distant planet called K2-18b — molecules that on Earth are produced only by living things. It was a tantalizing prospect: the most promising evidence yet of an extraterrestrial biosignature, or traces of life linked to biological activity. But only weeks later, new findings suggest the search must continue. 'It was exciting, but it immediately raised several red flags because that claim of a potential biosignature would be historic, but also the significance or the strength of the statistical evidence seemed to be too high for the data,' said Dr. Luis Welbanks, a postdoctoral research scholar at Arizona State University's School of Earth and Space Exploration. While the molecules identified on K2-18b by the April study — dimethyl sulfide, or DMS, and dimethyl disulfide, or DMDS — are associated largely with microbial organisms on our planet, scientists point out that the compounds can also form without the presence of life. Now, three teams of astronomers not involved with the research, including Welbanks, have assessed the models and data used in the original biosignature discovery and got very different results, which they have submitted for peer review. Meanwhile, the lead author of the April study, Nikku Madhusudhan, and his colleagues have conducted additional research that they say reinforces their previous finding about the planet. And it's likely that additional observations and research from multiple groups of scientists are on the horizon. The succession of research papers revolving around K2-18b offers a glimpse of the scientific process unfolding in real time. It's a window into the complexities and nuances of how researchers search for evidence of life beyond Earth — and shows why the burden of proof is so high and difficult to reach. Located 124 light-years from Earth, K2-18b is generally considered a worthy target to scour for signs of life. It is thought to be a Hycean world, a planet entirely covered in liquid water with a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, according to previous research led by Madhusudhan, a professor of astrophysics and exoplanetary science at the University of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. And as such, K2-18b has rapidly attracted attention as a potentially habitable place beyond our solar system. Convinced of K2-18b's promise, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues used observations of the planet by the largest space telescope in operation, the James Webb Space Telescope, to study the planet further. But two scientists at the University of Chicago — Dr. Rafael Luque, a postdoctoral scholar in the university's department of astronomy and astrophysics, and Michael Zhang, a 51 Pegasi b / Burbidge postdoctoral fellow — spotted some problems with what they found. After reviewing Madhusudhan and his team's April paper, which followed up on their 2023 research, Luque and Zhang noticed that the Webb data looked 'noisy,' Luque said. Noise, caused by imperfections in the telescope and the rate at which different particles of light reach the telescope, is just one challenge astronomers face when they study distant exoplanets. Noise can distort observations and introduce uncertainties into the data, Zhang said. Trying to detect specific gases in distant exoplanet atmospheres introduces even more uncertainty. The most noticeable features from a gas like dimethyl sulfide stem from a bond of hydrogen and carbon molecules — a connection that can stretch and bend and absorb light at different wavelengths, making it hard to definitively detect one kind of molecule, Zhang said. 'The problem is basically every organic molecule has a carbon-hydrogen bond,' Zhang said. 'There's hundreds of millions of those molecules, and so these features are not unique. If you have perfect data, you can probably distinguish between different molecules. But if you don't have perfect data, a lot of molecules, especially organic molecules, look very similar, especially in the near-infrared.' Delving further into the paper, Luque and Zhang also noticed that the perceived temperature of the planet appeared to increase sharply from a range of about 250 Kelvin to 300 Kelvin (-9.67 F to 80.33 F or -23.15 C to 26.85 C) in research Madhusudhan published in 2023 to 422 Kelvin (299.93 F or 148.85 C) in the April study. Such harsh temperatures could change the way astronomers think about the planet's potential habitability, Zhang said, especially because cooler temperatures persist in the top of the atmosphere — the area that Webb can detect — and the surface or ocean below would likely have even higher temperatures. 'This is just an inference only from the atmosphere, but it would certainly affect how we think about the planet in general,' Luque said. Part of the issue, he said, is that the April analysis didn't include data collected from all three Webb instruments Madhusudhan's team used over the past few years. So Luque, Zhang and their colleagues conducted a study combining all the available data to see whether they could achieve the same results, or even find a higher amount of dimethyl sulfide. They found 'insufficient evidence' of both molecules in the planet's atmosphere. Instead, Luque and Zhang's team spotted other molecules, like ethane, that could fit the same profile. But ethane does not signify life. Arizona State's Welbanks and his colleagues, including Dr. Matt Nixon, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of astronomy at the University of Maryland College Park, also found what they consider a fundamental problem with the April paper on K2-18b. The concern, Welbanks said, was with how Madhusudhan and his team created models to show which molecules might be in the planet's atmosphere. 'Each (molecule) is tested one at a time against the same minimal baseline, meaning every single model has an artificial advantage: It is the only explanation permitted,' Welbanks said. When Welbanks and his team conducted their own analysis, they expanded the model from Madhusudhan's study. '(Madhusudhan and his colleagues) didn't allow for any other chemical species that could potentially be producing these small signals or observations,' Nixon said. 'So the main thing we wanted to do was assess whether other chemical species could provide an adequate fit to the data.' When the model was expanded, the evidence for dimethyl sulfide or dimethyl disulfide 'just disappears,' Welbanks said. Madhusudhan believes the studies that have come out after his April paper are 'very encouraging' and 'enabling a healthy discussion on the interpretation of our data on K2-18b.' He reviewed Luque and Zhang's work and agreed that their findings don't show a 'strong detection for DMS or DMDS.' When Madhusudhan's team published the paper in April, he said the observations reached the three-sigma level of significance, or a 0.3% probability that the detections occurred by chance. For a scientific discovery that is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, the observations must meet a five-sigma threshold, or below a 0.00006% probability that the observations occurred by chance. Meeting such a threshold will require many steps, Welbanks said, including repeated detections of the same molecule using multiple telescopes and ruling out potential nonbiological sources. While such evidence could be found in our lifetime, it is less likely to be a eureka moment and more a slow build requiring a consensus among astronomers, physicists, biologists and chemists. 'We have never reached that level of evidence in any of our studies,' Madhusudhan wrote in an email. 'We have only found evidence at or below 3-sigma in our two previous studies (Madhusudhan et al. 2023 and 2025). We refer to this as moderate evidence or hints but not a strong detection. I agree with (Luque and Zhang's) claim which is consistent with our study and we have discussed the need for stronger evidence extensively in our study and communications.' In response to the research conducted by Welbanks' team, Madhusudhan and his Cambridge colleagues have authored another manuscript expanding the search on K2-18b to include 650 types of molecules. They have submitted the new analysis for peer review. 'This is the largest search for chemical signatures in an exoplanet to date, using all the available data for K2-18b and searching through 650 molecules,' Madhusudhan said. 'We find that DMS continues to be a promising candidate molecule in this planet, though more observations are required for a firm detection as we have noted in our previous studies.' Welbanks and Nixon were pleased that Madhusudhan and his colleagues addressed the concerns raised but feel that the new paper effectively walks back central claims made in the original April study, Welbanks said. 'The new paper tacitly concedes that the DMS/DMDS detection was not robust, yet still relies on the same flawed statistical framework and a selective reading of its own results,' Welbanks said in an email. 'While the tone is more cautious (sometimes), the methodology continues to obscure the true level of uncertainty. The statistical significance claimed in earlier work was the product of arbitrary modeling decisions that are not acknowledged.' Luque said the Cambridge team's new paper is a step in the right direction because it explores other possible chemical biosignatures. 'But I think it fell short in the scope,' Luque said. 'I think it restricted itself too much into being a rebuttal to the (Welbanks) paper.' Separately, however, the astronomers studying K2-18b agree that pushing forward on researching the exoplanet contributes to the scientific process. 'I think it's just a good, healthy scientific discourse to talk about what is going on with this planet,' Welbanks said. 'Regardless of what any single author group says right now, we don't have a silver bullet. But that is exactly why this is exciting, because we know that we're the closest we have ever been (to finding a biosignature), and I think we may get it within our lifetime, but right now, we're not there. That is not a failure. We're testing bold ideas.'
Scientific American
28 minutes ago
- Scientific American
The Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space Programs
For several hours yesterday, an explosively escalating social media confrontation between arguably the world's richest man, Elon Musk, and the world's most powerful, President Donald Trump, shook U.S. spaceflight to its core. The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk's fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump's nomination of Musk's close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as ' a disgusting abomination.' Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk's companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump —without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president's threat, SpaceX 'will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.' (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: 'Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.') Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It's the main way NASA's astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing's glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency's plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency's Artemis III mission. Trump's and Musk's retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX's constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile-defense plan. Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump's influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an 'illegal alien' who 'should be deported from the country immediately.' NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency's press secretary Bethany Stevens: 'NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space,' Stevens wrote. 'We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met.' The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk's electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5's trading day: Tesla's share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value. Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla's stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won't be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being. Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation's deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.
