Summer Solstice 2025: The Exact Time For Every U.S. State
People watch the sun rise, as they take part in the Summer Solstice at Stonehenge in Wiltshire, ... More Friday, June 21, 2024. (Andrew Matthews/PA Wire/PA via AP)
June's solstice marks the longest day of the year and the beginning of astronomical summer in the Northern Hemisphere. It's not only the longest day but also the point when daylight begins to shorten.
The solstice occurs at a specific global time (02:42 UTC on June 21), so its local time varies across U.S. time zones. The 2025 summer solstice occurs at 10:42 p.m. EDT, 9:42 p.m. CDT, 8:42 p.m. MDT, 7:42 p.m. PDT, 6:42 p.m. AKDT and 4:42 p.m. HST on Friday, June 20.
At that precise moment, the sun will be directly overhead at the Tropic of Cancer at noon somewhere on Earth. It's the northernmost point of the sun at noon.
Solstice is from the Latin solstitium, sol meaning sun and stit being stationary. That's because, as a consequence of the sun reaching its highest in the sky in the Northern Hemisphere, its rise and set points are at their extreme northeast and northwest, respectively. To the observer, the sun appears to rise farther northeast until June's solstice, when it appears to stand still for a few mornings before rising farther east and south.
Although Stonehenge is traditionally associated with the solstice (it's aligned with the rising sun on the solstice), there are other ancient monuments with a solstice link. Egypt's Nabta Playa stone circle, the oldest known astronomical site, tracks the solstice, with no shadows cast by its stones at noon on the date of the solstice. According to Astronomy magazine, Nabta Playa was constructed by a cattle-worshiping cult of nomadic people to mark the summer solstice and the arrival of the monsoons. At 7,000 years old, it's older than Stonehenge.
The 2025 solstice will occur at 02:42 UTC on Saturday, June 21, 2025.
The Tropic of Cancer is a line 23.4 degrees north of the Earth's equator through The Bahamas, Mexico, Egypt, Libya, Niger, Algeria, Mauritania, Mali, Chad, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, India, Myanmar, China and Taiwan. It reflects the tilt of the Earth's axis, which explains why the planet has solstices, equinoxes and seasons.
The beginning of astronomical seasons is marked by solstices and equinoxes (equinox means equal night when there are 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness). The spring or vernal equinox occurs between March 19-21, the June solstice June 20 and 22, the September equinox September 21-24 and the December solstice is December 20-23, according to Timeanddate.com. In 2025, they occur on March 20, June 20, Sept. 22 and Dec. 21, respectively.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Vivani Medical CEO Adam Mendelsohn to Present at the H.C. Wainwright 27th Annual Global Investment Conference on September 10, 2025
ALAMEDA, Calif., Aug. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Vivani Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: VANI) ('Vivani' or the 'Company'), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing miniature, ultra long-acting drug implants, announced today that CEO Adam Mendelsohn, Ph.D., will present a company overview and conduct partnering meetings at the H.C. Wainwright 27th Annual Global Investment Conference, taking place from September 8-10, 2025 in New York, New York. Details of Dr. Mendelsohn's presentation are as follows: Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2025Time: 1:00 PM - 1:30 pm, Eastern TimeLocation: Lotte New York Palace Hotel, Holmes I - 4th Floor Dr. Mendelsohn will highlight Vivani's portfolio of miniature, ultra long-acting drug implants, powered by its proprietary NanoPortal™ drug implant technology. These innovative implants are designed to address poor medication adherence and improve patient outcomes in chronic disease management. The Company is prioritizing the advancement of NPM-139, a novel semaglutide implant, with clinical development expected to begin in 2026, pending regulatory clearance. More information about the H.C. Wainwright 27th Annual Global Investment Conference can be found at About Vivani Medical, Inc. Leveraging its proprietary NanoPortal™ platform, Vivani develops biopharmaceutical implants designed to deliver drug molecules steadily over extended periods of time with the goal of guaranteeing adherence and improving patient tolerance to their medication. Today, medication non-adherence affects approximately 50% of patients. Vivani's priority product candidate, NPM-139, is a miniature, six-month, subdermal, GLP-1 (semaglutide) implant under development for chronic weight management in obese or overweight subjects. NPM-139 has the added potential for once-yearly dosing. Vivani's emerging pipeline also includes NPM-115 (exenatide implant) for chronic weight management in obese and overweight individuals, and NPM-119, an exenatide implant program for the treatment of type-2 diabetes. These NanoPortal implants are designed to provide patients with the opportunity to realize the full potential benefit of their medication by avoiding the numerous challenges associated with the daily or weekly administration of orals and injectables, including tolerability and loss of efficacy. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains certain 'forward-looking statements' within the meaning of the 'safe harbor' provisions of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as: 'target,' 'believe,' 'expect,' 'will,' 'may,' 'anticipate,' 'estimate,' 'would,' 'positioned,' 'future,' and other similar expressions that in this press release, including statements regarding Vivani's business, products in development, including the therapeutic potential thereof, the planned development therefor, the completion of the LIBERATE-1 Phase 1 study and reporting of study results, Vivani's emerging development plans for NPM-139, NPM-115, NPM-119 or Vivani's plans with respect its technology, strategy, cash position and financial runway. Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance. Instead, they are based only on Vivani's current beliefs, expectations, and assumptions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of Vivani's control. Actual results and outcomes may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not rely on any of these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, risks related to the development and commercialization of Vivani's products, including NPM-139, NPM-115, and NPM-119; delays and changes in the development of Vivani's products, including as a result of applicable laws, regulations and guidelines, potential delays in submitting and receiving regulatory clearance or approval to conduct Vivani's development activities, including Vivani's ability to commence clinical development of NPM-139; risks related to the initiation, enrollment and conduct of Vivani's planned clinical studies and the results therefrom; or Vivani's history of losses and Vivani's ability to access additional capital or otherwise fund Vivani's business. There may be additional risks that the Company considers immaterial, or which are unknown. A further list and description of risks and uncertainties can be found in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2025, as updated by the Company's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. Any forward-looking statement made by Vivani in this press release is based only on information currently available to the Company and speaks only as of the date on which it is made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time, whether as a result of added information, future developments or otherwise, except as required by law. Company Contact:Donald DwyerChief Business Officerinfo@ 506-8462 Investor Relations Contact:Jami TaylorInvestor Relations Advisorinvestors@ 506-8462 Media Contact:Mark CorbaeICR 682-8288
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SpaceX's Expensive Starship Explosions Are Starting to Add Up
(Bloomberg) -- When one of SpaceX's Starship vehicles burst into flames during a routine fueling test in June, the Elon Musk-led company decided it was time to bring in reinforcements. Why New York City Has a Fleet of New EVs From a Dead Carmaker Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone Trump Takes Second Swing at Cutting Housing Assistance for Immigrants A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Shortly after the incident, roughly 20% of the engineering group working on the company's flagship Falcon 9 program were reassigned for six months to Starship, a reusable rocket Musk hopes will someday carry humans back to the moon and to Mars, according to people familiar with the company's planning. SpaceX and Musk have a history of tackling engineering problems by throwing additional staff at them: Last year, Boring Co. staff were flown to Las Vegas to get its Prufock machine back online following water damage, according to people familiar with the matter. In 2018, employees of Tesla Inc., Musk's car company, were flown in from across the country to California to help ramp up production of the Model 3. The added muscle for Starship is intended to help improve the craft's reliability and individual component testing, as well as the rate at which the company can produce more of the rockets, one of the people said. SpaceX revealed in August that a pressurized bottle holding gaseous nitrogen had been damaged, causing it to fail and lead to an explosion during fueling. The test-stand incident was the latest in a series of recent setbacks for Starship. In three test launches this year from the company's south Texas facility, two exploded prematurely, and a third failed to deploy its test satellites and spun out of control as it returned to Earth. Those failures have led to increasing questions about whether Starship will be able to fulfill Musk's aims. A New York Magazine story asked: 'Is Elon Musk's Starship Doomed?' SpaceX's impressive track record, including the construction of the Starlink satellite-internet network and its innovation on reusable rocket technology, has had a deep impact on the space industry and US space policy. It has also made SpaceX among the most highly valued private companies in the world. Since its inception, SpaceX has made highly visible test flights that sometimes fail in spectacular ways something of a calling card, with cinematic broadcasts on X, Musk's social-media platform. Its process is designed to learn from failures fast. Yet Starship's recent struggles are revealing how rapidly updating rockets that cost hundreds of millions to make can lead to a cascade of expensive issues. 'When you're changing lots of things in the design at once, all of those ripple effects start adding up,' said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who focuses on space policy. 'And it becomes more and more likely that you're not going to catch things and you will have a catastrophic failure during a test flight.' Musk has made bold predictions about Starship. In his telling, it will not only be the first fully reusable orbital rocket, but orders of magnitude cheaper than any rival. Starship would also help meet his loftiest goal: bringing humans to Mars. So far, however, Musk's early projections that it would be safe to carry humans to space by 2023 and land people on the moon as early as this year haven't panned out. 'It's really one of the hardest engineering challenges that exists,' Musk said at an event for Tesla owners in July. 'When we first started talking about Starship, people thought this was impossible. In fact, even within the company, we sort of thought it was impossible.' The misfires haven't deterred investors. The 23-year-old company has continued to raise new capital at rates more befitting a keenly watched startup than a mature, capital-hungry business. Most recently, SpaceX has been planning a sale of stock that would value the company at about $400 billion. Yet there are also signs that for SpaceX to achieve a substantially greater valuation, investors may need to see more progress on Starship. During its latest fundraising effort, in which new investors don't participate, the company had discussed a $500 billion valuation, before lowering it after consultation with backers, people familiar with the matter said. Much will hinge on what happens next. The company is aiming to launch its tenth test flight of Starship as early as Aug. 24. It's possible that SpaceX will be able to continue to absorb more testing failures, but the perception that the company is moving forward in Starship development will be key to their long-term investment success and fulfilling contractual agreements with NASA. Starship Scramble Starship is one large piece of a growing web of programs that make up the SpaceX business plan. The company began with its Falcon rocket program and added the Dragon capsule to deliver cargo and people to space. Now, the majority of its revenue comes from Starlink, which relies on a massive system of satellites in low-Earth orbit that beam broadband internet to Earth. To make Starship work, SpaceX is betting that it can draw resources away from its core rocket program at a time when the company faces weak competition. Some planned launches of SpaceX's Starlink satellites on Falcon 9 rockets would potentially be pushed from the end of this year to early 2026 because of the surge of Falcon engineers working on Starship, the people familiar with the company's planning said. SpaceX currently has about 8,000 Starlink satellites aloft, and removing a few launches from the manifest this year wasn't seen as a show-stopping problem, the people said. Maintaining Starlink's robust financial health is important for SpaceX to absorb Starship's costs. Building one of the rockets — comprised of the Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster — costs hundreds of millions of dollars, the people said. When one flight fails, the full cost of the lost vehicle falls on SpaceX, they added. The company is on the hook for other costs, too, including any environmental damage caused when failed rockets tumble back to Earth. Getting Starship right is critical to SpaceX's future. Eventually, Starship would be used to launch larger, more powerful Starlink satellites into space. Over time, the company plans to phase out the Falcon 9, making Starship its workhorse rocket, company executives have said. And above all, Starship is meant to be the primary vehicle to start a base on Mars — the reason that Musk has said he created SpaceX in the first place. A SpaceX representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Moon Landing SpaceX maintains that Starship will be landing people on the moon within the next few years. NASA has awarded SpaceX contracts worth roughly $4 billion to use Starship to shuttle astronauts to the lunar surface. To live up to that bargain, SpaceX will need to demonstrate the ability to refuel Starship more than a dozen times in orbit with back-to-back flights. That maneuver has never been performed anywhere near the scale SpaceX needs — and Starship has not yet completed a full orbit of the Earth. The pressure to move quickly has affected decisions about the design of the rocket, according to a person familiar with the process who wasn't authorized to speak publicly about SpaceX's decision-making. For recent tests, SpaceX has used a Starship prototype known as Version 2, or V2. A few of the design decisions for this version have been made in an attempt to save time and money, the person said. It's a type of risk that SpaceX and Musk like to take, but the consequences of these choices can have cascading explosive effects, which in turn have an impact on public perception. 'I don't think anything that's happened with Starship invalidates SpaceX's approach,' Carissa Christensen, founder and CEO of BryceTech, a space analytics and consulting firm, said. 'That said, the persistent failures over multiple tests are happening in a context of One: high visibility. Two: a company that typically moves very fast and very successfully on innovation and Three: in a world where programmatic objectives depend on this vehicle,' notably NASA's moon mission. The frenetic pace of Starship's development may also be a contributing factor to its missteps, with quickly implemented changes sometimes having unforeseen effects on other parts of the vehicle. For instance, a seal on the vehicle's Raptor engines began to fail after SpaceX started adding more propellant on later flights, according to a person briefed on the matter who was not authorized to discuss the program's inner workings publicly. Many engineers at SpaceX continue to operate under the philosophy that every launch is a learning opportunity and that it's better to fail prematurely and often than wait years to execute a perfect flight. That thinking has been nurtured by the company's large resources and continuing access to vast sums of capital. SpaceX is known to be 'hardware rich,' meaning that it is consistently producing multiple rocket prototypes that are available to test and tweak. It is committed to testing its remaining inventory of V2 Starships despite a consensus at the company that the design is subpar, according to people familiar with the matter. Engineers think there are lessons to learn from launching the rest of the V2s, the people said. Above all, engineers need to get better data from Starship's heat shield tiles to help perfect the vehicle's tiles haven't returned intact during any flights this year. This year, the White House proposed phasing out the Space Launch System, a massive rocket built by Boeing Co., after is third flight. The White House argued that SLS was overbudget and inefficient, and that it should be eventually replaced with commercial alternatives, with SpaceX's Starship an implied option. Ultimately, Senator Ted Cruz included more money for Space Launch System's fourth and fifth flights after Starship's setbacks sowed doubt that it would be ready to replace the Boeing-made vehicle in the near future. SpaceX has repeatedly proven to its naysayers that it can master what was once considered near-impossible engineering. Now, it needs to regain the confidence of doubters who fear that the company might be stuck in the mud. 'The number one thing is visible, demonstrable progress,' Christensen said. 'I think that's going to go a long way toward not creating negative perceptions. And the optimal outcome from that standpoint would be that they successfully reach space with a Starship return.' Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Survived Bankruptcy. Next Up: Cultural Relevance? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Most air cleaning devices have not been tested on people − and little is known about their potential harms, new study finds
Portable air cleaners aimed at curbing indoor spread of infections are rarely tested for how well they protect people – and very few studies evaluate their potentially harmful effects. That's the upshot of a detailed review of nearly 700 studies that we co-authored in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. Many respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and influenza, can spread through indoor air. Technologies such as HEPA filters, ultraviolet light and special ventilation designs – collectively known as engineering infection controls – are intended to clean indoor air and prevent viruses and other disease-causing pathogens from spreading. Along with our colleagues across three academic institutions and two government science agencies, we identified and analyzed every research study evaluating the effectiveness of these technologies published from the 1920s through 2023 – 672 of them in total. These studies assessed performance in three main ways: Some measured whether the interventions reduced infections in people; others used animals such as guinea pigs or mice; and the rest took air samples to determine whether the devices reduced the number of small particles or microbes in the air. Only about 8% of the studies tested effectiveness on people, while over 90% tested the devices in unoccupied spaces. We found substantial variation across different technologies. For example, 44 studies examined an air cleaning process called photocatalytic oxidation, which produces chemicals that kill microbes, but only one of those tested whether the technology prevented infections in people. Another 35 studies evaluated plasma-based technologies for killing microbes, and none involved human participants. We also found 43 studies on filters incorporating nanomaterials designed to both capture and kill microbes – again, none included human testing. Why it matters The COVID-19 pandemic showed just how disruptive airborne infections can be – costing millions of lives worldwide, straining health systems and shutting down schools and workplaces. Early studies showed that the COVID-19 virus was spreading through air. Logically, improving indoor air quality to clear the virus from air became a major focus as a way to keep people safe. Finding effective ways to remove microbes from indoor air could have profound public health benefits and might help limit economic damage in future pandemics. Engineering infection controls could protect people from infection by working in the background of daily life, without any effort from people. Companies producing portable air cleaners that incorporate microbe-killing technologies have made ambitious claims about how effectively they purify air and prevent infections. These products are already marketed to consumers for use in day care centers, schools, health care clinics and workplaces. We found that most of them have not been properly tested for efficacy. Without solid evidence from studies on people, it's impossible to know whether these promises match reality. Our findings suggest that consumers should proceed with caution when investing in air cleaning devices. The gap between marketing claims and evidence of effectiveness might not be surprising, but there is more at stake here. Some of these technologies generate chemicals such as ozone, formaldehyde and hydroxyl radicals to kill microbes – substances that can potentially harm people if inhaled. The safety of these products should be the baseline requirement before they are widely deployed. Yet, of the 112 studies assessing many of these pathogen-killing technologies, only 14 tested for harmful byproducts. This is a stark contrast to pharmaceutical research, where safety testing is standard practice. What still isn't known Over 90% of all studies tested these technologies by looking at the air itself – for example, measuring how well experimental gases, dust particles or microbes were cleared from the air. The idea is that cleaner air should mean lower chances of infection. But when it comes to air cleaning, researchers don't yet know how strongly these air measurements reflect actual reduction in infections for people. Identifying the safest and most effective options will require assessing these technologies for toxic byproducts and evaluating them in real-world settings that include people. Also, standardizing how effectiveness and potential harms are measured will help inform evidence-based decisions about improving air quality in homes, schools, health care facilities and other indoor spaces. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Amiran Baduashvili, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Lisa Bero, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Read more: Investing in indoor air quality improvements in schools will reduce COVID transmission and help students learn How a nondescript box has been saving lives during the pandemic – and revealing the power of grassroots innovation From pests to pollutants, keeping schools healthy and clean is no simple task Amiran Baduashvili, MD, through the University of Colorado, received funding from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for the study discussed in this article. Lisa Bero, through the University of Colorado, received funding from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for the study discussed in this article. Solve the daily Crossword
