The Eta Aquariid Meteor Shower Is Just About to Peak
Over May 5 to 6, the sky over the southern tropics will rain the most cosmic dust of the annual event, glittering with light as it burns up on atmospheric entry.
The shower itself will continue to late May, but not in the same profusion. Now really is the best time to get out and take a look. All you need is somewhere comfy, a clear view of the sky, and the willpower to get out of bed in time to see it.
Earth is frequently dusted by meteor showers; they are some of the best shows in the night sky. They're the result of our planet passing through the cloud of debris left behind by an asteroid or comet as it travels its own path around the Sun.
Pieces of that leftover comet-or- asteroid detritus smack into Earth's atmosphere, burning as they fall, creating a glowing trail that can be seen with the naked eye. And, since these trails are left around the Sun on Earth's orbital path, the meteor showers they create occur annually.
The Eta Aquariids are the debris left by a comet called 1P/Halley, or Halley's Comet, which comes around every 76 years. Its radiant, or place in the sky from which the meteors seem to fall, is close to the constellation of Aquarius.
This means the shower will present a strong showing for the Southern Hemisphere, with up to 50 to 60 meteors per hour.
The Northern Hemisphere might see some meteors, too, although probably significantly fewer – maybe up to 30 meteors per hour, in the hour just before dawn.
The Moon will be 64 percent full during the peak, but that won't pose a problem for meteor visibility: the Moon will set long before the radiant rises.
The best time for viewing this display is going to vary depending on where in the world you are. You can check the conditions for your location on Time and Date here.
If you don't manage to catch the peak, don't worry – the shower will be strong for the entire week, and continue, albeit on a waning basis, until about May 28.
You can also download the International Meteor Organization's 2025 meteor shower calendar to keep ahead of the rest of the year's meteor bonanzas. Happy meteor-watching!
'Super-Earths' May Be Surprisingly Common, Scientists Reveal
JWST Confirms Coldest Exoplanet Ever Found, Circling Its Dead Star
Defunct Soviet Spacecraft Set to Crash to Earth in Fiery End to 53-Year Orbit
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
21 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.
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.'
Geek Wire
7 hours ago
- Geek Wire
NASA takes a trip to Seattle area to thank suppliers for work on the next moonshot
NASA astronaut Woody Hoburg faces the TV cameras at L3Harris' Aerojet Rocketdyne facility in Redmond, Wash. An R-4D-11 thruster and a decontamination oven are off to his left. (GeekWire Photo / Alan Boyle) REDMOND, Wash. — The first crewed flight around the moon in more than 50 years is still months away, but NASA is already saying thank you to L3Harris Technologies' Aerojet Rocketdyne segment and other suppliers who are making the trip possible. Today, NASA's road trip brought agency officials — plus astronaut Woody Hoburg — to the L3Harris facility in Redmond, which has contributed propulsion systems to NASA missions ranging from space shuttle flights to the Voyager probes' journeys to the edge of the solar system. Now NASA is getting ready to launch four astronauts on a round-the-moon mission known as Artemis 2, powered in part by hardware built in Redmond. Hoburg, who spent six months on the International Space Station in 2023 and is awaiting his next crew assignment, told an audience of about 200 L3Harris employees and VIPs that the Artemis 2 crew is well aware of the company's contribution. 'They're depending on you, and they know they can count on you,' he said. 'Thank you for all the hard work you're doing to make this amazing adventure possible.' The Artemis 2 mission is currently targeted for launch in April, or perhaps even earlier, said Howard Hu, NASA's program manager for the Orion crew vehicle. The mission after that, Artemis 3, is due to lift off no earlier than mid-2027 with the goal of landing astronauts on the lunar surface for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. L3Harris' Aerojet Redmond team delivered the hardware for those two Artemis missions — including auxiliary engines for Orion's European-built service module — years ago. Now the team is working on thrusters for missions as far out as Artemis 8, which is scheduled to go the moon no earlier than 2033. NASA astronaut Woody Hoburg uses a basketball and a tennis ball to provide a sense of the relative sizes of Earth and the moon during a thank-you ceremony for L3Harris employees in Redmond, Wash. (L3Harris Photo) With the advent of the Trump administration and new management at NASA, the long-term plan for crewed moon missions has been in flux. The White House initially sought to cancel the Space Launch System and Orion programs after Artemis 3, and instead focus on a commercial alternative for Mars missions, such as SpaceX's Starship launch system. But Congress voted to stay the course — and Don Mahr, director of program management at L3Harris' Redmond facility, told GeekWire that NASA has told its suppliers to continue executing the current plan, at least for now. Amit Kshatriya, NASA's deputy associate administrator for the Moon to Mars Program, said propulsion systems from L3Harris will continue to be essential components in NASA's toolbox even if the long-term plan for Artemis changes. 'It's the wrong argument to think about picking one thing or another,' he said. 'The right argument is, how do we stimulate and create missions and capability across the country in all sorts of different capability classes.' Kshatriya said that NASA's needs are almost certain to change 'five years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now,' and that L3Harris has demonstrated it'll be able to keep up. 'A shop like this is the DNA that we need to keep going, which is why we're so excited to be here,' he said. Hoburg is excited as well. 'We're using the moon as a proving ground to figure out how to get to Mars, so it's a really exciting time,' he said. 'And the Artemis 2 crew that's embarking on this mission, they're the pathfinders that are starting a sequence of missions. … It's going to be the next step in space.' Does Hoburg want to go to the moon? His answer was diplomatic. 'I want the United States of America to go to the moon,' he told GeekWire. 'It is time to do it. I would love to get to fly one of those missions myself, but I'm proud of our country that we're leading and executing these missions.' During today's thank-you gathering in Redmond, four L3Harris Aerojet employees received awards from NASA for their contributions to the Artemis program. Brett Mendenhall and Richard Mirabella were given NASA's Silver Snoopy Award, which must be pinned onto the winner's lapel by an astronaut. 'That was the part where I try not to draw any blood,' Hoburg quipped. Camille Samonte received the NASA Space Flight Awareness Trailblazer Award, and Cory Houck won the SFA Management Award.
