Scientists say ‘city-killer' asteroid on potential collision course with Moon
A 'city-killer' asteroid previously thought to be on a collision course with the Earth could smash into the Moon instead, new data suggests.
Asteroid 2024 YR4 caused global concern after its discovery last year as the space rock's trajectory indicated a 3 per cent chance of it crashing into the Earth in December 2032. Estimates suggested the collision could shatter structures as far as 80km from the impact zone.
Subsequent observations of the rock reduced the threat to virtually zero.
But new direct observations of the asteroid by Nasa's James Webb Space Telescope suggest a nearly 4 per cent chance of the rock smashing into the Moon.
Scientists say that even a 1 per cent chance of a rock this big hitting the Earth may warrant the development of deflection missions. 'At this writing, a 2032 impact with the Moon has not been ruled out,' astronomers, including Andy Rivkin from Johns Hopkins University, write in a new study.
'After 2025 May, 2024 YR4 will next enter JWST observing window in the first part of 2026 as a challenging target, which may be worth pursuing to determine whether a lunar impact will occur,' the study, published in the journal RNAAS, notes.
There is still over 96 per cent chance that the asteroid will miss the Moon entirely, Nasa said in a statement on Thursday.
The latest observations also revise the space rock's size from 40-90m to 53-67m, about the size of a 15-storey structure.
'While we are confident that 2024 YR4 will not hit the Earth in 2032, there is still great value in making these observations and analysing the results,' Dr Rivkin says.
'We expect more possible impactors to be found in coming years as more sensitive asteroid search programmes begin operation.'
Many scientists hope for the asteroid to impact the Moon as it could provide more data to prepare for future planetary defence operations.
'The possibility of getting a chance for an observation of a sizable Moon impact is indeed an interesting scenario from a scientific point of view," Richard Moissl, head of the European Space Agency's planetary defence office, says, adding the collision could be "valuable for planetary defense purposes".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Musk ally escalates Tesla chief's feud with Trump
An Elon Musk ally whose nomination to run NASA for Donald Trump was withdrawn the same day the 'First Buddy' departed the White House claims he lost his job out of revenge. Jared Isaacman (pictured), 42, had his nomination pulled Friday after a 'thorough review' of his 'prior associations,' Trump said. Isaacman has been a close collaborator with Musk ever since buying his first chartered flight on Musk's SpaceX company in 2021. It has been heavily speculated that Sergio Gor, an official in the White House Presidential Personnel Office, pushed Isaacman out the door over disputes with Musk and failure to consult him and other personnel officials on some decisions. Speaking to the All-In Podcast following his exit, Isaacman said that he still supports President Trump but suggests the speculation is correct. 'I mean, people can draw their own conclusions but I think the directions people are going in seems to check out to me,' Isaacman said. He even suggested that it wasn't personal between him and Trump, saying 'one person decided to make a move' to oust him. Isaacman also believes the nomination was withdrawn to coincide with his friend Musk parting ways with the administration . 'I had a pretty good idea, I don't think the timing was much of a coincidence. Obviously, there was more than one departure that was covered on that day,' he said. Isaacman blamed 'some people' with 'axes to grind' against either him or Musk, saying he was a 'good, visible target.' He described someone, presumably Gor, as 'an influential advisor coming in and saying: 'Here's the facts and I think we gotta' kill this guy.'' 'I want to be overwhelmingly clear: I don't fault the president,' Isaacman added. The president maintains he backflipped on billionaire entrepreneur Jared Isaacman's appointment after learning of his past donations to the Democrats. But MAGA loyalists suspect Trump may have been set up to make the call by insiders who have it out for Elon Musk and are looking to hurt him by punishing his friend. Trump ally Laura Loomer wrote: 'There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with Elon Musk. If so, this would suggest there is a coordinated hit job on Isaacman in an effort to damage ties between President Trump and Elon Musk before the 2026 midterms. Is President Trump aware of the ulterior motives by some individuals in the administration who have an interest in seeing Isaacman's nomination pulled?' The New York Times revealed on Sunday that Trump reportedly knew about Isaacman's donations from the moment he chose to nominate him to run NASA. Isaacman told All-In that he disclosed over the years he had donated to prominent Democrats, including in the past two campaign cycles. Musk has also donated to Democrats in the past, before going on to become the single largest benefactor to the MAGA movement during the last campaign in his push to see Trump return to the White House. Isaacman was selected by Trump at the height of his bromance with Musk, who has a long and storied connection with the fellow billionaire. It is understood that Musk lobbied for Isaacman's appointment and that Trump deferred to the SpaceX founder for the final decision. At the time, Trump described Isaacman as 'an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot and astronaut.' He had been approved by a Senate committee and was headed to a confirmation vote this week when Trump suddenly pulled his nomination. The president gave Musk a heads up on Friday - his last day at the White House - that he intended to do so. Musk's time in the White House was fraught with tension and pushback from some of Trump's closest advisors, some of whom didn't like the access Musk had to the president and the power he wielded over departments with his Department of Government Efficiency . This has sparked rampant speculation that in the wake of his official departure as a Special Government Employee, that some of his foes are exacting revenge by getting in Trump's ear about Isaacman's nomination. Republican Senator and Trump ally Tim Sheehy wrote on X: 'Astronaut and successful businessman @RookIsaacman was a strong choice by President Trump to lead NASA. I was proud to introduce Jared at his hearing and strongly oppose efforts to derail his nomination.' It is understood that some of Trump's allies had been pressing him about Isaacman's donations to the Democrats in recent days, prompting Trump to renege on his offer. Loomer said despite his liberal ties, Isaacman was an ideal candidate to lead NASA, with 'unmatched credentials.' 'Isaacman was on track to get over 70 Senate votes. So why the sudden reversal and talks to pull his nomination?' she asked. 'Because the Deep State doesn't want President Trump to have allies like this in his administration.' White House assistant press secretary Liz Huston pushed back against any suggestion that the decision was not Trump's. 'The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump's bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars,' she said. 'It's essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump's America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon.' And Trump himself appeared to quell concerns that he and Musk were on the outs on Sunday night, sharing a new picture to Truth Social of him with the former First Buddy and one of Musk's sons. Musk left his role less than a week ago and just days ahead of schedule, signing off with a warm X post praising Trump. However, he has since gone on a days-long rampage against Trump's landmark 'big, beautiful bill' and lamented the treatment of his baby-faced DOGE henchmen during his time in the White House. He said: 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it.' And in the days since his departure, a laundry list of allegations have surfaced about the simmering tensions between Musk and a handful of Trump's other allies. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told that Musk's turbulent time in the White House was marred when he physically 'shoved' 62-year-old Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent after he was confronted over wild promises to save the administration 'a trillion dollars'. 'Scott Bessent called him out and said, 'You promised us a trillion dollars (in cuts), and now you're at like $100 billion, and nobody can find anything, what are you doing?'' the prominent MAGA figure revealed. 'And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him. 'It wasn't an argument, it was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him.' Bannon said the physical altercation came as the two billionaires moved from the Oval Office to outside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' office, and then outside the office of the then National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. 'Trump 100%' sided with Bessent after the clash, he added. 'I don't think Bessent has any bad blood, but he's got a job to do and he's going to do it.' The revelations of the Musk-Bessant clash follow an explosive New York Times report that alleged Musk was using a cocktail of drugs on the campaig n trail including ketamine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. Bannon added that Musk also lost status in Trump's orbit when it was leaked to the New York Times in March that the billionaire was preparing to receive top-secret military briefings on China, which Trump abruptly stopped. 'People in the administration and the White House realized he didn't have any idea what he's doing,' Bannon said. 'They cauterized the damage.' Separately, reports claimed Musk insulted Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, by accusing him in front of Trump, of not cutting back on his staff and clashed with Transport Secretary Sean Duffy for not firing enough air traffic controllers . He also called Peter Navarro, the architect of Trump's trade policy, 'a moron.'
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
A dwarf star birthed a giant planet – but scientists don't know how
Astronomers have discovered an unusually large exoplanet orbiting the small star TOI-6894, located 240 light-years away in the constellation Leo, challenging existing planetary formation theories. The planet, a gas giant similar in size to Saturn, orbits a red dwarf star that is only about one-fifth the mass of our sun, a pairing that defies current models predicting smaller planets around such stars. This discovery marks the smallest-known star to host such a large planet, about 40 per cent smaller than previous record holders. Researchers have been left puzzled by the finding, but suggest it indicates that giant planets can form around even the smallest stars. Data from Nasa 's TESS and the European Southern Observatory 's VLT were used in the study, and there are plans to further investigate the planet's composition using the James Webb Space Telescope.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
The man who orchestrated a British medical scandal
Joanne Briggs's debut, The Scientist Who Wasn't There, is an astonishingly original memoir about truth, identity and the ethics of science. It's thrilling, unsettling – and really rather odd. Winner of the inaugural Bridport Prize for Memoir in 2023, the award that cinched the book's publication, it explores the enigmatic – if not completely bizarre – life of Briggs's father, Professor Michael Briggs, a man whose illustrious, globe-trotting scientific career concealed a vast labyrinth of deception. Born in Manchester, Professor Briggs became a research scientist who worked at NASA, an advisor to the World Health Organisation, and a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry. On paper, his was a classic rags-to-riches story: he was a self-made, charismatic visionary who surfed the post-war technology boom. But in 1986, his career imploded when a Sunday Times exposé linked him to the hormone pregnancy test Primodos, which worked by triggering menstruation in non-pregnant women, and was alleged to have caused serious birth defects. It seemed Professor Briggs had been faking results. Things get stranger. Professor Briggs not only appears to have forged his qualifications, laundered research funds and bullied sceptical colleagues and anyone who doubted him – he may also have been a spy. He appears to have worked for the British government, possibly connected to Cold War intelligence gathering; may have been involved in espionage in East Berlin, and then somehow got caught up in the making of Stanley Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey. His death abroad, aged 51, was so sudden that Briggs speculates that there may have been some kind of cover-up. What begins, then, as a daughter's ostensibly simple search for the truth about her absent father, soon becomes a forensic and yet also fantastical investigation – part legal inquiry, part philosophical meditation. A trained lawyer, Briggs approaches the evidence as a prosecutor would: poring over professional records, interviewing colleagues and meeting with the victims of her father's lies and misconduct. Primodos involved high doses of synthetic hormones and though the causal link has never been confirmed, women who used it reported children with defects such as spina bifida, limb abnormalities, and heart issues. Briggs reveals that her father manipulated or suppressed data about these effects while being professionally involved with the pharmaceutical company producing it. But the book is also wildly surreal: Briggs imagines conversations with her father in which they debate the boundaries between science and science fiction, and the book eventually resolves into musings and reverie. The overall effect, frankly, is dizzying – pleasantly so. Briggs often hints that she herself doesn't know the difference between fact and fantasy; in a rather cryptic, ambivalent author's note, she writes: 'My memory of the past is as much made up of dreams, impressions, false beliefs, fantasies, feelings and notions as it is of facts [...] which I hope makes my memoir authentic. But is that a true story? Well, yes, it is to me.' True or not, the book defies neat categorisation. It's certainly a book about a very peculiar, unsavoury man, but it's also a vivid depiction of a world in which ambition and imagination collide, with devastating human consequences. Briggs does, at various points, express deep moral ambivalence about writing the book: she wrestles with the ethics of exposing her father's legacy, particularly given the trauma already borne by his victims. She describes a childhood overshadowed by confusion, secrecy and emotional neglect, but also moments of awe and admiration for her father. Their relationship, as reconstructed here, was fraught and complex – marked more by absence than presence, but never entirely devoid of connection or longing. The Scientist Who Wasn't There is not only an indictment of one man's lies and deceit and his descent into moral oblivion, therefore, but a study of duplicity; personal, institutional, even national and international. Briggs slowly assembles a counterbalanced, complex kind of truth, one that acknowledges the impossibility of total objectivity but which nonetheless insists on the value of the attempt. 'He only ever travelled in one direction,' Briggs writes of her father. 'Forwards, away from the smoke of burning bridges.' She, in contrast, with admirable insight and considerable nerve, turns back – to sift through the still smouldering ruins.
