World's Largest Free Iceberg Drifted for Decades—Now It's Cracking
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The world's largest iceberg is shedding large chunks of ice in the South Atlantic Ocean nearly 40 years since it first broke off from Antarctica's Filchner Ice Shelf.
An image from NASA's Aqua satellite has shown new ice chunks near South Georgia that have broken off the iceberg named A-23A as it drifts in the southern part of the South Atlantic Ocean, around 1,500 miles north of its birthplace, according to a statement from NASA.
Scientists have been closely monitoring A-23A due to concerns that it may collide with South Georgia, the largest of nine remote islands that form the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, "potentially threatening a delicate ecosystem which is home to penguins and seals," the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) noted in January.
Two of the new ice chunks were large enough to be named and monitored by the U.S. National Ice Center (USNIC).
Aqua's MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) was able to capture this natural-color satellite image of A-23A and the new icebergs on July 22 following a break in the clouds and lengthening daylight hours in Antarctica.
A NASA satellite image captured on July 22 showing chunks of ice near that have been shed from A-23A, the world's largest iceberg, near South Georgia.
A NASA satellite image captured on July 22 showing chunks of ice near that have been shed from A-23A, the world's largest iceberg, near South Georgia.
NASA Earth Observatory
Around this time, the surface of A-23A spanned around 969 square miles. The new pieces, name A-23D and A-23E, were measured to be around 62 and 28 square miles, respectively, NASA said.
The new ice pieces were first identified by Jan Lieser of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology using NovaSAR-1 radar data, before they were later confirmed by USNIC analyst Britney Fajardo via radar images from the European Space Agency's Sentinel-1 mission on July 15.
"Radar satellites can take images of the Earth at polar night and through all weather conditions, including heavy clouds and even smoke," Lieser said in a statement.
Back in January this year, A-23A was found to be slowly drifting northeast in the Southern Ocean, according to images captured by NOAA's GOES East satellite. As of January 16, the iceberg was reported to have an area that's roughly the size of Rhode Island, the USNIC said.
From the start of March, A-23A has sat lodged on the Filchner Ice Shelf around South Georgia.
"Icebergs that make it this far north are increasingly at the mercy of warm water, waves, and seasonal weather—factors that contribute to a berg's ultimate demise," NASA explained.
By late May, A-23A split off into thousands of smaller chunks after colliding with an Antarctic island and continued drifting toward the eastern side of South Georgia. The iceberg followed the same currents that the massive A-68A iceberg rode in late 2020.
"The austral winter journey continued to inflict damage on A-23A, which shed even more ice from its sides," NASA said.
Despite the edges lost, A-23A is still the largest iceberg currently drifting freely in any of the world's oceans. Only D-15A is bigger, which lies grounded in the Amery Sea off east Antarctica, according to the space agency.
Scientists expect more calving from the remainder of A-23A as it moves further north, NASA said, with extended daylight hours taking place in this part of the South Atlantic.
Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about climate change? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
27 minutes ago
US should put nuclear reactors on moon before other countries do, acting NASA administrator says
Nuclear power on the moon is critical to the United States' space exploration and national security goals, and the U.S. government should "move quickly" to build reactors there before its terrestrial rivals, according to a directive issued by Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, which was obtained by ABC News. One full "day" on the moon is two weeks of light followed by approximately two weeks of darkness (in Earth time). Nuclear energy, referred to as fission surface power, or FSP, in the directive, is a "sustainable" and "high-powered" energy source that can survive through the lunar night and be deployed on other celestial bodies, like Mars, according to Duffy. "Since March 2024, China and Russia have announced on at least three occasions a joint effort to place a reactor on the Moon by the mid-2030s," Duffy said in the directive. "The first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first." When reached for comment by ABC News, NASA said, "We'll let these directives speak for themselves." The directive, dated July 31, calls for a "Fission Surface Power Program Executive" to be named within 30 days who will implement and oversee the project and will report directly to the NASA administrator. It does not say what exactly the nuclear reactors would power on the moon. Politico was the first to report on this directive. A second directive, issued on the same day by Duffy, aims to speed up the development of replacements for the International Space Station, which is set to retire by 2030. While NASA has never used a fission nuclear reactor in space, it has been using nuclear material to power spacecraft since the 1960s. Known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, these systems use the heat generated by the decay of plutonium-238, a nuclear element, to create electricity for powering spacecraft and rovers. Currently, NASA's Curiosity rover on Mars is using an RTG system for its power. In recent years, billions of dollars have been spent developing a new kind of nuclear reactor called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These reactors produce less power than traditional reactors, but are significantly smaller in size. SMRs are still being developed in the U.S. and there are no units currently in operation.
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
NASA's Plan for a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon Could Be a Lunar Land Grab
NASA could soon go nuclear on the moon. The space agency's acting administrator, Sean Duffy, has issued a directive to expedite building a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface. Duffy, a former Fox News host, is also head of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and he took over leadership of NASA in July after the Trump administration pulled its nomination of the private astronaut and businessman Jared Isaacman. The directive, first reported by Politico, would accelerate NASA's long-simmering —and, to date, largely fruitless—efforts to develop nuclear reactors to support space science and exploration. 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. The space agency has pursued various projects over the years, most recently in 2022, when it by awarded three $5 million contracts to companies crafting designs for small, space-ready reactors meant for lunar operations in the mid-2030s. Inspired in part by a space policy directive issued by President Trump during his first term, those were intended to produce 40 kilowatts of power—enough to sustain a small office building—and would weigh less than six metric tons. Duffy's directive is more ambitious, calling for NASA to solicit proposals for reactors that would yield at least 100 kilowatts of power and be ready for launch by late 2029. The space agency is tasked with appointing an official to oversee the effort within 30 days, and to issue its solicitation within 60 days. Lunar nights are very long—two Earth weeks—and perilously cold, making nuclear power desirable for surface operations. But according to the directive the greater impetus for the fast-tracked plan is a burgeoning partnership between China and Russia to build a nuclear-powered outpost near the moon's south pole by the mid-2030s. The sun never crests high above the horizon there, leaving some craters in permanent shadow—and valuable deposits of water ice lacing their eternally dark floors. Despite its cryogenic chill this lunar region is hotly contested, with NASA's Artemis program also targeting crewed landings there as early as 2027 as part of the Artemis III mission. Besides providing abundant electricity for surface operations, a nuclear reactor on the moon could also allow for a strategic lunar land grab. Ownership of otherworldly territory is prohibited according to the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, but the treaty also obliges spacefaring powers to exercise 'due regard' in their activities, meaning that they should not encroach on or interfere with sensitive infrastructure built there by others. A nuclear reactor placed on the lunar surface, therefore, could allow the declaration of what Duffy's directive calls a 'keep-out zone.' Although the Trump administration's acceleration of NASA's nuclear-power efforts may be welcomed by many space-exploration advocates, it comes alongside other proposals from the White House that seek to radically reshape the space agency and could be at cross purposes. These include plans for extraordinarily deep cuts to NASA's science programs, as well as an active and ongoing culling of the space agency's work force. The president's budget request for fiscal year 2026 notably zeroes out funding for a joint program between NASA and the Department of Defense to develop nuclear rocketry; it would also wind down the space agency's ability to build and deploy radioisotope power sources, which offer nuclear-derived heat and electricity sans complex and heavy reactors for robotic missions to the outer planets and other sunlight-sparse parts of the solar system. The biggest question facing NASA's latest nuclear foray, however, may be what these notional new reactors would actually power. Many experts say a 2027 launch for Artemis III is unlikely, citing factors such as the ongoing difficulties of developing a requisite lunar lander based on SpaceX's Starship rocket. With each logistical misstep or schedule delay, additional Artemis missions that would put more meaningful and power-hungry infrastructure on the moon slip further over the horizon, potentially making the entire program more vulnerable to additional rounds of budget cuts—or even outright cancellation by future administrations. It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
Acting NASA Chief Tells Agency to Build a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon, Before China Does It First
NASA's acting administrator Sean Duffy is fast-tracking the agency's plans to build a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface, a move that highlights the Trump administration's focus on human spaceflight and establishing a long-term presence on the Moon. Duffy issued a directive to expedite the timeline for the reactor, aiming for a launch date to the Moon by 2030, Politico first reported. In the directive, Duffy mentions China and Russia's joint plan to put a nuclear reactor of their own on the Moon in the mid-2030s, citing a concern that the two countries could 'potentially declare a keep-out zone' that would hinder NASA's ability to do the same. 'To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,' Duffy wrote in the directive, which was sent out on Thursday, July 31. NASA has been working on a Fission Surface Power System for the Moon since 2022, when the agency awarded three $5 million contracts to its commercial partners to develop initial concept designs for a small reactor. At the time, NASA specified that the reactor should stay under 6 metric tons and be able to produce 40 kilowatts of electrical power, enough to power around 33 households. In the new directive, however, Duffy not only wants NASA to move fast on its project, but he also specified that the reactor should produce 100 kilowatts of power, enough for about 80 households. With the ongoing Artemis program, NASA wants to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon. Building a habitat on the lunar surface would prove tricky without power, and relying on solar energy alone would likely be insufficient. The day-night cycle on the Moon lasts for about a month, with roughly two weeks of sunlight followed by two weeks of darkness that would leave solar arrays without its energy source. On the other hand, fission reactors can operate around the clock, even in the Moon's shadowy craters and during the long lunar nights. Establishing a power source on the Moon is crucial for human exploration, an aspect of NASA's objectives that the current administration is especially keen on. NASA is preparing for severe budget cuts under the White House's proposed budget for 2026, which threaten several of its robotic missions to space. Under the proposed budget, NASA's planetary science budget would drop from $2.7 billion to $1.9 billion. On the other hand, the agency's human space exploration budget would receive an additional $647 million compared to the 2025 budget. The recent directive is part of the administration's push to send humans to the Moon and Mars and to establish dominance in the new space race with China and Russia. The directive orders NASA to designate an agency official to oversee the project within 30 days and for it to issue a request for proposals from commercial partners within 60 days.
