At 2pm on Saturday, this rogue spacecraft could hit WA
And there's a slim chance it will hit WA.
For years, scientists have been feverishly attempting to calculate Kosmos 482's exact re-entry point and potential impact zone, which will mark a fiery end to a failed mission to Venus that started at the height of the Cold War.
UWA Professor David Coward is one of two Australian signatories to the International Asteroid Warning Network, a UN-backed planetary defence organisation, and said Kosmos 482 was on track to make re-entry around 2pm Perth time on Saturday.
'I haven't done the math, but (the chances of landing in WA are) probably, maybe one-in-1000, off the top of my head,' Professor Coward told The West Australian. This large storage cylinder from Skylab crashed to earth on remote Woorlba Station 230kms East of Norseman 22nd June 2009. Credit: Astrid Volzke / WA News
However, Professor Coward, who also leads the Space Situational Awareness Node at UWA's International Space Centre, said a person has 'more chance of winning the lottery' than being struck by falling space debris.
He said Kosmos 482 was being currently being tracked by radar and the most likely re-entry point was above WA, before the craft breaks up over Afghanistan some 20 to 30 seconds later.
That's an indication of just how fast the spacecraft is travelling — more than 27,000km/h, although atmospheric friction will eventually slow it to under 300km/h. Ground tracking data for Kosmos 482 showing the flight path over the Earth. Credit: supplied
The immense heat generated by this friction typically incinerates space junk before it reaches the Earth's surface, but Kosmos 482 is different.
At nearly half a tonne in weight and roughly the size of a washing machine, this titanium alloy craft was built to survive such extreme conditions.
'Normally, you would predict a break-up of the satellite in the atmosphere, and nothing would return,' Professor Coward explained.
'This particular Kosmos is designed to land on Venus, it's not designed to land on Earth, and Venus is very hostile, with extremely high temperatures . . . so, in terms of an impact, it's highly, highly probable that this will impact the Earth.' Skylab made a big impact when a piece of the space station landed in the Nullarbor Plain. NASA officals inspect the piece on display in Kalgoorlie. Credit: supplied
From 1961 to 1984, the former Soviet Union launched 29 spacecraft towards Venus as part of the Venera missions, with 10 successfully landing on the planet, three overshooting and falling into orbit around the Sun, and the rest suffering catastrophic failures on launch or during the journey.
Kosmos 482 is actually the lander module from one of these missions that has survived in orbit for decades after the rest of the rocket failed to slip the surly bonds of Earth and fell back to the surface in 1972.
With its spherical shape and sturdy construction, the craft is expected to travel through the atmosphere like a cannonball, rather than leaving a trail of burning debris as per Skylab. This large storage cylinder from Skylab crashed to earth on remote Woorlba Station 230kms East of Norseman on 22nd June 2009. Credit: Astrid Volzke / WA News
The US space station left debris over a large area of WA in 1979, some of which is currently on display in the Esperance Museum.
Professor Coward said WA was a 'hub for space surveillance', a role that is set to become even more critical in future as the space surrounding Earth gets increasingly crowded.
For instance, there is a SpaceX Starlink satellite re-entering the atmosphere every day, and this is only getting worse.
'We need to understand what's happening in the skies above us, and what are any potential threats, whether it's accidental or purposeful,' Professor Coward said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
10 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
The Age
10 hours ago
- The Age
Most parents skip the flu jab for their children. Is that a bad idea?
The bulk of influenza infections occur in children; they are also the main transmitters of the virus within the community. One study of 29 countries, including Australia, found 19 per cent of flu cases were in children under four. Consider this study from Hong Kong that tracked the spread of flu through households: kids under 18 were up to 2.8 times more likely to pass on the virus than adults, and they were more likely to catch it. Children seem to shed more copies of the virus (including before they show symptoms); they also tend to have closer contact with adults. They are also less likely to wash their hands, and more likely to put things in their mouth. Why? Principally because they are immune-naive: their bodies have not had time to train on influenza. An adult has an arsenal of antibodies to several different strains of the flu. A young child has nothing beyond any left-over antibodies from their mother. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses,' says Professor Kristine Macartney, director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance. 'While that's inevitable, what we don't want – and I promise you as a paediatrician who has cared for many kids critically ill in hospital with flu – we don't want to see kids with severe illness.' We often think of the flu as a nuisance for young people and adults, and a threat for the elderly. Consider flu vaccination rates: 60 per cent of Australians over 65 have had a jab, compared to 24.7 per cent of those under five. 'They are new in the world, and they are getting infected with a lot of different viruses.' Professor Kristine Macartney on the susceptibility of children But influenza hospitalisation rates among very young children are surprisingly high – higher still if you add in all those who have co-infections, such as RSV at the same time. Young children also tend to suffer the most from the flu. They typically have higher fevers, more severe symptoms, and shed more of the virus, which explains why they are such effective transmitters. Indeed, every year the flu kills about 250,000 to 500,000 people globally, including about 28,000 people under 18. Some years, the hospitalisation rate for Australians under five exceeds that of those over 65. And while children with comorbidities are particularly at risk, there does seem to be a lot of random variation, with some perfectly healthy youngsters getting severely ill and ending up in intensive care. 'The vast majority of kids we see hospitalised each year … are healthy children. When this happens, it is a shock to parents,' Macartney says. Per the most recent Australian influenza season report, 39 people died with the flu in sentinel hospitals (those participating in influenza surveillance) in 2023, nine of them children. When we are infected, or vaccinated, our bodies develop armies of antibodies specific to glycoproteins on the surface of the virus. Loading Over time, and under pressure from our new antibodies, the virus mutates – a process known as antigenic drift – eventually to the point where our antibodies no longer recognise it. We undergo another cycle of infection and immunity. Remarkably, antibodies developed to a flu infection in childhood may actually offer us lifelong protection against similar strains of flu, a process known as immune imprinting. Australia licenses two free vaccines for children under five. Unlike the adult vaccine, they are given over two doses. Vaccinating kids for the flu seems to work reasonably well. A large US study in 2020 found having at least one dose of vaccine cut the chances of hospitalisation from the flu by 55 per cent. 'So it's good, but it's not great,' says Professor Robert Booy, an infectious diseases paediatrician at the University of Sydney, who has run clinical trials of flu vaccines. The overall reduction in infections tends to sit at about 50 to 60 per cent, he says. There are also community benefits. Vaccinating children seems to cut the amount of virus that is spread around the community. Given the number of viruses parents have to endure from their children, avoiding one seems a smart bet. And the vaccine seems safe. Australia conducted one of the phase 3 trials for one of our vaccines licensed in children. It reported zero serious adverse events or deaths. Just 1.1 per cent of parents take their children to see a doctor in the days after getting a flu shot. Given all this, why are flu vaccination rates falling among kids? Loading The obvious answer is: the pandemic. During 2020, parents wanted to protect their kids from COVID, but there was no COVID vaccine, so they got a flu jab instead. 'People were trying to take action against something,' says Jessica Kaufman, head of the vaccine social science team at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. After COVID was no longer front of mind, parents began putting less emphasis on the importance of flu protection. Parents are busy as it is without one more thing to think about – and kids don't much like having needles stuck in their arms. The flu vaccine is optional, compared to the more stringently recommended vaccines of childhood. Perhaps some parents worry about over-jabbing their kids? But the world is full of antigens, Booy says. Adding one more is not going to make much of a difference. 'It's a vaccine that is completely safe. It absolutely helps benefit not only the child, but also the immediate family and everyone around them. Children are super-spreaders,' Macartney says. 'It is definitely not too late to vaccinate. We have influenza on the rise at the moment – it's looking to be well above previous years.'
Herald Sun
14 hours ago
- Herald Sun
Forever chemicals: NSW Health findings defy public concerns
Don't miss out on the headlines from Illness. Followed categories will be added to My News. There is 'considerable concern' among communities about exposure to so-called 'forever chemicals' found in everyday products and their potential health risks. However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence, experts say the health effects appear to be small and individual blood testing offers no clear medical benefit. The NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) has released its final report, delivering clear guidance on the health effects of these widely found 'forever chemicals', the value of blood testing, and the best ways to communicate risks to communities. PFAS have been used since the 1940s in products resistant to heat, stains, grease, and water, but concerns have grown worldwide about their presence in the environment and potential health impacts. The panel, made up of leading clinical experts across toxicology, oncology, cardiology, public health, and risk communication, evaluated the latest Australian and global research to inform health advice. While acknowledging the body of research for health effects related to PFAS is 'large and still growing', the panel concluded that the health effects of PFAS 'appear to be small'. It noted links between PFAS exposure and conditions including high cholesterol, reduced kidney function, immune system changes, hormone alterations, liver enzyme changes, menstruation issues, lower birthweight, pregnancy high blood pressure, and some cancers. However, the panel stressed the evidence was inconsistent, with 'limited evidence of a dose-response relationship' and difficulty separating PFAS effects from other factors that can affect health, especially in studies with PFAS levels similar to the general population. It also highlighted the influence of bias and confounding factors such as smoking, diet, and age. A $3.5 million mobile PFAS treatment system installed at the Cascade Water Filtration Plant on the outskirts of Sydney. Picture: Supplied Addressing widespread public concern about cancer, the panel said it remained confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low based on the human epidemiological studies and levels of exposure in the Australian population. The panel noted that while the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as 'cancer causing' and PFOS as 'possibly cancer causing', IARC's findings didn't specify safe exposure levels, how much exposure increases risk, or how big that risk might be. PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) are specific types of PFAS. The panel stressed that, despite these hazard classifications, the actual cancer risk from PFAS in Australia was low based on studies and typical exposure levels. One of the panel's strongest messages is that there is 'no clinical benefit' for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS. The report stated that PFAS chemicals appeared in more than 95 per cent of people tested, showing widespread exposure from multiple sources. PFAS contamination in water sources remains a key concern. Picture: NewsWire / Gaye Gerard Because PFAS are so common, the expert panel said blood tests were hard to interpret and didn't predict health outcomes, so it didn't recommend individual testing. Although levels have been declining over the past 20 years, high background exposure makes studying health effects challenging. The panel supports ongoing population monitoring to track changes This stance differs from 2022 guidance by the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which suggested blood testing might guide clinical care. The NSW panel pointed out limitations in NASEM's approach, including reliance on studies with small effects and possible bias, and noted that US agencies like the CDC and ATSDR have not adopted NASEM's recommendations for individual blood testing. PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid) are the three main PFAS types historically used in aqueous firefighting foams. The panel also advised against interventions such as phlebotomy or cholesterol-lowering medications to reduce PFAS in the blood, calling their benefits 'uncertain' and warning they 'may cause harm' like anaemia or medication interactions. Instead, clinicians are urged to focus on 'usual preventative health interventions' to support patients. Recognising 'genuine concern' in parts of the community about exposure to PFAS and the potential health impacts, the panel stressed that risk communication must be 'tailored to the diverse levels of concern' and continued transparency maintained. The panel stated that reliable epidemiological studies required 'well characterised' exposures, measured confounders, and sufficiently large populations; conditions 'not currently met in the Blue Mountains population or in other communities in NSW'. It urged authorities to avoid using currently available human epidemiological studies to derive threshold levels due to the higher risk of bias and confounding. Instead, it supported continuing Australia's conservative approach of setting exposure limits based on animal studies with safety factors, such as those by the National Health and Medical Research Council. NSW chief health officer Kerry Chant said updated NSW Health advice provided consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure. 'There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously,' Dr Chant said. 'NSW Health will continue to support local clinicians with information for GPs who may be managing patients with concerns about PFAS exposure, including evidence about potential adverse health effects, counselling patients, the utility of blood tests for PFAS and the role of further investigations.' Originally published as Widespread PFAS exposure, but cancer risk 'low,' experts confirm
