What's the best time to see the Aquarids meteor shower? When and how to watch
The Aquarids (also sometimes spelled Aquardiis) meteors are created by debris left behind by the famous Halley's Comet that then fall to Earth, creating "shooting stars" that leave long glowing trails behind.
The meteor shower is one of the best astronomical viewing events of the year and can be seen across the globe, though those in the Southern Hemisphere are treated to the best view. Luckily, the event can still be seen from every U.S. state, giving stargazers one final chance to watch a shower until the next expected one in July.
Here's what to know about the ETA Aquarids meteor shower, including what time to look up.
When is the ETA Aquarids meteor shower peaking?
The Aquarids, which first became active April 19, are due to peak between May 5 and May 6 as Earth passes through the densest part of Halley's cosmic debris, according to the American Meteor Society. While the meteors won't be as bright or dazzling after the peak, stargazers should still be able to catch some of the light show until about May 28.
What time can I see the Aquarids meteors?
Like all meteor showers, the Aquarids are best viewed during the dark hours between midnight and dawn. According to NASA's Watch the Skies blog, the best time to view the peak starts at 2 a.m. on May 6 and lasts until dawn.
Time and Date also provides detailed information about where and when to see the phenomenon based on your specific location.
How to See the Eta Aquarids
The Aquarids should be visible around the globe, anywhere in the sky, assuming clouds and a bright moon do not obscure the view.
However, the meteors are best seen from the Southern Hemisphere. This is because the meteors seem to emerge, or radiate, from the constellation Aquarius, which is higher up in the sky in the Southern Hemisphere than it is in the Northern Hemisphere.
In the Northern Hemisphere, ETA Aquarid meteors appear as what NASA refers to as "Earthgrazers," or long meteors that appear to skim the surface of the Earth at the horizon.
Some more tips for getting a better look from NASA and Date and Time include:
Find a viewing spot away from cities' light pollution and street lights. Get there in advance to settle and give your eyes time to adjust, which can take 15 to 30 minutes.
Lie down on the ground and look at the sky. You can use Date and Time's Interactive Meteor Shower Sky Map or the table above to find the direction of the radiant to look towards.
Bring a blanket, chair, comfortable clothes and maybe some snacks or drinks. Catching a meteor shower can be a waiting game.
If the moon is out, look at areas of the sky away from the moon to prevent its light from washing out the show.
Know the peak time and how many meteors you can expect to see per hour. You can check EarthSky's meteor guide for that information.
What is the ETA Aquarids meteor shower?
Most meteor showers are the result of Earth passing through debris left by comets, explains NASA. These broken-up meteoritic materials fall to Earth and burn up in Earth's atmosphere, creating what we know as "shooting stars."
This happens daily (NASA scientists estimate that 48.5 tons of material fall on Earth each day), and if you watch closely, you should be able to see a few per hour on an average night. When the number of meteors entering Earth's atmosphere increases significantly, that's what's called a meteor shower.
Meteor showers are usually named after a star or constellation closest to where the meteors appear in the sky; in this case, Aquarius.
The debris that makes the ETA Aquarids meteors come from Halley's Comet, which can only be seen from Earth once every roughly 76 years (the next time will be 2061). When it returns to the inner solar system, it leaves behind the rocky dust that eventually creates the ETA Aquarids meteor shower each May and the Orionids every October.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Could Comet 3I/Atlas Be A Threat? Here's What Experts Are Saying
On the 1st of July 2025, the Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) in Chile spotted a new comet entering our solar system. This comet was named 3I/ATLAS, as it's only the third interstellar object humans observed passing through our solar system. The previous two interstellar bodies discovered were 1I/'Oumuamua (spotted in 2017), and 2I/BORISOV (detected in 2019). It seems that 3I/ATLAS is similar to 2I/BORISOV by its icy composition. Beyond that, we don't know much about the new interstellar visitor. Scientists rush to observe 3I/ATLAS and discover as much as they can, as it's predicted by its current trajectory and speed to leave our solar system by the end of the year. It will come closest to our sun in late October 2025, and the sun will melt some of its ice, which means 3I/ATLAS might get a robust comet tail composed of vapor and dust. Currently, this comet has a faint coma, the cloud of dust and gas that surrounds its nucleus. But this might change with its approach to the sun. Another interesting fact is that 3I/ATLAS will pass through Mars' orbit, and we don't know what will happen then. The fact that it was ATLAS that first discovered this comet got some people concerned. The Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System has a defensive nature. It's designed to spot and warn us about comets, asteroids, or other space objects that might be on a collision course with Earth. However, according to NASA, the interstellar object will most likely fly far enough from our planet without posing any danger. Read more: This Is How Most Life On Earth Will End What NASA Has To Say The ATLAS observatory in Chile is part of NASA's early warning program, spotting and defining all near-Earth objects (NEOs), especially if they're asteroids and comets that could strike our planet. ATLAS uses a network of wide-field telescopes that scan the night sky above Earth 24/7. Although designed for planetary defense against hazardous space objects, ATLAS is capable of detecting non-threatening, but scientifically interesting objects as well. The telescopes that are part of this defensive network are based in several observatories around the globe (South Africa, California, and Chile, to name a few), providing the researchers with round-the-globe coverage of the night sky. Of course, when 3I/ATLAS was first discovered, the first things determined were its trajectory and velocity. It was concluded that this comet is traveling at the speed of 137,000 miles/hour (61km/s), and the closest it will approach Earth is at 1.8 astronomical units (170 million miles, or 270 million kilometers, from Earth). NASA has ultimately concluded that 3I/ATLAS poses no threat to our planet. That said, the most interesting known fact about this interstellar visitor is its age. Following its current trajectory, scientists were able to determine 3I/ATLAS originated in a part of the Milky Way that we know is older than our solar system; meaning it's potentially older than 4.6 billion years old. It's estimated that 3I/ATLAS is around 7 billion years old, making it the oldest comet observed by humans so far. Could It Be An Alien Probe? Although very little is known about 3I/ATLAS so far, there are many interesting theories surrounding this interstellar visitor. Harvard-based astrophysicist Abraham Loeb and colleagues from the UK's Initiative for Interstellar Studies, Adam Hibbert and Adam Crowl, believe this interstellar object is not a comet at all; but an alien probe coming from afar to scan Earth and its surroundings. This is not the first time Loeb has suggested such a thing. In 2017, when Oumuamua was discovered, he claimed it was an alien probe due to its unusual shape, acceleration, reflectivity, and lack of trailing gases. Although he didn't come out with any specifics about 3I/ATLAS, Loeb warns that any interstellar object should be observed as possible alien technology. As of now, there's no evidence that 3I/ATLAS is anything but an interstellar comet passing through our solar system. It was lucky that ATLAS detected it, as it is believed millions of such objects pass near or through our system without ever being detected. Scientists such as Loeb might not be completely wrong, however. 3I/ATLAS is a unique interstellar comet, and we should pay more attention to it. Read the original article on BGR. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers Say They've Finally Solved the 'Little Red Dots' Mystery
When the James Webb Space Telescope first came online in 2022, it immediately spotted something astronomers had never seen before: "little red dots" peppering the ancient expanse of deep space, originating from around when the universe was just one billion years old. Ever since, we've struggled to explain what these faint signals could be. The prevailing theory is that they're some kind of extremely compact galaxy. But at only two percent of the diameter of the Milky Way, the distribution of stars would have to be impossibly dense, perhaps more so than our current laws of physics allow. They're also too faint to be produced by a quasar, a type of supermassive black hole that is actively devouring matter, which it causes to heat up and glow. Moreover, the black holes would be "overmassive" for such a small galaxy, scientists argue. Now, famed Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb (or infamous, depending on how you view his speculative theories regarding aliens) and his colleague Fabio Pacucci believe they have an answer. In a new study published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, the pair reinforce the idea that the family of red oddities are, in fact, galaxies — but are unusually tiny because they haven't started spinning up to speed yet. It's a hypothesis rooted in one of the leading theories for galaxy formation, which holds that these structures form in "halos" of dark matter, the invisible substance thought to account for 85 percent of all mass in the cosmos. While we can't see or interact with dark matter, it does exert a significant gravitational influence, which explains how the largest structures in the cosmos came together and took shape. In the study, the astronomers propose that the diminutive galaxies formed in halos that just so happened to be among the slowest spinning in the cosmos, with 99 percent of halos spinning faster. The idea, in principle, is simple. If you held out a piece of rope in one hand and started spinning in place, the rope would stretch out and reach farther. But if you slowed down, the rope would slump to the ground. This hypothesis would explain why we're only seeing the dots at such a nascent period of the universe. Over time, the halos would inevitably speed up, and their constituent galaxies would expand. "Dark matter halos are characterized by a rotational velocity: some of them spin very slowly, and others spin more rapidly," Loeb said in a statement about the work. "We showed that if you assume the little red dots are typically in the first percentile of the spin distribution of dark matter halos, then you explain all their observational properties." It's a compelling theory — but it's not the only game in town. Recently, two teams of astronomers found clues that what we're witnessing may actually be an entirely new class of cosmic object: "black hole stars." Their work suggests the glowing dots are an active supermassive black hole surrounded by a vast and thick shell of gas. The intense radiation of the black hole heats up the shell, which absorbs most of the emissions, dimming the light to an outside observer. In many ways, it resembles a star blown up to epic proportions — except, instead of nuclear fusion powering the center, there's a voracious black hole churning through matter. Loeb and Pacucci's theory doesn't address whether these slow-spinning galaxies have a black hole at their center, but suggests that they could form one. "Low-spin halos tend to concentrate mass in the center, which makes it easier for a black hole to accrete matter or for stars to form rapidly," Pacucci said in the statement. The luminous red dots, he added, "might help us understand how the first black holes formed and co-evolved with galaxies in the early universe." More on space: Astronomers in Awe of Terrifying "Eye of Sauron" That's Pointed Straight at Earth Solve the daily Crossword
