Space Mission Options for Reconnaissance and Mitigation of Asteroid 2024 YR4(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
Space Mission Options for Reconnaissance and Mitigation of Asteroid 2024 YR4
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12351
23 comments
kurzgesagt has an awesome video on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKm7T13X7n4
I guess the probability of something hitting us is intuitively pretty low. Consider that in all of human history nothing significant has hit us, and now only in the last 20 years maybe we have the tech to see it and maybe launch a mission to mitigate it, what are the chances something would suddenly hit us now, at this very time?
> Consider that in all of human history nothing significant has hit us
This is incorrect. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor was very recent and caught on video by many people. It injured nearly 1500 people and damaged 7,200 buildings in six cities.
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event in 1908 was several times larger than the Chelyabinsk meteor and leveled 830 square miles of forest. It is fortunate that it detonated over an unpopulated area. It could have completely destroyed any major metropolitan city.
A little further back there's the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... which is controversial but very possibly caused planet wide climate change visible in the geologic record ~12,900 years ago.
Smaller meteors fall into our gravity well regularly, and usually detonate over or impact the ocean, as it covers most of the Earth's surface.
This is incorrect. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor was very recent and caught on video by many people. It injured nearly 1500 people and damaged 7,200 buildings in six cities.
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event in 1908 was several times larger than the Chelyabinsk meteor and leveled 830 square miles of forest. It is fortunate that it detonated over an unpopulated area. It could have completely destroyed any major metropolitan city.
A little further back there's the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... which is controversial but very possibly caused planet wide climate change visible in the geologic record ~12,900 years ago.
Smaller meteors fall into our gravity well regularly, and usually detonate over or impact the ocean, as it covers most of the Earth's surface.
I think it is worth saying that those two impacts were smaller and the same size as 2024 YR4 (which is ~60m diameter) respectively.
It is interesting to look at impact structures [0]. Note the highly suspicious correlation of impacts and places where well paid geologists like to live; there are probably a lot of impacts in the last few millennia elsewhere in the world where people just discarded the cultural memory because the stories were too fantastic, or nobody noticed the very large splash in the pacific. A lot as in I don't think we know about the majority of the impacts in any time frame.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Eart...
It is interesting to look at impact structures [0]. Note the highly suspicious correlation of impacts and places where well paid geologists like to live; there are probably a lot of impacts in the last few millennia elsewhere in the world where people just discarded the cultural memory because the stories were too fantastic, or nobody noticed the very large splash in the pacific. A lot as in I don't think we know about the majority of the impacts in any time frame.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Eart...
"Well paid geologists"
“Geologists sufficiently paid to afford both their typically substantial weed intake and still afford a home”
Also the Kaali crater. The impact happened ~3500 years ago and was roughly equivalent to a small nuke.
That wikipedia article has got to be up there with one of the worst I've read. I get it that most people think this hypothesis is bogus (I do too, for the most part), but the article is needlessly inflammatory and as a result it's hard to understand what the hypothesis even is other than "it's a dumb as cold fusion".
I agree that the article starts out needlessly inflammatory. There are big egos in Science, as in all other endeavors, and folks can get reactionary and arguments heated. "Science advances one death at a time" after all.
That said, further down the article, there is some legitimate discussion about alternatives and even mention that "Wallace Broecker—the scientist who proposed the conveyor shutdown hypothesis—eventually agreed with the idea of an extraterrestrial impact at the Younger Dryas boundary, and thought that it had acted as a trigger on top of a system that was already approaching instability."
I can't say whether an impact happened for certain or not. I await further evidence. But I do think that the hypothesis is plausible and it's clear from the Chicxulub impact that meteors can have disastrous impact on global ecology.
That said, further down the article, there is some legitimate discussion about alternatives and even mention that "Wallace Broecker—the scientist who proposed the conveyor shutdown hypothesis—eventually agreed with the idea of an extraterrestrial impact at the Younger Dryas boundary, and thought that it had acted as a trigger on top of a system that was already approaching instability."
I can't say whether an impact happened for certain or not. I await further evidence. But I do think that the hypothesis is plausible and it's clear from the Chicxulub impact that meteors can have disastrous impact on global ecology.
The best part is one of the cited articles: "Rebuttal of Sweatman, Powell, and West's "Rejection of Holliday et al.'s alleged refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis"
A rebuttal of a rejection of an "alleged refutation". You can tell there's a lot of academic egos involved here.
A rebuttal of a rejection of an "alleged refutation". You can tell there's a lot of academic egos involved here.
I don’t see where the Creationism comes in?
The article Wikipedia cites for that says the group publishing the hypothesis cited a PhD thesis that "pioneered the idea of using the Old Testament as a guide to our understanding of cosmic airburst phenomena", and that they cited a young Earth creationist journal for their information on the Tunguska airburst event. It's a weak connection IMO.
I thought I had heard it used as flood explanation, but it seems young Earth creationists know the timeline doesn't fit.
I thought I had heard it used as flood explanation, but it seems young Earth creationists know the timeline doesn't fit.
We're getting into the weeds here, but once I learned of the 400ft sealevel rise at the younger dryas, it seemed immediately clear to me that this could be the great flood immortalized in so much myth and legend around the world.
Researchers have verified oral histories of at least 10,000 years age among Aboriginal Australians against date-able geologic events. Consequently, it is now clear that we can maintain such socially important information across such time.
It seems to me that we most likely fudged the exact date somewhere along the way.
Ancient peoples are often underestimated. But they were as smart and capable as ourselves, and possessed of a great deal more contemplative time and opportunity to observe the natural world around them.
Scientists are trained to look for faults and reasons to invalidate. It's the fundamental skill for eliminating hypotheses. And that is OK. But I believe there is useful information to be found in ancient culture if one is willing to consider it in good faith from the perspective of someone living through it.
Researchers have verified oral histories of at least 10,000 years age among Aboriginal Australians against date-able geologic events. Consequently, it is now clear that we can maintain such socially important information across such time.
It seems to me that we most likely fudged the exact date somewhere along the way.
Ancient peoples are often underestimated. But they were as smart and capable as ourselves, and possessed of a great deal more contemplative time and opportunity to observe the natural world around them.
Scientists are trained to look for faults and reasons to invalidate. It's the fundamental skill for eliminating hypotheses. And that is OK. But I believe there is useful information to be found in ancient culture if one is willing to consider it in good faith from the perspective of someone living through it.
This paper isn't talking about a risk of an Earth impact, it's talking about a potential lunar impact:
> Studies of 2024 YR4’s potential lunar impact effects suggest lunar ejecta could increase micrometeoroid debris flux in low Earth orbit up to 1000 times above background levels over just a few days, possibly threatening astronauts and spacecraft.
Throughout most of human history, an impact event like this could probably have gone completely unnoticed, because we didn't yet have satellites that were vulnerable to micrometeoroid damage. So you can't use the fact that no such event was observed as evidence that it didn't happen.
> Studies of 2024 YR4’s potential lunar impact effects suggest lunar ejecta could increase micrometeoroid debris flux in low Earth orbit up to 1000 times above background levels over just a few days, possibly threatening astronauts and spacecraft.
Throughout most of human history, an impact event like this could probably have gone completely unnoticed, because we didn't yet have satellites that were vulnerable to micrometeoroid damage. So you can't use the fact that no such event was observed as evidence that it didn't happen.
I've often wondered if the biblical flood was a meteor impact on the ocean, and the survivors keeping an oral history afterwards.
Other replies have already pointed to significant events, but the most important and recent event was one century ago, in 1908, "the Tunguska event", which may have been a small comet hitting the Earth, but it was still big enough to match a big thermonuclear bomb.
If that celestial body would have hit a big city instead of hitting unpopulated Siberia, it would have destroyed it completely and it would have been one of the greatest, if not the greatest, catastrophes in human history. Today, with less and less areas that have remained unpopulated, such an event would be more likely to happen in a place where it would cause victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
If that celestial body would have hit a big city instead of hitting unpopulated Siberia, it would have destroyed it completely and it would have been one of the greatest, if not the greatest, catastrophes in human history. Today, with less and less areas that have remained unpopulated, such an event would be more likely to happen in a place where it would cause victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
We also now have the ability to know which lottery numbers have not come up in a long time but that doesn’t change the odds that we can pick a winning number.
We're finding evidence all the time of new impacts. The Earth, geologically and meterologically hides the evidence from us. Ironically it's the new technology that's allowed us to see how many more impactors there have been. Especially on the sea bed.
> Consider that in all of human history nothing significant has hit us
While that's true for human history, some of the previous err... "rules of the earth" (specifically ~65 million years ago) might have opinions about whether they should have attempted stopping that big rock from hitting them. ;)
Of course, that's leaving aside that they didn't appear to have a civilisation, nor be aware of the big rock approaching before it happened, etc.
While that's true for human history, some of the previous err... "rules of the earth" (specifically ~65 million years ago) might have opinions about whether they should have attempted stopping that big rock from hitting them. ;)
Of course, that's leaving aside that they didn't appear to have a civilisation, nor be aware of the big rock approaching before it happened, etc.
The timing of an explosion will be tricky, as the combined speed of the asteroid and the nuke will be huge,the only possible intercept is head on, and the detonation will need to be timed to the pico second(dont know, but its way less than a micro). Too early, and we get hit with a slightly warm asteroid, too late and we get hit with a radioactive asteroid. Then the actual asteroid nuking rocket has to sit ready,after of course getting built, the summs involved will of course be thematicaly consistant, for whoever can insist that they get to build and maintain it,in perpetuity.