NASA pushed its Deep Space Network beyond its limits during the Artemis I mission nearly four years ago. The global array of deep space communications antennas couldn't keep up with the routine demands of 40 robotic science missions and the extraordinary surge required by NASA's Orion space capsule as it flew around the Moon.
The experience in late 2022 reduced or delayed downlinks from several high-profile science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope and Mars rovers, as the data-hungry Artemis I mission took priority on NASA's communications network. And that was before the first Artemis mission with astronauts onboard. When Artemis II launched April 1, NASA called upon the Deep Space Network (DSN) again to connect Mission Control to the Orion capsule as it soared more than a quarter of a million miles from Earth.
With a crew of four flying inside the spacecraft, the agency's appetite for data from Orion on Artemis II was even higher than it was on Artemis I. But at a little more than nine days, the Artemis II mission was shorter than the 25 days Artemis I spent in space, helping alleviate the communications overload. Artemis I also launched 10 small CubeSats into deep space, many of which required tracking and telecom services from the DSN. Artemis II carried fewer CubeSats.
NASA pushed its Deep Space Network beyond its limits during the Artemis I mission nearly four years ago. The global array of deep space communications antennas couldn't keep up with the routine demands of 40 robotic science missions and the extraordinary surge required by NASA's Orion space capsule as it flew around the Moon.
The experience in late 2022 reduced or delayed downlinks from several high-profile science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope and Mars rovers, as the data-hungry Artemis I mission took priority on NASA's communications network. And that was before the first Artemis mission with astronauts onboard. When Artemis II launched April 1, NASA called upon the Deep Space Network (DSN) again to connect Mission Control to the Orion capsule as it soared more than a quarter of a million miles from Earth.
With a crew of four flying inside the spacecraft, the agency's appetite for data from Orion on Artemis II was even higher than it was on Artemis I. But at a little more than nine days, the Artemis II mission was shorter than the 25 days Artemis I spent in space, helping alleviate the communications overload. Artemis I also launched 10 small CubeSats into deep space, many of which required tracking and telecom services from the DSN. Artemis II carried fewer CubeSats.
Planetary scientists analyzing a lunar meteorite known as Northwest Africa (NWA) 12593 have uncovered evidence of an asteroid impact that occurred 3.5 billion years ago on the Moon, helping to reconstruct a period of intense bombardment that left lasting marks across the inner Solar System.
Eugene Parker, pioneer of theoretical solar and plasma astrophysics, was born June 10, 1927. Parker revolutionized the field of heliophysics, notably by first proposing the existence of the solar wind — a stream of charged particles ejected from the Sun — in 1958. His theory was confirmed by Mariner II in 1962. Among many otherContinue reading "June 10, 1927: The birth of Eugene Parker"
A rare meteorite found in the Sahara Desert has revealed evidence of a giant ancient world that once existed in our solar system but later disappeared. Scientists believe this lost world formed about 4.5 billion years ago, during the early days of the solar system. It may have been as large as the Moon or […]
The team behind the novel propulsion technology said that electrospray thrusters could allow mission planners to design smaller, more nimble satellites and spacecraft capable of performing faster, more powerful maneuvers or slower, more precise adjustments, depending on mission requirements.
Electrospray Combines the Best of Chemical and Electric Propulsion
Launching rockets into space still requires chemical thrusters, but once spacecraft and satellites reach orbit, engineers continue to develop novel propulsion methods that are more efficient than chemical propulsion technologies. Given the strict weight requirements of spacecraft launches, finding alternatives to chemical propellants has opened up a wider range of mission profiles.
Among the most common alternatives to chemical thrusters are designs that combine electrical energy with small amounts of propellant to produce small but sustainable thrust. Although electric thruster designs require less fuel, saving significantly on launch weight, they also lack both the power and the rapid, quick burst performance of chemical thrusters.
According to study author Amelia Bruno, a former postdoc in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro), combining chemical and electrical propulsion into a single system is “the best of both worlds.”
“This opens the door for small satellites to do even more science, more observations, and more interesting missions, all on a smaller and cheaper platform,” Bruno explained to MIT News.
Study co-author Paulo Lozano, the Miguel Alemán Velasco Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, agreed, noting that combining both technologies could enable a CubeSat mission to Mars “where they could make the journey slowly, using electrospray thrusters.”
“You could then use your chemical thrusters to quickly move to look at interesting features,” the professor added. “You could have a lot more flexibility to do a lot more things.”
ASCENT Rocket Fuel as the Thruster’s Ionic Liquid Propellant Enables Hybrid Design
According to a statement detailing the new electrospray thruster’s design, the ones developed by the MIT team are about the size of a thumbnail. Each thruster is also placed directly above a small fuel reservoir. For the MT electrospray thrusters, the fuel is an ionic liquid propellant, a liquid composed of salts that remain dissolved in a solution.
These four flight-unit electrospray thrusters were delivered by the MIT Space Propulsion Laboratory to NASA for the upcoming Green Propulsion Dual Mode (GPDM) mission. Image Credit: Amelia Bruno
“Ionic liquids are very stable and can even remain a liquid in space, which not a lot of materials can do,” Bruno explained. “And it’s basically a sea of ions, which is why we base our technology around it, so we can pull those ions out into an electrospray.”
When a spacecraft’s battery delivers an electric charge to the fuel reservoir, the ions within the fuel also become charged. The thruster’s design channels the charged particles from the reservoir and through the thruster tips, expelling them into space.
Although the team has tested several types of ionic propellant in its electrospray propulsion thrusters, Bruno and Lozano have collaborated with the U.S. Air Force to synthesize an all-new ionic liquid propellant, which they are calling the Advanced SpaceCraft Energetic Non-Toxic propellant, or ASCENT.
Originally designed as a “green” alternative to extremely hazardous hydrazine rocket fuel that has been the staple in the rocket industry for decades, Bruno notes that ASCENT “happens to be an ionic liquid mixture.”
“And we said, hey, that’s the stuff we typically use,” the researcher added. “Theoretically, this should work. Let’s go figure out how.”
Tests: Chemical Propellant Equally Efficient as Conventional Ionic Liquids
To test their electrospray design, each tested thruster was attached to a small reservoir about the size of a single Lego brick, and then the reservoir was filled with ASCENT. Next, electrospray thrusters were mounted on opposite sides of a traditional CubeSat.
To simulate the microgravity environment of Near-Earth Orbit, the team placed the thruster-equipped CubeSat on a MagLev stand. The team noted that the MagLev in Lozano’s lab is installed inside a large vacuum chamber. This design allows the researchers to fine-tune the environment to best mimic the conditions in space.
During a series of tests, the team applied varying voltage levels to the electrospray thrusters. As expected, the reaction produced a spray from the thruster nozzles, which spun the CubeSat around on the MagLev stand like a freely spinning top.
During each thruster firing, the team measured the amount of thrust produced. This data, combined with the voltage and fuel data, allowed the team to calculate ASCENT’s fuel efficiency during continuous operation. Some tests lasted up to 100 hours.
When the MIT group evaluated the results, they first determined that the choice of ASCENT was correct, as it successfully fueled each electrospray thruster. Even more significantly, the tests revealed that the readily available chemical propellant was equally efficient as conventional ionic liquids.
“Compared to our normal electrospray propellants, ASCENT can provide similar performance in terms of thrust,” Bruno explained. “Now that we know our thrusters work with ASCENT, we can start thinking of all the ways we can make them even better.”
Testing Electrospray Thrusters on NASA’s Green Propulsion Dual Mode Mission
When discussing the benefits of their successful electrospray thruster tests, Lozano noted that a spacecraft with electric and chemical thrusters can share a single fuel tank. Due to its compact design, this hybrid electrospray thruster could be mounted on a small satellite.
Fortunately, the team won’t have to wait long to see their thruster in action. According to the research team, whose work was partially supported by NASA, their design will be incorporated into NASA’s upcoming Green Propulsion Dual Mode mission scheduled to launch in November. The Green Propulsion Dual-Mode mission will carry a briefcase-sized CubeSat with a primary chemical thruster and specially designed electrospray thrusters, making it the first attempt to combine electrical and chemical propulsion in a small spacecraft.
“This will be the first time that a satellite will have a shared propellant tank,” Lozano explained.
Although a large portion of proposed electric propulsion missions that might employ the new electrospray thruster are designed to explore deeper into the Solar System and beyond, Lozano also highlighted the technology’s possible applications closer to home. For example, satellites equipped with both technologies could rapidly respond to environmental or climate changes in real time with a speed and efficiency unavailable with current propulsion options.
“Say there’s a storm coming, and you’d want to deploy your constellation of small satellites to observe over one location,” the researcher explained. “You could choose to send them quickly or slowly, depending on the nature of the observation.”
“And the only way to do that is if you have two propulsion systems, which is now possible,” he added.
Although the mission will not launch before November, Bruno noted that a successful test could allow engineers to consider missions they never thought possible.
“Now that we know our thrusters work with ASCENT, we can start thinking of all the ways we can make them even better,” the researcher explained.
Christopher Plain is a Science Fiction and Fantasy novelist and Head Science Writer at The Debrief. Follow and connect with him on X, learn about his books at plainfiction.com, or email him directly at christopher@thedebrief.org.
Using the SETI Institute’s Allen Telescope Array, a 42-element radio interferometer at Hat Creek Radio Observatory in Hat Creek, California, astronomers probed 3I/ATLAS for artificial radio transmissions but found only human-made interference.
NASA has ended its attempts to reconnect with the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) spacecraft and begun decommissioning the orbiter, closing the book on a mission that spent over a decade studying how Mars lost its atmosphere. At a June 3 media conference, NASA officials announced that an anomaly review board — which wasContinue reading "NASA fails to reestablish contact, decommissions MAVEN"
Editor’s Note:Astrobites is a graduate-student-run organization that digests astrophysical literature for undergraduate students. As part of the partnership between the AAS and astrobites, we occasionally repost astrobites content here at AAS Nova. We hope you enjoy this post from astrobites; the original can be viewed at astrobites.org.
If you ask anyone what their favourite planet is, the answer you’ll most likely hear is Saturn. Why? Why else than the beautiful and intricate ring system surrounding the gas giant. The other gas and ice giants in our solar system — Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune — have ring systems themselves but none quite as striking as Saturn’s. Would it surprise you to learn that astronomers’ best models have not yet totally explained why Saturn’s rings look the way they do?
In contrast, it may not surprise you to hear that people have been trying to explain the rings for as long as we have seen them with telescopes. We now know that planetary rings are collections of relatively small particles (think micrometre up to metre sized), most likely having once been the material of a larger body that was disrupted either by collisions or tidal forces. This material, due to the gravity of its local planet, is sculpted into a flat disc where more subtle interactions then lead to substructure forming within the disc such as gaps and ringlets. Many of these substructures are explained by well-understood physics — for example gaps being carved by embedded moonlets or resonances sculpting ring edges — though there remain some outstanding problems in our understanding.
The authors of today’s article set their sights on the problematic inner edge of Saturn’s A ring (Figure 1). They describe some mechanisms — namely the collisions of micrometeoroids within the rings — by which a sharp ring edge can be maintained, but there exists a gap in the understanding of how such an edge can form in the first place. All hope is not lost, though, as today’s authors reintroduce a physical process they call the “eclipse–Yarkovsky” effect, which seems to explain these phenomena.
Figure 1: A horizontally sliced image of Saturn’s rings shows the rich substructure and gaps within the various rings. Saturn, which is not shown here, would be to the left of the image. The authors of today’s article are particularly concerned with the bright and sharp inner (left side) edges of the A and B rings. Click to enlarge. [NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute]
Billions of Rocket-Powered Bumper Cars
The idea behind this process revolves entirely around light. When sunlight hits a particle within a planetary ring, non-absorbed sunlight imparts a little “bump” onto a particle, ever so slightly altering its trajectory. At the same time, some of the sunlight is absorbed into the particle, which heats it up; light is soon re-emitted via thermal radiation, which, again, can slightly change the trajectory of these tiny particles. From a point on the surface of each ring particle (see rightmost side of Figure 2), the photons from this thermal radiation are all emitted in random directions; however, across the whole surface of the particle there is a net force! These tiny particles are spinning, and so the side just near “sunset” is hottest and emitting the most thermal photons. In this way, the pressure from the sunlight plus the thermal radiation of each particle imparts a net torque on the ring itself which changes the angular momentum of the ring.
Figure 2: Starlight is the main source of light onto the particles that make up a planetary ring (right panel) though reflected light from the planet’s surface hits it too. This light “heats up” the ring and forms an asymmetry as the ring is eclipsed by the planet, which produces a net force. [Zhou et al. 2026]
What we described just then is essentially solar radiation pressure plus the Yarkovsky effect. It turns out that the net force from this process typically averages out to zero as the ring particles orbit around the planet. This assumes, though, that the sunlight is constantly shining on the ring. Stunning imagery of Saturn tells us that this isn’t the case, so what happens when we take into account the shadow cast on the ring from the planet? Today’s authors find that the net effect induces a positive change in angular momentum of the ring particles, which they call the eclipse–Yarkovsky effect.
After today’s authors detailed all of the math involved in this process (and there is a lot), they put it into practice to try to help explain Saturn’s curious rings. Including the eclipse–Yarkovsky effect together with other known effects that drive ring evolution allowed them to reproduce the optical depth profile (how thick the ring looks) of Saturn’s A ring better than ever before (notably the sharp inner edge in Figure 3). On top of this, the effect provides another avenue for moonlet formation in the outer edges of ring systems as the positive torque from the effect drives material out toward and away from the Roche limit.
Figure 3: The authors try to explain the current structure of Saturn’s A ring by initialising it with a Gaussian profile of optical thickness versus radius (black dot-dashed line) and evolving it for 81 million years under different effects. When viscous effects are included (blue dashed line), the ring spreads out, but it’s only when the eclipse–Yarkovsky (EY) effect is included (red line) that the model closely matches the observed data (grey line). [Zhou et al. 2026]
Undeniably useful for Saturn, the eclipse–Yarkovsky effect may also explain some other conundra in the solar system. Mars may have once had rings, which are thought to have eventually clumped together to form the inner moon Phobos. This idea is problematic, though, in that current models suggest there should still be some residual ring system around Mars even after Phobos formed. Enter the eclipse–Yarkovsky effect: being 100 times stronger for Mars than Saturn (due to its more intense incident sunlight), the effect may have driven out and dispersed that residual ring altogether. While the authors are currently looking into this possibility, the reintroduction of the eclipse–Yarkovsky effect has already shown great promise for our most beautiful ringed planetary neighbour.
Original astrobite edited by Wasi Naqvi.
About the author, Ryan White:
I am a first-year PhD student at Macquarie University in Australia, working mainly on binary/multiple systems with massive stars (Wolf–Rayets in particular!). Outside of study, I’m probably drinking coffee, baking, reading, or going for a run. You can also find me procrastinating on Bluesky @astroryan.bsky.social.
Why does one side of the Moon have a lot of craters, while the other side does not? Stephen LogesBrooksville, Florida When the first photos of the Moon’s farside were obtained, people usually expressed the difference between the back and the front in terms of “more craters on the back.” It might be better toContinue reading "Why does one side of the Moon have a lot of craters, while the other does not?"
A meteorite discovered in Africa could be evidence of a lost protoplanet that once orbited our Sun, according to researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
In a recent paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, the team revealed evidence of an ancient protoplanet that may have been as large as Mars based on simulations of how the meteorite sample may have formed.
The four-and-a-half-billion-year-old world carried an unexpected geological makeup, which the researchers say casts doubt on common assumptions regarding planetary evolution.
Protoplanetary Demise
According to the UC Boulder team, the massive protoplanetary body collided with another object four and a half billion years ago, shattering it completely. This is the first definitive evidence of a lost protoplanet in our solar system, based on analysis of the angrite meteorite NWA 12774, a shard of that planetary embryo recovered from the Sahara Desert.
“It’s incredible to think there was once a world this large,” said lead author Aaron Bell, an assistant research professor in the Department of Earth Science at CU Boulder. “We only know it existed because a few fragments of it happened to land on Earth. These meteorites preserved evidence of a completely different pathway through which early planets developed.”
A Rare Meteorite Sample
Angrites, a rare type of volcanic rock, serve as a record of our solar system’s distant past. These rocks began forming only a few million years after the solar system’s birth, making them valuable evidence of this early era. However, they are extremely rare and difficult to find.
NWA 12774 is one of only 68 angrite samples identified among more than 80,000 meteorites cataloged by scientists. Given its rarity, the discovery could potentially reshape how researchers understand these ancient rocks.
Until now, scientists had assumed that angrites originated from relatively small asteroids less than 124 miles (200 kilometers) wide, based largely on their chemical composition. Large rocky planets such as Earth and Mars contain significant amounts of silicon dioxide, while angrites contain very little of the compound.
Unexpected Meteorite Discovery
Researchers began to reconsider those assumptions when they identified clinopyroxene in the meteorite sample. This mineral, commonly found in Earth’s crust and mantle, appeared unusually rich in aluminum, suggesting that it formed under significant pressure deep within a planetary body.
To investigate this unusual characteristic of NWA 12774, the University of Colorado Boulder team recreated the conditions under which the sample could have formed. Their analysis revealed that pressures of at least 17.5 kilobars were required to produce the aluminum-rich clinopyroxene found in the meteorite. For comparison, one kilobar is roughly equivalent to the pressure at the deepest part of Earth’s oceans, near the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Rethinking Meteorite Origins
The researchers’ discovery proved that at least this particular angrite sample could not have formed inside a small meteorite, as a body with a radius of at least 621 miles would be required to generate the pressure needed to produce the crystals.
Additional evidence suggested the parent body may have been even larger. The crystals’ sharp edges and delicate internal structures indicate they likely formed at relatively shallow depths beneath the surface. Reconciling both the high-pressure conditions and the shallow formation depth suggests that the parent body may have ranged in size from the Moon to Mars.
“There are many meteorites sitting in drawers that haven’t been thoroughly studied, so there were likely more of these protoplanets we don’t know about,” Bell said.
Exactly what happened to this ancient world remains uncertain, but researchers believe it was likely destroyed in a massive collision early in the solar system’s history. Fragments of that lost protoplanet may have later contributed material to other bodies, potentially including Earth itself.
“The materials that formed the angrite parent body are fundamentally different from the ingredients of Earth and Mars,” Bell concluded. “It points to a distinct and separate evolutionary path in planetary formation in the early history of our solar system.”
Ryan Whalen covers science and technology for The Debrief. He holds an MA in History and a Master of Library and Information Science with a certificate in Data Science. He can be contacted at ryan@thedebrief.org, and follow him on Twitter @mdntwvlf.
When the third known object from the galactic space beyond our Sun barreled through the solar system last year, Earth was in a terrible spot to view its flyby. Thankfully, however, a spacecraft that was previously busy mapping Mars took advantage of much better positioning for a closer look.
Cheap Seats
Astronomers have now observed three interstellar objects as they’ve flown through the solar system: 1I/ʻOumuamua, which shocked astronomers in 2017; 2I/Borisov, which followed in 2019 and behaved almost identically to a solar system comet; and now 3I/ATLAS, which was found buzzing toward the Sun in July 2025. As soon as 3I/ATLAS was spotted, pretty much every telescope on the planet took a look. The data swiftly revealed much that intrigued astronomers: while 3I/ATLAS was behaving essentially like a standard comet, its chemistry was nothing like its solar system counterparts, and its coma and dust outflow were strangely shaped. Among other oddities, it seemed to counterintuitively have a dust tail that pointed toward the Sun.
3I/ATLAS’s path across the sky as seen from Earth versus the clearer line of sight from Mars. The shaded region represents the times where the comet was too close to the Sun for viewing. [Xin Ren et al. 2026]
Unfortunately for astronomers, 3I/ATLAS didn’t make it easy for them to study the shape of its coma. Thanks to a cosmic coincidence, the interstellar visitor was traveling almost perfectly within the plane of our solar system, and Earthbound observers were often limited to an edge-on view of its tail. Even worse, 3I/ATLAS looped around the back of the Sun from our perspective, meaning no one on the planet could observe the comet for a few weeks in the fall. This led a group of astronomers to consider their assets that are farther from home.
Better View from Mars
The Tianwen-1 spacecraft, which entered Martian orbit in early 2021 and has been diligently mapping the Red Planet ever since, has a high-resolution camera that’s normally pointed at the planet’s surface. By spinning the spacecraft around, a team of researchers led by Xin Ren (National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences) repurposed the camera to act as a small telescope when 3I/ATLAS flew by. In another cosmic coincidence, 3I/ATLAS happened to pass very near Mars last fall, and this close approach gave Tianwen-1 a great out-of-plane view of the coma. The orbiter managed to capture 57 images of 3I/ATLAS over three days last fall, representing China’s first-ever observations of an object from an asset in deep space.
Stacked images of 3I/ATLAS from the Tianwen-1 orbiter across three epochs; the tail’s apparent shape shifts as the viewing geometry changes. Click to enlarge. [Xin Ren et al. 2026]
The team took full advantage of the great view and leveraged the spacecraft’s unique perspective to extract some intriguing results. By tracking how the gentle pressure of sunlight nudged the escaping grains, the researchers found that the coma is dominated by surprisingly large dust. With an average size of hundreds of microns across, the dust is more like coarse sand than smoke, and they found that it ambles away from the comet at just 3–10 meters per second. All told, 3I/ATLAS was shedding dust at roughly 1,000 kilograms every second. The big grains may be a fingerprint of a cold, distant birthplace: models suggest such grains collect in the frigid outer reaches of planet-forming disks, hinting that 3I/ATLAS was forged far from its parent star before being flung into the dark.
As new surveys begin to turn up interstellar interlopers more often, this improvised observation makes a tidy point: the spacecraft already scattered across the solar system can double as a fleet of opportunistic comet-watchers, each offering a view we simply can’t get from home.
Citation
“Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS Observed from Mars by China’s Tianwen-1 Spacecraft,” Xin Ren et al 2026 ApJL 1003 L10. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae61b3
Discovered in December 2024, the roughly 60-meter-wide asteroid 2024 YR4 was initially thought to have a slim chance of striking Earth in 2032. Further observations ruled out an Earth impact but left open the possibility of a Moon impact. New JWST observations show that 2024 YR4 will speed past both Earth and the Moon without a collision.
Another Update on 2024 YR4
In April 2025, we featured a Research Note that described March 2025 JWST observations of 2024 YR4 and characterized the asteroid’s size and albedo. At the close of that article, the authors suggested that further JWST observations in early 2026 could help to refine our understanding of the asteroid’s trajectory and determine whether it would strike the Moon.
On 18 and 26 February 2026, JWST carried out those critical observations. In this dataset, the asteroid is bright enough to be detected confidently, and the background is peppered with a sufficient number of reference stars — two factors necessary to determine the precise track of the asteroid as it zipped through space.
Trajectory Refinement
Difference between the position of 2024 YR4 determined in this work using three different reduction methods (red, blue, and green circles) and the position drawn from the existing orbit from the JPL Horizons database. The different analysis methods yielded consistent results. [Adapted from De Wit et al. 2026]
Julien de Wit (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and collaborators analyzed the new JWST data and determined the asteroid’s position. The team used multiple methods to reduce the data and showed that their results were consistent regardless of the reduction method, ultimately yielding a measurement with an uncertainty of just 50 milliarcseconds. This is a huge improvement over the previous trajectory estimate, which had an uncertainty of 700 milliarcseconds.
Combining the latest JWST observations with existing data stretching back to the asteroid’s discovery, de Wit and coauthors determined a new, highly precise orbit for the object — one that definitively shows that the asteroid will safely pass by the Moon at a distance of 22,900 ± 800 km in 2032. In addition to ruling out the upcoming lunar impact, the team also ruled out any collisions with Earth in the next 100 years. Phew!
Position of 2024 YR4 as seen by JWST in February 2026 (white dashed circle) compared to the asteroid’s location estimated from existing data (red circle). [De Wit et al. 2026]
High-Impact Science
This work highlights JWST’s potential as a tool for planetary defense. The February 2026 observations detailed here represent the faintest-ever detection of a near-Earth object, and JWST can detect objects far fainter than ground-based telescopes can. This ability allows JWST to observe potentially hazardous asteroids over a larger swath of their orbits, which translates to earlier trajectory estimation — JWST pinned down 2024 YR4’s orbit two years before the asteroid would have become bright enough for ground-based telescopes to do so.
JWST’s role may be even more important for smaller objects that rapidly become undetectable after discovery. De Wit’s team demonstrated this for a 10-meter-diameter 2024 YR4 clone on the same trajectory; for an object of this size, JWST would be able to rule out an Earth impact before the asteroid became undetectable, but ground-based telescopes could not. With surveys from facilities like Vera C. Rubin Observatory and Near-Earth Object Surveyor set to discover hundreds of thousands of new near-Earth objects, JWST’s role as a hazard assessor will likely be in high demand.
Citation
“JWST Observations of Asteroid 2024 YR4 Rule Out a 2032 Lunar Impact and Demonstrate a New Regime for Planetary Defense Follow-Up,” Julien de Wit et al 2026 ApJL1003 L21. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae6a95
Login
