There’s Something Fascinating Hiding Under Jupiter’s Clouds, Scientists Find

NASA

The enormous storms of impenetrable clouds covering Jupiter’s surface make it nearly impossible for us to get a glimpse of what lies below. Any spacecraft attempting to get a closer look would be vaporized, melted, or crushed if it attempted to sail through. NASA’s Galileo spacecraft, for instance, went dark almost immediately when it intentionally plunged into Jupiter’s atmosphere back in 2003.

While Jupiter — a giant ball of swirling gases and liquids — isn’t believed to have a true surface, scientists have been trying to get a better sense of its layers. Now, using data from NASA’s Juno and Galileo missions, a team of scientists at the space agency’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Chicago have created a highly detailed computational model of Jupiter’s atmosphere.

And as detailed in a new paper, published in The Planetary Science Journal last month, they found something surprising down there: Jupiter appears to contain one-and-a-half times as much oxygen as the Sun — far more than previous estimates, which suggested it was only a third as much oxygen.

The findings also support the prevailing theory that Jupiter formed by accreting icy material billions of years ago near or past the “frost line,” as Space.com points out, meaning the distance from the Sun where temperatures are low enough for ammonia, methane, and water ice to form. (Whether the planet formed in its current orbit or much further away from the Sun before migrating to its current position over billions of years remains a topic of debate.)

Much of the oxygen is tied up in water as well, which changes its behavior drastically depending on temperature, further complicating our efforts to map out Jupiter’s layers.

The researchers’ computational model takes into account both the chemical reactions taking place — from extremely hot metal molecules deep inside the core and much cooler regions in its atmosphere — and the movement of gases, clouds and droplets.

“You need both,” said lead author and UChicago postdoctoral researcher Jeehyun Yang in a statement. “Chemistry is important but doesn’t include water droplets or cloud behavior. Hydrodynamics alone simplifies the chemistry too much. So, it’s important to bring them together.”

Their model suggests that gases move far more slowly through Jupiter’s atmosphere than previously thought.

“Our model suggests the diffusion would have to be 35 to 40 times slower compared to what the standard assumption has been,” Yang explained. “Instead of moving through an atmospheric layer in hours, a single molecule might take several weeks.”

It’s only one small part of a much larger mystery surrounding our solar system’s largest planet — and its more-than-intriguing collection of moons. The angry gas giant of swirling gases continues to baffle even top scientists.

“It really shows how much we still have to learn about planets, even in our own solar system,” Yang said.

More on Jupiter’s moons: 

• NASA Says Europa Is Covered by a Thick Icy Shell

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://futurism.com/category/space }

04-02-2026 om 22:55 geschreven door peter  

The European Space Agency has published a video based on data collected by the Mars Express mission. It shows a flight over the southern highlands of Mars to the Flaugergues Crater.

The video begins with an overview of a section of land surrounded by two steeply sloping and roughly parallel terraces (or slopes) called Scylla Scopulus and Charybdis Scopulus (on the left and right, respectively). This “path” on the surface is called a graben, formed as a result of the separation of tectonic plates. It is about 75 km wide and 1 km deep.

The southern highlands of Mars. Visualization based on data from the Mars Express mission.

Source: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin

To the left of the graben, the Bakhuysen Crater is clearly visible. It may seem small, but in reality its diameter is 150 km, which is comparable to the distance from Kyiv to Zhytomyr.

As we move north, we approach the Flaugergues Crater. The virtual camera moves along the eastern side of the crater, then turns left and ends its movement at its western edge.

Flaugergues Crater is a huge impact basin approximately 240 km wide. Its area is comparable to that of Estonia. Flaugergues is located in the southern highlands of Mars. They represent rugged terrain densely covered with ancient impact formations.

Half of the floor of the Flaugergues Crater has a rugged terrain, with elevations reaching up to 1 km. The video also shows a valley crossing this rocky area. It was probably formed by lava flows and wind erosion.

Earlier, we reported on how Mars Express photographed traces of the Martian ice age.

• Posted in News, Science

{https://universemagazine.com/en/news-en/science-en/ }

04-02-2026 om 21:42 geschreven door peter  

NASA's bosses have been grilled after the Artemis II moon mission was pushed back following a failed wet dress rehearsal.

The decision to delay until March at the earliest was made when ground crews were unable stop the rocket's super–cooled hydrogen fuel leaking.

This same problem has plagued every single hydrogen rocket since the Apollo Era, and was a well–known issue during the launch of Artemis I in 2022.

At a press conference discussing the aborted test, Marcia Dunn, of the Associated Press, pressured NASA to explain: 'How can you still be having the same problem three years later?'

In response, John Honeycutt, Chair of the Artemis II Mission Management Team, admitted: 'This one caught us off guard.'

He added: 'The technical team felt like we either had some misalignment or some deformation or debris on the seal.'

Lori Glaze, NASA's Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate acting associate administrator, added: 'Everyone's aware of some of the challenges with the hydrogen tanking from Artemis 1.

'We really did learn a lot from the Artemis 1 mission, and we implemented a lot of the lessons learned yesterday through wet dress.'

NASA bosses have been grilled after the Artemis II moon mission was pushed back to March following a failed wet dress rehearsal. Pictured: (left to right) Amit Kshatriya, Lori Glaze,  Charlie Blackwell–Thompson, and John Honeycutt

The dress rehearsal failed just five minutes from completion after a hydrogen leak spiked beyond safe levels as ground crews filled the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket with over 2.6 million litres of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen

During the wet dress rehearsal, NASA simulated a launch by filling the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket with over 2.6 million litres of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

The operation began at 01:13 GMT (20:13 EST) on January 31, and the fuelling operation initially went smoothly.

However, the space agency soon found a major hydrogen leak in a component called the 'tail service mast umbilical quick disconnect'.

These are roughly nine–metre–tall pods which attach to the base of the rocket and route propellant lines up into fuel tanks, before disconnecting during launch.

What is most concerning is that this is the exact same place where the SLS rocket used in Artemis I experienced leaks during its wet dress rehearsal three years ago.

Those leaks ultimately required the SLS to be removed from the launchpad three separate times for repairs, pushing back the eventual launch of Artemis I by six months.

This raises the question of why NASA hadn't managed to fix this well–known issue ahead of the Artemis II wet dress rehearsal.

On social media, space enthusiasts were outraged that the space agency had failed to get a handle on its hydrogen problems.

The leak came from a component called the 'tail service mast umbilical quick disconnect' (pictured), which attaches the rocket to the tower. This is the exact same place that caused hydrogen leaks during Artemis I 

John Honeycutt (pictured), Chair of the Artemis II Mission Management Team, admitted: 'This one caught us off guard'

On social media, space enthusiasts bemoaned the fact that NASA had not fixed an error, which had been well known since Artemis I in 2022

One social media user complained that hydrogen leaks have been an issue since the Apollo era, and NASA still has not managed to get them under control 

Why does NASA use hydrogen fuel?

The SLS rocket uses a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

Since hydrogen is such a small molecule, it is extremely prone to leaking.

However, hydrogen is also cheap, naturally abundant, and produces a phenomenal amount of energy.

According to NASA this mix gives the 'highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant'.

Another important factor is that the SLS rocket inherits a lot of its hardware and systems from the Shuttle era rockets.

These engines were built to run on hydrogen, so NASA can't change fuels without an expensive redesign of the entire rocket and engine system.  

One commenter wrote: 'Couldn't fix it in three years, how can they fix it in three weeks?'

'In essence – the three year issue has no solution in the near future. This is all a sham,' complained another.

Meanwhile, one frustrated commenter added: 'You would think by now they would realize, hydrogen is very difficult to seal plumbing for.'

Mr Honeycutt told reporters the issue stemmed from the fact that NASA hadn't been able to test the entire rocket stack in more realistic conditions.

He said: 'After Artemis I and the challenges we had with the leaks, we took a pretty aggressive approach to do some component–level testing with these valves and the seals.

'But on the ground, we're pretty limited as to how much realism we can put into the test.'

Likewise, Amit Kshatriya, NASA Associate Administrator, pointed to the fact that the SLS rocket is a highly complicated machine that has only been flown a handful of times.

Mr Kshatriya said: 'This is the first time this particular machine has borne witness to cryogens, and how it breathes and how it vents and how it wants to leak is something we're going to have to characterise.'

Amit Kshatriya, NASA Associate Administrator, said the issues came from the fact that the SLS rocket is a very complicated machine that has only been flown a few times 

This is an opinion shared by NASA Administrator Jarred Issacman, who wrote in a post on X that 'the flight rate is the lowest of any NASA–designed vehicle, and that should be a topic of discussion'.

To NASA's credit, the Artemis II rocket performed significantly better than its predecessors.

Hydrogen is such a small molecule that it can pass through the microscopic pores in welds and is, therefore, almost impossible to contain.

However, since liquid hydrogen and oxygen provide so much power, NASA tolerates an acceptable amount of hydrogen leaking on the ground.

These leaks proved debilitating for Artemis I after multiple wet dress rehearsals failed to fill the fuel tanks.

Likewise, during the Space Shuttle era, a particularly bad run of hydrogen leaks in 1990 shut down NASA's launch operations for more than six months.

Even the Apollo 11 mission was nearly scuppered after a massive hydrogen leak sprang in the rocket's second stage, with engineers working to seal it even as the astronauts boarded.

During the Artemis II wet dress rehearsal, ground crews were able to completely fill the SLS's fuel tank while keeping the leak just about within these safe limits.

Unlike during Artemis I, NASA bosses also maintain that these problems can be fixed on the launchpad and won't require bringing the Artemis II rocket (pictured) back to the hangar

It was only with about five minutes left in the countdown, as crews started to pressurise the fuel tanks, that the lead spiked beyond this threshold.

Charlie Blackwell–Thompson, Artemis Launch Director, said: 'As we began that pressurisation, we did see that the leak within the cavity came up pretty quick.'

However, Ms Blackwell–Thompson also insists that: 'If we were within our parameters on launch day and you had not had the issue when you pressurised during terminal count, you would have been within your launch commit criteria and certainly could have been go for launch.'

Unlike during Artemis I, NASA bosses also maintain that these problems can be fixed on the launchpad and won't require bringing the rocket back to the hangar.

Read More

• Sun unleashes FOUR solar flares towards Earth that could wreak havoc on radios and GPS satellites 

If true, this means Artemis II might be able to iron out its hydrogen problems in time for the next scheduled wet dress rehearsal.

NASA officials didn't specify when this next rehearsal would take place, adding that it would take time to go through the data from this week's test.

However, Artemis II is currently targeting its second launch window from March 6 to March 9 and March 11.

If the launch is delayed again, the mission will be pushed back another month to the final proposed window between April 1 and April 6.

Artemis II: Key facts

Launch date: NASA has identified three possible launch windows for Artemis II in the coming months: From February 6 to February 11, from March 6 to March 11, and from April 1 to April 6.

Mission objective: To complete a lunar flyby, passing the 'dark side' of the moon and test systems for a future lunar landing.

Total distance to travel: 620,000 miles (one million km)

Mission duration: 10 days 

Estimated total cost: $44 billion (£32.5 billion)

• NASA Space Launch System rocket: $23.8 billion (£17.6 billion)
• Orion deep–space spacecraft: $20.4 billion (£15 billion)

Crew: 

• Commander Reid Wiseman
• Pilot Victor Glover
• Mission Specialist Christina Koch
• Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen

Mission Stages:

1. Launch from Kennedy Space Centre Launch Pad 39B
2. Manoeuvre in orbit to raise the perigee using the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage
3. Burn to raise apogee using the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage
4. Detach from Cryogenic Propulsion Stage and perform translunar injection
5. Fly to the moon over four days
6. Complete lunar flyby at a maximum altitude of 5,523 miles (8,889 km) above the moon's surface
7. Return to Earth over four days.
8. Separate the crew module from the European Service Module and the crew module adapter
9. Splashdown in the Pacific Ocean  

{ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html }

04-02-2026 om 21:07 geschreven door peter  

Armageddon was RIGHT! Simulation confirms we really could nuke an asteroid if it was heading for Earth

• READ MORE: Human couples could soon give birth to babies in SPACE

By WILIAM HUNTER, SENIOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

The 1998 sci-fi classic Armageddon might not have a reputation as a scientifically accurate film. 

But scientists now say the Hollywood blockbuster got one thing right – we really could nuke an asteroid out of its deadly collision course if it were heading towards Earth.

This technique is called nuclear deflection and, unlike in the movies, the goal is not to blow the approaching asteroid into smithereens.

Instead, a precisely timed nuclear explosion could give the asteroid just enough of a nudge to sail harmlessly past Earth.

Until now, experts have raised concerns that nuclear deflection would shatter an asteroid into many pieces, which would collectively pose an even greater risk.

However, a new simulation shows that asteroid material is actually far more resilient to extreme forces than previously thought.

Researchers from the University of Oxford found that some asteroid material actually gets stronger when subjected to an intense impact.

This means we could use huge nuclear weapon to deflect an incoming asteroid, without shattering it into deadly shrapnel.

The 1998 sci-fi classic Armageddon (pictured) might not have a reputation as a scientifically accurate film. But scientists now say the Hollywood blockbuster got one thing right – we really could nuke an asteroid out of its deadly collision course if it were heading towards Earth 

The researchers used CERN's 4.3 mile (7km) Super Proton Synchrotron to blast a fragment of a meteor with a stream of high-energy protons – stable positively charged particles found inside atoms

For the study, the researchers teamed up with nuclear deflection startup, the Outer Solar System Company (OuSoCo), to find out what would happen to a metal-rich asteroid if it was nuked.

Unsurprisingly, it isn't possible to let off a nuclear weapon inside a lab, so the scientists turned to the next best thing: a massive particle accelerator.

The researchers used CERN's 4.3 mile (7km) Super Proton Synchrotron to blast a fragment of a meteor with a stream of high-energy protons – stable positively charged particles found inside atoms.

A piece of the Campo del Cielo meteorite, a metal-rich iron-nickel body, was exposed to 27 successive short bursts from the particle accelerator to simulate the impact of a nuclear blast.

Bizarrely, the researchers watched as the asteroid material softened, flexed, and then unexpectedly strengthened without breaking.

Co-lead author Melanie Bochmann, co-founder of OuSoCo, says: 'The material became stronger, exhibiting an increase in yield strength, and displayed a self-stabilising damping behaviour.'

Overall, while being hit with the force of a nuclear blast, the asteroid's strength actually increased by a factor of 2.5.

This new evidence is a strong suggestion that nuclear deflection could be a viable option for planetary defence.

A piece of the Campo del Cielo meteorite (pictured), a metal-rich iron-nickel body, was exposed to 27 successive short bursts from the particle accelerator to simulate the impact of a nuclear blast. Bizarrely, the researchers watched as the asteroid material softened, flexed, and then unexpectedly strengthened without breaking 

Thousands of pieces of space rock hit the Earth every single year, but the vast majority of these are so small that they simply burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.

However, asteroids large enough to cause serious damage do arrive with surprising frequency.

Most recently, the Chelyabinsk explosion injured thousands of people in 2013 when an 18-metre (59ft) asteroid broke up in the atmosphere.

To protect Earth from an even bigger strike, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) are currently researching a technique called a 'kinetic impactor'.

This very simply involves slamming a spacecraft into the side of an asteroid as fast as physically possible so that the transferred kinetic energy moves it off course.

NASA's 2022 DART mission, which smashed a spaceship into the asteroid Dimorphos, proved that this could move an asteroid enough to save Earth.

However, kinetic impactors only work if astronomers have spotted the asteroid years before its arrival, to give time for the small changes in trajectory to build up.

Ms Bochmann told the Daily Mail: 'Space agencies already recognise the necessity of nuclear deflection.

Nuclear deflection could be a viable alternative to the kinetic impactor technique, tested by NASA during the DART mission (pictured), which involves ramming a spaceship into an asteroid as fast as possible 

'For large objects or scenarios with short warning times, it is widely regarded by space agencies and experts as the only viable deflection option.'

The fact that metal-rich asteroid material is so resilient to high-energy impacts is a good sign for the prospects of nuclear deflection, since it suggests that nuking a space rock won't cause fragmentation.

'The paper shows that significantly more energy can be delivered by a nuclear explosion without causing catastrophic fragmentation of the object than previously assumed,' says Ms Bochmann.

Read More

• Record-breaking asteroid the size of seven football pitches could be nudged towards Earth 

However, before NASA starts launching nuclear warheads into space, a lot more research will be needed.

This paper only looks at one very specific type of asteroid – metal-rich iron-nickel – whereas world-ending threats come in all shapes and sizes.

The researchers now plan to repeat the study with samples from a more complex class of asteroid.

These could include meteorites called pallasites, which are similar to the samples already studied but with centimetre-sized, magnesium-rich crystals embedded inside.

WHAT COULD WE DO TO STOP AN ASTEROID COLLIDING WITH EARTH?

Currently, NASA would not be able to deflect an asteroid if it were heading for Earth but it could mitigate the impact and take measures that would protect lives and property.

This would include evacuating the impact area and moving key infrastructure.

Finding out about the orbit trajectory, size, shape, mass, composition and rotational dynamics would help experts determine the severity of a potential impact.

However, the key to mitigating damage is to find any potential threat as early as possible.

NASA and the European Space Agency completed a test which slammed a refrigerator-sized spacecraft into the asteroid Dimorphos.

The test is to see whether small satellites are capable of preventing asteroids from colliding with Earth.

The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) used what is known as a kinetic impactor technique—striking the asteroid to shift its orbit.

The impact could change the speed of a threatening asteroid by a small fraction of its total velocity, but by doing so well before the predicted impact, this small nudge will add up over time to a big shift of the asteroid's path away from Earth.

This was the first-ever mission to demonstrate an asteroid deflection technique for planetary defence.

The results of the trial are expected to be confirmed by the Hera mission in December 2026.

{ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html }

04-02-2026 om 20:21 geschreven door peter  

{ Daily Mail }

04-02-2026 om 19:57 geschreven door peter  

Should Halley’s Comet Be Renamed?

Despite interesting historical arguments, the chances of the astronomical community accepting this change remain minimal.

by Ivan Petricevic

A monk believed he recognized Halley’s Comet in the Bayeux Tapestry, but that alone does not justify renaming it.

Credit: Public Domain

Although Halley’s Comet will not return to our vicinity for another 35 years, a new analysis has sparked media attention with the claim that this famous object is wrongly named. Professors Michael Lewis of the British Museum and Simon Zwart of Leiden University have presented evidence that the monk Eilmer of Malmesbury recognized the comet’s cyclic nature six centuries before Edmond Halley. Despite interesting historical arguments, the chances of the astronomical community accepting this change remain minimal.

Eilmer, sometimes called Aethelmaer, was undoubtedly a peculiar historical figure. It is recorded that, long before the Wright brothers, he attached wings to his arms and legs and managed to fly a distance of 200 meters, though he broke both legs upon landing. Nevertheless, his understanding of celestial mechanics was almost certainly far below that of Edmond Halley. Halley followed in the footsteps of Johannes Kepler, whose laws enabled the calculation of planetary orbits, which were later further developed by Isaac Newton.

Using observations of comets from 1531, 1607, and 1682, Halley proved they were the same object and calculated its orbit. In doing so, he confirmed the existence of periodic comets and the ability to predict their return. His successful prediction of the return in 1758 was based not just on noting that the comet appeared every 74.7 years, but on precise calculations of its movement in the interim.

For Eilmer, such a feat would have been nearly impossible. Not only did he lack Kepler’s insights, but he was also unaware of Copernicus’s work; even if he understood that the comet orbited something, he likely would have thought it circled the Earth, not the Sun. We do not know exactly what Eilmer truly grasped because his writings have been lost. We rely on the records of William of Malmesbury, a historian and monk from the same abbey, who wrote about 50 years after Eilmer’s death.

Related Posts

• 

Jupiter doesn’t orbit the center of the Sun and the strange reason why reveals how gravity really works

• 

This repeating space signal is coming from deep space — and no one knows why

According to these records, Eilmer was more interested in what the comet’s return in 1066 meant for English politics than in its actual trajectory. William quotes his predecessor saying: “You’ve come, have you? You source of tears to many mothers. It is long since I saw you; but as I see you now, you are much more terrible, for I see you brandishing the downfall of my mother-country.” It is unclear whether Eilmer truly identified enough similarities between the comet he saw in 989 and the one that watched over King Harold’s demise, depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, or if he simply got lucky by connecting the two brightest comets of his life.

Naming Rules and Precedents

Today, comets are named after the first person or organization to detect them and recognize them as a comet, rather than a smudge on a lens or an already known object. To achieve this, the orbit must be calculated at least approximately to rule out the return of a known body. Priority is established by reporting to the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams. The fact that someone calculated an orbit earlier but did not report it properly is usually not enough for renaming. What Halley did fits the requirements for naming rights far better than the most optimistic interpretation of Eilmer’s achievement.

A good example is Encke’s Comet, one of the most famous “dirty snowballs” after Halley’s. Although it never reaches the brightness of Halley’s Comet, Encke’s Comet has a very short orbital period around the Sun of just 3.3 years. Johann Encke calculated its orbit in 1819 based on observations from the previous year and successfully predicted its return in 1822. Encke’s role was comparable to Halley’s, even though many had seen the comet before him—Pierre Méchain and Charles Messier recorded it as early as 1786.

Jean-Louis Pons spotted the comet in 1818 and noticed similarities with its appearance in 1805, but he passed the idea to Encke, who performed the complex calculations and gained the fame. Although Pons discovered a record 37 comets, his name is borne by only three, including the recently topical Pons-Brooks comet. If Pons was not credited with that fourth comet, it is hard to see why Eilmer should displace Halley.

From Laws of Physics to Birds

Most other astronomical objects do not bear the names of their finders. Asteroids are named based on the year of discovery, and only later are they assigned names of deserving individuals by decision of the astronomical community. Stars rarely bear the names of individuals, with exceptions like Barnard’s Star. There are also controversies, such as that surrounding the Magellanic Clouds, for which there are strong arguments that they should not bear the name of a slave trader and mass murderer, yet the name remains in use.

A better comparison with comets might be scientific theorems. It often happens that a law bears the name of a person who did not discover it first. For example, l’Hôpital’s rule for calculating limits was actually discovered by Johann Bernoulli, whom l’Hôpital employed under the condition that he retained the rights to his discoveries. Although l’Hôpital later acknowledged Bernoulli’s contribution, the name stuck. Officially, Hubble’s Law is now called the Hubble-Lemaître Law by decision of the International Astronomical Union, but most people still use only Hubble’s name.

The only area of science where renaming is becoming common is biology, specifically ornithology. The American Ornithological Society is changing the popular names of birds named after people, replacing them with descriptive names or those reflecting the names used by indigenous peoples. The goal is to remove names associated with racism or a violent past.

Edmond Halley, on the other hand, enjoys considerably higher standing. Not only was he a great scientist, but he was also a peacemaker who soothed conflicts among the vainer scientists of his day, without which Newton’s “Principia” might never have been published. It is unlikely that such a figure will lose the rights to the name of his comet, regardless of historical speculations about a flying monk.

{ https://curiosmos.com/category/unsolved-mysteries/ }

03-02-2026 om 23:51 geschreven door peter  

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

03-02-2026 om 22:52 geschreven door peter  

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

03-02-2026 om 22:16 geschreven door peter  

Hidden giants: mountain structures at the base of the mantle influence the Earth’s magnetic field

Mykyta Lytvynov

Scientists from the University of Liverpool have reported finding evidence of two giant super-hot mountain structures located at the base of the mantle. These structures influence the Earth’s magnetic field.

A sensational discovery

Exploring the Earth’s interior is a much more difficult task than exploring the Solar System. While the Voyager 1 probe has already traveled 25 billion kilometers away from our planet, the deepest borehole has only reached a depth of 12 kilometers. As a result, very little is known about the conditions existing at the boundary between the mantle and the core. But this is a very important place of interaction in the Earth’s interior, where recent studies have revealed interesting magnetic activity.

In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, scientists from the University of Liverpool presented evidence of the existence of two enormous super-hot mountain structures in this region. They are located at the base of the Earth’s mantle at a depth of about 2,900 km beneath Africa and the Pacific Ocean. Research shows that these huge chunks of solid, superheated material, surrounded by a ring of cooler rock from pole to pole, influence the underlying liquid outer core, shaping the Earth’s magnetic field over millions of years.

Reconstruction of the ancient magnetic field of the Earth

Both measuring ancient magnetic fields and simulating the processes that generate them are technically challenging tasks. To explore the Earth’s interior, the research team combined paleomagnetic observations with advanced computer simulations of the geodynamo — the flow of liquid iron in the outer core that generates the Earth’s magnetic field, much like a wind turbine generates electricity.

Numerical models have enabled scientists to reconstruct key observations of magnetic field behavior over the past 265 million years. Even with the help of a supercomputer, conducting such simulations, especially over long periods of time, is a huge computational task.

The results show that the upper boundary of the outer core is far from homogeneous in temperature. On the contrary, it exhibits strong thermal contrasts with localized hot spots covered by continent-sized mountain structures.

It has also been demonstrated that some parts of the magnetic field appear to have remained relatively stable for hundreds of millions of years, while others have changed significantly over time.

Earth’s magnetic field and ancient climate

Andy Biggin, a professor of geomagnetism at the University of Liverpool, commented on the study as follows:

“These findings suggest that there are strong temperature contrasts in the rocky mantle just above the core and that, beneath the hotter regions, the liquid iron in the core may stagnate rather than participate in the vigorous flow seen beneath the cooler regions. Gaining such insights into the deep Earth on very long timescales strengthens the case for using records of the ancient magnetic field to understand both the dynamic evolution of the deep Earth and its more stable properties.”

The findings are also important for questions related to ancient continental configurations, such as the formation and breakup of Pangaea, and may help resolve longstanding uncertainties in the fields of paleoclimate, paleobiology, and natural resource formation. Previously, it was believed that the Earth’s magnetic field, on average over long periods, behaved like an ideal bar magnet aligned with the planet’s axis of rotation. Now it has become clear that this may not be entirely true.

• Earlier, we reported on the expansion of the South Atlantic Anomaly.
• According to University of Liverpool

• Posted in News, Science

RELATED VIDEOS

{news https://universemagazine.com/en/-en/science-en/ }

03-02-2026 om 22:01 geschreven door peter  

The second stage of China’s Zhuque-3 rocket left orbit and fell to Earth, doing so… twice. Before this, many European countries feared that it might fall on their territory.

What is “Zhuque-3”?

The Zhongyue-3 rocket was developed by the Chinese company LandSpace. It is a partially reusable rocket that uses methane as fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer. In a fully disposable configuration, the rocket is capable of delivering up to 12 tons of cargo into low orbit, and up to 8 tons in a version with a returnable first stage.

Zhuque-3 was launched on December 3, 2025. This was its maiden flight. After separation, the first stage successfully performed a braking maneuver and entered the atmosphere. However, during the final stage of descent, it caught fire and ultimately crashed just a few meters from the landing site.

As for the second stage of the Zhuque-3, it successfully reached orbit and remained in space thereafter. As a rule, launch operators attempt to remove spent stages from orbit to prevent them from becoming space debris and posing a threat to spacecraft. However, for some reason, LandSpace did not do this. So the uncontrolled stage remained in space.

Panic in Europe

Over the next two months, the altitude of the second stage of Zhuque-3 gradually decreased due to deceleration in the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere. This process was significantly accelerated by increased solar activity, accompanied by a series of powerful flares that caused bright polar auroras.

By the end of January, the altitude of Zhuque-3 had decreased so much that it became clear that it would soon enter the Earth’s atmosphere. Since the stage weighed 7.5 tons (not counting the payload simulator, which weighed several more tons), this naturally raised concerns that its unburned debris could fall in a populated area and cause damage.

The situation caused the greatest concern in Europe. On January 30, the British government asked mobile operators to ensure the operability of the warning system in preparation for a possible rocket crash. Concerns about the consequences of the Zhuque-3 crash were also expressed in the media of other countries, such as Poland and Belgium.

However, in reality, until the very last hours, there was no way to predict where exactly the Chinese rocket would fall. The process of space debris falling is influenced by many factors, ranging from its orbit to the shape and strength of its components. The only thing that could be said with certainty was that it would happen somewhere between 57° north latitude and 57° south latitude.

A rocket that crashed twice

In the end, everything ended well. On January 30, at 12:39 p.m. UTC, the debris from Zhuque-3 fell into the southern Pacific Ocean. At least, that was the initial report. Both simulation results and data from the US military, whose satellite recorded a fireball in the region at an altitude of 80-90 km, indicated that the Chinese rocket fell at this point. This corresponds to the final stage of entry into the atmosphere.

However, nine hours later, the US Space Force released final data indicating that Zhuque-3 had fallen to Earth… twice. The first time, as reported, it happened at 12:39 p.m. UTC in the southern Pacific Ocean. However, one hour and four minutes later, a second fireball was recorded along the trajectory of Zhuque-3, this time over the Indian Ocean.

According to satellite spotter Marco Langbroek, there are two possible explanations for the situation. The first is a simple mistake or confusion. However, in his opinion, another, very rare scenario took place. The apogee of Zhuque-3’s last orbit was 211 km, while its perigee was 102 km. According to Langbroek, when the stage passed perigee, it began to disintegrate and broke into several pieces. The less durable components disintegrated over the Pacific Ocean, while the more durable and massive piece survived. After that, it managed to make another half-turn, after which it finally entered the atmosphere over the Indian Ocean. This fragment was probably a payload simulator, which was more durable than the stage.

The case of Zhuque-3 demonstrates once again that even with modern technology, it is extremely difficult to predict the location of space debris. That is why all participants in the space market must remove spent rocket stages from orbit to prevent such situations from recurring.

You can find out more about the most famous cases of space debris falling from our article.

• Posted in Articles, Questions

{ https://universemagazine.com/en/news-en/science-en/ }

03-02-2026 om 21:26 geschreven door peter  

Now, the “lost” ancient writing has been made discernible as bright orange markings the X-rays have revealed, according to Minhal Gardezi, a physicist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who was involved in the research.

A “Phaenomena” Emerges

The text revealed by SLAC researchers comprises portions of the poem “Phaenomena,” which dates to around 275 B.C. and is attributed to the Greek poet Aratus of Soli. The copies of the poem the SLAC team studied had likely been made sometime in the 6th century, at which time the unknown scribe also included sections comprising appendices relating to the positions of stars in various constellations, which were a perfect match for work known to have been undertaken by Hipparchus.

Originally transcribed on portions of animal hide, the remnants of the ancient poem were held within Saint Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt’s Sinai desert for centuries. At some point between the 9th and 10th centuries, the original text on the palimpsest appears to have been erased and reused to record a series of monastic treatises, seemingly destroying the ancient scientific information the ancient record once contained.

SLAC’s particle accelerator has now revealed these “lost” portions of the ancient poem using powerful X-rays, making the invisible records from long ago visible again for the first time in centuries (images of which can be seen here).

In the past, very little from Hipparchus’s writings has been recovered, and most of our knowledge of the ancient Greek astronomer stems from secondhand sources. Based on such information, scholars are aware that he can be credited with the creation of one of the earliest star catalogs, as well as early mathematical innovations that include the invention of trigonometry.

The team’s discovery is important, since it offers a rare glimpse at such records from the ancient world, which were often recorded on perishable materials like papyrus, which seldom survive through the ages.

Going beyond even the surprise discovery of these ancient astronomical records, the SLAC team’s process reveals a promising new means by which researchers may be able to retrieve similar “lost” information from surviving ancient records, especially those kept on more rugged materials that were often reused throughout time.

The recent discovery represents a veritable cornucopia of ancient information related to a crucial period in the emergence of science close to two millennia ago. However, this is not the first indication that traces of earlier ancient writing had been present on the palimpsest. In the past, earlier use of advanced imaging techniques had already shown that some form of writing was discernible.

One theory as to why traces of the earlier text remain involves chemicals within the ink used by the earlier scribe, which caused very subtle alterations to how the material absorbs light.

Thanks to the presence of these chemical residues that have remained throughout the ages, exposing the faint markings to light at various wavelengths helps to reveal them. In this case, focused direction of intense X-rays onto the manuscript caused the ancient ink’s remnants to fluoresce, allowing the SLAC team to discern them.

Going forward, the team says they will examine the codex’s complete collection of palimpsests, which may likely reveal additional “lost” knowledge about early science from the world of 2000 years ago.

Additional details about the team’s discoveries, as well as imagery of the palimpsests and videos detailing the use of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource used to recover the once-lost astronomical text, can be found here.

• Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached at micah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com.

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://thedebrief.org/category/space/ }

03-02-2026 om 21:12 geschreven door peter  

NASA scientists have announced the detection of an Earth-like planet orbiting a Sun-like star with a size and orbital period similar to Earth’s. Dubbed HD 137010 b, the newly spotted exoplanet may also lie within the star’s habitable zone, adding to its list of similarities to Earth.

Although future observations are needed to confirm the candidate Earth-like planet’s existence, the quality of data originally captured over a decade ago by the Kepler Space Telescope has the research team behind the discovery optimistic about any potential follow-up studies.

“This is the first planet candidate with Earth-like radius and orbital properties transiting a Sun-like star bright enough for substantial follow-up observations,” they explain in their recently published study.

Elusive Search for Earth-like Planets in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Stars

According to a NASA statement, a team led by astrophysics Ph.D. student Alexander Venner of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia, began searching for Earth-like exoplanets orbiting Sun-like stars within the habitable zone (HZ) by taking a fresh look at Kepler data captured during its 4-year operational period.

“The search for Earth-sized exoplanets in the HZs of Sun-like stars was “the core scientific aim” of the Kepler mission,” the NASA statement explains.

During its ‘quasi-continuous’ northern sky observation period, Kepler made several key discoveries, including the first potential Earth-sized HZ planet orbiting a Sun-like star. However, the researchers note, the majority of the stars targeted during the Kepler mission were faint. As a result, detecting these planets as they pass in front of their host star (the transit method) lies “close to the detection limits” for Sun-like exoplanets.

“The validity of some of these planets has been questioned,” the study authors note, adding that the lack of data was “exacerbated” by Kepler’s premature demise at the end of 2013 due to instrument failure.

Now, Venner and colleagues have employed new techniques to reanalyze data collected during Kepler’s operational period, resulting in a planet candidate similar to Earth in several critical ways.

New Analysis and Observations ‘Strongly Indicate’ Astrophysical Event

During the search, the team spotted the tell-tale signs of a planetary transit around a Sun-like star roughly 146 light-years from Earth. Although the signal strength of the candidate planet was comparatively shallow, the researcher said it was detected at a high signal-to-noise ratio “thanks to the exceptionally high photometric precision” of the observation.

“Our analysis of the K2 photometry, historical and new imaging observations, and archival radial velocities and astrometry strongly indicate that the event was astrophysical, occurred on-target, and can be best explained by a transiting planet candidate, which we designate HD 137010 b,” they write.

Further analysis revealed a planet transiting across its star’s face for approximately 10 hours. For comparison, an Earth transit to an outside observer would take around 13 hours.

To exclude false positives that can mimic the presence of a planet, the team said they performed a “comprehensive analysis of the K2 observations, historical low-resolution imaging and new high-resolution speckle imaging data, archival HARPS RVs, and Hipparcos–Gaia astrometry,” resulting in a transiting exoplanet as the ‘most plausible explanation’ for Kepler’s detected signal.

New Planet Shares Several Features with Earth

Along with a similar orbit to Earth, which models suggest the new planet 355 takes days to complete, the new analysis found numerous other striking similarities. For example, the planet is likely only a few percent larger than Earth. It is also orbiting a star similar to ours. The majority of Earth-sized exoplanets have been discovered orbiting much dimmer red and brown dwarf stars, and few of those have an orbital period close to Earth’s. If confirmed, the new candidate planet would be the first to boast all three characteristics.

Another potential similarity to Earth that requires further analysis involves the possibility that it lies within its host star’s habitable zone. A star’s habitable zone is defined as an orbital distance where life-sustaining liquid water can exist on an orbiting planet’s surface.

When modelling the star’s habitable zone, the researchers suggested that its slight dimness compared to our Sun (about 80%) may mean the new planet’s average surface temperature is closer to that of Mars. Specifically, they note that the planet’s surface high could be “no higher than minus 90 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 68 degrees Celsius).” For comparison, the average surface temperature on Mars is about minus 85 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 65 degrees Celsius).

Still, the researchers say many of their models suggest the planet could still have liquid water on its surface. For example, if HD 137010 b has an atmosphere richer in carbon dioxide than Earth, it could maintain surface liquid water.

After modelling the possibilities, the team gave their new planet a 40% of falling within the conservative estimate of the star’s habitable zone. When they expanded that to include the “optimistic” habitable zone, the odds increased to 51%.

“We estimate that the planet candidate receives a low incident flux, which may place it near the outer edge of the HZ, or potentially even beyond,” they explained.

A Small Milestone in the Search for Earth-like Exoplanets

Due to the planet’s nearly year-long orbit, follow-up observations that could confirm its presence and further characterize its composition and orbit are not likely to come soon. For example, the team notes that finding the types of planets that share so many similarities with Earth is “largely beyond the reach” of NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS).

The team also suggested that the European Space Agency’s CHEOPS (CHaracterising ExOPlanets Satellite) could confirm the discovery. If not, NASA said that gathering any additional data on HD 137010 b “might have to wait for the next generation of space telescopes.”

“In the near future, missions such as PLATO and Earth 2.0 aim to detect Earth-sized planets orbiting in the HZs of Sun-like stars through a Kepler-like ‘stare’ observing strategy,” the research team writes. “If past Kepler results provide a comparable benchmark, the detection of planets with Earth-like orbital periods will require several years of observations.”

When discussing the implications of locating an exoplanet with an unprecedented number of similarities to Earth, the researchers said their finding represents a ‘significant addition’ to the relatively small sample of previously discovered cool Earth-sized exoplanets, and “presents a small milestone in the search for Earth-like exoplanets around nearby Sun-like stars.”

• The study “A Cool Earth-sized Planet Candidate Transiting a Tenth Magnitude K-dwarf From K2” was published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
• 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.

{ https://thedebrief.org/category/space/ }

03-02-2026 om 20:52 geschreven door peter  

Conspiracy theories are reignited online as NASA delays its moon mission yet AGAIN – as one sceptic vents 'this ain't happening'

• READ MORE: Artemis II is pushed back to March after wet dress rehearsal fails

By WILIAM HUNTER, SENIOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

Conspiracy theories have been reignited online after NASA announced its historic moon mission has been delayed yet again.

This morning, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced that the Artemis II mission will be pushed back to March after the wet dress rehearsal failed at the last minute.

While Mr Isaacman says this is a sign that safety testing is working according to plan, this is far from the first delay to NASA's lunar ambition.

Artemis II was originally planned for mid–2025, while Artemis III was supposed to land American astronauts on the moon by the end of this year.

And after last year's uncrewed Artemis I lunar flyby raised critical safety issues, the entire programme was pushed back by a year.

The latest delay has whipped internet–dwelling conspiracy theorists into a frenzy.

On X, one commenter vented: 'Lmao always a delay. This ain't happening.'

Another added: 'I told you guys they would find a reason to cancel their fake trip to the moon'.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced that the Artemis II mission (pictured) will be pushed back to March after the wet dress rehearsal failed at the last minute.

On social media, news of the delay reignited conspiracy theories as sceptical commenters rushed to share their thoughts 

While NASA insists the delay is for safety reasons, internet–dwelling conspiracy theorists have jumped to their own conclusions about the 'real' reasons  

After NASA announced that Artemis II would not fly until March at the very earliest, critics flocked to social media to share their outrage.

Many expressed intense disappointment that Artemis II was being delayed, with some unsure that it would ever be able to launch.

On X, one commenter wrote: 'I have almost zero confidence in this program.'

Another ranted: 'Another hydrogen leak classic NASA move march who even surprised anymore.'

And one added: 'Expecting a delay, as usual. This is what @NASA does. By the time they'll land on the moon, there'll be a Chinese flag already on there.'

Some commenters went even further, with the delay seemingly providing evidence for their wild beliefs in the moon landing conspiracy.

'Honestly for the American people to believe we lost the 'technology' to go back to the moon is the biggest conspiracy ever,' one social media user vented.

Another chipped in: 'Dude SpaceX launches 20 rockets a year and y'all launch 1 every 3 years? Pathetic. Liars. We never went to the moon.'

This is not the first time that NASA's moon mission has faced delays. The entire program was shifted back by a year after serious safety concerns arose 

For some conspiracy theorists, NASA's cautious delay was clear evidence that the moon landings were faked all along 

One commenter said the idea that America would find it hard to go to the moon after the Apollo missions was 'the biggest conspiracy ever' 

One X user complained: 'So was the green screen and wire harnesses not working or what? I doubt it takes a month to fix something stage techs can fix in a couple of hours max. Or is it the hair spray?'

Another simply wrote: 'Better call Kubrick' – alluding to the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Stanley Kubrick and a group of Jewish 'Hollywood elites' directed the fake moon landing footage.

Interestingly, while conspiracy theorists doubt that the Apollo moon landings occurred, some seemed genuinely excited for America to land on the moon 'for the first time'.

One confused commenter wrote on X: 'Yeah figured there would be issues as we have never been to the moon before.

'I pray for the safety of everyone involved in this truly historic endeavour. Thank you for keeping us constantly informed. Looking forward to this launch.'

Despite conspiracy theorists' wild reactions, the real reason for the most recent Artemis II delay is far simpler.

NASA had originally been targeting a launch window between February 6 and February 11.

Before launch, the space agency has to first carry out a 'wet dress rehearsal' in which the crew fill the rocket with super–cooled fuel, runs through a practice countdown, and then safely drains the fuel tanks.

One confused commenter suggested that the Apollo moon landings were fake, but said that they were excited to see the 'truly historic' Artemis mission 

However, after starting the rehearsal at 01:13 GMT (20:13 EST) on January 31, several issues quickly became apparent.

Almost immediately, NASA noticed a liquid hydrogen leak in an interface used to transfer propellant into the rocket's core.

Fixing this required allowing the rocket to warm up, reseating the seals and adjusting the propellant flow.

Jared Isaacman wrote in a post on X: 'All core stage and interim cryogenic propulsion stage tanks were successfully filled, and teams conducted a terminal countdown to about T–5 minutes before the ground launch sequencer halted operations due to an increased leak rate.'

NASA says that it will now need to review the data from this failed rehearsal and conduct another test ahead of the March launch window.

The Space Launch Systems rocket is NASA's largest and most complex, requiring over two million litres of supercooled liquid hydrogen fuel, chilled to –252°C (–423°F).

However, this is only the third time that this rocket has ever been flown, which makes technical issues likely.

Kennedy Space Center, Florida, is also experiencing unusually cold weather, which interferes with rocket systems and the interfaces that prevent fuel from leaking.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman (pictured) says that the Artemis II launch will be rescheduled for launch, adding that the mission will only take place 'when we believe we are as ready'

Artemis II has already faced over a year of delays, after the unexpected damage to the Orion heatshield used in the uncrewed Artemis I mission (pictured) took extra time to investigate

Mr Isaacman writes: 'As always, safety remains our top priority, for our astronauts, our workforce, our systems, and the public. As noted above, we will only launch when we believe we are as ready to undertake this historic mission.'

The entire lunar program has faced several major delays that have pushed back the launches by years.

The Artemis mission to return to the moon was established during President Donald Trump's first term in office.

After multiple technical failures pushed back the mission, the uncrewed Artemis I mission finally launched in November 2022.

Upon returning to Earth, NASA discovered that the heatshield, which would protect the crew from the heat of re–entry, had been badly damaged.

Alongside a battery issue and failures in the circuits that control air circulation and temperature control, this required additional time to fix.

This resulted in the entire Artemis timeline being pushed back, with Artemis III expected to follow in mid–2027 and Artemis IV in 2028. 

{ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html }

03-02-2026 om 20:11 geschreven door peter  

NASA's moon mission is DELAYED: Artemis II is pushed back to March after the wet dress rehearsal fails at the last minute

• READ MORE: Out–of–control Chinese rocket smashes into South Pacific Ocean

By WILIAM HUNTER, SENIOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

NASA's moon mission has been delayed, with the launch of Artemis II now pushed back by at least a month.

The space agency had been targeting a launch window between February 6 and 11, but will now aim for March.

The decision to delay the mission to send four astronauts around the moon came after the so–called 'wet dress rehearsal' failed at the last minute.

In a statement, NASA said: 'Engineers conducted a first run at terminal countdown operations during the test; however, the countdown stopped at 5 minutes left due to a spike in the liquid hydrogen leak rate.'

During a wet dress rehearsal, ground crews practice loading the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket with propellant, running through a countdown, and emptying the fuel tanks.

However, after starting the rehearsal at 01:13 GMT (20:13 EST) on January 31, several issues quickly became apparent.

Cold weather at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida interfered with the fuelling process, leading to a liquid hydrogen leak that brought proceedings to a halt.

This delay means that the Artemis II crew – Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen – will leave quarantine and will not travel to the Kennedy Space Centre as planned.

NASA's moon mission has been delayed, with the launch of Artemis II now pushed back by at least a month 

On January 17, NASA spent 11.5 hours painstakingly transporting the SLS rocket four miles (6.4 km) between the hangar and the launchpad.

The wet dress rehearsal had already been pushed back several days due to unexpectedly cold weather, which can interfere with rocket systems and the interfaces that prevent propellant leaks.

But, after waiting for the rocket to warm up to a safe temperature, the crew began filling the SLS with over two million litres of supercooled liquid hydrogen, chilled to –252°C (–423°F).

Almost immediately, NASA noticed a liquid hydrogen leak in an interface used to transfer propellant into the rocket's core.

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman wrote in a post on X: 'With more than three years between SLS launches, we fully anticipated encountering challenges. 

'That is precisely why we conduct a wet dress rehearsal. These tests are designed to surface issues before flight and set up launch day with the highest probability of success.'

Fixing the unexpected leak involved stopping the flow of liquid hydrogen and allowing the rocket to warm up enough for the seals to reset and adjusting the propellant flow.

Eventually, the space agency did manage to fill all the tanks in the core and interim stage with fuel and the crew began their simulated countdown.

During a 'wet dress rehearsal', the Space Launch System rocket was fuelled and emptied. However, a liquid hydrogen leak brought the test to a halt with just five minutes left 

The Artemis II crew – (left to right) Jeremy Hansen, Christina Koch, Victor Glover, and Reid Wiseman – will now leave the quarantine that they entered on January 21

But, with just five minutes left in the practice countdown, a sudden spike in the rate of liquid hydrogen leaking automatically stopped the launch sequence.

In addition to the hydrogen leak, NASA also found that one of the valves that maintains pressure in the Orion crew module required adjusting, leading to additional delays.

Engineers have also been plagued by dropouts of audio communication channels in the few weeks leading up to the test, and several more dropouts occurred during the rehearsal.

Mr Isaacman wrote in a post on X: 'As always, safety remains our top priority, for our astronauts, our workforce, our systems, and the public. 

'As noted above, we will only launch when we believe we are as ready to undertake this historic mission.' 

NASA now says that it needs more time to 'allow teams to review data and conduct a second wet dress rehearsal'.

The crew will now be able to leave the quarantine, which they entered in Houston on January 11, and will re-enter about two weeks out from the next launch window.

Mr Isaacman added: 'The team will fully review the data, troubleshoot each issue encountered during WDR, make the necessary repairs, and return to testing.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman says that Artemis II will now conduct a second wet dress rehearsal and target the March launch window 

'We expect to conduct an additional wet dress rehearsal and then target the March window.'

If Artemis II is not able to launch in March, NASA will aim for the final planned opportunity between April 1 and April 6. 

Artemis II will be NASA's first manned lunar mission since the Apollo era over 50 years ago, although it will not involve landing on the moon.

When it eventually happens, the crew will board the Orion spacecraft and use NASA's Space Launch System rocket to launch out of the atmosphere and into orbit.

After orbiting Earth, Orion will fire its engines one last time in what is known as a 'translunar injection', kicking the craft out of Earth's orbit and on a looping path around the moon.

The spacecraft will spend four days drifting through space until it reaches lunar orbit, passing about 6,400 miles (10,400 km) behind the 'dark side' of the moon before heading back to Earth.

{ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html }

03-02-2026 om 19:40 geschreven door peter  

What happens if NASA's moon mission goes wrong? The 5 worst-case scenarios for Artemis II, revealed - from a fireball on the launchpad to a medical crisis 250,000 miles away from Earth

• READ MORE: NASA jet erupts in flames as it skids down runway

By WILIAM HUNTER, SENIOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

The moment space fans have waited more than 50 years for is almost upon us, as NASA prepares to launch its Artemis II mission to the moon.  

But as the space agency counts down to the historic launch, experts have revealed everything that might go wrong.

From a devastating fire on the launch pad to the sudden loss of power mid–flight, the astronauts – Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen – must be prepared for every eventuality.

While NASA has previously demonstrated that the mission is possible with the uncrewed Artemis I flight, adding a human crew brings entirely new risks.

To keep the crew safe, Artemis II has been designed to include advanced systems for evacuation and escape at any point in the mission.

At the heart of this strategy is the Launch Abort System (LAS), a 13.4–metre–tall (44 feet) tower strapped to the top of the Orion spacecraft that can pull the crew to safety in milliseconds.

In addition, as we recently found out when NASA dramatically evacuated the ISS due to a medical crisis, even a small health issue could become critical in space. 

From a catastrophic fireball on the launchpad to burning up on re–entry, here are the seven worst–case scenarios for the upcoming Artemis II mission.

From a devastating fire on the launch pad to the sudden loss of power mid–flight, the astronauts – Reid Wiseman (bottom), Victor Glover (top), Christina Koch (left), and Jeremy Hansen (right) – must be prepared for every eventuality 

1. Emergency on the launch pad

NASA has identified three possible launch windows for Artemis II in the coming months: From February 6 to February 11, from March 6 to March 11, and from April 1 to April 6.

When that launch day comes, the Artemis II crew will climb aboard their Orion spacecraft, strapped to NASA's most powerful rocket.

The Space Launch System is a 98–metre (322–foot) behemoth, filled with over two million litres of supercooled liquid hydrogen, chilled to –252°C (–423°F).

Ahead of launch, NASA will conduct one or more 'wet dress rehearsals', during which it will practice safely fuelling and emptying the massive rocket.

However, there is always the possibility of an unexpected propellant leak as Artemis II prepares to launch.

NASA says that potential dangers include fire, propellant leaks, structural failure, or critical system malfunctions.

If that were to happen, the crew might have just minutes to escape from the top of the 83–metre–tall (247–foot) launch tower.

The first moment something could go wrong is on the launch platform. If a propellant leak is detected, the crew will need to evacuate via the emergency slide–wire baskets

The 5 worst–case scenarios for Artemis II

1. Propellant leak or fire on the launch pad
2. Structural failure during launch 
3. Systems failure during lunar flight
4. Medical emergency
5. Heatshield failure during re–entry 

If possible, the astronauts will climb out of Orion's hatch and flee the tower via the high–speed 'emergency egress slide–wire baskets'. 

The crew will strap themselves into baskets and hurtle down a cable connected to the ground 365 metres (1,200 feet) away in just 30 seconds.

However, if something goes seriously wrong, the crew might not have time to make it into the slide–wire baskets, which is where Orion's Launch Abort System (LAS) comes in.

The LAS is made up of two parts: the launch abort tower, containing three solid rocket motors, and the fairing assembly containing four protective panels.

If the tower detects that something is going wrong with the launch, the rockets will fire, producing 181,400 kilograms of thrust (400,000 lbs).

This will tear Orion's crew module away from the rest of the rocket, accelerating to speeds over 100 miles per hour in five seconds.

If Artemis II has to abort while on the ground, the LAS will blast Orion 1,800 metres (6,000 feet) into the air and over a mile away from the launch pad before levelling out. 

The parachutes will then deploy, dropping the crew safely down into the Atlantic Ocean, having travelled five to 12 miles (8–19 km) in just three minutes.

The Space Launch System Rocket is a 98–metre (322–foot) behemoth, filled with over two million litres of supercooled liquid hydrogen, chilled to –252°C (–423°F). NASA is prepared to evacuate the rocket at a moment's notice should something go wrong

2. Failure during ascent

Once the rocket engines start to fire and the SLS starts to lift off the ground, Artemis II will enter one of the most dangerous phases of the whole mission.

Chris Bosquillon, co–chair of the Moon Village Association's working group for Disruptive Technology & Lunar Governance, told the Daily Mail: 'During launch and ascent, the SLS large rocket engines, cryogenic fuels, and complex systems must work perfectly.

'Abort systems exist, but the highest dynamic forces on the crew occur here.'

Mr Bosquillon says that this launch will be riskier than a typical flight to the International Space Station, and about as dangerous as past Apollo missions.

About 90 seconds after take–off, the spacecraft will hit 'maximum dynamic pressure' as the combination of acceleration and air resistance puts the maximum strain on the vehicle.

A structural failure at this moment would result in the rocket simply tearing itself apart under the immense forces of launch.

Luckily for the Artemis II crew, the LAS system can still bail them out if something goes wrong.

If something goes wrong during launch, NASA will fire the Launch Abort System rocket on top of the Orion spacecraft, pulling the crew module away from the rocket in milliseconds 

The Artemis II crew

Reid Wiseman – Commander 

• A US Navy aviator and test pilot with 27 years of experience.
• Wiseman has previously spent 165 days in space onboard the ISS

Victor Glover – Pilot 

• A US Navy aviator and test pilot with 3,500 flight hours in more than 40 aircraft 
• Glover served as Flight Engineer on the ISS during a 168–day mission

Christina Koch – Mission specialist

• An engineer and scientist specialising in electrical engineering
• Holds the record for longest spaceflight by a woman, spending consecutive days on the ISS

Jeremy Hansen – Mission specialist

• Selected by the Canadian Space Agency to join Artemis II
• A Canadian Armed Forces fighter pilot, physicist, and experienced aquanaut

According to NASA, escaping the rocket will be much harder at this moment since the LAS needs to pull Orion to safety without being torn apart in the supersonic airflow.

If something goes wrong during launch, the LAS will fire for around four seconds before Orion jettisons the engines and opens its parachute, landing anywhere within a few to a few hundred miles of the launch site.

While this should keep the crew alive, it will not be a comfortable ride as the astronauts could experience forces 15 times the acceleration of gravity, or 15G.

For reference, the maximum force a trained fighter pilot can typically sustain without passing out is 9G, while the average human typically can't handle more than 6G.

3. Critical systems failure

Part of what makes Artemis II riskier than NASA's standard missions is that it is testing relatively new technology.

Compared to a spacecraft like the Crew Dragon, which has been used dozens of times, the Orion spacecraft has only been used once, during Artemis I.

'Orion's life support and deep–space systems have never been flown with a crew before,' says Mr Bosquillon.

If the Launch Abort System has to fire during the launch, the astronauts will be catapulted to safety up to 100 miles away as the acceleration causes forces 15 times stronger than gravity. Pictured: The launch of Artemis I in 2022

This creates a risk that one of the critical systems might fail once Orion has already left the atmosphere.

If something goes wrong during the first day, while Orion is still in low–Earth orbit, the crew can simply fire the engines to make an early return to Earth.

But if part of the engines or life–support system were to fail once the trip to the Moon had begun, things would be much more complicated.

The absolute worst–case scenario would involve multiple systems failing, including the propulsion system, leaving Orion unable to alter its course.

Mr Bosquillon says: 'During the lunar flyby, Artemis II is dependent on onboard systems; contrary to orbital space stations, there is no option for rapid crew rescue.'

To mitigate this issue, NASA will put Orion on what is known as a 'free return trajectory'.

This means the spacecraft will naturally swing around the moon and be tossed back towards the Earth by lunar gravity, without needing to fire its engines at all.

'This is the solution that provides a built–in safe return baseline if major propulsion fails,' says Mr Bosquillon.

If systems fail during flight, Artemis II may have to wait for its trajectory to carry it around the moon and back to Earth. For this reason, Orion (pictured) is stocked with enough food, water, and air to last longer than the 10 expected days

In case of emergency, Orion is stocked with more food, water, and air than is needed for the planned 10 days and contains multiple redundant systems to keep the crew alive long enough to return home.

4. Medical emergencies

Earlier this month, NASA was forced to make the first–ever evacuation of the ISS after a crew member suffered an unspecified medical emergency.

Although the space agency has remained tight–lipped on the details, this shows just how quickly medical issues can spiral into a crisis.

Living outside Earth's gravitational pull can have devastating effects on the body, causing prolonged periods of nausea, muscle and bone atrophy, and cardiovascular issues.

However, the bigger problem for Artemis II is simply how far the crew will be from health should something go wrong.

Dr Myles Harris, an expert on health risks in remote settings at UCL and founder of Space Health Research, told the Daily Mail: 'Space is an extreme remote environment, and astronauts react to the stressors of spaceflight differently.

'It follows that many of the challenges of healthcare in space are similar to the challenges of providing healthcare in remote and rural environments on Earth.'

Artemis II will follow the first–ever medical evacuation of the ISS, showing how health issues in space can quickly become critical. Left to Right: Russian cosmonaut Oleg Platonov, NASA astronauts Mike Fincke and Zena Cardman, and Japanese astronaut Kimiya Yui during the evacuation 

Just like an Antarctic expedition here on Earth, the astronauts will have limited medical equipment, unreliable access to expert opinion, and will be days away from the nearest hospital.

If a crew member were to experience a medical problem, these factors mean that small issues can become critical.

5. Heatshield failure

Once Orion has completed its lunar flyby and the return flight to Earth, the crew will still have to face the single most dangerous part of the mission.

As Orion hits Earth's atmosphere at around 25,000 miles per hour (40,000 km/h), friction will cut that speed to just 300 miles per hour (482 km/h) in just minutes.

The result is an incredible amount of heat, as the front of the spacecraft reaches temperatures of around 2,760°C (5,000°F).

At this point, the only thing standing between the crew and instant destruction will be about four centimetres of thermal–resistant material called the heatshield.

The problem is that some experts and former astronauts don't believe Orion's heatshield is up to the task.

The most dangerous moment will occur during re–entry, as Orion's heatshield is subjected to enormous temperatures due to friction with the atmosphere. Pictured: Orion's heatshield after re–entry during Artemis I

During the Artemis I test, NASA found that Orion's heatshield was cracked and cratered with unexpected damage.

The heatshield material, known as Avcoat, is designed to burn away during re–entry to help dissipate the heat, but this damage was well beyond what NASA had expected.

While the heat shield didn't fail, and the crew would have been safe, the heatshield wasn't performing as NASA had expected.

Following the mission, Dr Danny Olivas, a former NASA astronaut who served on a space agency–appointed independent review team that investigated the incident, told CNN: 'There's no doubt about it: This is not the heat shield that NASA would want to give its astronauts.'

The problem was that the Avcoat layer wasn't permeable enough, so gases built up in pockets and blasted off entire chunks.

NASA has decided not to change the heatshield going into Artemis II, but has made some important changes to the mission.

Mr Bosquillon says: 'NASA decided to adjust the Artemis II re–entry trajectory so as to reduce the time spent in extreme speed and thermal conditions that triggered the issue.'

Artemis II will make a 'skipping' re–entry as it returns to Earth, meaning it acts like a stone bouncing on water as it dips and lowers itself into the atmosphere.

The heatshield coating is designed to burn away during re–entry, however, NASA found that the coating had chipped and deteriorated far more than expected during Artemis I

NASA has not altered the heatshield for Artemis II, but has adjusted the trajectory so that Orion will spend less time at critical temperatures 

This helps the craft spread out the heat caused by decelerating and target a precise splashdown area. 

Read More

• 'The smell would be intolerable!' NASA reveals cramped quarters where astronauts will live for days 

With the new tractor, the craft won't bounce as high on each skip and will just loft slightly.

NASA says this is intended to create 'a steeper descent angle to reduce exposure time at peak heating, thus minimising further char loss.'

If NASA's modelling proves correct, this should ensure that the Avcoat keeps the crew safe, without switching to an untested heatshield technology

'NASA identified the root cause, updated its models, and adjusted operations to preserve crew safety without rushing to redesign, which in fact would have been a major risk factor since largely untested,' says Mr Bosquillon.

Artemis II: Key facts

Launch date: NASA has identified three possible launch windows for Artemis II in the coming months: From February 6 to February 11, from March 6 to March 11, and from April 1 to April 6.

Mission objective: To complete a lunar flyby, passing the 'dark side' of the moon and test systems for a future lunar landing.

Total distance to travel: 620,000 miles (one million km)

Mission duration: 10 days 

Estimated total cost: $44 billion (£32.5 billion)

• NASA Space Launch System rocket: $23.8 billion (£17.6 billion)
• Orion deep–space spacecraft: $20.4 billion (£15 billion)

Crew: 

• Commander Reid Wiseman
• Pilot Victor Glover
• Mission Specialist Christina Koch
• Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen

Mission Stages:

1. Launch from Kennedy Space Centre Launch Pad 39B
2. Manoeuvre in orbit to raise the perigee using the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage
3. Burn to raise apogee using the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage
4. Detach from Cryogenic Propulsion Stage and perform translunar injection
5. Fly to the moon over four days
6. Complete lunar flyby at a maximum altitude of 5,523 miles (8,889 km) above the moon's surface
7. Return to Earth over four days.
8. Separate the crew module from the European Service Module and the crew module adapter
9. Splashdown in the Pacific Ocean  

{ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html }

02-02-2026 om 22:40 geschreven door peter  

As NASA’s astronaut crew, engineers, and mission specialists prepare to make history with the forthcoming launch, here are five things you should know about Artemis II, its crew, and what its scientific missions will include while in orbit.

The Artemis II Mission

A focal point of the Artemis II mission involves the fact that this will be the first time NASA has launched a crew aboard its foundational deep space rocket, the SLS (Space Launch System), and the agency’s new Orion spacecraft.

While in orbit, the mission will provide NASA with the first real opportunity to test the operability of the spacecraft’s systems while having a space-bound crew on board. Not only that, but the mission’s trajectory will carry its astronaut crew farther than any human has traveled into space.

Fundamentally, Artemis II will offer a proving ground for NASA’s most state-of-the-art space exploration capabilities, while setting the pace for future missions that will travel to the lunar surface and, if all goes according to plan, establish a long-term presence on the Moon. This will not only support ongoing lunar science and exploration but will mark an important steppingstone on the path toward eventual crewed explorations of Mars. 

The Crew: First of “The Artemis Generation”  

NASA has selected a team of four astronauts for the Artemis II mission. The crew consists of Commander Reid Wiseman, a former Naval aviator and Chief of the Astronaut Office; Pilot Victor Glover, also a former Naval aviator who previously served as a pilot on the SpaceX Crew-1 mission; Mission Specialist Christina Koch, who currently holds the record for the longest single spaceflight by a woman; and Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen, a Canadian Space Agency astronaut.

(Left to Right): CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen, NASA astronauts Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman, and Christina Koch, will comprise the Artemis II crew (Image Credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett).

Notably, this foursome will be the first crew to carry NASA’s Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft in a journey around the Moon, offering the first full systems test of the spacecraft’s capabilities in a full-scale space mission.

Astronaut Health Experiments

The Artemis II crew will perform a range of science experiments during their mission, many of which will focus on astronaut health to provide NASA with an unprecedented look at the impact of deep space travel on humans. Here’s a quick look at several of the health-related experiments the Artemis II crew will be conducting.

• ARCHeR: NASA’s Artemis Research for Crew Health and Readiness (ARCHeR) will focus on monitoring the crew’s sleep patterns, activity while on board, and overall well-being, which will inform future planning efforts to ensure optimal human health and performance in space.

NASA image depicting the actigraphy device that certain Artemis II astronauts will wear during their mission around the Moon. The device will measure the crew members’ motion, sleep patterns, and exposure to light

(Image Credit: NASA/Helen Arase Vargas).

• AVATAR: The A Virtual Astronaut Tissue Analog Response (AVATAR) study will comprise investigations into the effects of increased exposure to radiation and microgravity that the Artemis II crew will experience, monitored using organ-on-a-chip devices.
• Immune Biomarkers: During Artemis II, blood and saliva samples will also be monitored to study the impact of deep space travel on the immune system.
• Artemis II Standard Measures: Ongoing health information will be provided by each Artemis II astronaut, which will be stored in a data bank for use in future studies related to astronaut health.
• Radiation Studies: Additional monitoring of radiation levels within and outside the Orion capsule will allow NASA’s science team to characterize the deep space environment.

Lunar Science Studies

Since Artemis II marks the first time humans have journeyed to the Moon in more than 50 years, marking what NASA has dubbed “The Artemis Generation” of space exploration, the mission will collect large volumes of data related to lunar science.

During the crew’s passage by the far side of the Moon, the NASA astronauts will perform a three-hour analysis and image collection operation to photograph the Moon’s ancient lava flows, impact craters, and geological features.

Preparation for this portion of their mission included studies on Earth in moonlike environments like deserts and rocky landscapes, which help to inform them about many of the features they will document.

Other Artemis II Mission Objectives

• CubeSats: A range of other scientific studies will during the Artemis II mission, which will enable further studies that will be undertaken remotely by several of NASA’s international partners around the world, which include the transport of CubeSats aboard Artemis II.

“Space agencies from Germany, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina will fly CubeSats aboard Artemis II,” NASA’s Artemis II website states. “The CubeSats, which have their own distinct objectives from NASA’s primary mission of sending four astronauts around the Moon, will be deployed in high Earth orbit.”

“In addition to the CubeSats, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) will conduct radiation research,” NASA’s statement reads.

• Payload Management: While the Artemis II astronauts are hard at work in deep space, back on Earth at the Payload and Mission Operations Division at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, NASA’s flight control team will be continuously monitoring the crew’s progress, while also managing several additional science priorities aboard the spacecraft from the facility’s Lunar Utilization Control Area.
• 

See Also

NASA’s Perseverance Rover Gets Photobombed in Latest Red Planet Robotic Selfie

• Real-Time Science Operations: Additionally, NASA will have a team specializing in the study of impact craters, lunar ice, tectonic activity, and volcanism on hand to provide real-time analysis and additional resources to the Artemis crew, all of which will be transmitted from the Science Evaluation Room located in the mission control facility at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
• Space Weather Studies: Since Artemis II will be carrying humans far beyond Earth’s magnetosphere, the magnetic bubble that shields our planet from potentially harmful space weather emanating from the Sun, scientists at NASA, as well as its partners at NOAA, will be offering ongoing space weather forecasting to the Artemis II mission manager, flight director, and console operators throughout the duration of the mission.

Specifically, the NASA and NOAA teams will be watching for potential coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and solar flares, which have the potential to impact not only certain capabilities of the systems on board the spacecraft but also could potentially have a harmful impact on human health.

One Step Beyond

Once the official launch window for Artemis II has been determined, NASA will begin final preparations for launching the astronaut crew on its roughly 10-day mission from Launch Complex 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.

From there, the Artemis II crew will spend its first couple of days testing Orion’s systems, as well as undertaking a targeting demonstration while still close to Earth. From there, the team will begin their journey toward the Moon.

A burn from Orion’s European-built service module will propel the spacecraft into a four-day-long outbound trajectory, which will carry the Artemis II astronauts around the Moon’s far side on a figure-eight path that will extend more than 230,000 miles from Earth, and about 4,600 miles beyond the Moon at its farthest point.

Following the crew’s loop around the Moon, the mission will then enter a fuel-efficient free-return path that will rely on the gravitational properties of the Earth and the Moon to help bring Orion back home, which will eliminate any significant requirement for propulsion on the crew’s way home.

In the final phase of their return, the crew will endure a high-speed, high-temperature reentry not unlike past crewed missions have undergone before they splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego. There, recovery teams comprised of NASA and Department of Defense personnel will retrieve the Artemis II astronauts.

In the days ahead, NASA will provide ongoing details as its teams continue preparations for the forthcoming launch, marking a major leap for human space exploration in the twenty-first century, and the initiation of the Artemis Generation of crewed deep space missions to study the Moon and beyond.

• Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. A longtime reporter on science, defense, and technology with a focus on space and astronomy, he can be reached at micah@thedebrief.org. Follow him on X @MicahHanks, and at micahhanks.com
  

RELATED VIDEOS

{ https://thedebrief.org/category/space/ }

31-01-2026 om 22:09 geschreven door peter  

Out-of-control Chinese rocket smashes into the South Pacific Ocean - after Britain was put on red-alert over the potential of falling debris

• READ MORE: Step–by–step graphic reveals what will happen during Artemis II

By WILIAM HUNTER, SENIOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

An out-of-control Chinese rocket has crashed into the Southern Pacific Ocean, after Britain readied the emergency alert system over fears of falling debris. 

Earlier today, the UK government asked mobile network providers to ensure the alert system is operational, in preparation for a potential impact.

However, the rocket has now safely landed in the ocean some 1,200 miles (2,000 km) southeast of New Zealand. 

The rocket, a Chinese Zhuque–3 launched in early December, crashed to Earth at 12:39 GMT, according to the US Space Force. 

With an estimated mass of 11 tonnes, the EU's Space Surveillance and Tracking (SST) agency had cautioned that ZQ–3 R/B was 'quite a sizeable object deserving careful monitoring.' 

While the vast majority of space debris which falls on Earth either burns up in the atmosphere or is never found, experts say we can be certain this rocket fell safely. 

Dr Marco Lanbroek, a debris tracking expert from the Delft University of Technology, says he 'strongly suspects' that the US Space Force observed the re-entry fireball using a space-based satellite. 

This puts an end to intense uncertainty over the rocket's potential landing site, after predictions suggested it could hit Northern Europe and the UK. 

The government asked mobile network operators to ensure the national emergency alert system is ready, as an out–of–control Chinese rocket (pictured) hurtles to Earth 

The rocket was launched by private space firm LandSpace from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in China's Gansu Province on December 3, 2025.

The experimental rocket, dubbed ZQ–3 R/B, successfully reached orbit, but its reusable booster stage, modelled after the SpaceX Falcon 9, exploded during landing.

The upper stages and its 'dummy' cargo, in the form of a large metal tank, have been slowly slipping out of orbit.  

The rocket's shallow angle of re–entry had made it extremely difficult to predict exactly where any of the pieces might fall.

At the time, Professor Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer from the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and expert on tracking space debris, told the Daily Mail: 'It will pass over the Inverness–Aberdeen area at 1200 UTC, so there's a small – a few per cent – chance it could re–enter there, otherwise it won't happen over the UK.'

It is not uncommon for pieces of rocket and satellite debris to fall to Earth, with debris passing over the UK about 70 times a month.

The overwhelming majority of the material is burned up upon re–entry due to friction with the atmosphere.

Despite earlier predictions that the rocket could land over Europe and the UK, observations now show that it has landed safely in the ocean  

The UK government asked mobile network providers to ensure the alert system is operational, in preparation for the possibility of an alert being issued 

In some cases, very large pieces of debris or fragments of heat–resistant materials, such as stainless steel or titanium, can make it to Earth.

However, these pieces generally disperse over the oceans or unpopulated areas.

The government also stresses that the 'readiness check' conducted by the mobile network providers is a routine practice that does not indicate that an alert will be issued.

A UK government spokesperson told the Daily Mail: 'It is extremely unlikely that any debris enters UK airspace.

'As you'd expect, we have well rehearsed plans for a variety of different risks including those related to space, that are tested routinely with partners.'

While there is almost no chance that this falling rocket will cause damage to life or property, researchers have warned that the risk of space debris is increasing.

The only recorded case of someone being hit by space debris occurred in 1997, when a woman was struck but not hurt by a 16–gram piece of a US–made Delta II rocket.

The rocket was launched by private space firm LandSpace from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in China's Gansu Province on December 3, 2025. It has been slowly falling out of orbit since and has now crashed back to Earth

This is not the first time that a Chinese rocket has fallen to Earth. In 2024, fragments of a Long March 3B booster stage fell metres from homes in China's Guangxi province 

As the number of commercial launches increases, so too does the volume of 'uncontrolled' re–entries.

A recent study by scientists at the University of British Columbia suggested that there is now a 10 per cent chance that one or more people will be killed by space junk in the next decade.

Likewise, researchers have increasingly warned that falling debris could pose a threat to air travel, with a 26 per cent chance of something falling through some of the world's busiest airspace in any given year.

Read More

•  'The smell would be intolerable!' NASA reveals cramped quarters where astronauts will live for days 

The actual chances of a plane being hit are currently very small, but a large piece of space junk could lead to widespread closures and travel chaos.

However, a 2020 study estimated that the risk of any given commercial flight being hit could rise to around one in 1,000 by 2030.

Nor is this the first time that a large Chinese–made rocket has unexpectedly crashed out of orbit.

In 2024, an almost complete Long March 3B booster stage fell over a village in a forested area of China's Guangxi Province, exploding in a dramatic fireball.

WHAT IS SPACE JUNK? MORE THAN 170 MILLION PIECES OF DEAD SATELLITES, SPENT ROCKETS AND FLAKES OF PAINT POSE 'THREAT' TO SPACE INDUSTRY

There are an estimated 170 million pieces of so-called 'space junk' - left behind after missions that can be as big as spent rocket stages or as small as paint flakes - in orbit alongside some US$700 billion (£555bn) of space infrastructure.

But only 27,000 are tracked, and with the fragments able to travel at speeds above 16,777 mph (27,000kmh), even tiny pieces could seriously damage or destroy satellites.

However, traditional gripping methods don't work in space, as suction cups do not function in a vacuum and temperatures are too cold for substances like tape and glue.

Grippers based around magnets are useless because most of the debris in orbit around Earth is not magnetic.

Around 500,000 pieces of human-made debris (artist's impression) currently orbit our planet, made up of disused satellites, bits of spacecraft and spent rockets

Most proposed solutions, including debris harpoons, either require or cause forceful interaction with the debris, which could push those objects in unintended, unpredictable directions.

Scientists point to two events that have badly worsened the problem of space junk.

The first was in February 2009, when an Iridium telecoms satellite and Kosmos-2251, a Russian military satellite, accidentally collided.

The second was in January 2007, when China tested an anti-satellite weapon on an old Fengyun weather satellite.

Experts also pointed to two sites that have become worryingly cluttered.

One is low Earth orbit which is used by satnav satellites, the ISS, China's manned missions and the Hubble telescope, among others.

The other is in geostationary orbit, and is used by communications, weather and surveillance satellites that must maintain a fixed position relative to Earth. 

{ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html }

31-01-2026 om 20:52 geschreven door peter  

Op zo’n 5 miljard lichtjaar afstand heerst de immense sterrenstelselcluster MACS J1149. De James Webb-ruimtetelescoop legt dit kosmische zwaargewicht nu met ongekende scherpte vast en onthult hoe zijn verpletterende zwaartekracht het licht van het vroege heelal buigt en vervormt.

Diep in het sterrenbeeld Leeuw (Leo), op een duizelingwekkende afstand van ongeveer 5 miljard lichtjaar, heerst een ware titan: sterrenstelselcluster MACS J1149.5+2223. Deze verzameling van honderden sterrenstelsels, bijeengehouden door de allesbepalende zwaartekracht, is nu vastgelegd in verbluffend detail door de James Webb-ruimtetelescoop. Het nieuwe beeld onthult niet alleen de indrukwekkende inwoners van de cluster zelf, maar ook hoe dit kosmische zwaargewicht fungeert als een natuurlijke telescoop voor het observeren van de verste uithoeken van het universum.

De James Webb-ruimtetelescoop legde deze opname van MACS J1149.5+2223 vast met zijn Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), een compositie van zes verschillende golflengten van 0,9 tot 4,44 micrometer, om de structuur en samenstelling van de sterrenstelsels in ongekend detail te onthullen. Foto: ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, C. Willott (National Research Council Canada), R. Tripodi (INAF – Astronomical Observatory of Rome). Klik hier om de foto zoombaar te openen, hier om deze te bekijken in ESASky browser of hier om deze (printbaar .tif-bestand) op de hoogste resolutie te downloaden.

Een natuurlijk zwaartekrachtlens laboratorium

De werkelijke kracht van MACS J1149 schuilt in zijn kolossale massa. De zwaartekracht van deze cluster is zo immens dat ze de structuur van ruimtetijd rondom zich vervormt. Licht van sterrenstelsels die nog eens véél verder weg staan, moet op zijn miljarden jaren durende reis naar de aarde door dit vervormde gebied reizen. Het gevolg is een fenomeen dat astronomen gravitationele lensing noemen: het licht wordt afgebogen en versterkt, alsof het door een kosmisch vergrootglas gaat. Op Webbs opname (hierboven) is dit overal zichtbaar, van subtiel uitgerekte sterrenstelsels tot bizarre, gerekte vormen.

Een kosmische celebrity onder de loep

Deze eigenschap maakt MACS J1149 tot een ware ‘celebrity’ voor astronomen. De cluster was eerder al één van de zes nauwlettend onderzochte regio’s door het baanbrekende Frontier Fields-programma van de Hubble-ruimtetelescoop, specifiek geselecteerd vanwege zijn sterke lenswerking. Ook de Very Large Telescope van de Europese Zuidelijke Sterrenwacht (ESO) heeft zijn blik op de cluster gericht, maar ook radiogrondtelescopen en orbitale röntgentelescopen zoals Chandra hebben MACS J1149 vaker onderzocht. Recent onderzoek gebruikt deze voorgaande waarnemingen in combinatie met nieuwe gegevens om de massa-verdeling binnen dergelijke clusters en hun rol in de evolutie van sterrenstelsels verder te duiden.

Webbs uitzonderlijke gevoeligheid in het infrarood gaat nu een stap verder. Zijn instrumenten, zoals NIRSpec en NIRCam, worden ingezet in programma’s zoals CANUCS om via clusters als MACS J1149 de allervroegste sterrenstelsels te bestuderen. Ze ontrafelen hun stervorming, chemie en de rol die ze speelden tijdens het tijdperk van de reïonisatie, toen de eerste lichtbronnen de kosmische duisternis doorbraken na de oerknal.

We schreven vaker over dit onderwerp, lees bijvoorbeeld ook ‘Eén jaar na de lancering van James Webb kunnen astronomen hun geluk niet op: de telescoop maakt het onzichtbare en ondenkbare zichtbaar‘ of ‘De eerste sterrenstelsels in het universum waren veel helderder dan verwacht‘.

Een venster op het vroege heelal

De nieuwe James Webb-opname is dus meer dan een adembenemend plaatje. Het is het begin van een nieuw hoofdstuk in de studie van deze kosmische reus. Door het lensvermogen van MACS J1149 te combineren met Webbs ongeëvenaarde scherpte, kunnen astronomen verder terugkijken in de tijd dan ooit tevoren. Op deze manier blijft deze cluster, een reus op 5 miljard lichtjaar afstand, ons een uniek venster bieden op de geboorte en evolutie van de eerste structuren in ons universum.

• De afgelopen decennia zijn er prachtige foto’s gemaakt van interstellaire nevels, sterrenstelsels, planeten, andere hemellichamen en in de ruimtevaart. Ieder weekend halen we een indrukwekkende ruimtefoto uit het archief. Genieten van alle foto’s? Bekijk ze op deze pagina. Heb je zelf bijzondere (astro)foto’s die je wil delen met ons? Stuur ze in via ons mailadres o.v.v. ‘Ruimtefoto’!

Bronmateriaal

• "A celebrity cluster in the spotlight" - ESA/Webb
  
• "Hubble uses cosmic lens to discover most distant star ever observed" - ESA/Hubble
  
• "Galaxy cluster MACS j1149.5+223 and a supernova four times over" - ESA/Hubble
  
• "Galaxy cluster MACS J1149+2223" - ESA/Hubble
  
• "Icarus (MACS J1149+2223 Lensed Star 1)" - NASA/Hubble
• "MACS J1149.5+2233: A Fusion of Galaxy Clusters" - Harvard/Chandra
  
• Afbeelding bovenaan dit artikel: ESA/Webb, NASA & CSA, C. Willott (National Research Council Canada), R. Tripodi (INAF - Astronomical Observatory of Rome)

Laatst aangepast op: 29 januari 2026

{ https://scientias.nl/nieuws/astronomie-ruimtevaart/  }

30-01-2026 om 20:48 geschreven door peter  

NASA is gearing up for the first crewed journey to the Moon in over half a century, a mission that could launch as soon as two weeks from now.

And next year, the agency will finally attempt to return astronauts to the lunar surface itself as part of its Artemis 3 mission, which will dramatically increase the already considerable stakes.

Particularly when it comes to stepping out of the spacecraft — the agency has yet to pick between Blue Origin and SpaceX’s offerings in that regard — staying protected from the extreme temperature swings, space radiation, and lack of atmosphere is extremely challenging.

That’s not to mention the physical limitations of an extremely bulky spacesuit, which could physically tax astronauts even more than stepping outside of the International Space Station during a spacewalk.

As Ars Technica reports, former NASA astronaut and microbiologist Kate Rubins, who retired last year and has logged 300 days in space, recently voiced her concerns over the Moon suit that private space company Axiom Space has been developing for NASA as part of a $228 million contract.

“What I think we have on the Moon that we don’t really have on the space station that I want people to recognize is an extreme physical stress,” she said during a recent meeting of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Besides not getting any sleep, Rubin warned that people will be “in these suits for eight or nine hours” and doing extravehicular activities (EVAs) “every day.”

Compared to the suits NASA astronauts wore during the Apollo missions, the Axiom Space suit is considerably heavier. While a sixth of gravity will greatly alleviate some of that heft, they still weigh in at 300 pounds. At the same time, Moon walkers will enjoy greatly enhanced flexibility, allowing them to kneel down to pick up objects, for instance.

“I think the suits are better than Apollo, but I don’t think they are great right now,” Rubin warned, noting “flexibility issues” and the reality that “people are going to be falling over.”

In remarks directly to Ars, Rubin elaborated, emphasizing that the suits are “definitely much better than Apollo,” but remain “still quite heavy.”

Even something as simple as getting back up after a fall — as demonstrated by the many Apollo astronauts who took a tumble while on the Moon — involves a type of “jumping pushup,” as Rubins told Ars, which is a “non-trivial” and “risky maneuver.”

Not everybody is as concerned about the Axiom Space suit. Current NASA astronaut and physician Mike Barratt argued in remarks during the committee meeting that the “suit is getting there,” pointing out that “we’ve got 700 hours of pressurized experience in it right now.”

“Bending down in the suit is really not too bad at all,” he added.

NASA still plans to conduct plenty of tests involving the suit, including parabolic flight, which can simulate the partial gravity of the Moon’s surface. The agency has already put the suit through its paces underwater at NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Lab.

The agency has until sometime next year to finalize the design for its long-awaited Artemis 3 mission to the lunar surface. At the same time, NASA still has plenty of decisions to make, including how to get down to the lunar surface in the first place.

More on Artemis: 

• Experts Warn That There’s Something Wrong With the Moon Rocket NASA Is About to Launch With Astronauts Aboard

{https://futurism.com/ }

29-01-2026 om 23:34 geschreven door peter  

NASA shared an unusual photo taken by the Curiosity mission. It shows the rover’s “night shift.”

The Curiosity rover is equipped with LED lights. They are part of the MAHLI camera mounted at the end of its robotic arm. Sometimes scientists use them during the day to illuminate areas that are in shadow, such as the interior of boreholes and intake tubes leading to instruments at the bottom of the rover.

In the earlier stages of the mission, the Curiosity team also used these LEDs at night to search for layers or other features on the walls of drill holes that would help them better understand the composition of the rock. But since the mission changed its drilling method, the holes have become too rough and dusty to see any details. 

However, Curiosity recently used LEDs again at night. This happened after drilling a rock called Nevado Sajama on November 13, 2025. After studying the images, the mission specialists noticed that the walls of the borehole were smooth enough to attempt to find layers, and decided to try illuminating the borehole at night. It is this operation that is captured in the image presented.

The drilling at Nevado Sajama was carried out during an exploration of a region full of geological formations known as “boxworks.” These formations crisscross the surface for many kilometers and, when viewed from space, look like giant spider webs.

• According to NASA

• Posted in News, Tech

{ https://universemagazine.com/en/news-en/science-en/ }

29-01-2026 om 23:26 geschreven door peter