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 }

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 }

{ Daily Mail }

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/ }

For the First Time, Scientists Detect Molecule Critical to Life in Interstellar Space

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

Perseverance Rover Discovers an Ancient Martian Beach, Complete with Waves

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

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.

Illustration of the Earth’s internal structure. Source: Science Photo Library

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.

Source: University of Liverpool

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/ }

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.

Launch of the Zhuque-3 rocket. Source: Landspace

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.

Radar image of the second stage of the Zhuque-3 rocket. It was obtained by the TIRA radar one day before it fell to Earth. Source: Fraunhofer FHR

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.

Map showing the two locations where the Chinese Zhuque-3 rocket fell. Source: SatTrackCam Leiden

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/ }

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/ }

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/ }