
In Honor Of World Asteroid Day, A Short History Of Planetary Defense
An artist's illustration of asteroid Bennu
On June 30, 1908, an asteroid about 65 meters wide collided with Earth's atmosphere and exploded several miles above Siberia; the force of the blast flattened and burned millions of trees over an area of more than 2,000 square kilometers. Today, the anniversary of the Tunguska blast has become World Asteroid Day: a science holiday co-founded by a rock music legend and an Apollo astronaut.
In 2015, Apollo 9 lunar module pilot Rusty Schweickart helped launch World Asteroid Day with astrophysicist and Queen guitarist Brian May. The United Nations officially recognized the event a year later in 2016. Earlier this month, Arizona senator Mark Kelly – also a former astronaut – introduced a Senate resolution that, if passed, would officially recognize June 30 as World Asteroid Day in the U.S.
I spoke with Kevin Schindler, resident historian at Lowell Observatory in Arizona, about the origins of World Asteroid Day, the history of planetary defense, and what asteroids can reveal about the history of our Solar System.
Discovering the Danger from Outer Space
Around 200 years ago, in the 1830s, geologists began to study fossils and figure out that several mass extinctions had wiped out whole ecosystems of species on Earth in the distant past.
'In recent decades, they realized that those weren't necessarily caused by something on Earth, but by something impacting from space – like the Cretaceous Tertiary boundary,' says Schindler.
An artist's impression of a giant meteor impact.
In the 1960s, geologist Walter Alvarez discovered a thin layer of black clay in rocks around the world. Below the black line, the rocks were rich in fossils; above it, they were nearly barren. The same layer of black clay showed up all around in the world: in rock outcroppings in Italy and New Zealand, and in samples from the floor of the Pacific Ocean. And it clearly marked a deadly before-and-after moment in Earth's history – one that happened around 66 million years ago.
Alvarez suspected that the black clay was something alien; it contained bizarrely large amounts of an element called iridium, which is vanishingly rare here on Earth but more common in asteroids. He began to realize that an asteroid or comet may have slammed into our planet 66 million years ago, kicking off a mass extinction and scattering iridium-rich black dust over the planet like a burial shroud.
The pieces came together in 1978 when geophysicists Glen Penfield and Antonio Camargo discovered the outline of a crater hundreds of kilometers wide at the edge of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. Its center lies at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Penfield and Camargo named the crater for one of the communities that now lies within its boundaries: Chicxulub Pueblo.
Other craters – smaller but still impressive – also make it obvious that our planet has had more than a few run-ins with meteors during its long history.
'And while there's not as much debris floating around in our Solar System as when it was newly-formed, there's still stuff out there,' says Schindler. 'And it's inevitable that at some point that stuff will come back and get us again.'
NASA's Asteroid Watch tracks known asteroids and comets in the Solar System, while observatories ... More like Lowell scan the skies for more.
From Deep Impact to DART
So we've known almost 60 years that asteroids and comets could threaten life on Earth.
'In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a search to look for bodies that specifically could impact Earth,' says Schindler. 'Phase one of all this started with, 'okay, let's look for these bodies that could hit us,' and then a couple decades later is when we got to phase two, 'what can we do about it if we do find these things?''
Strangely enough, it was a pair of high-budget, low-scientific-accuracy Hollywood blockbusters that really brought planetary defense to public attention, according to Schindler. The summer of 1998 featured not just one but two movies about humanity trying to save itself from extinction by blowing up an incoming chunk of space rock. In Armageddon, a wildly-improbable effort by a team of offshore drillers saves Earth from an asteroid impact; in Deep Impact, a similarly-improbable effort fails to save Earth from a comet (so the summer ends in a cinematic tie).
Two men in a space suit using a piece of machinery in a scene from the film 'Deep Impact', 1998. ... More (Photo by)
'The good thing about those movies is that, even though they're not scientifically accurate in every way, they certainly built awareness enough to where lawmakers said, you know, we should put some money aside to study this stuff more,' says Schindler. 'Hollywood, in some ways, has helped the cause to learn more.'
And, as science fiction often does, Deep Impact and Armageddon provided thought experiments (albeit not super-accurate ones, to put it mildly) for the ideas that would eventually become actual efforts at planetary defense. According to Schindler, theoretical ideas about whether we could destroy an incoming meteor eventually shifted to ideas about just nudging the deadly object off-course.
'This is just something that's really been developed in the last decade or so and – I wouldn't say culminated, but really became well-known with the mission that went up to deflect the moon of an asteroid to see if it was possible,' says Schindler.
Artist rendering of the NASA Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) space probe approaching the ... More asteroid Didymos and its minor-planet-moon Dimorphos. The DART spacecraft aims to collide with Dimorphos in autumn 2022 in order to study the effect of an impact with near-Earth objects. Created on September 13, 2021. (Illustration by Nicholas Forder/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
That mission was NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test, or DART, in which an intrepid little spacecraft flew 7 million miles to crash into the asteroid Dimorphos and knock it off-course. Dimorphos is actually a mini-moon that orbits another, larger asteroid called Didymos. Astronomers at Lowell carefully measured Dimorphos's orbital path around its parent asteroid before and after the impact – and they saw evidence that DART had succeeded in knocking Dimorphos into a different orbit.
It's a long, long way from deflecting one tiny asteroid moonlet onto a different path around its parent asteroid to deflecting something the size of the Chicxulub impactor – or even Tunguska – as it's barreling toward Earth. But the consensus seems to be that DART was a good start.
'The biggest thing, I think, was that it is possible. This was a very controlled initial step,' says Schindler. 'This was certainly promising enough that we should keep doing these tests in different sizes of body and different compositions, because depending on what it's made of, a body might react differently to something impacting it.'
Fossils of the Early Solar System
This illustration depicts the 140-mile-wide (226-kilometer-wide) asteroid Psyche, which lies in the ... More main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
Meanwhile, Schindler and World Asteroid Day also want the public to know that asteroids are more than potential threats: they're an orbiting treasure trove of information about the history of our Solar System and even the origins of life.
Most asteroids are chunks of rock that coalesced early in our Solar System's history but never grew massive enough to become planets; they're like the seeds of planets that might have been. Others are the debris left behind by collisions between objects in those chaotic early days of the Solar System, when planets were forming and gas giants migrated, scattering lesser objects in their wake.
'They tell us what the early composition was and what a chaotic time it was in the early part of our Solar System,' says Schindler.
Those clues are written not just in the chemical and physical makeup of asteroids, but in their orbital paths around the Sun. By studying and modelling how those paths have changed over the years, scientists can reconstruct how asteroids and planets may have interacted. The orbits of modern asteroids are like the 'footprints' of planet formation, migrating gas giants, and long-ago collisions.
Today, NASA's Lucy mission is exploring the asteroid belt, getting up close and personal with several of these objects. Meanwhile, NASA's OSIRIS-APEX mission is on its way to study the asteroid Apophis, which will pass close (but not too close!) to Earth in 2029.
The surface of asteroid Bennu, as seen by OSIRIS-REX in late 2020, is strewn with boulders.
'And now we are studying planetary systems around other stars. Better understanding our Solar System, we can now look at others and see how typical we are,' says Schindler. 'You don't know that without knowing your own Solar System pretty well, so it really has helped us to learn about, sort of, our heritage, I guess.'
World Asteroid Day
World Asteroid Day aims to tie all of those things together, promoting awareness of planetary defense but also of the immense scientific value – and maybe monetary value, eventually – of asteroids.
At Lowell Observatory, that awareness is hard to escape; the observatory stands just an hour's drive from Meteor Crater – which is exactly what the name suggests, a 213-meter-deep, 1200-meter-wide crater where an object about the size of a Boeing 747 slammed into the desert floor around 50,000 years ago.
'The proximity of Lowell Observatory, where we're studying bodies in space, and Meteor crater, where we've seen the result of one of those bodies hitting Earth – how convenient is that? We're looking at both ends of it, from when it's still up in space to the final product if something like this hits.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
19 minutes ago
- Medscape
Officials Brace for New Normal of Dengue Cases
As summer ushers in peak mosquito season, health and vector control officials are bracing for the possibility of another year of historic rates of dengue. And with climate change, the lack of an effective vaccine, and federal research cuts, they worry the disease will become endemic to a larger swath of North America. About 3700 new dengue infections were reported last year in the contiguous United States, up from about 2050 in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of last year's cases were acquired abroad, except for 105 cases contracted in California, Florida, or Texas. The CDC issued a health alert in March warning of the ongoing risk of dengue infection. 'I think dengue is here with us to stay,' said infectious disease specialist Michael Ben-Aderet, associate medical director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, about dengue becoming a new normal in the US. 'These mosquitoes aren't going anywhere.' Dengue is endemic — a label health officials assign when diseases appear consistently in a region — in many warmer parts of the world, including Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia. Dengue cases increased markedly last year in many of those places, especially in Central and South America. The disease, which can spread when people are bitten by infected Aedes mosquitoes, was not common in the contiguous United States for much of the last century. Today, most locally acquired (meaning unrelated to travel) dengue cases in the US happen in Puerto Rico, which saw a sharp increase in 2024, triggering a local public health emergency. Most people who contract dengue don't get sick. But in some people symptoms are severe: bleeding from the nose or mouth, intense stomach pain, vomiting, and swelling. Occasionally, dengue causes death. California offers a case study in how dengue is spreading in the US. The Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes that transmit dengue weren't known to be in the state 25 years ago. They are now found in 25 counties and more than 400 cities and unincorporated communities, mostly in Southern California and the Central Valley. The spread of the mosquitoes is concerning because their presence increases the likelihood of disease transmission, said Steve Abshier, president of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California. From 2016 through 2022, there were an average of 136 new dengue cases a year in California, each case most likely brought to the state by someone who had traveled and been infected elsewhere. In 2023, there were about 250 new cases, including two acquired locally. In 2024, California saw 725 new dengue cases, including 18 acquired locally, state data shows. Climate change could contribute to growth in the Aedes mosquitoes' population, Ben-Aderet said. These mosquitoes survive best in warm urban areas, often biting during the daytime. Locally acquired infections often occur when someone catches dengue during travel, then comes home and is bitten by an Aedes mosquito that bites and infects another person. 'They've just been spreading like wildfire throughout California,' Ben-Aderet said. Dengue presents a challenge to the many primary care doctors who have never seen it. Ben-Aderet said doctors who suspect dengue should obtain a detailed travel history from their patients, but confirming the diagnosis is not always quick. 'There's no easy test for it,' he said. 'The only test that we have for dengue is antibody tests.' He added that 'most labs probably aren't doing it commercially, so it's usually like a send-out test from most labs. So, you really have to suspect someone has dengue.' Best practices for avoiding dengue include eliminating any standing pools of water on a property — even small pools — and using mosquito repellent, Abshier said. Limiting activity at dusk and dawn, when mosquitoes bite most often, can also help. Efforts to combat dengue in California became even more complicated this year after wildfires ripped through Los Angeles. The fires occurred in a hot spot for mosquito-borne illnesses. San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District officials have worked for months to treat more than 1400 unmaintained swimming pools left in the wake of fire, removing potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes. San Gabriel vector control officials have used local and state resources to treat the pools, said district spokesperson Anais Medina Diaz. They have applied for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has not historically paid for vector control efforts following wildfires. In California, vector control agencies are often primarily funded by local taxes and fees on property owners. Some officials are pursuing the novel method of releasing sterilized Aedes mosquitoes to reduce the problem. That may prove effective, but deploying the method in a large number of areas would be costly and would require a massive effort at the state level, Abshier said. Meanwhile, the federal government is pulling back on interventions: Several outlets have reported that the National Institutes of Health will stop funding new climate change-related research, which could include work on dengue. This year, reported rates of dengue in much of the Americas have declined significantly from 2024. But the trend in the United States likely won't be clear until later in the year, after the summer mosquito season ends. Health and vector control researchers aren't sure how bad it will get in California. Some say there may be limited outbreaks, while others predict dengue could get much worse. Sujan Shresta, a professor and infectious disease researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said other places, like Nepal, experienced relatively few cases of dengue in the recent past but now regularly see large outbreaks. There is a vaccine for children, but it faces discontinuation from a lack of global demand. Two other dengue vaccines are unavailable in the United States. Shresta's lab is hard at work on an effective, safe vaccine for dengue. She hopes to release results from animal testing in a year or so; if the results are positive, human trials could be possible in about 2 years. 'If there's no good vaccine, no good antivirals, this will be a dengue-endemic country,' she said. Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How to see the letters X and V on the moon tonight
The full moon is a glorious sight, and the sliver of a brand-new moon a wispy delight, but tonight's first-quarter moon has its own unique treat — for a few hours, you can make out the letters X and V on the lunar surface. Here's how. As the photo shows, the lunar X appears about a third of the way from the bottom of the moon, while the Lunar V is a little above the centre. Both features straddle the line between the light and dark sides of the moon, known as the terminator, with the X appearing a little into the dark side, and the V closer to the light side. They're not really there on the surface, and you can't see them at any other time. What you're looking at is called the 'clair-obscur' effect, in which the play of light and shadow on the surface creates the appearance of shapes; in this case, giant letters, formed by the partially lit edges of craters. According to British astronomer Mary McIntyre, the effect kicks off tonight at about 7:30 p.m. ET, and should last about four hours. That means by the time the sun has set and the moon is at its brightest, you should be able to get a good look, clouds permitting. Naked eye is a little tricky, since they are quite small. But decent binoculars (or better yet a small telescope) should bring them into focus. Humans have been looking at the moon since we were human, and through telescopes since they were invented, so it's not surprising that other transient shapes have been noticed and given evocative names, including the jewelled handle, Cassini's moon maiden, Plato's hook and the eyes of Clavius, not to mention the so-called 'man in the moon' that many people see in the full moon. McIntyre has a chart of when to look for them, while BBC's Sky at Night Magazine has a nice picture that shows their locations. The best part about all this is that if you miss them, they'll come back again every 28 days, forever. The European Space Agency just made Lego bricks out of moon dust China plans to wave its flag on the surface of the moon — literally Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here.


Harvard Business Review
an hour ago
- Harvard Business Review
Research: Being Well Connected Isn't Always Good for Your Career
Conventional wisdom says that when it comes to career opportunities, it's not about what you know, but who you know. And research has found, in fact, that prestigious connections do open doors and make people seem more capable than their peers—as if proximity to greatness implies a degree of similar excellence. But what impact do these star connections have after someone has landed a new job? In new research, we sought to find out. Our recent paper, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, investigated whether and how past connections with industry stars might shape long-term career evaluations and outcomes, particularly after an employee's objective performance data becomes available. Through an analysis of the careers of National Basketball Association (NBA) head coaches and an experiment with nearly 500 working professionals, we found that connections don't just help people land jobs: They continue to shape performance evaluations long after working relationships with stars have ended. How Ties to Titans Inflate Performance Expectations To begin our study, we examined the career trajectories of 179 NBA head coaches over 40 years. Professionals in the NBA, like many traditional firms, operate in high-stakes, performance-driven environments with clear career trajectories. This makes the NBA a useful context for studying career and talent decisions. We found that coaches who had previously served under legendary leaders, like Phil Jackson, for example, were less likely to be fired when their new teams performed worse than industry expectations, compared to coaches who weren't connected to stars. However, when connected coaches' teams performed exceptionally well, they were at greater risk of being fired, relative to head coaches who lacked any prior star connections. In other words, our study found that having a star connection helped buffer head coaches from the consequences of underperformance but could hurt them when they performed well. These effects lasted for up to nine years after a working relationship with a star coach had ended. To explore this dynamic further, we conducted a follow-up study with nearly 500 working professionals tasked with evaluating the performance of hypothetical new hires in the design industry. As evaluators, participants made an 'up or out' decision about each designer, one with a prior connection to an industry titan, and the other without such a connection. We found the same patterns arose: New hires with prior ties to an industry star were shielded when they underperformed, but their strong performance was often discounted. Although performance was presented as objective scores, participants' evaluations were skewed by the shadow of the industry titan associated with the connected designer. We also discovered that our participants, especially those who held more inflated expectations for star-connected designers, were significantly less likely to attribute star-connected employees' underperformance to low ability or low effort. Conversely, underperformance from a non-connected designer was attributed directly to the individual's ability and effort. Why Connections Influence Evaluations We believe that the answer lies in a psychological phenomenon known as balance theory. According to this theory, people strive for consistency in their beliefs and associations. When someone is linked to an industry star, evaluators set high expectations for the protégé and seek to maintain a positive image of them and their mentor. This leads people to rationalize evidence that contradicts their expectations, especially when the star-connected individual underperforms. Conversely, strong performance merely confirms what is already assumed and is therefore viewed as unremarkable. Consider Bob Nardelli, a protégé of the legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch. After being recruited to be the CEO of Home Depot, Nardelli delivered strong financial results early in his tenure. However, he received little recognition and as ultimately forced out: In 2002, after announcing a 35% profit increase that beat Wall Street's expectations, the company's stock still dropped. Reflecting on this, Nardelli remarked: 'I can understand not getting rewarded, but I don't understand getting punished.' Of course, there could have been multiple factors contributing to Nardelli's downfall, including a leadership style that clashed with his company's entrepreneurial culture. Still, it is fair to speculate that his performance might have been judged against the towering expectations set by his association with Welch. Some Limitations As with any research, our findings should be interpreted with some caution. Our NBA field study focused on a male-dominated environment, which may not generalize to other industries with different make-ups. Additionally, the experimental study, although conducted with working professionals, relied on hypothetical scenarios, which may not fully capture the messiness of real-world evaluations. Still, the consistent patterns we found across our studies provides strong evidence that industry stars can, in fact, cast a long shadow on the future evaluations of their protégés. Strategies for Making Better Talent Decisions Whether you're an executive overseeing talent pipelines or an emerging leader navigating your career path, understanding how past ties to prominent figures can distort performance evaluations is essential. Prestige-by-association can create unrealistic expectations, offering not only unfair protection, but they can lead to blind spots and overlooked achievements. Here's how executive decision makers and rising leaders can respond: If you're evaluating rising leaders: Don't let reflected prestige cloud your judgment. Hiring star-connected people is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when their objective qualifications are strong. But be mindful that your (often unconscious) high expectations for star-connected employees can create blind spots in how you evaluate them, while others who lack star connections may be evaluated more critically. Before making key decisions (like promotions or dismissals), ask: Would I judge this person's performance the same way if I didn't know this person's background? What biases do their relationship with this star create? What expectations do I feel, because of this association? Create structured, criteria-based evaluation systems that focus on performance, behaviors, and competencies, minimizing the influence of what evaluators may already know about a person, such as their connections to industry titans or an elite MBA degree. Incorporate 360-degree feedback or use a promotion committee, as multi-source input can help reveal blind spots and social biases. If you're a rising leader: Own your accomplishments. Whether you're star-connected or not, it's important to take ownership of your achievements. Our study found that proximity (or distance) from stars can cause biases among evaluators. This makes it even more important to highlight specific outcomes you've delivered, challenges you've overcome, or innovations you've led that clearly demonstrate your individual contributions. If you do have a connection, it may be useful not to lean on it when it comes time for evaluations. . . . Prestigious connections are powerful. They can help you reach that important first rung on the career ladder. But the ongoing influence of star connections can distort how merit is evaluated and rewarded. In a world obsessed with who you know, let's not forget to focus on what people actually achieve.