Largest Martian Meteorite on Earth sold for millions at auction
Named NWA 16788, the 54-pound (25-kilogram) rock was unearthed by a meteorite hunter in Niger 's Sahara Desert in November 2023.
According to Sotheby's, this extraordinary specimen was blown off the surface of Mars by a massive asteroid strike, subsequently travelling an astonishing 140 million miles (225 million kilometres) to Earth.
The identity of the buyer was not immediately disclosed. The final bid was $4.3 million.
The final official bid price, including various fees and costs, reached approximately $5.3 million, a significant increase on the estimated sale price before the auction of $2 million to $4 million.
Before the auction, two advance bids of $1.9 million and $2 million were submitted.
The live bidding went slower than for many other objects that were sold, with the auctioneer trying to coax more offers and decreasing the $200,000 to $300,000 bid intervals to $100,000 after the proposals hit $4 million.
The red, brown and gray meteorite is about 70 per cent larger than the next largest piece of Mars found on Earth and represents nearly 7 per cent of all the Martian material currently on this planet, Sotheby's says.
It measures nearly 15 inches by 11 inches by 6 inches (375 millimeters by 279 millimeters by 152 millimeters).
It was also a rare find. There are only 400 Martian meteorites out of the more than 77,000 officially recognised meteorites found on Earth, the auction house says.
'This Martian meteorite is the largest piece of Mars we have ever found by a long shot,' Cassandra Hatton, vice chairman for science and natural history at Sotheby's, said in an interview before the auction.
'So it's more than double the size of what we previously thought was the largest piece of Mars.'
It's not clear exactly when the meteorite was blasted off the surface of Mars, but testing showed it probably happened in recent years, Sotheby's says.
Hatton said a specialised lab examined a small piece of the red planet remnant and confirmed it was from Mars. It was compared with the distinct chemical composition of Martian meteorites discovered during the Viking space probe that landed on Mars in 1976, she said.
The examination found that it is an 'olivine-microgabbroic shergottite,' a type of Martian rock formed from the slow cooling of Martian magma. It has a course-grained texture and contains the minerals pyroxene and olivine, Sotheby's says.
It also has a glassy surface, likely due to the high heat that burned it when it fell through Earth's atmosphere, Hatton said. 'So that was their first clue that this wasn't just some big rock on the ground,' she said.
The meteorite was previously on exhibit at the Italian Space Agency in Rome. Sotheby's did not disclose the owner.
Bidding for the juvenile Ceratosaurus nasicornis dinosaur skeleton started with a high advance bid of $6 million, then escalated with offers $500,000 higher than the last and later $1 million higher than the last before ending at $26 million.
The official sale price was $30.5 million with fees and costs. The original estimate was $4 million to $6 million.
Parts of the skeleton were found in 1996 near Laramie, Wyoming, at Bone Cabin Quarry, a gold mine for dinosaur bones. It's more than 6 feet (2 meters) tall and nearly 11 feet (3 meters) long.
Specialists assembled nearly 140 fossil bones with some sculpted materials to recreate the skeleton and mounted it so it's ready to exhibit, Sotheby's says.
The skeleton is believed to be from the late Jurassic period, about 150 million years ago, Sotheby's says.
Ceratosaurus dinosaurs were bipeds with short arms that appear similar to the Tyrannosaurus rex, but smaller. Ceratosaurus dinosaurs could grow up to 25 feet (7.6 meters) long, while the Tyrannosaurs rex could be 40 feet (12 meters) long.
The skeleton was acquired last year by Fossilogic, a Utah -based fossil preparation and mounting company.
Wednesday's auction was part of Sotheby's Geek Week 2025 and featured 122 items, including other meteorites, fossils and gem-quality minerals.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 days ago
- The Sun
Three-year trips to Mars in 2030s, spaceship holidays & budget rocket trips to race around Earth, UK space hero predicts
SPACE isn't just for scientists and celebs – it'll be a hot holiday destination and will offer a shortcut to slash flight times too. They're just some of the predictions from British space hero Tim Peake, who sat down with The Sun for a chat about our off-Earth future. 8 8 Tim, 53, spent about 186 days in space, returning from the ISS on June 18, 2016. But when humans start making the first trips to Mars in the next decade or so, they'll be in space for a lot longer – potentially for three years. It sounds nightmarish, but Tim says we've done it all before, hundreds of years ago. 'A lot of people today forget about what we used to do in terms of exploration, the hardships, the torture, the kind of risk that was taken,' Tim told The Sun at Goodwood Festival of Speed's Future Lab earlier this month. 'And in the early 1800s, nothing was thought about disappearing off on a three year expedition. 'That was pretty standard if you were in the Royal Navy. You say goodbye to your family and your mum. 'You say goodbye. You don't really know where you're going or what you're going to be doing, but you're just going to be away for a long time. 'So when I talk to people about in the mid 2030s, we're going to be on a three year mission to Mars and they kind of have this shock and horror that, well, that's so long, you'll never get people to go away for that long. 'Well, you will. We've done this before. 'It's only in the last 150 years that it hasn't been normal to have a three year expedition away, finding new lands and discovering new things. Nasa reveals mesmerising footage of Northern Lights from ISS 'And we're going to kind of go back into that kind of mindset. It's just that it won't be on Earth. It will be out into space.' Nasa hopes to make manned trips to Mars as soon as the 2030s, although no firm date has been set. But whenever those first visits happen, the astronauts will likely be a lot more comfortable than explorers of the past. 'The levels of resilience and self-sufficiency they needed was unbelievable. I mean, again, when we do Mars, the crew will have enough food, they'll have enough water, they'll have enough life support,' Tim said. 8 He continued: 'We've mapped the surface, we'll have habitation modules for them. 'So it'll probably be a lot more comfortable than it would be setting off on endurance or HMS Wager back in the day.' SPACE STAYS For now, going to space is largely the preserve of professional astronauts, celebs and the ultra-wealthy. But in the future, Tim thinks that this will soon change – and Elon Musk is partly to thank. Tim credits Musk's company SpaceX with making space travel a lot cheaper. 'They've brought the cost of getting to space down so much, which is really exciting. 'Because that opens up whole markets of things you didn't think were possible because they were cost-prohibitive five or 10 years ago, that are now economically viable. 'So that's really exciting, but SpaceX is just the Uber that gets you there and back. 'What's even more exciting is: now what can you do when you're up there?' Tim tells me that space tourism has been around for a long time – but it's becoming more frequent. And that's a trend that will only grow with time. 'It's part of the democratisation of space,' Tim told The Sun. 'I think fast-forward 100 years and there'll be an awful lot of people going to space for a variety of different reasons. 'Some for science, some for exploration, some for entertainment, and some for a different holiday.' Unsurprisingly, Tim reckons that we'd all be better off if we'd taken a trip to space. He says it gives you a different view of the world – and not just literally. WHO IS TIM PEAKE? Here's what you need to know... Major Tim Peake is a British Army officer and astronaut He is the first British astronaut with the European Space Agency He's also the sixth Brit to go aboard the International Space Agency Peake was born in Chichester, West Sussex in 1972 In 1990 he attended the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst In 1992, he joined the Army Air Corps Then two years later Peake became a qualified helicopter pilot Peake left the army in 2009 to follow his dream of becoming an astronaut He beat more than 9,000 applicants for one of six spots on the ESA's astronaut training programme He had to endure a rigorous selection process that tested his intellect and fitness Peake was launched to the ISS on December 15, 2015 In April the next year, he ran the 2016 London Marathon from the ISS treadmill And in June 2016, he finally returned to Earth, landing in Kazakhstan on a Soyuz descent module During his time in space, Peake completed roughly 3,000 orbits of Earth Picture Credit: Getty Images 'I think it is amazing. The more people that can witness Earth from space – Earth would be a better place. Definitely,' Tim said. 'People would have perhaps have a different perspective when they're making decisions. 'Having kind of seen how we all share one planet. And it looks fairly remote and isolated from space.' So your Moon vacation in 2065 won't just be a relaxing break, but an upgrade for your mind too. 8 8 EARTH, VIA SPACE Of course, space tourism isn't the only way rockets will help your holidays. Tim reckons it'll make moving around Earth easier too. Holidays to the Moon will involve blasting off from Earth and landing on the rocky satellite. But that's not the only version of going space – you can also take suborbital flights that skim space, and descend back to Earth. 'Some of those missions they're launching, say, from New Mexico. They're going up and landing in New Mexico,' Tim explained. 'Having been into space, well, there's no reason why you couldn't launch in New Mexico and land in Paris on that same kind of mission. 'And that could be a new form of suborbital transportation that becomes very popular in the future.' It sounds nightmarishly expensive – and it probably would be at the start. 8 But eventually, Tim thinks, we could see the cost come down. Speaking to the astronaut, I joke that we could see Ryanair-style budget flights that only cost a tenner. 'I mean, if you if you went back to those early 1920s, 1930s transatlantic carriers, you would have found very wealthy people on board traveling in relative luxury,' Tim told me. 'And if you'd have said, you know, in 100 years time, we're going to have the EasyJets and the Ryanairs – a mass global transportation at the same cost of a train ticket – they would never have believed it. 'So you never know what we can do with future changes in technology.' 8
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
3 days ago
- The Independent
Is a solar eclipse happening in August? Yes, but not next month
Reports of a solar eclipse on 2 August have been spreading across social media, supported by stories in several news outlets. But while excitement has centred on the celestial spectacle taking place next month, hopeful sky gazers will actually have to wait another two years to witness it. The total solar eclipse will see the Moon pass directly in front of the Sun in 2027, casting a shadow across large parts of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Another total solar eclipse will happen before that, on 12 August 2026, passing over Western Europe. The path of totality for the 2027 eclipse, where the Sun will be completely blocked from view, begins in the North Atlantic before arcing over the Mediterranean and finishing in the Indian Ocean. Luxor in Egypt sits in the middle of the path, which will see the longest totality of six minutes and 23 seconds. The last time a totality lasted this long on land was in 1991 – and the next time will not be until the year 2114. Nasa advises anyone hoping to see the solar eclipse to choose a viewing location based on the weather, rather than how close it is to the path of totality. 'It's much more important to watch the weather forecasts a day or two before the eclipse and choose a location with the best chance of a cloud-free sky during the eclipse,' the US space agency wrote in a blog post. 'Good weather is the key to successful eclipse viewing - better to see a shorter eclipse from clear sky that a longer eclipse under clouds.' Anyone not directly under the path of totality will still be able to see a partial eclipse on 2 August 2027, which will be visible from as far north as Iceland and as far south as Madagascar.
BBC News
3 days ago
- BBC News
Mineral v chemical sunscreen: Which one should you be using?
Some people are trading chemical sunscreens in favour of mineral versions because of fears over toxicity, pollution and effectiveness. Is there actually any difference? Mineral sunscreen is having a moment. Amid concerns that so-called "chemical" sunscreens may be bad for our bodies, brains, and even coral reefs, mineral-based formulations have become the fastest-growing share of the global sunscreen market. But debates over "chemical" versus "mineral" sunscreens are riddled with misconceptions. Many commonly repeated claims – such as mineral sunscreens not containing chemicals; that chemical sunscreens have been proven harmful; or that chemical sunscreens absorb UV, while mineral ones only reflect it – are misleading, even false. The confusion begins with terminology. "Everything is a chemical," points out Brian Diffey, emeritus professor of photobiology in dermatological sciences at the UK's University of Newcastle and inventor of sunscreen's UVA star rating. What people call "chemical" filters are more accurately termed organic, since they contain carbon-hydrogen bonds, says Diffey. Inorganic filters (often called mineral), primarily titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, lack those bonds. All are chemicals. Seeking to protect our skin and bodies from the Sun is not a new trend – nor are sunscreens, organic or inorganic. Ancient Mesopotamians used umbrellas; ancient Greeks, wide-brimmed hats. Along with various coverings, people applied concoctions to the body. In Africa, the use of ochre-based pastes, still used as sunscreen by people such as the Himba in Namibia, dates back at least 285,000 years, while the Roman writer Cornelius Celsus advised slathering the skin with olive oil. It wasn't until the 19th Century, however, that scientists discovered ultra-violet radiation (UVR) – and realised that some ingredients, like quinine sulphate (derived from a tree bark), could absorb it. Scientists duly recommended it as a sunscreen. By 1930, researchers had found a number of other ingredients that absorbed UVR, including aesculin (from trees such as horse chestnut) and larch bark tannin. Though they wouldn't meet today's SPF standards, in terms of how they protected the skin, they all were organic ("chemical") sunscreens. Later, dozens of other ingredients were added to this list – including those produced by mixing together different substances in a laboratory to induce a chemical reaction. Often referred to as "synthetic chemicals", these types of ingredients – including avobenzone, oxybenzone, octisalate and octinoxate – have been found to absorb UV rays far more effectively than their predecessors. Another type of sunscreen came to market, too: "mineral" sunscreens. While they might seem more "natural", the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in today's sunscreens are usually lab-produced. The great deflection debate At first, it was thought that organic sunscreens absorbed UVR, while inorganic sunscreens physically reflected and scattered UVR away from the skin – a belief that was perpetuated further in a 1970s United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monograph. This idea is still commonly heard today, including from seemingly authoritative sources. It also is partly why inorganic sunscreens sometimes are also called "physical sunscreens", implying that they block out UV rays like an umbrella deflects raindrops. "People say that mineral or inorganic sunscreens reflect ultraviolet radiation," says Antony Young, professor emeritus of experimental photobiology at King's College London and a lifelong researcher of sunscreen efficacy. "And that's not true." In fact, modern titanium dioxide and zinc oxide only reflect or scatter 4-5% of the UV range, an authoritative, peer-reviewed 2015 study found. They absorb the other 95%. Indeed, scientists have been aware that inorganic sunscreens absorb UV since the 1980s – so much so that the authors of the 2015 study already seemed exasperated with having to provide even further proof. Their study emphasised "yet again", they wrote, "that the true function of these insoluble 'physical' or 'mineral' UV filters is in fact identical to that of the soluble 'chemical' UV filters. "These data indicate clearly that these filters act primarily as UV-absorbing materials, and not as UV-scattering or UV-reflecting materials." They're not even actually "reflecting" that 5%, adds Diffey: "They scatter it." UV rays aren't bounced off the surface of the inorganic particles. Instead, he says, "the light rays go into the medium. They bounce around from the atoms or molecules. Some of them then will come back out again. And that's called scattering." Meanwhile, many sunscreens, even some marketed as "mineral", use both organic and inorganic UV filters. But in general, experts say, whether a UV filter works by absorbing, reflecting or scattering UVR doesn't really matter. The amount of heat generated in the skin by absorption is negligible – and a tiny fraction of the heat generated from the Sun's exposure itself. Ultimately, says Mary Sommerlad, a consultant dermatologist based in London and British Skin Foundation spokesperson: "You don't need to decide whether you want your UV energy to be absorbed or reflected, because they're working in pretty much the same way." That is, by reducing how much UVR your skin absorbs to protect it from damage and risk of developing cancer. Particles and solutions If organic and inorganic sunscreens work so similarly, why do they feel different? It comes down to solubility. Most organic filters are soluble, meaning their active ingredients can be dissolved in a medium like water or oil. Inorganic sunscreens are not: their particles remain intact. As a result, inorganic sunscreens can feel thicker and give a white cast, while organic filters can provide smoother, clearer formulations. As chemistry advances have shrunk inorganic particle sizes down, the white-cast effect has decreased. These "nanoparticles" (less than 100nm in size) of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide have led to their own set of concerns around skin penetration. But even this minuscule particle size doesn't penetrate more than the stratum corneum – the outermost skin layer – thus preventing systemic absorption. Most organic UV filters operate at the surface of the skin, too. Because sunburns develop at the upper layers of the skin, a UV filter must bind to the stratum corneum in order to work, say experts. Like inorganic sunscreens, therefore, organic sunscreens absorb the vast majority of UV at the skin's surface. But it is true that some organic filters are systemically absorbed. "Some active ingredients will find their way through to the bloodstream," says Diffey. "Whether or not that's doing us any harm or not remains to be seen." So far, there isn't good evidence that it is. The vast majority of research finding risks of chemicals like oxybenzone has been performed on animals, using massive amounts. In one 2001 study that sparked concern about endocrine disruption, for example, baby rats were fed extremely large quantities of UV filters like oxybenzone for four days. Those that consumed oxybenzone had uteruses that were 23% larger than rats that didn't. But when later researchers put these numbers into perspective, they found that – to reach the same systemic concentration of oxybenzone the rats had – a human would need to apply a 6% oxybenzone sunscreen every day… for 277 years. Why are animals exposed to so much of a particular ingredient? Because it helps scientists determine the potential safety limit. "The reason for these studies is to determine how much is safe," says Michelle Wong, chemist and author of the book The Science of Beauty who frequently tackles sunscreen myths online. As a result, "they are always looking for an effect. They will generally use a large enough amount of the ingredient… to elicit some sort of effect. "If they don't, then they don't know where the line is." So far, the threshold at which the ingredients pose a risk seems to be many times higher than the quantity in which people are using them. One scientific review published earlier this year found no evidence that UV filters like avobenzone and homosalate can damage DNA or cause cancer in humans – and that blood levels of these chemicals from topical sunscreen are far below the amount at which they might have an effect. In one 2004 study, for example, 32 people applied creams made up of 10% oxybenzone. Four hours after application, both men and women had slightly lower levels of testosterone. But after just four days of application, the differences between the appliers and the control group disappeared – leading the researchers to conclude that differences in the hormones weren't actually from the sunscreen itself. Even so, because ingredients like avobenzone are absorbed into the bloodstream, out of caution regulators like the FDA have requested more safety data from manufacturers. More like this:• Sunscreen: Are you using it correctly?• Sunscreens: Safe or toxic?• Why sunscreen is not enough to prevent sunburn The effects of organic filters on the environment – particularly coral reefs – are a little more unclear. Studies that have raised concerns have mostly been lab-based experiments; real-world impacts may be different. One study, for example, found that while UV filters were detected in the seawater across 19 tourist hotspots in Hawaii, 12 locations showed less than 10 parts per trillion of oxybenzone – the equivalent of 10 drops in a water-filled football stadium. The area with the highest concentration, Waikiki Beach, had 136 parts per trillion. All were at levels far below the concentration at which the lab-based studies found damage to coral reefs. However, in 2018 Hawaii made the move to ban the sale of sunscreens containing chemicals oxybenzone and octinoxate. "If you have places with a high load of tourists going in, it is not unreasonable to stay cautious and say, 'Yes, there may be additive effects'," marine scientist Jorg Wiedenmann said at the time. Still, while much of the focus regarding coral toxicity has been on organic UV filters, inorganic UV filters may have an effect too. Meanwhile, some marine biologists point out that the far larger (and better-proven) threat to corals is climate change – and that the biggest bleaching events have been in places without tourists. While scientists haven't yet proven any concrete, adverse effects to humans of using organic (or inorganic) sunscreens, aside from occasional side effects like allergic reactions, we can't say the same of excessive UV exposure. At worst, it can lead to skin cancer, the most common type of cancer in countries including the US and the UK. If it spreads, the deadliest type, melanoma, has only a 35% five-year survival rate. This is why the best sunscreen, experts say, is one you are happy to use. For some people, that is a sunscreen that is smoother, clearer and absorbs more quickly. For others, that might be a sunscreen that has fewer toxicology concerns, no matter how theoretical. "SPF is SPF," says Young. "It doesn't really matter what the ingredients are." -- For trusted insights into better health and wellbeing rooted in science, sign up to the Health Fix newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
