Far from any shore where people watch the sky, a small group of scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico has asked a question as old as the fear of falling stars: if we ever had to nudge a rock off its course, does it matter where we strike it? Their computer simulations answer with a quiet yes, and a surprising one, showing that the same X-ray burst can push or spin a lumpy asteroid very differently depending on which face it hits. The finding, reported in the journal Icarus, does not bring any threat closer, but it reminds us that planetary defense depends as much on knowing
Sandia Simulations Find Blast Direction Can Swing an Asteroid's Deflection Nearly Fivefold
Pick the right side and you win; guess wrong and you have a bad day.
Mark
So what did Sandia actually find?
Mimi
That direction matters enormously. One simulated asteroid's spin change varied 17-fold depending on the side struck, and another's push ranged from 3.9 to 0.8 millimeters per second.
Mark
Why would the side matter so much?
Mimi
Real asteroids have ridges and hollows. A flat face sends vapor off in one strong direction, while a ridge or hollow scatters it and adds torque.
Luke
Worth being clear these are two different asteroids and two different measures. The 17-fold figure is spin, the fivefold figure is push. They aren't the same result.
Mark
And this is all simulation?
Mimi
Yes, peer-reviewed in Icarus, but no real asteroid was tested. The 2024 Z machine experiment used fingertip-sized quartz and fused silica samples.
Luke
The biggest gap is that the model only handles surface rock breakup. Whether a blast would fracture a whole asteroid is unknown, and rubble piles could respond very differently.
Mark
Is there a threat behind this?
Mimi
No. No known asteroid is on course for Earth. This is preparation.
Luke
And the source flags non-computational problems too: delivering a device with the needed precision would be extremely difficult. The study doesn't resolve that.
Il Polso
- A single X-ray burst can push a simulated asteroid nearly five times harder depending on which side it strikes, turning a simple plan into a gamble on geometry.
- Spin changes vary up to seventeen-fold, meaning a deflection attempt could send a rock tumbling unpredictably instead of easing it onto a safer path.
- Researchers are racing to make the models faster and more detailed, with one new algorithm running over 1,600 times quicker, while they still need precise shape maps from every angle.
- The work remains a computer study that cannot yet show whether a blast would shatter a whole loose rubble pile, so the approach is far from ready for a real mission.
Far from any shore where people watch the sky, a small group of scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico has asked a question as old as the fear of falling stars: if we ever had to nudge a rock off its course, does it matter where we strike it? Their computer simulations answer with a quiet yes, and a surprising one, showing that the same X-ray burst can push or spin a lumpy asteroid very differently depending on which face it hits. The finding, reported in the journal Icarus, does not bring any threat closer, but it reminds us that planetary defense depends as much on knowing the shape of the stone as on the force we choose to send against it.
At Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, a team of physicists set out to test a idea that has been sketched on the edges of planetary defense for years: using a burst of X-rays to vaporize a thin skin of rock on an asteroid, so the escaping vapor acts like a brief rocket engine. In space there is no shockwave to rely on, only the quiet push of escaping material. Lead author Nathan Moore and his colleagues ran simulations and found something they had expected in principle but not in scale. Aim mattered enormously. On one modeled asteroid, spin changed by a factor of seventeen depending on the side struck, and on another, the push varied nearly fivefold.
The reason lies in shape. Earlier models treated asteroids as smooth spheres, which made the mathematics tidy but ignored the ridges, hollows, and lopsided forms that spacecraft have photographed. A burst striking a broad flat face sends vapor in one strong direction, while a ridge or depression scatters it and adds twisting torque. Moore's blunt summary was that choosing the right side means winning, and guessing wrong means a bad day. For an asteroid discovered late, with little time for a scout spacecraft, that uncertainty could waste the warning that makes deflection possible at all.
The team built on earlier work at Sandia's Z machine, where in 2024 they showed that X-rays could push small mock asteroids, a result published in Nature Physics. The new model joins two Sandia codes and draws on 3D shape data from flybys, letting researchers vary the blast's strength, distance, and direction. The study is careful about its limits: it covers only surface breakup, not whole-body fracture, and many asteroids may be loose rubble held together by weak gravity. No known asteroid is headed toward Earth. The next steps are better shape data and models that can capture the whole body breaking apart.
In a set of computer simulations at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, researchers pointed the same X-ray burst at the same kind of lumpy asteroid from different sides and got very different results. For one modeled asteroid, the change in spin varied by a factor of 17 depending on which side was struck. The study appears in the journal Icarus.
For a second simulated asteroid, the push away from its path measured 3.9 millimeters per second when irradiated from one direction and 0.8 millimeters per second from another. That is a nearly fivefold gap. Lead author Nathan Moore, a Sandia physicist, said the team expected aim to matter, but what surprised them was how much.
The concept being modeled relies on a burst of X-rays, such as one released by a nuclear device detonated near an asteroid rather than on it. In the vacuum of space there is no shockwave or fireball. Instead, the X-rays flash-heat a thin layer of surface rock, which vaporizes and blasts away. The escaping vapor pushes the asteroid the opposite way, like a brief rocket engine.
Moore's team demonstrated the principle in 2024 at Sandia's Z machine, a powerful pulsed-power facility. They used X-rays to push free-floating mock asteroids of quartz and fused silica, each about the width of a fingertip. Published in Nature Physics, those results were the first experimental confirmation that X-rays could deflect asteroid material. Scaling up to a real asteroid was harder, since most earlier models treated asteroids as smooth spheres. That made the math easier but ignored the ridges, depressions, and lopsided shapes seen in spacecraft images.
The new model combines two Sandia codes. ALEGRA is normally used for fast, high-energy events, while SPARTA is a direct simulation Monte Carlo code usually applied to slowly evolving, weak forces such as gas flows. Together they track how vapor leaves an irregular surface. The model takes 3D shape data from spacecraft flybys and lets researchers adjust the blast's strength, distance, and direction. It outputs a heat map of vaporized material, the resulting push and change in rotation, and the extent of surface damage. Moore said the new algorithm is over 1,600 times faster than before, which he called critical to the work.
The results show why shape matters. A burst hitting a broad, flat face can send vapor off in one strong direction. Hitting a ridge or a hollow can scatter the push, change how much rock vaporizes, and add torque that alters the spin. Moore put it bluntly: pick the right side and you win, guess wrong and you have a bad day. A deflection that sends a rock spinning unpredictably, or nudges it far less than intended, could waste precious warning time. Accurate predictions need reasonably detailed shape information from every direction, which could be a serious problem for an asteroid found late, with no time to send a scout spacecraft.
That connects the study to missions already underway. NASA's DART spacecraft struck the moonlet Dimorphos in 2022 to test the kinetic impactor approach, and the European Space Agency's Hera mission is now arriving to measure the aftermath. A kinetic impactor works best with years of warning, while an X-ray burst could deliver a larger push in a single event. The research was funded by Sandia's Laboratory Directed Research and Development program. Co-authors include Michael Gallis, Gregory Tipton, and seven other Sandia researchers.
The limits are real. This is a peer-reviewed modeling effort, not a test on a real asteroid. The model accounts only for the breakup of surface rock, so it cannot yet predict whether a blast would fracture the whole body. That matters because many asteroids are thought to be loose rubble piles held together by weak gravity. An X-ray burst would also trigger many interacting effects, and delivering a device with the required precision would be extremely difficult. The results apply only to the shapes modeled. No known asteroid is on course to strike Earth. The next steps are better shape data and models that capture whole-body breakup.
Citazioni salienti
We expected aim to matter. What surprised us was how much.— Nathan Moore, Sandia physicist and lead author
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Nature World News ↗