Key Facts and Summary
- Asteroid 2024 YR4 is a near-Earth object roughly 50–70 meters wide (about the height of a 15–20 story building). It caused alarm in late 2024 when initial data showed about a 3% chance of hitting Earth in 2032, an unusually high risk [1]. Further observations ruled out an Earth impact, but the asteroid still has a ~4% chance of striking the Moon on December 22, 2032 [2]. By contrast, most asteroids have far less than 1% impact probability upon discovery.
- Threat if it hits the Moon: Although Earth is safe from 2024 YR4, a lunar impact could have indirect effects on Earth. Scientists estimate an impact would blast out a 100 million kg cloud of lunar debris, with up to 10% of that material (tens of millions of kg) escaping the Moon’s gravity and reaching near-Earth space within days [3]. This ejecta could raise the micrometeoroid bombardment in Earth orbit to 1000 times normal levels for a short period [4] – a spectacular meteor shower visible from Earth, but one that threatens satellites and astronauts with a rain of high-speed space gravel [5] [6].
- Proposed defense plan: To prevent such an outcome, astronomers and engineers are studying ways to deflect or destroy the asteroid before 2032. A new study led by NASA experts outlines possible missions, including hitting YR4 with a high-speed kinetic impactor (similar to NASA’s 2022 DART mission) to nudge its path, or in a more drastic step, using nuclear explosive devices to blow it apart – a so-called “kinetic disruption mission” [7] [8]. The study found that traditional deflection may be impractical given the short timeline and unknown asteroid mass, whereas a robust disruption mission (potentially nuclear) could be readied in time if needed [9].
- Scientific and expert perspectives: Planetary defense researchers emphasize that nuclear options are a last resort. “We call this the nuclear option, and it’s one we really do not want to use,” says Lindley Johnson, NASA’s Planetary Defense Officer [10]. Sending nukes into space raises political and legal hurdles – international treaties ban deploying nuclear weapons in space – and many experts are wary. “A nuclear impact probably would work, but you’ve got to get it there… nobody wants to put a nuke in space really; there are all sorts of international treaties… there’s a lot of opposition,” notes astronomer David Whitehouse [11]. Most scientists prefer non-nuclear solutions like kinetic impactors, along with improved early detection to avoid last-minute crises.
- Wider context: The discussion around blowing up 2024 YR4 comes on the heels of NASA’s successful DART mission that deliberately altered an asteroid’s orbit in 2022, proving we can deflect space rocks [12]. It also echoes familiar Hollywood scenarios – though NASA assures us real asteroid mitigation won’t employ oil-drilling astronauts à la Armageddon (“those movies are completely bogus – that’s not how we would use a nuclear device at all,” Johnson quips [13]). While the probability of 2024 YR4 causing harm is low, the situation is serving as a valuable planetary defense exercise. It highlights the ongoing efforts by NASA, ESA, and global partners to monitor hazardous asteroids and develop technologies to protect Earth (and the Moon) from cosmic threats [14] [15].
The Asteroid 2024 YR4: From Earth Hazard to Lunar Threat
2024 YR4 is a recently discovered asteroid that has drawn intense attention from astronomers and space agencies. Detected on 27 December 2024 by the ATLAS survey telescope in Chile, it initially appeared on a worrisome trajectory [16]. In early 2025, automated orbit calculations raised the alarm that this ~60-meter “city-killer” asteroid had a roughly 3% chance of impacting Earth on December 22, 2032 [17] [18]. A few percent might sound small, but by asteroid risk standards it’s huge – for context, NASA’s risk list almost never has objects above 1% chance of impact. Indeed, YR4 “shot to the top” of risk charts worldwide and became the first asteroid ever to trigger a coordinated international planetary defense response due to its initially high probability [19].
Over the next several weeks, astronomers around the globe (and in space) tracked YR4 to refine its orbit. By late February 2025, new observations – including precise measurements by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) – allowed scientists to rule out any collision with Earth [20] [21]. The scare passed for our planet. However, YR4’s story took a twist: even as Earth was cleared from danger, calculations showed a possible lunar impact. When YR4 disappeared from telescopes’ view in mid-2025 (as it traveled farther from us), its remaining trajectory uncertainties still left about a 4% chance it could strike the Moon on Dec 22, 2032 [22] [23]. In other words, there’s a 96% chance it will miss the Moon, but we won’t know for sure until the asteroid is observed again when it swings back near Earth’s vicinity in 2028 [24] [25].
At roughly 50–70 meters in diameter (estimates range from 53 to 67 m) [26], 2024 YR4 is in the size class of the Tunguska impactor (which flattened a Siberian forest in 1908) and larger than the Chelyabinsk meteor (20 m) that exploded over Russia in 2013. An asteroid of this scale hits Earth only once every few thousand years on average [27]. Were such an object to strike land, it could devastate a city or region with energy on the order of several megatons of TNT. In fact, if YR4 hit Earth it’s large enough to be dubbed a “city killer.” Fortunately, current data says Earth is safe from YR4 “for 2032 and beyond” [28] [29]. The asteroid will instead pass our planet and continue in its solar orbit. But the Moon, lacking the protection of atmosphere or the ability to “duck,” remains a potential target if YR4’s path lines up just so.
Just how big of an explosion are we talking about? Researchers from the University of Western Ontario and NASA estimated that if 2024 YR4 slammed into the Moon, it would hit with the energy of 6.5 megatons of TNT, carving out a crater nearly 1 kilometer across [30]. For comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was ~0.015 megatons; so this impact would be hundreds of times more powerful [31]. It would likely be visible from Earth with the naked eye – a brief flash and a new crater on the Moon’s surface [32]. “A lunar impact remains unlikely, and no one knows what the exact effects would be,” cautions Richard Moissl, head of ESA’s Planetary Defence Office [33]. Such an event is extremely rare, and even rarer to know about in advance. Scientists, while relieved Earth is not in danger, find the prospect scientifically fascinating: it’s an opportunity to observe a large impact in real time if it were to occur [34]. However, there’s also a serious downside: the spray of lunar debris that a strike would unleash.
Why a Lunar Impact Could Endanger Satellites and Astronauts
If 2024 YR4 were to hit the Moon, we’d get more than just a spectacular new crater. The collision could blast billions of kilograms of lunar rock and dust into space. A recent study (currently awaiting peer review) simulated this scenario in detail, and the results raise concerns for those of us who rely on Earth’s orbital environment. According to the study, a YR4-moon impact might eject on the order of 10^8 kg (100 million kilograms) of material off the lunar surface [35]. For a few days after impact, Earth’s vicinity could be swarming with debris. Roughly 10% of the ejecta – tens of millions of kilograms – could escape the Moon’s gravity entirely and “accrete to the Earth on timescales of a few days,” the researchers report [36]. In effect, Earth would temporarily gain a diffuse ring of lunar shrapnel.
From the ground, this would translate into one of the most intense meteor showers in centuries, as tiny particles re-enter the atmosphere and burn up [37]. While that celestial fireworks show might thrill skywatchers, it conceals a threat. Much of the debris will be in the form of micrometeoroids – fragments perhaps millimeters across – zipping through near-Earth space. Normally, Earth’s atmosphere shields us from meteoroids, but satellites and astronauts outside the atmosphere are exposed. The study warns that for a brief period, the flux of debris in low Earth orbit could spike to up to 1,000 times the normal background level [38].
Such a swarm of high-speed grit can sandblast anything in its path. Even tiny 0.1 mm fragments can penetrate or disable sensitive spacecraft components at orbital velocities. “Of primary concern are ejecta particles above the impact hazard threshold (0.1 mm) for satellites delivered directly to low Earth orbit on relatively short timescales – days to months – that could pose a hazard to spacecraft,” the study states [39]. In other words, satellites in low and medium Earth orbits could be struck by thousands of miniature meteors. Depending on the impact geometry, debris could continue to circulate for years, gradually decaying and pelting satellites during that time [40]. By one calculation, with the ever-growing number of satellites (think mega-constellations) in orbit by 2032, “hundreds to thousands of [micrometeoroid] impacts… will be experienced across the entire satellite fleet,” researchers warn [41].
This raises the troubling possibility of satellite damage or outages. Critical services – communications, GPS, weather monitoring – could face disruptions if enough satellites were hit by lunar shrapnel. Spacecraft like the International Space Station (or other crewed stations that might be operating in 2032) would also need to seek shelter or shielding to avoid risk to astronauts. Tiny debris traveling at ~8 km/s can puncture space habitats or suits. In sum, while a Moon impact poses no direct threat to people on Earth’s surface, it could create a hazardous debris storm in space, putting our orbital infrastructure and any humans in orbit in danger [42] [43].
One important factor is where on the Moon the asteroid hits. The study found that if an impact happens on the trailing edge of the Moon (the side opposite its direction of travel around Earth), more ejecta is flung Earthward [44]. That’s because the Moon’s orbital motion could hurl debris forward into space in Earth’s direction. A strike on the leading edge might send most debris away from us. So not every impact scenario is equally bad, but some could be very bad indeed. Given these possibilities, the researchers argue that planetary defense shouldn’t ignore the Moon – measures used to safeguard Earth ought to be extended to protect our natural satellite and the space around it [45].
Deflecting the Asteroid: Gentle Nudge vs. Risky Guesswork
The ideal solution to any potential asteroid impact is deflection – altering the asteroid’s trajectory just enough so that it misses the target (be it Earth or the Moon). This is generally preferred over blowing the object to bits. A slight change in course, if done well in advance, can translate to a big miss distance by the time the asteroid would have hit. “The right time to deflect an asteroid is as far away from Earth as we can,” Lindley Johnson, NASA’s Planetary Defense Officer, often says. In practical terms, a kinetic impactor – essentially a battering ram spacecraft – can do the job by striking the asteroid at high speed. This method was successfully demonstrated in NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) in September 2022, when a half-ton impactor was slammed into an asteroid moon named Dimorphos at 14,000 mph [46]. The impact nudged Dimorphos’s orbit, shortening its orbital period by 33 minutes, and proved that we can intentionally alter an asteroid’s path.
For asteroid 2024 YR4, a similar kinetic impact mission is on the table – but it comes with challenges. To deflect YR4 so it avoids the Moon (and Earth) entirely, scientists would need to impart just the right change in velocity. That requires knowing the asteroid’s mass fairly accurately. We have a decent handle on YR4’s size – about 60 ±7 meters in diameter, thanks to JWST observations [47] – but its mass depends on density, which could vary widely. It might be a solid rock, or a loose “rubble pile” of porous material. As a result, estimates of its mass span an order of magnitude: anywhere from ~5.1×10^7 kg up to ~7.1×10^8 kg (approximately 50 million to 700 million kilograms) [48]. In Imperial units, that’s tens of millions to over a billion pounds. This huge uncertainty makes designing a precise deflection tricky. As Universe Today explains, “the amount of energy needed to move [the asteroid] a very precise amount is massively different” at the low vs. high end of the mass range [49]. If engineers guess wrong about the mass and thus apply too weak or too strong a shove, the outcome could be ineffective – or worse, it could “accidentally change its trajectory to make the problem even worse,” including possibly nudging YR4 onto an Earth-impacting path [50]. In short, a mis-calculated deflection attempt might backfire catastrophically.
To reduce that uncertainty, mission planners would love to send a reconnaissance probe first. A small spacecraft could rendezvous with YR4, measure its mass, composition, and rotation, and then inform the design of a deflection mission. The catch is time. YR4 orbits the Sun and won’t be observable again until mid-2028 [51] [52]. The best window for a recon mission would be a launch in late 2028, which (as of 2025) is only three years away [53]. Building and launching a space mission on such a short timeline has “never been done before” in the planetary sector [54]. Unless an asteroid poses an immediate, severe threat to Earth, it’s hard to imagine funding and fielding a mission that fast. By comparison, NASA’s DART mission took about 5 years from approval to impact, and that was for a known test target. Given that YR4’s chance of hitting the Moon is still only a few percent, it may not meet the threshold of urgency to justify a crash development program. As Universe Today notes dryly, “2024 YR4 probably isn’t it” – meaning it’s probably not dangerous enough to trigger such an unprecedented rapid mission [55].
There is an intriguing idea to repurpose existing spacecraft to study or deflect YR4, which could save time. For instance, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission (renamed OSIRIS-APEX for its new extended mission) is currently en route to visit the near-Earth asteroid Apophis in 2029; some have mused about redirecting it to YR4 instead [56]. Another probe, Psyche, launched in 2023 to a metal-rich asteroid, might conceivably be retargeted mid-mission. And there’s Janus, a pair of small spacecraft originally built to accompany Psyche to binary asteroids, now sitting unused after a launch opportunity was missed. However, these crafts weren’t designed to intercept YR4 and may not be capable of the necessary trajectory changes or measurements. Critically, they might not solve the mass-estimation problem with the precision needed.
If a direct deflection mission were undertaken, it would likely involve building one or more impactor spacecraft on short order. Dr. David Whitehouse, a British astronomer, suggests that something akin to DART could be scaled up and duplicated. “The impact [of DART] was more dramatic than anybody anticipated,” he says, referring to the plume of debris it unleashed and the larger-than-expected momentum transfer [57]. Based on that success, Whitehouse suggests “something similar to DART would work, preferably two DARTs.” He envisions launching two impactors, possibly on a single rocket (Falcon 9 rockets are plentiful, he notes), to hit the asteroid [58]. “We’ve already got the design of DART. If we made another one or another two, perhaps a little bigger – that could be done relatively quickly,” Whitehouse told Yahoo News [59]. Multiple impactors could ensure the asteroid is deflected sufficiently or provide redundancy if one fails. This approach, while aggressive, stays within the realm of kinetic impact technology that we have tested.
However, the new NASA-led study (authored by Brent Barbee and colleagues) examined deflection missions for YR4 and found they “appear impractical” under the circumstances [60]. The combination of limited lead time and high mass uncertainty makes a precise nudge too uncertain. The study’s sobering conclusion is that if we confirm in 2028 that YR4 is headed for the Moon, a gentle shove might not be feasible. That is why the team also investigated a more drastic alternative – blowing the asteroid to pieces.
Last Resort: “Blow It Up” – The Nuclear Option and Kinetic Disruption
If deflecting the asteroid with a nudge is too risky or too late, the remaining option is to destroy or disrupt 2024 YR4 so it cannot hit as one intact mass. This could be achieved either by a very high-energy impactor or by a nuclear explosive device. Essentially, instead of moving the asteroid’s trajectory slightly, the goal would be to shatter the asteroid into much smaller fragments (ideally, fragments under ~10 meters, which would largely burn up if they ever entered Earth’s atmosphere later [61]). This concept is referred to as a “robust disruption” mission in the study. It’s a notable escalation beyond what NASA attempted with DART, and it ventures into territory that has so far only been contemplated in theory and, of course, in Hollywood movies.
One approach to disruption is a supersized kinetic impact: hitting the asteroid hard enough to break it apart. This would require a heavier impactor and higher speed than DART, or even multiple impactors striking in tandem. The feasibility window for a purely kinetic disruption mission to YR4 was calculated to be launches between April 2030 and April 2032 (arriving not long before the predicted impact date) [62]. In essence, we’d have about 5–7 years from now (2025) to develop and launch such a mission. This is difficult, but slightly more realistic than the 3-year timeline for a 2028 recon launch. The later launch is possible because actually hitting or intercepting YR4 on its way to the Moon in the early 2030s gives a bit more breathing room in mission planning. Still, designing a kinetic penetrator or multiple impactor mission to pulverize a 60 m rock is pushing the limits of current experience.
The more controversial option is to use nuclear explosive devices to either obliterate the asteroid or force it off course. In the study’s scenario, a “nuclear robust disruption” mission could launch as early as late 2029 (up to late 2031) and reach YR4 in time [63]. The proposal involves sending two spacecraft, each armed with a nuclear charge on the order of 100 kilotons (five to eight times the yield of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs) [64]. These would not be crude missiles, but automated probes capable of navigating to the asteroid. One device would be detonated to blow apart YR4, and the second would serve as a backup “in case it is needed” [65]. The nuclear blast would ideally occur at a calculated “height of burst” just above the asteroid’s surface [66] – enough to vaporize part of the rock and impart a violent shockwave, fragmenting the asteroid. Calculations in the paper indicate that a ~1 megaton nuclear explosion (equivalent to 1000 kilotons) would be sufficient to “disrupt 2024 YR4 no matter what size it is” [67], covering the uncertainty in mass. In other words, a bomb of that strength, properly placed, could guarantee the asteroid is broken into pieces too small to pose a catastrophic threat. And 1 megaton is within existing arsenals (for instance, many ICBM warheads range from a few hundred kilotons to over a megaton).
Crucially, the aim of a nuclear intervention would not be to send the asteroid careening in one piece, but to shatter or substantially vaporize it. The public often imagines a nuclear solution as depicted in films like Armageddon, where heroes land on the asteroid and drill a bomb into it. In reality, as Lindley Johnson points out, “that’s not how we would use a nuclear explosive device to do this at all” [68]. A more realistic approach, sometimes called a nuclear standoff explosion, is to detonate the device some distance from the asteroid’s surface – no humans required, just robotic delivery. The intense X-ray and neutron pulse from the blast would ablate (flash-heat) the asteroid’s surface on one side, causing a blow-off of material that imparts a thrust, akin to a rocket blast. In a deflection context, this could nudge the asteroid (this was the original concept of the nuclear option in planetary defense) [69] [70]. But in a disruption context, a close-proximity detonation could outright demolish the asteroid. The study by Barbee et al. seems to favor outright disruption for YR4, likely because a small fragmenting is preferable to a glancing blow on the Moon.
It must be noted: no one has ever tried a nuclear asteroid deflection or disruption, so there is uncertainty in how effective it would be and what side effects might occur. We have detonated nuclear devices in space before – notably the U.S. “Starfish Prime” test in 1962, which was a 1.4 megaton bomb exploded 400 km above Earth’s atmosphere [71]. That experiment produced an artificial radiation belt and damaged some satellites, serving as a cautionary tale. But we’ve never done it near an asteroid or moon. “Physics certainly says it’s possible,” Universe Today writes of the nuclear approach [72], and decades of research (some by NASA and national labs) suggest a nuclear blast could be a potent planetary defense tool in emergencies. In fact, in September 2024, physicists at Sandia National Laboratories (a U.S. government lab) reported that a coordinated nuclear response might be the most efficient way to stop a large asteroid, “if time is short and particularly if the object is a larger size”, as long as it’s done carefully to avoid simply creating multiple dangerous fragments [73] [74]. “The trick is to use just enough force to redirect the flying rock without splitting it into several equally deadly subsections,” the Sandia researchers noted [75].
Nevertheless, blowing up an asteroid with nukes remains a last resort scenario. There are significant political, legal, and ethical hurdles to deploying nuclear explosives in space. Under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and other international agreements, nuclear weapons are not to be stationed in orbit or on celestial bodies, and the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear detonations in outer space. While an emergency planetary defense action might compel nations to carve out an exception, it’s not a decision to take lightly. “Nobody wants to put a nuke in space really,” Dr. David Whitehouse emphasizes, reflecting the community’s reluctance [76]. Besides the treaty issues, there’s the practical matter of global trust and cooperation – any nuclear launch to space, even for asteroid mitigation, would require transparency and probably a multinational effort to avoid misunderstandings.
For an asteroid as relatively small as YR4, many experts feel the nuclear option is overkill. “The ‘nuclear option’ would be most likely used with larger asteroids more than half a mile in diameter,” notes Yahoo News, summarizing Johnson’s stance [77]. A 60 m rock is nowhere near that size; nuclear explosives are usually thought of as a contingency for an incoming kilometer-sized asteroid that could cause mass destruction on Earth. Moreover, 2024 YR4’s chance of impact is still very low. As of now, it’s essentially a hypothetical threat. That makes it politically and financially implausible that any space agency would invest in a nuclear disruption mission in the near term. Even the scientists who wrote the paper acknowledge that “even if [a] lunar impact is ruled out, there is significant potential utility in deploying a reconnaissance mission to characterize the asteroid” for scientific purposes [78] – implying that a full-blown deflection or disruption mission might never actually happen unless the worst-case impact probability becomes a near-certainty.
Expert Perspectives: Balancing Preparedness and Prudence
The idea of blowing up an asteroid can capture the public imagination (who doesn’t recall Bruce Willis’s noble sacrifice in Armageddon?) but experts urge a measured approach. Lindley Johnson, NASA’s Planetary Defense Officer, has spent decades thinking about how to prevent asteroid impacts. He stresses that time is the key. With enough lead time – ideally years or decades – even a large asteroid can be diverted without resorting to nuclear explosives. “We just need to change [the asteroid’s] speed by maybe a couple of centimeters per second,” Johnson explains. “If we do that several years in advance, the change in orbit … will cause it to arrive early or late to the impact point. That’s all we need.” [79] In other words, small nudges applied well ahead of the predicted collision date can translate to a miss, because the Earth and the asteroid won’t intersect at the same time. This underpins why NASA and other agencies invest heavily in asteroid detection and tracking – the more warning we have, the less dramatic our deflection methods need to be.
Johnson also frequently debunks the Hollywood notion of sending people to blow up asteroids. “If you’ve seen those movies, they’re completely bogus,” he said of Armageddon-style missions. In reality, any nuclear solution would be unmanned and aimed at pushing the asteroid, not vaporizing it into a buckshot of fragments [80] [81]. In the grand hierarchy of planetary defense strategies, nuclear blasts are the last resort for dire situations. For something like YR4 – small and uncertain – Johnson and most of his colleagues would rather see continued monitoring. NASA’s official updates have tried to reassure the public that YR4 poses “no significant impact risk to Earth in 2032 and beyond” [82] [83]. The agency has “significantly lowered the risk” after its intense observation campaign in early 2025 [84] [85]. In fact, YR4 provided a valuable test of NASA’s preparedness: it was the first real asteroid threat to prompt emergency observation protocols and cross-agency communication drills, all of which helped quickly eliminate the danger to Earth.
ESA (European Space Agency) experts echo the cautious optimism. Richard Moissl of ESA notes that while a lunar impact is unlikely, it highlights how important it is to watch not just Earth-crossing asteroids but those that could affect the Moon, especially as humans plan to return to the Moon. “In the coming years, as humankind looks to establish a prolonged presence at the Moon, monitoring space for objects that could strike [the Moon] will become increasingly important,” Moissl says [86]. Even smaller meteoroids that would burn up in Earth’s atmosphere can hit the Moon’s surface and pose a hazard to future lunar bases or astronauts, since the Moon has no atmospheric shield [87]. This broader perspective suggests planetary defense will evolve to protect multi-planet infrastructure – an impact on the Moon or even Mars in the future could have serious consequences if we have settlements there.
What about voices outside the space agencies? Planetary science researchers and engineers generally support examining all options. The study proposing the disruption mission had authors from NASA, academia, and research labs, indicating that the community is proactively analyzing scenarios, even ones that involve nuclear devices, so that if the need arises we won’t be caught flat-footed. There is also a consensus that more data is needed on asteroids like YR4. Many scientists advocate for a dedicated planetary defense telescope in space to catch objects coming from sunward blind spots (YR4 approached from the daytime sky, making it hard to detect initially [88]). NASA is working on a mission called NEO Surveyor – an infrared space telescope to find asteroids – although it has been delayed by budget concerns. ESA is developing NEOMIR, a similar concept to station an infrared telescope at a Sun-Earth Lagrange point to watch for threats coming from the Sun’s direction [89] [90]. Moissl remarked that simulations show NEOMIR would have spotted 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than it was actually discovered, giving more time to refine its orbit and calm the initial fears [91]. These projects are high on experts’ wish lists because early detection is the simplest way to avoid needing a last-ditch nuclear mission.
Dr. David Whitehouse, who has spoken widely on the YR4 situation, provides a grounded outside perspective. He acknowledges the theoretical options (lasers, nukes, etc.) but points out their practical limits. Using a high-powered laser to evaporate part of an asteroid – a concept occasionally floated – is not feasible in YR4’s case, he says, because we don’t have space-based lasers of the necessary strength ready to go, and developing one in a few years is unrealistic [92] [93]. Regarding nuclear weapons, Whitehouse points to the political barriers and the fact that YR4’s risk might not justify breaking the nuclear taboo [94]. In his view, the most likely action, if any is needed, would be the kinetic impactor approach – essentially scaling up the DART experiment. That aligns with the general sentiment among planetary defenders: hit it with a spacecraft, if you can, rather than blow it up with a bomb.
Finally, it’s worth noting that public communication by experts has been careful. When YR4 first made news, there was some public alarm at the “3% chance of Earth impact” headlines. Scientists were quick to explain that such probabilities often drop to zero with more data – which is exactly what happened. In June 2025, one astronomer told The Independent that YR4, once feared as a threat to Earth, “now poses potential danger to satellites” if it hits the Moon [95] [96] – a message that reframed the concern without sensationalizing an Earth impact. This measured tone helps the public understand that while the asteroid isn’t endangering lives on the ground, it’s still something to take seriously for the space infrastructure. The consensus among experts is that we should prepare prudently, but not panic.
Public and Political Reactions to the “Blow It Up” Plan
The notion of launching a nuclear strike in space to save the Moon (and our satellites) can sound like science fiction – and indeed it has prompted both fascination and skepticism from the public. When the story broke that a team of astronomers suggested blowing up asteroid YR4, media outlets and social networks lit up with comments. Many couldn’t help but draw comparisons to Hollywood movies. On forums like Reddit, tongue-in-cheek posts appeared about training oil rig drillers to become astronauts – a direct reference to the Armageddon movie plot – followed by quips that “the guy who would lead that team can no longer speak” (a nod to Bruce Willis’s retirement) and other humorous allusions. While these jokes highlight a certain cultural enthusiasm for the dramatic scenario, they also underscore a public tendency to conflate fiction with fact. Scientists have had to clarify: no, we are not literally planning to send a crew of misfit heroes to nuke an asteroid at the last second. Any such mission, if it ever happened, would be robotic and meticulously engineered, with international oversight.
Politically, the idea of using nuclear explosives in space raises eyebrows. The world has spent decades crafting treaties to prevent the weaponization of space, and a nuclear explosion even for planetary defense would set precedents. Policymakers would have to weigh the global risks. Imagine explaining to the United Nations that we intend to detonate a nuclear device above the lunar surface – it would require a strong consensus that the action is necessary for humanity’s safety. In the case of 2024 YR4, given the low probability of impact, it is unlikely any government would authorize such extreme measures at this stage. As one space policy observer wryly noted, blowing up a space rock that’s currently over 379 million miles away – and extremely unlikely to hit us – might be a hard sell when budgets are tight [97].
In fact, budget constraints are a very real part of the discussion. NASA’s planetary defense initiatives, while supported, are not immune to funding challenges. The U.S. government’s budget proposal for 2026 (under the current administration) has been criticized for potentially squeezing science programs, and NASA is already juggling cost overruns on projects like Mars sample return. As the Futurism report pointed out, NASA is “suffering under major budget constraints”, and dozens of missions across the agency face cuts or cancellation [98]. In such an environment, convincing lawmakers to spend hundreds of millions (or more) to develop an asteroid interception mission for a 4% lunar threat would be difficult. “Chances are slim that the space agency will allocate the necessary resources to blow up an errant space rock that’s … extremely unlikely to pose any danger to us,” Futurism concluded bluntly [99]. That sentiment likely reflects the political reality: unless YR4’s threat level increases dramatically in 2028 (i.e., if new data shows it’s almost certain to hit the Moon or, in a wild turn, Earth), the proposal to nuke it will remain on paper only.
Internationally, one positive sign is that planetary defense is a collaborative effort. The discovery and tracking of YR4 involved telescopes and researchers worldwide, coordinated through the International Asteroid Warning Network. If a decision had to be made to attempt a deflection or disruption, it wouldn’t be the U.S. acting alone. Agencies like ESA, and others in countries such as Russia, China, and Japan, all have a stake in preventing cosmic impacts. In 2021, the United Nations endorsed steps for global coordination on near-Earth object threats. Any use of nuclear technology in space, in particular, would demand transparency and likely a UN mandate to avoid misunderstanding it as a hostile act. This gives some assurance that the issue would be handled with global consensus in mind, not unilateral cowboy action.
Meanwhile, the general public response has included a mix of awe and curiosity. The idea that the Moon could be struck by the largest impact in living memory (one headline called it “the largest asteroid in 5,000 years” that might hit the Moon) naturally attracts interest. Some space enthusiasts have even mused that if it’s going to hit the Moon regardless, maybe we should let it, and use the opportunity to study the impact up close. After all, it would be the first time we know in advance and could train instruments on a big impact event. On social media, a faction of people half-seriously say “don’t shoot it – let it hit the Moon, it’d be cool to see!” This perspective is not mainstream, but it shows how public opinion is not uniformly fearful; there’s also scientific curiosity and a bit of fatalistic humor at play. (For what it’s worth, if YR4 were confirmed to be Moon-bound, scientists absolutely would gear up every telescope and perhaps even send a small mission to observe the crash – a scientific bonanza, as Moissl hinted, though preferably without the satellite damage.)
To channel that public interest positively, experts have been emphasizing that planetary defense is real and actively happening. The successful DART mission was highly publicized and generally well-received by the public as a proactive experiment. The ESA’s upcoming Hera mission (scheduled to arrive at Dimorphos in 2026 to survey the aftermath of DART) is another effort being promoted, as it will teach us more about how to deflect asteroids reliably [100]. Every new mission or telescope that scans the sky is an opportunity to remind people: we can see these threats coming, and we can do something about them. This messaging is crucial to avoid undue panic. When headlines scream “Astronomers want to blow up asteroid,” the nuance is that this is just one proposal under study, not a mad rush to launch missiles at the sky.
In summary, the public and political reaction to the idea of blowing up 2024 YR4 is a mix of cautious interest and “let’s not get ahead of ourselves.” There is recognition that it’s smart to research all options – even the explosive ones – but also a broad agreement that nukes in space are the last resort, to be contemplated only if there’s no other choice. And in this case, we have time to wait and see. As one space commentator put it, we have seven years to think about it – let’s hope we don’t need to actually do it.
Planetary Defense: The Bigger Picture and Future Preparations
The drama surrounding asteroid 2024 YR4 highlights just how far planetary defense has come in recent years. Not long ago, the entire concept of deflecting an asteroid was purely theoretical. Today, we have dedicated offices and programs at NASA and ESA, international coordination mechanisms, and even a proven capability in kinetic impact (thanks to DART). The broader context is that humanity is getting its act together to ensure we don’t go the way of the dinosaurs. As ESA’s Planetary Defence initiative likes to remind us, “believe it or not, with enough time, an asteroid impact is something we can prevent.” [101] [102]
A key pillar of planetary defense is early detection and tracking of near-Earth objects (NEOs). Asteroid 2024 YR4 taught us an important lesson: it snuck up from a sunward direction, a known blind spot for ground telescopes [103]. It was discovered just two days after its closest approach to Earth (which fortunately was a miss) [104]. If it had been on a direct course, that might have been too late for meaningful response. To address this, NASA and ESA are investing in space-based survey telescopes (NEO Surveyor and NEOMIR) that can watch the sky close to the Sun’s glare [105] [106]. Within this decade, we expect these systems to come online, greatly increasing our chances of finding risky asteroids like YR4 well in advance. Earlier detection means more years of lead time, which in turn means gentler and safer deflection methods can be used, avoiding the need for drastic measures.
Another pillar is research and simulations. Every two years, the world’s experts gather at the Planetary Defense Conference and run impact scenario exercises – essentially war-games for asteroid emergencies. They’ve walked through fictional cases of an asteroid headed for various regions of Earth, discussing how to respond, whom to evacuate, whether to attempt a deflection, etc. These exercises have revealed the logistical and political challenges, and also improved communication channels between space agencies and disaster response agencies (like FEMA in the U.S.). YR4’s real episode in 2025 was something of a mini-test: the communication of risk levels, the involvement of organizations like the International Asteroid Warning Network, and coordination between NASA, ESA, and other observatories all happened swiftly when the 3% Earth impact was announced [107]. The system worked as intended – within days the risk was downgraded and messages went out to the public. This kind of preparedness is the unsung groundwork that will pay off if a truly dangerous asteroid is discovered heading our way.
On the technology front, beyond DART and Hera, other concepts are being explored. These include non-kinetic methods like the gravity tractor (a spacecraft that hovers near an asteroid and slowly tugs it via gravity over time) [108] and even creative ideas like focused solar beams or mass drivers on asteroids. While such methods are not yet practical for an emergency, they might become tools in the future arsenal if we have decades of warning. There’s also interest in simply studying asteroids up close to understand their compositions and structures. NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission returned samples from asteroid Bennu in 2023, revealing it’s a loose rubble pile of boulders. If we ever had to deflect Bennu (which has a very tiny chance of Earth impact late in the 22nd century), knowing its makeup is crucial. Similarly, if 2024 YR4 ends up not hitting the Moon, scientists suggest it could be a candidate for a science mission – go visit it, because it’s an object that got so much attention [109]. Every asteroid we study teaches us how to handle others.
Looking ahead, a notable event is coming in April 2029: the close flyby of asteroid Apophis. Apophis (about 340 m across) was once thought to have a small chance of hitting Earth in 2029 or 2036, but we now know it will safely pass by – albeit very closely, within 38,000 km of Earth. This will be a huge opportunity for planetary defense practice. NASA’s OSIRIS-APEX will rendezvous with Apophis after the flyby, and ESA has a mission concept called Rendezvous And Microprobe Small Exploration Mission (Ramses) to intercept Apophis as well [110] [111]. The data gathered will further refine impact modeling and deflection techniques. The world’s telescopes will also observe Apophis extensively, sharpening our ability to track and predict asteroid orbits during close approaches. In many ways, Apophis 2029 is a dress rehearsal for the kind of threat YR4 initially posed. By 2032, when YR4 is due for its potential Moon encounter, we will have learned a lot from Apophis and other efforts – and we’ll be much better prepared to act (if needed).
In conclusion, the suggestion to “blow up” asteroid 2024 YR4 is not as crazy as it sounds; it’s a product of rigorous analysis by scientists who are leaving no stone unturned when it comes to defending our planet. While it makes for eye-catching headlines, it’s just one scenario in a spectrum of responses that planetary defense experts are developing. The consensus is that nuclear disruption would only be tried in extreme circumstances, and we’re not there yet with YR4. Over the next few years, astronomers will keep tracking YR4 (once it becomes observable again) and by 2028 we should know with high confidence whether the Moon is actually in its crosshairs [112]. If the threat evaporates, as many expect, YR4 will join the long list of asteroids that gave Earth a close shave and a good drill for our preparedness. If the threat holds, humanity will have options on the table – from kinetic impactors to, if absolutely necessary, a nuclear standoff explosion – to avert disaster.
Either way, the saga has underscored a hopeful message: unlike other natural disasters, an asteroid impact is foreseeable and preventable given sufficient warning. Thanks to investments in observation and technology, we detected 2024 YR4 and eliminated the danger to Earth years in advance [113]. Should we need to intervene for the Moon’s sake, we have a fighting chance to do so successfully. And if we don’t need to, the work done in analyzing YR4 will help us handle the next threat that comes along. Planetary defense is a global endeavor still in its early days, but it’s rapidly maturing. So the next time you see a headline about scientists plotting to nuke an asteroid, remember: it’s not a sign of panic – it’s a sign that smart people around the world are actively ensuring that Armageddon stays in the movies, and out of our reality.
Sources:
- Barbee, B.W. et al., “Space Mission Options for Reconnaissance and Mitigation of Asteroid 2024 YR4” (preprint, 2025) [114] [115]
- Universe Today – “Destroying Asteroid 2024 YR4 Is The Best Option To Stop It From Hitting The Moon”, Andy Tomaswick (19 Sep 2025) [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]
- Yahoo News (via Kataeb) – “Nuclear weapon or laser? How to stop the asteroid on collision course with Earth”, (14 Feb 2025) [122] [123] [124] [125]
- The Independent – “‘City killer’ asteroid on collision course with Moon could damage satellites”, Vishwam Sankaran (18 June 2025) [126] [127] [128] [129]
- ESA News – “Will asteroid 2024 YR4 hit the Moon?”, European Space Agency (17 June 2025) [130] [131] [132] [133]
- Futurism – “Scientists Say We Should Blow Up This Dangerous Asteroid… They want to go nuclear.”, Victor Tangermann (22 Sep 2025) [134] [135] [136]
- CNN/Space.com – reporting on asteroid 2024 YR4 and lunar impact odds [137] [138] (as cited in Futurism)
- Yahoo News – “Astronomers want to blow up this asteroid before it likely strikes Moon” (Yahoo/UK, Sep 2025) [139] [140] (summary via Yahoo)
- Additional NASA sources: NASA Science Press Releases/Blog [141] [142]; NASA CNEOS data on 2024 YR4 [143]; NASA Planetary Defense Coordination Office statements [144].
References
1. www.universetoday.com, 2. www.universetoday.com, 3. www.the-independent.com, 4. www.universetoday.com, 5. www.universetoday.com, 6. www.the-independent.com, 7. www.universetoday.com, 8. www.universetoday.com, 9. arxiv.org, 10. ideas.ted.com, 11. en.kataeb.org, 12. futurism.com, 13. en.kataeb.org, 14. www.esa.int, 15. www.esa.int, 16. www.esa.int, 17. www.esa.int, 18. www.universetoday.com, 19. www.esa.int, 20. www.esa.int, 21. www.esa.int, 22. www.esa.int, 23. www.esa.int, 24. www.esa.int, 25. www.esa.int, 26. www.esa.int, 27. www.esa.int, 28. science.nasa.gov, 29. science.nasa.gov, 30. www.the-independent.com, 31. www.the-independent.com, 32. www.esa.int, 33. www.esa.int, 34. www.esa.int, 35. www.the-independent.com, 36. www.the-independent.com, 37. www.universetoday.com, 38. www.universetoday.com, 39. www.the-independent.com, 40. www.the-independent.com, 41. www.the-independent.com, 42. www.universetoday.com, 43. www.the-independent.com, 44. www.the-independent.com, 45. www.the-independent.com, 46. futurism.com, 47. arxiv.org, 48. www.universetoday.com, 49. www.universetoday.com, 50. www.universetoday.com, 51. www.esa.int, 52. www.esa.int, 53. www.universetoday.com, 54. www.universetoday.com, 55. www.universetoday.com, 56. www.universetoday.com, 57. en.kataeb.org, 58. en.kataeb.org, 59. en.kataeb.org, 60. arxiv.org, 61. www.universetoday.com, 62. arxiv.org, 63. futurism.com, 64. futurism.com, 65. futurism.com, 66. www.universetoday.com, 67. www.universetoday.com, 68. en.kataeb.org, 69. ideas.ted.com, 70. ideas.ted.com, 71. www.universetoday.com, 72. www.universetoday.com, 73. en.kataeb.org, 74. ideas.ted.com, 75. en.kataeb.org, 76. en.kataeb.org, 77. en.kataeb.org, 78. arxiv.org, 79. en.kataeb.org, 80. en.kataeb.org, 81. ideas.ted.com, 82. science.nasa.gov, 83. science.nasa.gov, 84. science.nasa.gov, 85. science.nasa.gov, 86. www.esa.int, 87. www.esa.int, 88. www.esa.int, 89. www.esa.int, 90. www.esa.int, 91. www.esa.int, 92. en.kataeb.org, 93. en.kataeb.org, 94. en.kataeb.org, 95. www.the-independent.com, 96. www.the-independent.com, 97. futurism.com, 98. futurism.com, 99. futurism.com, 100. en.kataeb.org, 101. www.esa.int, 102. www.esa.int, 103. www.esa.int, 104. www.esa.int, 105. www.esa.int, 106. www.esa.int, 107. www.esa.int, 108. ideas.ted.com, 109. arxiv.org, 110. www.esa.int, 111. www.esa.int, 112. www.esa.int, 113. www.esa.int, 114. arxiv.org, 115. arxiv.org, 116. www.universetoday.com, 117. www.universetoday.com, 118. www.universetoday.com, 119. www.universetoday.com, 120. www.universetoday.com, 121. www.universetoday.com, 122. en.kataeb.org, 123. en.kataeb.org, 124. en.kataeb.org, 125. en.kataeb.org, 126. www.the-independent.com, 127. www.the-independent.com, 128. www.the-independent.com, 129. www.the-independent.com, 130. www.esa.int, 131. www.esa.int, 132. www.esa.int, 133. www.esa.int, 134. futurism.com, 135. futurism.com, 136. futurism.com, 137. futurism.com, 138. futurism.com, 139. www.aol.com, 140. www.yahoo.com, 141. science.nasa.gov, 142. science.nasa.gov, 143. futurism.com, 144. ideas.ted.com
