New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Closer Look at Meteor Trail Reveals Surprisingly Large Particles

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On September 3, 2004, a nearly one-million-kilogram asteroid disintegrated as it entered Earth's atmosphere, releasing as much energy as a nuclear bomb. Satellites got a close-up view of the explosion and allowed researchers to study the resulting cloud in unprecedented detail.

When meteoroids break up into tiny fragments on contact with our planet's atmosphere they leave behind a visible trail, which observers can enjoy as "shooting stars" and meteor showers. (The image is an artist's interpretation of a midsize meteor.) According to theory, most of the particles produced during the breakup are just a few nanometers across. Using infrared and light sensor readings from orbiting satellites, Andrew Klekociuk of the Australian Antarctic Division and his colleagues analyzed the makeup of the meteoric smoke produced by the September 2004 event. They found that many of the pieces of debris were in fact much larger than expected, measuring up to 20 micrometers across.

If further investigation finds that the latest results are typical, there could be implications for scientists' understanding of Earth's climate, the authors suggest. Because aerosol particles from 0.05 to one micrometer across can effectively scatter light and radiation as well as catalyze atmospheric reactions, meteoritic dust--which stays in the atmosphere for weeks to months--could play a larger role in climate forcing and ozone depletion than previously believed. A report detailing the findings is published today in the journal Nature.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe