New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Busting Earth-Bound Asteroids a Bigger Job Than We Thought

A new model suggests smashing killer space rocks with insufficient force could let gravity pull the pieces back together. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the movie Armageddon, an asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling toward Earth. All seems lost, but then Bruce Willis sacrifices his own life to detonate a thermonuclear bomb on the asteroid. Then you hear this from mission control: <"The two halves are going to miss us by 400 miles, and most of the small particles have been vaporized!">

Breaking a rock that big into two halves, that somehow miraculously dodge the Earth? A bit of Hollywood magic. But scientists are studying what would really happen in such a scenario.

"A big part of what we do is looking at how things break. Smashing things together and what happens after that." Charles El Mir is a mechanical engineer who studies planetary science at Johns Hopkins University. 


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.


He and his colleagues modeled what might happen if you smashed up a 15-mile-wide asteroid made of basalt. They started by assuming the asteroid has some tiny cracks already running through it, based on studies of real rock. Then, they struck the hypothetical space rock with another, smaller rock—just a mile wide—hurtling toward the asteroid at more than 11,000 miles per hour. When they hit, they tracked how stress waves propagated through the larger asteroid, and expanded the network of cracks. 

Previous impact models predicted that an impact like that would completely pulverize the asteroid, basically turning it to sand. But not this new model. "What we're seeing, after the impact you have this big chunk of rock that was still held together, still not completely broken down, and this piece of rock creates its own gravitational field which attracts the particles that were ejected from it, and they start re-accumulating over it." 

The scientists describe the model in the journal Icarus. [Charles El Mir et al., A new hybrid framework for simulating hypervelocity asteroid impacts and gravitational reaccumulation]

The work suggests asteroids might actually be harder to smash than we thought, meaning: "We might need to have a faster impactor, or larger mass of impactor coming in, to be able to deflect it efficiently."

In 2022 NASA's Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission, or DART, will attempt to put all this knowledge to the test, by shoving a near-Earth asteroid off its path. No Bruce Willis required.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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