It’s Hard to Dust in Space
Over the summer researchers identified seven specks of dust returned to Earth by the Stardust spacecraft. But determining their true origin has been difficult. Clara Moskowitz reports
By Clara Moskowitz
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Space
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.
Dust is a major annoyance for most of us, but to scientists it can be precious. Over the summer researchers identified seven specks of dust returned to Earth by the Stardust spacecraft, which spent 12 years in space and tried to collect samples from the wake of a comet. The seven dust motes may come from interstellar space. Determining their true origin, however, has proven problematic.
Three of the microscopic grains are locked in a foam material called aerogel, from the outside covering of Stardust. Aerogel is great at catching the particles, but scientists have not yet figured out a good way to extract the grains without damaging them. For now, the grains, and the researchers, are stuck.
The other four interstellar dust candidates were found in the grid of aluminum foil that held the aerogel. When the grains hit, the foil melted and formed miniature craters. Scientists chemically analyzed two of these craters, but the findings are inconclusive.
The impactors might come from interstellar space, or they could be local. Unfortunately, the analysis destroyed those two grains. And the other two foil-embedded candidates were lost while being transported between labs.
Scientists hope to find still more microscopic particles in the Stardust collector. And they have keep NASA cleaning crews from doing any dusting.
—Clara Moskowitz
[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
