Passing star could send Earth into the sun

A new study published in the journal Icarus suggests that passing field stars could cause more instability in our solar system than previously believed.
Astronomers Nathan Kaib and Sean Raymond found that isolated models underestimate future orbital changes of giant planets, indicating that planets and Pluto are less stable than thought.
The study identifies passing stars as the most probable trigger for instability within the solar system over the next four billion years.
The gravitational tug from these stars could significantly increase the risk of instability for Mercury by 50-80%, and there is a 5% chance of chaotic gravitational interactions for Pluto over five billion years.
The research also indicates an approximately 0.3% chance of Mars being lost through collision or ejection, and a 0.2% probability of Earth being involved in a planetary collision or ejected, a higher figure than previous findings.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

BreakingNews.ie

an hour ago

• BreakingNews.ie

Nasa spacecraft around the Moon photographs crash site of Japanese lunar lander

A Nasa spacecraft around the moon has photographed the crash site of a Japanese company's lunar lander. Nasa released the pictures on Friday, two weeks after ispace's lander slammed into the moon. Advertisement The images show a dark smudge where the lander, named Resilience, and its mini rover crashed into Mare Frigoris or Sea of Cold, a volcanic region in the moon's far north. As of 8:00 a.m. on June 6, 2025, mission controllers have determined that it is unlikely that communication with the lander will be restored and therefore completing Success 9, is not achievable. It has been decided to conclude the mission. 'Given that there is currently no… — ispace (@ispace_inc) June 6, 2025 A faint halo around the area was formed by the lunar dirt kicked up by the impact. Nasa's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter captured the scene last week. The crash was the second failure in two years for Tokyo-based ispace. Company officials plan to hold a news conference next week to explain what doomed the latest mission, launched from Cape Canaveral in January. Advertisement

Daily Mail​

an hour ago

• Daily Mail​

Dead NASA satellite inexplicably comes back to life to fire huge pulse that lit up the sky

A NASA satellite that had remained inactive in orbit for nearly six decades suddenly emitted a powerful radio signal, leaving astronomers around the world stunned. The brief but intense signal, detected by radio telescopes in Western Australia, lasted only a fraction of a second yet became the brightest object in the sky, momentarily outshining entire galaxies and stars. The source of this unexpected burst was Relay 2, a communications satellite launched by NASA in 1964. After both of its transmitters failed in 1967, the satellite had been silent and declared defunct until now. Experts believe the signal wasn't deliberately transmitted by the satellite, but was triggered by an external event. One possibility is an electrostatic discharge: a sudden release of electrical energy, similar to a spark, caused by the satellite building up charge as it orbits through Earth's magnetic field. Another theory is that a micrometeoroid, a tiny piece of rock traveling at high speed, struck Relay 2, causing a burst of heat and charged particles that emitted the brief but intense signal. The burst briefly emitted about 400 watts of power, similar to a small microwave oven. The fact that this signal remained that powerful after traveling from space to Earth makes it especially rare. Australian scientists, who were scanning the sky for fast radio bursts (FRBs)—short, high-energy flashes typically originating from deep space—made the startling discovery. According to NASA, FRBs can briefly outshine entire galaxies, a phenomenon that occurs in the blink of an eye. However, this signal was unique: it originated not from a distant galaxy but from within Earth's orbit, just about 2,800 miles above the planet's surface. 'We thought we might've found a new pulsar or a never-before-seen object,' Dr. Clancy James, lead researcher and associate professor at Curtin Institute of Radio Astronomy, told New Scientist. 'Instead, we saw an incredibly powerful radio pulse that eclipsed everything else in the sky for a split second.' The burst was detected by the Australian Square Kilometer Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), a network of 36 radio telescopes. Researchers quickly traced the source to Relay 2, which happened to be passing overhead at that exact moment. Despite lasting only nanoseconds, the radio burst was extraordinarily strong. Scientists estimated its strength at more than three million janskys, a unit used to measure radio wave intensity. That's roughly 100 billion times stronger than the radio signals from your typical smartphone. The shape of the signal was clean and well-defined, allowing scientists to analyze it in detail. Relay 2 was originally launched to improve satellite communication and conduct studies on Earth's radiation belts, areas filled with charged particles trapped by the planet's magnetic field. It carried two transmitters and was designed to spin for stability. But by mid-1967, both transmitters had failed, and the satellite became just another piece of space junk orbiting Earth. At first, researchers thought the detected signal came from a distant cosmic object. But a closer look confirmed it aligned exactly with Relay 2's position in the sky. 'This must have been caused by an external trigger, like an electrostatic discharge or a micrometeorite hit,' Dr. James explained. The burst lasted 1,000 times faster than previous electrostatic signals detected from satellites, which typically last a microsecond (one-millionth of a second). This makes it the fastest and most powerful signal of its kind ever recorded near Earth. While the signal caused a stir in the astronomy world, it also raised concerns. Many telescopes scan the sky for signals from far-off galaxies, and an unexpected burst from a nearby defunct satellite could cause confusion or lead to false discoveries. Still, some scientists see a silver lining. Dr Karen Aplin, a space weather expert at the University of Bristol, said this surprise detection could lead to new tools for studying electrical activity in space. 'It may ultimately offer a new technique to evaluate electrostatic discharges in orbit,' she said.

The Guardian

an hour ago

• The Guardian

Social climbing isn't about who you know after all, study finds

When it comes to social climbing, it's not who you know, or how many people you know, it's about knowing who knows whom, research suggests. Experts studying social connections made by first year university students say those who ended up with the most influence were not necessarily the most popular, but those who had a good idea, early on, about who belonged to which clique or community. 'Having friends helps, but social influence isn't just about who you know – it's also about what you know about the rest of your social network,' said Isabella Aslarus, first author of the study from Stanford University. Writing in the journal Science Advances, researchers in the US report how they asked 187 students to complete surveys about who they were friends with at six different points during their first year at university. The team used the results to map the connections between individuals, and how these changed with time. At two points, once shortly after the start of the academic year and once in the spring term, the researchers ranked students by how many friends they had and their social influence – with the latter determined by how well connected their friends were. The researchers also asked each participant if they knew whether given pairs of students were friends. The results reveal the number of friendships people reported changed little over time, however the friendships between individuals, and people's level of influence, shifted. 'Popularity does not really change over the course of the year,' said Dr Oriel FeldmanHall, co-author of the study from Brown University. 'What changes dramatically is the people who were the most influential early on were no longer the most influential by the end of the year.' This shifting network, the researchers add, became more stable as the academic year went on. FeldmanHall said it is not clear what made people influential early in the study, however the students who rose to become the most influential by the end were those who had early insights about how all their peers were connected. 'To become influential, you need to know who is friends with whom, and you need to have a bird's eye view of how people cluster into different social groups or cliques,' said Aslarus, adding individuals can use that knowledge to become more influential – for example by making new friendships or being an effective matchmaker. Aslarus added that it is only after becoming influential that people develop more detailed knowledge about individual friendships. 'Knowing about your network predicts becoming influential over time, more so than just having lots of friends,' she said. 'So, social knowledge seems to be a key first step toward becoming better-connected in your network.'