What Measures Are Scientists Taking to Prepare for Apophis's Alarmingly Close Encounter with Earth?
2029: Brace for Impact - Earth's Close Encounter with a Potentially Hazardous Asteroid
In approximately five years, Earth will experience the close approach of a potentially dangerous asteroid known as Apophis. This celestial object will come within a distance of less than 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers), which is remarkably close. During this extraordinary event, Apophis will be ten times nearer to Earth than the Moon. Scientists are eager to seize this opportunity and make the most of its visit.
Apophis is currently on a trajectory that will bring it close to Earth on April 13, 2029. Initially, when it was discovered in 2004, this near-Earth object, measuring 1,100 feet wide (335 meters), was classified as a hazardous asteroid with the potential to collide with our planet. However, subsequent observations have provided reassurance to scientists, indicating that there is no immediate cause for alarm. It has been determined that Apophis poses no threat of impacting Earth for at least another century.
It is indeed excellent news considering the magnitude of this entity and the severe devastation it would cause if it were to collide with our planet in the future. We can only hope that such an event never occurs, but historically, objects of this magnitude have struck Earth approximately once every 80,000 years, resulting in catastrophic destruction and global-scale impact winters.
Scientists are eager to investigate the asteroid during its upcoming flyby in order to assess the potential influence of Earth's gravitational field on Apophis' orientation, composition, and spin. This examination could potentially lead to asteroid quakes, which may cause a redistribution of its materials or even modify the appearance of its surface. By comparing observations made before and after the 2029 encounter with Earth, scientists aim to document these potential alterations. Given that physical changes to the asteroid could impact its orbital trajectory, it is crucial for scientists to thoroughly document these changes.
According to SpaceNews, private space companies such as Blue Origin and startup Exploration Labs (ExLabs) have presented their mission proposals to rendezvous with Apophis before its expected flyby. These proposals were discussed during a recent workshop held at a European Space Agency center in The Netherlands, with the aim of gaining more knowledge about the asteroid and other space rocks that may pose a potential threat to Earth.
Blue Origin's proposal involves utilizing its Blue Ring orbital platform to transport payloads to Apophis. The Blue Ring, scheduled to launch by the end of 2024, is specifically designed to offer comprehensive services to both commercial and government clients. It has the capability to accommodate payloads weighing up to 6,600 pounds (3,000 kilograms).
Steve Squyres, chief scientist at Blue Origin, mentioned in SpaceNews that the orbital platform could serve as a means to transport instruments or deployable spacecraft to Apophis for missions that are both cost-effective and low-risk.
ExLabs proposed an idea that had been previously explored by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The concept, known as Distributed Radar Observations of Interior Distributions (DROID), involves sending a spacecraft to Apophis that releases two cubesats to conduct a "CAT scan" of the asteroid's interior, as reported by SpaceNews. The mission is scheduled to launch in May 2028 and reach Apophis in February 2029.
In February, NASA organized a workshop to gather innovative mission ideas from the private sector for the Earth flyby of asteroid Apophis in 2029.
NASA’s OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft, previously named OSIRIS-REx, is currently en route to investigate Apophis and monitor any changes the asteroid may experience following its close approach to Earth. Following the delivery of samples from the Bennu asteroid in the Utah desert, the spacecraft was reassigned for a new mission, requiring it to conduct close flybys of the Sun and undergo three Earth gravity assists in order to reach Apophis within five years.
The space agency also possesses an additional pair of spacecraft that could be repurposed for the purpose of studying the Apophis asteroid. The Janus mission was originally scheduled for launch in August 2022, set to hitch a ride to space aboard the Psyche spacecraft for the exploration of a metal-rich asteroid. Unfortunately, a software malfunction caused a delay in Psyche’s launch, pushing it back by two months and impacting its accompanying missions.
Subsequently, Psyche was launched in October 2023, but the revised launch window did not align with the original targets for Janus’ twin probes. Consequently, the spacecraft were removed from the launch schedule and stored at Lockheed Martin.
The duo of spacecraft was initially intended to explore asteroids 1996 FG3 and 1991 VH, but they can now be redirected to investigate Apophis. Despite the disparities between Apophis and the original objectives of the Janus mission, the twin probes are capable of conducting a flyby and conducting comparable observations of Earth's approaching visitor.
This is merely the beginning, as additional missions may be disclosed in the forthcoming months and years due to the scientific significance and infrequency of such a proximate encounter.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Afeef Khan and writers in Earth and other communities.
Inside Trump's $11 Billion Health Plan to Replace “Neo-Colonial” USAID
In the landscape of global health aid, few proposals have stirred as much debate as former President Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to restructure American assistance abroad. Dubbed an $11 billion health initiative aimed at replacing USAID’s current framework, the plan seeks to pivot away from what Trump and his allies have criticized as the “neo-colonial” approach of U.S. foreign aid. While the plan promises greater efficiency and impact, experts are split on whether it is a practical solution or a politically driven gamble. Trump’s Critique of USAID The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a central pillar of American foreign assistance, distributing billions in aid annually to address health crises, food insecurity, and development challenges worldwide. However, Trump’s administration and its supporters have often described USAID’s approach as bureaucratic, inefficient, and reflective of a “neo-colonial” mindset. In public statements, Trump argued that the U.S. was spending taxpayer dollars on programs that benefited foreign governments or contractors more than the intended local communities. Critics of the plan say that while USAID has flaws—as any large bureaucracy does—its extensive networks and decades of experience provide an unmatched capacity to deliver aid efficiently and safely. The Core of the $11 Billion Proposal At the heart of Trump’s proposal is an $11 billion fund designed to consolidate, modernize, and streamline U.S. health aid. Unlike the traditional USAID model, which relies heavily on long-term partnerships with governments and NGOs, the new plan emphasizes: Direct Impact Funding: Allocating resources to frontline health workers and local initiatives rather than intermediaries. Data-Driven Investments: Using real-time health data to target outbreaks and crises more efficiently. Private Sector Partnerships: Leveraging U.S. pharmaceutical companies, tech firms, and healthcare startups to deliver vaccines, treatments, and medical infrastructure. Shorter Program Cycles: Moving away from multi-year funding commitments in favor of more flexible, results-oriented programs. Proponents argue that this approach could reduce bureaucratic overhead and ensure U.S. aid reaches communities faster. By “cutting out the middlemen,” Trump supporters claim, America can avoid the pitfalls of slow-moving aid programs that sometimes fail to adapt to crises. Reactions from the Global Health Community Global health experts, however, have expressed concern about both the logistics and philosophy of the plan. Dr. Melissa Ortega, a senior researcher at the Global Health Policy Institute, explained, “The idea of bypassing established structures like USAID may sound appealing on paper, but in practice, it risks undermining decades of institutional knowledge. Health systems are complex, and short-term projects cannot replace long-term capacity building.” Some critics have also questioned the characterization of USAID as “neo-colonial.” While U.S. foreign aid has historically been tied to geopolitical interests, many programs today are designed collaboratively with recipient countries and local organizations. Reducing oversight could unintentionally increase the risk of misuse, corruption, or health inequities. On the other hand, supporters of Trump’s plan point to examples of inefficiency in USAID programs, citing cases where aid was delayed or mismanaged. By introducing more direct funding models, they argue, U.S. taxpayer dollars could achieve a higher “return on health outcomes.” Political Implications Trump’s health aid overhaul proposal is not just about international development—it is also deeply political. Framing USAID as a “neo-colonial” institution resonates with a populist narrative that America should prioritize its own citizens and assert greater control over how taxpayer money is spent abroad. Domestically, the $11 billion plan faces scrutiny from Congress. Lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether dismantling USAID’s systems could destabilize ongoing health programs in countries where the U.S. has long-term commitments. The potential impact on global health security—including the fight against pandemics like COVID-19—adds another layer of concern. Internationally, U.S. allies and partner nations are watching closely. Sudden shifts in aid delivery could disrupt health programs in low- and middle-income countries, many of which rely on predictable funding cycles to maintain vaccination campaigns, maternal health services, and disease surveillance. Possible Benefits and Risks If executed carefully, the Trump-backed model could bring several benefits: Faster Response Times: Direct funding could accelerate delivery of vaccines, treatments, and emergency support. Innovation Boost: By partnering with private sector companies, the plan could accelerate development of new health technologies. Accountability: With performance-based metrics, the plan may better measure the impact of U.S. aid. However, the risks are equally significant: Disruption of Existing Programs: Abrupt changes could destabilize ongoing health projects. Loss of Expertise: USAID’s decades of experience in navigating local governance, supply chains, and community engagement may be hard to replace. Geopolitical Fallout: Allies accustomed to collaborating with USAID might see the move as destabilizing, reducing cooperation on global health initiatives. Looking Ahead As Trump and his allies continue to advocate for this $11 billion overhaul, the debate over the future of U.S. health aid is intensifying. Proponents view it as a necessary modernization of an outdated system, while critics fear it could undercut decades of carefully built infrastructure and global partnerships. Ultimately, the success of this plan will hinge on its ability to balance efficiency with stability, innovation with oversight, and political objectives with humanitarian needs. For now, the proposal remains controversial, representing a dramatic departure from traditional approaches to U.S. foreign aid. Whether it will reshape global health for the better—or simply create more uncertainty—remains to be seen. In the end, the Trump health plan is as much about ideology as it is about dollars. It challenges the conventional wisdom of international development and asks whether a more streamlined, results-focused approach can truly replace a system built over decades. As the world watches, the stakes could not be higher: the future of U.S. global health aid—and the lives it touches—hangs in the balance.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in Earth
Nitrogen is necessary for young tropical rain forests to combat climate change.
By absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in wood, tropical rainforests contribute to the slowing of climate change. Forests that develop quickly are even more important because they absorb carbon more quickly.
By Francis Dami4 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.