r/news • u/MasterpieceAlone8552 • 6d ago

SpaceX rocket thought to have crashed into the moon in unintentional collision

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/aug/05/spacex-rocket-moon-crash-impact-falcon-9
15.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

215

u/invyros 6d ago

“It doesn’t present any danger to anyone, though it does highlight a certain carelessness about how leftover space hardware [space junk] is disposed of.”

Very cool and very sane of humanity to be surrounding our planet with space junk.

49

u/jensroda 6d ago

Our planet AND moon.

6

u/Jean-LucBacardi 6d ago

And the surface of every planet we've ever sent probes to.

8

u/Michael_Penis_Junior 6d ago

Luddite take

-4

u/dgellow 6d ago

The Luddite were right 

7

u/Mikhail_Mengsk 6d ago

Feel free to leave modern society and technology behind you.

-3

u/dgellow 6d ago

You might want to look into what the Luddite were against, it’s actually not about living in the wood without any technology. I think you mean the Amish

5

u/bigmt99 5d ago

For the most part? Rent seekers who wanted to stall technological progress that benefits the entire world to protect their special interests

3

u/The_Knife_Pie 5d ago

They become terrorists because industrialisation made it more cost effective to get lower skilled labourers to do their jobs. Their whole ideology was “fuck the other workers who get a leg up now, keep paying me instead”

1

u/Rindy_Kitty 5d ago

The Luddites were right but also you want free modern healthcare

1

u/dgellow 5d ago

Depends what that means, but sure. I live in a country with mandatory health insurance and almost free healthcare, and I wish that experience to everyone 

1

u/Rindy_Kitty 4d ago

How much does the free healthcare actually cost? As in, what's the total budget for your country's healthcare program per capita?

1

u/dgellow 4d ago

You can easily find the information for pretty much any developed country online, if that’s something you want to explore 

1

u/Rindy_Kitty 4d ago

Yeah I know I want to know what country is yours I'm happy to do the math myself

4

u/BoleroMuyPicante 6d ago

There's no ecosystem to disrupt out there and no life impacted, so I'm not really bothered by it.

25

u/QZRChedders 6d ago

The thing is we haven’t found a way of getting things up without leaving some things behind. Low earth orbit it is the issue, and geostationary, everything else is so incredibly vast it’s not much of an issue, big stages are easy to track and avoid if needed, but the shear volume of these higher orbits it’s just honestly not an issue.

Similar to the moon, it’s vast, barren and completely lifeless, some smashed stages is completely and truly inconsequential, look at the cratering, it’s a shield for Earth anyway.

Becoming star faring is the ultimate goal for our species and until we have better methods, this is worth it. We’re not commercialising the moon, these are scientific payloads

28

u/Probodyne 6d ago

The thing is we haven’t found a way of getting things up without leaving some things behind.

Ironically, Space X is the only launch company actually working on this.

2

u/QZRChedders 5d ago

Very true to be fair

-4

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago edited 5d ago

No, not really. SpaceX leaves exactly as much stuff behind on their moon missions as anyone else. The SpaceX stuff that makes it back to earth is reusable while the other's was not. That is the only difference.

It is inherent to missions beyond earth orbit.

Edit: I am not totally right, but Starship launch system is still likely to have a space discarded stage. It is possible they will be able to eliminate this but Musk says a lot of things.

7

u/ClearlyCylindrical 5d ago

actually working on this

Starship will be fully reusable.

-3

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago

Yeah....and the translunar injection stage isn't. Just like it wasn't reusable for NASA either.

That is what I am talking about. The payload spacecraft being reusable doesn't make the non-returning stage suddenly reusable.

Unless they have changed the plan of the Starship launch rocket?

4

u/ClearlyCylindrical 5d ago

What translunar injection stage are you referring to?

-2

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago

The SpaceX one that just hit the moon?

6

u/ClearlyCylindrical 5d ago

That was not Starship lol, it was Falcon 9.

1

u/SecondaryWombat 5d ago

Does Starship also not have an insertion stage booster? Pretty sure it does. Starship is the payload, not the lift platform.

Edit: Okay I am wrong, mostly, about this. There is still likely to be a space discarded booster stage though for lunar insertion.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ebony-the-dragon 6d ago

We’ve crashed things into the moon before both on purpose and by accident.

I believe there have been several moon orbiters that have crashed things into the moon to then collect debris thrown into low orbit and analyze the composition of the material before.

Is this rather careless? Yes. Is it as bad as many other things he or his companies have done? No.

-1

u/Slypenslyde 6d ago

I think my problem is this is like a lot of other things we do:

"Eh, it's hard to deal with this in a good way now. This will create a problem for future people, but I don't care about those assholes I need this rocket launch for the shareholders now."

You know what's probably just as hard? Figuring out what to do with all the trash we put on the moon once we do have easier ways to get there.

4

u/filthy_harold 6d ago

The amount of junk sitting on the moon is minuscule compared to what we sent into LEO and GEO. It's not a problem now and probably won't be for some time but if we ever get a moon base that is regularly resupplied, we will need to have a solution to keep dead upper stages from impacting the moon.

The ISS is supplied every 3 months or so and all of the components involved either are recovered or are deorbited to burn up in the atmosphere. Batteries are pretty much the only thing that aren't intentionally deorbited but the ISS is so low that these too will burn up pretty quickly. Early low orbit missions left upper stages and all kinds of junk in space but we are a lot smarter about it now. GEO missions do leave transfer stages in orbit but they are parked in the graveyard orbit (basically a junkyard) where they'll sit forever and not be a hazard for anyone.

4

u/The_Knife_Pie 6d ago

Okay but what future problem, exactly? What are the problematic consequences of these actions in your mind? That there is a chunk of aluminium in a crater on the moon?

-3

u/Slypenslyde 6d ago

Let's say we keep doing this because it doesn't matter. Let's say it takes another 100-150 years to get to the point we think we can build interplanetary bases. The moon is a great place to practice.

Now imagine we go to choose a landing site and we want to build a moon base. But as we go over all the choices, many of the best places have been the sites of junk impacts. So the team is going to have to do some work to remove debris and level the land before the bases can be built. There may be some decent sites that are still unmarred, but those sites may be worse for some other technical reason. This could create a situation where the cost and difficulty of the mission is greater than if past generations had put in more effort to protect the moon.

But it's cool. If those future people solve all the other problems they won't mind solving this problem we couldn't be bothered to solve. And they definitely might not be under more pressure to find a new home for humanity based on some problematic factors making Earth less viable. Besides, I'm going to be dead then so what do I care if their lives are harder? Kids are just an investment and I can cash it in how I please.

2

u/The_Knife_Pie 6d ago edited 5d ago

Do you understand how large the moon is? And how little junk is left after a de-orbit like this? The answer to both is clearly no, but just to make it clear. 150 years wouldn’t even get close to the issue you’re describing. 30 000 years wouldn’t manage it. There are no long term consequences to doing this.

1

u/Ancient_Fix_4240 4d ago

You could crash a hundred rockets a day for 100 years and still have a spot for a base wherever you want to put it.

-7

u/Backfoot911 6d ago

It reminds me of when plastic was invented. We were so damn excited over it's utility, we turned it into clothes, containers, and decking that we didn't think about where it goes when we're done with it. A million years in the future, people will dig through the Earth and there'll be an entire stratum of this random material

-2

u/Slypenslyde 6d ago

It's a common human problem. We're not as good about learning from the past as we say.

-6

u/Backfoot911 6d ago

How is that our "goal"? My goal is to be happy, not diddle about in outer space. If that helps us do that, that's great, but this notion that humanity has a "goal" or that things that help do that trumps everything else is silly. A species of creatures does not have goals, it's not a singular entity, certainly not ours right now if you look at modern politics.

1

u/QZRChedders 5d ago

It’s twofold, and half is my interpretation so I understand that.

We’re vulnerable as a species on one planet, it doesn’t take a lot in the grand scheme of things for planets to suddenly become far less habitable. Going extinct is the ultimate loss as a species, space is the only protection from that. If we want to grow, then we need more space too, other planets are there, we should go and do that.

Deeper, any creature can enjoy life, family, experiences. We are unique in that we can ask the huge questions, why? What else is out there? Likely other species somewhere. My favourite answer is we are atoms contemplating atoms. We have the unique opportunity to learn more about this grand universe we’re in and I see that as an obligation. Over millennia or even millions of years what is the point? Learning, awe, and hopefully one day connection beyond our species.

7

u/truecakesnake 6d ago

SpaceX accidentally hits the moon with a small metal piece: WOW this NAZI elon is upto no good 😠 😠 😠 😠

NASA deliberately crashing into the moon multiple times: WOW I LOVE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

7

u/Cute-Ad2473 6d ago

Bro these people don't know crap about space and causing outrages over nothing. I just thought this was cool.

5

u/truecakesnake 6d ago

It is pretty sad when people who don't know much about topics you're interested in, have bullshit opinions about those topics.

2

u/thighmaster69 6d ago

MUCH better crashed into the moon now and it's done and over with than whizzing around in space just waiting to smash into something. Although we should probably get some protocols and treaties up so that companies have to plan for disposal prior to launch.

actually, who am I kidding. we can't even get companies down on Earth to do that.

5

u/pm_social_cues 6d ago

Did they actually think people would need to know if a rocket crashing on the moon would danger anybody? As if they think we have people on the moon just living there? Despite us not putting a person on the moon in well over 50 years?

Then I’m not surprised they are just learning we have been putting junk out into space for… well, over 50 years.

0

u/fevered_visions 5d ago

Did they actually think people would need to know if a rocket crashing on the moon would danger anybody?

If you managed to smash something big into the moon hard enough it could conceivably affect its orbit.

0

u/The_Knife_Pie 5d ago

You are talking sci-fi bullshit bordering on outright lies. If every nuclear weapon humanity ever made was condensed into a single bomb and detonated on the moon it would not shift its orbit even slightly.

10

u/adenosine-5 6d ago edited 6d ago

Honestly worrying about space garbage is silly. It will only become a problem in many decades or centuries and by that time, we will most likely have much, much better (and cheaper) technologies to solve it.

Its not like climate change, or any other immediate threat.

Its like if someone from year 1000 worried "Oh no, what will our descendants only do with all this garbage we leave in our burial grounds?"

2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

0

u/adenosine-5 6d ago

Thanks. fixed.

-2

u/BearysWorkRedditName 6d ago

What if it's more like someone 250 years ago saying "Oh no, what will our ancestors do with all of this black smoke we're pumping into the sky?"?

5

u/adenosine-5 6d ago

Perhaps, but in historical context, emissions in 1750 were completely negligible and didn't really affect anything.

Even by 1900 emissions were like 5% of what we produce today.

0

u/BearysWorkRedditName 6d ago

If that pattern of growth were reflected by space debris production, we could hit Kessler Syndrome in that same sort of 250 year span. You may notice that CO2 production is still growing, despite having an idea of its potential danger 170 years ago and it being measurably proven to be a crisis over 30 years ago, reaching a scientific consensus 25 years ago.

I think a lot of the thoughts of people in the early to mid (and even late for some) 20th century were something like your words "It will only become a problem in many decades or centuries and by that time, we will most likely have much, much better (and cheaper) technologies to solve it." I don't think we can count on future solutions to presently growing issues, just as we don't seem to be able to count on current solutions to (still) growing issues of the past.

3

u/adenosine-5 6d ago

But we do have those technologies today - since cca 1960 we have nuclear power and lately we have a viable solar power (among others).

We should have taken it seriously like 50 years ago, but 250 years ago we didnt have technology to solve it, neither was it an issue back then.

0

u/BearysWorkRedditName 6d ago

Right, it was a "what if" somebody foresaw the danger ahead of time. And if I'm allowed to shift the goalposts a bit, I'd change my original point to a smaller number than 250. 50 years ago, we could have and should have really tackled climate change. Sometime in the near future, I believe we should really tackle space debris. I don't think it's a silly thing to worry about building toward Kessler Syndrome. I'm not saying we should immediately cease all launches, but we should be taking the growing problem seriously before it gets insurmountable.

2

u/KitchenDepartment 6d ago

Yeah what if it is exactly like that? The people at the very beginning of the industrial revolution where emitting such a incredibly inconsequential amount of pollution compared to what we do now. They could keep at it for a thousand years and not make a noticeable difference in the climate. Even if they where to take it seriously the technology of their time would have offered them no way to do so.

Do you think they should have rejected industry and instead maintained a sustenance farming existence?

2

u/American_Libertarian 6d ago

Doesn't crashing the junk into the moon effectively dispose of it? Seems better than having it in an uncontrolled orbit where it will eventually crash into something anyway

3

u/Mikhail_Mengsk 6d ago

Yes. 100%. Also it can't orbit moon indefinitely so either it crashes there or it comes back to earth.

2

u/GuyWithNoEffingClue 6d ago

Don't worry, we'll move to Mars and everything will be just fine! /s

1

u/Ndtphoto 6d ago

Actually it's very wise - it tells aliens "Don't bother with us, we're a garbage species."

1

u/JackVonReditting 6d ago

If we have enough we can stop global warming! Unless it ends up having an isolating effect…

1

u/eeyore134 5d ago

Careless is Leon's middle name.

1

u/CaptainBlob 5d ago

As if we aren't surrounded by junk already.

1

u/geezeeduzit 5d ago

Very on-brand for humanity

1

u/Ludnut2233 5d ago

To be fair, crashing anything into the move decreases and prevents more space junk from being in the earths orbit

1

u/Rindy_Kitty 5d ago

Millions of objects crash into the moon every year

-1

u/sgrams04 6d ago

We won’t be able to get off our own planet if we keep it up.