First photos of SpaceX lunar rocket crash show blackened hole torn into the moon's surface 12%

By Brandon Specktor12%

8/6/2026, 10:22:50 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 182 hits. Analysis detected 1,199 faulty-reasoning hits from 764 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.8% and a BS Rank of 12% (26,635 of 30,213 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.20% of the article peer group.

In the dead of night on Wednesday (Aug. 5), part of a defunct SpaceX rocket slammed into the moon at more than 5,000 mph (8,000 km/h)  and a Korean lunar satellite has just shared the first images of the aftermath. 
A series of photos snapped by South Korea's Danuri lunar orbiter on Wednesday reveal a small, blackened crater at the alleged site where a used Falcon 9 upper stage crashed into the lunar surface around 2:35 a.m. 
ET. 
The crash occurred near Einstein crater, on the northwestern limb of the moon, close to the terminator zone where lunar day and night meet. 
The photos were shared by the Korea AeroSpace Administration on social media on Thursday (Aug. 
6). 
Because this region was on the sunlit side of the moon at the time, the initial flare from the crash was not visible from Earth; however, scientists at the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile reported seeing evidence of a debris plume lifting off of the lunar surface shortly after the collision, according to the CBC . 
(At this time, no photos of the debris plume have been released). 
A preprint study shared earlier this week predicted that the crash would create a new crater on the moon measuring roughly 90 feet (27 meters) wide and up to 16 feet (5 m) deep  a dent too small to be seen from Earth, even with a good telescope . 
No measurements of the newfound crater have been shared yet, but they are likely to arrive in the coming days as other lunar orbiters, such as NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and Earth-based observatories get a chance to examine the crash site. 
What caused the crash? 
Images from Korea’s Danuri orbiter showing the before and after views of the lunar crash site. 
(Image credit: KASA) The pesky piece of space junk that hit the moon on Wednesday is the second (or upper) stage of one of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets that launched into space on Jan. 
15, 2025. 
It was carrying a pair of lunar landers: the Blue Ghost lander developed by private company Firefly Aerospace, which successfully touched down on the moon in March 2025; and the Hakuto-R lander developed by Japanese company ispace, which lost contact with Earth and crash-landed on the moon in June 2025. 
Unlike Falcon 9's first (or lower) stages, which can return to Earth for reuse, the rocket's second stages are discarded in orbit. 
This rocket piece spent nearly a year drifting in an elliptical orbit around our planet before a combination of solar radiation and the moon's gravitational pull nudged it away from us, according to Live Science's sister site Space.com . 
In May this year, independent astronomer Bill Gray first predicted the crash and when and where the collision would occur, before other experts confirmed his calculations. 
The 4.4-ton (4 metric tons) rocket part is estimated to have struck the moon at roughly 5,400 mph (8,700 km/h). 
While many times faster than the speed of sound, that’s still much slower than the average meteoroid strike on the moon, making the crash that much harder to see. 
This is not the first time that human-made objects have impacted the moon, nor will it be the last. 
Studying these crashes can lead to important insights about the moon’s composition. 
For example, the 2009 crash of a Centaur rocket's upper stage near the moon's south pole was analyzed by NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite mission, which revealed subsurface ice in the area. 
As a result, the lunar south pole is now the most coveted location for missions that aim to establish a permanent human presence on the moon. 
Studying human-made impacts like these will also be essential for managing the potential risks to future astronauts and missions, like the permanent moon base NASA hopes to build. 
"Now that we're in an era where we're going to have more and more astronauts going back to the moon, perhaps permanently, we also want to understand how much of a risk these artificial impacts pose," Benjamin Fernando , a postdoctoral researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory and co-author of a recent study on the impact, told CBC . 
"It presents a different set of hazards than say the Apollo astronauts faced on the lunar surface from the average background meteoroids that are striking the moon every day. 
And what we want to try and do with this event is understand both the direct [and indirect] hazards." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.7%Brandon Specktor: 0.6%Live Science: 2.3%Confirmation Bias10.7%This article: 2.6%Brandon Specktor: 0.8%Live Science: 0.9%Anchoring Bias2.6%This article: 11.1%Brandon Specktor: 2.6%Live Science: 2.2%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 4.5%Brandon Specktor: 0.8%Live Science: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 3.4%Brandon Specktor: 0.3%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.4%This article: 7.7%Brandon Specktor: 1.7%Live Science: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias7.7%This article: 4.5%Brandon Specktor: 1.8%Live Science: 2.7%Framing Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.5%Brandon Specktor: 0.3%Live Science: 0.3%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 6.5%Brandon Specktor: 0.3%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect6.5%This article: 13.1%Brandon Specktor: 3.1%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias13.1%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.4%Live Science: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Brandon Specktor: 1.7%Live Science: 2.7%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 7.7%Brandon Specktor: 0.7%Live Science: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.2%Live Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.2%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.8%Live Science: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.2%Live Science: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Brandon Specktor: 0.3%Live Science: 0.2%Primacy Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.8%Brandon Specktor: 2.6%Live Science: 3.4%Appeal to Authority23.8%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.2%Live Science: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Brandon Specktor: 1.2%Live Science: 2.9%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.2%Live Science: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.5%Brandon Specktor: 2.3%Live Science: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion4.5%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.6%Live Science: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.5%Brandon Specktor: 0.4%Live Science: 1.5%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Brandon Specktor: 1.2%Live Science: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.1%Live Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.7%Brandon Specktor: 0.5%Live Science: 1.1%Unattributed Quote7.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.6%Live Science: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.3%Brandon Specktor: 4.4%Live Science: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice14.3%This article: 7.7%Brandon Specktor: 0.4%Live Science: 0.7%Indoctrination7.7%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Specktor: 0.4%Live Science: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

764 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker14%attributed speech657writer words
Selected voice

Benjamin Fernando

73%flagged-word coverage
107 attributed words100% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination+55.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Benjamin Fernando: 55.1%55.1%Biased Writer Voice-16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%Benjamin Fernando: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%Benjamin Fernando: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.