the journey law group

• For a FREE Lemon Law case evaluation, call the Journey Law Group toll-free at
• (844) 438-2709

A simple internet search for help when getting stuck with a lemon vehicle leads to dozens of nameless and faceless organizations claiming to be experts in the California Lemon Law and providing the best services.

Can you tell who and/or what is behind the flashy website making these promises can you get a hold of an actual, licensed california attorney to discuss your case most of the time, the answer is no..

The reason is that there are very few experts in the Lemon Law field in California. Many of the organizations are run by individuals outside of California looking to capitalize on California’s consumer-friendly law. Some are not even run by attorneys. Believe it or not, a majority are run by attorneys with very little experience in handling cases through the court system.

About the Journey Law Group

The journey law group was started by guy mizrahi, an attorney who spent the first 12 years of his career almost exclusively representing big car manufacturers in california lemon law cases..

Every case handled by Mr. Mizrahi was already in the court system and headed towards trial. Of all the so called experts and specialists in the California Lemon Law who show up on the internet, there is a very small fraction of attorneys who are recognizable to those who actually practice in the field. Simply stated, most of what you will find out there is someone looking to make a quick buck.

This is where The Journey Law Group is different. Mr. Mizrahi is a battle tested court attorney who has handled over a thousand Lemon Law cases. He has also been appointed by multiple California courts to serve as a mediator and help bring cases to resolution. Mr. Mizrahi personally evaluates and manages every single case The Journey Law Group takes on. Having represented big car companies for 12 years, Mr. Mizrahi is intimately familiar with the strategies they employ in defending California Lemon Law cases. Mr. Mizrahi knows where the manufacturers biggest weaknesses are and he is best equipped to enforce your rights under the California Lemon Law.

Loyola Law School , Los Angeles, CA Juris Doctorate, 2002

University of California , Santa Barbara, CA Bachelor of Arts, Law and Society, 1998 Dean’s Honor Roll

Court Admissions

Supreme Court of California

United States District Court, Central District of California

United States District Court, Southern District of California

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Bar Admissions

California, 2002 Bar Number 220930

Frequently Asked Questions

What qualifies a vehicle as a “lemon” under california’s lemon law.

Under California law, a vehicle is considered a lemon if a substantial defect(s) arose during the warranty period and the manufacturer’s dealerships were unable to repair it after a reasonable number of attempts.

What makes a defect substantial?

There are many different types of defects that are considered substantial. While problems with a vehicle’s engine or transmission are certainly substantial, vehicles manufactured these days come with dozens of features that can break down and create substantially impairing situations. These include navigation systems, touch screens, stability control, connectivity issues, climate control, windows, warning lights, convertible tops and many, many more. There are literally hundreds of defects that can be considered substantial.

How many repair attempts are considered “reasonable?”

While there is no magic number on what constitutes reasonable, if your vehicle hasn’t been fixed in about 3 to 4 times, you could have a Lemon Law claim. Safety problems can trigger a Lemon Law claim in as little as 2 repair attempts.

Does the California Lemon Law apply to leased vehicles?

Yes. The California Lemon Law applies to all vehicles, purchased or leased, that come with a written warranty.

Does the California Lemon Law apply to used vehicles?

Yes. The California Lemon Law applies to all vehicles that come with a written warranty. Even if you purchased a used vehicle, you may still have a claim if a written warranty was in effect at the time of your purchase/lease.

Can I still have a Lemon Law claim if my vehicle is out of warranty?

Potentially. If your problems arose while your vehicle’s warranty was in effect and continued after it expired, you may still have a valid Lemon Law claim.

Do I have to go to arbitration before filing a California Lemon Law claim?

No. California law allows manufacturers to offer arbitration, but consumers are not required to use arbitration before filing a claim.

What do I recover if my vehicle qualifies under California’s Lemon Law?

The Lemon Law essentially provides you with a refund of your money. If your vehicle qualifies as a lemon, you are entitled to a refund of your down payment, monthly purchase/lease payments, and to have your vehicle loan paid off in full. You will also be entitled to reimbursement of incidental damages such as rental car expenses, repair costs, and towing expenses. Under the Lemon Law, the manufacturer is entitled to deduct a mileage offset for your use of the vehicle based on a formula set forth in the law. Unlike many law firms in California, The Journey Law Group does NOT take a percentage from your out of pocket refund recovery.

How do attorneys’ fees work?

If your vehicle qualifies under California’s Lemon Law, the manufacturer is required to pay for your attorneys’ fees. The Journey Law Group does not charge any up-front fees, costs or retainers. If there is no recovery, you will not be responsible for any fees or costs.

• Journey Law Group 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 970 Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Contact Journey Law Group

For a FREE Lemon Law case evaluation , call the Journey Law Group toll free at (844) 438-2709 or complete the form below.

Journey Law Group

8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 970 Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Toll free: (844) 438-2709 Tel: (424) 206-4303 Fax: (424) 220-7388

Call (844) 438-2709 for a FREE Lemon Law Case Evaluation !

• Free Evaluation
• Personal Injury Law
• Privacy Policy

Got an Injury? Get a Free Case Review.

Tell Us About Your Case

Free Case Evaluation

Receive Compensation

Journey Law Group founded in 2016. Led by Guy Mizrahi, this LA-based law firm represents clients across the state of California with a hands-on and personalized approach. When fighting for your rights against powerful adversaries like insurance companies and vehicle manufacturers, you want a savvy, experienced legal team that knows all the opportunities and pitfalls. With Mizrahi leading the charge, you’ll have exactly that and the knowhow necessary to truly take on your Goliath.

While studying at Loyola Law School and during his first two years as a young attorney, Mr. Mizrahi worked on the other side of the table. Specifically, he worked at a firm specializing in defending insurance companies against personal injury claims. Mr. Mizrahi was tasked with minimizing any type of recovery alleged by injured parties. Thereafter, Mr. Mizrahi moved on to defending vehicle manufacturers against consumer lemon law and product liability claims.

Our Practice Areas

Vehicle Accidents

Catastrophic Injuries

Medical Malpractice

Premises Liability

Defective Products

What Our Clients Say

Guy Mizrahi’s office represented me on a car accident case.  His law firm was very knowledgable about personal injury related cases. He was responsive, friendly and patient to get me a fair settlement.  I would highly recommend Mr. Mizrahi and other personal injury attorneys at this firm to anyone.

The best of the best! I was involved in an accident and it was extremely overwhelming and upsetting. But Guy was patient, kind, and understanding every step of the way. He worked very hard to get me the settlement I deserved. I would not hesitate to recommend him to everyone I know.

I am very happy with the service of Guy Mizrahi from Personal Injury Attorney in LA. He was so helpful, patient and kind . He did an amazing job with my case and settlement . Without a doubt I will be recommending his services to my friends and relatives.

California Personal Injury Law Services is a division of Journey Law Group. It is not just another fancy, faceless website run by an unknown individual or group.

• 1762 Westwood Blvd., Suite 260  Los Angeles, CA 90024
• Call Us : (855) 437-9563
• Email : [email protected]

Join our team of like-minded professionals. 

WHERE YOU BOOK YOUR TRAVEL MATTERS

Our years of experience allow us to recognize the needs of our clients. We ensure every step of your journey is well thought out and in sync with your expectations. We make travel transparent by clearly explaining the process in a way that doesn’t overwhelm you but rather enhances your travel experience.

We represent a collective of professional travel advisors who believe wanderlust is an addiction. We are always searching for the next high, which for us means the next incredible hotel, the next deserted landscape, the next colorful town… wanderlust feeds our soul and fuels us to share our passion in the creative itineraries we prepare for our clients.

WhAT CAN WE DO FOR YOU

We offer clients a very streamlined travel planning process complete with personal recommendations based on our in-depth experience. We manage your travel reservations from start to finish and educate you on everything you need to know before you set foot on your flight.

WHY BOOK YOUR TRAVEL with TJG

We work for you. We are your voice when something goes wrong.

Our work is based on over 23 years of professional

experience.

Connections

Our global connections give you access to trip enhancements you likely won’t find on your own.

Emergencies

We’ve been there for our clients in all types of emergencies. We will be there for you too.

WHAT OUR CLIENTS SAY ABOUT US

Laura & her team have managed my law firm's annual retreat many times! Our favorites have been small unique hotels complete with a private meeting room. They did a great job handling all of our suggestions & opinions.

— Alexa H

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Crackdown on Student Protesters

Columbia university is at the center of a growing showdown over the war in gaza and the limits of free speech..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

[TRAIN SCREECHING]

Well, you can hear the helicopter circling. This is Asthaa Chaturvedi. I’m a producer with “The Daily.” Just walked out of the 116 Street Station. It’s the main station for Columbia’s Morningside Heights campus. And it’s day seven of the Gaza solidarity encampment, where a hundred students were arrested last Thursday.

So on one side of Broadway, you see camera crews. You see NYPD officers all lined up. There’s barricades, steel barricades, caution tape. This is normally a completely open campus. And I’m able to — all members of the public, you’re able to walk through.

[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]

Looks like international media is here.

Have your IDs out. Have your IDs out.

Students lining up to swipe in to get access to the University. ID required for entry.

Swipe your ID, please.

Hi, how are you, officer? We’re journalists with “The New York Times.”

You’re not going to get in, all right? I’m sorry.

Hi. Can I help please?

Yeah, it’s total lockdown here at Columbia.

Please have your IDs out ready to swipe.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today, the story of how Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators, and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech. I spoke with my colleague, Nick Fandos.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

It’s Thursday, April 25.

Nick, if we rewind the clock a few months, we end up at a moment where students at several of the country’s best known universities are protesting Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks, its approach to a war in Gaza. At times, those protests are happening peacefully, at times with rhetoric that is inflammatory. And the result is that the leaders of those universities land before Congress. But the president of Columbia University, which is the subject we’re going to be talking about today, is not one of the leaders who shows up for that testimony.

That’s right. So the House Education Committee has been watching all these protests on campus. And the Republican Chairwoman decides, I’m going to open an investigation, look at how these administrations are handling it, because it doesn’t look good from where I sit. And the House last winter invites the leaders of several of these elite schools, Harvard, Penn, MIT, and Columbia, to come and testify in Washington on Capitol Hill before Congress.

Now, the President of Columbia has what turns out to be a very well-timed, pre-planned trip to go overseas and speak at an international climate conference. So Minouche Shafik isn’t going to be there. So instead, the presidents of Harvard, and Penn, and MIT show up. And it turned out to be a disaster for these universities.

They were asked very pointed questions about the kind of speech taking place on their campuses, and they gave really convoluted academic answers back that just baffled the committee. But there was one question that really embodied the kind of disconnect between the Committee — And it wasn’t just Republicans, Republicans and Democrats on the Committee — and these college presidents. And that’s when they were asked a hypothetical.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.

And two of the presidents, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, they’re unwilling to say in this really kind of intense back and forth that this speech would constitute a violation of their rules.

It can be, depending on the context.

What’s the context?

Targeted at an individual. Is it pervasive?

It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them?

And it sets off a firestorm.

It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.

Members of Congress start calling for their resignations. Alumni are really, really ticked off. Trustees of the University start to wonder, I don’t know that these leaders really have got this under control. And eventually, both of them lose their jobs in a really high profile way.

Right. And as you’ve hinted at, for somewhat peculiar scheduling reasons, Columbia’s President escapes this disaster of a hearing in what has to be regarded as the best timing in the history of the American Academy.

Yeah, exactly. And Columbia is watching all this play out. And I think their first response was relief that she was not in that chair, but also a recognition that, sooner or later, their turn was going to come back around and they were going to have to sit before Congress.

Why were they so certain that they would probably end up before Congress and that this wasn’t a case of completely dodging a bullet?

Well, they remain under investigation by the committee. But also, as the winter wears on, all the same intense protests just continue unabated. So in many ways, Columbia’s like these other campuses. But in some ways, it’s even more intense. This is a university that has both one of the largest Jewish student populations of any of its peers. But it also has a large Arab and Muslim student population, a big Middle Eastern studies program. It has a dual degree program in Tel Aviv.

And it’s a university on top of all that that has a real history of activism dating back to the 1960s. So when students are recruited or choose to come to Columbia, they’re actively opting into a campus that prides itself on being an activist community. It’s in the middle of New York City. It’s a global place. They consider the city and the world, really, like a classroom to Columbia.

In other words, if any campus was going to be a hotbed of protest and debate over this conflict, it was going to be Columbia University.

Exactly. And when this spring rolls around, the stars finally align. And the same congressional committee issues another invitation to Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s President, to come and testify. And this time, she has no excuse to say no.

But presumably, she is well aware of exactly what testifying before this committee entails and is highly prepared.

Columbia knew this moment was coming. They spent months preparing for this hearing. They brought in outside consultants, crisis communicators, experts on anti-Semitism. The weekend before the hearing, she actually travels down to Washington to hole up in a war room, where she starts preparing her testimony with mock questioners and testy exchanges to prep her for this. And she’s very clear on what she wants to try to do.

Where her counterparts had gone before the committee a few months before and looked aloof, she wanted to project humility and competence, to say, I know that there’s an issue on my campus right now with some of these protests veering off into anti-Semitic incidents. But I’m getting that under control. I’m taking steps in good faith to make sure that we restore order to this campus, while allowing people to express themselves freely as well.

So then the day of her actual testimony arrives. And just walk us through how it goes.

The Committee on Education and Workforce will come to order. I note that —

So Wednesday morning rolls around. And President Shafik sits at the witness stand with two of her trustees and the head of Columbia’s new anti-Semitism task force.

Columbia stands guilty of gross negligence at best and at worst has become a platform for those supporting terrorism and violence against the Jewish people.

And right off the bat, they’re put through a pretty humbling litany of some of the worst hits of what’s been happening on campus.

For example, just four days after the harrowing October 7 attack, a former Columbia undergraduate beat an Israeli student with a stick.

The Republican Chairwoman of the Committee, Virginia Foxx, starts reminding her that there was a student who was actually hit with a stick on campus. There was another gathering more recently glorifying Hamas and other terrorist organizations, and the kind of chants that have become an everyday chorus on campus, which many Jewish students see as threatening. But when the questioning starts, President Shafik is ready. One of the first ones she gets is the one that tripped up her colleagues.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia’s code of conduct, Mr. Greenwald?

And she answers unequivocally.

Dr. Shafik?

Yes, it does.

And, Professor —

That would be a violation of Columbia’s rules. They would be punished.

As President of Columbia, what is it like when you hear chants like, by any means necessary or Intifada Revolution?

I find those chants incredibly distressing. And I wish profoundly that people would not use them on our campus.

And in some of the most interesting exchanges of the hearing, President Shafik actually opens Columbia’s disciplinary books.

We have already suspended 15 students from Columbia. We have six on disciplinary probation. These are more disciplinary actions that have been taken probably in the last decade at Columbia. And —

She talks about the number of students that have been suspended, but also the number of faculty that she’s had removed from the classroom that are being investigated for comments that either violate some of Columbia’s rules or make students uncomfortable. One case in particular really underscores this.

And that’s of a Middle Eastern studies professor named Joseph Massad. He wrote an essay not long after Hamas invaded Israel and killed 1,200 people, according to the Israeli government, where he described that attack with adjectives like awesome. Now, he said they’ve been misinterpreted, but a lot of people have taken offense to those comments.

Ms. Stefanik, you’re recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to follow up on my colleague, Rep Walberg’s question regarding Professor Joseph Massad. So let me be clear, President —

And so Representative Elise Stefanik, the same Republican who had tripped up Claudine Gay of Harvard and others in the last hearing, really starts digging in to President Shafik about these things at Columbia.

He is still Chair on the website. So has he been terminated as Chair?

Congresswoman, I —

And Shafik’s answers are maybe a little surprising.

— before getting back to you. I can confirm —

I know you confirmed that he was under investigation.

Yes, I can confirm that. But I —

Did you confirm he was still the Chair?

He says that Columbia is taking his case seriously. In fact, he’s under investigation right now.

Well, let me ask you this.

I need to check.

Will you make the commitment to remove him as Chair?

And when Stefanik presses her to commit to removing him from a campus leadership position —

I think that would be — I think — I would — yes. Let me come back with yes. But I think I — I just want to confirm his current status before I write —

We’ll take that as a yes, that you will confirm that he will no longer be chair.

Shafik seems to pause and think and then agree to it on the spot, almost like she is making administrative decisions with or in front of Congress.

Now, we did some reporting after the fact. And it turns out the Professor didn’t even realize he was under investigation. So he’s learning about this from the hearing too. So what this all adds up to, I think, is a performance so in line with what the lawmakers themselves wanted to hear, that at certain points, these Republicans didn’t quite know what to do with it. They were like the dog that caught the car.

Columbia beats Harvard and UPenn.

One of them, a Republican from Florida, I think at one point even marvelled, well, you beat Harvard and Penn.

Y’all all have done something that they weren’t able to do. You’ve been able to condemn anti-Semitism without using the phrase, it depends on the context. But the —

So Columbia’s president has passed this test before this committee.

Yeah, this big moment that tripped up her predecessors and cost them their jobs, it seems like she has cleared that hurdle and dispatched with the Congressional committee that could have been one of the biggest threats to her presidency.

Without objection, there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. [BANGS GAVEL]

But back on campus, some of the students and faculty who had been watching the hearing came away with a very different set of conclusions. They saw a president who was so eager to please Republicans in Congress that she was willing to sell out some of the University’s students and faculty and trample on cherished ideas like academic freedom and freedom of expression that have been a bedrock of American higher education for a really long time.

And there was no clearer embodiment of that than what had happened that morning just as President Shafik was going to testify before Congress. A group of students before dawn set up tents in the middle of Columbia’s campus and declared themselves a pro-Palestinian encampment in open defiance of the very rules that Dr. Shafik had put in place to try and get these protests under control.

So these students in real-time are beginning to test some of the things that Columbia’s president has just said before Congress.

Exactly. And so instead of going to celebrate her successful appearance before Congress, Shafik walks out of the hearing room and gets in a black SUV to go right back to that war room, where she’s immediately confronted with a major dilemma. It basically boils down to this, she had just gone before Congress and told them, I’m going to get tough on these protests. And here they were. So either she gets tough and risks inflaming tension on campus or she holds back and does nothing and her words before Congress immediately look hollow.

And what does she decide?

So for the next 24 hours, she tries to negotiate off ramps. She consults with her Deans and the New York Police Department. And it all builds towards an incredibly consequential decision. And that is, for the first time in decades, to call the New York City Police Department onto campus in riot gear and break this thing up, suspend the students involved, and then arrest them.

To essentially eliminate this encampment.

Eliminate the encampment and send a message, this is not going to be tolerated. But in trying to quell the unrest, Shafik actually feeds it. She ends up leaving student protesters and the faculty who support them feeling betrayed and pushes a campus that was already on edge into a full blown crisis.

[SLOW TEMPO MUSIC]

After the break, what all of this has looked like to a student on Columbia’s campus. We’ll be right back.

[PHONE RINGS]

Is this Isabella?

Yes, this is she.

Hi, Isabella. It’s Michael Barbaro from “The Daily.”

Hi. Nice to meet you.

Earlier this week, we called Isabella Ramírez, the Editor in Chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “The Columbia Daily Spectator,” which has been closely tracking both the protests and the University’s response to them since October 7.

So, I mean, in your mind, how do we get to this point? I wonder if you can just briefly describe the key moments that bring us to where we are right now.

Sure. Since October 7, there has certainly been constant escalation in terms of tension on campus. And there have been a variety of moves that I believe have distanced the student body, the faculty, from the University and its administration, specifically the suspension of Columbia’s chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. And that became a huge moment in what was characterized as suppression of pro-Palestinian activism on campus, effectively rendering those groups, quote, unquote, unauthorized.

What was the college’s explanation for that?

They had cited in that suspension a policy which states that a demonstration must be approved within a certain window, and that there must be an advance notice, and that there’s a process for getting an authorized demonstration. But the primary point was this policy that they were referring to, which we later reported, was changed before the suspension.

So it felt a little ad hoc to people?

Yes, it certainly came as a surprise, especially at “Spectator.” We’re nerds of the University in the sense that we are familiar with faculty and University governance. But even to us, we had no idea where this policy was coming from. And this suspension was really the first time that it entered most students’ sphere.

Columbia’s campus is so known for its activism. And so in my time of being a reporter, of being an editor, I’ve overseen several protests. And I’ve never seen Columbia penalize a group for, quote, unquote, not authorizing a protest. So that was certainly, in our minds, unprecedented.

And I believe part of the justification there was, well, this is a different time. And I think that is a reasonable thing to say. But I think a lot of students, they felt it was particularly one-sided, that it was targeting a specific type of speech or a specific type of viewpoint. Although, the University, of course, in its explicit policies, did not outline, and was actually very explicit about not targeting specific viewpoints —

So just to be super clear, it felt to students — and it sounds like, journalistically, it felt to you — that the University was coming down in a uniquely one-sided way against students who were supporting Palestinian rights and may have expressed some frustrations with Israel in that moment.

Yes. Certainly —

Isabella says that this was just the beginning of a really tense period between student protesters and the University. After those two student groups were suspended, campus protests continued. Students made a variety of demands. They asked that the University divest from businesses that profit from Israel’s military operations in Gaza. But instead of making any progress, the protests are met with further crackdown by the University.

And so as Isabella and her colleagues at the college newspaper see it, there’s this overall chilling effect that occurs. Some students become fearful that if they participate in any demonstrations, they’re going to face disciplinary action. So fast forward now to April, when these student protesters learned that President Shafik is headed to Washington for her congressional testimony. It’s at this moment that they set out to build their encampment.

I think there was obviously a lot of intention in timing those two things. I think it’s inherently a critique on a political pressure and this congressional pressure that we saw build up against, of course, Claudine Gay at Harvard and Magill at UPenn. So I think a lot of students and faculty have been frustrated at this idea that there are not only powers at the University that are dictating what’s happening, but there are perhaps external powers that are also guiding the way here in terms of what the University feels like it must do or has to do.

And I think that timing was super crucial. Having the encampment happen on the Wednesday morning of the hearing was an incredible, in some senses, interesting strategy to direct eyes to different places.

All eyes were going to be on Shafik in DC. But now a lot of eyes are on New York. The encampment is set up in the middle of the night slash morning, prior to the hearing. And so what effectively happens is they caught Shafik when she wasn’t on campus, when a lot of senior administration had their resources dedicated to supporting Shafik in DC.

And you have all of those people not necessarily out of commission, but with their focus elsewhere. So the encampment is met with very little resistance at the beginning. There were public safety officers floating around and watching. But at the very beginning hours, I think there was a sense of, we did it.

[CHANTING]: Disclose! Divest! We will not stop! We will not rest. Disclose! Divest! We will not stop!

It would be quite surprising to anybody and an administrator to now suddenly see dozens of tents on this lawn in a way that I think very purposely puts an imagery of, we’re here to stay. As the morning evolved and congressional hearings continued —

Minouche Shafik, open your eyes! Use of force, genocide!

Then we started seeing University delegates that were coming to the encampment saying, you may face disciplinary action for continuing to be here. I think that started around almost — like 9:00 or 10:00 AM, they started handing out these code of conduct violation notices.

Hell no! Hell no! Hell no!

Then there started to be more public safety action and presence. So they started barricading the entrances. The day progressed, there was more threat of discipline. The students became informed that if they continue to stay, they will face potential academic sanctions, potential suspension.

The more they try to silence us, the louder we will be! The more they —

I think a lot of people were like, OK, you’re threatening us with suspension. But so what?

This is about these systems that Minouche Shafik, that the Board of Trustees, that Columbia University is complicit in.

What are you going to do to try to get us out of here? And that was, obviously, promptly answered.

This is the New York State Police Department.

We will not stop!

You are attempting participate in an unauthorized encampment. You will be arrested and charged with trespassing.

My phone blew up, obviously, from the reporters, from the editors, of saying, oh my god, the NYPD is on our campus. And as soon as I saw that, I came out. And I saw a huge crowd of students and affiliates on campus watching the lawns. And as I circled around that crowd, I saw the last end of the New York Police Department pulling away protesters and clearing out the last of the encampment.

[CHANTING]: We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you!

It was something truly unimaginable, over 100 students slash other individuals are arrested from our campus, forcefully removed. And although they were suspended, there was a feeling of traumatic event that has just happened to these students, but also this sense of like, OK, the worst of the worst that could have happened to us just happened.

And for those students who maybe couldn’t go back to — into campus, now all of their peers, who were supporters or are in solidarity, are — in some sense, it’s further emboldened. They’re now not just sitting on the lawns for a pro-Palestinian cause, but also for the students, who have endured quite a lot.

So the crackdown, sought by the president and enforced by the NYPD, ends up, you’re saying, becoming a galvanizing force for a broader group of Columbia students than were originally drawn to the idea of ever showing up on the center of campus and protesting?

Yeah, I can certainly speak to the fact that I’ve seen my own peers, friends, or even acquaintances, who weren’t necessarily previously very involved in activism and organizing efforts, suddenly finding themselves involved.

Can I — I just have a question for you, which is all journalism, student journalism or not student journalism, is a first draft of history. And I wonder if we think of this as a historic moment for Columbia, how you imagine it’s going to be remembered.

Yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that this will be a historic moment for Colombia.

I think that this will be remembered as a moment in which the fractures were laid bare. Really, we got to see some of the disunity of the community in ways that I have never really seen it before. And what we’ll be looking to is, where do we go from here? How does Colombia repair? How do we heal from all of this? so That is the big question in terms of what will happen.

Nick, Isabella Ramírez just walked us through what this has all looked like from the perspective of a Columbia student. And from what she could tell, the crackdown ordered by President Shafik did not quell much of anything. It seemed, instead, to really intensify everything on campus. I’m curious what this has looked like for Shafik.

It’s not just the students who are upset. You have faculty, including professors, who are not necessarily sympathetic to the protesters’ view of the war, who are really outraged about what Shafik has done here. They feel that she’s crossed a boundary that hasn’t been crossed on Columbia’s campus in a really long time.

And so you start to hear things by the end of last week like censure, no confidence votes, questions from her own professors about whether or not she can stay in power. So this creates a whole new front for her. And on top of it all, as this is going on, the encampment itself starts to reform tent-by-tent —

— almost in the same place that it was. And Shafik decides that the most important thing she could do is to try and take the temperature down, which means letting the encampment stand. Or in other words, leaning in the other direction. This time, we’re going to let the protesters have their say for a little while longer.

The problem with that is that, over the weekend, a series of images start to emerge from on campus and just off of it of some really troubling anti-Semitic episodes. In one case, a guy holds up a poster in the middle of campus and points it towards a group of Jewish students who are counter protesting. And it says, I’m paraphrasing here, Hamas’ next targets.

I saw an image of that. What it seemed to evoke was the message that Hamas should murder those Jewish students. That’s the way the Jewish students interpreted it.

It’s a pretty straightforward and jarring statement. At the same time, just outside of Columbia’s closed gates —

Stop killing children!

— protestors are showing up from across New York City. It’s hard to tell who’s affiliated with Columbia, who’s not.

Go back to Poland! Go back to Poland!

There’s a video that goes viral of one of them shouting at Jewish students, go back to Poland, go back to Europe.

In other words, a clear message, you’re not welcome here.

Right. In fact, go back to the places where the Holocaust was committed.

Exactly. And this is not representative of the vast majority of the protesters in the encampment, who mostly had been peaceful. They would later hold a Seder, actually, with some of the pro-Palestinian Jewish protesters in their ranks. But those videos are reaching members of Congress, the very same Republicans that Shafik had testified in front of just a few days before. And now they’re looking and saying, you have lost control of your campus, you’ve turned back on your word to us, and you need to resign.

They call for her outright resignation over this.

That’s right. Republicans in New York and across the country began to call for her to step down from her position as president of Columbia.

So Shafik’s dilemma here is pretty extraordinary. She has set up this dynamic where pleasing these members of Congress would probably mean calling in the NYPD all over again to sweep out this encampment, which would mean further alienating and inflaming students and faculty, who are still very upset over the first crackdown. And now both ends of this spectrum, lawmakers in Washington, folks on the Columbia campus, are saying she can’t lead the University over this situation before she’s even made any fateful decision about what to do with this second encampment. Not a good situation.

No. She’s besieged on all sides. For a while, the only thing that she can come up with to offer is for classes to go hybrid for the remainder of the semester.

So students who aren’t feeling safe in this protest environment don’t necessarily have to go to class.

Right. And I think if we zoom out for a second, it’s worth bearing in mind that she tried to choose a different path here than her counterparts at Harvard or Penn. And after all of this, she’s kind of ended up in the exact same thicket, with people calling for her job with the White House, the Mayor of New York City, and others. These are Democrats. Maybe not calling on her to resign quite yet, but saying, I don’t know what’s going on your campus. This does not look good.

That reality, that taking a different tack that was supposed to be full of learnings and lessons from the stumbles of her peers, the fact that didn’t really work suggests that there’s something really intractable going on here. And I wonder how you’re thinking about this intractable situation that’s now arrived on these college campuses.

Well, I don’t think it’s just limited to college campuses. We have seen intense feelings about this conflict play out in Hollywood. We’ve seen them in our politics in all kinds of interesting ways.

In our media.

We’ve seen it in the media. But college campuses, at least in their most idealized form, are something special. They’re a place where students get to go for four years to think in big ways about moral questions, and political questions, and ideas that help shape the world they’re going to spend the rest of their lives in.

And so when you have a question that feels as urgent as this war does for a lot of people, I think it reverberates in an incredibly intense way on those campuses. And there’s something like — I don’t know if it’s quite a contradiction of terms, but there’s a collision of different values at stake. So universities thrive on the ability of students to follow their minds and their voices where they go, to maybe even experiment a little bit and find those things.

But there are also communities that rely on people being able to trust each other and being able to carry out their classes and their academic endeavors as a collective so they can learn from one another. So in this case, that’s all getting scrambled. Students who feel strongly about the Palestinian cause feel like the point is disruption, that something so big, and immediate, and urgent is happening that they need to get in the faces of their professors, and their administrators, and their fellow students.

Right. And set up an encampment in the middle of campus, no matter what the rules say.

Right. And from the administration’s perspective, they say, well, yeah, you can say that and you can think that. And that’s an important process. But maybe there’s some bad apples in your ranks. Or though you may have good intentions, you’re saying things that you don’t realize the implications of. And they’re making this environment unsafe for others. Or they’re grinding our classes to a halt and we’re not able to function as a University.

So the only way we’re going to be able to move forward is if you will respect our rules and we’ll respect your point of view. The problem is that’s just not happening. Something is not connecting with those two points of view. And as if that’s not hard enough, you then have Congress and the political system with its own agenda coming in and putting its thumb on a scale of an already very difficult situation.

Right. And at this very moment, what we know is that the forces that you just outlined have created a dilemma, an uncertainty of how to proceed, not just for President Shafik and the students and faculty at Columbia, but for a growing number of colleges and universities across the country. And by that, I mean, this thing that seemed to start at Columbia is literally spreading.

Absolutely. We’re talking on a Wednesday afternoon. And these encampments have now started cropping up at universities from coast-to-coast, at Harvard and Yale, but also at University of California, at the University of Texas, at smaller campuses in between. And at each of these institutions, there’s presidents and deans, just like President Shafik at Columbia, who are facing a really difficult set of choices. Do they call in the police? The University of Texas in Austin this afternoon, we saw protesters physically clashing with police.

Do they hold back, like at Harvard, where there were dramatic videos of students literally running into Harvard yard with tents. They were popping up in real-time. And so Columbia, really, I think, at the end of the day, may have kicked off some of this. But they are now in league with a whole bunch of other universities that are struggling with the same set of questions. And it’s a set of questions that they’ve had since this war broke out.

And now these schools only have a week or two left of classes. But we don’t know when these standoffs are going to end. We don’t know if students are going to leave campus for the summer. We don’t know if they’re going to come back in the fall and start protesting right away, or if this year is going to turn out to have been an aberration that was a response to a really awful, bloody war, or if we’re at the beginning of a bigger shift on college campuses that will long outlast this war in the Middle East.

Well, Nick, thank you very much. Thanks for having me, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. The United Nations is calling for an independent investigation into two mass graves found after Israeli forces withdrew from hospitals in Gaza. Officials in Gaza said that some of the bodies found in the graves were Palestinians who had been handcuffed or shot in the head and accused Israel of killing and burying them. In response, Israel said that its soldiers had exhumed bodies in one of the graves as part of an effort to locate Israeli hostages.

And on Wednesday, Hamas released a video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an Israeli-American dual citizen, whom Hamas has held hostage since October 7. It was the first time that he has been shown alive since his captivity began. His kidnapping was the subject of a “Daily” episode in October that featured his mother, Rachel. In response to Hamas’s video, Rachel issued a video of her own, in which she spoke directly to her son.

And, Hersh, if you can hear this, we heard your voice today for the first time in 201 days. And if you can hear us, I am telling you, we are telling you, we love you. Stay strong. Survive.

Today’s episode was produced by Sydney Harper, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Olivia Natt, Nina Feldman, and Summer Thomad, with help from Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow, contains research help by Susan Lee, original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Nicholas Fandos

Produced by Sydney Harper ,  Asthaa Chaturvedi ,  Olivia Natt ,  Nina Feldman and Summer Thomad

With Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow

Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech.

Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics and government for The Times, walks us through the intense week at the university. And Isabella Ramírez, the editor in chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, explains what it has all looked like to a student on campus.

On today’s episode

Nicholas Fandos , who covers New York politics and government for The New York Times

Isabella Ramírez , editor in chief of The Columbia Daily Spectator

Background reading

Inside the week that shook Columbia University .

The protests at the university continued after more than 100 arrests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Research help by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Nicholas Fandos is a Times reporter covering New York politics and government. More about Nicholas Fandos

Advertisement

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 19 April 2024

Asteroid Kamo‘oalewa’s journey from the lunar Giordano Bruno crater to Earth 1:1 resonance

• Yifei Jiao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1097-0521 1 ,
• Bin Cheng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8025-9113 1 ,
• Yukun Huang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1215-4130 1 , 2 ,
• Erik Asphaug   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1002-2038 3 ,
• Brett Gladman 2 ,
• Renu Malhotra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1226-3305 3 ,
• Patrick Michel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0884-1993 4 ,
• Yang Yu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9329-7015 5 &
• Hexi Baoyin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-8677 1 , 6  

Nature Astronomy ( 2024 ) Cite this article

649 Accesses

447 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Asteroids, comets and Kuiper belt
• Rings and moons

Among the nearly 30,000 known near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), only tens possess Earth co-orbital characteristics with semi-major axes ~1 au. In particular, 469219 Kamo‘oalewa (2016 HO3), an upcoming target of China’s Tianwen-2 asteroid sampling mission, exhibits a meta-stable 1:1 mean-motion resonance with Earth. Intriguingly, recent ground-based observations show that Kamo‘oalewa has spectroscopic characteristics similar to space-weathered lunar silicates, hinting at a lunar origin instead of an asteroidal one like the vast majority of NEAs. Here we use numerical simulations to demonstrate that Kamo‘oalewa’s physical and orbital properties are compatible with a fragment from a crater larger than 10–20 km formed on the Moon in the last few million years. The impact could have ejected sufficiently large fragments into heliocentric orbits, some of which could be transferred to Earth 1:1 resonance and persist today. This leads us to suggest the young lunar crater Giordano Bruno (22 km diameter, 1–10 Myr age) as the most likely source, linking a specific asteroid in space to its source crater on the Moon. The hypothesis will be tested by the Tianwen-2 mission when it returns a sample of Kamo‘oalewa. And the upcoming NEO Surveyor mission may help us to identify such a lunar-derived NEA population.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Lunar ejecta origin of near-Earth asteroid Kamo’oalewa is compatible with rare orbital pathways

Orbital stability analysis and photometric characterization of the second Earth Trojan asteroid 2020 XL5

Collisional history of Ryugu’s parent body from bright surface boulders

Data availability.

The raw simulation data are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The spectral classification code classy is available via GitHub at https://github.com/maxmahlke/classy (ref. 65 ). The N -body code REBOUND is an open-source package available via GitHub at https://github.com/hannorein/rebound (ref. 66 ). The impact code SPHSOL is available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

De la Fuente Marcos, C. & De la Fuente Marcos, R. Asteroid (469219) 2016 HO3, the smallest and closest Earth quasi-satellite. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 462 , 3441–3456 (2016).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Qi, Y. & Qiao, D. Co-orbital transition of 2016 HO3. Astrodynamics 7 , 3–14 (2023).

Sharkey, B. N. et al. Lunar-like silicate material forms the Earth quasi-satellite (469219) 2016 HO3 Kamo‘oalewa. Commun. Earth Environ. 2 , 231 (2021).

Gong, Y. et al. Cosmology from the Chinese space station optical survey (CSS-OS). Astrophys. J. 883 , 203 (2019).

Zhang, T., Xu, K. & Ding, X. China’s ambitions and challenges for asteroid–comet exploration. Nat. Astron 5 , 730–731 (2021).

Pieters, C. et al. Distinctive space weathering on Vesta from regolith mixing processes. Nature 491 , 79–82 (2012).

Milliken, R. The RELAB Spectral Library Bundle. NASA Planetary Data System https://doi.org/10.17189/1519032 (2020).

Nishiizumi, K. et al. Exposure histories of lunar meteorites: ALHA81005, MAC88104, MAC88105, and Y791197. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 55 , 3149–3155 (1991).

Binzel, R. et al. Compositional distributions and evolutionary processes for the near-Earth object population: results from the MIT–Hawaii Near-Earth Object Spectroscopic Survey (MITHNEOS). Icarus 324 , 41–76 (2019).

DeMeo, F. E., Binzel, R. P., Slivan, S. M. & Bus, S. J. An extension of the Bus asteroid taxonomy into the near-infrared. Icarus 202 , 160–180 (2009).

Migliorini, F. et al. Vesta fragments from v6 and 3:1 resonances: implications for V-type near-Earth asteroids and howardite, eucrite and diogenite meteorites. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 32 , 903–916 (1997).

DeMeo, F. E. et al. Olivine-dominated A-type asteroids in the main belt: distribution, abundance and relation to families. Icarus 322 , 13–30 (2019).

Melosh, H. J. Impact Cratering: a Geologic Process (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989).

Bart, G. D. & Melosh, H. Distributions of boulders ejected from lunar craters. Icarus 209 , 337–357 (2010).

Horányi, M. et al. A permanent, asymmetric dust cloud around the Moon. Nature 522 , 324–326 (2015).

Singer, K. N., Jolliff, B. L. & McKinnon, W. B. Lunar secondary craters and estimated ejecta block sizes reveal a scale-dependent fragmentation trend. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 125 , e2019JE006313 (2020).

Hawke, B. R. et al. The origin of lunar crater rays. Icarus 170 , 1–16 (2004).

Gladman, B. J., Burns, J. A., Duncan, M. J. & Levison, H. F. The dynamical evolution of lunar impact ejecta. Icarus 118 , 302–321 (1995).

Castro-Cisneros, J. D., Malhotra, R. & Rosengren, A. J. Lunar ejecta origin of near-Earth asteroid Kamo‘oalewa is compatible with rare orbital pathways. Commun. Earth Environ. 4 , 372 (2023).

Yeomans, D. K. & Chamberlin, A. B. Comparing the Earth impact flux from comets and near-Earth asteroids. Acta Astronaut. 90 , 3–5 (2013).

Artemieva, N. & Shuvalov, V. Numerical simulation of high-velocity impact ejecta following falls of comets and asteroids onto the Moon. Sol. Syst. Res. 42 , 329–334 (2008).

Benz, W. & Asphaug, E. Simulations of brittle solids using smooth particle hydrodynamics. Comput. Phys. Commun. 87 , 253–265 (1995).

Grady, D. E. & Kipp, M. E. Continuum modelling of explosive fracture in oil shale. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 17 , 147–157 (1980).

Article   Google Scholar  

Melosh, H., Ryan, E. & Asphaug, E. Dynamic fragmentation in impacts: hydrocode simulation of laboratory impacts. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 97 , 14735–14759 (1992).

Schmidt, R. M. & Housen, K. R. Some recent advances in the scaling of impact and explosion cratering. Int. J. Impact Eng. 5 , 543–560 (1987).

Melosh, H. Impact ejection, spallation, and the origin of meteorites. Icarus 59 , 234–260 (1984).

Vokrouhlicky`, D. & Čapek, D. YORP-induced long-term evolution of the spin state of small asteroids and meteoroids: Rubincam’s approximation. Icarus 159 , 449–467 (2002).

Robbins, S. J. A new global database of lunar impact craters >1–2 km: 1. Crater locations and sizes, comparisons with published databases, and global analysis. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 124 , 871–892 (2019).

Barlow, N. Status report on crater databases for Mercury, the Moon, Mars, and Ganymede. In Proc. Third Planetary Data Workshop and The Planetary Geologic Mappers Annual Meeting , Abstract 7027 (Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2017).

Neukum, G., Ivanov, B. & Hartmann, W. Cratering records in the inner solar system in relation to the lunar reference system. Space Sci. Rev. 96 , 55–86 (2001).

Bottke, W., Nolan, M. C., Greenberg, R. & Kolvoord, R. A. in Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids (ed. Gehrels T.) 337–357 (Univ. of Arizona Press, 1994).

Gladman, B., Michel, P. & Froeschlé, C. The near-Earth object population. Icarus 146 , 176–189 (2000).

Huang, Y. & Gladman, B. Four-billion year stability of the Earth–Mars belt. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500 , 1151–1157 (2021).

Mazrouei, S., Ghent, R. R., Bottke, W. F., Parker, A. H. & Gernon, T. M. Earth and Moon impact flux increased at the end of the Paleozoic. Science 363 , 253–257 (2019).

Morota, T. et al. Formation age of the lunar crater Giordano Bruno. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 44 , 1115–1120 (2009).

Drozd, R., Hohenberg, C., Morgan, C., Podosek, F. & Wroge, M. Cosmic-ray exposure history at Taurus–Littrow. In Proc. Lunar Science Conference , Abstract 1087 (Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1977).

Bhattacharya, S. & Saran, S. Enhanced hydration at Giordano Bruno crater on the far side of the Moon and its implications. In Proc. 48th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference , Abstract 1780 (Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2017).

Basilevsky, A. & Head, J. Age of Giordano Bruno crater as deduced from the morphology of its secondaries at the Luna 24 landing site. Planet. Space Sci. 73 , 302–309 (2012).

König, B., Neukum, G. & Fechtig, H. Recent lunar cratering: absolute ages of Kepler, Aristarchus, Tycho. In Proc. Lunar Science Conference , Abstract 1190 (Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1977).

Harris, A. W., Boslough, M., Chapman, C. R., Drube, L. & Michel, P. in Asteroids IV (eds Bottke, W. F., DeMeo F. E. & Michel, P.) 835–854 (Univ. of Arizona Press, 2015).

Mainzer, A. et al. Near-Earth object Surveyor mission: data products and survey plan. In AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts , Vol. 53 (American Astronomical Society, 2021).

Fritz, J. Impact ejection of lunar meteorites and the age of Giordano Bruno. Icarus 221 , 1183–1186 (2012).

Morais, M. & Morbidelli, A. The population of near-Earth asteroids in co-orbital motion with the Earth. Icarus 160 , 1–9 (2002).

Granvik, M. et al. Debiased orbit and absolute-magnitude distributions for near-Earth objects. Icarus 312 , 181–207 (2018).

DeMeo, F. E. & Carry, B. Solar System evolution from compositional mapping of the asteroid belt. Nature 505 , 629–634 (2014).

Delbo, M. et al. Alignment of fractures on Bennu’s boulders indicative of rapid asteroid surface evolution. Nat. Geosci. 15 , 453–457 (2022).

Zhang, Y. & Michel, P. Shapes, structures, and evolution of small bodies. Astrodynamics 5 , 293–329 (2021).

Cambioni, S. et al. Fine-regolith production on asteroids controlled by rock porosity. Nature 598 , 49–52 (2021).

Rozitis, B., MacLennan, E. & Emery, J. P. Cohesive forces prevent the rotational breakup of rubble-pile asteroid (29075) 1950 DA. Nature 512 , 174–176 (2014).

Lauretta, D. et al. The unexpected surface of asteroid (101955) Bennu. Nature 568 , 55–60 (2019).

Mahlke, M., Carry, B. & Mattei, P.-A. Asteroid taxonomy from cluster analysis of spectrometry and albedo. Astron. Astrophys. 665 , A26 (2022).

Jiao, Y., Yan, X., Cheng, B. & Baoyin, H. SPH–DEM modelling of hypervelocity impacts on rubble-pile asteroids. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 527 , 10348–10357 (2024).

Bui, H. H., Fukagawa, R., Sako, K. & Ohno, S. Lagrangian meshfree particles method (SPH) for large deformation and failure flows of geomaterial using elastic–plastic soil constitutive model. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 32 , 1537–1570 (2008).

Tillotson, J. H. Metallic Equations of State for Hypervelocity Impact, Technical Report (General Dynamics, 1962).

Collins, G. S., Melosh, H. J. & Ivanov, B. A. Modeling damage and deformation in impact simulations. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 39 , 217–231 (2004).

Jutzi, M. SPH calculations of asteroid disruptions: the role of pressure dependent failure models. Planet. Space Sci. 107 , 3–9 (2015).

Rein, H. & Liu, S.-F. REBOUND: an open-source multi-purpose N -body code for collisional dynamics. Astron. Astrophys. 537 , A128 (2012).

Rein, H. et al. Hybrid symplectic integrators for planetary dynamics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485 , 5490–5497 (2019).

Rein, H. & Tamayo, D. WHFAST: a fast and unbiased implementation of a symplectic Wisdom–Holman integrator for long-term gravitational simulations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452 , 376–388 (2015).

Rein, H. & Spiegel, D. S. IAS15: a fast, adaptive, high-order integrator for gravitational dynamics, accurate to machine precision over a billion orbits. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446 , 1424–1437 (2015).

Park, R. S., Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G. & Boggs, D. H. The JPL planetary and lunar ephemerides DE440 and DE441. Astron. J. 161 , 105 (2021).

Delbo, M., Mueller, M., Emery, J., Rozitis, B. & Capria, M. in Asteroids IV (eds Bottke, W. F., DeMeo F. E. & Michel, P.) 107–128 (Univ. of Arizona Press, 2015).

Fenucci, M. & Novaković, B. The role of the Yarkovsky effect in the long-term dynamics of asteroid (469219) Kamo’oalewa. Astron. J. 162 , 227 (2021).

Burns, J. A., Lamy, P. L. & Soter, S. Radiation forces on small particles in the solar system. Icarus 40 , 1–48 (1979).

The classy code. GitHub https://github.com/maxmahlke/classy (2022).

The REBOUND code. GitHub https://github.com/hannorein/rebound (2024).

Connors, M., Wiegert, P. & Veillet, C. Earth’s Trojan asteroid. Nature 475 , 481–483 (2011).

Santana-Ros, T. et al. Orbital stability analysis and photometric characterization of the second Earth trojan asteroid 2020 XL 5 . Nat. Commun. 13 , 447 (2022).

Robinson, M. S. et al. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) instrument overview. Space Sci. Rev. 150 , 81–124 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

B.C. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 12202227) and the Postdoctoral Innovative Talent Support Program of China (no. BX20220164). This work is also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 62227901. We thank W. F. Bottke and others for valuable discussions on this work at the Asteroids, Comets, Meteors Conference 2023. We thank M. Connors, T. Santana-Ros and F. Ferrari for providing helpful comments to improve and clarify the manuscript. We acknowledge the use of imagery from Lunar QuickMap ( https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu ), a collaboration between NASA, Arizona State University and Applied Coherent Technology Corp.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Yifei Jiao, Bin Cheng, Yukun Huang & Hexi Baoyin

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Yukun Huang & Brett Gladman

Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Erik Asphaug & Renu Malhotra

Laboratoire Lagrange, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Nice, France

Patrick Michel

Beihang University, Beijing, China

Inner Mongolia University of Technology, Inner Mongolia, China

Hexi Baoyin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.J. performed the SPH and N -body numerical simulations and analysed the numerical results. B.C. and H.B. initiated the project, designed the simulations and led the research. Y.H., B.G. and R.M. contributed to the discussion of the dynamical evolution of lunar ejecta and the spectral comparison. E.A., P.M. and Y.Y. contributed to the discussion of the lunar impact ejection process. All authors contributed to interpretation of the results and preparation of the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bin Cheng or Hexi Baoyin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Astronomy thanks Martin Connors, Fabio Ferrari and Toni Santana-Ros for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 comparison of kamo‘oalewa’s spectral slope with bus-demeo asteroid taxonomies and lunar materials..

Due to errors in the infrared reflectance, Kamo‘oalewa’s slope possibly ranges from 76 to 101%/ μ m 3 . Typical asteroid slopes are plotted with the mean values and the standard deviations, based on 371 asteroid samples 10 . The slopes of lunar meteorite and samples, whose spectra have been shown in Fig. 1 , are measured using the online Bus-DeMeo taxonomy tool 10 .

Source data

Extended data fig. 2 spectral comparison using the mixture of common factor analysers (mcfa) model..

The latent scores are computed as a lower-dimensional representation of the reflectance spectrum, using the classy package 51 . The MCFA results suggest that Kamo‘oalewa is spectrally similar to lunar materials, but incompatible with any typical asteroid spectrum in public repositories.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Simulated rotation distribution of escaping SPH particles with L \({}_{\max }\) larger than 36 m, for a Kepler-sized crater forming event.

Here we use the SPH particle vorticity to approximate the rotation state of the sub-resolution fragments. The upper panel presents the cumulative fraction of these high-velocity and low-shocked particles versus the rotation period. Note that about 65% of these particles, when ejected, are spinning faster than Kamo‘oalewa which has a period of 28.3 min 3 . The lower panel is a boxplot of the period distribution, suggesting a median of about 6 minutes and an interquartile range (IQR, the box range from the first quartile Q1 to the third quartile Q3) from a few to several tens of minutes. The whiskers are bounded at Q1-1.5*IQR and Q3+1.5*IQR, with the flier points removed. There are 466 and 94 SPH particles used for k=10 30 m −3 and k=10 33 m −3 , respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 4 The location and topography of lunar crater Giordano Bruno.

Left is a map of the lunar farside using the Lunar QuickMap ( https://bit.ly/45Ftwjh ). Right is the topographic map of GB crater from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) data 69 .

Extended Data Fig. 5 Initial condition of N-body simulations.

We start each set of simulation at a random lunar phase ϕ , which indicates the relative position of the Sun-Earth-Moon system, and launched 300 particles along a θ  = 45 ∘ cone at random azimuths ζ and with a given velocity magnitude distribution v 0 (following a power law distribution ranging from 2.38 to 6.0 km/s, and with the power of -4.0 according to Supplementary Fig. 7 ).

Extended Data Fig. 6 GB ejecta delivered to Earth, normalized with the background lunar meteorite flux.

It has been estimated that the GB ejecta is comparable to the total lunar ejecta produced by other craters over 10 Myr 42 , thus the background lunar ejecta per Myr is about one-tenth of the GB total ejecta. Assuming the same delivery efficiency (Earth collision fraction over time) as the GB ejecta, we can integrate the product of the ejecta volume and the delivery efficiency of all previous craters, to estimate the background flux delivered to Earth per Myr. The result shows a ten-fold spike of GB meteorites than the background flux in the first Myr after GB formation (several million years ago). However, this spike is currently unobservable due to the short terrestrial preservation period of lunar meteorites, which only lasts a few hundred thousand years 8 . Presently, GB ejecta contributes to roughly 10% of the background flux of lunar meteorites, implying that our current collection of lunar meteorites likely contains only a handful of GB ejecta, for example, the possible GB meteorites Yamato-82192/82193/86032 42 .

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Text, Figs. 1–8 and Tables 1–5.

Supplementary Data

Source Data for Supplementary Figs. 1–8.

Source Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data fig. 3, source data fig. 4, source data extended data fig. 1, source data extended data fig. 2, source data extended data fig. 3, source data extended data fig. 6, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jiao, Y., Cheng, B., Huang, Y. et al. Asteroid Kamo‘oalewa’s journey from the lunar Giordano Bruno crater to Earth 1:1 resonance. Nat Astron (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

Download citation

Received : 24 July 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 19 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02258-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.