3 ms·
The author seems to think we are "safe" from impact events, but that seems awfully glib and based more on pop culture takes like movies than facts. Our track r
by wffurr 6y ago
The author seems to think we are "safe" from impact events, but that seems awfully glib and based more on pop culture takes like movies than facts.
Our track record for noticing near Earth objects is pretty poor and largely due to amateur astronomers. I don't think there is any consensus on what sort of space mission we could mount to divert one either. We are a long way from "planetary defenses have never been stronger": https://youtu.be/QkpP5Nz7zuY?t=34 https://youtu.be/QkpP5Nz7zuY?t=34
- MichaelZuo 6y agoYour right, a lot of the speculation in the article uses unjustified assumptions to move the reader on to the final point. When a sensible analysis would probably categorize a impact or air burst similar to the Tunguska event as one of the likeliest, if not the likeliest, cause.
- ncmncm 6y agoIt is technically true that planetary defenses have never been stronger. It is exactly, equally true that they have never been weaker. 0<=0<=0