4 ms·

The problem with this line of thinking is that first we'd have to be elsewhere to survive the initial destruction of this magnitude, which would be a huge tsuna

The problem with this line of thinking is that first we'd have to be elsewhere to survive the initial destruction of this magnitude, which would be a huge tsunami and cloud of dust that would stay in the atmosphere for years. There are ways to build bunkers that are capable of withstanding this kind of disaster (we'd have at least a month of warning), but not yet a way to keep a biome running. Therefore, (and considering climate change, priority) research should be focused on maintaining large scale artificial biomes for now. We'll need that for space travel and colonization anyway.

brudgers 5y ago
The Earth atmosphere you describe is more life sustaining than Mars. <- that is a period. The problem of survival after a massive impact on Earth is more readily solved than survival on Mars. Indeed survival on the Moon is easier simply for logistics. If you want go to Mars. I will stay here. Natural selection will work its magic either way. My bet is on six billion years of priors. Not Mr. Musks Tweets.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Totally agree there. Then again, without the pie in the sky goal, nobody will fund the necessary research it seems.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    The funding is the end in itself. Scare tactics are a proven way to get money for self enrichment.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Did you watch the video pmoriarty linked? If that is a valid model of the aftermath of a very large asteroid collision, then no, you would not be better off here than on Mars. It would literally be hotter than Venus for an extended period of time, if what they are saying is correct.
  - flukus 5y ago
    That was an extremely rare event that has only happened once in the history of our planet when the solar system was young. It's incredibly unlikely to happen in future, it's even less likely to happen by the time we've moved to Mars because the sun has expanded enough to make earth like Venus anyway.
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    It's probably not a good model as that's an absolute giant as asteroids go. The one at the end of the Cretacous would have had 1/10000 or something of this one's mass, and we consider that a planet killer already. I think a 500km monster really is exceedingly unlikely, there are a lot less of those and getting hurled in our direction probably gets way harder, too, at that size. More realistic scenarios with smaller (city-scale) bolides would be absolutely devastating, too, but still way more survivable.

brudgers 5y ago

The Earth atmosphere you describe is more life sustaining than Mars. <- that is a period. The problem of survival after a massive impact on Earth is more readily solved than survival on Mars. Indeed survival on the Moon is easier simply for logistics. If you want go to Mars. I will stay here. Natural selection will work its magic either way. My bet is on six billion years of priors. Not Mr. Musks Tweets.

AstralStorm 5y ago
Totally agree there. Then again, without the pie in the sky goal, nobody will fund the necessary research it seems.
- brudgers 5y ago
  The funding is the end in itself. Scare tactics are a proven way to get money for self enrichment.
CamperBob2 5y ago
Did you watch the video pmoriarty linked? If that is a valid model of the aftermath of a very large asteroid collision, then no, you would not be better off here than on Mars. It would literally be hotter than Venus for an extended period of time, if what they are saying is correct.
- flukus 5y ago
  That was an extremely rare event that has only happened once in the history of our planet when the solar system was young. It's incredibly unlikely to happen in future, it's even less likely to happen by the time we've moved to Mars because the sun has expanded enough to make earth like Venus anyway.
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  It's probably not a good model as that's an absolute giant as asteroids go. The one at the end of the Cretacous would have had 1/10000 or something of this one's mass, and we consider that a planet killer already. I think a 500km monster really is exceedingly unlikely, there are a lot less of those and getting hurled in our direction probably gets way harder, too, at that size. More realistic scenarios with smaller (city-scale) bolides would be absolutely devastating, too, but still way more survivable.