3 ms·

I don't see anything in that article to suggest that we have (or in the forseeable future will have) the technology to deflect an asteroid the size of the one i

I don't see anything in that article to suggest that we have (or in the forseeable future will have) the technology to deflect an asteroid the size of the one in the video you linked. Nuclear standoff was one of the most promising methods they discussed... with an example using a 100 megaton nuclear device to deflect a 1.4km diameter asteroid. A 500km asteroid is 45 million times more massive. Yes, we should still develop the technology to deflect smaller asteroids, but my point was that we're not going able to deflect the earth shattering asteroid like the one in the video so if we really want to make mankind "asteroid proof", then we need a second earth.

pmoriarty 5y ago
The 100 megaton example was for a deflection of an asteroid for which we have 18 months of warning. With much larger asteroids we could have significantly more warning time, and so the distance that asteroid would have to be deflected could be much smaller to have it eventually miss the Earth. Other dynamics would probably come in to play too, such as the gravity of other planets in the solar system. Depending on where the asteroid was, where it would be passing through, its mass and velocity, and how much time we had to deflect it, I think even something as large as that might be deflectable. Also if significant funding and attention was given to this problem, and people realized that the existence of life on Earth depended on it, I'm sure there'd be a lot of innovation, resulting in all sorts of other ideas and technologies that we haven't thought of yet. It's premature to throw up our hands and give up on preventing this incredibly dire threat without giving it a much more serious try than we've done so far.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  Also if significant funding and attention was given to this problem, and people realized that the existence of life on Earth depended on it, I'm sure there'd be a lot of innovation, resulting in all sorts of other ideas and technologies that we haven't thought of yet. Did you just wake up for a coma or something? Recent history has shown that when faced with a life-threatening disaster, half of this country is going to deny that there's a threat at all and an expensive project to ward off a threat that's decades away won't get funded until it's too late.

pmoriarty 5y ago

The 100 megaton example was for a deflection of an asteroid for which we have 18 months of warning. With much larger asteroids we could have significantly more warning time, and so the distance that asteroid would have to be deflected could be much smaller to have it eventually miss the Earth. Other dynamics would probably come in to play too, such as the gravity of other planets in the solar system. Depending on where the asteroid was, where it would be passing through, its mass and velocity, and how much time we had to deflect it, I think even something as large as that might be deflectable. Also if significant funding and attention was given to this problem, and people realized that the existence of life on Earth depended on it, I'm sure there'd be a lot of innovation, resulting in all sorts of other ideas and technologies that we haven't thought of yet. It's premature to throw up our hands and give up on preventing this incredibly dire threat without giving it a much more serious try than we've done so far.

Johnny555 5y ago
Also if significant funding and attention was given to this problem, and people realized that the existence of life on Earth depended on it, I'm sure there'd be a lot of innovation, resulting in all sorts of other ideas and technologies that we haven't thought of yet. Did you just wake up for a coma or something? Recent history has shown that when faced with a life-threatening disaster, half of this country is going to deny that there's a threat at all and an expensive project to ward off a threat that's decades away won't get funded until it's too late.