Slashdot Mirror


Neil deGrasse Tyson Outlines a Plan For Saving Earth From Asteroids

dsinc contributes a link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's short piece in Wired on how we could deal with the very real threat of killer asteroids, writing "In 2029 we'll be able to know whether, seven years later, Apophis will miss Earth or slam into the Pacific and create a tsunami that will devastate all the coastlines of the Pacific Rim." From the article: "Saving the planet requires commitment. First we have to catalogue every object whose orbit intersects Earth’s, then task our computers with carrying out the calculations necessary to predict a catastrophic collision hundreds or thousands of orbits into the future. Meanwhile, space missions would have to determine in great detail the structure and chemical composition of killer comets and asteroids."

241 comments

  1. Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But we're going to need another basket if we want to survive as a species.

    1. Re:Saving Earth is good... by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      There are 100 planets within 30 light years of us. That is an achievable goal. We are getting close to figuring out fusion technology. Then we'll have the energy to travel to the stars. A lot of barriers to entry still exist, but if we really want to, we can overcome them.

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    2. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were no humans around a million years ago, what makes you think there will in a million?

      Sentience.

      And what makes you think we have the energy to sustain anything close to what we have enjoyed for the past 150 years ????

      E = mc^2

      Idiot.

      Defeatist.

    3. Re:Saving Earth is good... by hemo_jr · · Score: 2

      You are thinking Mars, the Moon, L-5 habitats as additional baskets? They will never be a robust a place for survival as the Earth, but I agree. Species survival is an imperative. And neither our Earth, nor solar system should be the sole home of H Sap.

    4. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of us will happily let your particular branch of our species die off. You have neither the will, nor the fore-sight to meaningfully contribute to long term survival.

    5. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With eight billion or so people going through the earth's resources (i.e. mineral and fossil, not to mention trees, fresh water, topsoil) it's not clear what civilization will look like 50, 100, or a thosand years from now. A space program might be lower on the priority for future generations.

      E = mc**2 is nice, but it doesn't mean the energy is easy to get to. Sort of like there is a lot of hydrogen locked up in water but unfortunately we can't put water in our gas tanks.

    6. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a totally delusional fruitcake.

    7. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but unfortunately we can't put water in our gas tanks.

      Yet.

    8. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I'm dubious. The technology isn't that hard really, it's the political will. Creating that technology and building things at the scale needed for success requires massive funding, which means a couple guys in their garage can't do it themselves. Here's an Onion article that, while facetious, is pretty accurate. We humans, in groups, just aren't very intelligent, and are completely unable to work together to do necessary things to ensure our own survival. Generally, the only things that work well for us are things which a couple guys in their garage can do, and then after proving it, everyone else decides it's a good idea and jumps on the bandwagon. This is why things like smartphones have worked so well: it's not that hard for small groups of people to build such things and prove they work; then, once the masses see that they can talk to their dumb friends and play Angry Birds, they all want to buy one, making the whole thing highly profitable. There's no clear profit in building large spacecraft and traveling to Alpha Centauri, and once we have an Earth-killer hurtling towards us and it's clear we won't survive, it'll be too late to do anything to either avert the disaster or save the species. What's worse, we're too stupid to learn from history and from the failings of others, so we repeat their mistakes. The dinosaurs showed what happens when you don't invest in a space program. They had hundreds of millions of years to do so, yet they didn't bother (for obvious reasons), and then a giant asteroid wiped them out. Now, we've advanced enough to where we've figured out that this happened to them, yet we still don't take the threat seriously. And unlike the dinosaurs, we don't have the excuse that we're too stupid to develop language, technology, civilization, or even spaceflight.

      Personally, I think we're headed into another Dark Ages, where we'll lose most of our technology and go back to living in grass huts and fighting each other in Feudal wars using swords and shields. Maybe after another two thousand years or so, we'll have another technological revolution and develop spaceflight again, and discover that the old myths and legends about humans walking on the Moon were actually true, and that time develop a serious space program and travel to other stars. But if a killer asteroid strikes before then, we're doomed as a species.

    9. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I hate to burst your bubble, but his branch of our species is the one reproducing the most, while yours is dying out. In a few generations, there won't be many people like you left, and tons of people like him, all burning through the planet's resources as fast as they can, driving giant SUVs and starting more and more resource wars. You might have the will and foresight, but you don't have the finances and power to carry out your plans; you can't get a handful of guys together in your garage and build a generation ship or a large Moon base.

    10. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No humans a million years ago? What are you Christian?

      http://www.nature.com/news/million-year-old-ash-hints-at-origins-of-cooking-1.10372

    11. Re:Saving Earth is good... by shoehornjob · · Score: 3, Informative

      If scientists were in charge we may have a chance at survival as a species. Unfortunately our country (USA) is run by a bunch of corrupt money grubbing idiots that still believe in creationist theory (god WILL protect us). What's worse is that we voted these fools into power.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    12. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Well, you're a basket case if you think anything resembling the "species" will still be around in cosmic time scales. There were no humans around a million years ago, what makes you think there will in a million?

      You're right. So instead, let us not talk just about preserving the human species, but whatever species our descendants will become.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Saving Earth is good... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It depends on what you count as human. Modern humans are generally thought to have been around for about 50,000 years, with anatomically similar ones (but without the same behaviour range) extending back 200,000 years. The first members of the homo genus appeared about 2.5 million years ago, so there were a lot of vaguely human-like things around a million years ago, but probably none that you'd invite over for tea. Wikipedia has a nice timeline.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately our country (USA) is run by a bunch of intelligent, alpha sopciopaths, some of whom claim belief in creationist theory in order to get votes from the actual stupid people. What's worse is that we voted these fools into power because even by the primaries we have no choice except evil lizard A and evil lizard B.

      FTFY. :-)

    15. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Thanks! And I do it without chemicals!

    16. Re:Saving Earth is good... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Well, you're a basket case if you think anything resembling the "species" will still be around in cosmic time scales. There were no humans around a million years ago, what makes you think there will in a million? And what makes you think we have the energy to sustain anything close to what we have enjoyed for the past 150 years ???? We'll all be right here, on this "basket". Idiot.

      Well, there were our ancestors around a million years ago, stands to reason that our descendants will be around in another million years. Unless, of course, you're claiming we're only 6,000 years old and the apocalypse is coming.

      There will still be a sun in another 150 years. There's plenty of energy coming from it to supply us with what we'd need for a decent life. It already supplies a large fraction of the earth's current energy budget through hydro (1/5 for the US). Then there's wind followed by other types of solar. Coal looks like it will last for another 150 years. Then, if we wanted to go to space based energy gathering schemes, there's effectivly limitless energy. Even if we reduced out energy usage to 20% of what it is now, I'm pretty sure we'd have a better sustainable standard of living than 50 years ago, let alone 150.

      We are all in this basket, and lots of things, both good and bad, can happen in cosmic time scales, but your outlook on things seems to be lacking any sort of sustainable argument.

    17. Re:Saving Earth is good... by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The technology isn't that hard really, it's the political will. Creating that technology and building things at the scale needed for success requires massive funding

      But that's exactly why the technology is hard. Given unlimited sums of money, there are many scientific and technological endeavors that become technically feasible or even trivial: fusion power, Mars colonies, cancer cures, eliminating dependency on fossil fuels, etc. The problem is that we don't have unlimited sums of money, and we don't know in advance of any shortcuts of miraculous developments that would make something like interstellar travel affordable (let alone profitable).

      Some actual numbers are required to really understand how far away we are. The best study of interstellar travel that I'm aware of is Project Daedalus from the 1970s. The hypothetical spacecraft - unmanned - would have been powered and propelled by D/He3 inertial confinement fusion, and would take 50 years to reach Barnard's Star, where it would release several probes. The fuel would be obtained by siphoning He3 out of Jupiter's atmosphere over a 20-year period. Estimated cost was $100 trillion. This is for an unmanned probe that would take most of a human lifetime to reach a very close star. To give you some perspective, the annual US budget is $3.6 trillion, and the entire global GNP is around $70 trillion. We do not actually know how to build most of this technology (although ICF may be almost within reach) - we only know that it is probably technically possible. More importantly, we do not know how we might build it cheaply.

      I'm all for continuing research into nuclear fusion, new propulsion systems, industrial automation, exoplanets, etc. But the idea that we could have an interstellar spaceflight program if only we found the "political will" is utterly detached from reality. The problem isn't that people in general are stupid: the problem is that people don't want the government to redirect a massive portion of their economic output towards a project that we don't know how to build, won't be completed in their lifetime, and won't improve their lives on Earth. (And still wouldn't ensure the survival of the species, for that matter.) That's not stupidity, that's common sense.

      The dinosaurs showed what happens when you don't invest in a space program. They had hundreds of millions of years to do so, yet they didn't bother (for obvious reasons), and then a giant asteroid wiped them out.

      This comes up in every single thread on this topic, and the response is always the same: if we suffered a similar impact, Earth would still be a vastly more hospitable environment for humans than anywhere else that we know of, including Mars. It would undoubtedly result in mass extinction, and a large fraction of the human race would probably die from starvation, but we could still sustain millions (if not billions) of lives indefinitely, albeit at a greatly reduced standard of living. The dinosaurs died out because they lacked technology and food cultivation altogether.

    18. Re:Saving Earth is good... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      There are 100 planets within 30 light years of us.

      The issue isn't the number of planets, the issue is whether they are habitable for us. I don't know about you, but while I prefer my temps on the slightly warm side, I don't fancy living on a planet where the normal daily temp is 300C.

      Nor do I wish to attempt to live on a planet without either water or some semblance of soil.

      Finally, 30 lights years is only near compared to the overall distance to everything else in the universe. Even if you achieve speed 1/10 the speed of light, you are looking at a time to travel of 300 years, minimum. That's assuming you instantly achieve that speed. However, instantly accelerating to that speed from a standstill tends to do bad things to the human body such as squish it into a fine paste (Star Trek and Star Wars aside).

      Then there is the issue of supplying yourself and your offspring for those centuries and hoping that during your travel you don't run into a grain of sand or other space debris which would turn you into swiss cheese.

      Others more knowledgeable than I have been thinking about this idea for decades and can give you encyclopedias on what is involved in long-term space travel. Imagine the number of books/manuals/whatever that were needed just to get three guys to the Moon and back. Now multiply that out by an order of magnitude.

      As an aside, I've been contemplating attempting to write a book on this subject and came to the conclusion it's easier to bypass the travel mess and just go about describing the conflict that will ensue between the offspring of the travelers 300 or so years after the landings. Think Science v. Religion but on a planetary scale with the usual SiFi bent. (And now tell me what I already know. That other, more talented, writers have already done this.)

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    19. Re:Saving Earth is good... by MattSausage · · Score: 1

      I think that's a very succinct and appropriate quote, and I shall use it elsewhere to make myself seem more intelligent. Thank you.

    20. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      A starship would be the biggest project in the history of man, it would dwarf the "great wall" and the pyramids and everything else put together, it would require the output of the entire planet for decades, it would cast trillions with no return on investment!

      Who will pay? Who will build? Who would design? Where would the materials come from?

      It's a swell idea, and like all purely theoretical exercises, fun to think about, BUT it's NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    21. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but another factor is that technology is (almost) always improving, so advances in one area can affect other domains. So, for instance, if fusion power were researched more and improved, this might drastically change your $100T estimate, which as you say, was made back in the 70s based on the technology (and understanding of what might be possible technologically) of the time. Things have already changed a fair amount since that time. Even back then, most people probably couldn't imagine the internet and smartphones, and sci-fi movies and shows of the time never show these things (even though the internet already had started by that time).

      So no, if we try to immediately start a project to send a giant probe craft to Barnard's Star right now, it's going to be expensive as hell. That's why we need to start a little smaller and work on other things closer to home, such as better propulsion systems (probably fusion power), a space elevator, artificial habitats at Lagrangian points or on the Moon, etc.; after a few decades of serious work in these areas, and the improved knowledge and technology all that would bring, an automated probe to a nearby star wouldn't be such a giant undertaking. But the problem is we aren't working seriously on any of these things.

    22. Re:Saving Earth is good... by maccodemonkey · · Score: 1

      Just like every civilization before us since the dawn of man, yes. And we've survived despite it.

    23. Re:Saving Earth is good... by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      the problem is we aren't working seriously on any of these things.

      Actually, we are, but probably not with as large a budget as you (or I) would like. The National Ignition Facility isn't too dissimilar in concept from the Daedalus engine, and it may have a chance of generating surplus power. For the space elevator, we simply need much better materials, and there is an awful lot of research (public and private) in that area.

      The timeline for this probably isn't decades, though - centuries would be more realistic. It's true that rapid unexpected advances in technology are possible, but it's also true that you can pour a massive amount of money into something and end up no further than you were before. (Case in point: the space shuttle.) Additionally, there is a real problem with scale - the advances in technology that you mention result from electronics becoming miniaturized and more efficient. But mega-projects like the LHC or ITER are still extremely expensive. Quite a bit of time and effort is required to make those helium-cooled superconducting magnets, and economies of scale don't seem to apply.

    24. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't that people in general are stupid...

      All cynicism aside, that is precisely the problem. Whether intellectual or emotional, stupidity is the only feature of humanity that consistently surfaces, day in and day out.

      Where do you work? Who are your friends? I ask because I'm taking a wild guess that many of the people with whom you surround yourself are relatively bright. It's easy to then forget that a very large portion of humanity across the planet is intellectually and/or emotionally dull, to be charitable. This problem crosses all economic and cultural boundaries, and directly affects the development of a society that is able to mature to a point where very advanced technology may be consistently developed, and used for the benefit of the species, outside the context of war.

      T

    25. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Although if you think about it, most any habitat built on mars or the moon would be far cheaper and similarly effective for protecting humans on earth. (provided it wasn't in the immediate blast radius)

    26. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately our world (Earth) is run by a bunch of intelligent, alpha sopciopaths, some of whom claim belief in creationist theory in order to get votes from the actual stupid people. What's worse is that we voted many of these fools into power because we have no choice except evil lizard A and evil lizard B.

      FTFY too.

    27. Re:Saving Earth is good... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's not what the infomercials say.

    28. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I don't think the Space Shuttle is a good example of your point. The SS is a good example of a boondoggle and stupid requirements. The whole idea of having something that could go up in space, grab big payloads, and bring them back down to earth is something that just wasn't needed; it's much cheaper and easier to make something that launches mass into space, in a one-way trip (only the humans need to be returned safely).

      To make the obligatory car analogy, it's like buying a giant 6-seat pickup truck (w/ long bed), plus a lift kit and giant chrome rims and tires, just to drive to work every day. It'll cost a fortune (in both initial and recurring costs), and not do a better job than a Prius. Sure, it might do a better job at rolling over cars in a show or something, but that's not what it's being used for.

    29. Re:Saving Earth is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuel would be obtained by siphoning He3 out of Jupiter's atmosphere over a 20-year period. Estimated cost was $100 trillion. [...] the entire global GNP is around $70 trillion.

      So the estimated cost is $5 trillion per year, or 7% of global GNP. I have a hobby that takes up more than 7% of my income. If humanity made interstellar travel our hobby - if we were all prepared to make do with 7% less - then we could do this. It really is a matter of political will.

      Of course, hardly anyone would be willing to do this, and that's why it won't happen (at least, not until improved technology makes it cheaper). That's what a lack of political will means.

    30. Re:Saving Earth is good... by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      LMFAO well played sir, well played.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  2. Southern guy with three names by Latent+Heat · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need this Southern guy with three names to come up with a plan to drill into the asteroid . . . never mind!

    1. Re:Southern guy with three names by Gunnut1124 · · Score: 0

      Someone call Tommy Lee Jones! He was in Space Cowboys, he'll know what to do.

      --
      America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
    2. Re:Southern guy with three names by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I thought the solution was to send up Bruce Willis with a nuke.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:Southern guy with three names by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I thought the solution was to send up Bruce Willis with a nuke.

      Oh that's very original. I've never heard that one before in my life whenever killer asteroids are mentioned. I'm so happy that this came so early in the discussion, and I have high hopes that it won't appear elsewhere.

      Mods, if you dare to mod this as "funny" then I think you need to learn the definition of funny. It stops applying after the same joke has been repeated a squillion times.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    4. Re:Southern guy with three names by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Mods, if you dare to mod this as "funny" then I think you need to learn the definition of funny. It stops applying after the same joke has been repeated a squillion times.

      Funny would be modding that comment as funny just to see if you would post any more angry comments.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Southern guy with three names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget your trillion dollar lottery with no taxes for closest date & time of Impact - bozo_de_niro@37.com

    6. Re:Southern guy with three names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget tax-tree trillion dollar lottery for closest date & time of Impact!

  3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it was possible for an asteroid impact to cause a mass extinction, wouldn't it have happened already?

  4. When exactly by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When exactly did Neil deGrasse Tyson become the world's official representative on all things astronomical? Was it the the pluto thing? It's just really weird that every media outlet seems to go to him for everything these days. He's really articulate and informed, but so are a lot of people. I don't get it.

    1. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When exactly did Neil deGrasse Tyson become the world's official representative on all things astronomical?"

      What makes you think that he did?

    2. Re:When exactly by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " He's really articulate and informed, but so are a lot of people."

      Not scientists.

      Neil deGrasse Tyson is articulate, charismatic, reasonably good looking, and interviews very well. He is relatable. Anyone who can talk about accurately talk about science and still seem relatable to the average person is perfect to interview.

      For example: He was asked why he was able to get is point across so clearly on the colbart report. He said he timed the jokes from previous epsode and ew a bout how much time he had before the next joke. Then boiled his points down to fit into the times between the jokes.

      Not a lot of people think about interviews that way, and certainly not scientists.

      Now he has the rep to be the guy to go to, the media goes to him.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that it has to do with public popularity/awareness since he appeared on "The Big Bang Theory."

    4. Re:When exactly by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When exactly did Neil deGrasse Tyson become the world's official representative on all things astronomical?

      It happened exactly when he stepped up and started talking about science and advocating the rare attitude of giving-a-shit.

      "80% of life|success is showing up." -- Woody Allen

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:When exactly by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      His enthusiasm.

      There are lots of other astronomers, last I checked the US graduates about 200 PhD's in astronomy and astrophysics a year, but the vast majority of them don't get excited at the mere notion of talking about science the way Dr Tyson does. Which is why he ended up doing science outreach at planetarium, which is why they put him on TV etc.

      He is by no means the only, and probably not the best scientist in the world. But his enthusiasm and energy are infectious, most of the other scientists you talk to are more concerned with publishing their next paper or making sure they have enough money to pay their graduate students. If you look at his CV he hasn't published anything academic since 2008 (nor did I immediately find anything on google scholar that would indicate he's just lazy about updating his webpage, but admittedly I don't normally search for astrophysics), and the work he's published recently seems to more be him as part of the planetarium or american museum of natural history than personal research, and he doesn't appear to take on grad students. That sets him apart from probably 90% of the practicing astronomers, in that he is actually focused full time on science communication rather than doing science. That makes him rare in the field, he's reasonably good at it, and he happens to have been in the right place at the right time with proximity to TV shows to go from a good career as a directory and writer to a particularly good one as TV personality.

      My undergrad is in theoretical physics, with most of that on optics and semiconductors, optics is largely 'laboratory astrophysics'. I find now several years after having finished my undergrad that I have a lot of trouble following most astrophysicists giving talks, because they're talking at a 4th year level, and seeing as how I'm a game developer and computer scientist these days that's far removed from understanding astrophysics. Dr. Tyson when he talks is able to mostly limit himself to first year intro to astronomy level, where people can actually understand what the hell he's talking about most of the time, finding people who can do that is unfortunately rather difficult.

    6. Re:When exactly by liamevo · · Score: 2

      What are you on about? Neil deGrasse Tyson has been in the public eye and a popular communicator of science long before "The Big Bang Theory" even existed. Wouldn't have been much of a cameo if no one knew who he was until that episode.

    7. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Colbert interview was awesome. He apparently gave a hard time to James Cameron because the night sky in Titanic was historically inaccurate and when Cameron did the director's cut a while later he asked Tyson to provide the sky.. and he did.

    8. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When exactly did Neil deGrasse Tyson become the world's official representative on all things astronomical? Was it the the pluto thing? It's just really weird that every media outlet seems to go to him for everything these days. He's really articulate and informed, but so are a lot of people. I don't get it.

      Watch out, we're dealing with a badass over here!

    9. Re:When exactly by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Funny

      "80% of life|success is showing up."

      That's what the asteroid said.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    10. Re:When exactly by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      HE IS AN ASTROPHYSICIST. That's a good start. Second, he's not the only, he's only the most celebrated on the Internet. Hence all the "We've got a badass here..." memes.

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    11. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how everyone avoided the obvious reason why he's the media representative "on all things astronomical."

    12. Re:When exactly by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the obvious answer is. Really. Please tell me.

    13. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he isn't quite good enough as a scientist to do the heavy lifting, so he plays the pretty face that explains things to the public.

    14. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better him than Michio Kaku...that guy is an annoying liar.

    15. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is the director of the New Hayden Planetarium in NEW YORK CITY. AKA, the center of the universe.

    16. Re:When exactly by irussel · · Score: 2

      Neil noticed early on that when he gave long winded answers to interview questions, it would be highly edited to fit whatever show it was for. So he started practicing giving short and succinct answers to specific topics. Once he started doing that, his complete answer would make it to the final product, with minimal editing needed.

    17. Re:When exactly by hughJ · · Score: 1

      And who exactly is supposed to popularize science at the middle-school level when only 5% of said science teachers have *any* post-secondary science education. Science needs to be popularized from every avenue possible. If that means having a handful of prominent scientists giving up research time to helping steer the next generation towards science, then so be it.

    18. Re:When exactly by domatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those scientists speak very articulately and in a very informed way among peers, that is people who need that.

      So shut the heck up, you overmodded idiot.

      He is just a sellout, who exchanged his education for a dubious profession of science popularizer.

      That is a very shortsighted attitude. An ignorant public is guaranteed to be hostile to funding pure research. Europe got the LHC while we left the SSSC half built and rotting in the ground. A major reason for it is the difference in regard for science and especially what science research leads to in the long term.

      And as the public's scientific literacy degrades so to will our ability to come up new tech or even maintain what we have. It will be very easy to convince people ignorant of the methods and findings of science that all scientists are boondoggling eggheads who hate Jesus.

      Scientists are supposedly intelligent, educated, and good at reasoning. Why they make a team sport of denegrating popularizers baffles me. Science needs freedom and funding to do it's work. Cheerleading for ignorance just so one can feel like he has a bigger brainpan than a "mere popularizer" is so stupid on multiple levels.

    19. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is obsessed with celebrity, not credentials.

      This is why they'd rather have Bill Nye tell them about conservation and environment (former oil field engineer/scientist), or Michao Kaku tell them about anything else (professional bullshit artist / string theory guy).

      Or have a complete numbnut like Al Gore give them all the scientific "answers".

      Or a special fx guy tell them about anything else in science (Mythbusters)

      Hell, Hillary Duff would have more listeners than your average PhD working at NASA.

      Self promoters aren't generally the best in their fields, that's why they self promote.

    20. Re:When exactly by skine · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with being a "popularizer" of science? It's people like NDT who are able to make science appeal to the general public.

      Unfortunately, Carl Sagan is now dead, Bill Nye hasn't really made the step from youth TV presenter to appealing to the general public, and Richard Dawkins has made "I'm an atheist," his selling point.

    21. Re:When exactly by mapkinase · · Score: 0

      Actually from what I hear about Bill Nye is that his audience was primarily kids, which is fine by me.

      I do not know Carl Sagan (I have heard of him, of course, but I do not know him).

      Dawkins is a useless moron. He wrote Selfish Gene 40 years ago - dubious book of dubious quality and after that he did not do squat.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    22. Re:When exactly by g8oz · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should travel back in time to work as a Soviet scientist then.

    23. Re:When exactly by ctsupafly · · Score: 1

      Why is getting the masses excited about science a bad thing? Why do you feel the need to post multiple times about it while not backing up anything you say with facts. Personally, I think anyone who gets people excited about actually furthering our race is a good thing & should be encouraged. His speech to congress about NASA's budget was wonderful. Also, you spend all your energy whining about the moderation rather than actually raising a point against Dr. Tyson. The hypocrisy in your sig amuses me.

    24. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carl Sagan's outside. He'd like to meet you, and slap you upside the head with his moldering, cadaverous hand.

    25. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His enthusiasm.

      He is truly enthusiastic, but when I watch Sixty Symbols videos (produced by Univ. of Nottinghamshire in the UK), I hear the enthusiasm in their voices. They just don't talk at the level Dr. Tyson does.

      BTW, you might like them (they're all over youtube), my undergrad is in Comp 'Sci', and I still find them somewhat accessible.

    26. Re:When exactly by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Tyson also humorously pointed out to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that the globe of the Earth in the show's opening sequence was revolving in the wrong direction. Jon mused that they would fix that, but I don't think they have yet.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    27. Re:When exactly by hughJ · · Score: 1

      ...only 5% of said science teachers have *any* post-secondary science education...

      Pardon me, it's 'less than 10% have any physical science major or certification.'

    28. Re:When exactly by rokstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who exactly did he sell out to? I worry you are assuming because he's popular that he must have sold his soul or something in order to do it. In reality however he is the director of the Hayden Planetarium which is under the aegis of American Museum of Natural History. Museums and planetariums are among other things, where the public goes to learn things outside of their wheelhouse that they find interesting. If he is getting the public excited about science and more specifically astronomy, that means he's doing his job. The fact that he does it well enough to have a fan base of any kind or size means he is doing an awesome job.

    29. Re:When exactly by Stele · · Score: 1

      Kudos to Cameron for that.

      On the other hand, he left Jack in.

    30. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Colbert interview was awesome. He apparently gave a hard time to James Cameron because the night sky in Titanic was historically inaccurate and when Cameron did the director's cut a while later he asked Tyson to provide the sky.. and he did.

      Did you see the interview he gave on The Daily Show a few weeks ago? Toward the end he tells Jon Stewart... you know the globe you have spinning in your opening graphics... it's spinning the wrong way. Got a huge laugh out of Stewart, and the crowd... and I'll be damned if I didn't notice the globe spinning the wrong way when I saw the opening graphics the next night.

      Guys like him, and Bill Nye, are indeed a rare breed.

    31. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that was funny, Tyson failed to note that the globe has northern and southern hemispheres rotating in opposite directions. So, there is a clear case to argue that the graphic designers were intentionally not going for accuracy.

    32. Re:When exactly by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The fact that they do not speak to general audience about their science, is because there is no need to do that. Nobody benefits from that.

      Oh. My. Fucking. God.

      Anthropogenic global warming is fairly well understood by science but huge swathes of the voting public think it isn't.

      Evolution by natural selection is settled science but still comes under attack in the US education system at regular intervals.

      Military budgets continue to skyrocket but NASA's budget comes under more and more scrutiny with exciting projects being cancelled left and right.

      And you're telling me there's "no benefit" to improving scientific literacy among the public? You, sir, deserve to be modded down to the bowels of the Earth for that little performance.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    33. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone who is smart believes what I believe. You are stupid if you disagree with me!

      Perhaps you should improve your own scientific literacy before commenting on others, and drop the groupthink bullshit. Look at the data and see that it's 5% data and 95 bullshit. Figuring out that 5% of a model is testable does NOT make the model correct (although the model can still be quite useful). Evolution is treated the same way as Zeus was by the Greeks. It apparently answers every question we have, unquestionably, without actually TESTING anything! That makes it science, after all! Go ahead. Ask a "scientist" (read: someone who believes in teh evolutions) why cheetahs can run so fast. Go ahead and hear them give you untested, unverifiable, bullshit answer sourced directly from their own ass -- and they will actually believe it -- even though it will probably run counter to everything that's actually been TESTED. For an extra dose of depression, ask them if that's their scientific opinion when they're done.

      If it weren't for the priests of evolution clouding up EVERY SINGLE FUCKING BIOLOGICAL DISCOVERY MADE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS, we'd probably have that cancer thing figured out by the time our soldiers came home from Vietnam.

    34. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

    35. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another globe inside the contra-rotating hemispheres, and this one is rotating the wrong way.

    36. Re:When exactly by cusco · · Score: 1

      Actually we didn't even leave it 'rotting in the ground', the remaining funds were used to fill most of the tunnel back up. IIRC, the portion that didn't get filled is mostly a mushroom farm.

      This is a thing that puzzles me about Brainwashington and Republicans in particular, they didn't leave it for someone who could use it for other science projects, they filled it in. When the Reagan administration found that NASA was still monitoring the seismographs on the moon they ordered the project canceled "save" the few thousand dollars a year that the program cost. MIT wanted to take over the monitoring, at which point the White House ordered them TURNED OFF, so that no one could monitor them. Unanalyzed data from Mariner was handed off to the Planetary Society when the Shrub administration cut the miniscule funding for its storage, and when the White House realized what was happening they tried to stop it but were too late. The only reason that we have a (likely) resolution to the Pioneer Anomaly is that NASA administrators violated a direct order from the White House to destroy the data before disposing of the tapes.

      I suspect that I'll never understand the political mind. Maybe that's for the best.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    37. Re:When exactly by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When exactly did Neil deGrasse Tyson become the world's official representative on all things astronomical?

      Because he went to Degrassi Jr. High?

    38. Re:When exactly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It apparently answers every question we have, unquestionably, without actually TESTING anything

      Nice troll, but there are now numerous examples of evolution being observed in action, putting the test to several hypotheses supporting evolution, while we still haven't discovered God's secret DNA-tampering lab.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:When exactly by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

      What do you consider dubious about 'The Selfish Gene'? I consider it a modern classic myself.

      You really think Dawkins is a 'useless moron' do you. How do you justify this?

      I don't understand posts like this, what point are you making that should be of interest to anyone else?

    40. Re:When exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. Carl Sagan in his day took a lot of heat from being a "science popularizer" too. Yet I know a lot of working scientists today who grew up as kids listening to Sagan and they partly credit Sagan for inspiring them to do what they do.

  5. Let me guess... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me guess, he wants to reclassify Earth as a "Non-Asteroid-Attracting Planetoid" in the hopes of fooling the asteroids.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you get hit in the head with a large rock as a kid?

    2. Re:Let me guess... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      After reading Apophis' furious blog post over the demotion of Pluto, I think he's only made the problem worse!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  6. Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An asteroid calculated to miss for 1000 orbits can have its orbit gravitationally altered by a close pass with another small but significant mass object in the Kuiper Belt.

    At that point, the next pass by Earth may not be "by Earth"...

    1. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by ferar · · Score: 1

      I agree. It will be much better to train the earth to evade the asteroidsâ¦

    2. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, what? Do you know where the Earth is, and where the Kuiper Belt is? Any "asteroid" that is making passes by Earth and making close passes with objects in the Kuiper Belt is not an asteroid, it's a freaking short-period comet, and it's quite unlikely we have enough data to predict the next 100 passes considering the influence of the sun and planets.

    3. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      It's also not really necessary. Unless we expected it to drastically change speeds, then it's good enough to know the previous orbit, predict the next orbit, and put it on a list of things to keep an eye on when their on their Earth approach again.

    4. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it takes the earth approx. 9 seconds to travel 10,000 miles so it would not require a large speed change in an object to go from a miss to hit or vice versa.

    5. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Ok, so the tools are imperfect and can't take every possible unknown influence into account. Is that supposed to be an argument for not using them at all?

    6. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

      He probably meant the Oort Cloud.

    7. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the word should have been "beyond" or out and beyond.

      Some objects appear to have periods of hundreds of years from what I remember reading.

      That puts predictions on a whole new plane.

    8. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, beyond the Kuiper Belt? So, by replying to my correction, you just went from sounding dumb to dumber...

      So now you're calling long-period comets "asteroids" and pretending they would be handled in the same way? Again, your complaint of perturbations by unknown bodies is ludicrous; these guys are even harder to predict without considering unknown bodies (i.e. only the sun and planets) than short period comets, which are in turn harder to predict than asteroids, because we can only measure over such a tiny portion of their orbit. It falls apart before you even consider unknown bodies -- which is probably why NdGT proposed it for asteroids, not fucking comets.

      To provide the obligatory car analogy, criticizing a strategy relevant for asteroids based on one particular flaw that only applies to comets, even though there are much bigger and more obvious reasons that strategy is completely infeasible for comets, is like saying the automobile will never work, because if you ran it on the ocean floor there would be no air to support combustion.

    9. Re:Prediction Ability is UNFORTUNATELY Limited by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Yes but Kupier belt objects would be on long orbits. The point is, we don't need to know them 100 cycles ahead. Just far enough that we know where in the sky to look every few years to check if they're now on an impact course.

      Of course, this type of strategy works better if we had a rapid response plan to deal with these things.

  7. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Everyone else is busy working on future tech to ensure it hits America and only squishes Americans.

  8. Re:Why? by Ashenkase · · Score: 1

    hear, hear, lets spend all of our precious energy inventing news ways of offing ourselves, that way when the killer asteroid does impact at some point in the future it will put a nice layer of dust over our dribble.

  9. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 2

    No, that would be Americans themselves...

  10. NdGT has a lot to answer for by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Ever notice how the news makes sure to refer to any psychopathic killer by three names?

    Neil deGrasse Tyson is a lowdown sidewinder that shot Pluto in the back just to watch it die.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:NdGT has a lot to answer for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever notice how the news makes sure to refer to any psychopathic killer by three names?

      Neil deGrasse Tyson is a lowdown sidewinder that shot Pluto in the back just to watch it die.

      he made Pluto his bitch

  11. Re:Why? by wed128 · · Score: 1

    Didn't it?

  12. Why not monetize it? by WillAdams · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1 - catalogue all the asteroids likely to pass by earth
    2 - analyse their composition
    3 - determine which can have their orbit modified so as to be placed in orbit around earth for an energy effort low enough that one will come out ahead either using the asteroid for material in orbit (to construct space stations / satellites, the probe to explore the next asteroid &c.) or have ore valuable enough to be worth returning to earth
    4 - profit!

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    1. Re:Why not monetize it? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      or have ore valuable enough to be worth returning to earth

      If we found an asteroid made of solid gold, it would cost more to go get the gold than the gold was worth. Even if we pretend flooding the market wouldn't affect the price.

      using the asteroid for material in orbit (to construct space stations / satellites, the probe to explore the next asteroid &c.)

      It turns out that heavy manufacturing is heavy. Getting a large refinery, forge and metallurgy shop into orbit is pretty expensive.

    2. Re:Why not monetize it? by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Okay, there are elements more valuable than gold though.

      Given that it's expensive to get stuff into orbit, doesn't it make sense to make things up there w/o lifting them? Probably mining the moon makes more sense to start (cue references to Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_).

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    3. Re:Why not monetize it? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      In order to make things up there, you have to get the equipment to make the things up there. That equipment is several orders of magnitude heavier than the things it will produce.

      To put it another way, you can lauch many thoudands of rockets with the same effort it takes to launch one rocket factory.

    4. Re:Why not monetize it? by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      Okay, but at some point one would reach the tipping point and it would then begin to be cost-effective.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    5. Re:Why not monetize it? by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

      Just remember that every modern factory and gizmobowatzit was built using stone tools. Indirectly, of course. But anything can be built starting with stone tools. (And stone tools were made using plain rocks!) We already did it. And most of the problem was in figuring out the next thing we wanted to make, not in the actual making. So, it doesn't take shipping entire forges and factories up to the moon. Just a few tools and some know-how. Now, I am not advocating sending actual stone tools. Just that one doesn't need to send complete factories either. You figure out a happy medium of weight and utility, then get started.

      It never ceases to amaze me how many arguments on /. and elsewhere are based entirely on false dichotomies. It would be amusing if it weren't so damaging.

  13. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    wake me up when they actually implement some of that socialism your referring to.

  14. Where will the funding come from? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    If the US takes this on, I would surmise it would fall under NASA's umbrella. With their funding being cut, though (total of $17.7 Billion for 2012*) I don't see a lot of excess to whittle off for exploring options. Most likely the military will absorb the cost, but don't expect to see "kinder and gentler" on their option list.

    [*] - http://io9.com/5885042/how-will-the-white-houses-brutal-budget-cuts-affect-nasa

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  15. We need more brains by pubwvj · · Score: 0

    This is why you should have children. We need more brains, more people thinking about big problems and they need lots of people supporting them to think about these big problems like how to protect this rock and how to get some of our populace off this rock to other rocks. Without this we face near certain extinction. Breed. Read to your children. Teach them to love learning. Teach them to work hard. The rest will follow.

    1. Re:We need more brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hell? Someone who thinks a slashdotter is failing to get laid because it's their own choice?

    2. Re:We need more brains by spiffmastercow · · Score: 0

      Please tell me you're trolling..

    3. Re:We need more brains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not intentionally, but I've thought about it a bit more since posting that. Rest assured, there are people on slashdot that didn't make the choice for themselves (but there are people in all walks of life with the same problem). I get what he's really saying is that he's encouraging people to breed if they are capable of raising smart children. More specifically, the type of children who are capable of growing into the type of people who will be capable of contributing to thinking about the "big problems" we will continue to face in the future.

      There may be a problem with a more locally minded set of "big problem" thinkers. There is a subset of environmentalists that advocate a large scale voluntary (at least I hope voluntary) reduction in human population. I suspect that the people capable of raising children to be capable of thinking about the "big problems" are much more likely to be in the group also willing to be part of voluntary population reduction.

      I'm not saying anything really important about it, but I'm pretty darn sure that the Quiverfull people aren't really the scientifically minded people that we're going to need to get off of this rock.

  16. Re:Why? by sconeu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The dinosaurs say hello...

    Oh wait, an asteroid impact caused their mass extinction.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  17. Hundreds or thousands of orbits in the future ... by __aawzag621 · · Score: 2

    3-body problem --> non-linear feedback --> mathematical chaos --> must simulate, but very sensitive to initial conditions. There is a lot of matter in our solar system for which the orbits are not known. ==> I don't believe 'hundreds of orbits in the future'.

  18. I propose.... by Tharsman · · Score: 4, Funny

    A triangular space ship with vector blasters!!! It worked in the 20th century and it should work in the 21st century!!!

    1. Re:I propose.... by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      I was going to say... the game came out in the 70s, mankind has already lost countless man-hours of productivity to it.
      Too little, too late, as usual.

  19. Move us all by RagManX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Couldn't Tyson just move all of us to his home planet prior to the asteroid hitting earth? Or is the environment of his home planet inhospitable to earthlings?

    1. Re:Move us all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the standard Earthling is deficient in Awesomers.

      This lack of Awesomers would, in fact, be fatal to any Earthling relocated to his home planet.

  20. 15 Minutes by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 0

    I've seen this guy's face and name pop up so much this last month, its reminding me of Andy Worhol's most famous quote.

    He's a cool guy and all, but it now feels like he's a William Morris client.

    1. Re:15 Minutes by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If by 15 years you mean more then a decade, then yes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:15 Minutes by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure that 15 years IS more than a decade, actually...

    3. Re:15 Minutes by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      Yes, 15 years usually is more then a decade ;-)

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:15 Minutes by ks*nut · · Score: 1

      Well, he did just publish a book..

  21. Damnit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping for 3 robots piloted by young cute girls in skin tight outfits...

  22. can I haz asteroid? by Thud457 · · Score: 0
    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's the earth staying up in space right? Why doesn't it fall down!

  24. Ridiculous paranoia! by santosh.k83 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes this is indeed the need of the hour! Save Earth from asteroids! How about we stop this paranoia and focus on matters closer to home, or what will be left in a few short decades will not only not be worth saving, it would well deserve obliteration by an asteroid or two!

    1. Re:Ridiculous paranoia! by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You realize of course that big rocks really do hit the earth from time to time. I'm not just talking about dinosaur killers and cataclismic events, but 'smaller' impacts too. In fact, there's a rather famous one that happened barely a hundred years ago. There aren't many places on left on dry land that an impact like that can occur without it causing massive devastation. And that's even ignoring the damage that could be done if an impact occurred in a large body of water; cartoonishly large tsunami's are a real, actual possibility.

      But hey, keep worrying about the latest doom and gloom predictions. Not that there isn't anything to them, but people have been making them for hundreds of years and human civilization keeps ticking over somehow. I'm not even sure what you mean by "matters closer to home", the only thing I can think of is the kind of catastrophic climate change that no one really takes seriously anymore (and I don't mean a 2 meter rise in sea level, yes that would be devastating but not cataclysmic.)

    2. Re:Ridiculous paranoia! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Fact: An extinction event sized body will hit the earth.
      Unknown: When.

      I'm not sure why you think detecting and deflecting an object that will wipe us clean from the planet isn't a matter close to home.

      Oh, right, you're a short sighted ass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Ridiculous paranoia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked out of the window while flying somewhere? Most of the Earth is still not inhabited, so the odds of a Tunguska-style impact hitting a major urban area are small. Sure, if it was to land on your farm that would suck, but the cost of moving you and your neighbors somewhere else would be small compared to the cost of trying to stop every asteroid or comet fragment of that size.

      With current spaceflight technology the cost of stopping a significant asteroid impact is substantially larger than the expected cost of not stopping it. There are also major legal issues. Project Icarus, for example, would have required about half a dozen nukes to divert the incoming asteroid. That means that if your asteroid was going to hit America and you launched the first nuke, now perhaps you've just diverted it so that it will hit Mexico instead. Do you think the Mexicans would be happy with that? What if the first five nukes work but the last doesn't, so now instead of hitting America it's going to hit Moscow?

    4. Re:Ridiculous paranoia! by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Yes this is indeed the need of the hour! Save Earth from asteroids! How about we stop this paranoia and focus on matters closer to home, or what will be left in a few short decades will not only not be worth saving, it would well deserve obliteration by an asteroid or two!

      Yeah, those paranoid dinosaurs should have concentrated on more important matters like getting laid and finding food. Why would they want to give a toss about asteroids? Why should they have been concerned about something so remote?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    5. Re:Ridiculous paranoia! by cusco · · Score: 2

      Just a few years ago a meteorite exploded over the eastern Mediterranean. If it had arrived two hours later Earth's rotation would have had it blowing up over the India/Pakistan border. What do you think the local reaction would have been to a multi-kiloton air blast anywhere in the area? To make matters worse, keep in mind that the Pakistani nukes aren't even under the control of the central government, but of the generals in charge of the area where they're deployed. A full-scale nuclear exchange between the two countries is very likely enough to trigger a Nuclear Winter event.

      Do you understand now? It doesn't take a Chixlub-size asteroid to cause an extinction-level event any more.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  25. It's not saving "Earth," it's saving "humans" by RugRat · · Score: 1

    Headline is hyperbolic. Astroid sized impacts aren't going to destroy Earth. It'll be fine. It's the humans for which we need to be concerned.

    1. Re:It's not saving "Earth," it's saving "humans" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Which we all know that's what we mean. Only an ass would take it to a stupid extreme to make them selves look clever.

      That said, there are object large enough to destroy the earth.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:It's not saving "Earth," it's saving "humans" by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      There are other threatened species on the planet than humans.

    3. Re:It's not saving "Earth," it's saving "humans" by RugRat · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in general we don't go to heroic lengths to save them. People are intrinsically motivated to work in their own best interest. Which is why "save the earth" isn't a message that resonates with anyone other than the environmentalists.

  26. Why bother? by drdread66 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The republicans will scorn the theory, deny the evidence, publicly attack the scientists who produced it, and insist on doing nothing.

    1. Re:Why bother? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      We should see if we can quickly deplete their list of denial options until they no longer deny the problem and say they simply refuse to act and will bury themselves in deep-underground suspended animation chambers...then I'll find a way to get myself onto the list of people to be preserved, and as an expert dune buggy driver, decent marksman, and could-be-worse boomerang thrower, the cute post-apocalyptic future-women will be mine! :D MUAHAHAHAHA, a flawless plan!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  27. We're gonna trust this guy to save Earth? by wbhauck · · Score: 0

    Isn't he the one that killed the planet Pluto?

    1. Re:We're gonna trust this guy to save Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't he the one that killed the planet Pluto?

      He can save us from the killer asteroid by redefining it to be a fluffy kitten.

  28. Can't we just fire something at it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought even the smallest nudge can totally change the trajectory of crap in space.
    Can't we just fire off something to nudge it slightly at a different angle?

  29. Yes, it did, 12,900 years ago by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Evidence for Younger Dryas impact: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/01/1110614109.abstract

    Note that the YD debris layer covers 10% of the Earth. It is hypothesized it was caused by a comet which broke up some time before hitting Earth, so created a large number of smaller craters rather than one big one.

  30. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Hatta · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is no joke. We can't even solve the three body problem. Who thinks we can solve the three hundred thousand body problem?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  31. Not happening by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Given the way the past generations have treated the future ones, there won't be enough time between figuring out the threat and putting together an adequate response in time.

    Past performances prove that any previous generation has no qualms at all about making the future generations pay for their own spending and not the other way around, all this is done while paying plenty of lip service to the proverbial 'children'.

    1. Re:Not happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, past performance proves that rich educated people care for their children greatly, doing everything they can to give their kids every advantage possible (over the poor kids)

      So the rich are perfectly capable of discovering and implementing a solution if they want to. Only their solution will just save themselves/their children. And the rest of us will have to just bend over and accept it, because the rich tells us that they have individual liberty, and that means they are not obliged to take care of anybody else but themselves and those they care about (and they don't care about you)

  32. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wake UP!

  33. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Approximations :-)

    Hey, it worked for the Voyager probes.

  34. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by na1led · · Score: 1

    Jupiter has been doing a good job vacuuming these rocks, if not, kiss your ass goodby, because there is no chance in hell we are going to avoid an extinction event.

    --
    -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
  35. Wait a minute... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    He does seem to be going on about this issue a bit lately.

    What are you not telling us, Neil?

  36. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by melikamp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So an exact solution does not exist, big deal. There are plenty of things we can calculate numerically with precision which is high in practice and arbitrary in theory.

  37. Know your enemy by Hentes · · Score: 1

    He is right, we know too little about asteroids today to be able to predict a collision, let alone think of deflection. Before trying to come up with a plan to deflect one, we need to study them much more.

  38. Alternate scenario by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    3 - determine which can have their orbit modified so as to be placed in orbit around earth

    4 - Oops!

    1. Re:Alternate scenario by hemo_jr · · Score: 2

      To paraphrase Foghorn Leghorn, "That is why we should keep Bruce Willis around for just such an emergency. "

    2. Re:Alternate scenario by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      There's a scene in the Mission Earth series (not Battlefield Earth) where the hero is trying to tug an ice asteroid into Earth orbit, gets disrupted by something, and derps it all over Russia.

      Yeah, yeah, I know. L. Ron Hubbard, but I found the whole ten book series in hardback at a yard sale for $5. Actually starts out OK as space opera, goes seriously off the rails in the middle and, curiously, mostly gets back on the rails in the last book. I just liked the idea that Earth culture is so damned toxic that even a small import of it nearly brings a multi-million year old advanced alien culture crashing down, and they are forced to kill, treat or imprison anyone exposed, and ruthlessly suppress any evidence that Earth even exists before they can recover.

  39. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know, right? Most disappointing "socialist takeover" ever. Where's Eugene Debs when you need him?

  40. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by hemo_jr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With the computing power, the n-body problem can be solved with sufficient precision for the purposes of detecting this particular threat. And it will give us enough fore-warning to do something to prevent it. Whether we can come to a consensus and actually do it is another issue.

  41. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by SeximusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this straight, in the same post you complain that we won't work together and fix the problem and then also chastise "socialism" - Do you think there is a private company who would be doing this save for the chains of government?

  42. Here's his plan... by PRMan · · Score: 1
    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    1. Re:Here's his plan... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      But in space, no one can hear your sound effects. Will it still work if there aren't any "pew pew!" sounds?

  43. Lucifer's Hammer, anyone? by netwarerip · · Score: 1

    Anyone that read Lucifer's Hammer knows that asterioids and comets bounce around in their orbit too much to make anything other than a reasonable guess till they are too close to do anything other than hide The Way Things Work in your septic tank. For those unaware - it's written by Larry Niven and David Pournelle

    1. Re:Lucifer's Hammer, anyone? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, lets go to a fiction book based on decades old information to base science on.

      Great book, but we do get better at this stuff as time goes on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Lucifer's Hammer, anyone? by hemo_jr · · Score: 1

      Err, that would be Jerry Pournelle. They chose to use a comet because comets can come out of essentially nowhere and hit before anyone could devise and put in place a defense.

      If you are going to cite and SF story, Donald Kingsbury's "To Bring in the Steel" is the one to cite.

    3. Re:Lucifer's Hammer, anyone? by netwarerip · · Score: 1

      Oops on the typo, and thx for the heads up on Kingsbury. I just wanted to justify why I keep throwing stuff in my septic tank.

  44. No wonder... by bingbong · · Score: 1

    No wonder they named a Jr High School after this guy.

    --
    "Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
  45. what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    The earth doesn't need saving from asteroids, it's survived asteroid impacts for 4 billion years. Humans are what we need to save from asteroid impacts and the simplest solution to this problem seems to me to be to move off of objects that routinely get struck by asteroids (the earth) and onto something a tad bit more maneuverable (like an asteroid)

    1. Re:what? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The earth doesn't need saving from asteroids, it's survived asteroid impacts for 4 billion years. Humans are what we need to save from asteroid impacts and the simplest solution to this problem seems to me to be to move off of objects that routinely get struck by asteroids (the earth) and onto something a tad bit more maneuverable (like an asteroid)

      Yeah. Because evacuating 7 billion people onto another object capable of sustaining them (none exists yet, it'd have to be constructed or terraformed on another planet over a period of centuries) is so much easier than deflecting an asteroid.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  46. Evidence Suggests... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    T.Rex's last words were "What's that wooshing sound?"

    1. Re:Evidence Suggests... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mods picked up on the sarcasm, at least.

    2. Re:Evidence Suggests... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Gary Larson had it right: http://s4.hubimg.com/u/209795_f520.jpg

    3. Re:Evidence Suggests... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0

      That's not what my new paleontology textbook says.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  47. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by companydroid · · Score: 0

    Sweet! I can tell my banker to kiss off when he asks about making a mortgage or car payment. Awesome news!

  48. Iranian Nuclear Factory Bunker Busting Bomb by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    The USAF is looking around for a new bomb big enough to bust those wacky Iranian Nuclear Factory Bunkers. Maybe an Asteroid might be up to the job.

    You would just need to catch it, and toss it in the right direction. This shouldn't be a problem for the current state of technology.

    Probably.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  49. Is it very persuasive? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    I mean, come on, after the Earth has collided with an errant asteroid and all life on it has been fried, would you really care that the space aliens are laughing at you? If people are not moved by "You are all going to die!" they are not likely to be persuaded by, "Space aliens would laugh at you!".

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  50. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by toadlife · · Score: 1

    Whether we can come to a consensus and actually do it is another issue.

    Obligatory

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  51. Dont Nuke 'em. Was Re:Southern guy with three name by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    That ain't gonna cut it. Even if the nuke blows up the asteroid, its center of mass will continue on the original trajectory. All the chunks that were displaced in the tangential (to the trajectory at the moment of explosion) will hit the earth. Only the chunks displaced in the normal direction has some chance of missing the earth. Again given the size of the Earth's gravitational well, it would only delay the impact by a few thousand years. So nuking the asteroid is likely to nip in the bud any nascent life form emerging after the apocalyptic impact.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  52. Early detection and warning system.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    System alert: Watch out, we've got a bad asteroid over here!

  53. All this catalogueing by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    And the outcome will be? We will know the precise hour when we die.
    How do we stop an asteroid anyway? I've heard proposals of nuking the asteroids, but I don't see how we will intercept an asteroid with enough nukes early enough to deflect the asteroid. I don't suppose a nuke would be much better than simply hitting the asteroid with a high momentum slug and hope to change the trajectory sufficiently. How will we accelerate such a slug and set it on an intercept course with the asteroid?

    1. Re:All this catalogueing by necro81 · · Score: 2

      One thing working in our favor is that an Earth-impacting asteroid will likely have an orbit that brings it into regular proximity with Earth, providing sequential opportunities to intercept or otherwise influence it before it hits. A rogue body hurtling down from the Kuiper Belt and just so happening to bull's-eye Earth is highly unlikely, even for asteroid impacts. So, on one of those close approaches we have a chance of intercepting it, then spending all of the next orbit deflecting it. If you had read the article, or any credible article on the subject, you would know this.

    2. Re:All this catalogueing by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Well...you could RTFA to find out what the idea is.

      But if you were going to do that, you probably wouldn't have written your poorly-researched post.

      The point of cataloging is so that we know which ones are dangerous long before the impact. That way we don't have to deflect it with a single hit. Attach a solar sail and you will gradually change the orbit. Stick a rocket onto it and you can give it a nudge at the right time several decades before the impact so that it misses. Excavate chunks of asteroid and shoot them off the surface - that will propel the asteroid also. Solar concentrators could burn part of the asteroid's surface, releasing a gas which then alters the trajectory. There's a whole lot of possible solutions.

      You don't need a single giant shove. Some finesse will do just fine if you catch it early enough.

  54. Next up, bacteriologists warn of impending doom! by companydroid · · Score: 1

    Just like clockwork every year the stories abound about meteors/comets/space junk colliding with earth and sealing our fate. Then we hear from bacteriologists that some primordial ooze will threaten to overtake the planet. And on and on and on......... Working in medicine I see this everyday; a constant lobbying for $$$. Cancer vs. heart disease vs. neuro diseases, yada yada yada. I'm not saying that these concerns are without validity, just that this is simply the tried and true method for garnering public support for increased funding.

  55. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is what the Yellowstone supervolcano is for. An asteroid hit is too chancy and not precise enough not to cause unwarranted collateral damage in other parts of the world. The problem with the Yellowstone supervolcano is that it probably won't wipe out California and the East coast, but it will weaken the U.S. enough to make invasion a real possibility for the country that is ready.

  56. An asteroid impact is survivable on earth by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

    Even though its good to plan for precuations and deflection efforts, the fact is, humans could survive a Chicxulub sized impact fairly easy, it is completely survivable here on earth. Unlike dinosaurs humans can store away enough food to get through a long period of time without sunlight, and store a seed bank supply containing huge stores of all seeds from food plants and livestock to repopulate and restore agriculture afterward, and libraries filled with the accumulated knowledge of humanity. Unless, we include the entire population of these efforts so the entire population stores away huge amounts of freeze dried and preserved food, the survival facility would have to be secret and heavily protected from the riots and chaos that would ensue in a asteroid winter. There would be many of these facilities located in top secret all over the planet so even if one was destroyed by the impact there would still be others. The people participating in them would have to live nearby and would have to go underground at a moments notice. Some of them would have to be located near fertile, farmable areas for recovery long after the strike. They would be far underground and bult to withstand wildfires, huge winds, earthquakes and all the other stuff that could happen. They would be protected from tsunami, located inland and so on and from any other conceivable disaster.

    All of this could allow humanity to survive on earth even easier and with less trouble than on mars. It is actually easier to survive here on earth after an asteroid than it would be on mars.

    1. Re:An asteroid impact is survivable on earth by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would add that what killed all the dinosaurs was not the asteroid impact itself, but the asteroid winter that caused a collapse of the food chain. The asteroid blast and fire ball and tsunami was localized, it killed dinosaurs locally but its not what killed them off globally, the blockage of the sun did. If enough food can be stored away to get through the winter and then seeds to immediately restart agriculture when things clear, humans can survive it.

  57. Re:Dont Nuke 'em. Was Re:Southern guy with three n by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the significant increase in surface area / volume ration cause a far lower mass to actually hit earth?

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  58. Re:Dwarf Astronomer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ar you saying he hasn't cleared his orbit? Because he seems to be the only mainstream media friendly astronomer which would seem counter-indicative of that hypothesis.

  59. Re:Dont Nuke 'em. Was Re:Southern guy with three n by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    Well, if your bomb is strong enough, you can blow it enough for the center of mass to become irrelevant, as all debris will fly away from it. If it isn't that strong, you can still ensure you blow it into small enough pieces that it's surface to mass ratio is big enough for them to not survive reentry.

    But the best option is probably just to propel the thing, you are right.

  60. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we can't say for sure whether it was asteroids, there is certainly evidence for several mass extinctions in Earth's history.

  61. Also in the news..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neil de Grasse Tyson is also in the news for being the proud (?) author of the only modification to be suggested and approved for inclusion in the new version of Titanic:3D - theres a mention here

  62. Earth by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

    the ultimate wave defense game

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    1. Re:Earth by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      not quite. there's no official story to the game that says you're defending earth. and the douchers who want to make it a movie centered the story around earth being destroyed by aliens prior. http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/video-game-movie-asteroids-off-earth-plot-revealed-emmerich/

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  63. Misread title by froderickk · · Score: 1

    I read the title as 'a plan to save earth from assholes'. I'd be more interested to hear his answer on that one.

  64. Why the Pacific Ocean? by meerling · · Score: 1

    They can't even calculate it's trajectory close enough to determine if it will hit one on of the few key windows in 17 years that might put it on a collision course in another 7 years. Why should I think the projection out 24 years from now (appx) will actually hit a target only a few thousand miles across and in a window of less than half a day with that level of imprecision?

    I think either he's been watching too many Hollywood films, or the reporter didn't correctly quote the statement.

    1. Re:Why the Pacific Ocean? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      They don't know if it will hit the "keyhole", because they don't have a catalog of every single object in the solar system. If it passes near another large asteroid, for example, then it's orbit will be different.

      What they can do is plug in numbers to see what would happen if it did hit the "keyhole".

      Also, the Pacific ocean is 64.1 million square miles. It's not exactly a small target.

  65. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    I think it depends on which way the winds carry the ash. Seriously, Californians would be better off if they eliminated the power the east coasters have over them, and California (actually, the whole west coast) is where all of America's remaining technology is. Where do you think your smartphone, computer, etc. were all designed? Certainly not in Detroit, NYC, or DC. The east coast cities don't really produce anything of value, and in the case of NYC and DC, they do nothing but cause harm (from the banksters in NY and the politicians and lobbyists in DC).

  66. Linear accelerator mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Heinlein wrote about a mining rig/linear accelerator once, but I've never heard about it since.

    The idea is to fly a mining rig to an asteroid and land it there. The mining rig would be nuclear powered and use a laser or mechanical tool to grind up bits of the asteroid, which it would then fire through a longish magnetic accelerator, acting as a propellant. This would be used to then steer the asteroid to where we want it--deep space/the sun/jupiter for disposal or into a stable near earth orbit for harvesting.

    The thrust generated by firing bits of iron rich alloy out the back would be small, but the duration could be decades. If the asteroid is spinning, a computer could control the timing of the release to effectively steer the asteroid.

  67. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is no joke.

    Yes it is. Orbits, unlike the weather, are not chaotic. For those who don't know, chaotic means "sensitively dependent on initial conditions", which in practice means that the error in your output calculation is not proportional to the error in your measurement of the initial state. This is why accurate, non-probabilistic weather predictions will never be possible beyond the very short term.

    Orbits are not chaotic. The error in the calculation of the orbit is proportional to the error in our current measurements of its position and velocity, and any relevant masses that could affect its orbit. The more we study the object, the more precisely we know its orbit, and the more precisely and the farther into the future we can predict its orbit.

    We don't need to solve the 3000-body problem, because the vast majority of bodies in the solar system have a completely negligible effect compared to the solar wind.

    There is still uncertainty in the orbit of Apophis. That's why you still hear the odds of it passing through the 'keyhole' that will send it on a collision course with earth, rather than an explicit "yes" or "no". Yet with precise enough measurements, we could say that, and eventually will be able to.

    So, yeah, the butterfly effect is just a joke in this context.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  68. GOD YOUR AN IDIOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Way Things Work was written by David Macaulay , NOT Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle .

    And if you're caching books in your septic tank for the benefit of future generations, you really should be including a copy of the Motel of Mysteries.

  69. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 3, Funny

    We can't even calculate all of the digits of pi! Whatever shall we do!

    AHHHH!

  70. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes it is. Orbits, unlike the weather, are not chaotic.

    An orbit is not chaotic. Solving two orbits (three bodies) is the exact problem that lead to the development of chaos theory.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  71. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
    The, ah, problem with the n-body problem is that it is chaotic. Very small errors in measurements can result in large change to the outcome. Fortunately, it's not chaotic over its entire domain[1], and there are regions within the solution space where approximations work fine.

    [1] Any mathematicians reading this are probably going to crucify me over my abuse of terminology there, sorry...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  72. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by dak664 · · Score: 1

    You can numerically integrate from initial estimates of known objects. Uncertainties get magnified when any two get close enough. Rotations come into play, mass can get redistributed. And of course a new object could always appear, don't forget the solar system shifts to entirely new space every 316 days.

  73. Re:Iranian Nuclear Factory Bunker Busting Bomb by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    That's irrelevant: the US already has bombs plenty big enough to bust those Iranian nuclear factory bunkers; the only problem is that they're nuclear themselves. What the USAF is looking for is a really big conventional bomb, because it's not politically feasible to start dropping megatons of hypocrisy on the Iranians.

    With an asteroid, on the other hand, there's no problem using a nuke.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  74. Re:Saving Earth is good.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldnt bother - no matter how many safe guards science put into place to ensure at least some of the race survived, the first words the surviors will utter staggering out their shelter will be 'Thank God!'

  75. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    The problem with the Yellowstone supervolcano is that it probably won't wipe out California and the East coast

    Don't worry, the flood of refugees will.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  76. Never heard of him by howardd21 · · Score: 0

    I never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson's (thank goodness for cut and paste), was he in Armageddon? I am glad he had found a way to take his movie background and create a solution that works.

    --
    no comment
  77. Re:Dont Nuke 'em. Was Re:Southern guy with three n by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    I came up with a drinking game where you take a drink every time there was a scientific inaccuracy in "Armaggeddon" but I would always pass out drunk by the end of the opening credits.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  78. Re:this guys defines the term "media overexposure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the second anti-Tyson post (really, why are you so exercised about this educator?) in which you accuse him of "pondering to the crowd".

    Pondering. I don't think that word means what you think it does.

  79. Re:this guys defines the term "media overexposure" by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    Okay, you made your point earlier. You *really* don't like Tyson and are, for some reason, very, very bitter about/toward him. For whatever the reasons, of which you seem to disapprove, he's successful and famous and you're not; take a deep breath, get a drink and get over it.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  80. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0

    Derpa derp, I am teh smart.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  81. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Hatta · · Score: 1

    We all have our brain farts. :D

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  82. Prediction is not easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Predicting asteroid collisions that far in the future is not easy. The limitation is not compute power, but data accuracy. Small uncertainties in position and speed are magnified exponentially every time the body passes close to a planet or moon. Small uncertainties in the gravitational field of the other bodies (e.g. comets, unseen asteroids) and in the solar wind has a similar effect. So if measurement technology improves one digit every X years one expects that forecasting range will increase at a constant rate at best (i.e. every X years we can predict a collision with extra Y months in advance).

  83. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

    I wonder what would happen if someone would start a Kickstarter project around this: "Save the Earth! Target funding: $1,000,000,000,000. The more you contribute, the greater the chance you will survive."

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  84. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by SeximusMaximus · · Score: 1

    It would be midly entertaining, but because they wouldn't hit their goal, the funds would not be released...

  85. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Zordak · · Score: 0

    Remember when the Onion used to be funny, like 10 years ago, before it was a shameless shill for the DNC? Those were the days.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  86. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Remember when the Republican party used to be sane? Today's Republicans are the gift that keeps on giving to the Onion writers.

  87. What about Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But wouldn't that take away funding from Global Warming research and Green Projects?

  88. Duck 'n Cover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worked against those evil commie nukes and there is nothing more powerful than evil commie nukes.

  89. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me get this straight, in the same post you complain that we won't work together and fix the problem and then also chastise "socialism" - Do you think there is a private company who would be doing this save for the chains of government?

    He's probably American. They haven't a fucking clue what socialism actually is. To them it's just a word that appeared in the English language during the 2008 US presidential election campaign when the bimbo-in-chief started bandying it around to refer to any Obama policy she didn't like.

  90. Meh by BigChigger · · Score: 1

    sounds more like the media whore physicist full employment act to me.

    1. Re:Meh by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Why are there so many people with sand in their vaginas posting in this thread? Okay, we get it, you're jealous. Go suck an egg or something.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  91. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is Goodby?

  92. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by gstrickler · · Score: 1

    This new learning fascinates me. Tell me again how we can prevent asteroid strikes with just computers.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
  93. Near Earth Asteroids Aren't the Only Challenge by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    Near Earth Asteroid collision predictions are relatively straightforward and processes for mitigation are being worked on. That issue is almost too easy and we'll know years if not decades in advance if a relatively large asteroid is a threat. The threat from a large comet approaching the inner solar system is a different issue and one that doesn't lend itself to easy prediction and mitigation. We might have several months to plan for deflection/destruction of a large comet swooping in from the Oort Cloud. Remember those blotches in Jupiter's clouds from Shoemaker-Levy 9? They were produced by cometary fragments.

  94. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    THAT is the one you linked to?! Just this week they published: this about him :-P As soon as that hits the atmosphere, he's outta here! lol.

  95. Destroyer of Worlds by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    Well, the guy who almost single-handedly caused Pluto to be relegated to Minor Planet status should know a thing or two about planetary destruction...

  96. Re:Future Tech won't handle it by Lucractius · · Score: 1

    It would however reflect the willingness of people to "pony up the dough" with regards to getting things done.

    --
    XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
  97. REALLY DISAGREE! by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    first you need to decide precisely how you are going to defend.. then you build the catalog of threats... for two reasons

    1- locating everything does JACK for you if you can't stop anything yet, if you can see it- but do nothing- it sucks.
    if you can deal with it, and miss seeing it-- it sucks, but at least with the latter you have a better chance of success 100% kill ratio on 10% of objects as located is better than 0% kill ration on 100% known objects

    2- knowing the method defines how encompassing your catalog of astral bodies have to be..

    if the method selected allows for getting meteors within mars orbit and moving at 1/10th lightspeed or so,-- that's all you gotta look for.
    if the method available requires having months advance notice (launch per interception, ship per interception, and sending up oil drillers with nukes) we gotta look farther out for more lead time

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  98. Why mention Friday the 13th? by Rsriram · · Score: 1

    He mentions the date as Friday the 13th, April 2029. When the date is about 18 years from now, what was the need for mentioning that 13th is a Friday. Now instead of focusing on science, there will be a bunch of people who focus on Friday the 13th.

      |On Friday the 13th, April 2029, it will dip below the altitude of our communication satellites

    --
    O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
  99. Billy Bob Thornton by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    I was thinking the "other killer asteroid movie" with Billy Bob Thornton in it. Get it, Southern guy with 3 names? Neil deGrasse Tyson has 3 names? OK, Dr. Tyson is a black Northerner and Mr. Thornton is a white Southerner? Oh, heck, you are right, joke is way overused and no longer funny,

  100. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    testing 1 2 3

  101. Re:Then a butterfly flaps its wings by toadlife · · Score: 1

    Myth. Republicans (conservatives) today are no different today than they were generations ago.

    Because the human mind tends to filter out the bad memories and latch onto the good, we all tend to have sugarcoated views of the past. Because of this phenomenon, the moderate Republicans of the past, with their popular, sane and dare I say, effective policy positions are the ones that end up being cast in history as representatives of the great majority.

    Meanwhile the John Birch society and Know-Nothing type groups end up being forgotten, or retroactively cast as a "fringe groups" that had no support or influence, when in fact they carried the sentiment of the large portion of the electorate.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.