Bill Nye on "Could we stop an asteroid?"

[PakledHostage]

[Brabbit1987]

A little to ummm ... child friendly I think, or at least it sounds like it.

Interesting though, but really nothing new learned sadly. Lol thanks for sharing though, Bill Nye was a child hood favorite for sure.

[Echostatic]

Well yeah, Bill Nye has always been child friendly. I found it interesting.

[MBobrik]

I think we could, but we wouldn't. A large part of population would be all "yay apocalypse, jesus/mahdi/messiah/whoever is coming" and another large part would go into asteroid impact denialism. And those two together would jam any attempt at averting it.

[Kerbface]

I think we could, but we wouldn't. A large part of population would be all "yay apocalypse, jesus/mahdi/messiah/whoever is coming" and another large part would go into asteroid impact denialism. And those two together would jam any attempt at averting it.

No it wouldn't. Politicians can't stay in power if they're dead. If a group of protestors doesn't stop your average war it's not going to stop governments from saving the planet if they're otherwise capable of it. And the people who want to NOT stop a giant asteroid from killing us all are going to be a very small minority.

[magnemoe]

No it wouldn't. Politicians can't stay in power if they're dead. If a group of protestors doesn't stop your average war it's not going to stop governments from saving the planet if they're otherwise capable of it. And the people who want to NOT stop a giant asteroid from killing us all are going to be a very small minority.

Pretty much this, protesters are mostly an media phenomena as media like to film them. They has close to zero impact, exception is then an very large group of the population is protesting or the protesters highlight something dirty others dig into.

Becoming violent does not help, Al queda is pretty much as violent as you can get and it has not helped them very much, however the response here would be far stronger.

[Nibb31]

We can't even agree on ways to deal with climate change, because there are deniers, most of which are motivated by the fear that reducing CO² emissions will impact their lifestyle and prevent them from driving SUVs.

The same would probably be true of any measure to deviate an asteroid. It will cost taxpayer money, and that alone will be enough for people to deny the reality of the threat.

[InfinityArch]

Nibb, unlike climate change, an imminent asteroid impact is something that the people in power today would see happening in their own lifetimes, hence they'd actually be motivated to do something about it rather than say "eh, leave it for another generation."

[The Jedi Master]

No need to worry, Bill Nye will save us!

PS. The jokes aimed a kids actually amused me.

[Kerbface]

We can't even agree on ways to deal with climate change, because there are deniers, most of which are motivated by the fear that reducing CO² emissions will impact their lifestyle and prevent them from driving SUVs.

The same would probably be true of any measure to deviate an asteroid. It will cost taxpayer money, and that alone will be enough for people to deny the reality of the threat.

A giant freaking asteroid that we've already identified and tracked as being on a trajectory towards Earth is a lot harder to deny than humanity's impact on the climate. And a lot more iminent a threat.

[Nibb31]

I really wouldn't count on that.

[PakledHostage]

Nibb, unlike climate change, an imminent asteroid impact is something that the people in power today would see happening in their own lifetimes, hence they'd actually be motivated to do something about it rather than say "eh, leave it for another generation."

I wouldn't be so sure. Consider asteroid 1950 DA. It has the highest known probability of impacting the Earth, but it won't happen until over 800 years from now if it does hit. If we determine that it has a 100% probability of hitting us, when do we start diverting it? It'll take a lot less delta-V to divert it today than it would in 800 years, yet do you honestly believe that we'd send a mission in our lifetime?

There's also the issue of where you move the impact site from and to. Maybe the most likely impact site is predicted to be in Siberia, but moving the asteroid so that it misses the Earth requires that the impact site is moved across Europe, the Atlantic and South America before the impact risk is eliminated? What opposition would there be from the public in Europe and South America? What if we only managed to move the asteroid a little bit and, as a result, only ended up guaranteeing that it hit a populated area rather than an empty one?

And on the topic of Bill Nye's style in the video: Don't loose sight of the fact that he's a brilliant educator. He's up there with Mr Rogers. (If you haven't seen the video of Mr. Rogers defending PBS to the US Senate in 1969, it is worth a look:

)

[Kerbface]

I really wouldn't count on that.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't seem to be very supportive of many ideas really, it seems you're always sort of on the side of "Humanity will and should do nothing or the least possible" in most topics on this forum. But maybe I'm just too optimistic.

[magnemoe]

I wouldn't be so sure. Consider asteroid 1950 DA. It has the highest known probability of impacting the Earth, but it won't happen until over 800 years from now if it does hit. If we determine that it has a 100% probability of hitting us, when do we start diverting it? It'll take a lot less delta-V to divert it today than it would in 800 years, yet do you honestly believe that we'd send a mission in our lifetime?

There's also the issue of where you move the impact site from and to. Maybe the most likely impact site is predicted to be in Siberia, but moving the asteroid so that it misses the Earth requires that the impact site is moved across Europe, the Atlantic and South America before the impact risk is eliminated? What opposition would there be from the public in Europe and South America? What if we only managed to move the asteroid a little bit and, as a result, only ended up guaranteeing that it hit a populated area rather than an empty one?

And on the topic of Bill Nye's style in the video: Don't loose sight of the fact that he's a brilliant educator. He's up there with Mr Rogers. (If you haven't seen the video of Mr. Rogers defending PBS to the US Senate in 1969, it is worth a look:

)

800 years is an serious long time, its safe to say that launch costs will go down over the next 100 years. in 400 i guess most of the asteroids close to earth would be mined.

Add that the laser is the only decent non nuclear way to move asteroids we know off and it will be heavy, I would just want to sent an probe to it to explore it, if its an solid rock it would be easier to move, if it has useful stuff on it it would be commercial interesting and so on.

[PakledHostage]

@magnemoe: Please allow me to paraphrase your response:

800 years is a serious long time. It is safe to say that the available technology for dealing with climate change will improve over the next 100 years. In 400 years, I guess climate change will be a non issue. Add that nuclear energy is the only really practical way that we currently have of offsetting CO₂ emissions, but public concern over that technology prevents us from using it. Let's just do nothing an leave it to future generations to solve the problem.

Thank you for helping Nibb and I make our point.

Edited July 25, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Brenok]

@magnemoe: Please allow me to paraphrase your response:

800 years is a serious long time. It is safe to say that the available technology for dealing with climate change will improve over the next 100 years. In 400 years, I guess climate change will be a non issue. Add that nuclear energy is the only really practical way that we currently have of offsetting CO₂ emissions, but public concern over that technology prevents us from using it. Let's just do nothing an leave it to future generations to solve the problem.

Thank you for helping Nibb and I make our point.

But global warming is gradual, and much more short-term. We can already feel its effects now, and it could get much worse on the next 50/100 years.

The meteor, even if it would hit Earth in 800 years, would do no harm to us now. In 100 years, it would do no harm. In 500, 600, 700 years, we probably wouldn't feel its consequences. Even if it took 100 years to mount an expedition and deflect the asteroid, it wouldn't be unreasonable to wait a bit more for better (and more reliable) technology.

[PakledHostage]

The meteor, even if it would hit Earth in 800 years, would do no harm to us now. In 100 years, it would do no harm. In 500, 600, 700 years, we probably wouldn't feel its consequences. Even if it took 100 years to mount an expedition and deflect the asteroid, it wouldn't be unreasonable to wait a bit more for better (and more reliable) technology.

Fair point. But you are still betting that we will eventually develop more effective technology to solve the problem. Bumping it by a couple mm/second may be all that would be required. With such a long time horizon, we could achieve that delta-V even with today's technology by using something as simple as a gravity tug. Given that we have the capability of dealing with the problem today, even though it is going to cost us money, shouldn't we do something? There would even be benefits to trying, because after all, 1950 DA is only the highest KNOWN probability.

As a counter point to my own argument, it is possible that we actually would do something. After all, the European Space Agency's Don Quijote mission is proposing to attempt to adjust the orbit of an asteroid. One of the proposed targets for the Don Quijote mission was Apophis, but Wikipedia says that the current target is the binary asteroid 65803 Didymos. Neither of those asteroids currently have any real risk of hitting the Earth, however. Things might be different if we were to meddle with the orbit of an asteroid that had a higher probability of impact, for the reasons that I described in my earlier post. The various controversies could reasonably be expected to prevent any action from being taken, despite the fact that "a stitch in time saves nine".

Edited July 25, 2013 by PakledHostage

[Nibb31]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't seem to be very supportive of many ideas really, it seems you're always sort of on the side of "Humanity will and should do nothing or the least possible" in most topics on this forum. But maybe I'm just too optimistic.

When was the last time humanity has agreed on something? Hell, when was the last time you actually saw a durable consensus in even a single country?

I certainly don't think that Humanity "should" do nothing. I simply think that we are not capable of getting everyone to agree on large long term endeavours. I am more on the side of "Humanity should do a lot of stuff, but it won't" because of many reasons. Nothing is ever black or white, and there is no simple solution to every problem. Fixing one problem usually creates other problems. It's the complexity of things that makes life interesting.

It's simple common sense that it is in our best interest to stop burning stuff, not only because of emissions, but also because it's going to get harder to find stuff to burn. Yet, we can't get a consensus on that. We also can't agree on using nuclear power instead, because nuclear power has its own (very real) problems.

Making decisions is always about choosing the less of two evils. There will always be winners and losers and Humanity is an extremely diverse species, with thousands of religions, cultural backgrounds, economical preoccupations. You will never get every person in every nation to agree on one particular topic.

[Brotoro]

When was the last time humanity has agreed on something? Hell, when was the last time you actually saw a durable consensus in even a single country?

I certainly don't think that Humanity "should" do nothing. I simply think that we are not capable of getting everyone to agree on large long term endeavours. I am more on the side of "Humanity should do a lot of stuff, but it won't" because of many reasons. Nothing is ever black or white, and there is no simple solution to every problem. Fixing one problem usually creates other problems. It's the complexity of things that makes life interesting.

It's simple common sense that it is in our best interest to stop burning stuff, not only because of emissions, but also because it's going to get harder to find stuff to burn. Yet, we can't get a consensus on that. We also can't agree on using nuclear power instead, because nuclear power has its own (very real) problems.

Making decisions is always about choosing the less of two evils. There will always be winners and losers and Humanity is an extremely diverse species, with thousands of religions, cultural backgrounds, economical preoccupations. You will never get every person in every nation to agree on one particular topic.

I don't agree.

[WestAir]

I don't agree.

I laughed pretty hard at this satire.

That said, if we discover an asteroid that will impact within a year of discovery, we actually won't be capable - at all -- of stopping it.

[magnemoe]

When was the last time humanity has agreed on something? Hell, when was the last time you actually saw a durable consensus in even a single country?

I certainly don't think that Humanity "should" do nothing. I simply think that we are not capable of getting everyone to agree on large long term endeavours. I am more on the side of "Humanity should do a lot of stuff, but it won't" because of many reasons. Nothing is ever black or white, and there is no simple solution to every problem. Fixing one problem usually creates other problems. It's the complexity of things that makes life interesting.

It's simple common sense that it is in our best interest to stop burning stuff, not only because of emissions, but also because it's going to get harder to find stuff to burn. Yet, we can't get a consensus on that. We also can't agree on using nuclear power instead, because nuclear power has its own (very real) problems.

Making decisions is always about choosing the less of two evils. There will always be winners and losers and Humanity is an extremely diverse species, with thousands of religions, cultural backgrounds, economical preoccupations. You will never get every person in every nation to agree on one particular topic.

800 year is an very long time, high chance an asteroid close to earth would be mined dry in 2-300 years.

As for climate change parallels, they are an totally different case, first they will be far more expensive than stopping an asteroid, secondly its not just an question of who take the bill but also that many countries see this as an way to get free money or get industry moved to them. An total lack of priorities, the groups who focus most on climate changes are not only strongly anti nuclear but also don't want wind farms close to them.

Stopping an asteroid would be very simple political compared to this. Mainly an question of who takes the bill.

Another issue would be that the simplest way to change the path of an asteroid would be an improvised orion pulse rocket. Set off some nuclear bombs designed like the one planned for the orion spaceship at some distance from the asteroid. Upside is that you don't have to match speed with the asteroid, you use multiple pretty lightweight bombs who are easy to launch with existing technology and you don't have one ship who can fail. Unclear how well this will work with an pile of rocks as its pulse detonations however the trust would hit most of an hemisphere, heating the surface and create outgassing might generate most of the actual trust.

This would be controversial and not done unless it was imminent danger, say 20 years to impact. The treaties would simply be suspended or agreed on don't apply in this setting.

[Kerbface]

I certainly don't think that Humanity "should" do nothing. I simply think that we are not capable of getting everyone to agree on large long term endeavours. I am more on the side of "Humanity should do a lot of stuff, but it won't" because of many reasons. Nothing is ever black or white, and there is no simple solution to every problem. Fixing one problem usually creates other problems. It's the complexity of things that makes life interesting.

I know that things are not simple, my only problem (and I don't mean to insult you or anything, I appreciate your input and it's always very detailed and intelligent, I'm just wondering if your perspective is ideal) is that often you seem to be saying towards most ideas, more or less "There's no point in really trying to develop this or other solutions, because there may be complications down the line". And I agree that there will be complications with more or less everything, but I also think that throughout our history it's only the times that people have gone out and invested in ideas which aren't surefire that real progress has been made. Sure, things failed and projects seemed doomed, and sometimes they were, but then sometimes that payed off, and big time. I mean the Wright brothers could always have looked back at the countless failed flight attempts and decided it wasn't worth it, but they didn't and now we have commercial airliners that let you travel anywhere in about a day at most. So I think that the attitude that it's (whatever it is) never going to happen probably is only reinforcing that it's never going to happen.

[bsalis]

To me the problem is less to do with actually nudging an asteroid, and more to do with observation (of both trajectories and internal composition of an asteroid) and computer simulation.

[marko dash]

could we stop it, maybe/maybe not. would we try? hell yes. if we have enough warning you'd probably see a few ground launched orions. whats a little radioactivity in exchange for diverting a planet killer.

they could 'land' on their nose and act like giant thrusters to adjust the asteroids path.

[TG_bigboss]

I miss bill nye! I use to love watching these when i was in elementary which was 12 years ago. He really got old. *Bill Nye theme song plays*