Wow, a serious response. Good! I don't think we would have enough time, to tell you the truth. We'd have a better chance if it were a few decades. I've always thought that this was reason enough for a robust space program. None other are needed.
Here's another. Yao will have just passed the very top years of his career, so it's okay if the asteroid hits. Of course... Eddie may have just become competant as a PF. Hmmm. Oh, I know! Eddie will be put in space and ordered to shoot jumpshots at the asteroid until it breaks apart. I'm a physicist, trust me... it would work.
Come on, Deckard -- where's your utopianism? Aren't liberals supposed to be far more altruistic than us mean-hearted conservatives? Just think how those trillions will jumpstart the economy and promote world peace! (Hey, why do I feel like entering a beauty pageant?) Let's go rock that rock!
How did you find me out? What tipped you off? But doesn't the premise hold a little water? Okay. I will be serious. The world does not have the technology to deflect or detroy an asteroid of that size, and we don't have enough time to develop it. Therefore, the one true option is to build a space station far enough out to withstand the blast particles. Then, taking sperm and ova specimens from the best and brightest and putting them aboard in a mechanism to keep them viable for years is a real possibility because that technology is extant. The harder part is putting up a self-renewing supply of food and supplies for the caretakers. The political obstacles alone would be staggering with arguments over design, whose ova and sperm should be sent up in cyrogenic containers, how to channel resources (because some would risk all to destroy / deflect the asteroid), etc. etc. Can you imagine the political courage it would take to even sponsor such a goal in time to actually achieve it? However, even if we overcame all the technical and political challenges of creating a suitable space station in just 10 years, could they hold out until the "nuclear winter" subsided? We would need to have enough seeds of nourishing fruits and vegetables. Would we be smart enough to have also stored the sperm/ova for horses, cows, sheep and -- bees (don't forget plants need pollenization)? And what books would you include and with what technology? Remember, electricity would be years away. Humanity would have a very small chance, but it would be better than nothing.
true, and yet, I still hate him it's an enigma wrapped a conundrum, with a puzzle scribbled on the side in pig latin
Willis has made more bad movies than I care to think about, but I'll always be a fan of Bruce for his role in "The Fifth Element". Now that I think about it, the "bad guy" in that looked like the mother of all asteroids. Go figure.
9 years is a long time. when the US went into war time production back in WWII we did absolutely amazing things. and that was 1 country with far less tech, and production power than we have now. 150 million americans were able to develop synthetic rubber and radar while producing thousands of ever more advanced ships planes and vehicles. all with the intend of destroying a common enemy. imagine our world today with its 6 billion residents. sharing tech with germany china japan england and whomever else. 1 enemy and 9 years to get to it. how long did it take us to get a space progream started? and get to the moon? with the entire planets resources dedicated towards survival I bet we would be able to set up species survival ships, colonies, underground bunkers, as well as attack the rock dead on. our mining companies can do alot of damage to rock now, imahine what they could do with the same kind of purpose American had after the pearl harbor attacks. I took a class called interstellar bolides at SUNY Stonybrook. these are survivable, but we would have to actually work as a planet. 6 trillion man hours of work a year for 9 years would get a hell of a lot done. and i for one would like to see it. as the optimist, i would like to see politics, and trivial lawsuits go away, along with insurance companies and all the other BS that complicates us. and just see us all work together. ship the outlying 5% of the population to greenland, and let the rest of us get to work.
Willis was good in "Last Man Standing" and the one where he was the dead psychologist and didn't know he was dead until Haley Joel Osment told him so. Saving the planet in just 10 years would be very, very difficult. However, I do hope we have the astrophysicists to accomplish the tracking. The best and brightest minds need to figure the trajectory as soon as possible. However, if they did determine it was earthbound, they would never tell the public for fear of panic and lawlessness.
It has a 1 in 900,000 chance of hitting Earth. Seems like a few times a year there is an asteroid warning. Wasn't there one some months back supposed to collide with us in 2010?
Hmm, if memory serves, Terrax the Destroyer always gave the F.F. a run for their money, what with his ability to command terra, asteroids, and such. You have to admit, there were some pretty close calls...
a business associate in London told me shortly after 9/11 that the British press was calling Bruce Willis Cry Hard after he cancelled all travel and public appearances, including one to England. he's a paper tiger
He's an actor. I can't imagine anyone else playing his character in "The Fifth Element", weenie in real life or not. (so I'm a SF fan... sue me ) The real question is, do we go full bore into space and prepare for the eventual asteroid or comet that will come, sooner or later? Or do we put our heads in the sand and fantasize that mankind will miraculously "save the world" whether we have a week, a month, a year, a decade or fifty years. I think my kids and/or grandkids can do the 50 year job, no problem. As we stand right now, the 10 year window would be tough. Less than that... get the butter for tha toast, baby. We're goin' down.
except those aren't analogous at all. it would be more like the odds of you personally winning the lotto, which would be 1 in 15,689,700*, b/c earth has to get hit, not just any random object. and if 4,000,000 people purchased a lotto ticket (with different numbers), the odds of someone winning would be 0.223*, much better than the asteroid thing. * for a 50 number lotto
