In one average human lifespan (100 years), we went from paper airplanes that could only fly for 30 seconds, to landing on the moon Edit: more accurate terms (blame the "a generation is 20 years 🤓" people) Edit2: Stop replying to this comment, I'm done with the people arguing over bullsh*t for no reason. It's pointless.

​@@akidafloofmy grandfather is still alive. When he was born in 1934, flight was still new - slow airplanes with propellers. By his 30s, he was in the airforce flying F4s at Mach 2. He's actually disappointed at how little progress we've made in the last 40 years.

my great granny was born 1900, she died in 1998. when she was a little girl, dreams of making it rich was dreaming of having a house with several fireplaces and having a personal horse and carriage. she saw the first flight in our country in 1910. she saw the first cars... If she had said "when im 50 they will fly to america by the hundreds in them, everyone will have a car and when i am 69 a man will walk on the moon" she would have been put in a straight jacket. She was born when sending a letter to australia was a 6 month endeavour with a 70% success rate. When she died you could have live videocalls globally. Its a miracle she didnt go crazy :D

@@akidafloof And in another human generation, we went from landing on the moon to.... to........ giving up

@@clinch4402are you aware of the Artemis program?

Dude is pitching only ads and unrealistic pseudo science

@@dnbvodkah where is the pseudo science?... almost everything dude said was true.

@@dnbvodkah Please look up the definition of pseudoscience. You'll find them on ancient aliens and the like.

Utterly informative and complete. Thanks again.

Nothing in this video was even remotely based on “Facts”as the data set is “nasa data”.. And EVERYTHING nasa states is a falsehood, a scam and a lie…EVERYTHING… People want to believe, so they do..It’s the new satanic religion, Scientism..Belief in unproven theory (Relativity, plate tectonics, Astronomy, Darwinism,etc) takes faith.. Non of it is Fact!.. You just believe it because others do…Sadly

Welcome to the club. I am half way there too I ges. Time goes fast if you really think about it and seems to go faster each year. I am at the point to make a decision to change my live style for the better. Not that it is bad now. But more in the sense of doing things I really want to do. More peace and rest. Changing my job and back to school. Yes I too find it fascinating to see science at it's best. In mine younger years I always watched Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Gate, all of them and wondered how it would be like to be there. But the tricky part is that technology seems to go forwards on a rate that we do not realize that it has changed very much already. Think of the times without hand held phones. Times that we played outside and late at night watched the sky and wondered.

The needed tech is here now and will be greatly enhanced in a few years. Check Spacex Falcon-9 launch rate. Wiki shows F-9 throw weight is more than enough to put a nuclear missile (if one were purpose designed) into deep space. There will be more than 120 Spacex orbital launches next year. We have 600 B-83 1.2Mt bombs in inventory today. All we need is the right delivery vehicle (missile) and we are quite good at producing those. Each F-9 launch can place a 1.2MT missile on a threat. Spacex's new Starship can put a dozen or so into deep space. Both are reusable launchers. Really, the tech is here today. We just have to build the interceptor with off the shelf tech. And it could be done for $20 billion or less if you wanted to build 100 nuclear armed, deep space missiles. These then could be mounted in F-9 rockets to put them in orbit to launch toward dangerous asteroids. If we had a 1km planet killer detected 10 years out, we should be able to deflect it enough (years from impact) to cause it to miss. Subsequent hits could clean up any large debris. This is no longer a thought experiment. We could begin to prepare for it today and have 100 interceptors in stock within 5 years, complete with a greatly expanded fleet of (Spacex) launchers (which will happen anyway).

We won't have any technology... What are going to do, shine our crumbling solar panels and rusted wind turbines at it?

There is a Movie called I Robot. It is the closest thing I can speculate the future will look like. Everything is Automated and easy to have, yet everything is outrageously expensive. The one thing the movie does not show is pay status. It does show wealth from not. But it does seem as if everyone is well off. I do understand that is not possible. But I do see a fully automated technological society that sstill pays for merchandise because the Capitalist view is not destroyed with-in Society itself.

​@@rafaelgonzalez4175 Yes great movie and ahead of it's time but that of course is obvious I mean more in the sense of realistic of what could be in the future. An interesting idea is The Venus Project from Jacque Fresco. There are some beliefs while designing this social structure such as, 'the collective progress of the world would still be better in the resource based economy than that in the current monetary system. In the resource based economy system all the dirty, routine, apathetic jobs are made to be done by the machines with no human employment. All the basic needs of each human is served; Everybody believes in equality and love, there is no greed. So that people will only be driven by their passion and curiosity, they choose their own areas of interest with no compromise for the collective progress. Each individual's interest will origin from his/her own perception of the world. But the collective progress can only be optimized with a balance in the progress of different fields. So how to be sure that the balance would be achieved? How can we be sure that the exact required number of people (/intellectual effort) is on cosmology and the exact required is on anthropology? Though all the research fields might be ultimately unified they still are different approaches. On the other hand with the paradigm of "unified consciousness" injected, if one compromises oneself, to choose something different then it would mean that the mission is still not completely accomplished. Of course before we think of this question, it is essential to know what is the 'optimized progress' i.e, purpose of the human race, the dead-end puzzle of the quest. Unless you feel the answer is 'Nothing but just to do what interests one', the suggested freedom at work plan is a failure. One simplest possible solution is to create a 'Matrix' and see what would happen. LOL. Here, there is no compulsions on actions anyone needs to take. Assume every one participate with their curiosity & interest only with no intentions related to earning money and also that the interests are not much different from that they would have had if they are in a 'resource based economy'. Imagine that there's absolutely no monitoring or algorithms to selectively promote posts except that of "following an user or a topic". Now define a "PURPOSE" to the site. Anything you wish. And think what's the probability you can expect that it will be served.

Half of it at least is nothing more than sci-fi. The other half is hypothetical

Ok robot

this is clickbait tho, fearmongerging thumbnail

it is clickbait, the probability it hits earth is insanely low

Nuclear bombs can be effective at redirecting an asteroid if used far enough out.

It's funny cause during filming Ben Affleck asked Michael Bay if it was easier to train astronauts to drill than training oil drillers to be astronauts and Bay replied "shut the fuck up" 😆

It's funny cause during filming Ben Affleck asked Michael Bay if it was easier to train astronauts to drill than training oil drillers to be astronauts and Bay replied "shut the fuck up" 😆

@@PsRohrbaugh A nuclear bomb in space you say? Like a bomb that goes boom. A bomb that is physically attached to oxygen? Like a boom that can not happen if there is no oxygen? A Boom in Space is not a Boom on Earth. Try just saying the word Boom with no OXYGEN. You can't. If a Bomb went ka-boom in Space and you were right next to it, would you hear it?

@@rafaelgonzalez4175 That is not how nuclear bombs work though.

The "information" is all deceptive.

😂😂🐱🐱🐦.

Yeah landing ion thrusters on the right spots and you can push it. The dart mission pretty well proved it can work IMO.

@@SamtheIrishexan You watch way too many movies. Just imagine the rotation and spin of an Asteroid traveling at a crazy fast lineage. You really think the ship or rocket involved would be able to match velocity with spin and rotation to have a level playing field just to look for a place to land. All the while gas plumes and asteroidal debris is breaking away from the rock at the same velocity in a different trajectory. Watch out rocket here comes a bullet in the form of a very small rock.

@@rafaelgonzalez4175 if the asteroid was spinning fast enough to break up into pieces it wouldn't be an asteroid, it would be a dust cloud :)

@@Axodus thanks for the detailed input.

@@rafaelgonzalez4175 Was just being realistic. The asteroid you were describing wasn't.

That’s what I was thinking myself. As long as we don’t blow ourselves up, we’ll be fine. I have faith in the science.

Nah, I was on the comets side. Never seen a film where I wanted everyone to die more.

They're both bad movies

The geological establishment seems bound and determined to utterly negate the "Antipodal Effect", just as they did in the 20-30 years preceding Plate Tectonics/ Continental Drift going mainstream. So much for the settled opinion of the scientific consensus. So far it's Zero for Two. Any odds for the viability of the next outbreak of settled science? Will this post be stopped by the Al Gore Rhythms?

A gold rock the size of New York as our new close moon, would make a re-entery vehicle profitable. But to change the direction and speed of mass isn't easy.

It would only be a good idea if it were on the other side of the sun. If in any rotation during Orbit the Asteroid covers the sun from Earth, it will always happen at that instance. Then you have to hope it isn't in the way for too long a period. It gets colder in the shadow as it remains in front of Earth, No sun.

Estimates as high as 6%, Apophis will hit.

@@mrrooster4876 "Apophis was the ancient Egyptian deity who embodied darkness and disorder, and was thus the opponent of light". Has not astronomy an odd sense of humour? Ghastly entertainment at a cocktail party, eh?

Sorry, I'm not with you. It is logical, but not viable for humans. If something is so close and short time line? We are cooked. Nothing we can do. Unless, you are proposing we alter human culture, world human life, and our entire economic output.... to stop something killing us. It is romantic, but not viable. Humans need to live, eat, express ourselves and we can't just live under a regime of fear. Let's put money and effort into stopping the things we can! But, let's also accept that there are risks and dangers we can't control.

it's actually 0.03

Siberia?

Australia? If something that big hits Siberia, it will also affect China, and China's population is quite large.

Tunguska was a 12 megaton explosion from a 200 foot meteor. It leveled 830 square miles of forest. I doubt Earth could withstand the impact of a 10km. There's a theory about Earth's irregular shape that suggests a collision with a minor planet or asteroid impact, and Earth absorbed the mass. I hope your son does well, and enjoys space as much as I have! And still do.

Tell him ''The Moon'' as everything else on Earth would be toast.

@@zedbear1 The Thea theory. The Moon is made from material from the Earth, this is known through the study of isotopes on both objects that are at identical points of decay. The Earth's axis is also at an angle meaning it was knocked off it's original natural axis. The hypothesis goes that Earth was struck at a glancing angle by a smaller planet, Thea, which blew material from the Earth and Thea into orbit while the Earth swallowed Thea's planetary core and after time the material that didn't fall back to Earth and remained in orbit coalesced into the Moon. This is fairly probable as the Earth has an inexplicably massive core for a planet it's size and the Moon seems to have been moving away from the Earth at a uniform rate since formation. It's also not uncommon for planetary collisions in our solar system as Uranus is knocked over 90 degrees onto it's side and Venus spins the opposite way it should suggesting it's been flipped upside down.

All bombs on Earth are just chemicals in space. Earth has an atomosphere which provides Oxygen or detains Oxygen in its surrounding area to allow for explosions such as that from any bomb. To set a nuke off in space would not have an explosion. No Oxygen. The Blast may happen really fast. You might even see a spark. But no blast radius. No heat wave. Just radiation and a shockwave if anything. Which will just keep going forward until the shockwave hits something.

It would mean rogue countries like North Korea would take advantage and make a mess of the world, knowing their enemies are preoccupied with something greater. Kind of like looters during wars.

Naw. The flat earth idiots and conspiracy theorists and stupid religious people would ruin everything

No can't do, sir. I can assure You, if there was only the force of graavity, planets would fling into dakness illenia ago. fortunately,, there is an unrecognised by today's science, a force called electromagnetism. planets do have their charge, electromagnetic reconnection with the sun and they occupy resonant orbits same as electrons in an atom. take a look at electric universe theory :)

And that's less dangerous than a collision unless the object is so gigantic to move earth into a collision with either Venus or Mars

Nothing new.

Nothing with a sufficiently large mass in the solar system orbits close enough to Earth for that. The nearest star is 4 light years away and isn't going to close that distance anytime soon. So there aren't really many options left. A random black hole passing through may go unnoticed for a long time. But given the fact that life on Earth has been around for billions of years, no catastrophic altering of its orbit has happened. The odds of it happening are just exceedingly small at this point. Asteroid impacts on the other hand happen regularly, with various degrees of severity. It's definitely worth worrying about more than something tugging us out of our orbit.

@@Niosus I will blame you if it happens tomorrow! Mercury has a small chance creating chaos in the solar system.

C***d did a number on us, I can't imagine how weird it will be for anything real!

just look at how panicked people got over a glorified chest cold in 2020. image a doomsday asteroid coming that's 6 months out... holy smokes. you would not want to be around for that. the asteroid would be a welcome end.

Lol

True

I agree 👍

​@@Lettuce624 true

​@@Lettuce624wow

Start with yourself

@@oopsieitsspookygoddamn

Legit blondes in one sentence

The question everyone is asking

I'll give my opinion in 2176

i will eat it :)

But 2175 is like two lifetimes away sir

@@SWUploads971 well with modern advancements the first person to like to 150 is likely alive right now

the way things are going on this wonderful society , I don't think you would wanna be here

Sadly Atomic bombs only work in an Atmospheric location. Would not work in Space. It is a vacuum. Explsions are not like they are in an atmospheric location. Vacuum contains. Atmosphere spreads.

I don't think a nuclear blast is going to make an asteroid more dangerous. Also we can put water or something else like liquid nitrogen around the bomb so it will turn into steam and creating a bigger explosion than the bomb alone will make in a vacuum.

@@Slav4o911 The best thing about physics is that you have absolutes. Even if there was a way to create more force or energy than a travelling object in space at phenomenal velocity, the trajectory of the particles are as dangerous if not more. One large impact may be very damaging. Imagine many smaller particles that do survive entry. Actual global disaster. Society would be okay if One big rock hit. It has before and people are here. If people were not here then we are now. Something survived the last rock that killed the planet supposedly. Something will survive again, and then people will be back. lol

@@rafaelgonzalez4175 No many small asteroids would impact with much less speed because they have more surface, that means more area for the earth atmosphere to work on, also easier to deflect. Like if for a big asteroid we may need a 50Mt nuclear blast to make into smaller ones, the smaller ones can be deflected individually, and even if not deflected they would impact with less energy. The most dangerous thing is for a big asteroid to hit us, with us doing nothing. Hitting it with whatever will slow it down, change it's direction etc. Smaller asteroids are not more dangerous even if they are many. If they were, the life on Earth would have been long gone.

@@Slav4o911 If you generate enough force to break a rock the force is added to the smaller pieces. The smaller pieces go faster. And they spread around the planet more. The possiblity that the pieces are going to miss the planet is the same as a bomb exploding in space.

My thoughts, the military industrial complex is more a threat to Earth than risk of asteroid collision.

Until human beings learn to live with each other and stop spending trillions of dollars on war, it could prove disastrous. We need to concentrate on ending hunger, disease and war. Planetary defense should be included in this. As a military veteran I’m also aware that’s a tall order for humans, given our leaders apparent love of war………

Like the others, I don’t have a huge degree of confidence humans will do well in that type of situation, will it push us instead to make bad decisions? But as a scientist I hope we keep gathering data, creating options for the future and trying to make a better world as well

Do you think a nuclear explosion close to Apophis would push it enough to change it's orbit away from earth?

Don't worry about it. It'll miss us.

Dude is pitching only ads and unrealistic pseudo science

That has my vote

😅😅😅

I hate to say this, but I see your point and agree 😕

I am a reluctant blackpilled accelerationist. I'd love for there to be a way out of the horrendous mess that's been made of things here on earth (I don't want to say 'we created' because the average human being ie most of the population, has very little to do with it) but we're gonna hit 1.5 degrees of warming this year - decades before it was predicted, and we're definitely hitting 2 degrees waaaay before the end of the century. People complained about the movie Don't Look Up being too on the nose and lacking subtlety as a metaphor but it was bang on for me. People don't believe it til they can see it, and by the time they can see it, it's too late

Ah, a misanthrope. Wondered how long I'd have to scroll to find one of you.

Humans are apart of nature, so us stopping it is apart of natural selection as well.

Stupid idea. Even if you hate humanity you can’t hate it enough to kill everything on earth as well

Nice one

Come on man. It's time to open the blinds, let in some sunlight, and look at that glass that is half full.

Honestly no, we shouldn't stop it.

The question is will we still be here to stop it?

@@DSK248why? If we don’t survive it none of our wildlife does. What’s the point of having everything die?

Nah - it’ll be fine. Or maybe it won’t be. Either way, it’ll be fine.

Some people don't seem to understand, a large asteroid is rare but it is definitive, the end of humanity, game over, we are on Earth and there is no chance of escape, and this is something that has long been neglected together with the environment. All other tragedies are serious but easy to avoid, it's just a matter of political decisions. We must pursue all survival objectives and stop truly useless waste such as planned obsolescence and conflicts between peoples and societies, while at the same time planning together how to deflect asteroids, period!

r/hadastroke

It's just propaganda. Nasa is just another euphemism for USSF (United States Space Force).

Im sure they could...did u mean to say it wouldn't help??

@@coryjackson6034 Nope, they won't prevent it, because it's impossible with today's tech.

@@braticuss yeah , but todays tech evolves into tomorrows tech , and that's where the answer lies.

Its easy to say that they can't, but the real question is if they should.

Sagan, Carl. Cosmos: An appreciation . 1980. Manuscript/Mixed Material.