No one ever mentions Robert Duvall.

One of my clients told me that apparently it has been calculated that a massive asteroid will hit our planet in 25 years.  Heard about that?

Text from Laurie Smith, Personal Trainer

Asteroid With Chance of Hitting Earth in 2029 Now Being Watched 'Very Carefully'.

Apophis: The Asteroid That Could Smash Into the Earth on April 13th, 2036.

Asteroid Could Hit Earth In 172 Years.

New Potentially Hazardous Asteroid Discovered!

Chance, could, potentially - based on those headlines, it sounds to me like it's too early to start packing for the end of the world, or at least the end of the world that involves asteroid collisions.  But the prevalence of the meme suggests that the topic is worth more of a look.

Okay, what if - which is the name of the game, after all - what if the scientific community was able to determine without any doubt at all that an asteroid was going to hit the Earth in 25 years?  Let's assume that this is the real deal:  maybe not a planet cracker, but definitely an Extinction Level Event.

Okay, what should we do?  Hmmm…..right now, nothing.

What?  Sorry, but I'm unwilling to believe that the scientific community could predict 25 years in advance exactly where the point of impact would be.  As such, building any sort of last stand redoubt to shelter a remnant of humanity would be premature - it would be more than a little embarrassing to find out that said refuge had been constructed at ground zero. 

And yes, a remnant of humanity.  I gather that we've recently hit the seven billion population point*, I can't imagine that we can come up with a solution that allows all of us to survive a real species ender.  (Just for the record, I realize full well that I won't be on the short list - the new world will not need 75-year-old graphic artist/geeks, which is where I'd stand in 25 years.)

Well, maybe "nothing" is a bit extreme.  What I'd suggest is very quietly doing research to determine the best solution for survivability, and perhaps judiciously starting to stockpile resources.

Hmmm...would I put Mars on that list of solutions?

I'd like to colonize Mars regardless, but as a solution for an extinction level event, 25 years doesn't sound like enough time to create a self-sufficient haven on Mars.  The advantage of trying to survive here is that we can already survive here.  An asteroid impact, followed by all the various collateral damage effects like tsunamis, earthquakes, and nuclear winter, or its asteroid equivalent, will permanently change the face of the planet.  However, I don't think it will be bad enough to make the air completely unbreatheable and get rid of all the water, which is what we'd be facing on Mars.

But if it is a planet cracker, something big enough to actually destroy Earth, Mars it is. In this scenario, our survival as a species is in serious doubt, but it does raise an interesting question:  how would our approach to space travel change if we only had to worry about one-way trips?

However, statistics suggest that being hit by something that large is extremely unlikely compared to a piece of cosmic debris that would just kill everyone who isn't in some form of extreme shelter. For that scenario, I actually don't mind the 2012 option - the movie, that is, not the Mayan-calendar end of the world thing.  Building floating refuges, which will immediately be called arks by everyone involved, is not a bad idea.  I don't know if we can building something on solid ground that would withstand all the primary and secondary effects, but I could see a properly designed ark making it through.

Arks have a second advantage:  mobility. (Something that 2012 didn't add to the equation until after the disaster had taken place.) When the impact point has been accurately calculated, floating refuges can be shifted to a point as far away as possible.

The other option, as we all know, is to send Bruce Willis to blow up the offending chunk of rock.  Actually, we probably don't need to blow it up, we just need to change its vector a bit, although blowing it up would seem to be a longer term solution.  I wonder how practical that solution actually is?  The asteroid that may (or may not, opinions vary) have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was probably about 10 kilometers long - how many megatons would it take to break down that much rock to the point where the pieces would burn up in the atmosphere?

And then all we'd have to worry about is trillions and trillions of cubic feet of dust...

- Sid

* I gather that there's some debate about whether or not we've crossed the seven billion line or not, but I suspect that another 25 years will take care of it.