StarTalk Radio - The Science in "Don't Look Up" with Adam McKay and Dr. Amy Mainzer

Episode Date: February 15, 2022

Is a comet coming to destroy Earth? On this episode, Neil deGrasse Tyson and co-host Chuck Nice talk about the science behind Netflix’s comet apocalypse movie Don’t Look Up with director Adam McKay and astronomer Amy Mainzer. Are we all gonna die?NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free.Thanks to our Patrons Jay Merrifield, Ryan Gurrentz, Kyra Smith, Lyle Baillargeon, Robert Bratcher, Justin Arnold, Rebecca Murphy, Ben Moore, Shanna Reed, and DoujinSimple for supporting us this week.Photo Credit: Otemiz, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ on Apple Podcasts to listen to new episodes ad-free and a whole week early.

Welcome to StarTalk. Your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now. This is StarTalk. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, personal astrophysicist. Today, we're going to talk about protecting Earth from space. Chuck, always good to have you, man. Always a pleasure to be here, man. Yeah.

Honestly, I think today's show should be called Destroying Earth from Space. From Space. Or from within. Or from within. Because we seem to be doing our damnedest to get it done, don't we? I try to turn a blind eye to that, but I

shouldn't. What we have to help us put some of that content on the table is writer, producer, director Adam McKay. Adam, welcome to StarTalk, dude. Hello. Thanks for having me. Adam gets an applause. Now, you know, we don't applaud our guests here.

You have never applauded anyone ever, Chuck. You know I have never applauded a guest, Neil. That is true. But I'm just so impressed with what he has just accomplished. Well, let me put some of his resume out there. So you're a former head writer for SNL. All right. And you're co-founder of Upright Citizens Brigade.

Very cool. I love their work. You're also a co-writer, along with Will Ferrell, with Anchorman. All right. That was cool. Talladega Knights. Step Brothers.

Okay. Co-founder of Funny or Die. All right. That's a production company, if I remember correctly. Is that right? I think so. And wrote and directed The Big Short. I distinctly remember that movie.

It was like, oh, my gosh, this has happened, and we lived through it. But that's not why we have you on the show right now. That's right, because quite frankly, all of that is gold-plated dross in comparison to why we have Adam on the show. Which is because of my workout routine, which I'm going to share with you today. My diet, my weight program, and you too can look like a schlubby 50-year-old. Adam has a new Peloton class he wants to...

He wants to promote... He's trying to plug his new Peloton class. So, Adam, you wrote, directed, and produced the Netflix hit

Don't Look Up. It's a movie. That is correct. Yes. Okay. It is star-studded, starting Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence. There's a dozen famous people who have each starred

in their own films. You managed to collab them together for this script. And it's about an asteroid, a comet, that's discovered to be headed towards Earth, putting all of life on Earth at risk. And the travails and challenges and troubles of the scientists trying to alert the public, and everyone ignores them or discounts it.

So what the hell were you thinking? I love it. What? Who told you to make this? Why? Who? Why? Did your mama tell, do?

Explain yourself, please. You know, like a lot of ideas, it came from stark terror, which is the last 5, 10, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, back to 1965, of just our culture and our leaders and our industry and our media ignoring that we're flooding the, you know, atmosphere, the climate with CO2, and we are on a bad, bad path. And, you know, I had the fortunate, unfortunate experience of colliding with a lot of this information from reading scientific reports and reading a great book by David Wallace Wells called Uninhabitable Earth, which if you haven't read it, read it and it will wake you up when it comes to the climate. And I really started, like my wife can tell you, at a certain point, I was losing sleep and I kept

kind of looking at our world and going, what am I missing here? And rather than do, you know, my initial idea was, oh, do a big, dramatic, dystopic, serious movie. But then a friend of mine who's a journalist made an offhanded joke, David Sirota, where he just said, it's like it's Armageddon, but the asteroid is coming and no one cares. And I was like, that's it. And then I thought if we could laugh,

you know, if we could have some laughter about the crazy world we live in, as well as some big emotions, that maybe that's something that could go out into the world and hit millions of people and maybe jar some feelings loose. So that was it. It was definitely a crazy... So you were born to make this movie. That's what you're telling me. I am telling you that. That I was plucked from the Schuylkill River outside Philadelphia where I'm from.

And they said, this child shall make a movie for Netflix. Like Dirty Moses. Pulled from the river. I was pulled from the river. The child shall save us. We've got to clean him up first.

Well, he says school kill. That's why I called him Dirty Moses. No, the school kill's dirty. The school kill's dirty. Yeah, I'm from Philly too, so I can say that. So Adam, what enabled you to amass this level of talent? I'm presuming, I mean, these are people who are well paid in their own movies. So is there some kind of social cause that they get to justify doing

this without having to get their normal paycheck? No, no. I mean, you know, the cool thing is, I got to give a lot of credit to Netflix. You know, Netflix read this crazy script and was just like, yep, we'll roll with this. And, you know, the whole kind of emotional impetus for the project was the idea that there's hundreds of millions of us out there that are freaking out, even though if you flip through the TV channels or you look on, you know, parts of social media, people seem like they're freaking out about other things or they're, you know, they don't care or it's about the stock market or it's about, you know, politicians' legacies. And the idea was there's a lot of us out there that can feel what's going on.

And that played out with the actors. All the actors we went to were like, yup, I want to laugh about this. I want to go into this. I'm on a piece of that. Yeah. Yeah, but Adam, you started describing your concerns based on climate change, but you didn't make a movie about climate change. Maybe it's allegorical, but you had to come into my place, into my universe,

and tell a climate change story where you don't even mention climate change? Why are you coming in my space to do this? Because your space and your people have been trying to kill us since the inception of your whole science. It's always about us. The universe is trying to kill us.

That's true. I get that. So at what point did you say, maybe if I told it about climate, no one would pay attention, so let me tell it about asteroids. So this is a storyteller's ruse, right? Yeah, yeah, in a way,

because I think one of the tricky things with the climate crisis which you gentlemen i'm sure know is that it's slow and creeping even though now it's getting much faster and much more overt um but i think one of the tricky things is you know the way we're wired as humans we know how to freak out and run from a bear, or we know how to like deal with a serial killer. Like we all get that. But the idea that these gases, you know, this carbon that we're burning is creating greenhouse gas. That you can't see. That you can't see. And you have to go to climate scientists who, God bless them, scientists who, God bless them, aren't really, you know, built to like be the PR front for this story. I think it just falls in a tricky area. And so I thought by replacing climate, the climate

crisis with a comet, which is something we all sort of mostly get, like that's scary, would put the spotlight on our messed up human reaction. And that's really what the movie's about. I mean, the movie's really about how we've, you know, befouled, twisted, and mutated the very ways that we talk to each other through social media, through media, through career, through money. And that's really ultimately what the movie's about. Chuck, did you hear how politely he referenced the media ineptitude of scientists? Right. What phrase did you use?

Not just that, but the way he basically cajoled the public in their response. Because this movie could have just as easily been called, Hey, Dumbass. That could have been the name of the movie. He didn't put those words in your mouth. I mean, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me defend. I didn't say you said that, Adam.

Let me defend that point. I didn't put those words in your mouth, Adam. Let me defend that point. I didn't put those words in your mouth, Adam. I mean, the people at large have been, you know, chest deep

in BS, spin, and marketing for decades. And I think it's tricky. I mean, you look at, like,

the resistance to the vaccine. Well, like, you know, for decades, people have been getting sold, you know,

crazy drugs like Oxycontin. Their doctors are telling them, oh, yeah, take this. And then we're surprised when like a vaccine comes out and people are like, I don't know about that. So there's been a lot of like marketing, PR, twisting, turning about science, which is crazy. And it kind of makes people have to figure out how science works and what real science is versus marketing PR science. So we're in a tricky spot. And so, no, it was cool to see people's reactions for the movie because it went worldwide

and everyone was kind of like, oh yeah, I get that. And I gotta read my tweet. I gotta read my tweet. I don't know if you saw my tweet, Adam, but I'm gonna read it right now. I did, I did. I think I retweeted it. I love some love from Neil.

I took it. Some Twitter love. I said, finally saw the Netflix film Don't Look Up, a fictional tale of a nation distracted by pop culture and divided on whether to heed dire warnings of scientists. Everything I know about news cycles, talk shows, social media, and politics tells me the film was instead a documentary. That's great.

That's all. I stood there flat-footed and put it out there. You know, before you go any further, since you said that, Neal, since you just said that, the fact that it's a documentary, what was the pushback, if any, Adam, from what community or any community that saw this and said, what the hell are you doing? Or that's a bunch of BS. Or, oh, look at you, you, whatever. Was there any of that?

Oh, yeah. Yeah, we got some of that. I mean, any time you do a comedy, you know certain people are going to be with it or not with it. And so that's a given. But then, yeah, there was some... He means, Chuck, anytime you offend people, people are going to be with it. That's what he means.

Anytime you do a comedy... Well, it ain't comedy unless somebody's with it. I mean, we definitely had certain quarters of the media were not too happy with the movie. I mean, we go pretty hard at the collective media. There was one paper that's pretty famous for climate denial where, you know, their critic did not care for the movie.

So you got some of that. But for the most part, you know, once the movie premiered on Netflix, no, it was a great universal response of we know what that's saying. It was really heartening, actually, because I think there's this idea that people don't get it,

that people are bored, they want entertainment. And it was like, no, people actually know what's going on and they're frustrated with the BS. So it was a cool moment to see that, to see that people across the political divide. I mean, the weird thing about this movie

is it got some great responses across the red-blue political divide, which, you know, I didn't know what to expect. But when I saw that, it was actually hopeful. Cool. Cool. Cool. Okay. So at this point, we're going to reveal some of the things that happened at the end of the movie.

So if you... Spoiler alert! So you can sort of fast forward to the next segment if you'd like to right now. So I was particularly intrigued by Meryl Streep's character playing the President of the United States. And, there's a,

is she based on some amalgam of personalities out there that you thought would do just right as President? No, no, just one.

Sorry. No, I mean, there's definitely a big old tablespoon of the last president in there. That sort of blinding narcissism, only responding to the moment, no foresight, no question that's in there. But, you know, hey, I talked to Merrill about it. And, you know, there's also a little bit of Bill Clinton in there.

There's some, you know, the used car salesman, kind of slick, you know, sort of nefarious Bill Clinton. There's also, you know, half a tablespoon of George W. Bush, dangerously unqualified. So, unfortunately... Plus, it was the announcement on the battleship. The announcement on the ship was part of that, right? Exactly.

So that's why I didn't... So, Chuck, I didn't uniquely identify any one actor with any one real other person. There was enough of an amalgam there that I saw all of society, all of American society, folded into practically all of those characters. From the talk show host. Neil, the problem is I'm not as smart as either one of you.

You need simple characters. Yeah, what I saw was what I wanted to see. I saw what I wanted to see. I was wondering, Adam, to that point, are people just a lens? Not a lens. Are they their own filter? And they will then see in this,

like what Chuck said, what they want to see without really grasping the fuller storytelling that you imbued it with. I mean, I was really happy with how people got it. I mean, people got the idea, you know, there's jokes in the movies about super donors being allowed in the White House.

There's, you know, clearly the media is just concerned with good cheer and keeping the ratings up. And it was pretty amazing to see those reactions. And even the ending of the movie where, you know, once all the white noise of our kind of for-profit kind of jumble of media goes away how things got real and got about family and faith like people really got into it i i was like really happy with that part of the response even though there was certainly an element that was like, didn't dig it. For the most part, though, the public at large was dialing into it. So, you know, you never know,

you have these feelings, you make a movie, kind of seems like how the world is now. I mean, you even look at the White House now, which is, you know, the opposition party, and then the Congress is owned by the opposition party. Well, what's going on with them? They're stuck in the mud because of dirty money and they're not doing anything. So, you know, these problems, I think we've been scammed in some ways with this red-blue game.

And I think it's all about dirty money, big money. And if we could just get that out, things would start moving a lot better. So it was cool to see people around the world identify with that and know that was the case. So let me ask you this. Did you do this on purpose or was it just a byproduct of or a natural outworking of what you just mentioned? At the end, there was kind of an admirable nod to AI in a very humorous way where the technology and the prediction or the predictive analytics of technology came true. But at the same time, the reliance upon the people who run technology effed everything up.

Was that purposeful? Wow. Chuck went deep. Chuck is deep. Chuck went like three layers into the moussaka, into the lasagna with that one. I like it. Yeah, I mean, like, you know, it's incredible.

These algorithms that they use for social media. Wait, wait, wait, Chuck. It sounds like he didn't intend any of that at all. That's what he said. Yeah, I did that on purpose. Adam, that's what you sounded like just then. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Yeah, I was that brilliant when I wrote that part. By the way, that's a much better answer. I should have been mysterious and just said, Chuck, you got to find your own meaning in it. We just make what we do. That would have been a much cooler. If I had a pipe, I would have taken a hit off a pipe and just been like, find your own meaning. No, but you're right though. I mean, God, these, you guys know these algorithms they have for search engines and for social media and the way they corral us and get emotions out of us.

We were definitely playing around with that. But I liked that Leo's character was told what his death was going to be, and that it wasn't that death. Even though, you're right, the president did have her death that was predicted. So as much as the algorithms try and corral us, I guess we were trying to make a point, you can still stop it you know right right right you need without that kind of message you

know then you just you're just pissing people off depressing people so let me i it's a rare moment i have two sort of comedic people in front of me. I love that I'm the sort of. Yeah, that was hurtful, Neil. No, no. That was hurtful. Did I say sort of? I didn't mean that. Okay.

Given that I have two comedic talents in front of me, I'd like to ask, do you think comedy is the best way to change someone's heart as compared with teaching them a curriculum lesson plan i i'll let i have my but i'll let adam do this uh well see what you think chuck i mean here's the funny thing is you know the reason we chose comedy with this is comedy is great in the sense that it's kind of a truth detector. Like if you wanted to go on stage and do a standup routine about how billionaires are

taxed too much, I dare you to get a laugh off of that. Like an audience will know that's bogus and people have tried. They had a Fox News comedy show about 15 years ago they tried to do, and it just bombed. True. And so I think comedy is great. And I also think comedy, you have to have a perspective. You can't laugh at something if you're in the middle of being traumatized by it.

Like, it's hard to laugh about a crazed, you know, monkey attacking you. But like, if you can look from a distance at a crazed monkey, you can laugh at it. So I think comedy does a lot of things. I think it's a truth detector. I think it also means you have to have some perspective. You have to have a little bit of a view of the world,

which I, you know, personally, I think that's exactly what we need right now. The world is so overwhelming and confusing and ridiculous and traumatizing that for us to be able to step back just feels good right away. Chuck, what do you think? I mean, I agree with everything you just said. And I also think that unlike, you know, any other didactic message, which immediately puts people in the defensive and immediately causes them to withdraw in whatever thought pattern that they have. If they disagree in advance, yeah. If they disagree, comedy disarms you because you're laughing first as an impulse. And then you go, hey, which is always my favorite humor when, you know, whether I'm doing it or somebody else is. My favorite thing to happen on stage is when I tell a joke and people laugh and then they groan.

I love that. I love that. And my answer to that every time is too late bitches i already got you it's too late you it's you laughed it's already funny you can't come back i think that's spot on because it's like you laugh and then you realize in laughing, the world is not black and white. We're all contradictions. Like I always say with this movie, people are like, Oh,

you're trying to warn people about climate and you're doing all this. Well, what are you doing? I'm like, don't get me wrong. I'm a moron. I like, if there's a new ad for like a taco bell combo burrito filled with mini tacos i'm like i want to eat that and

like i i'm i'm way too invested in is our affleck and jennifer lopez happy together like i'm way too invested in that so it's like we're all like this i mean we're all animals that love like great smells and bright colors. But, you know, there's a little part of us, too, that can do something like step back and take a look at stuff. So that combo is kind of the whole game, which I think is what Chuck's talking about. So what do you know about—the movie's been out for several months now,

Don't Look Up, on Netflix. What do you know about what impact it has had? No pun intended. You know, some of it's anecdotal. In some cases, Netflix gives you all these crazy statistics. But I mean, it's been really cool. I've just seen some, you know, stories where an opposition leader in the French government the other day referred to Macron's inaction over the climate

as he's like Janie Orlean from Don't Look Up. There it is. I saw the organizer of COP in Glasgow refer to Don't Look Up. I've seen it's been mentioned in articles about leaders that are denying science. Extinction Rebellion in the UK has rallied around the film and has been mentioning it. So that's really cool. And then they show you the stats where it's like, you know, by some estimates,

250 to 300 million people have seen the movie. And then they show you the social media responses and they're showing you that it's four to one positive and uh so you know there's a lot of stats there's a lot of anecdotal but okay but i like the fact that if reference to the movie and its characters becomes part of pop culture then you i don't know

what more right you could ever hope a movie to do and hundred percent right yep right there are movies that are the fact that we now parlance that you know say oh it's it let's go to oz right we know what that means it's part of our it's part of our lexicon our cinematic literacy so that's i think that's an excellent measure and there's perhaps no better measure of the influence of a movie than people yeah i mean the idea that there's now there's now i'm sorry the idea that there's now a phrase for self-interested leaders and media and conglomerates ignoring science and it's don't look up is like and it seems to kind of be catching i mean it's still a little early but if that was the result i we're we're doing backflips i mean we just tried to get something out there to kind of jar some people and it's just a movie so you know your hopes are are fairly

modest but uh of course the tagline of this show the tagline of the show is the opposite of that right i end every show with, keep looking up. And so to watch the movie, to hear it, don't look up. It's like each one of those was like a dagger to my heart. Yeah. You know what? Adam, you should have named your show. I felt that every time someone said, don't look up.

All right. We were really close. We tested it. We printed up posters. Adam, you didn't leave the viewer any hope at the end, except for the infinitely rich who went on the ship, and we didn't like any of them anyway. So what does it mean to offer no hope?

This is America. We like some hope. Ah, well, you know, I mean, here's the thing. It's just a movie. We like happy endings. It's fictional. We like happy endings. Yeah, it's a fictional outcome.

But we definitely were very conscious of the fact that we have seen thousands of movies for decades that have the guaranteed happy ending. And, you know, we were trying to say, if you, you know, we're not audience members, we're part of this. And unless you do something, there's not a guaranteed happy ending. So it was amazing to see how much that ending really hit people just because it broke the kind of routine that we're used to. But make no mistake about it, science is powerful. Science is the Excalibur on the wall. If we take it down and use it, we can deal with this urgent, urgent climate crisis. I mean, we have renewable energy.

See, what you could have had, Adam, what you could have had was a small faction of people in your movie who watched StarTalk. Okay? And listened to StarTalk. I apologize. I should have had this in there. They band together, and then they figure out how to convince everybody how to properly deflect the asteroid, and Earth is saved.

See, you could have had that. That could have been the ending. Maybe we'll release that version. The director's cut. We could have had a bunch of people laughing at Chuck's stand-up, and then through the joy of their laughter, they see the world clearly, and they get the governments to do it. It could have been either one of those.

Or we could have had the reality of that same scenario where they're actually egging on the end of the world because they're watching um yeah like i've been rather than sit through chuck's routine they'd rather the world end is that what you're saying right yes even so come asteroid now there was some uh so, you probably got this in your stream. When I posted my Twitter comment about the film, the response was wide and varied, and many were humorous.

One of them said, by the end of the film, I was rooting for the comet. They didn't care. They didn't care about anybody. So, Adam, let me get at least a little half-serious here. If a movie has the power to move people intellectually, emotionally, what you have done with Don't Look Up is hold up a mirror to us all. But a movie also has the power to offer a solution.

And you didn't offer a solution. offer a solution and you didn't offer a solution a solution to get through to cut through the brush and Bramble and the muck and Meyer of social media and and and political idiocy so you could have and you didn't so is that what do you want people to do What do you want people to do? Yeah, I mean, I think this movie was a kick in the pants. I mean, this movie was, you know, what we're missing when it comes to the climate crisis is will in action, right? Those two things. And that a lot of people don't feel the urgency in their bones.

And I'm not saying they're at fault. It just is what it is. So this movie was designed to be a big old kick in the pants. And what I hope is I hope other people, and certainly our production company is doing it, I want to see other movies, other TV shows. I want to see, you know, the news start to cover, the media start to cover the different ways we can deal with this because there are a lot of ways we can.

I mean, we have the renewable energy. Of course we do. You know, there's some early research going on with carbon removal that's really exciting. We've got to be careful, though, because the fossil, yeah, but the fossil fuel companies will come in and use those solutions as a way to slow us down. So you got to kind of distinguish between the good faith and bad faith solutions. But yeah, it is ultimately one movie. And we could only tell so much of a story. And the goal of it was a kick in the pants, a moment of identification for people that have felt gaslit, and a chance for people to have a little perspective on how batshit crazy our world is. That was the goal of the movie. And yeah, you're 100% right, Neil. So Yale and George Mason have a study. And in that study, one of the things that was most prominent is the fact that one of the biggest problems with climate is that people do not talk about it. So when you talk about the impact of movies having a shock wave, the fallout is if people talk about it, that is part of the solution. You just gave my answer in your question. Yeah,

that's it. I don't think people realize how much power they have in just the people they talk to, the way they behave, feeling and emotion. I mean, you know, advertising companies are trying to replicate word of mouth. That's what they're trying to replicate. But every study shows like nothing's more powerful than people just talking to each other. So that was it. That was the goal of this one. Let's get a little spark going.

I'm going to summarize what both of you just said by quoting Ray Bradbury. And so Ray Bradbury will take us out of this segment. He said, when asked by a fan, because Ray Bradbury, the science fiction writer, said, why do you always portray these apocalyptic futures for humanity? Is that the future you think we're going

to have? And he says, no, I show you those futures so you know to avoid them. Oh, that's good. Very nice. Adam, great to have you. Keep being crazy out there and doing things that no one else would even think of doing and thereby changing the world for the better. When we come back, we're going to invite in my friend and colleague, Amy Mainzer, who's an astrophysicist, who's one of the world's experts on planetary protection, protecting Earth from asteroids. And she's going to talk about a recent mission launched by NASA to test whether we have the power to deflect asteroids when StarTalk returns. I'm Joel Cherico

and I make pottery. You can see my pottery on my website CosmicMugs.com Cosmic Mugs, art that lets you taste the universe every day. And I support StarTalk on Patreon. This is StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson. We're back. We're talking about cosmic things that can harm humans on Earth. Coming off a great

interview with Adam McKay, writer, producer, director of Don't Look Up, the Netflix hit movie. And now we bring in a friend and colleague, Amy Mainzer. Amy, welcome back to StarTalk. Hey, thanks. It's great to be back. Last I checked in on you, you were at the Jet Propulsion Labs in Pasadena, California.

And where are you now? Well, I have since moved, and now I'm at the Jet Propulsion Labs in Pasadena, California. And where are you now? Well, I have since moved, and now I'm at the University of Arizona in the Department of Planetary Science. Very cool. One of the jewels in the crown of that institution. Whenever they look up, they find something good at the University of Arizona.

So that's one of the finest departments around. So great to have you back on StarTalk. Now, why do we have you here? We could have had you anyway, just because of your expertise thinking about stuff that can harm us. But you doubled down on that as being like the science astro advisor to the film, Don't Look Up. And so what we're going to do is we solicited questions from our audience,

and a zillion of them came in. But just before we go to those, Chuck, you're loaded up with those questions? I am. Yeah, we're all good to go. We're good to go. So before we do that, let me just ask you, Amy, what did they want you to do for the film? Well, you know, I think the role of science advisor probably is different for every movie or TV show. But for this one, there was quite a bit to do.

There was basically advising Adam and the rest of the cast and the crew on the actual asteroid and comet science. But kind of even more basically, there was a kind of a task of advising them on what it means to be a scientist and how do scientists think. kind of a task of advising them on what it means to be a scientist and how do scientists think and what do we do when we have bad news to tell everybody based on what we're learning. So it's interesting. I implicated you, I think probably correctly, because they wouldn't have known this otherwise in the scripting. I was interviewed by MSNBC and they played a scene about Don't Look Up. And they played a scene where I forgot which character asserts it. It might have been Leonardo DiCaprio. He says, a comet the size of Mount Everest is going to hit Earth.

And I say, well, you don't get that size just by accident, because that was the size of the comet that took out the dinosaurs. And so a real astronomer had to be in there sort of infusing these reference frames for them. So did I correctly credit you for telling them that? Oh, yeah. Thank you. Yes, you did.

Yeah, we had a lot of discussions. See, Chuck, our people, we all know how we got to talk. See, Chuck? Just so you know. Yes. The dinosaurs died and so are you. And so will you. And so will you, yes.

Well, hopefully not. Hopefully not this time. Did you also coach them on the behavior of scientists as scientists rather than just script points? Yeah, we really talk about a lot of different aspects of what it means to be a scientist. Just, you know, how do scientists think? What are the things that sort of frustrate

us? And how do we, you know, how do we succeed? And sometimes how do we fail when we try to communicate with the public and with people who are in power to make decisions about what's going to happen to all of us? Yeah, but okay, but wait a minute, though. You are very good at communicating with the public. How do you train actors to be bad at communicating with the public? Well, I think, you know... If you told them all you knew, they would have been much better at it. So how do you tell them what you don't know and have them be bad at it? Well, it's funny because Leonardo and I especially talk a lot about this part that, you know,

there's a tendency in science to use a lot of jargon. You can say that. I mean, first name basis. First of all, don't even try to just bury that lead. Don't even try. Let the woman be first name basis

with all these people. Wait a minute. No. At least you didn't call him Leo. Leonardo and I, we talk a lot about it. And we know that you're not doing a seance with Da Vinci. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Which would have been very cool. I would definitely. That would have been even cooler. If that's possible, that would have been very cool. Even more cool. We talked a lot about just, you know, what is it? What is it that's so confusing sometimes? Obviously, we use a ton of jargon and we do it sometimes without even meaning to.

I mean, you guys encounter this all the time, right? I mean, we use words in a scientific context, same word, use it in everyday life, and it takes on a totally different meaning sometimes. The word uncertainty, for example, in science, that has a very specific definition. We use it in almost a mathematical context. But if you say in everyday life, well, I'm uncertain as to whether there is a rattlesnake in my backyard, you know, that means you don't know, right? But to a scientist, that word is used in a very different way. So we talked a lot about that. So people don't know that we can

quantify our ignorance. And that's an actually profound place to be. Yeah. I was going to say, that's very scientist of you. We can quantify our ignorance. Yeah, well, science deals in probabilities all the time, right? I mean, that's just part of what we do as scientists, is we are trying to quantify how likely it is something's going to happen. Or not happen. Or not happen, yeah.

And that's sometimes kind of a hard thing to get across. But I think also, too, just generally, you know, more basically, can we agree that there are facts that are supported by scientific data that are true? And that's a big theme of the movie. Can we have something that we all agree on that is true? So you weren't just a random astrophysicist to advise them. You actually have expertise in asteroid risks. So what can you tell us? Give

us just some numbers. How many asteroids have us in their path? Just so we can freak everybody out before we start the Q&A. Well, the very good news is, okay, full stop. The movie is pure science fiction. Okay. We don't know of a giant comet. No, it's not. You're lying. That was a documentary. I told everybody that. Okay. Go on.

We're very lucky. There is no comet that we know about that is about to smack into the Earth in six months. Full stop. We don't know of any such object. So that's the good news. Seven months, yes, but six months, we're safe. Right, exactly. Okay.

Yeah. Let's put it there. Let's go straight to questions. Chuck, what do you have? I don't know what you're doing in six months and two days, but wouldn't make it in plans. Live it up for now. Yep, live it up for now. Chuck, give me some questions.

Go for it. Alex Reynoso, who kind of dovetails on Dr. Tyson's question, says, Hello, Alex from Mexico here. Madison's question says, Hello, Alex from Mexico here. My question for Dr. Mainzer is, were you asked for any new ideas for the movie, or did they just ask you to fact-check the ideas they already had?

I love that question. If so, what was the craziest idea that you fact-checked? Well, I would say, yeah, we had a lot of back and forth about the script, and we started working on it more than two years ago now. So it's been a while. First off, I had to work with Adam to figure out the size of the comet, actually. Well, first of all, we had to establish that it was a comet and not an asteroid. So that was number one.

Number two, he wanted it to be a lot bigger than I thought was a good idea for the script. So I had him kind of downsize it a little bit. And I told him at a certain point, if the thing is too big, you know, there is no movie, right? There's no hope at all. So we wanted to try to size it to something that is, you know, is large enough that it would have caused a lot of damage in the movie. Obviously, that's part of the plot, but not so large that everybody would just give up and stop trying right off the bat. So that was number one. So getting the size of the comet right was kind of one of the first orders of business. Interesting.

That's really cool. All right. But how about weird, but was there something you added other than the size of the comet that they already knew was going to hit? Was there some extra plot line you said, you know, you got to add this to the storytelling? Yeah. Otherwise, it's not real. Yeah. So there's kind extra plot line you said you know you got to add this to the storytelling otherwise it's not real yeah so there's a there's kind of a key and i'm assuming this is spoilers are okay here i'm hoping everybody's seen the movie at this point but um yeah one of the things that we talk a lot about that is uh is is features pretty heavily in the plot is uh the concept that somebody's

going to want to come along and instead of just deflecting the comet, they're going to want to try to mine the comet. Yes. I was very impressed with that turn of the plot line. Yeah. So basically, there's sort of a key moment when it looks like everybody, in spite of all their differences, has kind of gotten all their stuff together

and we're going to deflect the comet and everything is going according to plan. And then all of a sudden, there's a wrench in the works. A plot twist. Yeah. Very good. Yeah. Very good.

And we're reminded that, indeed, comets and asteroids are very rich in minerals and natural resources. So that factual dimension of it made it comedically authentic for someone to say,

let's exploit this for economic gain. Yeah. Jeff Bezos comes in and says, hey, I got a trillion dollars up there coming at us. Okay.

Well, in this case. You want to blow it up? What are you doing? We could ship that overnight. Oh, gosh. Yeah, no, we got to, I mean, this was something we talked a lot about in the movie because, you know, there's been a lot of talk about asteroid mining.

We do have asteroid sample return missions. In fact, there's two of them. One has already brought a sample back from an asteroid. That's Hayabusa 2. And there's another that's on its way back to Earth right now. And that's the Cyrus Rex. But both of these missions are bringing back kind of the equivalent of about a baseball size worth of material, maybe a coffee can's work, but that's it.

We're not talking tons and tons and tons of minerals here. We're talking a baseball. Okay, so this sample return, Amy, so we'll get to this later, maybe in the next segment, but that means you're bringing space stuff back to Earth that can't always be good even if it did have economic value. Thinking of like space viruses or something. Nice. We'll get to that. Just want to tease what could happen later.

All right, Chuck, give me another one. All right. Let's see if we can mine these questions. I see what you did there. You see what I did there. This one's about space herpes. No. You said space virus. anyway, here we go.

Hello, Dr. Mainzer, Dr. Tyson, and Lord Nice. Oh, please. Since DART's counterpart, AIM, was canceled, and thus we're relying on ground-based telescopes to observe the effects of DART, will the mission still provide us with enough data to determine if a kinetic impactor could counter the scenario like the one depicted in Don't Look Up?

Or will further tests be necessary? By the way, I appreciate your work on NeoWise. Greetings from Germany, the place where we like to show off how much we know about everything. Okay, Patrick. You could have just asked a question, Patrick. You didn't have to give us a dissertation

on how you yourself are an astrophysicist and let me ask Amy all about it. Come on, man. Okay. Okay. So DART, Amy, quick, what's DART? So DART is the Double Asteroid Redirection Test, first of all. And it is a mission that is going to a double asteroid. So it's an asteroid that's got a moon going around it. And the idea is to bump into the moon. So the idea is to take the spacecraft and just crash it into the moon and bump the moon a little bit so that you can see the moon's orbit change. So the idea is to test this so-called kinetic impactor technique. In other words, the energy of motion. Can we change the orbit of this asteroid's moon in a way that is detectable?

So what is AIM then? What happened to AIM? So there was a proposal to have another mission that would watch the impact in real time. So basically just watch the impact happen and see whether or not there was a big explosion off the asteroid or what have you. Now there's a couple of things. So the AIM mission didn't end up happening as proposed. However... And was that an acronym? And was that an acronym? Oh, yes. And it... I'm going to have to look it up. Boy, we have... Asteroid Imaging... We can make this up right now.

Let's just do it now. Yeah, Asteroid Imaging and Mission. Yeah, now that's... Maneuver, Maneuver, yeah. Good question. I don't actually remember the name. I was going to go with murder. I was going to go with murder.

Murder? Okay, so AIM did not make it. However, they are going to watch it with the ground-based telescopes, as the questioner noted. And there is a CubeSat that's been provided by the Italian Space Agency that is going to be watching the impact as well. So there's that. The other thing is the Europeans have a mission that is going to go there eventually in a couple of years after the impact. And it will come back to the asteroid's moon and it's going to do a very careful mapping of the system. So hopefully between all of that, we can piece it all together.

What are these videos I've seen where it's some part of DART detaches while the rest of it collides? Yeah, I think this is the CubeSat with the observer, the camera on it. Okay, because they were together and then they separated and one went in for the collision. Yeah, so I believe it's got a little friend that's going to drop off and take a look at things as it happens. We've got to take a quick break. When we come back, more Cosmic Queries with a collision, end of Earth, end of of civilization expert, Amy Mainzer, advisor to the Netflix hit film Don't Look Up. We'll be right back. We're back with Amy Mainzer.

Amy, a friend and colleague, planetary scientist. Amy, how friend and colleague, planetary scientist. Amy, how do we find you on social media? Where do you hang out? I'm on Twitter. So I'm at Amy Mainzer on Twitter. That's where you can find me. Mainzer.

I'm mispronouncing your last name. Shame on me. Either way. Okay. M-A-I-N-Z-E-R. You're feeling particularly German. You can say Meinzer. Meinzer.

Yes, okay. Don't get Chuck Starr on his accent. Meinzer, do you have your papers? No. Chuck Starr. Your peer-reviewed papers? I did say the American pronunciation one time in front of my German grandfather, and boy, did I get an earful. Oh, wow.

I bet you did. All right. We want some more of that chuckle to fill in for us. Say, Chuck, you're bringing back memories. All right, let's get another question, Chuck, so maybe we can squeeze into this final segment. This is Dylan. He says, greeting doctors and comedians from Albuquerque, New Mexico. I was wondering what size do asteroids become dangerous?

Not just Mount Everest size. I know that Earth pounds through millions of particles from space that they do nothing. In other words, we get bombarded all the time. What can we expect when an asteroid that could potentially kill all life, what's the smallest that it could be? Well, so we do have some good information about this. And the question is absolutely correct, or the questioner is absolutely correct. We do get pelted with all kinds of little particles all the time every day, about 100 tons. And we mostly see those, if we see them at all, as shooting stars. Those are tiny. These things are like sand grains or maybe the size of

a grain of rice or a pea, something like that. But we know that if an object gets to be bigger, say about maybe 20 meters across, so about 60 feet, 50, 60 feet across, at that point, it can start to make it through the Earth's atmosphere more or less intact. Now, we know this is a reasonable lower limit because we have a really recent event. Well, recent on astronomer timescales. In 2013, there was an object that hit over Russia, and it exploded. Remember that? It exploded in the upper atmosphere, and there was a shower of fragments. It broke a bunch of windows, but there wasn't a big hole in the ground, right? It was mostly just an airburst explosion. And that's because the object was small enough that the atmosphere was effectively like a brick wall

and really just shredded it. But if the object's closer to say 50 meters across, then what happens is you get what we have here in Arizona, which is a mile wide hole in the ground, more or less. So very small differences in the size, relatively speaking, can make a really big difference. So basically kind of- Okay, for those who've never been to Arizona, she referenced a practically mile diameter meteor crater sitting there near Winslow, Arizona. Isn't that right? That's right, yeah.

One of the closest towns, a town that showed up in a song. Something, I've been to Winslow, Arizona. What't that right? That's right. Yeah. One of the closest towns, a town that showed up in a song. Something, I've been to a town in Winslow, Arizona. What's that song? I don't know. I think it's called Mile Wide Crater. A really large crater. Yeah. Okay. So the takeaway from that answer, Amy, is that occasionally rice and peas falls from the sky. You said that. We heard you say that. It's like Earth sweating. Rice and peas. I heard her say that.

She's on the record. The comets are helping us celebrate every day. That's it. Chuck, keep going. It just occurred to me because you said about the shockwave in 2013. So that was not a very big object that impacted the atmosphere to create this shockwave. So what would it take to actually just blow the atmosphere off? Because the first thing that it would hit would be, it would make the air like an ocean.

Our atmosphere would be like an ocean, right? Because it hits it. Wait, wait, Chuck, are you asking this question or is this a Patreon question that you're supposed to be reading from? Oh, wait, that's from Buck Rice. Buck Rice from Rice and Peas, Arizona would like to know. All right, let me tighten up Chuck's question for you, Amy. So at what size asteroid is unfazed by moving through the atmosphere?

There you go. And then it just hits the ground as though there was no atmosphere. Nice. That's what she's trying to say. That's what I was trying to say, but I don't know what I'm talking about. No, no, this is exactly the question. If it's a little bit bigger than 20 meters, it's going to make it to the ground mostly intact.

And by the time you get to about 50 meters across, now it can blow a pretty big hole in the ground. So now the thing that hit in Meteor Crater, there's a caveat, it's made of mostly nickel iron because we found some pieces of it that didn't get completely vaporized. But Chuck, she meant nickel plus iron? Yeah. When she said nickel iron, just so you know. it that didn't get completely vaporized but chuck she meant nickel plus iron yeah when she said nickel iron just so you know there's not some new element that nickel iron only she knows about nickel iron all over yeah no basically they're

commonly found together in the universe supernova make them and so they're everywhere together so it's not a surprise we find them together in chunks of things in the solar system so amy if i remember correctly the one that hit over r was a rocky, a stony meteorite. But that's not what fell in Arizona. That's correct. Yeah, the one that hit over Russia was a kind of a common type of stony asteroid. So sort of average in its properties. But the one that impacted in Arizona about 50,000 years ago, that was made of mostly nickel and iron,

so a much higher density material. It wasn't a whole lot bigger. It was about 50 meters across instead of 20 meters across, but probably a pretty high density compared to the stony object that exploded over Russia. And that crater, by the way, can sink a 62-story building. I've been there several times. If you ever go to Arizona, put that on your list.

If you're a fan of this podcast and you go to Arizona, wave to Amy as you go by Tucson, but then go to this crater. Yeah, I definitely recommend it. It is impressive. And I think there's a Subway concession stand up at the top.

You can eat a sandwich right there. I thought you were going to say the Subway stand. I was going to say. No. I was like, where did the MTA get that good? Get all the way. Wow. I thought Coney Island was far.

It was. Next stop, Midian Crater. All right, Chad, go for it. All right, here we go. This is, whoo. I'm going to say, haya buena cosa. Okay? Whatever.

Okay. Haya buena cosa says, hi, haya from the Philippines here. What would be the place where humans could possibly survive Earth's destruction? Would you still want to live after that? Is there any place you can hide from an extinction-level impact? Well, let's put it this way. It is thought, we know a lot about what happens

because we can look back at the event that wiped out the dinosaurs, right? And in fact, Neil's home institution there at AMNH does a lot of research on this. American Museum of Natural History. Yeah, American Museum of Natural History has done a lot of work on this. But basically, we know from studying the fossil records that pretty much any form of life that was bigger than about 50 pounds went extinct. And that's because the food webs really collapsed. There wasn't a lot to eat for a very long time.

Life did eventually come back and re-diversify after that impact event, but it took millions of years for that to happen. So it was not a fast process on our timescales. So I would say that, you know, it's bad. We definitely don't want this to happen. And we can learn about present day climate change that we're causing as human beings by looking back at that event and seeing exactly how things unfolded. In fact, I would say the obvious conclusion from that event is that doing large uncontrolled experiments on our atmosphere is a really bad idea and we shouldn't be doing it. So. Well, plus, plus, Amy, I think that there's a, there's an important point that you're making there, which is many people think that when the asteroid hits, that's what kills you, an extinction-level asteroid. No, it's because it takes out the food chain,

right? It takes out the base of the food chain, and everything that eats that goes extinct, and everything that eats the animals that ate the food go extinct. And so it's this wave of extinction percolating across the tree of life that can take about how long? How long did it take all those animals to die? Do we know? Well, we know from the fossil record that it was pretty fast, but on geological timescale. So in other words, that could have been, you know, thousands of years or something like that. Thousands of years. So we lose most of the species over thousands of years, not because they were hit by the asteroid itself,

which is how you get a small asteroid, the size of Mount Everest, affecting life everywhere on Earth. And you made such an important point, Amy, that the only way that can kill life around the other side of the Earth is if it affected the climate. Right. And then we learn what we're doing.

Are we, Amy, are we an Everest- scale collision? Well, let's put it this way. We should do everything in our power to make sure that we're not the asteroid or the comet. At least we got the first part of it right. Ass.

Ass as in asteroid? Okay. Don't be an asteroid. All right. Next question, Chuck. Hello, everyone. My name is pronounced Bridge. Really?

Okay. What... All right. Would it be possible to eventually put a detection system at points in space like the moon or mars and uh would it would it even be necessary wait detection or deflection oh good good thing no he says detection but i like your question too detection and deflection yeah let's do it all right yeah so i mean you know of course we've got ground-based telescopes we even have a space-based telescope right now we have have NEOWISE, the Near-Earth Object Life-Lintern Survey Explorer.

NEOWISE is the project I work on. And we're building a new one that's going to go in space that will eventually replace NEOWISE, because NEOWISE is now very old. That's called the Near-Earth Object Surveyor. And it's not going to go on the moon, but it's going to go just past the orbit of the moon, so not too much further away. just past the orbit of the moon, so not too much further away. In principle, if we have these telescopes, plus we've got the Rubin Observatory that's going to be coming online in Chile pretty soon, hopefully. And so with all of those expanded capabilities, we should be in pretty good shape. We should be able to map out where most of the really big stuff is at that point. Now, could we look at other options? Absolutely. And one of the things we'll do as we start to get

data from the more advanced surveys is we'll look at the population models and figure out, okay, what do we do about the rest of the objects? What's the best way to search for them? We could try building observatories on the moon and on Mars, but it's hard to do that, of course. So if we can build observatories... Amy, I have to stop you.

Everything you just said is just so that we know when to kiss our ass goodbye. Yeah. You haven't said anything about deflection. You're just talking about, oh, now I have a catalog of all the things that will kill us and the date and time.

So I need more than that from you, Amy. Yes, well, okay. I am hoping, full stop, I am hoping that when we make our big catalog, we find nothing. And that's a great, that would be the best possible answer. Oh, good point. We could look out there and we could see that, you know what, they all look-

Nothing for 10,000 years. Yeah, just fine. We're good. We're fine. We're all fine here, you know, to quote from Star Wars a little bit. But, you know, we could find that. And that would be the best case. Of course, we don't want to just assume the best case, though.

We do want to make plans for a deflection. And that's where the DART mission comes in. That was a test of that kinetic impactor technology, which is kind of the easiest thing you can imagine, where you just bump into the asteroid with the spacecraft. There are other technologies, though, that we could look at, like something called- Bruce Willis. Bruce Willis. Yes, yes. The Bruce Willis technology, which I'm always in favor of. But you can always send Bruce Willis. That's probably going to help. But if you want to do something else, you can look at something called the gravity tractor. And I'm not talking about a John Deere tractor. I'm talking about a mass in space.

So in other words, you build a really big spacecraft, something very big and heavy, and you park it next to the asteroid. And then you just sort of let the gravity of the spacecraft pull on the asteroid and try to tow it out of the way. Of course, that only works if you have a pretty long time to let it work. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it's a gravitational tractor beam. I love the concept of that. That's super cool. Yeah.

Yeah. Chuck, I think we might have time for only one more question. This is sad. Because we're talking about the future of life on Earth, and we've got to fit it into our time slots. That's wrong. That's just wrong. I mean, honestly, it makes sense, too. Because we're sad

as the way we're responding to everything is sad. So, okay, here we go. I'm sorry. I shouldn't be a downer on humankind. I'm sure we'll get it together, okay, here we go. I'm sorry. I shouldn't be a downer on humankind. I'm sure we'll get it together. Okay, here we go. This is Daniel Kolakowski. And Daniel says,

first, Dr. Tyson, were you consulted on the movie title? No. That's pretty funny. That's good. That's good. No, the answer is no. but as I watched the movie, I felt each of those don't look ups as like a dagger into my heart

because every day I tell people to look up, and they're saying don't look up, and a movie is way more powerful than I am in messaging the public. So it was like tiny, you know, the death of a thousand cuts. That's how I felt. So then he says, second, Chuck, just take a deep breath and then pronounce my name exactly as it looks. You'll get it right. Okay, well

thank you for your very thank you for your very zen your very zen instructions. I hope, I hope, I should have read that first, because now I don't know. All right. And then third, Dr. Meinzer,

in the opening scene where Leo is calculating the trajectory of the asteroid, how is he able to do that accurately in discrete steps rather than using a method to calculate the trajectory with calculus or a computer model. Could he really be that smart? This scene in the movie condenses kind of a bunch of things all together at once. We were trying to be sort of quick about it. But the upshot is that Leo is not an expert in comet discovery.

So he's going back to grad school and he's got a bunch of students with him. So I kind of thought, you know, if I were a professor in that situation, I probably would want to try to actually work out the math if I could to show the students how it's done. So in other words, use it as a teachable moment. So in the movie, he's kind of using it as a teachable moment. He's looking at a textbook. He's trying to figure out the math for himself rather than just going right to the computer. He's actually trying to kind of work it out. If you look carefully, you will see that they are using their laptops and he is actually

writing stuff down on the board that they're getting off of a computer. So they are actually using the computer, but there's kind of a scene in the beginning where he's going to try and figure it out for himself a little bit, just to make sure he understands it. And I think that's what a good scientist will try to do. But I think the question was, he's showing discrete steps of the location of the comet. And then one step, the separation between Earth and the comet is zero. Wouldn't that happen as a continuous calculation or a mathematical function that gets there? Like the guy said, whose name we didn't pronounce, would he use calculus, which then gets you the continuous solution? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So you do use

calculus, although the method that he's using, it's referred to as Gauss's method. And this is a sort of a classical method of orbit determination. The idea is you actually iterate. So in other words, you make an initial guess, and then you kind of refine the guess based on an estimate of how far off you are. And then you do it again and again and again. And after that, then you can start looking at discrete steps in time. Once you have a pretty good idea of what the orbit is, the next step is to figure out where's the object going at these specific points in time. And so that's kind of what's shown. There's sort of a two-step process there. Now, Gauss is my man. Gauss is my man. Gauss is the Google Maps of orbit plotting. Did you know Gauss invented the method of least squares

in statistics to solve the orbit of the first asteroid ever discovered? So this is deep. The asteroid Ceres was in space moving, and then it got lost in the sun's glare. And it said, where do we go now? Where are we going to look? Gauss said, I got this.

Okay, so he used the previous measures extrapolated into the future into the future using the single best method possible and to do that he invented the method of least squares on asteroids i'm just saying we got people everywhere working working on stuff, what a slouch he was. God. If only that gal should have tried harder. What he could have made of himself. Exactly.

So, let's try to slip in one more question, Chuck. See what you got. Okay. And Amy, you got to answer quick on this. Pretend you're... Okay. Pretend I'm the evening news and you got to give me abite. Okay, go. You got it. You got it.

All right, here we go, guys. This will be an easy one because we almost got to it. But Michaela Nagus says, what valuable resources exist in asteroids and how much money could be made by mining them? Right., directly related to the movie. Now, I have said, Amy, that the world's first trillionaire will be the person who exploits the natural resources on asteroids. So am I right or am I wrong? Tell me here. Boy, I tell you what, it's a science fiction question in a lot of ways because it's really hard to do stuff in space.

We can bring back kind of baseball- or copy can size bunches of material. Bringing back a lot more than that so far has been really challenging for us. Maybe we will get there someday. But right now, we're still talking baseball size amounts of material. So we're still in the, I don't know, maybe we'll get there someday. But we need some Star Trek to happen first. Yeah, but in 1902, before the airplane was invented, if you said in 67 years you're going to be walking on the moon,

they would have committed you. I mean, that can't be more far off than walking on the moon before the Wright brothers flew. It's hard to say, you know, I mean, gosh, so many people have tried to predict the future and have been way, way wrong. So, I mean, you know, who knows? But I will say...

We want you on record so we can embarrass you in 10 years, okay? There we go. There we go. I think it's probably the case that in 10 years, we're not going to be towing back whole big chunks of asteroid. Probably about 10 years is too soon. But, you know, after that, who knows? It's very appealing to try to do it because we all know that there's limited resources on earth, right? of all these rare materials, right? And we do use them to make things like cell phones and computer screens and all this stuff. So we definitely want to find more sources of them. But it's just really hard to do stuff in space right now. And it's hard to bring material back. Hopefully someday we can figure all this stuff out so that we can tow asteroids back in ways that are safe and then chop them up and

extract the minerals. And especially asteroids that might have taken us out. Then we say, so there, we're going to eat you. That's it. Revenge on those asteroids. All right. Last one word question, Amy. Are we all going to die? Not from an asteroid. Oh, there you go. All right. You heard it here.

There you go, America. It's still it here. There you go, America. It's still heart disease. It's still heart disease. So eat your broccoli. There you go. We will die if we behave the way they did in the movie you advised. So they made that clear. We've got to end it there.

Amy, a delight to have you back on StarTalk. We're going to do this again. Maybe we'll talk about infestations from space and planetary protection, because I know you've got some thinking on that as well. Chuck, always good to have you, man. Always a pleasure.

All right. This has been StarTalk Cosmic Queries, everything that might kill us from space. Neil deGrasse Tyson here, your personal astrophysicist. Keep looking up.