Skip to main content

Govert Schilling - Five Way Interview

Govert Schilling is an acclaimed and prize-winning freelance astronomy writer and broadcaster in the Netherlands. His articles appear in Dutch newspapers and magazines, but he also has written for New Scientist, Science and BBC Sky at Night Magazine, and he is a contributing editor of Sky & Telescope. He wrote dozens of books (including a couple of children’s books) on a wide variety of astronomical topics, many of which have been translated into English, German, Italian, and Chinese, among other languages. In 2007, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) named asteroid 10986 Govert after him, and in 2014, he received the David N. Schramm Award for high-energy astrophysics science journalism from the High Energy Astrophysics Division of the American Astronomical Society.His latest book is Target Earth.

Why science?

We live in troubling times. Fake news and conspiracy theories abound, and trust in science is diminishing. Many adults don't seem to realize that almost everything that makes our daily life enjoyable - health care, good food, Netflix, and smart phones, to name just a few - wouldn't be there if it weren't for centuries of scientific research. In contrast, young children are usually very interested in science whenever they encounter it, out of pure curiosity. That's why I strongly believe that we should encourage science education in elementary classes. Astronomy and space science (and dinosaurs, of course) are topics that fire the imagination, and therefore are extremely well-suited to spark a lingering interest in the great value of science in general. I know all about it: my career as a science writer really took off when I had my first look at the planet Saturn through a telescope - a truly life-changing experience.

Why this book?

Today, mankind is pretty much aware of the danger of natural disasters like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, which can kill hundreds or even many thousands of people. Unfortunately, we aren't yet good at predicting these catastrophes, let alone preventing them. Strangely enough, many people don't seem to know anything about the cosmic danger of giant asteroid impacts. Yes, they occur much less frequently, but they can be far more devastating. The good news is that we now have the means of discovering space rocks well before they hit, and even to deflect their orbits so as to prevent an impact that could kill millions. I believe everyone should be aware of the fact that Earth is in the cosmic firing line, but also that science is helping us to 'dodge the bullets'.

How realistic is the idea of changing the orbit of a large asteroid safely?

In 2022, NASA's DART mission successfully changed the orbit of the tiny asteroid moon Dimorphos. In fact, this remarkable feat was my main inspiration to write Target Earth. So yes, we can deflect small potential impactors, provided we have enough warning time. Then again, this was just a first exercise, and there's still a lot to learn, both about the physical properties of asteroids and about the potential dangers of smashing some projectile into an approaching space rock. What's more, while our brute-force counter measures may prevent impacts of objects that are about one or two hundred meters across, we are basically helpless against much larger and much more massive asteroids.

What’s next?

Future facilities, like the Vera Rubin Observatory in northern Chile and the NEO Surveyor due to be launched in the fall of 2027, will discover many more Earth-grazing asteroids, so we will get a much better picture of the risk we're facing. Moreover, several unmanned space missions to asteroids will provide astronomers with more detailed information about their physical makeup. Within ten years or so, we will know our 'enemy' much better, which is always good if you're starting a fight. Then again, politicians generally find it hard to fund a solution for a probem that has not yet presented itself, so I'm afraid we only will seriously start working on a true planetary defense system after astronomers discover that there's an asteroid out there with our name on it. And then it may, of course, be too late...

What’s exciting you at the moment?

As for asteroids, I very much look forward to the results of NASA's Lucy and Psyche missions. But there's so much more going on in astronomy these days. I'm particularly excited about the latest results of the James Webb Space Telescope, that indicate we may have to revise our ideas about the formation and early evolution of the very first galaxies in the baby days of our universe, more than 13 billion years ago. And I can't wait to see the results of both the Vera Rubin Observatory and the 39-meter European Extremely Large Telescope. Both are bound to revolutionise astronomy, and I'm grateful to be around to witness their impact.

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Interview by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more