Matt Kracht Can the human race create an arkship that will allow a selected number of refugees to escape a doomed Earth? Apparently so, according to this documentary. The thought experiment involves a roving neutral star on a collision course with our solar system. We've got 75 years before Earth is destroyed, and we must reorganize society, revolutionize our manufacturing capacity, and maintain social order in the face of certain doom for all but a few lucky people.It's a rather mixed bag, but the concept is definitely intriguing. The worst problem is that this documentary is laughably bad. The dramatic sequences are probably the weakest element; they are horribly melodramatic and very poorly acted, but I suppose they have a certain "so bad it's good" charm. The science is actually better than I expected. I guess if you're a stickler, there will probably be several issues that you can't forgive. For example, as the neutron star approaches Earth, there really isn't much gravitational effect. They do discuss this, but it generally doesn't happen until pretty late in the scenario. Seems a bit unlikely to me. Then again, I slept through most of my physics lectures.Anyway, as the Earth adapts to this threat, we face several critical questions. Each of them are answered rather quickly and simplistically, perhaps to make way for more dramatic sequences. The balance was all wrong. A few well-placed sequences to underscore the drama would have been much better than the constant use of stock footage, melodrama, and bad CGI. Also, I really don't know that I agree with their story-based approach; I would have preferred something a bit more analytical. They could have asked and explored really deep questions instead of repeatedly showing people unconvincingly panicking in the face of bad CGI. For example, society could go in several different directions, such as dystopian or utopian responses to the threat. It seems as though the creators of this documentary had a specific vision for humanity, and they weren't really interested in exploring any other ideas. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree, but it's kind of intellectually lazy and preachy.All in all, this is propaganda for spacetravel enthusiasts. If you're one of them, you'll probably love this, as it will reinforce all your beliefs and congratulate you for forward-thinking vision. If you're not an enthusiast, then you'll probably find it cheesy and preachy. The intriguing questions are answered unsatisfactorily, and any entertainment value is strictly unintentional.

Gary Miloglav This was the most ridiculous and least scientific presentation made since the movie 2012. Not only would we be able to create many O'Neill cylinders within the first 20 years, but they would be much larger than 15 miles in length. They wouldn't be built from earth materials, but from lunar and asteroid resources. Try reading Gerry O'Neill's works for a starter.And destroying the multi-billionaire space ship on the pad? Really? They would very like fund the initial investments on the Moon to get things going. Maybe you should have interviewed Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett for their opinions.Finally, travelling across the galaxy, even to nearby Barnard's star, would be absurd. Why jump into yet another gravity well with all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of living in space? Seriously? Producers Bruce David Klein, Lorri Leighton, Bill McClane, writer Bill McClane, and all you editors, you should be ashamed of this level of absolute garbage! And to the National Geographic Channel, if this is how you spend my subscription money, stop it!

sddavis63 I appreciated the contributions of very real and obviously very knowledgeable people to this. "Evacuate Earth" deals with how humanity would handle a very real doomsday scenario. In this case, the movie opens with earth being bombarded by destructive asteroids, and as astronomers investigate where they're coming from they discover that there's a neutron star heading right toward our solar system that will literally tear the earth apart in about 75 years. Neutron stars are the collapsed shells of massive stars whose own collapse propels them through space at tremendous speeds. Possessing massive gravity, they literally destroy anything in their path. I appreciated that information.The portrayal of how humanity would respond was very believable. The neutron star having been discovered, the response is to build a gigantic spacecraft which could transport humanity to some other world (ultimately, in this production, revealed to be an earth-like planet in orbit around Barnard's Star.) There's a good portrayal of the need for humanity to set aside its differences to work together on such a massive project, and some very good information on the possibilities for how to fuel such a massive ship, and how to achieve enough speed to make such a voyage possible. Ultimately using nuclear technology, apparently it's possible to reach a velocity of 7% of the speed of light, which would get such a ship to Barnard's Star in less than a hundred years. The means of developing artificial gravity were portrayed, and there was useful consideration of how to provide food and water for those making the journey, as well as how to govern the quarter million or so who would be on board. There's also some consideration of exactly who would make the journey - since it isn't feasible to get 7 billion people off the earth. Issues such as genetic diversity and susceptibility to disease have to be factored in. So it can't just be a lottery system, nor can you just pick the richest and most powerful people. The rich, of course, have their own resources - and it's pointed out that they'll probably try their own exit strategy.What didn't work for me quite as well as all that? The time-clock countdown was one thing. Obviously added for dramatic effect, it came across as silly. I'm no physicist or astronomer, but from what I know I don't think that such cosmic occurrences can be timed quite so precisely, so that as the neutron star approaches the solar system, an astronomer watching can pinpoint almost to the second the destruction of Saturn. That just doesn't seem possible to me. Even the 75-year clock seems a bit too precise. This didn't add anything useful for me. It gave this a Hollywood action-movie feel. I honestly could have done without the fake news reports as well, many of which came across as less than believable - poorly acted, quite frankly. And those things did detract from this, for me at least. I was interested in a far more serious portrayal of what was going to happen and how humanity would respond. When "Evacuate Earth" stuck to that, it was very good. When it moved more into the area of drama, it was less enjoyable. (6/10)

evening1 There's something called a "neutron star" somewhere out near the fringes of the Milky Way and it's not like other stars that stay put. This one's got propulsion that places it on a collision course with Earth -- and scientists say it will blast the planet to smithereens in just 75 years.This fascinating show takes a look at how man might respond if 7 billion people had to leave Earth in a relative hurry. An impressive array of rocket scientists discuss the kinds of spaceships and landing places that would be necessary for humans to survive a date with destruction. The first sign of this kind of trouble could be a "deadly hail of meteorites" of bowling-ball size that would pound us with fire and kill 250,000 people. Astronomers would point their telescopes in the direction of where the hellfire was coming from and discover a "rogue object" from intergalactic space, the worst of which is the stellar corpse known as a neutron star.This would be a star much larger than the sun that has burned up all its energy and collapsed into an extremely dense neutron-heavy core only 10 km across that has a gravitational field so strong it can pull planets apart. "The scary thing about a neutron star is that when it collapses on itself, it can shoot itself into space at a very high velocity...so beware anything that can get in its path," we're warned.It would be an enormous undertaking to abandon earth but if it's the only alternative, resourceful people would have to get right to work! There are problems with that scenario, however. Only 600 people have gone into space in all of human history,and not everyone would be able to go! What's more, we'd have to get WAY out of Earth's neighborhood be safe -- to the tune of 8 light years away, or 40 trillion miles. Not only would we need a colossal ship to make that kind of journey but we'd have to invent a new kind of engine such as one that can contain plutonium-fueled nuclear explosions.The fastest Earth-sent space object is the Voyager probe, which is traveling at 0.006 times the speed of light. At that speed, it would take tens of thousands of years to reach another star! However, by detonating a bomb "behind" a spacecraft, once every 3 seconds for 10 days, you could approach 7% of the speed of light! (The nuclear test-ban treaties of the Sixties stopped this research, but with an emergency like this looming it could be taken up again.) The project would take worldwide cooperation on a scale that never has been mounted. (If money couldn't be a factor, would the best minds in the world donate their time?) Many people would likely get re-involved with religion and suicide rates would spike. What's more, huge questions arise as to whether the humans traveling on the starship could live and reproduce under conditions of zero gravity. Luckily, gravity can be simulated by rotating the space vehicle and creating centrifugal force. Create a little artificial light -- also not a problem, we're told -- and voilà, you're off -- in an "Ark" 15 miles long and 2 miles across -- that's four times the size of Manhattan -- and able to lug 250,000 people. And that brings us to the prickly question of how to select the people who get to escape. Oy vey! You'd want to save as much genetic diversity as possible while screening out those who've had diseases or aren't expected to live long. We're told that would mean no schizophrenics or diabetics, for example, or folks somehow deemed likely to endanger others on the ship. Evacuation-eligibility kits would be mailed in to the authorities. Interestingly, Inuits might be ideal candidates since they've survived in extremely harsh environments for thousands of years. "Once you start deciding who gets to go, you're deciding who doesn't get to go -- and that is a lot of people," says one scientist. "...We know that those in power are going to be writing the rules of how to decide who gets to go.""Who dies -- that's God's decision!" reads the sign of one picket who is envisaged. "Wars could well break out over who could get on that ship," we're told, since a simple lottery probably wouldn't be chosen. Rogue regimes could threaten nuclear war if they don't get their way. In other places, the powerful could just allow civil war to reduce the population. Would those who don't get to go try to sabotage the ship so that no one could escape, like fundamentalists who might say a leave-taking would thwart God's will?But selecting the survivors would only be part of the solution. You'd also have to find an earth-like planet of the sort currently being sought by the Keplar telescope. Keplar has found many so far but they're way too distant -- in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,500 light years away. We're told it will be important to get off the ship as soon as possible because the longer the survivors are traveling, the more likely something can go wrong. You want a planet in the "Goldilocks zone," which has liquid water, and, ideally, oxygen in its atmosphere. You want to avoid 200-mph winds and odd volcanism that has pumped toxic gases into the air, for example. There are many, many potential pitfalls along the way and this two-hour show does a great job of pointing them out. This is an extremely well-done and thought-provoking production. Highly recommended!