Your chances of dying from an asteroid impact are greater than your chances of dying from a plane crash.

That's what Jane Charlton, associate professor of astronomy and astrophysics, said of the risk of a collision between an asteroid and Earth.

However, this is also due to the fact that an asteroid collision would most likely cause many more deaths than a plane crash, Charlton said.

"There is only a remote chance of an asteroid hitting us," she said.

But recent discoveries of potentially hazardous asteroids have roused public concern.

One such asteroid, named 2002 NT7, was initially thought by astronomers to be on a course that would put it at a high risk of colliding with Earth on February 1, 2019, according to a report from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Later, recalculations confirmed that 2002 NT7 would actually pass Earth on this date, but there still exists a possibility that it may collide with Earth on February 1, 2060 instead, the report said.

Astronomers say this happens often -- initially a possible threat is discovered, but after further calculations it is determined that a threat does not exist.

"Early news may look disturbing, but it is tough to calculate an asteroid's orbit early on," said Mike Eracleous, assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics. "It may look like it will hit, but then researchers refine their calculations and find no danger."

The problem is that the initial threat of an asteroid hitting Earth receives a great deal of media attention, sometimes causing a panic, while the recalculations that disprove the threat get little or no press at all, he said.

Still, since new asteroids are constantly being discovered, researchers continue to explore various methods of deflecting and destroying these NEO's (Near Earth Objects), in case one should be found heading our way.

"There are a number of proposals, and all have their ups and downs," Joe Masiero (junior-astronomy and astrophysics) said.

Nuclear weapons can be used to deflect or destroy the asteroid, but they must be detonated at exactly the right point to be successful, he said.

Also, while this approach has been tested here on Earth, there is still the issue of finding a suitable vehicle to take the weapons to the asteroid, Eracleous said.

There are other problems with this method as well.

"Asteroids are not always solid -- they're sort of like sandbags," said Steinn Sigurdsson, professor of astronomy and astrophysics. "A nuclear explosion would not deflect it, but instead create the effect of a gunshot blast."

The best solution is to nudge or push the asteroid aside, he said.

There are several ways of doing this, including rocket engines and mass drivers attached to the side of the asteroid, Masiero said.

"A mass driver is a mechanism that shovels out chunks of the asteroid to act as a rocket," he said.

When set up properly, the momentum of the shoveling would be perpendicular to the Earth's orbit, which would propel the asteroid sideways, he explained.

"Rocket engines attached to the asteroid could also do the same thing," he said.

The problem with each of these methods is that they depend solely on the consistency and reliability of the machines, he said.

"The question becomes: which do you trust more, the machines or your calculations?" he said.

A non-mechanical way of deflecting an asteroid is a solar sail, Sigurdsson said.

"A large sail is attached to the asteroid, and it uses to solar wind to deflect the asteroid from its path," he explained. "But that requires a lot of time -- as many as 50 years."

Time is something we have -- if the main concern is the possible collision in 2060. But what if astronomers suddenly discover an asteroid that may hit in two years or even two months?

"At short notice, nuclear weapons are the only solution," Sigurdsson said.

Hermann Burchard, a professor of mathematics at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, has a new idea: why not try a giant air bag?

Although this would also require plenty of time to implement, it is an otherwise reasonable solution because it is safe, simple, and realistic, Burchard said.

One benefit is that "no actual landing is needed," he said.

He explained that landing on an asteroid is difficult because the rocket engine might bury itself due to the large force it exerts.

"But in this case, the rocket engine would remain on the spacecraft and fire slowly as the craft flies alongside the asteroid, which allows good direction control," he said.

Then, once in the proper position, a chemical reaction would cause the air bags to inflate suddenly and nudge the asteroid away from its crash-course with Earth, he said.

The bags would be made of durable material, range in size from about 100 feet to a mile, and occupy small volumes while empty, making them easy to store and transport in outer space, he said.

He also pointed out that under-inflated bags and a smaller push from the rocket engine could be used when dealing with fragile or fragmented asteroids.

So although it may seem a far-fetched idea at first mention, Burchard's air bag plan may actually be both feasible and effective.

Sigurdsson said he understands Burchard's reasons for suggesting it.

"An air bag applies a huge force that is distributed over a large area, so it can push [the entire mass] together," he said.

In effect, the chemical reaction that inflates the bag is an explosion, but its force is muffled and controlled by the bag, he said.

But, like all the other methods, the air bag has its own set of problems.

"For one, the bag might tear at the force of the explosion," Sigurdsson said. "But then again, that might not even matter because it is so big -- even if it tears it may have already done its job."

Another problem is the amount of supplies required.

"The air bag would be about a thousand times bigger than a car's air bag, so it would probably require thousands of tons of the chemical to deploy it," Sigurdsson said.

But he also pointed out that size is an issue with any method of deflecting or destroying asteroids.

Eracleous said it is potentially a good idea, but he has doubts since it is still (like most other methods) only in its design stage, meaning it has yet to be tested and has many unanswered questions.

"For instance, will the chemical be strong enough for its effect to be successful?" he said.

The most effective method is one that is reliable and can be implemented at short notice, he said.

Does that mean we should "nuke" the asteroid?

"It would probably be best to try multiple methods, like the mass driver and the rocket engine, and then have nuclear weapons as a back-up plan," Masiero said.