International DecisionMaking for NEO Threats

1
International Decision-Making for NEO Threats

• IAFF 224 Class
• April 26, 2007

2
Outline

• Definition of Issue
• Proposed Declaration of Concern
• Data Sharing
• Threat Identification
• Framework for Action
• Liability for Action or Inaction
• Contingency Scenarios for Disaster Preparation
  and Recovery

3
Definition of Issue
4
Framing the NEO Threat

• What is a Near Earth Object (NEO)?
• Is there a threat?
• Why is this an international issue?
• What current steps are being taken and should be
  taken to address this threat?
  
• Who should be the designated authority or primary
  actors?
  

5
Preliminary Definitions

• NEOs are comets and asteroids with orbits that
  pass within 150 million km of the Sun
  
• Size vs. Frequency vs. Impact Interval
  Probability
  
• A small, but certain probability exists that a
  large object (140 m) will collide with the Earth
  
  
• Recent example 1 in 45,000 chance that Apophis,
  an asteroid 250 m in diameter, will collide with
  Earth on April 13, 2036
  
• Global region of risk and possession of potential
  deflection capabilities make this an inherently
  international issue

6
Current Status

• Efforts focused on detecting, tracking,
  cataloguing, and characterizing NEOs
  
• NASA NEO Observations Program working to
  identify 90 of NEOs 1km in diameter by 2008
  
• Survey programs
• Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR)
• Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking (NEAT)
• Spacewatch
• Lowell Observatory Near-Earth Object Search
  (LONEOS)
  
• Catalina Sky Survey
• Others (Japan and Germany)

7
Issues

• What should an international framework for
  decision-making address?
  
• Early detection and warning
• Deflection capability
• Set timelines/deadlines for action
• Data sharing
• Standards for actionable threat
• Framework for deciding to act
• Liability and/or indemnification
• Mitigation of effects or post-impact consequences

8
Proposed Declaration of Concern
9
Declaration of Concern

• Recognizing that
• The common interest of mankind to avoid a
  catastrophic impact of a Near Earth Object with
  the Earth
  
• such catastrophic impacts with the Earth have
  occurred in the past, leading to mass
  extinctions
  
• National and international survey efforts have
  been undertaken to detect, track, catalogue, and
  characterize Near Earth Objects
  
• Desiring
• To monitor and mitigate the threat posed by Near
  Earth Objects
  
• Believing that
• In the spirit of transparency and international
  relations, an international approach should be
  undertaken to addressing and responding to the
  threat of Near Earth Objects

10
Declaration of Concern

• Recalling
• The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which affirms
  that states shall bear international
  responsibility for their national activities in
  outer space
• The Liability Convention of 1972, which
  establishes international rules and procedures
  concerning the liability of launching states for
  damage caused by their space objects
• The Registration Convention of 1975, which
  establishes international rules and procedures
  concerning the registration of objects launched
  into space
• The Debris Mitigation Guidelines, which, when
  adopted, will require that prudent measures be
  followed for protection from man-made fragments
  

11
Declaration of Concern

• Recommending
• That the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
  Space develop, in consultation with the
  scientific, technical, and legal communities,
  guidelines for General Assembly adoption, to
  serve as a framework for action in the event that
  an actionable NEO threat is identified and a
  mitigation or deflection mission is prudent
• These guidelines shall include
• Encouragement of international detection efforts
  and data sharing
  
• Agreement upon the procedure for discovery,
  identification, and validation of a specific
  threat
  
• And recommending the development of an
  international agreement
  
• Detailing indemnification provisions, promoting a
  legal environment conducive to response and
  action
  
• Addressing the consequences of an
  impact, including measures for cooperation on
  disaster mitigation, rebuilding, and safeguarding
  Earth and humanity's treasures and collective
  knowledge

12
Data Sharing
13
Why Share Data?

• Given existence of limited NEO detection
  programs, further detection and data sharing
  should be encouraged
  
• Data collection and sharing is precondition of a
  multinational NEO defense
  
• Objects have to be tracked to define threats and
  enable deflection missions
  
• Communal data is necessary for multinational
  coordination to address NEO threats
  
• All member states can participate regardless of
  their scientific and economic standing
  
• Data sharing enables scientific collaboration and
  may reduce time required to identify the threat
  
• Collaboration improves quality of data via self
  correction

14
Principles for Data Sharing

• Astronomical data on Near Earth Objects should be
  shared globally
  
• Scientific collaboration and potential deflection
  missions are enabled by international data
  sharing
  
• A centralized database should be implemented and
  opened for all concerned parties
  
• Contributors can include the scientific
  community, amateur astronomers, nation states,
  corporate entities or any other concerned
  parties

15
Principles for Data Sharing (cont.)

• A functional database requires the following
  information
  
• Date detected
• Orbital Parameters
• Mass and density
• Other information including composition, spin
  geographical features can be reported but is not
  required
  
• An unique identifier will be assigned to objects
  in the database
  
• Information in the database should be regularly
  updated and verified whenever new information is
  available
  
• A peer review process improves the quality and
  utility of the database.
  
• New data could eliminate a previously identified
  threat or increase the threat level of observed
  NEOs
  
• Verification and validation improves transparency
  in NEO detection and mitigation programs

16
Principles for Data Sharing (cont.)

• Objects within the database should be regularly
  screened to identify actionable threats
  
• This agreement may be developed apart from other
  agreements regarding a NEO threat.

17
Threat Identification
18
Criteria For an Actionable Threat

• We propose that for a Potentially Hazardous
  Object (PHO) to be designated for deflection or
  destruction, it would pass through a 3-phase
  process
• Discovery of an object with a non-zero
  probability of impact.
  
• Once probability of impact surpasses a defined
  threshold the PHO receives a score on a
  universally-accepted scale.
  
• Threshold set at previously agreed upon level of
  0.00001
  
• Apophis 0.00002 probability of impact
• Iterative process that redefines PHO score as
  more information is gathered.
  
• This score is validated by universally accepted
  arbiters, who then refer the case to the
  appropriate decision-making body based on threat
  level.

19
Quantifying Threat Level

• 1st Requirement is a universally accepted measure
  for quantifying threat. Scale must be easily
  understood by decision-makers.
  
• PHO Threat Scale Example the Shiva Product.
• Probability x Time Until Impact x Size Threat
  Level
  
• NEO Database would calculate Shiva Product for
  each PHO
  
• Apophis Shiva Product (2036) 2

20
Who Decides Threat Level?

• NEO survey programs develop initial PHO Shiva
  Product score based on observations and
  measurements.
  
• Near-Earth Object Survey Program (NASA).
• Other international programs or facilities with
  NEO observation and tracking capabilities.
  
• Authority to perform independent peer review for
  validation of PHO Shiva score.
  
• Predetermined panel from the IAU with observing
  members from each of the major space agencies
  (RSA, ISRO, ESA, NASA, JAXA CNSA)
  
• Upon completion of review and agreement of threat
  level PHO threat to be made public
  
• IAU Review panel reports to UN Secretary General
• Low-level threats should be reported to the UN
  General Assembly.
  
• Medium- and high-level threats should be referred
  to the Security Council.
  
• High-level threat without action from Secretary
  General within set timeframe would allow
  observing members to present to Security Council
  

21
Framework for Action
22
Which Decisions?

• Which nation(s) carries out the deflection
  mission?
  
• If multilateral, how is the mission structured?
• Which deflection strategy(s) is used?
• Which nation(s) contribute funding for the
  mission?
  
• What is the funds distribution?
• What is the timeline for carrying out the
  mission?
  
• What if the mission fails or there is not enough
  warning time for a deflection mission?

23
Decision Making Process (I)

• Prior to any threat identification
• UN General Assembly adopts a resolution charging
  COPUOS to develop guidelines for a
  decision-making framework, with mitigation goals
  of minimizing damage to Earth and probability of
  NEOs future return
• COPUOS develops guidelines addressing previous
  questions
  
• COPUOS consults with the scientific, technical,
  legal communities
  
• COPUOS guidelines include NEO characteristics
  useful for a decision (size, composition, orbital
  parameters, time to impact) and criteria for
  choosing among available deflection technologies
  and distributing costs
• Guidelines work through UN system for ultimate
  adoption by the General Assembly
  
• Guidelines should be the framework that the
  Security Council follows when making a decision
  to act

24
Decision Making Process (II)

• Once a specific threat is identified
• Use Security Council as decision-making forum
• Threat is brought to the Security Council
• Security Council quickly passes a resolution
• Adopting the UNGA-approved guidelines (or a
  modified version of them)
  
• Charging a country or group of countries to
  develop a proposal for a deflection mission,
  following the UNGA-approved guidelines
  
• Determining the cost-sharing distribution
• Within a set amount of time, countries return
  with proposal
  
• Security Council makes final decision to adopt
  proposal
  
• If nuclear devices are proposed, Security Council
  will have final say
  
• Deflection mission is carried out
• If Security Council-mandated mission fails to
  respond adequately to threat, nations can take
  unilateral action (Article 51 of UN Charter)

25
Liability for Action or Inaction
26
Encourage Action

• Given the potential consequences of an NEO
  impact, the international community and the UN
  should develop a legally binding agreement
  detailing indemnification provisions, creating a
  legal environment that promotes action rather
  than inaction.
• A legally binding agreement should be drafted by
  the Legal Subcommittee of COPUOS.
  
• The General Assembly should encourage broad
  international ratification of the agreement.
  
• This agreement may be developed apart from other
  agreements regarding a NEO threat.
  
• Providing these guidelines on liability and
  indemnification should be a priority for COPUOS.

27
Negligence and Intent

• Any legally binding agreement should define and
  address
  
• Indemnification for inadvertently harming another
  country
  
• The realm of liability
• Covers damage caused on the ground, in the air,
  in space, and to outposts located on celestial
  bodies other than Earth.
  
• Liability due to Malicious Intent
• Liable for willful harm
• Liability due to Negligence
• Failure to act or contribute to action when
  capable
  
• Action taken without adequate preparation

28
Scenarios

• Any legally binding agreement should address the
  following scenarios
  
• Missions approved by the UN
• Fails to achieve any modification of the NEO
  trajectory
  
• Shifts the impact to an unintended location
• Reduces the severity of the impact, but does not
  eliminate it
  
• Missions not approved by the UN
• Fails to alter trajectory, but no additional
  damage
  
• Shifts the impact to an unintended location
• Reduces the severity of the impact
• Interference with a UN-sanctioned mission
• Interference with unilateral action
• No mission attempted
• Damage caused during the deflection attempt
• Damage caused while trying to render Earth-based
  aid (e.g., evacuation, relocation, storage of
  records)

29
Contingency Scenarios for Disaster Preparation
and Recovery
30
Issues

• NEO impact damage will likely affect more than
  one nation, perhaps even the entire planet and
  the survival of humanity.
  
• An agreement to address the consequences of an
  impact should be pursued through COPUOS for
  eventual ratification by UN members.
  
• The agreement should include measures for
  cooperation on disaster mitigation, rebuilding,
  and safeguarding Earth and humanitys treasures
  and collective knowledge.

31
Contingency Scenarios

• Provisions for proactively dealing with the
  devastation and continuation of humanity should
  be included in any international agreement, ready
  for implementation should mitigation efforts
  prove unsuccessful.
• Three scenarios of increasing severity should be
  planned for
  
• Impacts with local or regional consequences.
• Impacts with global consequences, but not a
  civilization-ending or extinction-level event.
  
• Impacts with high-likelihood of causing the
  global collapse of civilization or extinction of
  the biosphere (i.e. the worst case scenario).

32
For All Scenarios

• For all scenarios, proactive preparatory efforts
  should begin upon identification of an actionable
  threat, concurrent with any mitigation efforts as
  mentioned in previous sections.
• A mechanism for shared data and information on
  plausible scientific and technical methods for
  the mitigation of post-impact environmental
  consequences.
• An emergency communications system for the
  purpose of pre- and post-impact coordination,
  capable of withstanding considerable destruction
  and confusion.
• Such communications would also help mitigate
  false alarms resulting from the
  mis-identification of an impact as a nuclear
  attack.
• Plan for the pre-positioning of police or
  military forces that can be rapidly deployed into
  or around an effected region.

33
Local and Regional Scenario

• Additional pro-active provisions for scenarios in
  which relatively minor (i.e. local and
  regional) post-impact devastation is predicted
  
• Establishment or assignment of a coordinating
  agency to help develop and administer recovery
  efforts.
  
• This organization is tasked with performance of
  pre- and post-impact simulations and drills.
  
• Agreement that members will come to the aid of
  affected regions and countries.
  
• Render assistance with evacuation, relocation,
  and eventual repatriation of refugees.
  
• Include an equitable funding formula for such an
  effort.

34
Global Scenario

• For scenarios in which global effects effects are
  predicted, below the threshold of
  civilization-ending or extinction-level events,
  pro-actively
• Identify appropriate existing long-term shelters
  or sites for the construction of new shelters.
  Also determine the trigger which starts
  construction of these shelters.
• Plan for the selection of personnel to be housed
  in these shelters.
  
• Decide upon appropriate criteria (e.g. physically
  and psychologically fit knowledge of science,
  engineering, arts, law, history age and
  child-rearing ability).
• Certain criteria may result in a bias toward
  citizens of the developed world, a situation that
  should be addressed.
  
• Additionally, plans should include for governance
  within shelters to avoid anarchy and confusion.
  
• Sheltering decisions might be left up to
  individual countries, and provisions for the
  inclusion of smaller, more resource-poor nations
  in the shelters of larger nations should be
  addressed.

35
Extinction Scenario

• For the worst-case scenario, a civilization-ending
  or extinction-level event against which all
  mitigations efforts fail
  
• Develop a decision-making process that includes
  ready-to-implements plans and provisions for
  
• Determination of the appropriate trigger point
  at which the below actions are taken.
  
• Understanding and dealing with the physiological
  factors involved in a managing the pre-impact
  social environment.
  
• Consider the need to control possible social
  conflict through police or military forces.
  
• Plan for archiving pre-collected biological
  specimens and electronic records, including
  records of humanitys cultural and technological
  achievements.
• The moon is one possible repository.

36
Thank You!

• Max Angerholzer
• Kyle Ballard
• Ian Christensen
• Albert Glassman
• Jason Hay
• Emma Hinds
• Stuart Hill
• Chris Homan
• Kurt Ludwig

• Maureen McArthur
• Jessica Nieman
• Audrey Schaffer
• Michael Schwartz
• Lynn Seyler
• Dave Treat
• Micah Walter-Range
• Beth Weinstein
• Ashley Whelan