IAFF224 Final 1

International Decision-Making for NEO Threats: 

International Decision-Making for NEO Threats IAFF 224 Class April 26, 2007

Outline: 

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

Definition of Issue: 

Definition of Issue

Framing the NEO Threat: 

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?

Preliminary Definitions: 

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

Current Status: 

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)

Issues: 

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

Proposed Declaration of Concern: 

Proposed Declaration of Concern

Declaration of Concern: 

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

Declaration of Concern: 

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

Declaration of Concern: 

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

Data Sharing: 

Data Sharing

Why Share Data? : 

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

Principles for Data Sharing: 

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

Principles for Data Sharing (cont.): 

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

Principles for Data Sharing (cont.): 

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.

Threat Identification: 

Threat Identification

Criteria For an Actionable Threat: 

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.

Quantifying Threat Level: 

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

Who Decides Threat Level?: 

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

Framework for Action: 

Framework for Action

Which Decisions?: 

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?

Decision Making Process (I): 

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 NEO’s 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

Decision Making Process (II): 

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)

Liability for Action or Inaction: 

Liability for Action or Inaction

Encourage Action: 

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.

Negligence and Intent: 

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

Scenarios: 

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)

Contingency Scenarios for Disaster Preparation and Recovery: 

Contingency Scenarios for Disaster Preparation and Recovery

Issues: 

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 humanity’s treasures and collective knowledge.

Contingency Scenarios: 

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).

For All Scenarios: 

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.

Local and Regional Scenario: 

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.

Global Scenario: 

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.

Extinction Scenario: 

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 humanity’s cultural and technological achievements. The moon is one possible repository.

Thank You!: 

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