The damage from an asteroid impact is referred to as an existential threat. The likelihood of this type of event is ranked alongside supervolcanoes, catastrophic climate change and pandemics as a risk that could undermine civilisation’s infrastructure.
The threat from Apophis, aptly named for Stargate SG-1 fans, has crossed our radar screens with the possibility of an impact event in 2036. Astronomers mapping asteroids that pose a threat have singled out Apophis as a unique danger. Their campaign for awareness and funds to establish defences against such threats is beginning to bear fruit. Disagreement on how to institutionalise such space defences acquires momentum when one reads about the role assigned to the United Nations.
Russell Schweickart, of the Association of Space Explorers, has announced, during the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that they hope to submit a “draft document” on asteroid impact to the United Nations Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in 2009. The United Nations would acquire the responsibility for identifying dangerous objects in Near Earth Orbit and requesting national space agencies take appropriate action. This is usually know as the system ‘UN say, US pay’.
The goal is laudable, the method is lousy. It is not clear if the United Nations has the mechanism available to foster co-operation in this field, since many countries may not consider this type of event a risk that requires further expenditure. Moreover, there is a possibility that a rapid reaction is required, whilst the UN’s institutions are not noted for their nimble response to crisis, as the tsunami in South East Asia demonstrated.
The private sector institutions that campaign to counter such existential risks need to develop pragmatic plans involving national co-operation, principally through NASA, with ancillary aid from Russia and Europe, if possible. A private sector solution would be even better. The involvement of the United Nations is an additional layer of bureaucracy. Schweickart’s proposal requires a more pragmatic competitor.
But, but, but ……….
How can you possibly say this about the UN?
In the event of such a threat only the UN will have the moral authority to deal with the problem.
On the contrary. I’d say the UN was the ideal organisation to counter a non-existent threat. (More recent radar measurements have confirmed since August last year that Apophis is not a threat. See Wikipedia.) Maybe it will distract them from global warm-mongering, and provide a new source of research revenue for thousands of scientists.
Should another asteroid be found on a collision course, we would of course have to take it back off them again. By that time the commercial opportunities might be seen as more of an issue. A large chunk of metal-rich rock steered gently into Earth orbit, near the top of that oh-so-expensive gravity well…
I’d say the UN was the ideal organisation to counter a non-existent threat.
Trouble is, you have then conceded a defense role to the UN, along with the bureaucracy to support that role. Thereafter it can only grow.
I have had bad experiences with Wickipedia – go on the system, to find out stuff about various things, and then find that the information there is wrong.
However, I will take Pa Annoyed’s word for it that there is no problem with Apophis – he is a sensible fellow (Pa Annoyed – not Apophis from SG1).
As for the problem generally (and all other problems) it is astonishing that people still put faith in the United Nations Organization.
Even people who think that government is a good way to do some things should have no faith in the U.N.O. – it is group of hundreds of governments (plus its own bureacracy) all fighting like rats in a sack.
It is absurd to put faith in it – and yet some people still do.
Mr. Niven, Mr. Pournelle, please call your office.
Any Samizdatistas want a place about a mile or so above sea level (above the tsunamis, that is) to hang out in 29 years? Bring beer :-p
The prospect of a private sector solution to an asteroid threat has some problems of its own. Sinc ethese things generally work on the profit motive, what profit could be found in spending millions observing and searching for potential (a distant maybe) asteroid threats? If one was to be found that was genuinly a threat, then a profit could presumably be worked out, but thats a distant possiblity that requires a lot of prima facie spending, all of which might be wasted. This is not to mention the billions that would have to be spent on creating effective asteroid defense and control mechanisms, things which also would have to be built beforehand if any sort of seriously effective countermeasures were to be considered. You see my point? The payoff is simply too distant and unlikely, even if it is potentially a big one.
The only solution that comes to my mind right off the bat, is to totally deregulate and de-restrict widespread private space ventures, such as colonization and space mining, and then, by default such ventures, with their existing profitably used technology, could act as mechanisms to defend against planet killers.
According to this:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/welcome.html
(click on ‘Impact Risk’)
Apophis is not considered a significant risk and indeed has not been observed for some time (of the two orbits, the one that is roughly 12,000 to 1 – not a very significant risk – presents the greater risk of the two). These risk factors tend to rise and fall as observations are made of different objects and the various orbits better understood.
My confidence in the UN being the correct organisation to control the research, far less to decide what to do in the event of there being a serious threat, is quite low – lots of talk, no doubt, but that won’t help if it ever does arise.
Wikipedia is no different to any other source of information. Peer reviewed scientific papers, Associated Press, UN reports, government statistics, traditional beliefs, even people who were there and saw it happen; they can all be wrong. In this case they appear to be quoting NASA’s JPL, and so the information that it isn’t a risk is probably as reliable as the previous information that it might be. (A lot of the article seems to have been written by a graduate student working with the Asteroid Radar group at JPL, or so he says. You might like the views he expresses on his wiki page.)
One always has to rely on one’s own BS-detector, built up over years of experience. There’s some Wikipedia that lights it up like a Christmas tree, but it scarcely even flickered over this one. However, it is an imperfect instrument and you’ll have to judge for yourself. Truly, I don’t merit (or want) that much trust.
I was at least partially joking about the UN – but there is a view (which you won’t find at Wikipedia 😉 ) that the fundamental purpose of the UN is to allow governments to be seen to be doing something about things that they have no intention of doing anything about. It stops wars that you would otherwise be pushed into, because you can make some speeches there to mollify outraged domestic opinion in the confident certainty that the UN won’t actually let you do anything. This can be very useful for politicians who want to appear populist but who have no truck with this ‘democracy’ nonsense. Unfortunately(?) it works the other way too, in that if you do need to have a war, the UN will make lots of speeches but won’t actually do anything practical to stop you doing it.
The ultimate function of the UN is to do nothing. When you want nothing to be done about something, you’ll find they’re totally up to the job.
Stephan has a point. Besides, from a libertarian point of view, protection of citizens from external threats is the sole justification for the existence of a government. If an asteroid such as Apophis is not an external threat, I don’t know what is. On the other hand, of course, one presumes a government that is actually competent and effective…
Stephan,
Profit motive is clear, if you have the technology to get up there yourself to collect it. It currently costs on the order of $20,000/kg to get stuff into geosynchronous orbit. Imagine if all your raw materials were already up there? It obviously costs more to do your manufacturing in space, but does it cost $20,000/kg more? Apophis has an estimated mass of 20,000,000,000 kg, which makes it potentially worth $400,000,000,000,000. Is that worth getting out of bed for?
Pa Annoyed,
I’d like to nominate your final para to be a quote of the day.
Obviously, if such a threat were to be discovered the UN would do frig all but I predict that the combined forces of TsAGI, NASA and whatever the Chinese call their outfit would prove remarkably up to the job in short order. An ELE being the sort of thing that focuses the activities of even the most corrupt government organisation rather well. Afterall, despite their poor organisation don’t the planet’s top space agencies employ some of the smartest people on the globe? I’m leaving out that yokel from Milton Keynes as the cousin-marrying aberration that he is.
It’s an interesting problem Schweickart hints at – there’s a big meteor heading our way, Nasa comes up with a possible solution, but which increases the chances of it falling on China rather than California. He’s merely saying we should have rules now as to how we agree on such a dilemma. Seems a little optimistic really, especially given the comparative ease of sabotaging a space launch if you disagree with it.
It’s interesting to ponder how mankind would respond to a genuine global threat though. I can’t help feeling that if Al Gore set himself up as UN doom-monger-in-chief, I’d end up cheering for the asteroid.
There might be doubts as to the best way to counter the threat, but, I think, there is no doubt at all that the asteroids need to be closely observed, their trajectory calculated, and the risk of a hit assessed.
NASA is doing this, and the whole mankind benefits. Shouldn’t the UN at least finance the tracking of the asteroids (i.e. pay NASA some fees) ?
The UN response to an expected ELE event is predictable based on their past actions. They will build an exorbitantly expensive space platform from which to supervise earth’s reconstruction. They will presumably live there in a level of luxury equal to their self-importance.
Don’t forget the part about the UN inspectors flying to the asteroid to stand around. And more importantly, the whorehouse staffed entirely by underage alien girls.
And diplomatic immunity for Klingons to park illegally in New York. If this is going to be a UN project, then let’s not fiddle-**** around.
“The involvement of the United Nations is an additional layer of bureaucracy.”
And the involvement of NASA is another additional layer of bureaucracy.
Taking the influence of both together, it’s reasonable to conclude that nothing whatever will actually be done, but at vast expense.
What’s the betting that this is in fact just the next “the sky is falling” panic, nicely timed for when people finally notice that global “warming” is not actually TEOTWAKI, and providing an excuse for further increased and new taxes, larger public sector, lots of lovely new regulations, etc etc.
Andrew
There is another, more important, reason why elected governments tend to propogate fear; a scared electorate will tend not to vote for change because change itself is stressfull. Therefore, if you can keep the electorate in a state of fear, they are less likely to vote you out of office. If they do, you are seriously unpopular! The risk with this is choosing the wrong threat. If you create the fear, but your opposition can make it look like your fault (“We’re at risk from terrorism because Bush/Blair took us into Iraq, therefore vote for me and I’ll get us out and you can sleep safely at night”). An asteroid is perfect because it is completely deniable – be afraid because “you’re all going to die, but it’s not my fault”.
“Apophis is not considered a significant risk…”
Bill (Scotland)
Then it is the perfect challenge for the UN.