[FPSPACE] FW: NEO News (04/20/07) NASA Report to Congress

[LARRY KLAES]

>From: David Morrison <dmorrison at arc.nasa.gov>
>To: David Morrison <dmorrison at arc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: NEO News (04/20/07) NASA Report to Congress
>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:11:57 -0700
>
>NEO News (04/20/07) NASA Report to Congress
>
>This edition of NEO News is devoted to the NASA "NEO Survey and Deflection: 
>Analysis of Alternatives" report to Congress. Below are excerpts from the 
>Congressional request, the transmittal letter from the NASA Administrator, 
>the report summary, and some media responses.
>
>The full NASA NEO report (pdf) can be downloaded from these websites:
>
>http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/171331main_NEO_report_march07.pdf
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/171331main_NEO_report_march07.pdf
>
>==================================
>
>Congressional mandate
>
>From Section 321 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, the objectives of 
>the NEO survey program are to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize 
>the physical characteristics of NEOs equal to or larger than 140 meters in 
>diameter with a perihelion distance of less than 1.3 AU, achieving 90 
>percent completion within 15 years. NASA is directed to provide a report to 
>Congress that provides: (1) an analysis of possible alternatives that NASA 
>may employ to carry out the survey program of NEOs, including groundbased 
>and spacebased alternatives with technical descriptions; (2) a recommended 
>option; and (3) an analysis of possible alternatives that NASA could employ 
>to divert an object on a likely collision course with Earth.
>
>From report transmittal letter, signed by Michael D. Griffin, NASA 
>Administrator, dated March 7, 2007
>
>Š This is a complex issue, potentially involving many other U.S. Government 
>agencies and international organizations ... I look forward to working with 
>the Administration and Congress in setting realistic goals for a NEO survey 
>program given the challenging demands already placed on NASA resourcesŠ 
>NASA recommends that the [current Spaceguard] program continue as currently 
>planned, and we will also take advantage of opportunities using potential 
>dual-use telescopes and spacecraft-and partner with other agencies as 
>feasible-to attempt to achieve the legislated goal within 15 years. 
>However, due to budget constraints, NASA cannot initiate a new program at 
>this time.
>
>Report on NEO Survey and Deflection: Analysis of Alternatives
>
>SUMMARY
>
>Section 321 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-155), 
>also known as the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, 
>directs the NASA Administrator to transmit an initial report to Congress 
>not later than one year after the date of enactment that provides: (1) an 
>analysis of possible alternatives that NASA may employ to carry out the 
>survey program of near-Earth Objects (NEO), including ground- based and 
>space-based alternatives with technical descriptions; (2) a recommended 
>option and proposed budget to carry out the survey program pursuant to the 
>recommended option; and (3) an analysis of possible alternatives that NASA 
>could employ to divert an object on a likely collision course with Earth.
>
>The objectives of the George E. Brown, Jr. NEO Survey Program are to 
>detect, track, catalogue, and characterize the physical characteristics of 
>NEOs equal to or larger than 140 meters in diameter with a perihelion 
>distance of less than 1.3 AU (Astronomical Units) from the Sun, achieving 
>90 percent completion of the survey within 15 years after enactment of the 
>NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The Act was signed into law by President 
>Bush on December 30, 2005.
>
>A study team, led by NASA's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation 
>(PA&E), conducted the analysis of alternatives with inputs from several 
>other U.S. government agencies, international organizations, and 
>representatives of private organizations. The team developed a range of 
>possible options from public and private sources and then analyzed their 
>capabilities and levels of performance including development schedules and 
>technical risks.
>
>Key Findings for the Survey Program:
>
>     * The goal of the Survey Program should be modified to detect, track, 
>catalogue, and characterize, by the end of 2020, 90 percent of all 
>Potentially Hazardous Objects (PHOs) greater than 140 meters whose orbits 
>pass within 0.05 AU of the Earth's orbit (as opposed to surveying for all 
>NEOs).
>     * The Agency could achieve the specified goal of surveying for 90 
>percent of the potentially hazardous NEOs by the end of 2020 by partnering 
>with other government agencies on potential future optical ground-based 
>observatories and building a dedicated NEO survey asset assuming the 
>partners' potential ground assets come online by 2010 and 2014, and a 
>dedicated asset by 2015.
>     * Together, the two observatories potentially to be developed by other 
>government agencies could complete 83 percent of the survey by 2020 if 
>observing time at these observatories is shared with NASA's NEO Survey 
>Program.
>     * New space-based infrared systems, combined with shared ground-based 
>assets, could reduce the overall time to reach the 90 percent goal by at 
>least three years. Space systems have additional benefits as well as costs 
>and risks compared to ground-based alternatives.
>     * Radar systems cannot contribute to the search for potentially 
>hazardous objects, but may be used to rapidly refine tracking and to 
>determine object sizes for a few NEOs of potentially high interest. 
>Existing radar systems are currently oversubscribed by other missions.
>     * Determining a NEO's mass and orbit is required to determine whether 
>it represents a potential threat and to provide required information for 
>most alternatives to mitigate such a threat. Beyond these parameters, 
>characterization requirements and capabilities are tied directly to the 
>mitigation strategy selected.
>
>Key Findings for Diverting a Potentially Hazardous Object (PHO):
>
>The study team assessed a series of approaches that could be used to divert 
>a NEO potentially on a collision course with Earth. Nuclear explosives, as 
>well as non-nuclear options, were assessed.
>
>     * Nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more 
>effective than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed in this study. Other 
>techniques involving the surface or subsurface use of nuclear explosives 
>may be more efficient, but they run an increased risk of fracturing the 
>target NEO. They also carry higher development and operations risks.
>     * Non-nuclear kinetic impactors are the most mature approach and could 
>be used in some deflection/mitigation scenarios, especially for NEOs that 
>consist of a single small, solid body.
>     * "Slow push" mitigation techniques are the most expensive, have the 
>lowest level of technical readiness, and their ability to both travel to 
>and divert a threatening NEO would be limited unless mission durations of 
>many years to decades are possible.
>     * 30-80 percent of potentially hazardous NEOs are in orbits that are 
>beyond the capability of current or planned launch systems. Therefore, 
>planetary gravity assist swingby trajectories or on-orbit assembly of 
>modular propulsion systems may be needed to augment launch vehicle 
>performance, if these objects need to be deflected.
>
>=================================
>=================================
>
>PRESS COVERAGE
>
>In response to the March 5-8 AIAA Planetary Defense Conference in 
>Washington and the recent report to Congress from NASA concerning future 
>NEO studies, several supportive stories have appeared in the press.
>
>================================
>
>FINDING DOOMSDAY ASTEROIDS
>New York Times Editorial
>Published: April 3, 2007
>
>How much effort should we expend to ward off the possibility that an 
>asteroid might some day collide with Earth? Space experts attending a 
>recent conference in Washington lamented the failure of the federal 
>government - indeed, of the entire world - to take the threat seriously 
>enough. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, at virtually the 
>same moment, advised Congress on steps that could be taken to find and 
>divert threatening asteroids only to conclude that it couldn't afford them.
>
>That seems shortsighted. The risk is remote, but the consequences are 
>potentially catastrophic. It would seem wise, at a minimum, to look harder 
>for any death-dealing rocks that might menace us.
>
>The encouraging news is that the most horrendous hazards - asteroids like 
>the one that wiped out the dinosaurs or even smaller objects whose impact 
>could disrupt the global environment - have mostly been identified under a 
>$4 million-a-year survey program. The space agency estimates that there are 
>some 1,100 near-Earth objects whose diameters exceed six-tenths of a mile, 
>big enough to destroy a medium-sized state and kick up enough dust to 
>affect global climate and crop production. The survey has already 
>identified more than 700 of them. None are on a path to collide with Earth.
>
>More troublesome is the threat of smaller asteroids, greater than 460 feet 
>in diameter (about one-seventh the threshold of the really scary big ones), 
>that could devastate a region but not the whole globe. NASA estimates that 
>some 20,000 of these might be potentially hazardous; it has identified only 
>a fraction of them. Two years ago Congress asked NASA to propose new search 
>programs and to analyze ways to divert any asteroids on a collision course 
>with Earth. The agency did that in a March report to Congress, but it 
>balked at the notion of spending up to $1 billion or more to build search 
>instruments or spacecraft.
>
>That is understandable. NASA is burdened with the need to finish the space 
>station, build a successor to the shuttles, return to the moon and conduct 
>wide-ranging research. It already has more jobs to perform than money to 
>perform them. But finding asteroids that might threaten the planet, and 
>studying their characteristics in the process, is probably more important 
>than at least some of the other robotic missions mounted by NASA. Congress 
>should either add funds to the agency's budget, or the agency should divert 
>funds from other programs to accelerate the asteroid hunt.
>
>Developing ways to deflect asteroids is more problematic. NASA suggests 
>that the best solution would be to explode a nuclear bomb next to an 
>asteroid to deflect it off course, but international aversion to nuclear 
>weapons in space would make that approach difficult without a global 
>consensus. Other experts favor a high-speed ballistic impact or using the 
>gravitational attraction of a hovering spacecraft to nudge the asteroid off 
>course. Before plunging ahead with an asteroid-deflector, let's wait to see 
>whether a real threat even exists.
>
>===================================
>
>THE SKY IS FALLING. REALLY.
>By Russell L. Schweickart
>New York Times Op-Ed, March 16, 2007
>
>AMERICANS who read the papers or watch Jay Leno have been aware for some 
>time now that there is a slim but real possibility - about 1 in 45,000 - 
>that an 850-foot-long asteroid called Apophis could strike Earth with 
>catastrophic consequences on April 13, 2036. What few probably realize is 
>that there are thousands of other space objects that could hit us in the 
>next century that could cause severe damage, if not total destruction.
>
>Last week two events in Washington - a conference on "planetary defense" 
>held by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the 
>release by NASA of a report titled "Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection 
>Analysis of Alternatives" - gave us good news and bad on this front. On the 
>promising side, scientists have a good grasp of the risks of a cosmic 
>fender-bender, and have several ideas that could potentially stave off 
>disaster. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to have any clear plan 
>to put this expertise into action.
>
>In 1998, Congress gave NASA's Spaceguard Survey program a mandate of 
>"discovering, tracking, cataloging and characterizing" 90 percent of the 
>near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer (3,200 feet) wide by 2008. An 
>object that size could devastate a small country and would probably destroy 
>civilization.
>
>The consensus at the conference was that the initial survey is doing fairly 
>well although it will probably not quite meet the 2008 goal. Realizing that 
>there are many smaller but still terribly destructive asteroids out there, 
>Congress has modified the Spaceguard goal to identify 90 percent of even 
>smaller objects - 460 feet and larger - by 2020. This revised survey, 
>giving us decades of early warning, will go a long way toward protecting 
>life on the planet in the future.
>
>The good news is that scientists feel we have the technology to intercept 
>and deflect many asteroids headed toward Earth. Basically, if we have early 
>enough warning, a robotic space mission could slightly change the orbit of 
>a dangerous asteroid so that it would subsequently miss the planet.
>
>Two potential deflection techniques appear to work nicely together - first 
>we would deflect the asteroid with kinetic impact from a missile (that is, 
>running into it); then we would use the slight pull of a "gravity tractor" 
>- a satellite that would hover near the asteroid - to fine-tune its new 
>trajectory to our liking. (In the case of an extremely large object, 
>probably one in 100, the missile might have to contain a nuclear warhead.) 
>To be effective, however, such missions would have to be launched 15 or 
>even 30 years before a calculated impact.
>
>The bad news? While this all looks fine on paper, scientists haven't had a 
>chance to try it in practice. And this is where NASA's report was supposed 
>to come in. Congress directed the agency in 2005 to come up with a program, 
>a budget to support it and an array of alternatives for preventing an 
>asteroid impact.
>
>But instead of coming up with a plan and budget to get the job done, the 
>report bluntly stated that "due to current budget constraints, NASA cannot 
>initiate a new program at this time." Representative Bart Gordon, Democrat 
>of Tennessee, was right to say that "NASA's recommended approach isn't a 
>credible plan" and that Congress expected "a more responsive approach" 
>within the year.
>
>Why did the space agency drop the ball? Like all government departments, it 
>fears the dreaded "unfunded mandate"; Congress has the habit of directing 
>agencies to do something and then declining to give them the money to do 
>so. This is understandable. But in this case, Congress not only directed 
>NASA to provide it with a recommended program but also asked for the 
>estimated budget to support it. It was a left-handed way for the Congress 
>to say to NASA that this is our priority ... like it or not. But for some 
>reason NASA seems to have opted for a federal form of civil disobedience.
>
>Another problem with the report was that, while it outlined other 
>possibilities, it estimated that using a nuclear-armed missile to divert an 
>asteroid would be "10 to 100 times more effective" than non-nuclear 
>approaches. It is possible that in some cases - such as an asteroid greater 
>than a third of a mile across - the nuclear option might be necessary. But 
>for the overwhelming majority of potential deflection cases, using a 
>nuclear warhead would be like a golfer swinging away with his driver to 
>sink a three-foot putt; the bigger bang is not always better.
>
>Why the concern? First, even with good intentions, launching a 
>nuclear-armed missile would violate the international agreements by which 
>all weaponry is banned from space. Second, the laws of probability say we 
>would be struck by such a large asteroid only once every 200,000 years - 
>that's a long time to keep a standing arsenal of nuclear asteroid-blasters, 
>and raises all sorts of possibilities of accidents or sabotage - the old 
>"cure being worse than the disease" phenomenon.
>
>In the end, of course, this is not just America's problem, as an asteroid 
>strike would be felt around the globe. The best course is international 
>coordination on deflection technology, along with global agreements on what 
>should be done if a collision looks likely. Along these lines, the 
>Association of Space Explorers, a group of more than 300 people from 30 
>nations who have flown in space (of which I am a member), is beginning a 
>series of meetings in cooperation with the United Nations to work out the 
>outlines of such an agreement.
>
>Still, as with many global issues, little will be accomplished unless the 
>United States takes the lead. With the entire planet in the cross hairs, 
>NASA can't be allowed to dither. If Congress's mandates and budget requests 
>aren't energizing the agency, perhaps public hearings would shame it into 
>action.
>
>Russell L. Schweickart, a former Apollo astronaut, is the chairman of the 
>B612 Foundation, which promotes efforts to alter the orbits of asteroids.
>
>==================================
>
>NASA SAYS CAN FIND MOST KILLER ASTEROIDS BY 2020 BUT LACKS THE MONEY
>
>International Herald Tribune, 5 March 2007
>The Associated Press
>
>WASHINGTON: NASA officials say the space agency is capable of finding 
>almost every asteroid that might pose a devastating threat to Earth, but 
>because it lacks the money to do it, the job will not get done.
>
>The cost to find at least 90 percent of the 20,000 potentially hazardous 
>asteroids and comets by 2020 would be about $1 billion, according to a 
>report NASA will release later this week. The report was previewed Monday 
>at a Planetary Defense Conference in Washington.
>
>Congress asked NASA in 2005 to come up with a plan to track most killer 
>asteroids and propose how to deflect the potentially catastrophic ones. "We 
>know what to do; we just don't have the money," said Simon Worden, director 
>of NASA's Ames Research Center. . . .
>
>The agency already is tracking larger objects, at least [1 km] in diameter, 
>which could wipe out most life on Earth, much like what is theorized to 
>have happened to dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Even that search, which 
>has spotted 769 asteroids and comets - none on a course to hit Earth - is 
>behind schedule. It is supposed to be completed by the end of next year.
>
>NASA needs to do more to locate other smaller, but still potentially 
>dangerous space bodies. While an Italian observatory is doing some work, 
>the United States is the only government with an asteroid-tracking program, 
>NASA said.
>
>One solution would be to build a new ground telescope solely for the 
>asteroid hunt, and piggyback that use with other agencies' telescopes for a 
>total of $800 million. Another would be to launch a space infrared 
>telescope that could do the job faster for $1.1 billion, but NASA program 
>scientist Lindley Johnson said NASA and the White House called both those 
>choices too costly. A cheaper option would be simply to piggyback on other 
>agencies' telescopes, a cost of about $300 million, also rejected, Johnson 
>said. "The decision of the agency is we just can't do anything about it 
>right now," he added.
>
>Earth got a scare in 2004, when initial readings suggested an 885-foot 
>asteroid called 99942 Apophis seemed to have had a chance of hitting Earth 
>in 2029. But more observations showed that would not happen. Scientists say 
>there is 1 chance in 45,000 that it could hit in 2036. They think it would 
>be most likely strike the Pacific Ocean, which would cause a tsunami on the 
>U.S. West Coast the size of the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean wave.
>
>John Logsdon, space policy director at George Washington University, said a 
>stepped-up search for such asteroids is needed. "You can't deflect them if 
>you can't find them," Logsdon said. "And we can't find things that can 
>cause massive damage."
>
>=================================
>
>BUDGET DODGES KILLER ASTEROIDS
>National Public Radio, March 28, 2007
>Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor)
>
>According to a new report from the National Aeronautics and Space 
>Administration, some 100,000 asteroids and comets routinely pass between 
>the Sun and the Earth's orbit. About 20,000 of these orbit close enough to 
>us that they could one day hit the Earth and destroy a major city.
>
>But the worrying news is NASA believes over 1,000 of these things are large 
>enough - about a mile wide in diameter - and their orbits close enough to 
>us, as to pose a real potential hazard of crashing into the Earth with such 
>force as to end most life on this planet. Scientists believe this is what 
>killed off the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.
>
>Congress has given NASA a budget of a little over $4 million a year to 
>track these killer asteroids, but NASA says it needs at least a billion 
>dollars more to find all of them by the year 2020. This might involve 
>building a special observatory for tracking them and launching a spacecraft 
>to observe the space around Earth from Venus.
>
>The job could be finished sooner than 2020, says NASA, but that would 
>probably require a deep space orbiting infrared observatory, at an 
>additional cost of $700 million.
>
>All of which raises at least three pertinent questions.
>
>First, if we're spending over a billion dollars a day in Iraq, why can't we 
>bring the troops home a few days earlier and use the savings to track 
>killer asteroids that might end life on Earth?
>
>And since we're talking about the survival of most living things and not 
>just Americans, why shouldn't we expect other nations to kick in some 
>money, too - especially now that the dollar is dropping relative to the 
>euro and the yen?
>
>And third, once NASA knows for sure that a killer asteroid is heading 
>directly for us, how exactly are we supposed to get ourselves out of its 
>way, or it out of our way - and how much should we be budgeting to 
>accomplish this?
>
>
>--
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>NEO News (now in its thirteenth year of distribution) is an informal 
>compilation of news and opinion dealing with Near Earth Objects (NEOs) and 
>their impacts. These opinions are the responsibility of the individual 
>authors and do not represent the positions of NASA, the International 
>Astronomical Union, or any other organization. To subscribe (or 
>unsubscribe) contact dmorrison at arc.nasa.gov. For additional information, 
>please see the website http://impact.arc.nasa.gov. If anyone wishes to copy 
>or redistribute original material from these notes, fully or in part, 
>please include this disclaimer.