The Social Difficulty of Saving Earth From an Asteroid 391
mantis2009 writes "When it comes to stopping a cataclysmic Earth vs. asteroid event, social science and international political leaders have more difficult questions yet unanswered than physicists do, according to report delivered at this week's American Geophysical Union meeting. Wired has a discussion of an analysis authored by former astronaut Rusty Schweickart, who worries that the international community is nowhere near ready to begin the complex and inevitably controversial task of deflecting an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. Among the questions to be answered is whether to modify the Partial Test Ban Treaty to allow nuclear weapons in outer space. Another possibility to avoid the destruction of civilization would require the international community to choose an area on the globe where an asteroid might be 'aimed.' Who would decide which nations get placed in the asteroid's crosshairs?"
Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a teen I read lots of sci-fi, but then I grew up. One of the recurrent themes was the Earth was doomed for some reason so we'd all have to build a fleet of ships and go off and colonise another world. Even as a 13-year-old I was highly skeptical of those stories, not because of the technology or the distances or any of the practical difficulties, but because I knew that politics would never function to the point where a decision could have been reached, let alone acted upon.
If global warming is truly in need of a rapid, urgent and above all united effort to combat (and whether it is or not is your first argument, right there), then quite honestly, we're doomed. Perhaps one reason we've never detected an advanced civilisation out there is because they all go through this stage, or fail to.
Dose of Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:2, Insightful)
The comparison is faulty.
An asteroid on a collision course for Earth would be a pretty obvious threat. Climate change is:
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area!)
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem)
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable.
A large enough asteroid strike that would truly be a global disaster, instead of just one that kills a couple of million people would get a reaction rather quickly. There are enough countries that could do it on their _own_ (China, Europe, India, Japan, Pakistan, Iran, USSR, USA) that international agreement would simply _not_ be needed.
Finally, space travel is becoming cheap enough that it is starting to get into the realm of individuals. Hell, we've got billionaires with access to space.
I am not worried about an asteroid.
An ocean? Antartica? (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not a scientist and I realize that wherever it hits could cause a chain of reactions that affect the entire earth, but isn't the idea to reduce civilian casualties?
Re:Dose of Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
"Just look at the US after the 11/9 attacks. The trick is to ensure that you have a leader who can listen to scientific advice and make the right decision based on that"
Err... WTF are you smoking? Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism, and every intelligence agency AND the IAEA said that Iraq had no WMDs. Both have been proved true.
If going by the 9/11 reaction is how you measure the response by Earth's leaders, then I expect the US to respond to a potential asteroid hit on Earth by contracting some politically tied corporation to manufacture umbrellas.
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:4, Insightful)
Asteroid is:
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area! When "enemies" will get hit the worst)
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem; the window between detection and action (when it's possible) will be huge...and anyways, it's a semi-constant occurrence on Earth, we'll be fine (when it comes to impactors we have a hope of deflecting at all))
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable. Impacts are happening all the time. We hardly even noticed Tunguska.
doesn't seem to really understand how things work (Score:5, Insightful)
His argument seems to pretty grossly overestimate the extent to which international law and institutions are really law and institutions in the sense they are within countries, versus looser arrangements that, when push comes to shove, get overriden by realpolitik.
For example, he assumes that a single country (or, presumably, group of countries) can't just go and deflect an asteroid using nuclear weapons, because of the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Really? If it seemed like the best option, everyone would just stop and not do it for fear of violating the Test Ban Treaty? Surely someone, the US or China or Russia or whoever had the capacity to do so, would simply ignore the treaty. And it probably wouldn't even come to that, because a handful of powerful countries would hash out a backroom deal. This sort of thing happens all the time already. It violated international law to invade Kosovo, for example, but hey look, Kosovo got invaded, and now is de-facto independent of Serbia. Didn't seem to stop anyone.
Then he suggests something about bringing options to the UN General Assembly. Well, yes, if the General Assembly is your idea of international cooperation, then we're doomed, because nothing will get done. Fortunately, however, the General Assembly has no power, and doesn't really matter. Real decisions get made at the Security Council, which is more or less a formalization of the de-facto handful of powerful countries hashing out a backroom deal.
Mostly, it seems like he thinks that a major obstacle to deflecting asteroids is some sort of international apparatus that has never in practice been an obstacle to anything.
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:3, Insightful)
"An asteroid on a collision course for Earth would be a pretty obvious threat. Climate change is:
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area!)
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem)
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable."
I completely agree with the grandparent. The current climate change summit is an excellent case study of what response to a global threat looks like.
I'm sure if some scientists actually announced an asteroid targeting Earth in 10-30 years, arguments a, b, c would be absolutely forwarded by lots of entrenched interests regarding said asteroid. There would also be widespread anti-scientific propaganda bandied about. I could imagine pre-emptive military actions to prevent foreign powers from interacting with it in ways we don't trust.
Asteroid != Climate Change (Score:2, Insightful)
Religious Armaggedon (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew that politics would never function to the point where a decision could have been reached, let alone acted upon
Unless each country tries to save itself without trying to save the rest of the world. Then you'd have canadian spaceships, united statian spaceships, chinese spaceships, etc.
The different countries could target different places to land too you know?
I believe that such a scenario would be quite realistic.
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:3, Insightful)
the window between detection and action (when it's possible) will be huge
Erm, no.. It doesn't have to be.
There are still loads of asteroids which are unknown to us and possibly with earth in their trajectory.
A few months ago we also had a "near" miss of a asteroid that came out of the blue (black?). And we only knew a few days in advance.
Re: who gets placed in the asteroid's crosshairs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there such a focus on asteroids? Do the USA need to justify their nuclear arsenal in the current post-cold-war situation? (yes, "Armageddon", I'm looking at you).
Asteroids are not rare, Asteroids capable of destroying humanity are. It is very unlikely that one will hit us in next 100 years, and after that, we'll probably have completely different means available for trying to avert incoming asteroids.
I'm not saying that research in this area is wrong, but it should be low priority and the risks must not be overestimated.
We already have something threatening human (and animal) existence on earth, it's called global warming. Unlike asteroids, it wont happen by chance, it is happening and will continue to happen, even if we cease to pollute right now (which we nevertheless should strive after to minimize effects by global warming). This is a much more serious threat to our existence than Asteroids.
Re:doesn't seem to really understand how things wo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that it doesn't threaten everybody equally. For example, if the asteroid will hit Earth in two decades, a sixty-year old politician will be far less threatened than a twenty-something. And even discounting that, there's still plenty of incentives to defect, to use less of my resources and count on the rest of you to pick up the slack. Everyone will do this, and as the result, the effort will fail.
And this is all assuming that there even is a coordinated effort. Remember, there are people with ideological opposition to central coordination (government). Now look at the number of conspiracy theories that abound around global warming, despite it being pretty bloody obvious at this point that the weather is out of whack. Do you really think that these people would go ahead with the deflection effort, and the economic sacrifices that requires? No, they'd accuse astronomers of falsifying data, right up until the fiery mountain fell.
No, if we as a species ever come across a crisis that requires us all to co-operate to survive, we're as good as dead.
the answer is obvious (Score:1, Insightful)
Somalia. Their "head of state" doesn't even control its capital and no one recognizes the sovereignty of Somaliland; so guess what country doesn't get a say when the others vote to obliterate it via asteroid? Somalia.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A few years notice? (Score:3, Insightful)
And yea, you are dead on with the radiation.
Re:doesn't seem to really understand how things wo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, if we as a species ever come across a crisis that requires us all to co-operate to survive, we're as good as dead.
Yes. If you watch what's going on in Copenhagen right now, it's a pretty good example of how an asteroid impact event will be handled, only more so.
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Not necessarily a threat (it might be a benefit for your area! When "enemies" will get hit the worst)
Then it is not an asteroid but a meteor(it) or a small comet.
b) Not a near enough threat anyways (it's a problem that will eventuate in another generation, hardly a 10 year problem; the window between detection and action (when it's possible) will be huge...and anyways, it's a semi-constant occurrence on Earth, we'll be fine (when it comes to impactors we have a hope of deflecting at all))
The current window between detection and near fly by is about 10 days, very often very much less. When asteroid is coming directly from the sun we usually notice it when the rock already has passed us.
Deflecting an asteroid is currently beyond our technology anyway.
c) Something that while a PITA to live through, is survivable. Impacts are happening all the time. We hardly even noticed Tunguska.
Those who where there did not survive it, or do you guess so? What exactly is your point? We don't need to care about small stuff hitting earth as it only can wipe out a small part of a great nation (like New York, New Jersey) or a small irrelevant country like Rumenia or Vatican?
Being prepared is a good thing, having some tech to counter bad stuff is also a good thing, not even wanting to think about it, like you seem to do, is a bad thing imho.
angel'o'sphere
Re:The Allies would just do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
the USA would probably, in consultation with its NATO allies, and Russia, launch everything it had it.
If you mean nuke armed ICBMs, then let the words ring in your mind: inter continal ballistic missile.
Supposed we had a bomb (or a combination of several hundred bombs) that can deflect an asteroid about 1 million miles away (3 times the distacne of our moon) ... we had nothing to deliver those bombs over that distance.
Our missiles have enough power to run with their build in engines about 2000 km ... the rest of the trip they do in free fall, back to their destination on earth (that is why they a re called "ballistic") the total range of them is far below 20,000 km. In other words, they can not even make 10% of the distance to the moon.
So sending atomic bombs (which would be more or less useless against an asteroid anyway ... but that is a different story) is completely out of scope due to the lack of missiles/rockets/launch vehicles to deliver them.
With lack of vehicles I don't mean: we need to build a few, no I mean: we can't currently build anything like this! It is Sci Fi! To deflect an asteroid we need to meet it around the distance of Mars and have some (magical) device to do the actual deflecting.
That means we need the time to fly a vehicle so far, which is roughly 1 year to 3 years depending on technology and actual position of the asteroid and earth. That means we have to realize it will hit us about 10 years in advance, just to plan the travel of the vehicle.
As we all know how to travel that distance, land on the asteroid, stop its rotation perhaps, plant the deflecting device I leave the construction of the actual device as an exercise to the reader.
angel'o'spheree
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem will be the Asteroid Denier Coalition. Based on scientific evidence found on the books of Michael Crichton, they will defend the alternative theory of the non-existence of asteroids and claim the scientists are only pushing their own evil, obscure agenda.
This movement will be lead by James L. Bunk, an accountancy clerk who didn't finish high school but is an absolute authority in physics, astronomy, medicine and bonsai gardening, so much that he knows better than all the so-called "scientists" that study those issues for decades.
Dr. Bunk started his career successfully denying Darwin's evolution and in 2015 he will convince President Palin to approve mandatory teaching of Creationism in public schools, starting from the first grade, unlike English, History and Math that will be taught only in college. More recently he campaigned against vaccines and he will be successful in making the President ban all vaccines in 2013, because vaccines don't protect against disease but cause autism, alzheimer, cancer, AIDS, tuberculosis, ass pimples, hairy hands, masturbation, abortion and homosexuality and, worst of all, evolutionism. Everybody knows the scientists are only pushing that evolution, vaccines and global warming crap because of their evil, hidden agendas.
Re:I don't understand this (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say FTFY, but I didn't - BOTH are ridiculous statements. It's not an either/or choice, you know. And the problem with BOTH is international cooperation and human nature, not technology.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Dear world we violated the treaty... (Score:4, Insightful)
...to save all of you ungrateful fucks from a planet killing asteroid. Would you like to thank us or try and penalize us. Remember we only sent ONE of our nukes up."
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now look at the number of conspiracy theories that abound around global warming, despite it being pretty bloody obvious at this point that the weather is out of whack.
No, it's not obviously "out of whack". There's always odd weather about. A key part of the problem is an unfounded certainty in the existence and urgency of global warming.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. No one ever says Italy.
That's because they have good food, good wine (better than France I would say), hot women and a great culture. I've been all over Europe and Italy is the only country that I would seriously consider leaving the US to live in. Yeah, their Government has all the stability of Windows ME and your typical 12 year old boy has a 52% of serving as Prime Minister at some point in his life, but still....... ;)
Re:Not ready? No, and never will be. (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is all assuming that there even is a coordinated effort. Remember, there are people with ideological opposition to central coordination (government). Now look at the number of conspiracy theories that abound around global warming, despite it being pretty bloody obvious at this point that the weather is out of whack. Do you really think that these people would go ahead with the deflection effort, and the economic sacrifices that requires? No, they'd accuse astronomers of falsifying data, right up until the fiery mountain fell.
And there are people with the ideological opposition to anything human, that we bipedal oxygen breathers are a blight on the earth that is must be stopped.
It's not bloody obvious to me that the weather is out of whack. Warm summer, cold winter...some summers are warmer, some winters are colder. How is this out of whack? There's a big difference between a science that is hotly debated because there's no actual proof (only evidence that can point many directions) and there being an actual asteroid on a collision course for earth. If the evidence of the asteroid wasn't based on observation of an asteroid but assumptions drawn from a small timeframe of data that suggests an asteroid is likely on a collision course with earth, then you'd have people hotly debating it like global warming.
The problem is there are scientists and worse, politicians asking us to have FAITH in them that what they're saying is true. No offense to them, but faith is not something I put in either of those people. Politicians don't deserve it and scientists shouldn't need it. Maybe if meteorologists could predict the LOCAL weather more than 30 minutes in advance without blowing it 75% of the time then we might lend more credence to people who presume to predict global climate decades in advance. MIGHT...not saying that they would, or even should. Global warming is not prove to be either a human generated phenomenon NOR a phenomenon that human-kind can have any impact on.
Help me out here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, the issues with using a nuclear weapon are political, not social. Then again I'm more concerned about the physics of that solution.
As for dragging the asteroid so it will miss... the supposed social concern is that there will be times between when you start changing the path and when you've got it fully deflected, where it would (if you stop pushing) hit a place on Earth that it would not have hit before. Two things:
1) TFA mentions that you would start this mission decades before a possible impact. You wouldn't know for sure that it would impact yet. Much less would you know where the impact would occur. Hence, you wouldn't know where the "corridor of risk" would be. Nobody would have to choose which countries to "put at risk", because nobody would be able to make such a choice if they wanted to.
2) If the asteroid's initial trajectory is going to hit the Earth, then there's a 70% chance (roughly) that it will hit water. Even the people in any given country are probably at equal or less risk if the asteroid is momentarily pointed at their country's land mass, than if it is left to hit the ocean in their hemisphere. In other words, the "corridor of risk" wouldn't be at elevated risk - it would be at slightly less decreased risk than other locations on Earth.
It seems to me that if you want to drag the asteroid, picking the direction should be easy. Estimate its current trajectory as best you can. On the very unlikley chance that trajectory hits the center of the Earth, I guess you have to choose randomly; but in the vastly more likely case that it passes relatively near the center of the Earth (such that it would hit the Earth), wouldn't you drag it in the opposite direction (i.e. draw an arrow from the center of the earth to the line of the trajectory where it passes the center; push it the direction the arrow points)? Minimum energy and maximum chance of success...
Re:I don't understand this (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is there such a focus on asteroids? Do the USA need to justify their nuclear arsenal in the current post-cold-war situation? (yes, "Armageddon", I'm looking at you).
Asteroids are not rare, Asteroids capable of destroying humanity are. It is very unlikely that one will hit us in next 100 years, and after that, we'll probably have completely different means available for trying to avert incoming asteroids.
I'm not saying that research in this area is wrong, but it should be low priority and the risks must not be overestimated.
We already have something threatening human (and animal) existence on earth, it's called global warming. Unlike asteroids, it wont happen by chance, it is happening and will continue to happen, even if we cease to pollute right now (which we nevertheless should strive after to minimize effects by global warming). This is a much more serious threat to our existence than Asteroids.
Global warming is getting a extremely high amount of attention relatively to asteroids. It also is not a threat to "all" human life. Instead it would wipe out a significant amount of coastal infrastructure from rising oceans and agricultural infrastructure from changing weather patterns. This would lead to the death of a significant portion of the population and a drastically reduced quality of life, but the species would continue. Carbon emissions would be cut handily too. Of course the suspected Ice Age after that may be the one-two punch that takes us out, but it isn't as certain as an asteroid of significant size.
Just because something is unlikely, does not mean it is unworthy of attention. This is part of the problem responsible for the financial crisis. Certain factors were unlikely to occur, but when they did they had disproportionate effects compared to other scenarios. In short, they weren't weighted properly in risk management analysis.
Re:Simpsons did it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I don't wonder anything of the sort. Sarah Palin and the Creationists (hey, that sounds like the name of a band) are so self-evidently ridiculous, nothing I say can make them look any more stupid than they already are.
Treaties (Score:2, Insightful)
Treaties will be flat-out ignored if they get in the way. So Sayeth The Scared Voters.
Indeed, no politician would dream of even quickly officially undoing or altering said treaties for fear of looking like they view paperwork as more important than lives.
Secondly, as for where to aim it, any asteroid big enough to worry about, but small enough it could hit somewhere on Earth and not kill everyone, is a teeny, tiny size window. It should be trivially easy to turn it into rubble that mostly burns up, or effortlessly deflect it.
Remember that 1 mile per hour sideways (or slowed, or sped up) adds up to thousands of miles deviation over 6 months or several years. Even less is really all that's needed with enough time. And smallish asteroids, i.e. "less than a mountain" we are well within the technology to easily smash it to bits and send the pieces flying at much higher speed than that.
So whoever's doing this "social analysis" sounds himself like a physical scientist, and not a politician who knows how easily it would be to make this happen to "save the lives of millions of registered voters", to borrow from Ghostbusters.
For christ's sake, people, this year's US deficit for one year is $1.4 trillion , just based on hot air about scary the economy is, and you know those politicians have to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend money to get votes.
Re:Who gets to decide where it's targeted? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no. The *asteroid* 99942 Apophis is 200-300 meters in diameter and is well understood to be a threat of regional destruction, not world-wide devastation.
The real problem I see with this analysis is simply that our ability to track doesn't tell you where its going to hit, it will simply tell you theres a 25% of it hitting the Earth at all, and that one spot might be at the peak of the probability distribution (bell curve). To be sure it wouldn't hit you have to move it by many Earth-radii anyway, so you probably would never know that you just had it aimed at Russia.
Re:doesn't seem to really understand how things wo (Score:3, Insightful)
Who said the damage is caused by energy directly? The one that killed the dinosaurs [based on one theory, and we don't really know what happened] didn't kill much on impact, but threw particles in the air that blocked the sun. It was the blocked sun changing the climate and starving the plants that wiped out all large animals, not the energy from the impact. So I don't get the argument that it's the total system energy that matters. It seems irrelevant. There's some point where a single impact will throw enough junk into the air to cause a major problem. Below that, the impact won't have global impact. And if we get the largest chunk below that size, we will have prevented that problem. Now, if you want to concede that point and move on to another, that's fine. If you want to debate that point, that's fine. But to pretend that I'm saying something that's in any way related to the total amount of energy in the system being relevant, then we aren't talking about the same event.
So, what's your goal here? Liquify a region of the crust, or heat the atmosphere to the point that everything on the surface is incinerated, or both?
My goal is to determine what events will kill all (or almost all) the people on earth, and prevent them. Wanting to liquify crust or heat the atmosphere are apparently distractions brought up by you because you either don't understand what I'm saying or are being deliberately obtuse.
water (Score:3, Insightful)
Waiter covers 70% of the Earth's surface. Now, if we exclude areas that would cause catastrophic flooding the number gets smaller, but I'll bet we could find someplace out in the middle of the ocean to deflect it.