WHAT IS TO 
            BE DONE

If ever there was an issue affecting the whole world, it is the threat from Near Earth Objects. To understand and try to cope with the threat requires an international response. This response should cover not only understanding the science, so that dangerous Near Earth Objects may be predicted and methods of mitigation assessed; but, equally important, how all aspects of this response should be organised.

The organisation must cover the identification and coordination of the science, communication with the public, and work on measures to react to a possible impact, or deflect or destroy an incoming object. At present no international institution exists for the purpose. Spaceguard is a collective term for a variety of activities which have grown up in a number of countries over recent years, and which have done much to alert public opinion. But none has official recognition except for the US Spaceguard Survey (the name given to NASA’s survey), and so far there are no specific coordinating mechanisms in any state or government, even the United States.

The need for an international approach was at the heart of our terms of reference and is central to our proposals for action developed in this chapter. Our terms of reference also asked us to confirm the nature of the hazard and potential levels of risk, which we have done in Chapters 2, 3 and 4; to identify the current British contribution to international efforts, covered in Chapter 7; and to suggest how these issues should be communicated to the public, which we cover in Recommendations 13 and 14 below and the preceding two paragraphs.

Science needs
The more we have studied the subject the more we can see how very little is currently known about Near Earth Objects, despite the efforts of United States and other scientists.We do not know accurately how many objects of diameter about 1 kilometre there are; and their energies and compositions are very uncertain.We know very little indeed about smaller objects.Without this knowledge we have only the roughest idea of the magnitude of the risk. The science involved is wide-ranging, involving astronomy but also geophysics, oceanography, climatology, biology and the social sciences.

The Task Force has concluded that the overall needs, worldwide, are as follows:

• for survey and discovery: at least one dedicated 3 metre-class telescope in the southern hemisphere and one in the northern; the survey of smaller Near Earth Objects; the use of data from surveys being made for other purposes; the use of sky survey archives; and the use of space telescope missions where appropriate;

• for accurate orbit determinations: one large telescope in each hemisphere, preferably dedicated; some time by right on various existing instruments;

• for composition and gross properties: access to large telescopes and space rendezvous missions;

• for academic studies: in particular of Near Earth Objects’ interactions with the atmosphere, oceans, solid earth, climate and living things, including historical evidence; and the effects on people and society.

What fair contribution should Britain make to fulfilling these needs? We have taken account of existing telescopes or those under construction in which the United Kingdom is a partner; the skills of British scientists and engineers, and industry; and our view that partnership in Europe in this task is desirable.

Survey and discovery
To make a substantial contribution to the need both for surveys in the southern hemisphere and for systematically discovering smaller Near Earth Objects, we propose the construction of an advanced new 3 metre-class telescope on an excellent site. We have considered the possibility of using older existing telescopes for the systematic survey and discovery of these objects, but have generally rejected the idea because adapting such equipment would be expensive and the resulting telescopes would not be competitive for long. Only a new dedicated telescope would make a satisfactory contribution to the world effort. Because such a facility would be expensive, we believe that this project should be shared with other countries, preferably in Europe.

Recommendation 1
We recommend that the Government should seek partners, preferably in Europe, to build in the southern hemisphere an advanced new 3 metre-class survey telescope for surveying substantially smaller objects than those now systematically observed by other telescopes. The telescope should be dedicated to work on Near Earth Objects and be located on an appropriate site.

Much valuable data has been gathered cheaply from observations made for purposes unrelated to Near Earth Objects. An excellent example is the photographic archive, at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh, of the United Kingdom Schmidt Telescope in Australia.These records contain invaluable historical detections of Near Earth Objects which greatly enhance the use of current observations. The records are being converted to digital form and posted on the internet for use by astronomers worldwide, with funding from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. We hope that this will continue. Plates taken with United States Schmidt telescopes are also being digitised, widening this important database.

Furthermore, we wish to encourage Near Earth Object discovery by efficient use of suitable current and future wide-angle survey telescopes dedicated to other aims.

Recommendation 2
We recommend that arrangements be made for observational data obtained for other purposes by wide-field facilities, such as the new British VISTA telescope, to be searched for Near Earth Objects on a nightly basis.

No current space telescope is dedicated to the discovery of Near Earth Objects. However, a number of existing and planned missions are, and will be, able to detect objects incidentally when making observations for quite different purposes.We strongly suggest that consideration be given by space agencies to consider the use of space missions for incidental observations of Near Earth Objects. Apart from existing telescopes (see Annex D), the European Space Agency’s proposed GAIA mission and NASA’s SIRTF project could each be used in this way without substantially modifying the mission or curtailing its main purpose.

Recommendation 3
We recommend that the Government draw the attention of the European Space Agency to the particular role that GAIA, one of its future missions, could play in surveying the sky for Near Earth Objects. The potential in GAIA, and in other space missions such as NASA’s SIRTF and the European Space Agency’s BepiColombo, for Near Earth Object research should be considered as a factor in defining the missions and in scheduling their completion.

Accurate orbit determination
A particularly urgent requirement is for observations to determine the orbits of Near Earth Objects discovered by United States telescopes but subsequently lost.This needs one or more professionally run telescopes.The l metre Johannes Kapteyn Telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands, owned by the United Kingdom and international partners, could immediately fulfil this need, economically and without modification.This would not only fulfil an urgent need, but would also enable Britain to contribute immediately to the international programme of observations.

Recommendation 4
We recommend that the 1 metre Johannes Kapteyn Telescope on La Palma, in which the United Kingdom is a partner, be dedicated to follow-up observations of Near Earth Objects.

Composition and gross properties
The importance of determining the composition and gross physical characteristics of a Near Earth Object both to predict the way it would impact on the Earth and in planning mitigation possibilities including deflection, were emphasised in Chapters 2, 5 and 8.

On the ground-based side, the scientific requirements could be fulfilled immediately by a number of existing telescopes to which the United Kingdom has access. For the southern hemisphere there is the 3.9 metre Anglo-Australian Telescope; in the north there are the 4.2 metre William Herschel and the 2.5 metre Isaac Newton Telescopes on La Palma in the Canary Islands, and in Hawaii the 3.8 metre United Kingdom Infra-Red Telescope. All are heavily over-subscribed; hence we believe that an arrangement should be made for small amounts of time to be provided under appropriate financial terms for spectroscopic follow-up. Several of the European Southern Observatory’s telescopes in Chile would also be excellent for this work.We have considered the great value of radar observations for determining an object’s gross structure and accurate orbit and noted that no such facility exists in the southern hemisphere. However, we do not propose any major British involvement in radar at this stage.

Recommendation 5
We recommend that negotiations take place with the partners with whom the United Kingdom shares suitable telescopes to establish an arrangement for small amounts of time to be provided under appropriate financial terms for spectroscopic follow-up of Near Earth Objects.

Space rendezvous missions to asteroids or comets give a unique insight into the characteristics of the asteroid or comet being visited (Annex D). A systematic assessment of different types needs many missions, perhaps 20, to enable each type subsequently to be recognised by ground-based techniques, of great importance should countermeasures be needed. For this limited purpose it might be possible to use a series of essentially identical micro satellites, each launched economically piggy-back with other spacecraft; in this way the unit cost should be much below that of current rendezvous missions.We note that the United Kingdom is a leader in micro satellite technology. We suggest that a beginning could be made with a single demonstration mission.

Recommendation 6
We recommend that the Government explore, with like-minded countries, the case for mounting a number of coordinated space rendezvous missions based on relatively inexpensive microsatellites, each to visit a different type of Near Earth Object to establish its detailed characteristics.

Coordination of astronomical observations
The systematic archiving of the data and rapid dissemination of recommendations for follow-up by other observatories is essential.This role is carried out by the Minor Planet Center in Boston; the Spaceguard Central Node in Europe is designed to have a complementary role. We suggest that the United Kingdom and other governments, together with the International Astronomical Union, NASA and other interested parties, seek ways of putting the governance and funding of the Minor Planet Center on a robust international footing, including the Center’s links to executive agencies should a potential threat be found.The role of the Spaceguard Central Node should also be considered.

Recommendation 7
We recommend that the Government – together with other governments, the International Astronomical Union and other interested parties – seek ways of putting the governance and funding of the Minor Planet Center on a robust international footing. including the Center’s links to executive agencies if a potential threat were found.

Studies of impacts and environmental and social effects The prediction of the consequences of an impact requires, in addition to work by astronomers, interdisciplinary research by geophysicists, oceanographers, climatologists, social scientists and others. In the United Kingdom such activities are supported by the universities and by the Research Councils (including Natural Environment Research Council, and the Economic and Social Research Council).The European Science Foundation is currently supporting a limited programme in this area. Such research is not only of great practical importance, but also excellent science. The British Government should encourage high quality research in these areas.

Recommendation 8
We recommend that the Government should help promote multi-disciplinary studies of the consequences of impacts from Near Earth Objects on the Earth in British and European institutions concerned, including the Research Councils, universities and the European Science Foundation.

Mitigation possibilities
The consequences of the impacts of most Near Earth Objects can probably be mitigated, or the objects themselves deflected, if we have determined their orbits in good time (Chapter 8). However, the arrangements needed are not simple and should be planned well before the prospect of any impact.The Government should consider participating soon with others in studies on mitigation possibilities, including of deflection methods for example through the European Space Agency or with the United States.

Recommendation 9
We recommend that the Government, with other governments, set in hand studies to look into the practical possibilities of mitigating the results of impact and deflecting incoming objects.

Organisational needs
The Task Force has considered what kind of structure would best meet the organisational requirement.There is an obvious need for some international forum for discussion of the scientific aspects of the problem.There is an equally obvious need for a forum for intergovernmental action. Without a strong connection between the two, not least to cope with rising public interest in the subject, proper coordination could not be achieved. There are no obvious precedents, although the emerging international arrangements to manage the problems of climate change come closest. A crucial difference is that while climate change is long term with accumulating effects, threats from Near Earth Objects could come tomorrow, in 50 years or in a thousand. Nonetheless the results of current research and greater understanding of the problem will maintain the current momentum of interest, which would of course accelerate in the event of a possible catastrophe. Any institutions, international or national, would then be put to immediate test.

There is a hierarchy of possibilities which we now examine: first is the international structure; next European arrangements; then a British national structure; finally division of responsibilities within the national structure.

No United Nations body or agency, can at present be held to represent the global interest in protection from Near Earth Objects.The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is too narrowly focused, and UNESCO with its brief on science in general is too wide. Although the Task Force is reluctant to suggest new institutions, something on the lines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems most nearly to meet the requirement. This Intergovernmental Panel has three main working groups: one on science; one on the impacts of change; and one on how change might be mitigated.The Panel, which brings together experts from all over the world, produces Assessments every few years, and has been an outstanding success. An Intergovernmental Panel on Threats from Space, financed by participating governments, would provide a light and unbureaucratic mechanism for coordination and consultation, issuing periodical Assessments as the situation required.Whether more formal arrangements were desirable, on the analogy of the Framework Convention on Climate Change with its successive meetings of the Parties, could be determined in the light of events.

Recommendation 10
We recommend that the Government urgently seek with other governments and international bodies (in particular the International Astronomical Union) to establish a forum for open discussion of the scientific aspects of Near Earth Objects, and a forum for international action. Preferably these should be brought together in an international body. It might have some analogy with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thereby covering science, impacts, and mitigation.

We recognise that interim measures may be needed before the integrated international structure we prefer could be fully established. In this, the International Astronomical Union, which is already doing much on the science side, should play an important role. Indeed, we expect that a final organisation based on the structure of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change would wish to continue to involve the International Astronomical Union. Regarding inter-governmental aspects, the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination group (covering the space agencies of United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, Ukraine and Europe) might be able to contribute; and for certain aspects, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

At European level (see Chapter 6), the European Space Agency among other European institutions has already taken up the subject and could develop its interest further on behalf of its member states. The European Southern Observatory, of which most European countries are members, though not Britain, could play a major role in the study of Near Earth Objects with its facilities on excellent sites in the Southern hemisphere. The European Science Foundation, which brings together the research councils and science academies of most European countries, could help to provide and coordinate across Europe a broad base for research on all aspects of the impact problem, physical, biological and social. It already has a programme in the area and funds the European Space Science Committee with strong links to scientists in the United States. Because the threat covers all aspects of life, we believe that the European Union should also be fully engaged.

We believe that the Government should discuss with other governments how Europe could best co-ordinate actions regarding Near Earth Objects, and how best to work closely with the United States, with complementary roles in specific areas, and with other interested countries. As a first step we suggest that the European Space Agency and the European Southern Observatory, with the European Union and the European Science Foundation, be asked to propose a strategy for this purpose. It could be discussed at the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency in 2001.

Recommendation 11
We recommend that the Government discuss with like-minded European governments how Europe could best contribute to international efforts to cope with Near Earth Objects, coordinate activities in Europe, and work towards becoming a partner with the United States, with complementary roles in specific areas. We recommend that the European Space Agency and the European Southern Observatory, with the European Union and the European Science Foundation, work out a strategy for this purpose in time for discussion at the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency in 2001.

At national level no central coordinating body for Near Earth Objects has yet been formally identified within the government. In the event of any emergency, possible or real, virtually all parts of government would be involved, and the Cabinet itself would have to determine policy. This suggests that some Cabinet committee or ad hoc group, bringing in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for the Environment,Transport and the Regions, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other interested departments should be envisaged.

The interim responsibility rests with the Minister for Science within the Department of Trade and Industry, covering the British National Space Centre and the Office of Science and Technology. The Task Force believes that a lead department should be formally designated, and lines of responsibility established against all eventualities.

Recommendation 12
We recommend that the Government appoint a single department to take the lead for coordination and conduct of policy on Near Earth Objects, supported by the necessary inter-departmental machinery.

The lead department in Whitehall should act as the channel for recommendations to the Government,The Task Force would not expect this department to undertake all coordination and management itself. Instead the Task Force believes that a British Centre for Near Earth Objects should be set up whose mission would be to promote and co-ordinate work on the subject in Britain; to provide an advisory service to the Government, other relevant authorities, the public and the media; and to facilitate British involvement in international activities, whether through the means suggested above or through the International Astronomical Union and such other bodies as the Minor Planet Center in Boston. In doing so it would call on the Research Councils involved, in particular the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, and on universities, observatories and other bodies concerned.

The role of such a Centre would obviously evolve with experience. The closest analogy would be with the recently created Climate Change Centre to be established at the University of East Anglia. It should, like this, be unbureaucratic, and become the centre of a network in Britain but reaching elsewhere, with special responsibility for relations with the public. In this respect its objective would be to communicate in clear, direct and comprehensible language, avoiding excessive alarm or excessive complacency, with some very different audiences: on one hand Parliament, the general public and the media, and on the other the scientific, academic and environmental communities.The Task Force suggests that as a first step there should be a feasibility study to determine the terms of reference for such a Centre and how it might be financed.

Recommendation 13
We recommend that a British Centre for Near Earth Objects be set up whose mission would be to promote and coordinate work on the subject in Britain; to provide an advisory service to the Government, other relevant authorities, the public and the media, and to facilitate British involvement in international activities. In doing so it would call on the Research Councils involved, in particular the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council, and on universities, observatories and other bodies concerned in Britain.

Recommendation 14
We recommend that one of the most important functions of a British Centre for Near Earth Objects be to provide, a public service which would give balanced information in clear, direct and comprehensible language as need might arise. Such a service must respond to very different audiences: on the one hand Parliament, the general public and the media; and on the other the academic, scientific and environmental communities. In all of this, full use should be made of the Internet. As a first step, the Task Force recommends that a feasibility study be established to determine the functions, terms of reference and funding for such a Centre.

In suggesting arrangements of this kind – international, European and national – the Task Force has not attempted more than a sketch of the possibilities.The threat from Near Earth Objects may be a very old problem, going back to the origins of life, but recognition of the threat is new in human experience. Greater understanding of the problem is now coupled with the possibilities of mitigation.The creation of the structure proposed above would form a base for action, if it ever became necessary, and in the meantime give some measure of reassurance. There is no question more often asked of the Task Force:What is the point of worrying about the threat when we can do nothing about it? The answer is that we need to know far more about it than we do, and that with such knowledge something might indeed be done about it.

Crown Copyright © 2000. All rights reserved.
Conditions of Use