Status Report

NEO News: The House of Lords on NEOs 8 March 2001

By SpaceRef Editor
March 8, 2001
Filed under ,
NEO News (03/08/01) Lords on NEOs
The following transcript from the UK House of Lords was kindly
provided by Harry Atkinson, Chair of the UK NEO Task Force.
David Morrison
===================================================
House
of Lords Debate on 8 March 2001
From Lords Hansard

Near Earth Objects

3.12 p.m.

Lord Tanlaw rose to call attention to the report of the Task
Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects; and to move for
Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in
the subject of near earth objects as founder and chairman of the
all-party Astronomy and Space Environment Group. Some noble Lords may
ask themselves why it is necessary to debate the threat created by
the low probability, high consequence hazard of near earth objects
now rather than later. I believe that it is necessary because of the
long lead time required for prophylactic action to be taken after
recognition of the problem by government. That view is based on my
own experiences of trying to bring the threat of greenhouse gases to
your Lordships’ attention a quarter of a century ago.

It appears that governments require a long gestation period of
procrastination before they can identify any problem connected with
the improvement of terrestrial or near space environment, and even
longer when they take a decision to act upon it which might require
government funding. Of course there are exceptions. I congratulate
the Minister on, first, having the political courage to lift
potentially hazardous near earth objects above what has sometimes
been referred to as the "giggle barrier", for I believe
that it has been this lack of political credibility which has delayed
any serious debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Secondly, the
Minister for Science should be able to take his place with honour
among the distinguished visionaries, scientists, knights, poets and
peers listed on page 36 of the report for having set up the task
force in the first place. I add only the name of Lembit Opik, the
honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, who has done so much to
prepare the ground for the report.

The professional team selected by the Minister, which was headed by
Dr Harry Atkinson, ably supported by Sir Crispin Tickell and
Professor David Williams, has justly received international acclaim
for the quality of its report. It is a world first and has
undoubtedly established the United Kingdom as an intellectual and
scientific leader in the field of near earth objects. Perhaps the
Minister will confirm that this advantage will not be lost through
lack of follow-up by his Government.

I have instigated this debate in the hope that the good work
undertaken by the task force will be financed on a permanent basis by
the Government. Does the noble Lord agree that the establishment of a
British centre for near earth objects at the Armagh Observatory would
be a good starting point? Will the Minister also give a firm
indication that there will be specific funding to implement
recommendations 13 and 14 contained in the report; in other words,
can the costs of research and telescopic hardware be met without
deducting funds from other areas of astronomical research in other
government departments, in particular PPARC which to date has been so
supportive of all those involved with near earth objects?

Does the Minister agree that the British National Space Centre may be
geared up to hold and distribute special funds for this purpose? Does
the noble Lord also agree that that may be a more positive role than
that of the inter-departmental post office which seems to be its
present function?

Before I look at the Government’s response to the report in more
detail, it may be worth asking: what are hazardous near earth objects
which were the subject of investigation by the task force? According
to the report, they are asteroids and long and short-term comets
which fulfil the role of Alpha and Omega, as described by St John the
Divine in his apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelations. They are
the seeds of Armageddon which procreate the chemistry for all
carbon-based life in the universe, of which we are but a small part.
In its introduction on page 9 of the report the task force goes on to
say this about them:

"As a species humans would not now exist without them. On the
one hand we can rejoice in them; on the other we can fear for our
future". We humans have been riding as passengers for the past
million years aboard the planetary vehicle we call Earth which is
hurtling round the sun on a darkened highway we call the ecliptic at
67,000 miles an hour. Up until now we have not been able to observe
clearly all the hazardous objects that are around us which are 3
billion year-old left-overs from the planetary builders’ yard.
Therefore, we have not worried about them.

To continue with the "vehicle" analogy, we are only just
beginning to find out how the lights work. We can now see for the
first time the very real dangers that lie ahead. Unfortunately, we
cannot stop the world and get off, nor can we manoeuvre it out of
harm’s way. As a result, in the past there has been impact damage to
the Earth, which is shown on pages 10, 18 and 19 of the report, and
also to our planetary neighbours such as the moon and Mars, which we
can see with a good pair of binoculars.

We have witnessed the catastrophic impact of the Shoemaker-Levy comet
on Jupiter, and astronomers are beginning to observe with the new
family of powerful telescopes that there are comets and planets
circling around alien suns. I believe that there is now positive
evidence of asteroid material in 85 per cent of all visible stars.

The inter-planetary debris of asteroids and short and long-term
comets comes in all shapes and sizes. Near earth objects can be solid
pieces of iron or loosely bound snowballs of ice and stone, and the
huge numbers observed, even without a detailed survey which the task
force has proposed, and the Government have agreed to as a first
priority, are approximately as follows. There are 150 million near
earth objects in the 10 to 100 metre category; 300,000 in the 100 to
500 metre category; 10,000 in the 500 to 1 kilometre category; and
1,500 which are 1 kilometre or larger. Duncan Steel’s diagrams on
pages 9 and 10, which are copied from his excellent book Target Earth
that is available in the Library, indicate the complexity of their
orbits around the earth.

The Government’s website shows approximately 50 asteroids averaging
50 metres in diameter which will near miss the earth during 2001.
Fortunately, only a small percentage of all near earth objects are
deemed hazardous, and they are the only ones which are on a direct
collision course with earth. If they are accurately logged usually
they can be identified many years before eventual impact.

If we look at the table on page 16, we can expect a 75 metre asteroid
to impact every 1,000 years, with an explosive yield 10 times the
power of the hydrogen device detonated on Bikini Atoll. An asteroid
in that category–similar to the Tunguska event in 1908–will destroy
cities the size of London, Moscow or Washington. If noble Lords
consider for a moment the total amount of potentially hazardous
material in near earth orbit, they will realise that it cannot be a
question of "if" but "when" a near earth object
finally impacts on the earth’s surface. We must hope that until there
is a satisfactory system of mitigation or defence the object
concerned will not be too big.

I believe that the deployment of an effective shield against cometary
and asteroid impact must constitute the rite of passage for all
intelligent life, regardless of where it may exist in the universe.
Will the Minister confirm that this was perhaps the main reason and
justification for his preparation of the task force report on
hazardous near earth objects?

I am rather disappointed in the Government’s initial response to the
practical possibilities of mitigating the results of impact and the
deflection of an incoming object. Surely the Home Office is not fully
equipped to deal with either of these problems without assistance
from the Ministry of Defence. No doubt plans for the Anderson shelter
are still available for public distribution, but I ask the Minister
whether they are enough to cope with the scale of the catastrophe
anticipated of a major impact. As for deflection, I can see that it
is theoretically possible after the remarkable controlled contact by
the NEAR- Shoemaker satellite with the asteroid Eros. But will not
effective deflection entail the use of nuclear weaponry? Will the
technology not be open to misuse by any nation with asteroid
modification capabilities, which wishes to deflect an object
deliberately onto a terrestrial target?

This grim scenario has been predicted by Carl Sagan in his letter to
Nature and in the "faction" novel Nemesis written by the
astronomer Bill Napier. Both items are available in the Library, as
are the Chapman/Morrison tables on risk assessment and other related
papers.

If asteroids are going to be used as weapons one day in the not too
distant future, then the risk assessment of dying from a middle range
asteroid must greatly increase from one in 20,000 to about one in
5,000. The death probability as a result of flood or natural
catastrophe is rated in the Chapman/Morrison chart as one in
30,000–the same as flying in an aeroplane. The exceptionally heavy
rainfall this year may have at last fired the Prime Minister’s
enthusiasm to mitigate the greenhouse effects on a world-wide basis.
He has apparently agreed to apply £100 million for research on
renewable energy resources in order to improve on this statistic.
Does the Minister not agree that only a fraction of this sum would be
required to implement all the 14 recommendations of the task
force?

Therefore, the question I must ask the Minister is this. Why is the
alleviation of the risk of comet or asteroid impact not yet
recognised by the Government as a necessary expenditure as part of
the precautionary principle, which was outlined in the Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology papers in 1996 and which is
supported by the Prime Minister? Do the Government not have an
obligation to future generations to look beyond the event horizon of
the next general election and to prepare to mitigate future risks
from near space?

I understand that the National Trust spends on average £175 million a
year on the preservation of our structural heritage, while various
government heritage agencies may spend about five times that amount
in other works of preservation. Can the Minister therefore say why
some of these funds cannot be diverted from the heritage business
into, say, the British National Space Centre until an adequate
mitigation system is in place to reduce future risks from near earth
objects? Alternatively, can he not see a way of persuading the
private sector to play some part in financing the essential new
British three-metre telescopes, which will be required for the major
task of cataloguing the whole of the near earth object spectrum?

The principle of private sector participation has already been
established by the Beagle MarsLander. Does the noble Lord not agree
that many individuals, as opposed to commercial companies, might be
prepared to pay to name a harmless near earth object, out of the 150
million, as a memento for their grandchildren or in memory of someone
they have loved? If there is no money from the Government, science
will have to find a way, without diluting the science of an issue, to
come to terms with the private sector on an agreed way of providing
finance. Can the Minister explain why governments seem quite prepared
to fund the preservation of our civilised past and yet are unwilling
to pay for the protection of the future of our civilisation?

I do not know why, but whenever the subject of fire and brimstone is
raised, as I have raised it today, the awful fate of the citizens of
Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. When it does, I take the somewhat
heretical view that they succumbed from the impact of near earth
objects, not because of their sinful deeds but because they failed to
heed the advice given to them by the watchmen at the gates. The
watchmen have made their report to your Lordships. We ignore their
advice at our peril. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are grateful to the
noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing this debate on near Earth
objects, one of the major physical dangers affecting the whole world,
including, of course, the UK. Dealing with this danger, as with the
other dangers–notably climate change, coastal erosion, natural
disasters, the disposal of nuclear wastes and solar influences on the
atmosphere–requires scientific research and monitoring,
communication with the public and then definite actions to reduce or
prevent the danger. If and when such events occur, actions are
necessary to mitigate their effects and to recover from them
afterwards.

I should like to make a few suggestions about the responses to the
specific threat of near earth objects in the light of Dr Atkinson’s
excellent working party report and of the highly constructive
government response. I have to declare a small interest in that I was
consulted on one part of the report. I shall conclude by commenting
on the broader issue of how the UK and Europe should each have
organisations for systematic co-ordination and monitoring of major
risks.

From the scientific report, it is clear that the most likely danger
is from meteors similar to the Siberian 1908 meteor, with diameters
of the order of 100 metres, impacting the atmosphere at about 30,000
miles per hour–20 times the speed of Concorde. Unlike earthquakes,
tsunamis or surprise nuclear attacks, such events can be predicted by
close monitoring–for at least one year and probably more of the
arrival. That is because the earth is not in the asteroid belt, which
some Peers of a certain age will remember caused great problems to
Dan Dare and Digby, the intrepid space explorers depicted in the
Eagle comic of the 1950s–not mentioned in the report, which was
perhaps written by younger people. Such asteroid impacts are rare
events, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, explained to us.

The astronomers who worked on the report–among whom was my
colleague, Professor David Williams of University College, to whom I
am grateful for something of a briefing–quite rightly emphasised the
need for close monitoring of near earth objects and for studies of
their movement and composition. I would strongly recommend that, as
with weather forecasts, a systematic procedure is introduced for
assessing the accuracy of near earth object trajectories and near
misses. Noble Lords will recall that President Roosevelt, before
relying on weather forecasts for D-day, wanted to have an assessment
of their accuracy for a few months beforehand. These forecasts should
be quantified and made public. Accurate predictions will be the first
step in planning the direct preventive action to be taken.

In the future, the report emphasises that the techniques may be
considerably more sophisticated and safer than changing the
trajectories of the objects by massive explosions on their surface.
The impact of a significant meteor on land causes blast waves,
electromagnetic disturbances and eruptions of the earth. These
short-term effects, as well as longer-term climatic effects, as we
saw with the decline of the dinosaurs, could be more devastating than
the largest nuclear bomb explosions. Therefore, I urge the Government
to follow the suggestion on page 27 of the report, which, curiously,
did not appear in the recommendations, and involve the Ministry of
Defence’s Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment and the Met Office
to apply their enormous computational physics capability to provide
quantitative data for the consequences of different scenarios, much
as they did for nuclear winter in the 1980s.

However, the report indicates that the most likely danger to the UK
and Europe is an impact in the ocean, which would give rise to a huge
tidal wave. Geologists and natural disaster experts have pointed out
that this would be similar to the kind of waves triggered by sudden
movements of the seabed, or mountain movements in the Caribbean or
the Canary Islands. Again, the enormous capability of computational
prediction in which NERC and university oceanographic institutes
would have to become involved, could provide the relevant damage data
which European emergency committees would need when considering the
scenarios. However, one hopes that they would not rely on
computer-generated data at the last minute.

From my experience of running a government agency and working with
government departments, including the British National Space
Centre–which has been the recipient of hard criticism; to that end,
I do not entirely accept the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord
Tanlaw, that it is merely a postbox–I believe that the
organisational response of the Government is correct, given the
present arrangements in the UK and Europe. The problems associated
with near earth objects are to be directed by the BNSC, with a strong
emphasis on collaboration with the European Space Agency. I hope that
the Minister and the Government Chief Scientist will ensure that BNSC
plays a major role both in research and in working with UK industry
in the task of constructing small satellites and
telescopes.

As scientific understanding matures and is better communicated, BNSC
should also work with the insurance industry to enable organisations
and even entire countries to take out insurance against these risks.
This, I believe, would be the most specific involvement on the part
of the private sector. It is worth pointing out that people have
taken out insurance policies within a few hours of a hurricane
arriving in their vicinity. One can imagine what might happen if a
warning of a near earth object was issued.

In conclusion, I should emphasise that this danger highlights the
need for a more systematic and permanent arrangement for the UK
Government and Europe to monitor and co-ordinate activities to tackle
major physical dangers and to be able to do so over long periods
which may last for hundreds of years. In the United States, the
substantial policy arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration deals with these matters, as well as an involvement by
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However, in the UK
many small research and operational agencies, along with advisory
bodies such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and
the Commission on Sustainable Development need to co-ordinate their
efforts. The Government Chief Scientist works extremely hard, but no
technical co-ordination agency has been set up to prioritise and keep
under review all these major dangers. Such a body would be preferable
to another ad hoc unit, as has been advocated in the report and which
appears to be advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.

Eventually, Europe should set up a major risks agency to match the
United States equivalent. I am not at all sure–the Government have
implied this as well–that this should be passed over to a committee
of the OECD. I believe that we need to consider a new way forward.

I shall conclude by asking the Government whether they will suggest
to the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering that they
should look into the general question. Noble Lords in this House
would then have an opportunity to review their deliberations in the
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.

3.34 p.m.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, the irony of the timing of this debate
will not be lost on those noble Lords who have always accepted the
adage coined by Harold Wilson; namely, that a week is a long time in
politics. As we debate issues that should be considered in the
extreme long term, in another place Members are debating a Budget
that will have a shelf life of a year or perhaps two at the most.
Clearly, the matter of near earth objects and their effects is a
fundamentally long-term issue. Those noble Lords who have read the
report of the task force will have seen that the implications of our
debate range in time from a collision millions of years ago which
resulted in the elimination of the dinosaurs to an unknown future
scenario. On page 16, a table indicates that, if an object 16
kilometres in diameter were to hit us, it would,

"threaten[s] survival of all advanced life forms". Clearly,
this matter is serious. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned that
in certain quarters the threat is regarded as something of "a
giggle". However, it is far more important than that and is
worthy of significant debate.

Noble Lords will agree, first, that thanks are due to the noble Lord,
Lord Tanlaw, for raising this issue. Secondly, I thought that he was
extremely gracious when he commended my colleague in another place,
Lembit Opik, who has been instrumental in bringing this matter to the
attention of the Government. Thirdly, many thanks are due to the
Minister for having taken on board the implications of these issues
and for having taken seriously the recommendations now being put
forward by the Government.

I shall take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw,
that we should add a little drama to the matter by attributing names
to near earth objects. I can see that an object called an
"Opik" would have a certain Estonian resonance. I am not so
certain about a "Tanlaw", but to call a near earth object a
"Sainsbury" would give a new meaning to the name among our
shoppers.

The Government have made it clear that there has been a significant
change in their thinking on near earth objects., They have accepted,
first, that there is a recognised threat and, secondly, that surveys,
follow-up orbit and spectroscopic programmes, along with greater
scientific understanding, have a significant role to play in the
developing international programme. They have also indicated that,
later in the year, a second and more detailed announcement will be
made regarding progress in this area.

I hope that the Minister will not think that I am seeking to remove
any of the congratulations that I know he deserves if I now probe him
on a number of points that we feel should be reflected in any
subsequent statements and announcements. The key recommendation of
the task force is that an advanced 3 metre class survey telescope
should be put in place as quickly as possible. It will need to be a
first-class, state-of-the-art instrument with a long competitive life
because it will be fundamental to the exercise of forecasting. When
we next debate this issue, we shall want to know that the Government
have made significant progress in securing that telescope, which I
understand is being contemplated on an international basis. Such
progress will be absolutely vital.

As regards the government responses to the recommendations, I shall
need to introduce a slight carping note into my comments. First,
their response to recommendation 7, that the operation of the Minor
Planet Survey should be put on a "robust international
footing", will cause any noble Lord a degree of concern. I hope
that the Minister will be able to use the opportunity of our debate
today to give further assurances on that issue.

Potentially worrying too is the Government’s response to
recommendation 9, which states 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". That is obviously
bureaucratic-speak for, "What are the Government going to do to
prevent us being obliterated by near earth objects?" Anyone
reading the Government’s response would consider it to be also in
bureaucratic-speak and somewhat luke warm. I am not suggesting that
noble Lords should embark immediately on interplanetary travel to
avoid the impact. This is a serious matter and I hope that when the
Government report again a more detailed response will be given on
what exactly will happen in this area.

Recommendation 12, which relates to the British National Space
Centre, has come in for a certain amount of criticism. I am conscious
of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who
indicated that he regarded the criticisms of the BNSC as not
satisfactory. However, concern has been expressed about the BNSC. The
recommendation is that there should be a government department with
responsibility for NEOs. However, the BNSC is not, in essence, a
government department but an amalgam of different entities within
government, staffed by people who are often seconded from elsewhere.
The concern is that the BNSC would not be an adequate sponsoring
department.

I am sure that noble Lords would be absolutely delighted if the view
was taken that the Minister and his department should take on this
responsibility in response to the recommendation of the task force,
using obviously the BNSC. People are always nervous when
organisations that have representations from across Whitehall and
elsewhere are given responsibility for a particular issue. Joined-up
government does not always remain joined-up, or it cracks, and we
should be grateful for assurances from the Minister on that point.

My final point is that the task force strongly recommended that a UK
near earth object centre should be set up. This centre should be
independent of any government organisation and in a position to
assist the Government in carrying out the programme outlined in the
report. Close observers of this issue are concerned that that
recommendation is not being followed through by the Government. I
hope that when the Minister replies he will respond to that point, at
least by saying that, when he next reports to the House later in the
year, that issue will have been dealt with.

Having made what might appear to the Minister to be carping
criticisms, I return to the original congratulations which I know
everyone in the House and elsewhere feel are due to the Minister for
taking on board this issue. He has taken it seriously and has come
forward with some interesting and radical proposals.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in 1979, a large
meteorite capable of wiping out most of life on earth was detected on
a direct collision course with earth. Disaster was averted by the
collaboration of the Americans and the Soviet Union who, in a
co-ordinated effort, fired salvoes of atomic rockets at the object.
In 1998, a similar object was detected and broken up and the pieces
deflected as a result of the bravery of a crew of oil drillers who
were landed on it by space shuttle and planted a hydrogen bomb deep
under the surface.

In case any of your Lordships are wondering how you failed to read
reports in the press of these momentous–I nearly said
earth-shattering–events, perhaps I may tell you that they were the
plots of two science fiction films, respectively "Meteor"
and "Armageddon". There was another, more recent film,
"Deep Impact", which I would rather not discuss as in that
film, despite every international effort, the earth was destroyed.

But we are not discussing some fanciful piece of science fiction
hokum; we are talking about what the Minister of Science described as
"an extremely remote risk" but one which "we cannot
ignore". How remote is, of course, a matter of degree. We were
told by the Minister that,

"we are talking about once every 100,000 years for a very
serious incident". A mere 49,000 years ago a meteor left a
crater in Arizona almost three-quarters of a mile wide, just like one
on the moon. Not 100,000 years later but in 1908, during the lifetime
of many people still living, including some distinguished, still
active Members of your Lordships’ House, an object only 60
metres–three cricket pitches–across exploded five miles up in the
atmosphere and devastated 2,000 square kilometres of Siberian forest.
A few seconds more of flight and it could have exploded over
Britain.

On 7th April 1990, a house in Holland was demolished by a small
object, and on 9th October 1992 a meteorite weighing just 26 pounds
went right through the rear of a parked car, leaving a crater in the
driveway. Indeed, the definition of a "potentially dangerous
object" is one whose orbit comes within 46 million miles of
earth and is at least 160 yards in diameter. As recently as 10th
August 1998, an asteroid two miles wide passed within six hours of
the earth. That is very close in space terms.

The report lists 12 objects, ranging in size from 6 metres to 1,000
metres, that have come within 70,000 to 500,000 miles of the earth
since 1989. So far, 258 potentially dangerous objects have been
discovered. I stress "so far" because the survey is in an
early stage and is still continuing.

Should your Lordships want to see something which I regard as
frightening, I suggest that you look at the diagram on page 9 of the
report and at the almost solid line of orbits which is shown in
yellow. That shows 800 asteroids which cross the earth’s orbit and
which are potentially dangerous.

Every year 50,000 tonnes of space rock hit the earth. That is about
5.75 tonnes every hour. Of course, we are assured that most of it is
made up of space dust and small meteorites which burn up in the
atmosphere. Just as well. The thought of being struck by half a pea
travelling at 40,000 miles an hour is not something that anyone would
wish to contemplate.

Indeed, after I read the report and the Government’s response, I
wondered how I had got myself involved in this debate, but I do thank
the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for introducing it and for allowing me
to learn so much about this subject. However, before I read the
material, and not being a fan of science fiction films, I was
blissfully ignorant of what the Minister reassuringly described as
"an extremely remote risk". Now I could go to bed worrying
in case a meteor will wipe out life on earth as we know
it.

Before I leave the subject of risk, which has been eloquently
described in the report, I should like to draw your Lordships’
attention to the photographs on page 11 of the report of the asteroid
Eros. It is more than 20 miles long and eight miles wide and is
pitted with craters where other meteorites and asteroids have hit it,
one of them leaving a crater three miles in diameter. Later
photographs, taken by the spacecraft as it landed on Eros, showed the
surface littered with boulders that have struck it over the past 4.5
billion years–and Eros is a comparatively small object in space; it
is smaller than Greater London. We are lucky to have the earth’s
thick atmosphere to burn away or bounce back into space the material
which lands on us every minute.

The Minister is to be congratulated on having taken note of the
concerns of the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire, whose
astronomer grandfather had an asteroid named after him, who raised
this matter so well in an adjournment debate on 3rd March 2000. The
Minister set up the task force, the comprehensive report of which we
are debating today.

The task force makes a series of 14 recommendations, but I need not
take up your Lordships’ time by repeating them. Largely it calls for
a vastly extended network of observatories to monitor these near
earth objects, entailing co-operation between international agencies
and setting up those agencies. On the face of it, the Government’s
response is positive, at least as positive as the circumstances will
permit. The Government will review how the United Kingdom telescope
facilities can be used to identify potentially hazardous near earth
objects; setting up a facility to provide information on near earth
objects and getting the European Space Agency to convene a conference
this year to discuss Europe’s role; and getting the OECD to consider
setting up an international discussion and action forum.

I do not want to detract from the importance of the subject that we
are discussing, nor in any way to denigrate the Government’s
response. However, what we are discussing is an admittedly highly
remote possibility–a danger about which, in reality, there is
probably not very much that we can do alone, though perhaps we can do
a little more with international partners.

I should like the Minister to tell us just how much money the
Government will put into the project and what expectation there is
that other countries will contribute their share, bearing in mind
that we have shortages of funds for very urgent and real life daily
problems in areas like the health service, education and crime
prevention. Which will be the priority? How will one balance out with
another?

The report says that the USA is doing more about NEOs than the rest
of the world put together. This is, of course, due to the almost
limitless funding that Congress is prepared to give to the space
programme, coupled with the military benefits obtainable from its
satellites. I suspect that it will not be too long before someone
realises that the revived Star Wars project might also have the
civilian use of blasting meteorites out of the sky, as well as
hostile missiles.

There is, as I read the Government’s response, no promise of
immediate money, or new money, for research and observation for early
warning of these NEOs. I do not say this in any critical sense,
because I do not actually see what the Government could do on their
own without the support, both financial and technical, of
international partners, which is what recommendation 1 urged them to
seek. The Government do indeed promise discussions with various
bodies, including exploring the plans of the European Space Agency
and co-operating with NASA.

The Government’s response does in general terms accept the
recommendations of the report, but these are about observation of and
sharing information about NEOs. Having spotted them, what is to be
done about them? I am glad to see that the Government intend to
discuss the matter at the forthcoming meeting of the Inter-Agency
Debris Coordination Committee steering group–rather a long
title–because if the clutter produced when the solar system came
into existence is going to be a perpetual danger, our skies are also
full of dangerous bits and pieces left over from space exploration.
Not the least is what happens when the Russian Soyuz weighing a
couple of hundred tonnes soon falls to earth. The Russians say that
they will be able to control it, and I should like to believe them,
as I am sure is the case with all noble Lords. But I still remember
when one of their rockets went out of control in the 1980s: it fell
to earth we knew not where, until it was tracked, fortunately, to the
Australian desert.

I am also glad to see that the report will be discussed by the UN
Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer
Space. Clearly the inhibition of the use of atomic missiles in space
will have to be reviewed. The report very briefly discusses the
possibility of mitigating the consequences of an impact from a near
earth object, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, mentioned. Moving
people from areas likely to be affected by a small object could save
lives, but could not, I believe, prevent substantial damage.

However, I question whether it will be possible to determine with any
degree of accuracy where one of these things is going to land before
it is too late for anyone to do anything about it. Blowing it up, as
dramatically shown in the films that I mentioned earlier, is said to
be likely to cause even greater damage because of the proliferation
of the bits that will fly around and hit the earth. There is a
suggestion of nudging the meteor out of its dangerous orbit. I am not
clear how a small space craft would be able to nudge a large object
travelling at tens of thousands of miles an hour without suffering
fatal damage itself at the first contact. I say that as an aside,
following the experience of my husband a couple of weeks ago. He made
a very slight and very low speed contact with our garage wall,
causing the most severe damage to the aerodynamics of his front wing
but none at all to the wall!

The Government say that the United Kingdom,

"has a great deal to bring to an international approach to the
problem". They point out our strong record as a leader in the
field of astronomy, involvement in international observatories and
our technical expertise in telescope design and construction, in
small satellite technology and in what are called
"charged-coupled devices" (or CCDs), which can detect both
visible and infra-red light and produce images that can be seen on a
screen.

The world has now been alerted to a danger that was perhaps, until
quite recently, not appreciated. I am sure that the Minister will
tell us that, having regard to our national expertise, as just
mentioned, the fact that the report is the first comprehensive review
of the subject and the excellent reception that the report has
already received internationally will place us in an influential
position in the field.

In its history, Britain–Great Britain–has enjoyed a leading place
in science and scientific research. I hope that it will do so in this
case, for it may have major implications for the future of the whole
human race and, indeed, for planet earth itself.

The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord
Sainsbury of Turville):
My Lords, I should like to begin by
congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on securing this debate
on the work of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth
Objects. While the chances of a major incident are very remote, this
is a serious issue and one where the UK, with our considerable
expertise, should give an international lead.

The noble Lord takes a close interest in these matters as chairman of
the All-Party Parliamentary Astronomy and Space Environment Group. He
first brought the issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House in
a Question that he tabled in June 1999. In the subsequent discussion,
I emphasised the importance of taking this topic forward on an
international basis. The issue was also brought to Parliament’s
attention in another place by Lembit Opik MP in March 1999. Since
then, Mr Opik has continued to work with his characteristic
enthusiasm to bring the topic into the mainstream. I should reiterate
the point already made by the noble Baroness that there is already an
asteroid called "The Opik", which I believe was named after
his grandfather, from whom he derives his interest. I believe that a
"Razzall", though not a "Sainsbury", would be a
very attractive name for an asteroid.

The Government’s international approach to the issue was evinced by
the leading role played by the UK in the resolution of the Vienna
Declaration on Space and Human Development. This was agreed at a
special meeting of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space in July 1999. The resolution urged that action should be taken
to improve the international co-ordination of activities related to
near earth objects, harmonising world efforts directed at
identification and follow-up and orbit prediction.

In view of the importance attached to the issue by the Government and
others, I announced on 4th January 2000 the setting up of a Task
Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects. The task force was
charged with confirming the nature of the hazard and potential levels
of risk, identifying the current contribution to international
efforts and advising the Government on what further action to take in
the light of them. The task force, consisting of Sir Crispin Tickell
and Professor David Williams, under the distinguished chairmanship of
Dr Harry Atkinson, reported on 18th September 2000. I believe that
the standard and depth of the discussion we have just heard is a
reflection of the quality of the report of the task force.

It is only over the past decade that the significance of near earth
objects in our earth’s history has begun to be understood. Since its
formation, our world has been bombarded by comets and asteroids,
ranging in size from those that are smaller than pebbles to lumps of
rock measuring kilometres across. Hundreds of tonnes of space dust
enter our atmosphere on a daily basis. The larger pieces of grit can
be seen burning up in our atmosphere as spectacular shooting stars.
Indeed, this is what happens to by far the greater proportion of the
asteroids that encounter the earth–they burn up harmlessly, as the
noble Baroness rightly pointed out, in our atmosphere. We have a
defence against most asteroids provided for us by nature.

So what is the risk of a major incident? The long-term risk of dying
as a consequence of a near earth object impact is estimated at around
one in 25,000 per person. As a crude statistical average, this
amounts to about the same level of risk as that of dying in a plane
crash. However, it is worth remembering that that risk is of a very
different nature to those that are more familiar. In the case of
comets and asteroids we are talking about very infrequent events
involving huge numbers of people. Plane crashes are, tragically, a
relatively–I stress the word "relatively"–frequent
occurrence, with, by comparison, a relatively small number of
fatalities. There are, in fact, no confirmed instances in recent
history of death by an asteroid or meteor impact, save for an unlucky
dog in North Africa in 1911.

There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence about past
incidents that had a major effect and which, had they occurred at the
present time, would have resulted in a huge number of fatalities.
Because of the nature of this risk, it is difficult to make a case
for large extra funds to be made available for this area. I say to
the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I find it hard to see how one could
obtain private funds for this field. I can envisage only two
circumstances in that regard: a situation where there is no disaster
and therefore the publicity value is rather small and a disaster
situation when people may not want a lot of publicity for their
products. Therefore, I do not think we can look to private funds,
which even in the case of Beagle 2 have not been large.

My role as Minister for Science is to seek a balance between the
overreaction which could be induced by the thought of "global
killer" asteroids and any complacency arising from the rarity of
such impacts. The level of threat which I have just described is very
much an estimate. We do not know for certain how many objects are out
there. Of those that have been discovered, not all the orbits are
known accurately. We cannot be sure of the frequency with which they
will hit us. Without a better understanding of the nature and level
of the threat, any attempt to devise a measured response will be
hampered by the paucity of our knowledge.

However, what we can be certain of is that if an asteroid or comet is
heading towards us, it is essential that we know as soon as possible
so as to assess its likely effects and the range of possible options
in response. That is why the whole question of monitoring is of the
utmost importance. The question was raised as to what the response
would be and whether there would be a response. There certainly could
be sensible responses. It might, for instance, be feasible in the
case of a small asteroid or comet, perhaps impacting into a distant
ocean, to move people away from the area likely to be affected, for
example, by tidal waves. In the case of a larger potential impact we
would need to consider deflection. I say in answer to the point made
by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about deflection, that useful work
relevant to these circumstances is already under way. The US near
Shoemaker mission to Eros recently dramatically demonstrated the
capability to rendezvous with, and land on, an asteroid. Data from
that mission suggest that Eros has a rather loose structure, which is
obviously relevant to any consideration of how to push it to one
side.

Future missions such as the US Deep Impact Project will determine the
composition of the comet by firing a probe at it to see what flies up
from the large crater on its surface. This test will also show the
possibilities for deflection. I think, however, it is well to
remember in this context the comments of the science fiction writer,
Carl Sagan, who acknowledged in a letter to the journal Nature that
the development of asteroid deflection technology at this time would
be premature and that, in the light of well established human frailty
and fallibility, may introduce a new category of danger that dwarfs
that posed by near earth objects themselves. It is worth remembering
that that would be a difficult matter to assess.

One of the principal conclusions of the report of the Task Force on
Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects is that we need to know more
about such matters. I very much agree. I also agree with the noble
Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that the key issue is monitoring and
making certain that the monitoring is accurate. I am not sure that at
this point we need to do any more work on the consequences of such
events as I think that they would be disastrous in almost all
circumstances.

The Government’s response to the task force’s report was published on
24th February and a variety of work is now being taken forward in
this area. Several of the task force’s recommendations concerned
adapting telescope facilities to which the UK has access to find,
track and characterise near earth objects. The Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council has undertaken to analyse costed options
for how these recommendations could best be implemented.

In particular, the decision announced by the Secretary of State on
21st November 2000 that the UK intends to join the European Southern
Observatory will both allow the UK access to a variety of telescopes
in the southern hemisphere and also free up existing facilities for
new uses. I look forward very much to the completion of the PPARC’s
report later this year.

I say in answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and
the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that we have no extra
funds for these activities. They will have to compete with the
activities which we already undertake in the field of space and
astronomy. It is worth making the point that we spend considerable
sums on astronomy. In that context it seems not inappropriate to
direct a modest amount to determine whether any asteroid or comet
could endanger us.

My reference to the European Southern Observatory leads me on to the
importance of the wider astronomical and international community in
this issue. If any issue could be said to be truly global, it is the
threat to the earth from near earth objects. An asteroid does not
discriminate in its choice of landing site and all countries are in
this together. I am therefore convinced that an international
approach to this problem is essential. We all need to play our part.
However, I believe that the UK, by capitalising on the favourable
international reception of the task force’s report, can play a
leading role in encouraging other nations’ and organisations’
involvement in combating this threat.

Certainly the task force’s report has stimulated activity within
Europe. The European Space Agency has undertaken to convene a meeting
to discuss a common European approach to the near earth objects
issue. It has specified the capabilities of two future space
missions, which will include the ability to discover and track
potentially hazardous asteroids. The European Science Foundation and
the European Southern Observatory are keen to contribute to this
discussion. By the end of this year I hope to see a plan in place as
to how Europe can best contribute to international efforts in this
area.

Here in the UK we shall also be setting up improved arrangements to
deal with near earth objects. As recommended by the task force, a
single government department will take the lead in near earth object
policy. The British National Space Centre has considerable expertise
in this area and a partnership structure bringing together all other
interested parties within government. I therefore believe that it is
appropriate for it to take the role as lead unit within government on
this topic. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the
British National Space Centre is just a post-box. In fact, it is a
very effective body which brings together the many bodies which have
an interest in space. It is an early and extremely good example of
joined-up government.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, that I do not think
that there is a need for co-ordination with other bodies; what we
need is co-ordination of all the bodies which have an interest in
space, which range from defence to the Meteorological Office and the
astronomy community, so that we can deal effectively with this
particular body. I say that because the disasters which have been
mentioned are all of a different kind. We need to focus on the ones
which particularly relate to space.

I also concur with the view expressed by the task force that there is
a need for some kind of facility to provide clear and balanced
information to the public on near earth objects. Reporting of this
issue can range from the alarmist to the derisive. To counter this
the Government plan to set up a facility whose role would be to act
as a showcase for the public on near earth object issues. The
facility should provide a clear and objective introduction to the
topic and in the process further the Government’s wider aim of
increasing public understanding of topical science issues. I do not
think we should simply decide that one body, even if it is as
distinguished as the one at Armagh, should do this job. It would be
better to introduce competition. We should seek advice not from one
body but from all the best experts around the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, raised the question of funding of the
Minor Planet Center. We welcome the work of that body in identifying
and cataloguing near earth objects. We shall work with the European
Space Agency, NASA and the International Astronomical Union to find a
sound financial basis for the centre. Again, there has to be an
international sharing of the costs.

I stated earlier that I believe that my role as Minister for Science
responsible for the near earth objects issue is to steer a course
between overreaction to exaggerated threat and complacent inactivity.
I believe that the Government’s balanced response to the task force’s
comprehensive and objective report achieves that. The chairman of the
task force, Dr Harry Atkinson, has said that he welcomes the general
thrust of the Government’s response to the recommendations of the
task force which represents a major breakthrough for the UK. Lembit
Opik, who has been instrumental in raising public and parliamentary
awareness of the topic, is quoted as saying that the Government’s
response,

"puts the UK at the forefront of asteroid avoidance. This is a
very exciting time for British science in general, and British
astronomy in particular". I can assure the House that the
Government attach the highest importance to taking this work forward.
The task force’s report has already achieved one of its objectives by
acting as a catalyst for international action. I look forward to the
UK working with its international partners in combating the threat to
our fragile planet of objects from space.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken
part in the debate; and I thank the Cross-Bench Members for their
support in allowing me to introduce the debate. It has been an
interesting discussion. It would not be correct to say that it has
been wide ranging; it has been completely focused on the subject. The
debate has been educational to me and, I am sure, helpful. We must
address this subject. The Minister for Science has reassured us that
the subject is in good hands. Many of us would hope that if, God
forbid, a near earth object were on a collision course for earth we
would have someone as sensible as the present Minister for Science to
tell us how to avoid it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the
Motion.

Motion
for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NEO News 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@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.

SpaceRef staff editor.