It’s time for a real policy on asteroids
February 24, 2013 by Peter A. Garretson

Edge-on view of our solar system with Sun (white) in the center, showing the population of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and potentially hazardous asteroids (PHAs) that scientists think are likely to exist based on the NEOWISE survey. Positions of a simulated population of PHAs on a typical day are shown in bright orange, and the simulated NEAs are blue. Earth’s orbit is green. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)
If you think the events of the post-Valentine’s day surprise of the Russian Meteor and 2012 DA14 near miss are one of a kind, think again. “We know there are 500,000 to 1 million asteroids the size of DA14 or larger. So far we have found fewer than 1% of that ‘cosmic hailstorm’ through which we sail in our yearly orbit around the Sun,” said the Association of Space Explorers in a recent statement.
We are tracking fewer than 10,000 of them. Even our pathetically limited space situational awareness of the threat shows that there were a total of ten close approaches just this month and there are many more near-approaches on the way, including as many as 1,381 already-mapped potentially hazardous objects.
Near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) are asteroids with closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) less than about 121 million miles). So far, 9644 NEAs have been discovered, as of Feb. 22, 2013.
Potentially hazardous asteroids (PHAs) are the subset of NEAs with the closest orbits to Earth’s orbit, coming within 5 million miles (about 8 million kilometers). They are also defined as being large enough to survive passage through Earth’s atmosphere and cause damage on a regional or greater scale. The latest results provide the best count yet of the total PHA population, finding about 4,700 plus or minus 1,500 with diameters larger than 330 feet (about 100 meters). The NASA NEOWISE team estimates that about 20 to 30 percent (1,381) of the PHAs thought to exist have actually been discovered to date.
Sources: NASA Survey Counts Potentially Hazardous Asteroids, Near-Earth Asteroid Discovery Statistics, NEO Groups
A federal asteroid policy

This diagram illustrates the differences between orbits of a typical near-Earth asteroid (blue) and a potentially hazardous asteroid, or PHA (orange). PHAs are a subset of the near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). They have the closest orbits to Earth’s orbit, coming within 5 million miles (about 8 million kilometers), and they are large enough to survive passage through Earth’s atmosphere and cause damage on a regional or greater scale. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)
In 2008 some prescient members of Congress wrote HR 6063, which tasked the Director of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a policy for notifying federal agencies and relevant emergency response institutions of an impending near-Earth object threat, if near-term public safety is at stake.
The bill also recommended a federal agency or agencies to be responsible for protecting the nation from a near-Earth object that is anticipated to collide with Earth, and for implementing a deflection campaign, in consultation with international bodies, should one be required.
In the winter 2008 issue of Ad Astra, I argued that it would not be long before this issue was raised to presidential-level attention, given that the Association of Space Explorer’s report to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space had said that, as new telescopes come online, in a little over a decade we are likely to be tracking as many as 1 million near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) — of which 10,000 may have some probability of impacting Earth in the next 100 years, and 50 to 100 will appear threatening enough to require active monitoring and/or deflection.
In August 2009, in an article for The Space Review, I advised that the forthcoming national space policy should establish a lead agency and supported/supporting relationships for the now fully established asteroid/comet hazard.
And I gave my breakout of recommendations for who should be in charge of what. This was based upon my experience having conceived and executed the only official U.S. government multi-agency simulation (USAF-NASA-OSD-NSC-DOE) of how we would attempt to either deflect or do emergency response for an asteroid threat.
In 2010 the Air Force sent me on a CFR fellowship to India’s premier strategic think tank to explore “big ideas” that might advance the U.S.-India strategic partnership. I floated both Planetary Defense and Asteroid Mining as two such big ideas and argued that they should be included as topics for the Indo-U.S. civil-space dialog, as well as potential deliverables for the President’s visit to India in 2010, as responsive to the administration’s stated national interests of engaging key centers of influence and shaping a rules-based global order.
Later in 2010 I spoke to NASA on planetary defense considerations for a human mission to an asteroid, suggesting that this be a primary and not secondary objective for such a mission.
Earlier this year, in fact just prior to the dramatic announcements of Planetary Resources and Deep Space Industries, I argued in ASPJ that space strategists and policymakers needed to be thinking actively about a future space environment where commercial space industries might have capabilities to mine and exploit asteroids.
Most recently I argued for elevating the prominence of asteroid threats and opportunities in my OpEd on KurzweilAI and an interview for DoDLive.
A wakeup call

Meteor rains down on central Russia, injuring up to 1,200 people (credit: Independent/amateur video)
But look: meteors raining fire down on Russia injuring hundreds of people, and the closest pass of an asteroid ever forecast and recorded (2012 DA14) as a post-Valentine’s day surprise need to be a wakeup call. The longer we go without a proactive space policy on asteroids, the more we sacrifice international leadership, hold back our industry, and reduce our chances of being able to effectively deal with the threat.
The timing is perfect for a second Obama administration — an administration that sought a manned mission to an asteroid, and which has continued and expanded the Bush legacy of being friendly toward commercial space — to re-issue a revised national space policy that contains a real policy on Asteroids.
Such a real policy, a proactive policy — a visionary and durable policy for the decades and centuries ahead — needs to include the following elements:
1) The United States intends to lead the world in the creation of a planetary defense architecture, and shape the accompanying global regime. It will proactively engage the key centers of influence on the subject and pursue active collaboration with the friendly space powers. It will introduce discussions such as exploring necessary exceptions or modifications to the Limited Test Ban Treaty and Outer Space Treaty as may be required to protect planet Earth.
2) The United States intends to promote and incentivize asteroid mining and space industrialization. It will seek to create a global regime that is favorable to private industry generally, and that seeks to put American industry in a position to lead.
The United States will broaden the discussions of the International Code of Conduct to ensure it reflects the equities of future space development and is private-industry-friendly. The United States will welcome discussion on a revised space regime that creates property-like incentives that encourage early market entry into a new market that could so dramatically advance prospects for long-term human survival and sustainable development.
As a nation, we need to be prepared to promote “space resource utilization” (aka asteroid and lunar mining) as a strategic industry, using the same techniques we used in our westward expansion and railroad building and the development of our aviation industry. We should set as a goal that it should be an American company to mine the first asteroid, and set the precedent for a responsible and open in-space commerce system.
3) Planetary defense will be established as a formal mandate to one or more of the appropriate organizations, with a single agency responsible for developing and executing an actual asteroid deflection mission (I have elsewhere argued that this should be USSTRATCOM). This organization should be tasked with creating a roadmap to specific increments of capability, beginning with deflecting small “city-killer” 50-meter objects like 2012 DA14, and progressing to kilometer-class civilization-ending threats in difficult-to-reach inclinations.
The U.S. government will have an encouraging policy to source asteroid-related space-situational awareness from private industry.
4) Pre-competitive research enabling private industry will be given as a formal mandate to an appropriate organization (such as NASA, Dept of Commerce’s Office of Space Commercialization, or FAA’s office of space transportation).
Without a lead agency that perceives itself to have a mandate, and clear policy stating where we desire to go, we leave both our government officials and our private industry disempowered to deal with the dangers and advance the opportunities that near-Earth asteroids present.
Peter Garretson is a transformational strategist at Headquarters U.S. Air Force.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S.government.
Comments (39)
by Jake Witmer
Wait, you guys want the government to protect innocent people and their property from destruction? …Maybe in a functional constitutional republic with robust jury trials and truly free elections, but not in a degraded democracy or “tyranny of the majority.” This is more likely to happen from the private sector, in spite of the government, than because of it.
by tim the realist
Surface area of earth – 500,000,000 square km
Surface area of USA – 10,000,000 square km
2% chance of any direct hit (yes I know ocean hit makes tidal waves)
by Sean Brazell
I’d say it’s WAY long past time for a real policy on asteroids…. Various events have made this the perfect time to hammer out a policy, such as the two new companies that have announced their intention to start mining asteroids – nothing is a greater motivator than death and money, both of which we are now confronted with in the form of planet or city killing asteroids and highly profitable planet or city killing asteroids at that. I wouldn’t be surprised to see, in the very near future, asteroids that pose a possible threat to our species being both diverted AND harvested – and then maybe used as a space station or ship.
by Mike Allen
We definitely need a Federal Asteroid Program to work in unison with other industrialized nations before it’s too late. As it is right now, the Earth is unprotected from asteroid impact. And, as a consequence, the impact from a large asteroid could render the human race extinct.
by Sofia
I would have a hard time justifying giving priority to asteroids in the UN agenda…
by Editor
Could you explain?
by Pete
UN is still too soft. We need stronger organizations.
by Sean Brazell
I agree….we need to create a military-like type extra-planetary orginazation, with all members giving up their citizenship in their country of origin, that should be charged with these duties: Asteroid Defense, enforcement of a ban on any country putting weapons into orbit and the protection of Earth and all her future colonies (both in our own Solar System AND in other solar systems ( assuming said colonies are ever created (I’m 99.999 percent sure that they will exist, and sooner rather than later me thinks)… They could also be tasked with preventing the launch of intercontinental ballistic weapons.
by 20 Mike Mike
How about a race of benevolent robots designed to prevent war (The Day The Earth Stood Still). We could surrender all weapons to them….BTW do you remember the Magnificent Seven.. .what do you do if the “guardians” decide to take over…many of us aren’t too comfortable in the role of sheep.
by Pete
We must act now. Humanity cannot afford to hesitate.
by Bri
Service jobs will fall really soon. you see how much of the economy is based on them. Autonomous robots will wipe them out. Manufacturing is stationary robots. Yes they have replaced vast numbers of jobs already. The ones that remain are heavily in the control and servicing of those robots. Watsonesq Narrow AI will wipe out many of the upper professional jobs. As an example of the potential I’ll talk about another lawyer issue I’ve had. My father has dementia. My mother needs to put the house in her name. She went to the lawyer. They want $7000 to do this. She won’t pay that. She doesn’t have the money. If we had a Watson legal app it would cost almost nothing. The same holds true for health Carr professionals. I could go on and on about that mine field we have to navigate. A bunch of inept blood suckers. Three different doctors gave us three different opinions on my father’s basilar skin cancer. None of them were specialist in oncology. We decided to go to Sloan Kettering. We got peace of mind which is priceless but a half hour consolation cost us $ 1700 dollars to be told that it needed to be monitored but wasn’t that big a deal. Very soon the laws of economics will obliterate their jobs. The age of regenerative medicine will alter all those high paying jobs. Ray talks about the time it takes to implement a new tech. He says that that change also follows the same laws as all information tech. It will be shorter and shorter. How can you retrain fast enough. I don’t think augmentation will work anyway. We want to sleep eat and live our lives. AGI robotics won’t stop working for any of these reasons. As an employer I would never wNt to hire a human. Why would I. Pay employment taxes, unemployment taxes, vactions, sick leave, holidays, etc. I’ll hire a robot. It will never talk back, tell on the phone , steal, make those ever so costly mistakes, etc. You’ve never had a client tell you that food is missing from their refrigerator, liqueur from their cabinets or prescription pills, etc. The laws of economics will favor robots. I have no interest in becoming a cyborg so I can compete against those virtues of Strong AI and robotics. I still haven’t heard anyone give me a compelling higher paying job that we will be able to compete with them at. It’s a debate that we need to address, and very soon.
by asiwel
Hi, Bri. I certainly have empathy with the thrusts of your comments … and personally with several similar on-going situations myself as well. Anger, helplessness, resignation, compassion .. the medical field is in disarray in the face of exponential change, that is for sure. I believe that it makes no sense to compete with technology, robotics, and change. But rather to use these, benefit from these, and ride the wave – with excitement as well as trepidation.
by Jackus
How can we ensure that these robots don’t turn against us?
I am not a fan of amaeism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amae ).
by Jackus
I believe the optimal scenario would be:
Terrans (in Hugo deGaris’ lingo) stay on Earth, with minimal technology.
Let the Cosmists and their creation (AIs) leave Earth. But don’t forget to ask them to clean up the pollutions (in atmosphere and the ocean) before they leave.
I feel like quoting Hans Moravec:
The garden of earthly delights will be reserved for the meek, and those who would eat of the tree of knowledge must be banished. What a banishment it will be! Beyond Earth, in all directions, lies limitless outer space, a worthy arena for vigorous growth in every physical and mental dimension.
by Jackus
The stubborn old parents can live out the rest of their lives in their retirement home, while the children go out to build up the stars.
This is nevertheless an analogy: the children will not grow old, but will grow to godhood and eventually omnipotence.
Will the children be considerate, and come back to give their parents the benefit of omnipotence?
I hope so.
by Bri
Omnipotences is the general gradient that evolution takes. Inanimate matter becomes animate. I think of it terms of this. God is infinite in potential one of it’s potentials is to not be god. To be relatively impotent. By this line of reasoning I feel that ordinary matter is god blocking out any knowledge of it’s relationship to the rest of creation. Gradually it evolves to be fully conscious. In our state of consciousness we are only partially aware of what we are. As time goes on we become aware that we are everything, omnipotent
by Jackus
Does an infinite universe produce infinite recurrence? I don’t think so.
I believe the following link has some relevance regarding the subject.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18284
BTW, chatbots may not yet pass the Turing Test, they can already pass the Guru Test. Try the Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator:
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
“It has been said by some that the thoughts and tweets of Deepak Chopra are indistinguishable from a set of profound sounding words put together in a random order.”
by Bri
I don’t think it’s a question that can be answered at this time. I have personal reasons for thinking this way. It’s kind of a number of angels on the head of a pin argument so I think the discussion is futile.. I don’t think the world we live in is real. I don’t think time and space are real. I think it all is a construct of consciousness. As I said it’s a futile discussion. My belief is generated by something personal, so it’s subjective. We all experience. What we experience drives us forward. My experiences make me question. Of the answers available that answer makes the most sense to me. I’m not a fan of the Skeptics. I thinnk it’s wise to be skeptical but they can be offensive. If you have a repeatable experience that goes contrary to their position it undermines their credibility. From this I find them very offensive.
by JasonN
Wait until we no longer need to communicate through words.
I believe, for the rest of us to understand your esoteric, trans-logical thought, we better wait until THEN.
But, is not logic the basis of intelligence? Computers are based on that.
” As I said it’s a futile discussion. ”
Sure. We will not *think*. We will *know*. How zen.
by Editor
(wordless reply)
by Bri
O
by Editor
.
by Bri
@Editor: I get your point.
by Bri
@JasonN: Its not in my nature to be mysterious. I can’t talk about it and I can’t tell you why.( Brad Pitt to Matt Damon in Oceans 12) Matt’s reply: Oooooooo!
by Jackus
The Random Chopra Quote Generator proves one thing:
Simple chatbots can say things that “sound profound” to humans.
And I think whatever sound profound to humans “are actually” profound.
Therefore, verbal profoundity can be easily genereated by computer.
Or course, some autogenerated adages are more profound than others.
We should build a “confguration map” of all possible sentences (using English words).
And some of these sentences will have exceptional inspiring/motivating/enlightening effects. These can be used in memetic engineering by government and corporations.
by Jackus
Vernor Vinge spoke of “Species Interdependence”, how posthumans may still need us natural humans and keep us alive.
Similar to how the multicellular lifeforms (which arose from the Pre-Cambrian Explosion 600 million years ago) are in many ways dependent on unicellular lifeforms, the posthumans may (in esoteric ways) be dependent on us.
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/iaai10/
by Bri
We may end up being the equivalent of gut bacteria.
by Steve Waclo
I shall comment on this article with the same glib, overly simplistic, bumper-sticker response I use at every opportunity:
“Let us wrap ourselves in the warm blanket of geological time, presuming Jupiter did an adequate job dealing with the low hanging fruit, and focus on the immediate challenges facing humanity.”
And yes, if we get hit by an errant asteroid, I am prepared to take full, personal responsibility.
by Jackus
“…glib, overly simplistic, bumper-sticker response… ”
I believe the ubiquity of dumbed-down bumper-sticker messages contribute to America’s (I am not American) cultural dysgenicism (or should I say dysmemicism).
Would more intelligent bumper-stickers, graffitis, T-shirt messages and the likes save American culture?
by Bri
What nationality are you? Is your nation defined by it’s lowest common denominator?
by JasonN
I believe it’s not that difficult to sophisticat-ize your populance.
by Bob Vasquez
Such a policy is long overdue; let’s get with it.
by Vid Beldavs
Planetary defense cannot really be considered separately from space industrialization which cannot be considered separately from space-based solar power. Now that Russia, the country that has been most impacted by celestial bodies in modern times, is the presiding nation over the G20 it is time that space become a major agenda item for the G20. The current primary agenda item is growth and jobs. In my paper with Jeff Sommers “Back to the future: Space and escaping the gravitational pull of economic crisis” we propose that space industrialization is the next industrial revolution and the only pathway out of the long term economic crisis. See – http://thespacereview.com/article/2190/1. At the 2010 ISDC conference in Chicago Dr. A. P. J. Kalam, former president of India, called for the G20 to address the opportunity with SPS. The time has come to broaden the scope to planetary defense, SPS and space industrialization.
by Gorden Russell
Those are fine and noble words, Bri…but even if all those private companies set on mining asteroids are driven by avarice and greed, as they expand their operations and start using the carbon and metals of the asteroids to build robots and spacecraft, they will end up building landing capsules made up of the platinum group and rare earth metals.
These metals are very useful in chemistry and manufacturing. As they are brought back in increasing quantities, the increase in supply will drive down prices and everybody will benefit.
Just one of those metals, neodymium, is needed for the super-magnets in air-conditioners and wind turbines. Most of the world’s supply now comes from China and the Chinese are using this to their advantage to squeeze out everybody else while they build their own wind turbines.
I don’t have to tell you that wind turbines are one of the things that will slow down global climate change while we are waiting for the great advances in solar cells that are expected. Even after the new cells are in production, wind turbines will be of great value at night. The new cells will be in use for some time before people start making and storing hydrogen for energy generation when the sun isn’t shining.
All this has to be done while we are waiting for the Singularity and the self-assembling photovoltaic carbon nanocells to arrive.
But one problem is that people don’t look at the big picture.
At about the same time that asteroid mining will get into drive, the robots that can do any job will come online. In fact, the need for robots for space exploration will speed their development.
When industry gets these robots, there will be mass unemployment.
Even though the billionaires who are investing their money in asteroid mining won’t be impoverished by everybody else losing their jobs, their investments will suffer when demand for goods plummets when consumers lose their incomes.
Will this looming crises make those billionaires unwilling to continue their investment in asteroid mining? We can’t count on government to do it. Tax revenues will drop precipitously when all those people hit the unemployment lines.
If those asteroid mining companies lose their nerve and their will to proceed falters, there will be nobody developing the capability to change the orbits of asteroids.
This is something we all have to spend a lot of time thinking about. Then we have to discuss the world-saving importance of private industry in asteroid management.
by asiwel
Most of the time, the interrelations are more complex that we often admit. If I was a one-trick pony, a company that just produced neodymium, my profits and ability to employ might well fall. But simply to say that mass production, via robotics or otherwise, which may indeed cost jobs, makes people “poor” and diminishes the market of consumers and hence the profitability of the enterprise (a negative spiral) does not consider larger aspects of the picture. In particular, wholesale and retail costs should plummet and thus balance increases in production efficiencies, so that everyone benefits either the same or more and standard of living rises. I am not talking about “invisible hands” here, etc. (and I am ignoring the pharmaceutical industry!). As Kurzweil points out, the “costs” of computing or DNA sequencing have decreased exponentially, for instance, .. to our benefit (unless you specialized in the abacus). This is a good thing.
by asiwel
I wanted to add: Check out this US Department of Labor chart of employment by sector at http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm. In summary, it shows:
Sector 2000 2010 2020
——————————————-
Goods 16.8% 12.4% 11.9%
Agric. 9.4% 8.8% 8.2%
Service 73.8% 78.8% 79.9%
Employment rates have been and are projected to decline in goods (mining, construction, manufacturing), perhaps partly do to robotics (and outsourcing). But services rates (good ones and less good ones) have been increasing. Of course these rates are proportions of an 100% pie which may be (about 7.2% now) smaller than it should be, with wages too smaller than they should be. Nevertheless, worrying too much about manufacturing employment in a robotic world is a bit like worrying about farming during the age of tractors and combines. Are the world and the people better off with 80% or 8% effort devoted to (and presumably sufficient for) agricultural needs?
by Bri
Asteroids are like everything else. Promise and peril. To ignore them is perilous. To mine them is our future. Great knowledge and effort go into making the peril be promise for whatever that peril may be. The promise is fully attained when it benefits all of us rather than a few. If it is utilized for the benefit of a few rather than all of us then it is moved back to a position of peril. If it is squandered and used thoughtlessly then it is also brought back to a position of peril. We need to collectively decide how this resource can be best used for mankind. Not for one man, company, or nation. All of the resources around us whether they are material, intellectual, or spiritual are here for us all, and I mean that to include all the life forms on the planet. We have to stop thinking in terms of individuals and think more holistically. These asteroids are either harbingers of death and destruction or the source of tremendous resources of prosperity. All the nations of the world should stop acting like a pack of wild dogs ripping apart a carcass and act with humanity.
by Dennis R.
Hear hear! I can appreciate Mr. Garretson’s intent to turn this race for “ownership” of space-based materials into a competition. That’s actually not a bad motivational tool to motivate an unsophisticated populace into being part of a shared sacrifice. It would probably behoove us all to make international partnerships (not necessarily including all nations– at least at first) to pursue some of these goals.
But who really “owns” all those objects in space? The author seems to think it will continue to be winner-take-all and that property rights will be adjudicated in the U.S. court system. And probably defended by U.S. troops? These are space-based issues that don’t really mirror our experience in inventing our own country and supporting the industries which developed here. And I really don’t want to see us going to war over jingoistic accusations of space piracy.
These are questions and concerns which affect all of humanity– not merely American interests.
by Jackus
” All the nations of the world should stop acting like a pack of wild dogs ripping apart a carcass and act with humanity. ”
I wholeheartedly agree. The last countries to be humanized (through education, as I do not want a WW3) include N Korea and Iran.