15 thoughts on “The Geopolitical Problems”

  2. To me, if you exclude a modified Nuclear Device from the definition of Weapon, you may not need a modification to the Treaty.

  3. This is very much one of those situations where I am comfortable having the USA saying “Be part of the process, or get frozen out of the process.” The USA has NO interest in asteroids hitting Earth. Even if it were aimed right at Pyongyang we have greater interests than those political ones.

    Just Do It. Be inclusive to anyone who wants to help or even just receive status reports, but don’t wait up either. I’m not willing to bet the survival of the species on cooling our heels while Hugo Chavez gets his sanity on.

  5. Rand,

    Two points. The Test Ban Treaty prohibits the testing of nuclear devices in space. It could be easily argued that using one or more nucelar devices to deflect/destroy a NEO is not a test. Second. Article 51 provides for self-defense. Although its intended to allow nations wide latitude to protect administered arm invasions it could be argued that it also provides in spirit for national defense from natural threats as well.

    Tom

  6. In my opinion, any delays caused, or even contemplated, over treaty legalities when faced with an asteroid impact would be so ludicrous as to offer irrefutable proof that the asteroid is the least of our problems.

    If we, as a species, are truly that bereft of common sense, and so prove it under those circumstances, going the way of the dinosaurs is probably the least bad option.

  7. I think some are missing the point that there are some people that would use the threat of species extinction for political gain. Political horsetrading on the international scale is not to be dismissed lightly. Roughly things of the nature, “You will restore our 1943 territories, release this long list of ‘political’ prisoners, and pay 200 billion in reparations if you believe this is a real threat and need me to sign here.” I don’t do political, but properly worded statements like that wouldn’t surprise me.

  8. The flip side of this is that any technology developed to move asteroids etc… is a weapon. Find a small rock that will cause a little local mayhem and re-target it to ….Pyongyang or Tehran… or East Angelica 😉

  9. I dont’ understand… how is there ANY *legal* liability.

    Asteroid is on impact path –>

    1. Deflection occurs
    No impact –> big sigh of relief &
    Whiners about not being consulted get invited to STFU.

    OR

    2. Impact –> whiners about not being consulted get invited to STFU, because we got real problems, not legal ones.

  10. “It’s going to be slowly dragged across the Earth. That is a binary decision,” Schweickart said. “You don’t have the option of dragging it down through the Antarctic.”

    We don’t? Why not? Please pardon my lack of nuance re the physics of this problem.

    I understand that by “drag” they’re talking about likely impact site in the event the maneuver fails midway through correction, but why does the change of course have to be on an east-west line rather than north-south?

  11. NEOs orbit in the plane of the ecliptic. The easiest way to divert a potentially hazardous one is to change its orbital period by a small amount, either slowing it or speeding it up.

    As the orbital period changes, the Earth rotates beneath the impact point, moving the instantaneous impact point across the globe from east to west.

    To divert to Antarctica from, let’s say Singapore, involves an orbital plane change. Orbital plane changes are not impossible, just energetically vastly more difficult.

  12. Hi All,

    The problem I always have with propose Asteroid deflect plans is they treat it more like a mission with a ‘magic bullet” then a campaign. You Don’t plan for a single attempt to alter its course. You prepare for multiple attempts. If the first fails you go forward with attempt two, if that fails you do attempt three. And so on. Until you run out of launch vehicles.

    Same if you are worried the NEO will break apart. Fine, there are now multiple parts to the NEO. They won’t come together instantly so you plan to take advantage of it by moving the smaller pieces into new orbits individually on subsequent mission. If you put a big enough nuke in the middle of a rock pile you might even given the majority of the pieces enough energy to miss the planet with the first blast. But again, it needs to be seen as a campaign with multiple missions and flexibility to respond to failures.

    In the old MIT Icarus Project study (1968) they had six attempts scheduled if I recalled, paced in the ability to build and launch the Saturn V boosters that were key to the project. They understood the idea of multiple attempts.

    One of the changes it seems society, or at least the space community, has gone through since the Apollo days seems to be a lack of consideration of and preparation for mission failures. When Ranger 1 failed they sent Ranger 2 to the Moon, then 3 and 4, and so on until one finally worked. That is an attitude we need to get back into space mission planning especially for NEO defense.

    BTW I like the idea someone suggested of painting it to make it reflect more of the Sun’s light to change its orbit. Even if the change is minor the increase visibility would make targeting it with additional missions easier. Also changes in reflectivity would provide good feedback on their effectiveness. I would see painting the target to be the first mission to follow a recon of it.

  13. I keep wondering about the potential overlap of solar collector- based SPS systems and using the same collectors focused on an asteroid.

    You start with the increased visibility, you have raw “light pressure” effects, and if sufficiently focused you should be ablating material. Additionally, it is a continuous effect, and you could have more than one.

  15. The cost of a dedicated detection program would be dwarfed by what’s already spent on public health programs. There’s no good reason to expect a deflection technology to cost an arm and a leg either. And since very early detection vastly reduces the demands, and so the cost, of deflection, it makes plenty of sense to spend some shillings on this, a known threat which is within our abilities to do something proactive about.

Comments are closed.