One of the major events during last month’s International Space Development Conference in Washington was a presentation by former Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart about a potential impact hazard posed by 2004 MN4, a near Earth object (NEO). (I have a detailed summary of his presentation, and responses from a couple other experts who also spoke at the conference, in this week’s issue of The Space Review.) The purpose of his talk and paper was to make two recommendations to Congress: have it ask the National Research Council to review the threat posed by this particular NEO, and also have the NRC study and recommend which government agency should have responsibility for NEO impact mitigation measures.
Wired News reports Wednesday that Schweickart has found some support for his recommendations from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Rohrabacher said that he will ask Congress and the President to “take action on this by the end of the year.” Rohrabacher’s support is not at all surprising, given that he has long talked about the need to discover and track potentially-hazardous NEOs, and has sponsored legislation like HR 1022 to expand such search efforts, and HR 1023, which would provide awards to amateur astronomers for NEO discoveries. (HR 1022 was approved by the House Science Committee last month, while the full House approved HR 1023 by a voice vote last month.) Rohrabacher, however, was less supportive of a call by Schweickart to mount a spacecraft mission to 2004 MN4; such a mission, which would cost on the order of $300 million, would study the object and also place a radio transponder there that would aid in tracking the asteroid and refining the odds of an impact.
Seems kinsof odd that Rep Rohrabacher would support a new agency, but not the tracking of an actual threat. I guess it depends on how much of a threat he believes it is.
Interesting enough, I wrote on the subject of a NEO agency this morning after reading wireds article.
NEOs could be a growth industry. Schweickart will need more of those tracking beacons as there are now two more “potentially-hazardous” objects on the impact risk list, maybe he can negotiate a volume discount for the new agency.
I don’t think Congressman Dana (that R words just too hard!) is looking for a new agency, but which agency should be given the NEO mission (NASA vs DOD/USAF, etc..)
I’d like the USAF to get the mission personally. Planetary defense is a much more inspiring mission than making sure GPS beeps well.
Well, guess I should have clicked the hyperlink, huh?
The only worthwhile agency would be the United States Space Force, with planetary defense as a mission. An agency without a mission that might not be needed for 50,000 years won’t last long on the chopping block. Besides, what good is a new agency if it cannibalizes NASA and DOD personnel and equipment. I’d rather make it an office under NASA than an entire federal agency encompassing one random dude in a broom closet.
Nope. This is management of nature, not defense against hostile forces, which is what the traditional military does. Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers has taken care of problems like this (e.g., building dams to protect floodplains, etc.). They’d do as good a job with it as NASA or the Air Force, at least based on past performance…
Potentially civilization ending NEO’s I think are a much bigger national security threat than Nazis/Communists/favorite bad guy. That NEO’s are “natural” doesn’t make them any less an enemy.
Also, the idea that the military’s role is only to kill other militaries is not really a traditional idea. A few years back it was the army and navy that were explorers. The navy made maps everywhere and launched numerous scientific expeditions to the poles and Pacific. The army surveyed the interior. Guardsmen routinely are called in to handle natural disasters. And the Army Corps of Engineers are soldiers too. That the military is here only to “kill people and break things” seems a pale and vaguely antagonistic way of describing the historical importance of a military and its role in society.
NASA has big scientist types and, in the mind of the ignorant John and Jane Q Public, the monopoly on national space expertise. In the NEO world, and indeed the entire space surveillance and cataloguing mission, NASA relies almost totally on Space Command assets and personnel. Believe me, Space Command has some of the best astrodynamicists and space smart people on the planet.
Why do we have to view them as things to blow up or send away? An interplanetary space station with in situ resources that comes by the earth every few years to drop off products and pick up supplies sounds like a great formula for a commercial success! Let’s not sick the military on it. Let’s give it to the BLM and tell them to find a way to keep in a useful, stable orbit so we can mine the suckers…
The Idea of using Asteroids as Cyclers would be about as populer politicaly as nukes in space. “You mean you want us to have a near miss every 26 months with something that wiped out the dinosaurs?”
It will be a tough battle, we need to think of begining that battle now while we are working on the tech to make it feasible.
I for one love the idea, also would like to park asteroids in orbit to mine, manufacture products and ship back to earth. (SOme time around 2045 would be good)
And as the asteroids are mined out we can turn them into space stations. But conviencing that they will be safe after we been trying to increase funding for tracking them. Its gonna be a tough sell, to the average person who doesn’t understand gravity.