PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 38/2001 - 8 March 2001: HOUSE OF LORDS SPECIAL
----------------------------------------------------
BRITISH PEERS PRESS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION AND FUNDING ON IMPACT
HAZARD
"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 Tanlaw, House of Lords, 7 March 2001
"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.
--Lord Razzall, House of Lords, 7 March 2001
"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?"
--Baroness Miller of Hendon, House of Lords, 7 March 2001
"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."
--Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science, House of Lords, 7
March 2001
=============
NEAR EARTH OBJECTS
From the Lords Hansard full text database menu
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds01/text/10307-04.htm#10307-04_head0
Wednesday, 7 March 2001
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.
3.25 p.m.
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.
3.43 p.m.
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.
3.55 p.m.
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.
4.11 p.m.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
The fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on,
can be
found at http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily
reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of
this
network.