The Outer Space Treaty and Planetary Defense: A Discussion That Doesn't Exist

[Rileymanrr]

I am in college and for my Technical Communications class I had to pick a topic to do a research proposal on. The project I chose was designing an asteroid intercept mission profile, with launch vehicle, launch windows, payload and technical aspects taken care of. This was fine, but I realized there were a couple of really good scientific papers out on it already, so I broadened my horizons. I figured I would instead tackle the problem of actually deploying aforementioned good plan. So I figured that there would be something that would stand in my way (some loophole or complication) and the result was not too surprising.

The Outer Space Treaty. This bans the use or travel of atomic devices (nuclear explosives, atomic bombs, thermonuclear warheads, whatever name you want to call them) from earth orbit and beyond. They may not be stationed on the moon, an orbital platform or any other orbital body in space, at all.

So this is where we stand... Myself and two other people (my partners on this project) have been trying to find if anyone has tried to address the concerns that signers of the Outer Space Treaty will have with the actual development and deployment of a proper planetary defense strategy. For this to be cost and time effective we need to be able to implement atomic explosives in the design, but currently this discussion does not seem to exist. Everyone seems to be very interested in either end of the spectrum. One end being the detection of the NEOs and the other being different strategies to deflect them (Explosives, kinetics, lasers, gravity tractors, landed rockets etc.) But I cannot find a single instance where anyone has addressed the legal problem of developing an orbital vehicle for planetary defense.

This seems ridiculous, for I am but one in seven billion, someone must have discussed this problem before today. The only tiny mention that exists anywhere seems to be another (and I had predicted this to be true) KSP forum post, but that discussion diverted from the actual problem in about three replies and stopped.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/33208-How-long-will-the-Outer-Space-Treaty-last/page3

I have been a long time player of this game, but only just now joined the forums. I know my little brother is here all the time so I will just say hi to him.

If anyone has any ideas as to how to proceed with this discussion, please share them. I also have to find an "expert" on this problem, and my school is actually chocked full of those (if I were just talking about intercepting an asteroid), but nobody for international law, which is the real problem.

I frankly find this to be insane, I will leave with the most insane quote I could find on the topic this is during a US Congressional inquiry:

"REP. STEWART: ... are we technologically capable of launching something that could intercept [an asteroid]? ... DR. A'HEARN: No. If we had spacecraft plans on the books already, that would take a year ... I mean a typical small mission ... takes four years from approval to start to launch ..."

So any commentary that you may have is better than what exists now. I will except "Rileymanrr, you stupid." because it is more than what we have right now.

Edit: Hey guys, stay focused. There have been simulations showing an intercept of a kilometer sized asteroid with atomic explosives we have right now with a lead time of only 30 days *from detection*. The amount of material that entered earth's atmosphere was only .1% of the total mass of the asteroid. The technicalities of intercepts isn't the problem here, we have that down and the strategies should work. We have enough control to keep an object from fragmenting (which is almost always preferable to solid impacts) by detonating the device above the surface. It is less efficient, but completely doable.

I would post the papers, but I am running off of my campus's internet, which allows me access to the papers for free.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Rileymanrr

[*Aqua*]

The problem is we can't do a thing about an asteroid which to near to Earth. All existing nuclear bombs on Earth wouldn't be enough to change its course away from Earth or completle vaporise it.

The only chance we have is to discover it so early that we have tons of time to think about it and take action in deep space.

[xenomorph555]

You wouldn't need to completely vaporize it, just blow it to pieces. It would probably be fine if it turned into a hundred chelabinsk meteors.

[NASAFanboy]

The problem is we can't do a thing about an asteroid which to near to Earth. All existing nuclear bombs on Earth wouldn't be enough to change its course away from Earth or completle vaporise it.

The only chance we have is to discover it so early that we have tons of time to think about it and take action in deep space.

Who say's it isn't worth trying?

It's not like we can use these bombs if we are wiped out; no use in holding back. It'll be a glorious last stand for sure, and the last.

[Bioman222]

I decided to look throught the OST and clarify that there weren't any loopholes to allow us to use nuclear weapons in space, and here is the section that is of our concern:

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any

objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass

destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in

outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the

Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases,

installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of

military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military

personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be

prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration

of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

For the whole treaty, see here.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Bioman222

[Brethern]

You wouldn't need to completely vaporize it, just blow it to pieces. It would probably be fine if it turned into a hundred chelabinsk meteors.

That's actually a good point, I've been hearing that doing that would make the problem worse, but I'm trying to understand why? You have a better chance of surviving getting shot by bird shot than you do a slug for an on earth example.

[Bioman222]

Here's something to think about though. The OST prohibits placement of nuclear weapons into space. This isn't really a weapon (at least, until someone hacks the device and begins threatening to end all life on earth if he isn't given money), it's more of a tool for the protection of humanity.

Another thing I noticed. Upon looking through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affair's website's table of contents, there doesn't appear to be a single thing about NEO's and our plan to defend Earth against them. Will investigate further.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Bioman222

[Brotoro]

That's actually a good point, I've been hearing that doing that would make the problem worse, but I'm trying to understand why? You have a better chance of surviving getting shot by bird shot than you do a slug for an on earth example.

Several small chunks can be worse than one larger chunk for the same reason that multiple small warheads are more destructive than one huge warhead of equivalent total yield: The radius of destruction goes up as the cube root of the explosion yield, but the area of destruction goes up as the square root of the yield. So small chunks spread out over multiple targets will destroy more surface area. The only way you could help is to blow the meteoroid into pieces that are too small to survive entry through Earth's atmosphere, and you can't guarantee that.

You don't want to blow up an approaching asteroid -- you just want to nudge it while it's far enough away to make it miss.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Brotoro

[Brotoro]

Here's something to think about though. The OST prohibits placement of nuclear weapons into space. This isn't really a weapon (at least, until someone hacks the device and begins threatening to end all life on earth if he isn't given money) for

Another thing I noticed. Upon looking through the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affair's website's table of contents, there doesn't appear to be a single thing about NEO's and our plan to defend Earth against them. Will investigate further.

A nuclear device in space is not an effective WEAPON against surface target if it has no way to survive reentry into Earth's atmosphere. Other than being useful as an EMP device, perhaps.

[Bioman222]

Here's something new. I looked at the NEO section of the website, and there is one document that mentioned something about Spacegaurd (which sounds awesome), and as it turns out they have no plans about the deflection of impact-trajectory NEO's, only about the detection and observation of NEO's.

[Bioman222]

Found something that seems to be very helpful: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/pdc_paper.html It's a document about how to deflect an NEO and other things.

[SelectHalfling0]

Do lasers count as conventional weapons? As far as I know, the OST only bans non-conventional weapons (Russia had a machine gun on their Almaz space stations, and were left alone). I think that an orbital facility equipped with specialized lasers would be the most effective way of deflecting an asteroid (as they can be constructed preemptively).

I would like to note that, in the event of an Earth-Impact asteroid, the governments of the planet would not take four years to discuss, fund, test, test 20 thousand more times, and construct a rocket to deflect the asteroid. The 1-4 year mission plan time would (hopefully) be reduced to a couple of months.

Also, multiple small, semi-destructive asteroids that cause a couple thousand casualties would be better than a country buster/extinction event asteroid.

[Duxwing]

I decided to look throught the OST and clarify that there weren't any loopholes to allow us to use nuclear weapons in space, and here is the section that is of our concern:

For the whole treaty, see here.

Ah, but there is a loophole! The treaty bans, in letter and spirit, putting nuclear weapons in space for later use; whereas planetary defenders would use their nuclear weapon right away. This interpretation is evinced by ICBMs, which may carry nuclear warheads through space without legal hindrance. Clever-enough planetary defenders therefore could comply with the Outer Space Treaty--in letter and spirit--by having their weapon not stop once launched.

-Duxwing

[Bioman222]

Ah, but there is a loophole! The treaty bans, in letter and spirit, putting nuclear weapons in space for later use; whereas planetary defenders would use their nuclear weapon right away. This interpretation is evinced by ICBMs, which may carry nuclear warheads through space without legal hindrance. Clever-enough planetary defenders therefore could comply with the Outer Space Treaty--in letter and spirit--by having their weapon not stop once launched.

-Duxwing

I feel like that for the good of mankind, it would be a heck a lot easier and safer to have the missles waiting in parking orbit over launching said weapon straight to it on the notice of an impactor. Besides, it would take atleast four years to get one of those missions ready, where as having them in standby would allow for a quicker, more on the notice launch. And if you have a malfunction with the deflector on the way, you can still launch another one to defend from the asteroid. It's like a person fending off an attacker and coming with just a muzzle loader. If he misses or the bullet is stopped, he has to reload his weapon, whereas if he brought, say, a revolver, he would be able to fire another few shots just in case. Be prepared.

[Bioman222]

-snip-

I know my little brother is here all the time so I will just say hi to him.

-snip-

Hi Riley!

10char

[Rileymanrr]

No, for most cases it doesn't matter how many parts you blow it into the atmospheric drag is going to be greater on multiple chunks (lower impact velocity) than one large chunk (higher impact velocity). What you want to do is get it as slow as possible before it hits the ground, breaking it up increases effective drag.

[Rileymanrr]

This interpretation is evinced by ICBMs, which may carry nuclear warheads through space without legal hindrance. Clever-enough planetary defenders therefore could comply with the Outer Space Treaty--in letter and spirit--by having their weapon not stop once launched.

-Duxwing

No, ICBMs are not covered by this treaty because all of their flight profiles are *sub*orbital, otherwise they would never impact.

[Brethern]

Several small chunks can be worse than one larger chunk for the same reason that multiple small warheads are more destructive than one huge warhead of equivalent total yield: The radius of destruction goes up as the cube root of the explosion yield, but the area of destruction goes up as the square root of the yield. So small chunks spread out over multiple targets will destroy more surface area. The only way you could help is to blow the meteoroid into pieces that are too small to survive entry through Earth's atmosphere, and you can't guarantee that.

You don't want to blow up an approaching asteroid -- you just want to nudge it while it's far enough away to make it miss.

So bottom line what would be happening? would the small pieces still cause the enormous dust cloud and tsunami's? Or would the devastation be more impact and explosive related?

[AndrewBCrisp]

RE: legal issues of planetary defense.

I have no doubt that, if we are facing an imminent planetary threat, the spacefaring nations will likely set aside any current differences, and that a UN resolution would be fast-tracked through the Security Council to release whatever resources are needed to deal with the incoming asteroid. Any legal issues this raises would likely be dealt with after we've saved the planet (because, if we don't, what's the point?)

The real can of worms - and perhaps the big reason why this subject hasn't been dealt with on more serious levels - comes if you detect asteroids on a collision course that are not planet-threatening.

A tool astronomers are using to classify asteroid threats is the Torino scale. Global threats fall under Torino 6 to 10. But suppose we find something that falls between Torino 3 and 5 - localized or regional destruction, and we soon confirm that an impact is certain. What then?

If the impact zone is in a spacefaring nation, we can be rest assured that said nation will do anything it can to defend itself. Getting the UN to bend the Outer Space Treaty becomes more problematic, as some nations - particularly those with Security Council vetoes, might decide it is not in their interests for such self-defense to succeed. If the US was about to be hit, would Russia be willing to sign off on a resolution? Or would they play politics in hopes of getting concessions? Likewise if the scenario was reversed - would American politicians (and the voting public) be willing to aid Russia when the US itself is not threatened?

Or what if the impact zone of a Torino 3 to 5 threat is in an "unimportant" or "hostile" region? If Syria, or Chile, or Madagascar faced such a threat, would the great powers intervene? Would they do nothing to divert the asteroid but evacuate the zone? Or would they do nothing at all but wring their hands at the "tragic state of affairs" once the asteroid hits? After all, its their treasuries that would pay for the mission - and its not their people at risk.

Lastly, the frequency of impacts is also an issue. Releasing funding and hardware for a UN peacekeeping mission is one thing, but funding a planetary defense initiative that may not see action for another century at least? It would be a long, uphill campaign to get that off the ground - look how long it took and how much foot-dragging occurred over global warming on the world stage, and that's a more visible threat.

I am not surprised - though I am disappointed - that this discussion hasn't happened in more official circles beyond the scientific community. Chelyabinsk made people sit up and take notice for a time, but in the year and a half since then, there has been no real progress. We may have to wait until either Chelyabinsk is repeated elsewhere or until a nation succeeds in capturing an asteroid - even a tiny one - before the discussion starts up again.

[Rileymanrr]

That's why it should be dealt with *before* that time. Fast tracking needs to be avoided because let's be serious, the UN is worthless when they are needed to actually do something. This is not a UN resolution, however, the security council has no say in this matter. What needs to happen is half of the signers need to agree to an amendment, the UN is just the stage. That is actually a good thing because this means vetoes are not a problem, but you have to get more than fifty countries to look at this properly and be like "OK" or a few countries need to drop out of it. There is no governing body of the OST.

[Brotoro]

So bottom line what would be happening? would the small pieces still cause the enormous dust cloud and tsunami's? Or would the devastation be more impact and explosive related?

The impacts would cause dust clouds and tsunamis, yes...and over larger areas when you have more pieces.

Ten asteroids of diameter 0.464 miles would cause more damage than one asteroid of diameter 1 mile (even though the masses are equivalent).

Edited October 21, 2014 by Brotoro

[Rileymanrr]

If you know anything about shotguns a very useful analogy exists. Having earth get hit by a single chunk of asteroid is going to be like shooting something with a shotgun slug. Breaking it up into a few large chunks is like using buckshot, and turning it into hundreds of little pieces is like using birdshot. If you don't get the reference Youtube those three things and you will understand. It is actually almost always better to have the birdshot scenario than the slug scenario.

[Brotoro]

You aren't going to get the "birdshot scenario" by nuking an asteroid.

[AndrewBCrisp]

But a mission to divert an asteroid - especially if you plan to use nukes - is still a military mission of sorts, and the UN charter makes it clear that military actions require UN approval - which is where the Security Council comes in.

Likewise, something like this can be weaponized easily; after all, if you can divert an asteroid away from Earth, you can also divert one to hit Earth. If one superpower develops that capability, it could, effectively, hold a billion-ton rock over everyone's heads. That's not something the other superpowers are going to accept lying down - no matter who develops the capacity. The UN may be the only organization that can be trusted with this capacity - if for no other reason that it gives all the superpowers the ability to keep an eye on each other and maintain the balance of power. Plus - unlike any other military or political alliance currently in existence - the UN has the huge advantage of having signed on almost every nation on the planet. Even the British Commonwealth is a poor second, as it covers only those nations that were once part of the British Empire, and NATO a distant third.

The alternative is an asteroid arms race - each nation tries to develop the capacity for "planetary defense" while trying to shut the other nations out - in which case the UN becomes a legal battlefield where resolutions condemning asteroid diversion mission tests become a regular thing.

Lastly, the UN's effectiveness is subjective - it may not do the popular thing, but it has been very effective in its primary role, which is, may I point out, preventing a future world war. If you want a Morally Perfect World Government (or a Morally Perfect Government on any level), I'm afraid you're going to have to wait a few centuries.

[Duxwing]

I feel like that for the good of mankind, it would be a heck a lot easier and safer to have the missles waiting in parking orbit over launching said weapon straight to it on the notice of an impactor. Besides, it would take atleast four years to get one of those missions ready, where as having them in standby would allow for a quicker, more on the notice launch. And if you have a malfunction with the deflector on the way, you can still launch another one to defend from the asteroid. It's like a person fending off an attacker and coming with just a muzzle loader. If he misses or the bullet is stopped, he has to reload his weapon, whereas if he brought, say, a revolver, he would be able to fire another few shots just in case. Be prepared.

Obviously, missiles should be built now rather than when needed! I just think they should be kept in silos, where inspection and maintenance are easy and international legal issues few, and so launched as to never orbit Earth.

No, ICBMs are not covered by this treaty because all of their flight profiles are *sub*orbital, otherwise they would never impact.

I mentioned ICBMs because this treaty ignores them like it would ignore my proposed weapon, which would be super-orbital.

Likewise, something like this can be weaponized easily; after all, if you can divert an asteroid away from Earth, you can also divert one to hit Earth.

Why would nations spend a fortune to maybe slag someone years from now when they can just push a button and nuke them today?

Lastly, the UN's effectiveness is subjective - it may not do the popular thing, but it has been very effective in its primary role, which is, may I point out, preventing a future world war. If you want a Morally Perfect World Government (or a Morally Perfect Government on any level), I'm afraid you're going to have to wait a few centuries.

We could approximate that government by making the UN a federation of nations.

-Duxwing

Edited October 22, 2014 by Duxwing