|
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.
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.
:
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, 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.
: 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.
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, 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, 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.
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.
|
