Advertisement

Methods, Means and Governance of NEO Observation

  • Peter VerešEmail author
  • Nikola Schmidt
Chapter
Part of the Space and Society book series (SPSO)

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the basics of asteroid observations and characterization, and involvement of sponsoring government agencies and other stakeholders in Solar System surveys. We discuss ground-based and space assets, and the roles of the public and private sectors. The discovery of potentially hazardous asteroids and the topic of impact mitigation attract public and media attention and motivate discussions between policymakers and stakeholders. We demonstrate that the current support and research related to NEO search is strongly biased toward NASA and the United States, lacking wider participation from other agencies and countries. Even though international collaboration in gathering and distributing observing data and orbits is freely governed by the MPC under the IAU mandate, and informal collaboration was established by IAWN under UN COPUOS, apart from policies and rules created by NASA and US federal and state authorities, other countries generally do not invest funds in or possess an interest in searching for Solar System objects, or impact mitigation.

Keywords

NEO stakeholders Observation methods International involvement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the grant awarded by the Technological Agency of the Czech Republic, project TL01000181: “A multidisciplinary analysis of planetary defense from asteroids as the key national policy ensuring further flourishing and prosperity of humankind both on Earth and in Space,” and co-funded by the Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague.

References

  1. Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science - The Endless Frontier. Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Farnocchia, D, S.R. Chesley, and M Micheli. 2015. “Systematic Ranging and Late Warning Asteroid Impacts.” Icarus 258 (September): 18–27. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2015.05.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Farnocchia, Davide, Steven R. Chesley, Peter G. Brown, and Paul W. Chodas. 2016. “The Trajectory and Atmospheric Impact of Asteroid 2014 AA.” Icarus 274 (August): 327–33. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2016.02.056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fujiwara, A, J Kawaguchi, D. K. Yeomans, M Abe, T Mukai, T Okada, J Saito, et al. 2006. “The Rubble-Pile Asteroid Itokawa as Observed by Hayabusa.” Science 312 (5778): 1330–34. doi:10.1126/science.1125841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gwyn, S, N Hill, and J Kavelaars. 2012. “SSOS: A Moving Object Image Search Tool for Asteroid Precovery at the CADC.” In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXI, edited by P Ballester, D Egret, and N.P.F. Lorente, 461:789. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series.Google Scholar
  6. Hanuš, J, F Marchis, and J. Ďurech. 2013. “Sizes of Main-Belt Asteroids by Combining Shape Models and Keck Adaptive Optics Observations.” Icarus 226 (1): 1045–57. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2013.07.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jenniskens, P, M. H. Shaddad, D Numan, S Elsir, A. M. Kudoda, M. E. Zolensky, L Le, et al. 2009. “The Impact and Recovery of Asteroid 2008 TC3.” Nature 458 (7237): 485–88. doi:10.1038/nature07920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lindegren, L, U Lammers, U Bastian, J Hernández, S Klioner, D Hobbs, A Bombrun, et al. 2016. “Gaia Data Release 1.” Astronomy & Astrophysics 595 (November): A4. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marchis, F., M. Kaasalainen, E. F Y Hom, J. Berthier, J. Enriquez, D. Hestroffer, D. Le Mignant, and I. de Pater. 2006. “Shape, Size and Multiplicity of Main-Belt Asteroids. I. Keck Adaptive Optics Survey.” Icarus 185 (1): 39–63. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Moltz, James Clay. 2011. “The Dynamics of Space Security.” In The Politics of Space Security, 11–41. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ruffini, Pierre-Bruno. 2017. Science and Diplomacy. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55104-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shao, Michael, Bijan Nemati, Chengxing Zhai, Slava G. Turyshev, Jagmit Sandhu, Gregg Hallinan, and Leon K. Harding. 2014. “Finding Very Small Near-Earth Asteroids Using Synthetic Tracking.” The Astrophysical Journal 782 (1): 1. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shao, Michael, Slava G. Turyshev, Sara Spangelo, Thomas Werne, and Chengxing Zhai. 2017. “A Constellation of SmallSats with Synthetic Tracking Cameras to Search for 90% of Potentially Hazardous near-Earth Objects.” Astronomy & Astrophysics 603: A126. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thirouin, A, N Moskovitz, R. P. Binzel, E Christensen, F. E. Demeo, M. J. Person, D Polishook, et al. 2016. “The Mission Accessible Near-Earth Objects Survey (Manos): First Photometric Results.” The Astronomical Journal 152 (6): 163. doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Winner, Langdon. 2003. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Technology and the Future 109 (1): 148–64. doi:10.2307/20024652.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political Science, Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social SciencesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations