A Concept of a Space Hazard Counteraction System: Astronomical Aspects

Transcription

1 ISSN , Solar System Research, 2013, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp Pleiades Publishing, Inc., Original Russian Text B.M. Shustov, L.V. Rykhlova, Yu.P. Kuleshov, Yu.N. Dubov, K.S. Elkin, S.S. Veniaminov, G.K. Borovin, I.E. Molotov, S.A. Naroenkov, S.I. Barabanov, V.V. Emel yanenko, A.V. Devyatkin, Yu.D. Medvedev, V.A. Shor, K.V. Kholshevnikov, 2013, published in Astronomicheskii Vestnik, 2013, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp A Concept of a Space Hazard Counteraction System: Astronomical Aspects B. M. Shustov a, L. V. Rykhlova a, Yu. P. Kuleshov b, Yu. N. Dubov b, K. S. Elkin c, S. S. Veniaminov d, G. K. Borovin e, I. E. Molotov e, S. A. Naroenkov a, S. I. Barabanov a, V. V. Emel yanenko a, A. V. Devyatkin f, Yu. D. Medvedev g, V. A. Shor g, and K. V. Kholshevnikov h a Institute of Astronomy, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia b Kometa Corp. c Federal State Unitary Enterprise Central Research Institute for Machine Building (TsNIIMash) d Fourth Central Research Institute of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Ministry of Defense e Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, RAS f RAS Central (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory g RAS Institute of Applied Astronomy h St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia Received April 1, 2013 Abstract The basic science of astronomy and, primarily, its branch responsible for studying the Solar System, face the most important practical task posed by nature and the development of human civilization to study space hazards and to seek methods of counteracting them. In pursuance of the joint Resolution of the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) and the RAS (Russian Academy of Sciences) Space Council of June 23, 2010, the RAS Institute of Astronomy in collaboration with other scientific and industrial organizations prepared a draft concept of the federal-level program targeted at creating a system of space hazard detection and counteraction. The main ideas and astronomical content of the concept are considered in this article. DOI: /S INTRODUCTION Risks are an inevitable part of life. A major condition of humankind s survival and successful development is the ability to forecast major risks and to parry related threats. This is the most important task of science and technology. The development of human civilization is accompanied by an understanding of the world in which we live, and humans themselves. This reveals new, previously unknown threats. Such threats include space hazards. The following space hazards are assumed the most serious: space debris, the catastrophic anthropogenic contamination of near space, threatening to reduce or even terminate humankind s space activity; asteroid and comet hazard (ACH), the hazard of the Earth s collision with small bodies of the Solar System (asteroids and comets), causing serious damage to the planet s population including possibly the destruction of civilization; and space weather, difficult to forecast changes in the Sun s activity, threatening serious losses, primarily, in production (energy, communications, etc.). All these hazards are quite real, and the world undertakes significant efforts to counteract them, although we should admit that the problem of space hazards is far from having been solved. In the first place, this relates to space debris. According to S.S. Veniaminov and A.M. Chervonov (2012), more than t of anthropogenic objects are currently in low near-earth orbits. The total number of objects with a cross section of more than 1 cm is estimated at Only 5% of them at best are cataloged and tracked permanently by earthbased radar and optical aids. Only about 6% of this list is active spacecraft (SC). The other objects are space debris (SD). A collision of an active spacecraft with any of these objects can damage it or even make it inoperative. The most contaminated are low near-earth orbits and the geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) zone. According to Roscosmos Head V.A. Popovkin s report at the roundtable in the Russian Federation Council on March 12, 2013, the frequency of fatal SC collisions with space debris objects is rapidly growing, having reached one collision per 18 months by early The main problem is that the overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of hazardous space debris fragments remain undetected. Hence, the next problem arises: how to protect SC. There are practically no effective protective measures against hazardous space debris objects (with a size of more than 1 cm in low orbits and more than 3 cm in the GEO). 302

2 A CONCEPT OF A SPACE HAZARD COUNTERACTION SYSTEM 303 A similar situation occurs with the asteroid and comet hazard. The number of bodies comparable with or exceeding the Tunguska body, and potentially hazardous in terms of their collision with the Earth within a reasonable ( years) time interval, is estimated at no less than , no more than 2% (!) of them having been discovered to date (Shustov, 2010). This means that the unexpected occurrence of hazardous bodies near the Earth is a typical situation rather than an exception, and we may have very little time for taking measures necessary to counteract it and reduce damage. Note that the problem of space debris has already been discussed for several decades, while the ACH problem has attracted special attention only for the last decade and a half. This is because the emergence of modern wide-angle telescopes and specialized observation programs has sharply increased the efficiency of detecting hazardous celestial bodies, and new information showed the ACH problem in a new light. A great number of scientific articles and books on ACH problems were published. The most comprehensive modern domestic monographs (Ugroza s neba, 1999; Katastroficheskie vozdeistviya, 2005; and Asteroidno-kometnaya opasnost, 2010) cover different aspects of this problem. Let us briefly recall its essence. A huge number of natural bodies fall on the earth. The total mass of the inflow of such matter is estimated at many dozens of tons per day. Most of them are small bodies representing no danger at all. The lower boundary of the size of a hazardous celestial body (HCB) may reasonably be determined at 50 m (the approximate size of the Tunguska body). The average assessment of the energy released during the collision of such a body with the Earth is comparable with the explosive energy of a very powerful fusion device. Large bodies fall on the Earth much less frequently (for bodies with a size of ~1 km, the collision frequency is estimated as once in about a million years). Therefore, collisions with bodies sized m, which have happened over the time scale of the existence of the biological species Homo sapiens (about years), are the main ACH content. For example, the meteoroid that exploded above Chelyabinsk on February 15, 2013, was not hazardous because its size was estimated at about 17 m. However, if this meteoroid s entry trajectory had been steeper, the consequences of the explosion could have been more catastrophic as the city is saurated with high-tech enterprises. The most important characteristic of the ACH problem is that the averaged level of the hazard (over a large time interval of millennia and longer) is low because large body impacts happen rarely. However, any individual event (collision) or even a significant risk of such an event is of great importance for all humankind. The astronomically ordinary Chelyabinsk event (Emel yanenko et al., 2013) drew global attention. In Russia, not only the scientific and technological community but also state power structures pay increasingly more attention to space hazards. The Expert Working Group on the Comet and Asteroid Hazard Problem under the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Space Council was created to coordinate studies in this field. The group is engaged in space debris and ACH problems that are in a sense similar (by instrumental and methodological approaches). Space weather is not yet on the group s working list (this proposal is being discussed); therefore, we will further discuss only space debris and ACH threats in this article. The group includes experts representing organizations and institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Roscosmos, the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), The Russian Ministry of Defense, and other interested departments and organizations (see the group s page on The group is open for new members, who are included in it on proposals of the interested parties after the RAS Space Council s approval. The main requirements are professionalism and constructive attitudes. The group coordinates functions in this field; for example, it organizes All-Russian conferences on various space hazard aspects, proposes and implements coordinated observation programs (see, for instance, (Ibragimov et al., 2013)), and reviews various projects to be submitted to the country s governing bodies. Yet the group s main task is to draft (conceptualize) a federal program The Design of a Russian Space Hazard Countering System. This activity is of express practical significance. We believe that such issues should also be discussed in publications that publish basic research results. It is important that before the work of basic science of astronomy and, primarily, that associated with Solar System research proceeds, it is essential that the most important practical task of studying the space hazards discussed here and seeking methods of counteracting these hazards be undertaken first, as these hazards pose a threat to the development of human civilization. The meeting of the Roscosmos Scientific and Technological Council and the Bureau of the RAS Space Council, held on June 23, 2010, approved the work of the Expert Working Group. The resolution of the joint decision charged: the Russian Academy of Sciences jointly with Roscosmos (1) to continue work on the concept of the Federal Target Program on Asteroid and Comet Hazard Control; and (2) considering the urgency of the immediate coordination of work in this sphere, to draft a complex target

3 304 SHUSTOV et al. program on designing a system for solving problems of asteroid and comet hazards and space debris. In pursuance of this decision, a draft concept of the federal target program The Design of a Russian Space Hazard Countering System was prepared and submitted to Roscosmos. This conceptual document outlines the problem, describes the situation in the world and in Russia, and indicates ways of solving the problem. The federal authorities may request to improve the concept, reject it, or (if we are fortunate) approve it, and then it will become the basis for developing a detailed plan of the respective program. Developing the components of this program will require the efforts of many specialists in different branches of science and industry. In addition to solving the main task, the program will certainly be crucial for the development of astronomical studies in the country for a long period. This explains the interest in the content of the draft concept on the part of many scientists (not only astronomers!). Therefore, this article may be viewed as feedback. Shustov and Rykhlova (2011) already presented some elements of the concept. Here we will summarize the concept s general structure and essence, focusing on its astronomical content and the basic problems arising. In addition, this work will briefly discuss practical recommendations on the development of astronomical research in Russia, as well as organizational aspects that are most important for the effective participation of astronomers in solving the space hazard problem. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE CONCEPT The format of such a document as a concept differs from that of a scientific technical report and, even more so, from a scientific article. The authors had to familiarize themselves with the technology of creating such documents. The concept was developed in accordance with The Procedure for the Development and Implementation of Federal Target Programs and Interstate Target Programs with the Participation of the Russian Federation, approved by Russian government Resolution no. 594 of August 26, 1995, as amended of May 24, 2010, no Note that target programs are packages of tasks, resources, and time limits harmonized to ensure efficient solutions to systemic problems. Target programs are major means of implementing state policies through large-scale national investment, scientific technological, and innovative projects. A target program may include several subprograms aimed at solving specific tasks within the target program. A target program is divided into subprograms proceeding from the scale and complexity of the problems to be solved, as well as from the necessity to organize their solution rationally. The draft concept contains 13 sections. This 25-page document is fairly formalized. Below we will briefly present and comment on the content of the sections. Section 1. Substantiating the compliance of the problem to be solved and the program objectives with the priorities of the socioeconomic development of the Russian Federation. According to the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, national security is ensured by improving and developing the unified state system of emergency prevention and response and integrating it with similar foreign systems, approved until 2020 by Russian Presidential Decree no. 537 of May 12, This provision necessitates interfacing the Russian space hazard countering system with the Russian emergency prevention and response system. According to the Concept of the Long-Term Development of the Russian Federation until 2020, approved by the Russian government s instruction no r of November 17, 2008, a high level of national security is planned, including the protection of the population and territories from natural and anthropogenic emergencies. This approach requires implementing a complex of transformations harmonized by resources, time limits, and stages. To meet this goal means to change priorities in protecting the population and territories against various hazards and threats; instead of the culture of response to emergencies, the culture of prevention comes to the fore. We believe that the proposed concept reflects the main ideas of the above documents. Section 2. Substantiating the advisability of solving the space hazard problem through management by objectives. Within the Russian Ministry of Defense, we have the Space Surveillance System (SSS). It operates successfully, but the scope of its tasks is naturally limited. No studies on the ACH problem are conducted within it. The problem of space debris is also outside the scope of the SSS. In addition, some Roscosmos projects deal with anthropogenic space debris, while asteroid and comet hazards remain the subject matter of a few R&D projects, conducted jointly with the Russian Academy of Sciences and initiated by individual university groups. Overall, we should admit that Russia has had no coordinated ACH program thus far, although it is high time it had one, since Russia s lag in this sphere is obvious. The first experience of carrying out a coordinated program to observe the hazardous asteroid Apophis was described by Ibragimov et al. (2013), but this was the experience of coordinated studies of an individual object. In practice, the efficiency of such work cannot be high without systemic support. Two aspects do not allow us to rely fully on the capabilities of foreign ACH counteraction systems. The first is that hazardous bodies are often detected only when they approach the Earth. The probability of a hazardous body colliding with the Earth s surface on

4 A CONCEPT OF A SPACE HAZARD COUNTERACTION SYSTEM 305 Russian territory is higher (due to its geographical position) than for other countries, and this is why the need for rapid warning and on-the fly response is especially acute for Russia. The second aspect is somewhat related to the first one and to the possibility of equal or priority access to necessary data about detected bodies. This possibility can be ensured only if we have our own full-fledged system of detecting, cataloging, and processing realtime information in an information and analysis center before determining the risk of collision with the Earth for any potentially hazardous body. The following main components of the ACH problem (as well as of the space debris problem) that require practical solutions are singled out: detecting (identifying) all hazardous bodies, determining the extent of the threat (assessing risks) and making decisions, and counteracting and mitigating damage. Obviously, to solve such problems, the involvement and interaction of different ministries and departments is necessary because designing a Russian (and, in our opinion, any other) space hazard countering system is a complex process. The solution of this problem requires a circumspect coordination of government actions at the federal and regional levels and implies close and active cooperation with interested parties at the international level. Effective state support in solving the above problem within a federal target program will make it possible to implement a complex and integrated methodological approach to its solution which accounts for interconnection with other government actions that are being implemented or planned for implementation. Section 3. Characterizing and predicting the development of the existing problematic situation in the sphere under consideration without using the management-byobjectives method. Alternative vectors of activity are inaction (obviously not an option) or an autonomous solution to the above tasks by individual ministries, departments, and enterprises using their own internal capacities, the existing international market of science-intensive products, and, perhaps, certain relations with the Russian Academy of Sciences. In the latter case, each organization will have to reorient some of its specialists, create its own internal specialized divisions for solving subproblems, and solve them to the best of its understanding without coordination with other organizations. Unfortunately, such attempts are made, not least of all, out of internal corporate motives, and we do not think them promising. The draft concept has proofs that the scale of the problem makes it impossible for individual enterprises to solve the entire complex of tasks independently. Section 4. Possible options for solving the problem and the assessment of advantages and risks implied. When drafting the concept, we analyzed two options for solving the problem: the first is based on the strategy of methodical development, and the second proceeds from the strategy of the intensive solution of problems. The implementation of the first option (the strategy of methodical development) identifies priorities necessary to ensure Russia s space hazard security without depending on foreign information media. These priorities include the following: (1) The creation of new facilities for detecting hazardous celestial bodies in near-earth space and the development of the existing ones, including: (1.1) the creation of new optical earth-based facilities for detecting hazardous celestial bodies; (1.2) the development of the existing devices of monitoring space in the optical range; (1.3) the development of radar facilities for observing space debris; and (1.4) the creation of an astronomical space complex for detecting and determining the parameters of hazardous asteroids and comets, as well as space debris. (2) The creation of an Information Analytical Center of the Space-Hazard Countering System (IAC SHCS), including, as its main components, a space debris center and a hazardous celestial bodies (asteroids and comets) center. (3) The development and completion of the Computerized System of Warning about Hazardous Situations in Near-Earth Space (CSWHS NES) in relation to space debris. (4) The development of an information interoperability system, which would collect data from all observation facilities and store, analyze, and exchange information with the respective services of Russian ministries and departments, as well as with international centers. (5) The creation of a certified space hazard risk assessment system and a mechanism for submitting in a timely manner reliable risk assessments to authorized government bodies, which is necessary to make decisions on effective hazard counteraction and/or damage mitigation jointly with international organizations. The concept also envisages the development of counteraction and damage-mitigation technologies. The option based on the strategy of intensive solutions differs from the first one mainly in that it implies an accelerated (by 1.5 times) creation of the spacehazard countering system. Accordingly, the financing of the second option should be much more intensive. Section 5. Tentative time limits and stages of solving the problem by the management-by-objectives method. The textual content of this section may be expressed graphically. Figure 1 shows schematically the stages of creating the space hazard countering system in relation to the asteroid and comet hazard. The

5 306 SHUSTOV et al. D max D D 90 D def D min T0 T1 T2 T3 t Fig. 1. Diagram of the stages of the countering system in relation to the asteroid and comet hazard within the system of parameters: D, the size of a hazardous celestial body and t, time. D min, D max are the minimal and maximal limits of hazardous body sizes. Function D 90 means that, at a specified moment, no less than 90% of hazardous bodies with sizes more than the given (D 90 ) size have been detected. Function D def means that, at a given moment, bodies smaller than D def are reliably deflected or destroyed. course of the D 90 (t) function (the meaning of this value is that, at a given moment, no less than 90% of hazardous bodies larger than D 90 will be discovered) and that of D def (t) (at a given moment, bodies smaller than D def are reliably deflected or destroyed) are shown conventionally. For D min, D max the minimal and maximal sizes of hazardous bodies we set values of 50 and 500 m, respectively (see Introduction). The simple ideas within the figure may be formulated in the following way: with time (after the beginning of the program execution), the size of the bodies for which the 90% detection coverage has been reached becomes smaller, while the size of the bodies that can reliably be deflected or destroyed becomes larger. We may single out the stages of development, detection, and counteraction. Table 1 explains the content of the stages in more detail. Compared to the draft concept, all the time limits in the table are shifted to the right by two years because it was drafted in Section 6. Proposals on the program s goals and objectives, as well as on target indicators that help assess the progress of the target program. Table 1. Stages of creating an asteroid and comet hazard countering system Stage, beginning ending, example Deployment T0 T1 ( ) Detection T1 T2 ( ) Counteraction T2 T3 ( ) Scope of work and expected results Development and creation of the main instrumental base for the ground-based detection and monitoring system. Start of the mass detection program. Creation of the Information Analytical Center. Development of risk assessment methods and decision-making criteria. Development (design) and selection of the most promising space-based detection and counteraction facilities. Completion of the detection system. Reaching the 90% level of detection of hazardous celestial bodies sized more than 50 m. Creation of a space complex designed to fine-tune counteraction methods. Mission to a hazardous body to fine-tune counteraction facilities. Completion of the system of counteracting collisions with bodies up to 0.5 km in size.

6 A CONCEPT OF A SPACE HAZARD COUNTERACTION SYSTEM 307 The main target indicators of the program implementation in relation to the asteroid and comet hazard are the following: ensuring the required coverage and validity of forecast data about the movement of asteroid and comet bodies in near-earth space; ensuring guaranteed effect on hazardous celestial bodies to exclude possible catastrophic consequences of their impact with the Earth; and mitigating emergency damage from the inability of preventing the impact of asteroids and comets with the Earth (reducing human fatalities and injuries and contributing to preventable economic damage). In this section of the concept, the indicators are assessed quantitatively (by year). The most important indicators were already given graphically in Fig. 1 and Table 1. Section 7. Proposals on the amount and sources of financing for the target program in general and its individual aspects on an optional basis. According to the concept, the program implementation should envisage the use of federal budgetary funds and the funds of the program implementers. The amounts of federal budgeting were estimated by the results of several already-implemented projects whose content and scope were similar to those of our program, as well as by the results of investigations performed in recent years on the preparation of similar promising projects to be included into the program and agreed with prospective government customers and accounting for expert opinions. Financial indicators can acquire concrete values only during the development of the program itself. As for general comments, they are as follows. The cost of the program is determined by its scope and implementation period. For example, it is obvious that the involvement of an effective space segment during the creation of the detection system will require a significant increase in financing compared to the option of only Earth-based facilities. It is also clear that the implementation of a system capable of using space facilities for destroying or deflecting hazardous celestial bodies is a very expensive project. The subsequent sections of the concept contain a preliminary assessment of the expected efficiency of the options proposed for solving the problem and proposals on the involvement of federal executive bodies and organizations responsible for the program formation and implementation, as well as on the program s developers and government customers. They also propose the mechanisms of forming the target program s procedures and possible forms and methods of implementation control. ASTRONOMICAL OBJECTIVES OF DETECTING AND DETERMINING THE PROPERTIES OF HAZARDOUS CELESTIAL BODIES AND SPACE DEBRIS, AS DEFINED IN THE CONCEPT As mentioned above, the priority task is solving the problem of detecting both hazardous space debris objects and hazardous celestial bodies (HCBs) of natural origin. The current interpretation of the asteroid and comet hazard should consider detection as the near real-time (according to existing requirements, no later than one month before the possible collision) and mass (i.e., at least at a certain coverage level, usually 90%) detection of hazardous bodies (sized 50 m or more). The subsequent regular observations (monitoring) of hazardous objects, either discovered by detection programs or previously known, should specify their orbits and study their properties to the maximum. This will provide for the most reliable assessment of collision probability and consequences together with the necessary information for timely response. To solve the problem of space debris, it is necessary to solve the same tasks, but threshold body sizes and characteristic (lead) times should be substantially smaller. Table 2 shows HCB and space debris characteristics important for observations. The table legend is as follows: LEO for the low earth orbit and GEO for the geostationary earth orbit. The HCB limiting stellar magnitude was substantiated in (Shustov et al., 2013). Obviously, hazardous celestial bodies and space debris objects are very different in their nature. From the observer s point of view, a substantial difference lies in the much higher angular velocities for objects of an asteroid comet origin. With regard to observation and data processing instruments and methods, the draft concept considered the following: (1) Requirements on HCB and space debris detection instruments. (2) The same for surveying (monitoring). (3) Data collection, storage, and usage. Under each point, the current status and development prospects in the world and in Russia were considered. The Chelyabinsk event enlivened the discussion on detecting meteoroids of intermediate sizes. This article is by no means an exhaustive overview of the problem. This would be possible only within a serious monograph. Here we will briefly describe the ideas proposed by the authors of the concept by discussing the above issues. These ideas were developed in 2012 during the implementation of a systemic project under Roscosmos orders to elaborate proposals on the development of the existing, and the design of prospective, space measurement, observation, and control facilities for information support of the unified system of preventing and parrying space hazards.

7 308 SHUSTOV et al. Table 2. Characteristics of hazardous celestial bodies and space debris as objects under observation Typical parameter values Objects Hazardous celestial bodies Hazardous space debris Size >50 m >1 cm LEO >3 5 cm GEO Albedo ~0.1 asteroids >0.3 (young) comets Linear velocity ~20 km/s asteroids 8 km/s LEO up to 71 km/s comets 3.2 km/s GEO Angular velocity ~ 10 5 ang.deg/s per 1 AU <1 ang.deg/s LEO ang.deg/s GEO Limiting stellar magnitude V ~ m V ~ m Spatial distribution At large distances, near the ecliptic plane; at short distances, almost isotropically In LEO, almost uniform over the celestial sphere. In GEO, a narrow belt Detection and the Necessary Instruments Until the mid-1990s, hazardous bodies were detected either within individual astronomical programs dealing with asteroids and comets or incidentally. The rate of NEO detection sharply increased starting from This was due to the launch of the special Spaceguard Survey program, financed by the US Congress. In addition, NASA was charged to discover at least 90% of large, more than 1 km in diameter, near-earth asteroids within ten years. It is assumed that this task was accomplished by late According the NASA-financed Minor Planet Center (MPC) under the International Astronomical Union ( the overwhelming majority of HCBs were detected using US observation facilities and the US-coordinated network. By late December 2012, the number of potentially hazardous objects (PHOs), i.e., asteroids and comets with a size of more than 140 m, whose orbits can in the next two centuries approach the Earth s orbit to a minimal distance of no more than 0.05 AU, was 1350 (about 3300 with account for smaller bodies), including 70 comets. The main issue is perhaps that of detection coverage. As was mentioned in Introduction, it is necessary to detect several hundred thousand PHOs sized more than 50 m, no more than 2% of them having been detected thus far. Why are we informed so poorly? With no account for organizational aspects (for example, little attention was paid to this problem in the world before 1998 when the US Congress first rendered support for the observation of near-earth celestial bodies), the main problem is the insufficient number of instruments for such observations. Let us consider the problem in more detail. Many large astronomical telescopes have already been built in the world, but, unfortunately, they are not fit for mass PHO detection. To create a state-of-the-art detection system, the design of special instruments is necessary. The optimal telescope parameters for detecting m PHOs are well defined: the instrument s field of view should be at least several (preferably, ten) square degrees; resolving power, no worse than the 22nd stellar magnitude under exposures of no more than several tens of seconds. This means that the telescope aperture should be at least 1 2 m. For IR-band space telescopes, it may be less because asteroids reradiate most of the solar energy they absorb in the IR band (at a wavelength of 5 15 µm); the number of clear nights with good seeing should be large (for Earth-based telescopes); and very powerful computer equipment and mathematical support are necessary to obtain real-time information about new objects within one night and to perform final processing until the next night begins. At present, the United States is implementing several projects to design specialized instruments for detecting hazardous objects. Among them is the Pan- STARRS project, designed to solve the tasks of the US Air Force units responsible for space control. It is a system of four telescopes with apertures of 1.8 m. The field of each telescope is 3, and the CCD sensor has a colossal size, 1.4 billion pixels. The 24th stellar magnitude is reached in 60 s. In the general search mode, these telescopes will be able to cover the entire accessible sky area three times a month. The first (test) telescope, PS1, has already been working for almost three years (Chambers, 2009). The cost of the PS1 telescope exceeds $120 million. A still larger 8-m LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (Izvezic et al., 2008)) telescope is a unique civilian project designed both to survey the sky for astrophysical and cosmological purposes and to seek hazardous bodies. This system will be able to survey a sky region with an area 50 times exceeding the full

8 A CONCEPT OF A SPACE HAZARD COUNTERACTION SYSTEM 309 Moon each 15 s and register objects up to a stellar magnitude of The telescope s digital camera will have pixels, and the total amount of information obtained during one night will be equivalent to 7000 DVDs. Supposedly, the system will be commissioned after The cost of this telescope exceeds $700 million. In February 2012, the United States conducted the first observations with an SST telescope. This is a 3.5-m Mersenne Schmidt three-mirror telescope, designed primarily for military purposes. The CCD detectors are located on the curved focal surface ( Surveillance_Telescope_%28SST%29.aspx). It was announced that the telescope would be used to detect hazardous asteroids; in collaboration with the Lincoln Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the telescope will also be used for astrophysical purposes. The cost of the telescope exceeds $110 million. In addition to projects on the creation of large instruments, the United States is also developing programs for creating modest but more effective systems. Astronomers at the University of Hawaii obtained a $5-million NASA grant to create the Asteroid Terrestrial-Impact Last Alert System (ATLAS). In five or six places on the Earth, it is intended to deploy systems that would have two to four 50-cm wide-angle telescopes on a common mounting, whose ultimate task is to warn about possible collisions with asteroids of about 50 m no later than a week before the collision and with asteroids of 140 m no later than three weeks before the collision ( info/press-release/atlas/). Supposedly, the surveillance of the entire accessible sky area will be round the clock. Europe has dedicated telescopes (up to 1 m in diameter) to observe near-earth asteroids, and the European Space Agency recently began the construction of a 1-m telescope with a very large field of view, organized on an eye-of-the-fly basis, the field of view reaching 45 square degrees (!) (see neo.ssa.esa.int/web/guest/). Russia still has no state-of-the-art instruments for effective mass detection of hazardous bodies, but it is working in this direction. The most promising is the AZT-33VM wide-angle telescope project, developed by the Institute of Solar Terrestrial Physics, RAS Siberian Branch (Kamus et al., 2009). Its parameters are only slightly inferior to those of the Pan-STARRS telescopes. With a field of about 3 and a primary mirror diameter of 1.6 m, this telescope will be able to detect 24th stellar magnitude objects during a twominute exposure. The telescope (see Fig. 2) is being built at LOMO. The RAS Siberian Branch and Roscosmos support this project financially, but these funds are insufficient. We need a relatively small amount necessary to complete this instrument (~0.5 billion rubles), but even this money is very hard to obtain from the government. This is why the concept envisages a subprogram on the construction of one or two such instrument(s) at the expense of the federal targeted program. The above Systemic Project fully concretizes and substantiates these proposals. Space-based HCB detection systems are being developed abroad and in Russia. Such systems have significant advantages over earth-based systems. The main advantages of space systems are the ability to observe a much larger sky area, including the region inside the Earth s orbit and even the area behind the Sun with the help of a remote spacecraft; a lesser background sky; and round-the-clock operation. The drawbacks are relative costliness and lower reliability because spacecraft maintenance and repairs are associated with considerable practical difficulties. This is why space HCB detection facilities are just coming into use. A recent example is the Canadian NEOSSat (Near-Earth Object Surveillance Satellite), launched into orbit in February, This microsatellite will be used to detect near-earth asteroids whose orbits lie inside the Earth s orbit (Laurin et al., 2008). Every 24 hours of operation will yield 288 images on average. Unfortunately, as it became known in late 2012, the construction of another spacecraft, the German satellite Asteroid Finder with a telescope aperture of 25 cm, designed for solving similar problems, was suspended for financial reasons. Nevertheless, the range of newly proposed projects is broad: from small instruments similar to those mentioned above to large (2 m) space telescopes (Committee to review..., 2010). Space telescopes with IR radiation detectors have special prospects for HCB detection. This was proved quite well by the example of the WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer) spacecraft (Mainzer et al., 2012). Launched by NASA in late 2009, the spacecraft operated in orbit for more than a year (including the postcryogenic part of the mission NEOWISE). WISE mapped the sky in four wavelengths 3.3, 4.7, 12, and 23 µm. On wavelengths of 12 and 23 µm, the sensitivity of the WISE detectors exceeded by 1000 times the indicators of the IRAS (Infrared Astronomical Satellite) orbiter, which operated in space back in In the course of the main mission, as well as during the expanded cryogen-free NEOWISE mission, as the detectors heated up gradually, more than new minor bodies of the Solar System (more than 15% of the total number of the then known asteroids) were detected (as was reported on May 17, 2012), including 108 near-earth asteroids, among them 21 potentially hazardous objects and 17 comets. At present, Russia develops only technical proposals on projects of space-based HCB-detecting telescopes. The most developed one is the Nebosvod (Firmament) project a spacecraft with powerful 1.5-m telescopes on board (Kometa Corp. jointly with the RAS Institute of Astronomy and the Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow State University).

9 310 SHUSTOV et al. Fig. 2. AZT-33VM wide-angle telescope project. Of course, Earth- and space-based systems should work in parallel and complement each other.in principle, the above-discussed telescopes can also be used to observe space debris. However, it is more reasonable to use smaller instruments for this purpose. The point is that, to detect and classify a celestial body as hazardous, it is necessary to have a telescope with a large resolving power (see Table 2). To observe space debris, it is suitable to use instruments with a smaller aperture (0.5 m) but adapted to observe rapidly moving objects. There are many such instruments everywhere, including Russia (see the next section). As for respective space systems, the brightest example is the space-based surveillance (SBSS) system (United States). This system, consisting of four satellites and the earth-based infrastructure, was created for military purposes, but it is also used for space debris observation ( systems/sbss.html). The first satellite of this system (launched in 2010) has a 30-cm telescope on a twoaxial universal-joint mounting with a 2.4-megapixel image sensor. Russia also develops technical proposals on projects of space-based telescopes for space debris observation (detection). HCB and Space Debris Studies (Monitoring) As a rule, it is unreasonable to use detection telescopes for thorough studies of individual objects. The existing astronomical telescopes can successfully study already detected hazardous objects. Both relatively small (for positional and photometric observations) and the largest (for example, for spectroscopic observations) telescopes can be widely applied in this respect. Methods are well developed, and the main problem here is organization. The contribution of Russian observatories to the monitoring and detecting of hazardous bodies char-

10 A CONCEPT OF A SPACE HAZARD COUNTERACTION SYSTEM 311 Fig. 3. The ISON 45-cm survey telescope (installed in New Mexico, United States) (left). The Master network dual telescope near Kislovodsk (right). acteristics is already quite noticeable. In the first place, it is the study of the NEA physical properties, which is important for planning possible collision counteraction methods, as well as for tracking previously discovered objects and studying the sources of their inflow. Regular observations are currently performed in the Pulkovo Observatory, on the RTT-150 telescope of the Russian Turkish observatory near Antalya, on the instruments of the Peak Terskol Observatory of the International (Russian Ukrainian) Research Center, and in the RAS Special Astrophysical Observatory. A productive astronomical space debris observation system (more fully, information about the near- Earth space (NES) environment) is the Scientific Optical Network for Astronomical and Photometric Observations (ISON) project (Molotov et al., 2009). The project may rightly be called Russian with international participation, as 33 observatories of 14 countries participate in satellite and space debris observations. Figure 3 (left) shows the ISON telescope installed in New Mexico (United States). The ISON data help solve the task of forecasting hazardous events in near-earth space within the Roscosmos Automated Warning System of Hazardous Situations in Near- Earth Space (ASPOS NES). Today ISON measurements constitute the bulk of domestic data on highorbit space objects. The observations of asteroids have begun. The project involves several dozen telescopes contracted in Russia, former Soviet republics, and other countries. Unified software complexes were set up to control the telescopes and the computerized processing of CCD images of satellite and asteroid observations, which are used in all observatories of the ISON network. The ISON telescopes are united into five subsystems: search and surveillance (apertures of cm), weak space debris fragments tracking (apertures of cm), tracking bright satellites by target acquisition (apertures of cm), seeking asteroids and comets (apertures of 40, 45.5, and 60 cm), and NEA photometric observations (apertures from 40 cm to 2.6 m). The development of space debris observations envisages the commissioning of new observatories in the Western and Southern hemispheres, equipping the search surveillance subsystem with additional new 19.2-cm telescopes with a field of 7 (they ensure more accurate definitions of the orbits of GEO objects by increasing the average tracking length), and the commissioning of several additional telescopes with apertures of cm for the weak fragment tracking subsystem. In relation to the development asteroid studies by the ISON network, there are plans to involve three survey instruments (two 50-cm telescopes and one 65-cm telescope) and a 4 50-cm telescope with a total field of 8 8 for superfast sky surveys and to expand the photometric observation subsystem (by continuing the modernization program for CIS telescopes). Among the regularly operating instruments designed primarily for studies on other problems, the Master network of the Sternberg Astronomical Institute of Moscow State University (Kornilov et al., 2012) for studying gamma burst sources is noteworthy. A telescope from this network is shown in Fig. 3 (right). ACH detection and monitoring requires a regular and standardized mode of operation for the observation facilities involved. The use of the ISON and the Master network telescopes for these purposes is difficult thus far for both technical and organizational reasons. Another important method of HCB and space debris studies is the use of planetary radars (for HCBs) and radars with a wider gain pattern for near-earth objects. Radar observations are of great value for the study (not for detection!) of hazardous celestial bodies. Radar observations yield highly accurate data not only about an asteroid s orbital movement but also

11 312 SHUSTOV et al. about its physical properties (size, form, the composition of surface layers, and so on). When the VLBI method is used within a radar system, the available accuracies of the objects angular coordinates are second decimal places of an angular second, which is more than an order of magnitude higher than angular coordinate accuracies measured by optical facilities. Radio detection of individual asteroids is performed primarily in the Goldstone and Arecibo radioastronomical observatories (United States) in an amount of objects annually (Ostro et al., 2007). The radar range is limited to distances not exceeding 70 million kilometers. Russia does not plan to create its own planetary radar thus far, but there is an interagency agreement on the use of the radar in Evpatoriya. At the same time, there are several fully rotatable parabolic large-diameter antennas on the territory of Russia and nearabroad countries: one 70-m in Ussuriisk (Russian Ministry of Defense) and two 64-m in Medvezh i Ozera and in Kalyazin (Special Design Bureau of the Moscow Power Engineering Institute). It is fundamentally possible to use large-aperture antennas on Russian territory to create a specialized radar system for observing HCBs and small-sized space debris in high orbits. To accomplish this, it is necessary to equip the existing large-aperture antennas (the 70-m in Ussuriisk and the two 64-m in Medvezh i Ozera and in Kalyazin) with powerful (several dozen kilowatts) centimeter-range pulse transmitters. Data Collection, Storage, and Processing: the Need for an Information Analytical Center As for HCBs, the processing of all incoming information from all over the world (from 46 countries, according to the MPC associates) about the observable positions of objects, assigning preliminary designations to objects, object identification, the determination of preliminary orbits, and their subsequent specification are currently fully MPC controlled. MPC publishes information on objects that need additional observation to confirm their discovery and to specify their orbits and other characteristics. Forecasting PHO movements, seeking their close Earth flybys, and assessing the probability of collisions in the near decades are currently performed on a regular basis by the US Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( the ESA-financed NEODYS Group under the University of Pisa (Italy) ( and, less regularly, by other countries. In Russia, NEO movements are studied by a number of research centers, such as the RAS Pulkovo Observatory, the RAS Institute of Applied Astronomy, Tomsk State University, the RAS Institute of Astronomy, the Sternberg Astronomical Institute of Moscow State University, and the RAS Institute of Applied Mathematics. In this area of basic research, Russia is at the world level. Nevertheless, with regard to tasks of a more applied nature, such as the systemic measures to solve the ACH problem on a domestic scale, the need for an integrated data acquisition and processing center becomes obvious (Naroenkov and Shelyakov, 2011). It is important to connect many different instruments and groups into an integrated national system, coordinated from a logically single, although perhaps physically distributed, information analytical center. The establishment of such a center will allow us to participate in international collaboration more successfully and effectively. The Information Analytical Center of the Space Hazard Countering System (IAC SHCS; this is a tentative name, the Roscosmos Systemic Project calls it differently) is designed to meet the following objectives: work planning and HCB and space debris data acquisition, processing, and analysis; HCB and space debris cataloging; reliable and timely determination of the probability of specific collisions; assessing the consequences of specific collisions; elaborating scientifically substantiated risk assessment; warning authorized bodies (organizations) about collision risks exceeding the admissible level; elaborating recommendations on decisions for the use of space hazard counteraction facilities; interaction with departments and organizations (including international entities) on space hazard analysis and response measures within a definite scope of competences; elaborating recommendations on more effective systems of monitoring near-earth anthropogenic debris; maintaining an analytical database of hazardous situations and related anthropogenic objects; interaction (including informational) with respective international institutions on near-earth space contamination and disclosure of official information about near-earth objects and events, received from foreign partners, to Russian stakeholders; collecting, analyzing, generalizing, and submitting data on the efficiency of proposed reduction of near-earth space anthropogenic contamination and space debris removal to higher controlling structures; elaborating recommendations on the development of national standards for assessing and restricting near-earth space anthropogenic contamination; and making IAC SHCS software and information resources accessible for different Russian organizations and departments. Many aspects of organizing such a center are still to be specified during the program development. What is clear today is that this center should be shaped as a service. It is also clear that, to ensure the center s expert