The Impact Hazard: Historical Perspectives David Morrison NASA Ames Planetary Defense Team Workshop...

The Impact Hazard: Historical Perspectives

David MorrisonNASA Ames Planetary Defense Team

Workshop on Potentially Hazardous Asteroids:Characterization, Atmospheric Entry and Risk AssessmentNASA Ames, July 7-9, 2015

What is the risk (hazard) from impacts?

7/8/2015

• Comets recognized as potential impactors since Newton/Halley.

•Asteroids recognized as potential impactors since early 20th century.

•Risk is measured in terms of human casualties/year.

•Understanding risk is a prerequisite for mitigation (planetary defense).

Perspective #1: Assessing the Hazard

7/8/2015

• During the 1990s, the standard scientific tools of sampling and statistical analysis were essential to understand the impact hazard and communicate the risk to decision makers. Chapman & Morrison and others compared the impact risk to other natural hazards, estimated the risk as a function of NEO size, and laid the foundation for establishing the Spaceguard Survey in 1998.

• Congressional language (in 1991) reflected this perspective: The Committee believes it is only prudent to assess the nature of the threat…

• More sophisticated studies of NEA populations and impact consequences by Harris, Chesley and others were used in the 2003 NASA SDT Report.

• Note that while these statistical studies provide a tool to analyze various mitigation schemes, they do not in themselves reduce the hazard.

Perspective #2: Mitigating the Hazard

7/8/2015

• The public and decision-makers are interested in warning and protection. The public-policy goal is not to refine the estimate of the risk but to identify the next impactor and do something about it.

• Changed perspective is reflected by Congress (2005): The objectives of the NEO survey program are to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize the physical characteristics of NEOs...

• The Spaceguard goal of finding 90% of the NEAs > 1 km focused on NEAs large enough to risk a global catastrophe. Such impacts dominate the risk over more frequent, smaller impacts.

• The objective is to increase public safety, not to improve scientific understanding of either NEOs or the impact risk, although these are worthy byproducts.

Perspective #3: Responding to Public Concerns about Near-term Risks

7/8/2015

• Issues that worry the public (and most decision makers) are not necessarily the greatest threats. The very rare large impacts pose the greatest hazards, but most people are more concerned about the next impact (which is likely to be small).

• Chelyabinsk has become the best-known “small” impact.

• Ideally we should design a system that detects both distant large NEAs and close small ones. But it appears that one system cannot do both jobs.

• As surveys are more complete for large NEAs, attention naturally shifts toward smaller ones.

Historical Quotes

7/8/2015

– Should a comet in its course strike the Earth, it might instantly beat it to pieces. But our comfort is, the same great Power that made the Universe, governs it by his providence. And such terrible catastrophes will not happen till 'tis best they should … Benjamin Franklin (1757)

– Men should be free from this fear ... for the probability of [a comet] striking the Earth within the span of a human lifetime is slim, even though the probability of such an impact occurring in the course of centuries is very great … Laplace (c. 1790)

– Who knows whether, when a comet shall approach this globe to destroy it, as it often has been and will be destroyed, men will not tear rocks from their foundations by means of steam, and hurl mountains, as the giants are said to have done, against the flaming mass? - and then we shall have traditions of Titans again, and of wars with Heaven... Lord Byron (1822)

Setting the Stage

7/8/2015

• First estimate of NEA impact frequency (Fletcher Watson 1941)

• Meteor Crater an impact feature (Gene Shoemaker 1950)

• Lunar craters are impact features (Apollo 1969)

• KT Impact Mass Extinction (Luiz Alvarez et al. 1980)

• NASA Advisory Council study (Shoemaker 1981 unpublished)

• Spacewatch: First CCD discovery of a NEO (Tom Gehrels 1989)

• Clark Chapman & David Morrison: Cosmic Catastrophes (1989)

• AIAA: Dealing with Threat of an Asteroid Striking the Earth (1990)

• U.S. Congress asks NASA for Impact Threat Workshops (1990)

• Glen Penfield & Alan Hildebrand find Chicxulub Crater (1990/91)

• San Juan Capistrano 1st International Conference on NEAs (1991)

• Newsweek Cover Story: How the World Might End (1992)

• Comet S-L 9 impact with Jupiter (1994)

Congressional Statement 1991

7/8/2015

• The House Committee on Science and Technology believes that it is imperative that the detection rate of Earth-orbit-crossing asteroids must be increased substantially, and that the means to destroy or alter the

orbits of asteroids when they do threaten collisions should be defined and agreed upon internationally. The chances of the Earth being struck by a large asteroid are extremely small, but because the consequences of such a collision are extremely large, the Committee believes it is only prudent to assess the nature of the threat and prepare to deal with it.

•NASA Authorization Bill, 1991

NEA Population Estimate (Shoemaker 1981)

7/8/2015

NASA Workshops/Studies 1992

7/8/2015

SPACEGUARD SURVEY WORKING GROUP

• Define threshold for globally catastrophic impact

• Optimize survey for greatest hazard: NEAs > 1 km

• Provide maximum warning lead time (several decades)

• Use existing CCD search technology to be cost-effective

• Program should be international, since entire planet is at risk

NEO INTERCEPTION WORKSHOP at LOS ALAMOS

• Several technologies could destroy incoming objects

• Edward Teller: We have identified a need for bigger bombs. We could develop a bomb large as 500,000 megatons, capable of disintegrating any comet or asteroid.

Quantitative Estimates of Risk

7/8/2015

• Risk is defined in terms of expected average casualties per year

• Risk is product of two curves: impactor population distribution (impact rates) and “kill curve” (number of casualties per impact).

• Impactor population is determined from lunar impact record (crater size distribution), telescopic observations of NEAs, estimates of current (Phanerozoic) impact rates on Earth.

• Greatest risk is from impactors capable of causing a global catastrophe (impact winter) with widespread crop failures, starvation, disease. Studies based on atmospheric dust loading (Toon, Pollack, Zahnle, etc.) placed threshold at about a million megatons (1-2 km diameter). For smaller impacts we can extrapolate data on direct damage from nuclear explosions (airburst & ground impacts).

Interpretation of Risk

7/8/2015

• Early hazard estimates based solely on energy of impact (e.g., size of NEA), dominated by threshold event (Impact Winter).

• If casualties are 1 billion and interval is 1 million yrs, average annual deaths are 1000/year, comparable to other natural hazards (earthquakes, volcanoes, severe storms). Hazards from smaller impacts (e.g., Tunguska) down 2 orders of magnitude.

• Impacts are catastrophic, unpredictable, uncontrollable, dreadful: Social Science research predicts major public concern (Slovic et al.)

• Public reaction initially the opposite: Impacts not understood. Considered too rare to take seriously (the giggle effect). Not worth sustained public funding. Planetary defense associated with nukes, Hollywood (Bruce Willis).

The Spaceguard Survey

7/8/2015

NASA Science Definition Team 2003

7/8/2015

• Chaired by Grant Stokes (MIT)

• Discussed deep survey options including ground-based (e.g., LSST), Earth-orbiting, and heliocentric platforms. Performed cost-benefit analysis on available options.

• Alan Harris and Steven Chesley analyzed risk (expressed as average annual fatalities) for different populations of NEOs and completeness of surveys. Included data on population distribution over the globe, models for impact tsunamis, and various estimates of threshold for global impact damage.

• Before Spaceguard, the risk was dominated by NEAs D = 1-2 km; at end of survey (90% completeness) roughly equal contributions from undiscovered 1-2 km NEAs and from NEAs D = 200-600 m.

• SDT estimated NEA size threshold of 140m to retire 90% of post-Spaceguard risk.

Overall Hazard (from 2003 STD Report)

7/8/2015

Residual Hazard (from 2003 STD Report)

7/8/2015

NRC Revised Population (Harris 2009)

100

102

104

106

108

1010

910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

10-1 102 105 108

100

102

104

106

108

0.01 0.1 1 10

Curent population estimateAssumed (2003) populationDiscovered to 1/19/09

K-T

Impa

ctor

Tun

gusk

a

Absolute Magnitude, H

Diameter, Km

N(<

H)

Impa

ct In

terv

al, ye

ars

Impact Energy, MT

7/8/2015

NRC Revised Kill Curve (Harris 2009)

103

105

107

109

0.1 1 10

Land impact/airburstOcean impact/tsunamiGlobal effectsSum of all

Diameter, km

Fat

aliti

es p

er e

ventRevised Kill Curve

7/8/2015

Impact Hazard Revisited (Harris 2009)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.1 1 10

2003 SDT, 1,254 totalNew revised, 1,168 total

Diameter of impactor, km

Fat

aliti

es p

er y

ear

NEA Impact risk vs. size of impactor, Intrinsic, Old vs. new population and kill curve

7/8/2015

Impact Hazard Revisited (Harris 2009) (correcting for the discoveries of Spaceguard)

0

50

100

150

200

250

0.1 1 10

SDT kill curve 100 totalRevised kill curve 91 total

Diameter of impactor, km

Fat

aliti

es p

er y

ear

NEA Impact risk vs. size of impactor, current completion, new population model

7/8/2015

Future Improvements in Hazard Models

7/8/2015

•Use finer grid of distribution of human population

•Consider risk to infrastructure (power, communications, etc.) as well as people

•Deal explicitly with irons, comets, other outliers

• Improve understanding of impact tsunamis

• Allow for range of NEA physical properties and orbits

• Consider the special challenge of modeling very rare but catastrophic events – outside our experience base

THANKS

7/8/2015

• This paper reflects a community effort over 25 years

•Special thanks to Clark Chapman and Al Harris for inumerable discussions and arguments over risk and its significance

• Thanks to NASA and the American taxpayer, without whose support none of this would have happened.

The Impact Hazard: Historical Perspectives David Morrison NASA Ames Planetary Defense Team Workshop...

Documents

Transcript of The Impact Hazard: Historical Perspectives David Morrison NASA Ames Planetary Defense Team Workshop...