U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–552PDF 2013

THREATS FROM SPACE: 

A REVIEW OF U.S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS 

TO TRACK AND MITIGATE ASTEROIDS 

AND METEORS (PART I & PART II) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013 

and 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013 

Serial No. 113–14 

and 

Serial No. 113–17 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

VACANCY 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Committee on Science, 

Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Executive Office of the President 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Gen. William L. Shelton, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 38 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, Executive Office of the President ........................................................... 64 

Gen. William L. Shelton, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command ............ 73 

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration ................................................................................... 82 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Steve Stockman, Committee on 

Science, Space and Technology ........................................................................... 94 

Letter submitted by Dr. Dante Lauretta, Department of Planetary Sciences, 

Lunar and Planetary Laboratory ........................................................................ 95 

Additional responses submitted by The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................... 97 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 102 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 103 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 105 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 105 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 106 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 107 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Ed Lu, Chairman and CEO, B612 Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 108 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 112 

Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Manager, Near-Earth Objects Program Office, Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 117 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 119 

Dr. Michael F. A’Hearn, Vice-Chair, Committee to Review Near-Earth Object 

Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, National Resource Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 126 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 128 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 136

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Ed Lu, Chairman and CEO, B612 Foundation ............................................... 150 

Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Manager, Near-Earth Objects Program Office, Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory ......................................................................................... 156 

Dr. Michael F. A’Hearn, Vice-Chair, Committee to Review Near-Earth Object 

Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, National Resource Council ......... 169 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Steve Stockman, Committee on 

Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ...................... 184 

Submitted statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Committee on 

Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ...................... 186 

Planetary Society Report submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 187 

(1) 

THREATS FROM SPACE: 

A REVIEW OF U.S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS 

TO TRACK AND MITIGATE ASTEROIDS 

AND METEORS, PART I 

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

Itonyrrss of the llnitro ~tatrs 

1l\oD.Sr of 'RqJrrswtatiors COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.sciance.lloU88.aOY 

u.s. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Threats from Space: 

A Review of u.s. Government Efforts 

to Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors, Part 1 

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

EDDIEBEFINICEJOHNSON,Tex<lS 

RANKING MEMBER 

The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Executive Office of the President 

Gen. William L. Shelton, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command 

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Admiuistrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Admiuistration 
3 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

HEARING CHARTER 

771reats ji-0111 Space: 

A Review of us. Government 4l1orts 

10 Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors, Part J 

Tuesday. March 19.2013 

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

At 10:00 am on March 19,2013, the Committee on Science, Space. and Technology will hold a 

hearing titled "Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Govcrnment Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Pmt I." This is the first in a series of hearings examining the tracking. 

characterization and mitigation of Near Earth Objects. The hearing will provide Members of the 

Committee the opportunity to receive testimony regarding the ongoing work, planned efforts. 

and coordination procedures within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. and the U.S. Air Force Space Command. 

Witnesses: 

• The Honorable John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Executive Office of the President 

• Gen. William L. Shelton, Commander, U.S. Air Force Space Command 

• The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, JI·., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 

Overview 

On Friday, February 15,2013, two events occurred that received worldwide attention. 

An unforeseen meteor (estimated 50 feet in diameter) exploded in the sky above the Russian city 

of Chclyabinsk releasing the equivalent of a 300 ki loton bomb, about twenty times the explosive 

energy of the atomic blast used over the city of Hiroshima. This blast injured nearly 1,200 

people and resulted in an estimated $33 million in property damage. On the same day, a small 

asteroid (150 feet in diameter) discovered by amateur astronomers and tracked closely by NASA 

passed safely by the Earth, but within the orbital belt of geostationary satellites. Until it entered 

our atmosphere. the Russian meteor went completely undetected. According to NASA, the two 

Page 11 
4 

events were unrelated, but raised public awareness of the potential threat from Near Earth 

Objects (NEOs). Today's hearing will cover the U.S. government's plans and programs to track, 

classify, and mitigate the threat ofNEOs. A second hearing is planned this month to address 

international, commercial private sector, and philanthropic initiatives to survey the sky for 

asteroids and comets. 

From these two incidents, many questions arose, among them: 

• Do we have the tools and technology necessary to detect and track Near Earth Objects? 

• How often do we currently observe large meteors entering the atmosphere safely over thc 

ocean? 

• Are we tracking the right size objects, specifically the ones that can cause significant harm on 

Ealih? 

• Once we identify an object, what are our means of tracking it? 

• What are our contingencies and mitigation capabilities if we determine there is a threat to the 

Earth from a NEO impact? 

• What process exists amongst governmcnt agencies, both foreign and domestic, in such an 

instance? 

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has been on the forefront of the issues 

surrounding Near Earth Objects. For example, the NASA Authorization Acts of2000 and 2005 

directed NASA to conduct a survey of the population ofNEOs and study mitigation plans. 

Astronomers estimate 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids orbit within the vicinity of the 

Earth. 

NASA NEO Asteroid Size Model CredIt tJ.t..SA,rJPl-Caltech 

This chart Illustrates how infrared is used to more accurately determine an asteroid's size Page I 2 
5 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Good morning. I am going to recognize 

myself for an opening statement, then the Ranking Member, the 

gentlewoman from Texas, will be recognized as well. 

Today’s hearing is on a subject important to our Nation and to 

our world. This is the first hearing of two on space threats to 

Earth, reviewing U.S. Government efforts to track incoming asteroids and meteors. 

Although many may be only aware of this subject due to recent 

events, it is actually one as old as our planet. And I am going to 

hold up a copy of Time magazine from nearly 20 years ago where 

this topic was featured on the cover. Here is Time, ‘‘Cosmic Crash.’’ 

This is 20 years ago. I don’t know if they were ahead of their time 

or not, but in any case, the subject has been around for a while. 

This was actually given to me by a former staff member, who I had 

research the subject 20 years ago as well. 

Though the issue has been around for a number of years, there 

are many questions still to be asked and answered. The range of 

questions are broad and complex, from how to track an object millions of miles away to how to respond if an asteroid or meteor is 

headed toward Earth. 

The two events of Friday, February 15, the harmless flyby of asteroid 2012 DA14 and the not-so-harmless impact of a meteor in 

Russia, are a stark reminder of the need to invest in space science. 

The asteroid passed just 17,000 miles from Earth, a distance less 

than the Earth’s circumference. Fifty years ago, we would have had 

no way of seeing the asteroid coming, and even so, it was discovered by amateur astronomers. The United States has come a long 

way in its ability to track and characterize asteroids, meteors, comets and meteorites. But we still have a long way to go. 

NASA believes it has discovered 93 percent of the largest asteroids in near-Earth orbit, those 1 kilometer or larger, but what 

about the other seven percent remaining, about 70, or even those 

smaller than 1 kilometer, estimated to be in the thousands? An asteroid as small as 100 meters could destroy an entire city upon a 

direct hit. Are we tracking those? The meteor that struck Russia 

was estimated to be 17 meters, and wasn’t tracked at all. The 

smaller they are, the harder they are to spot, and yet they can be 

life threatening. 

The broad scope of our efforts include participation of governments, research institutions, industries and amateur astronomers 

in their backyard or on home computers. Some space challenges require innovation, commitment and diligence. This is one of them. 

And this Committee will strive to continue to lead in this area. For 

all of the attention and publicity the two events of February 15 received, it was still too late for us to have acted to change the course 

of the incoming objects. We are in the same position today and for 

the foreseeable future unless we take actions now that improve our 

means of detection. 

Part of our discussion today is about how to achieve this in the 

current budget environment. I do not believe that NASA is going 

to somehow defy budget gravity and get an increase when everyone 

else is getting cuts. But we need to find ways to prioritize NASA’s 

projects and squeeze as much productivity as we can out of the 
6 

funds we have. Examining and exploring ways to protect the Earth 

from asteroids and meteors is a priority for the American people 

and should be a priority for NASA. 

We were fortunate that the events of last month were simply an 

interesting coincidence rather than a catastrophe. However, we still 

need to make investments and improvements in our capability to 

anticipate what may occur decades from now, or tomorrow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAMAR S. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Good morning. Today’s hearing is on a subject important to our nation and to our 

world. This is the first hearing of two on Space Threats to Earth, reviewing U.S. 

Government efforts to track incoming asteroids and meteors. 

Although many may be only aware of this subject due to recent events, it is actually one as old as our planet. This is a copy of TIME Magazine from nearly 20 years 

ago (1994) where this topic was featured on the cover. 

Though the issue has been around for a number of years, there are many questions still to be asked and answered. 

The range of questions are broad and complex, from how to track an object millions of miles away to how to respond if an asteroid or meteor is headed toward 

Earth. 

The two events of Friday, February 15—the harmless flyby of asteroid 2012 DA14 

and the not so harmless impact of a meteor in Russia—are a stark reminder of the 

need to invest in space science. 

The asteroid passed just 17,000 miles from Earth, a distance less than the Earth’s 

circumference. Fifty years ago, we would have had no way of seeing the asteroid 

coming, and even so it was discovered by amateur astronomers. 

The U.S. has come a long way in its ability to track and characterize asteroids, 

meteors, comets and meteorites. But we still have a long way to go. NASA believes 

it has discovered 93 percent of the largest asteroids in near-Earth orbit, those one 

kilometer or larger. 

But what about the other seven percent remaining, about 70, or even those smaller than one kilometer, estimated to be in the thousands? An asteroid as small as 

100 meters could destroy an entire city upon a direct hit. Are we tracking those? 

The meteor that struck Russia was estimated to be 17 meters, and wasn’t tracked 

at all. The smaller they are, the harder they are to spot, and yet they can be lifethreatening. 

The broad scope of our efforts include participation of governments, research institutions, industries and amateur astronomers in their backyard or on home computers. 

Some space challenges require innovation, commitment and diligence. This is one 

of them. And this Committee will strive to continue to lead in this area. 

For all of the attention and publicity the two events of February 15 received, it 

was still too late for us to have acted to change the course of the incoming objects. 

We are in the same position today and for the foreseeable future unless we take 

actions now that improve our means of detection. 

Part of our discussion today is about how to achieve this in the current budget 

environment. 

I do not believe that NASA is going to somehow defy budget gravity and get an 

increase when everyone else is getting cuts. But we need to find ways to prioritize 

NASA’s projects and squeeze as much productivity as we can out of the funds we 

have. 

Examining and exploring ways to protect the Earth from asteroids and meteors 

is a priority for the American people and should be a priority for NASA. 

We were fortunate that the events of last month were simply an interesting coincidence rather than a catastrophe. 

However, we still need to make investments and improvements in our capability 

to anticipate what may occur decades from now, or tomorrow. 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning. I would like to welcome each of our witnesses to today’s 
7 

hearing, and I would like to thank you for your patience as we 

postponed this hearing a couple weeks ago. 

As the chairman has indicated, this hearing was called in response to recent events in which a large meteor unexpectedly exploded in the sky over Russia, damaging property and injuring people at almost the same time that a small asteroid passed less than 

18,000 miles from Earth’s surface. While scientists indicate that 

those two events apparently were unrelated, they both serve as evidence that we live in an active solar system with potentially hazardous objects passing through our neighborhoods with surprising 

frequency. 

Indeed, there is increasing scientific evidence that impacts by 

large asteroids and comets have had profound consequences for life 

on Earth at various times in the past, even contributing to mass 

extinctions. While such events are very rare, they obviously can 

cause untold damage, and are not something we want to have happen if we can avoid it. 

I think it is our increased scientific understanding of near-Earth 

objects and their potential to impact the Earth that has led Congress to take this subject seriously in recent years. In that regard, 

this Committee has taken a leadership role on these issues dating 

back to the efforts of former Chairman George Brown, Jr. in the 

early 1990s, a time when references to killer asteroids could still 

lead to giggles and eye-rolling. Since then, Members on both sides 

of the aisle, including Representative Rohrabacher, former Chairman Hall and former Representative Giffords have taken an active 

and productive interest in this topic, and progress has been made. 

I hope that today’s hearing will provide us with a good update 

on the Federal Government’s efforts to detect, monitor and potentially mitigate such hazardous near-Earth objects. Much has been 

accomplished over the last decade, and I look forward to hearing 

about those efforts. In addition, I would like to know if there are 

additional steps that we should be taking as a country, whether an 

expanded detection program or international collaborations or 

other such measures. 

Well, we have much to discuss today and a distinguished panel 

of witnesses to help us in our oversight. I look forward to hearing 

from each of you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I would like to welcome each of our witnesses to today’s hearing. 

And I would like to thank you for your patience when we were forced to reschedule 

this hearing in the wake of the Washington snow event two weeks ago. 

As the Chairman has indicated, this hearing was called in response to recent 

events in which a large meteor unexpectedly exploded in the sky over Russia, damaging property and injuring people at almost the same time that a small asteroid 

passed less than 18,000 miles from Earth’s surface. While scientists indicate that 

those two events apparently were unrelated, they both serve as evidence that we 

live in an active solar system, with potentially hazardous objects passing through 

our neighborhood with surprising frequency. 

Indeed, there is increasing scientific evidence that impacts by large asteroids and 

comets have had profound consequences for life on Earth at various times in the 

past, even contributing to mass extinctions. While such events are very rare, they 

obviously can cause untold damage, and are not something we want to have happen 

if we can avoid it. 
8 

I think it is our increased scientific understanding of Near Earth Objects and 

their potential to impact the Earth that has led Congress to take this subject seriously in recent years. In that regard, this Committee has taken a leadership role 

on these issues dating back to the efforts of former Chairman George Brown, Jr. 

in the early 1990s—a time when references to ‘‘killer asteroids’’ could still lead to 

giggles and eye-rolling. Since then, Members on both sides of the aisle, including 

Rep. Rohrabacher, former Chairman Hall, and former Rep. Giffords have all taken 

an active and productive interest in this topic, and progress has been made. 

I hope that today’s hearing will provide us with a good update on the federal government’s efforts to detect, monitor, and potentially mitigate such hazardous Near 

Earth Objects. Much has been accomplished over the last decade, and I look forward 

to hearing about those efforts. 

In addition, I would like to know if there are additional steps that we should be 

taking as a country, whether an expanded detection program or international collaborations or other such measures. 

Well, we have much to discuss today and a distinguished panel of witnesses to 

help us in our oversight. I look forward to hearing from each of you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. At this point I would like to yield the remaining 

part of my time to Ms. Edwards, the Ranking Member of the Space 

Subcommittee, for her comments. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to note for the record, Madam Chairwoman, that 

this hearing is part one of the Committee’s examination of activities related to near-Earth objects. Subcommittee Chairman Palazzo 

and I will hold a hearing of part two in early April, and so this will 

be a continuation. And I wanted to note for the record, Madam 

Chairwoman, that just a month ago after the events that made the 

news, my colleague, Rush Holt, who is a physicist here in Congress 

and former Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics 

Laboratory, and I coauthored an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post on February 15 trying to put into plain language what 

the challenges are, the research challenges, what the threats are 

so that the American people have some understanding that as both 

the ranking member and the chairman have noted is not new for 

this Committee but poses challenges for the American people, especially when it comes to resources. 

I think it is very fitting that this Committee is considering U.S. 

government agency roles and responsibilities in near-Earth object 

detection, tracking and mitigation, not only because of the recent 

events, but because we have been at the forefront in setting the 

U.S. policy on near-Earth objects for the past two decades, and it 

was this Committee that formulated the provisions in 2008, NASA 

authorization and subsequent policy direction that called for the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop policies on emergency response and to recommend a lead agency for protecting the 

United States, and this depended on NASA, who we always seem 

to call for 911 assistance in all space matters is in stark contrast 

to the across-the-board cuts that NASA programs now face under 

law. 

And so Mr. Chairman, I am struck by how this complex planetary protection issue is and how much farther we need to go, and 

I am looking forward to today’s testimony, and with that I yield. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DONNA F. EDWARDS

Thank you, Ranking Member Johnson. 
9 

It should be noted that this hearing is Part 1 of the Committee’s examination of 

activities related to near-Earth objects (NEOs). Subcommittee Chairman Palazzo 

and I will hold Part 2 in early April. 

It is fitting that this Committee is considering U.S. government agency roles and 

responsibilities in NEO detection, tracking, and mitigation, not only because of the 

recent events, but because this Committee has been at the forefront in setting the 

U.S. policy on NEOs for the past two decades. 

The Committee’s focus, beginning in the 1990s, has led to NASA’s establishment 

of a system for detection and tracking of large NEOs, such as the 2012 DA14 asteroid. And it was this Committee that formulated the provisions in the 2008 NASA 

Authorization that called for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop 

policies on emergency response and to recommend a lead agency (or agencies) for 

protecting the United States from a NEO that is expected to collide with Earth and, 

if necessary, for implementing a deflection campaign, in consultation with international bodies. 

As we will hear today from Dr. Holdren, NASA has a key role. 

That should not come as a surprise. NASA’s combined scientific, technical, and 

engineering capability is absolutely essential to informing critical decisions on mitigation of a potentially hazardous object. This dependence on NASA, who we always 

seem to call for 911 assistance in all space matters, is in stark contrast to the 

across-the-board sequester cuts to NASA’s programs that are now law. 

Mr. Chairman, I am struck with how complex this planetary protection issue is 

and how much farther we need to go. That is why Congress needs to ensure continued investment in and attention to efforts that will address the potential threats 

of near-Earth objects. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of panelists on the priorities for Congress going forward. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Thanks, Ms. Edwards. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

Our first witness is the Hon. John P. Holdren. Dr. Holdren 

serves as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and 

Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology. Prior to his current appointment, he was a professor 

in both the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of 

Earth Science at Harvard. Dr. Holdren graduated from M.I.T. with 

degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics. 

General William L. Shelton is the Commander of the United 

States Air Force Space Command. Prior to assuming his current 

position, General Shelton was the Assistance Vice Chief of Staff 

and the Director of the Air Staff at the Pentagon. He currently organizes, equips, trains and maintains mission-ready space and 

cyberspace forces and capabilities for the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Strategic Command. General 

Shelton graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy with a bachelor’s degree in astronautical engineering. He also holds a master’s 

degree in this field from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 

Our final witness is the Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr., the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Administrator Bolden served as a pilot in the Marine Corps, eventually earning the rank of General. In the course of his military career, he participated in several international campaigns. He also 

tested a variety of ground-attack aircraft until his selection as an 

astronaut candidate in 1980. Administrator Bolden held a number 

of positions at NASA. He was able to participate in and support 

several space shuttle flights, and he traveled to orbit four times 

aboard the Space Shuttle, twice as a mission commander. For his 
10 

many achievements, Administrator Bolden was inducted into the 

U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame in May of 2006. He earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical science from the U.S. Naval Academy and 

a master’s degree in systems management from the University of 

Southern California. 

We welcome you all. Thank you for being here. And Director 

Holdren, if you will begin? 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. HOLDREN. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, 

Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. activities to detect, to track, to characterize near-Earth 

objects, or NEOs, and to develop the capability to deflect any of 

dangerous size that are discovered to be on a collision course with 

the Earth. This is, of course, a particularly timely topic for reasons 

that all of you mentioned in your opening statements. 

Near-Earth objects are defined as those whose orbits bring them 

within about 31 million miles of the Earth, a third of the distance 

to the sun, some of them traveling close enough to make an eventual collision a possibility. Those with maximum physical dimension of more than a meter are generally referred to as either asteroids or comets, while smaller objects are referred to as meteoroids. 

All are called meteors upon fiery transit of the Earth’s atmosphere, 

and the pieces that strike the surface are called meteorites. 

Dozens of asteroids a meter or more in size enter the Earth’s atmosphere each year, of which only one on the average is as big as 

4 meters. Asteroids of these sizes burn up harmlessly high in the 

atmosphere. Damage on Earth’s surface is likely only when the kinetic energy of the object is in the range of a few hundreds of kilotons of TNT equivalent or above. That corresponds at typical closing velocities to a stony asteroid about 15 meters in equivalent diameter. 

The 17-meter asteroid that blew up over Russia on February 15 

released about 440 kilotons of energy. Asteroids with that much energy strike the Earth only every 100 years or so. Larger events like 

the 1908 asteroid explosion over Siberia, which released about 15 

megatons of energy and leveled trees over an area of more than 

850 square miles, are believed to be once-in-a-thousand-years 

events. If an asteroid explosion of that size were to occur over an 

urban area, it could cause hundreds of thousands of casualties, but 

the probability of this occurring is much smaller than the one-ina-thousand-years probability I just mentioned for one hitting the 

Earth at all, and that is because land covers only 30 percent of the 

area of the Earth and urbanized areas cover only two to three percent of the land area. 

As a result, the odds of a near-Earth object strike causing massive casualties and destruction of infrastructure are very small, but 

the potential consequences of such an event are so large that it 

makes sense to take the risk seriously. Both the Congress and recent Administrations have done so. 

In 1998, Congress tasked NASA with locating within 10 years at 

least 90 percent of all NEOs with a diameter of 1 kilometer or 
11 

greater, those with the potential to threaten civilization, and in 

2005, Congress directed NASA to detect, track, catalog and characterize 90 percent of all NEOs with a diameter of 140 meters or 

greater by 2020. The 1-kilometer goal was achieved in 2011. The 

task of detecting 90 percent of NEOs larger than 140 meters is 

much more challenging but work on it is proceeding apace. 

More recent legislation directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a policy for notifying relevant authorities 

of an impending threat, to recommend a Federal entity responsible 

for protecting the Nation from an expected NEO collision, and to 

implement a policy of threat notification. In an October 2010 letter 

to this Committee, I reported on our progress on those tasks. 

The budget for NASA’s Near-Earth Object Observation program 

has actually increased about fivefold since 2009 from a little less 

than $4 million to $20.5 million in Fiscal Year 2012. Beyond detection and tracking of potentially threatening objects, moreover, the 

Administration is committed to exploring and developing the capabilities necessary to protect the Earth in general and the United 

States in particular from NEO threats. NASA coordinates this 

work with the Departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security including the latter’s Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

I thank the Committee for its continued support and its interest 

in this issue, and I will be pleased to take any questions that the 

Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:] 
12 

Statement of Dr. John P. Holdren 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Executive Office of the President of the United States 

to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

on 

March 19,2013 

(updated) 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be 

here with you today to discuss the status and coordination of U.S. activities to detect, track, and 

characterize near-Earth objects (NEO) and to develop the capability to deflect any of dangerous 

size discovered to be on a collision course with Earth. This is a very timely topic as 

underscored by the asteroid explosion over Russia on February 15 and the close flyby of an even 

larger asteroid the same day - and I am looking forward to sharing with you the 

Administration's perspective on this issue. 

I want to start by acknowledging the emphasis that the Congress has placed on understanding 

and mitigating the threat ti'om NEOs. I thank you for working with the Administration to address 

this important topic. Through multiple pieces ofiegislation, Congress has provided direction to 

pursuc enhanced NEO-detection activities and assign responsibility for threat mitigation. 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (in a section labeled the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth 

Object Survey Act) dirccted NASA to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize 90 percent of all 

NEOs with a diameter of 140 meters or greater by 2020. This legislation extends Congressional 

direction from 1998 that tasked NASA with locating at least 90 percent of all NEOs with a 

diameter of one kilometer or greater those judged by many experts to have the potential to 

threaten civilization within ten years. 

The one-kilometer goal was achieved in2011, with statistical calculations indicating that more 

than 90 percent of near-Earth objects of this size had been found. The task of detecting 90 

percent of NEOs larger than 140 meters is much more challenging, and I will describe the United 

States' effolis on this front later in this testimony. 

More-recent legislation has focused on government-wide preparations to address the threat of a 

NEO impact. The NASA Authorization Act of2008 directed the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop a policy for notifying Federal agencies and relevant 

emergency-response institutions of an impending threat; it also tasked OSTP with recommending 

a Federal agency or agencies to be responsible for protecting the United States from an expected 

NEO collision and implementing a detlection campaign, should one be necessary. 

Building on the 2008 language, the NASA Authorization Act of2010 called for OSTP to 

implement the policy on threat notification and assign a Federal agency or agencies to be 

responsible for protecting the United States in the event of a potential collision. In an October 

20 I 0 letter to this Committee, I repOlted that OSTP, in concert with the National Security Staff 

1 
13 

(NSS) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), had developed an approach I'll outline 

later in this testimony for delegating responsibility and notifying Federal agencies and relevant 

emergency-response institutions of an impending NEO threat. In addition, the President's 20 I 0 

National Space Policy reinforced NASA's role to "pursue capabilities, in cooperation with other 

departments, agencies, and commercial partners, to detect, track, catalog, and characterize" 

NEOs. 

Several Federal departments and agencies have significant roles in the pursuit of these goals and 

they cooperate in important ways. NASA sponsors various activities relating to the search for 

NEOs, including the collection and correlation ofNEO orbit data, precision tracking and 

characterization of NEOs, and assessments ofNEO orbits and impact probabilities in 

conjunction with other U.S. government agencies including the U.S. Air Force and other 

Department of Defense (000) organizations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the 

National Science Foundation (NSF), each of which plays a key role in funding ground-based 

astronomical assets that are used to detect and track NEOs. 

BACKGROUND 

Near-earth objects (NEOs) are defined as those non-manmade objects in space whose orbits 

bring them within a set distance of the Earth generally equivalent to approximately 50 million 

kilometers (31 million miles), with a portion of these objects traveling sufficiently closer to make 

an eventual collision a possibility. The larger NEOs (those with a maximum physical dimension 

of more than a meter l

) are generally referred to as either asteroids or comets, while smaller 

objects are referred to as meteoroids. Large or small, they are all called meteors upon fiery transit 

of Earth's atmosphere. When pieces of a meteor survive transit through the atmosphere to strike 

the surface of the Earth, they are called meteorites. 

Every day, a continual influx of these objects strikes Earth's atmosphere. Most of them are dustsized particles. but they add up; it's been estimated that on a typical day, these patiic!es total 

from 50 to 150 tons of matter. Asteroids of the order of a few meters in size strike the 

atmosphere roughly annually. Damage on Earth's surface is likely only when the kinetic energy 

of the object the energy it carries by virtue of its mass and velocity when it enters the 

atmosphere is in the range of a few hundred kilotons of TNT equivalent or above. (By 

comparison, the Hiroshima atomic bomb was roughly 13 kilotons of TNT equivalent.) Asteroids 

with this much energy are thought to strike the Ealih only every 100 years or so. The morc 

frequcnt, less energetic ones generally deposit that energy high enough in the atmosphere that no 

effects are felt at Earth's surface. 

Asteroids can be divided into three broad categories on the basis of their composition: carbonaccous, stony, and metallic. Metallic asteroids are denser than the other varieties and therefore 

have greater destructive power, being both more massive for a given size and less likely to 

disintegrate during atmospheric entry. Stony asteroids are the most common variety; at a typical 

I Only the largest asteroids - those few with diameters in the range of hundreds of kilometers - are spherical. 

Smaller ones arc of irregular shape. 

2 
14 

approach velocity of 16 kilometers per second2 (36,000 miles per hour), a stony asteroid would 

have to be around 20 meters in size to deliver the few hundred kilotons of TNT equivalent 

needed to do significant damage at thc surface. (The asteroid that exploded over Chelyahinsk 

on February 15 is estimated to have been about 17 meters in size.) 

The 1908 explosion over Tunguska in Siberia, which leveled trees over an area of more than 

2,200 square kilometers (850 square miles), is thought to have been caused by a stony asteroid 

between 45 and 60 meters in diameter, imparting between 10 and 20 megatons of TNT 

equivalent. Such a strike is believed to be a once-in-a-thousand-year event (or, put differently, 

having a I in 1,000 chance of occUlTing in any given year). An energy release of this size could 

cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and massive destruction if it occurred over an urhan 

area. The probability of this OcculTing, however, is much smaller than the one-in-one-thousand 

odds Ijust mentioned, inasmuch as land covers only 30 percent of the area of the planet and 

cities only 2-3 percent of the land area. Of course, a similarly sized or even larger asteroid that 

made it to the surface intact could cause significant damage even if it hit the ocean, by virtue of 

the resulting tsunami. 

Depending on its composition and velocity, an asteroid of 140 meters in diameter could have an 

impact energy in the range of 50 to 500 megatons of TNT equivalent and would be capable of 

causing destruction over a large region. The probability ofa strike of this magnitude has been 

estimated at about I in 30,000 per year. As [ noted earlier, it is believed that more than 90 

percent of all NEOs I ki lometer or greater in diameter have now been identified. None of those 

identified so far appears to pose a risk of collision, which is fortunate as the impact of an object 

of this size would release between 20,000 and 200,000 megatons of TNT equivalent and likely 

imperil all of civilization. The object that impacted the Earth just off the Yucatan Peninsula 65 

million years ago, and that is believed to have been responsible for mass extinctions across the 

planet, was an asteroid estimated to have been 10 kilometers in diameter. 

RECENT EXAMPLES 

In recent years, several NEOs have made close passes by Earth. Two unrelated asteroids, 

estimated to have been between six and 20 meters in diameter, passed between the Earth and the 

Moon on September 8th, 20 I O. Neither posed a risk of striking the Earth, but they served as a 

reminder that these kinds of close flybys are not rare. It's estimated that almost every day, at 

least one 10-l11cter ncar-Earth asteroid (part of the undiscovered population of about 50 million) 

passes the Earth inside the orbit of the Moon. 

The Chelyabinsk asteroid strike of February 15 lit up the sky and unleashed a series of shock 

waves that shattered windows over a wide area. Approximately 1,500 people were injured and 

60 were hospitalized; the regional governor said that two-thirds of the injuries were light wounds 

from shattered glass and other materials. More than 4,000 buildings were damaged. According 

to NASA estimates, the velocity of approach of the incoming asteroid was about 18 kilometers 

per second and its energy was about 400 kilotons of TNT equivalent. These estimates enable us 

to calculate a corresponding mass of 11.000 metric tons. Early measurements in the hours 

2 Most asteroids with orbits crossing that of the Earth would impact with velocities between 12 and 20 kilometers 

per second. hence the choice of 16 kilometers per seeond as an intermediate figure. 

3 
15 

following the event underestimated the energy (and therefore the mass) of the asteroid, but with 

the addition of data in the following days both from the ground and from orbiting satellites that 

witnessed the asteroid's entry, the energy measurement was refined, The entire event from the 

asteroid's atmospheric cntry to its disintegration at an altitudc of about 20 kilometers took only 

32.5 seconds. Thus far, approximately 50 small meteorites resulting from this explosion have 

been found. One piece blasted a six-meter-diametcr hole in the icc covering one of Siberia's 

many lakes. 

On the same day as the unexpected Chelyabinsk event, the 45-meter asteroid 2012 DA 14 safely 

passed nearly 27,700 kilometers (17,200 miles) from Earth, a close flyby that had been predicted 

many months in advance. This asteroid had been tracked since its February 2012 discovery. 

Tracking data and orbit calculations made by the various Federal agencies with responsibilities 

in this area made it clear over a year ago that this asteroid did not pose a threat to Earth, the 

International Space Station, or satellites in orbit. This event allowed researchers to measure the 

object's path and orbit with greater precision, improving estimates offuturc ncar-Eat1h passes. 

Analysis of data collected during thesc two contcmporaneous events indicatcs that the asteroid 

that exploded over Chelyabinsk was almost certainly unrelated to the larger asteroid 2012 DA 14; 

the smaller asteroid's trajectory was not consistcnt with its being a fragment that came otT the 

larger one. It's notable that while the Chelyabinsk "fireball" was unusual for its size and 

visibility, thousands of smallcr strikes that still explode with enough energy to produce a fireball 

(defined as being brighter than the brightcst planct) occur each day. Most fireballs are not 

noticed because they occur over oceans or uninhabited regions or are masked by 

daylight. Nearly all of them are caused by objects too small to bc detected before they enter 

Earth's atmosphere ... and also too small to do damage on Eatih's surface. 

DETECTION AND MITIGATION EFFORTS 

The ability to detect NEOs and to detcrmine whether a collision with Em1h is likely depends on 

the distance, size, and reflectivity ofthc object and the number and capabilities of the telescopes 

that arc looking for it. In gcneral, detection ofNEOs and prediction of future orbits arc 

challenging endeavors, especially when one considers that orbits can change as a result of 

encounters with other objects. 

NASA sponsors a number of activities relating to the search for NEOs under its Near Em1h 

Object Observation (NEOO) program, including work at the international Minor Planet Center 

(:ViPC). located at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center lor Astrophysics, which collects and 

correlates NEO orbit data: research at two radio-telescope facilities that help provide precision 

tracking and charactcrization ofNEOs; surveys conducted by ground-based optical telescopes; 

and activities at the NASA NEO Program Ofticc at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which 

coordinates assessments ofNEO orbits and impact probabilities. There are also cooperative 

projects involving NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF, which has a key role within 

the United States for ground-based astronomical assets). and the U.s. Air Force (USAF) 

Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (PanST ARRS) program, as well as 

non-government academic and space research organizations. Additionally, NEO detection is a 

major science driver for the proposed Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. "JASA is also working 

4 
16 

with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) on processing of data that will be collected from the 

CSA Near-Earth Object Surveillance Satellite (NEOSSat) launched last week (February 25). 

The Administration places a high priority on tracking asteroids and protecting our planet from 

them, as evidenced by the five-fold increase in the budget for NASA's NEOO program since 

2009. The United States has an effective program for discovering larger NEOs, but we need to 

improve our capabilities for the identification and characterization of smaller NEOs. 

Specifically, with our current or near-future capabilities. both on the ground and in space. it is 

unlikely that objects smaller than 100 meters in diameter on collision courses with the Emih will 

be detected with greater than weeks of advance warning·~ a matter of some concern since the 

larger objects in this range could be city-destroyers. 

ADMINISTRATION POLICIES AND BUDGETS 

Finally, I'd like to underscore some Administration policy and budgetary decisions relating to 

NEOs, which will buttress ongoing detection and tracking activities going forward. 

The President's 2013 Budget for NASA's NEOO Program proposes more than a five-fold 

increase in funding (to $20.5 million from $4 million) from the 2009 funding level for NEO 

detection activities. Further, the President's National Space Policy specifically directs NASA to 

"pursue capabilities, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, and commercial partners, 

to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near Earth objects to reduce the risk of ham1 to humans 

from an unexpected impact on our planct and to identify potentially resource-rich planetary 

objects." This guidance also reinforces NASA's roles and responsibilities \'lith regard to NEOs, 

as well as those of other Federal dep3liments and agencies including the Department of Defense, 

the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

In furtherance of these directives, NASA has completed a number of missions to investigate 

asteroids and has others planned. For example, the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (?'IEAR)-

Shoemaker mission rendezvoused, orbited, and touched down on the near-Earth asteroid Eros in 

200 I, significantly advancing the field of asteroid studies. The United States also collaborated 

with Japan, through NASA, on the successful asteroid visit and sample return mission known as 

Hayabusa. The OSIRIS-REx mission. currently in development tor launch in 2016, will study, 

characterize, and return to Earth a sample of near-E3Iih asteroid 1999 RQ36 in an effOli to 

investigate planet formation and the origin of life. And of course NASA is committed to 

carrying out the President's goal of conducting a human mission to an asteroid by 2025. That 

mission will benefit from current efforts to detect, track, and characterize NEOs by speeding the 

identification of potential targets for exploration. And in return, such a mission will generate 

invaluable information for use in future detection and mitigation efforts. 

OSTP has been working closely with several dep3liments and agencies to draft plans and 

procedures, including potential mitigation strategies, that could be lIsed in the unlikely event of a 

NEO impact threat. Under these plans, it is NASA's responsibility to provide initial notice of 

such a threat. Following such notification, communications resources and mechanisms already in 

place within FEMA would be used to communicate information domestically. The Department 

5 
17 

of State's diplomatic mechanisms would come into play for international communications as 

needed. 

With regard to risk mitigation, the Administration is committed to exploring and developing the 

capabilities and techniques necessary to protect the Earth in general, and the United States in 

particular, from NEO threats and implementing a collision mitigation campaign if necessary and 

appropriate. In 2008, the Executive Office of the President collaborated with NASA and the 

U.S. Air Force to run the first-ever disaster and deflection exercise, which included members 

from the National Security Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy, Missile Defense Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Department of 

Defense (DoD) National Security Space Office (now the Executive Agent for Space Staff), and 

the Department of Energy. The National Research Council and the NASA Advisory Council 

have also provided helpful recommendations and guidance on research priorities in impact 

mitigation techniqucs. 

Among the highlighted needs are an improved understanding ofNEO characteristics to enable 

more refined impact experiments; enhanced computer simulations; crewed and uncrewed in situ 

asteroid investigations; and further research and capabilities development in the domain of 

deflection, including explosive technologies, and impact scenarios (including design reference 

missions and gaming exercises). 000 and NASA have already shown tremendous leadership by 

taking the initiative to run multi-agency disaster and deflection exercises, and by collaborating in 

the development of an international disaster and deflection response scenario for the upcoming 

Planetary Defense Conference hosted by the International Academy of Astronautics in Flagstaff, 

Arizona. 

In summary, the Administration, with the support of Congress, has taken many positive steps to 

improve NEO detection capabilities, including meeting the 90 percent detection goal for onekilometer asteroids. Much more needs to be done, however, and it is important to note that a 

challenge on the scale of planetary defense cannot be met by any single nation or government 

alone. Rather it will be critical going forward that the Federal Government cooperate closely 

with domestic partners in industry, academia, and other sectors as well as with foreign 

governments and international organizations to achieve our shared goal of scientific discovery, 

exploration, and risk mitigation. 

I thank the Committee for its continued SUppOit and interest in this issue and I look forward to 

continuing to work with you on it. I will be pleased to take any questions Members may have. 

6 
18 

DR. JOHN P. HOLDREN is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 

Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Trained in aerospace 

engineering and theoretical plasma physics at MIT and Stanford, he is a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of 

Arts and Sciences, as well as a foreign member of the Royal Society of London and a tormer 

President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Prior to joining the 

Ohama administration, he was a professor in both the Kennedy School of Government and the 

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard, as well as Director of the Woods Hole 

Research Center. From 1973 to 1996 he was on the faculty of the University of California, 

Berkeley, where he co-founded and co-led the interdisciplinary graduate-degree program in 

energy and resources. 
19 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

General Shelton. 

TESTIMONY OF GEN. WILLIAM L. SHELTON, 

COMMANDER, U.S. AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND 

General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, Representative Johnson and 

distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear 

before you today. It is also a privilege to appear with my colleagues 

and teammates in the space community. 

Space situational awareness underpins our entire spectrum of 

space activities, and Air Force Space Command is proud of our crucial role in monitoring activity in the space domain. Specifically, we 

provide capabilities employed ultimately by United States Strategic 

Command to detect, track, identify and characterize human-made 

objects in Earth orbit. Our sensors also are capable of detecting 

natural phenomena like bolides. 

However, the Nation’s current capability to track asteroids is dependent upon NASA and other organizations such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory. For example, 

during the recent asteroid 2012 DA14 event, the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California used 

tracking data from NASA’s Near Earth Object Program Office at 

the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to perform collision avoidance 

screenings to ensure the safety of our satellites. We remain committed to working closely with our partners to ensure comprehensive space situational awareness for the Nation. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Shelton follows:] 
20 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE 

HOUSE SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: THREATS FROM SPACE: A REVIEW OF U.S. GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO 

TRACK AND MITIGATE ASTEROIDS AND METEORS 

STATEMENT OF: GENERAL WILLIAM L. SHELTON 

COMMANDER, AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND 

March 19,2013 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
21 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Air Force Space Command's role in 

monitoring activity in the space domain. Space situational awareness underpins the entire 

spectrum of space activities and Air Force Space Command's focus is on providing forces and 

capabilities to United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to detect, track, identify and 

characterize human-made objects that orbit the Earth. Our efforts contribute to the collaborative, 

multiagency endeavor required to ensure comprehensive space situational awareness for the 

Nation. 

Air Force Space Command Roles alld Respollsibilities 

Air Force Space Command presents space forces and capabilities to USSTRATCOM 

through the Fourteenth Air Force. The Commander, Fourteenth Air Force, Lieutenant General 

Susan Helms, is dual-hatted as the Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for 

Space (JFCC SPACE) and is responsible for executing USSTRA TCOM's space operations 

mission. 

JFCC SPACE's Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) is the avenue through which 

JFCC SPACE commands and controls space forces and it is the epicenter of the space situational 

awareness mission. The JSpOC is also the means by which JFCC SPACE coordinates space 

situational awareness with other agencies. For example, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) orbital safety analysts reside within the JSpOC 24 hOllrs a day to 

collaborate on orbital safety threats to human space night. 

Detectil1g (/nd Trackil1g Human-il1ade Objects ill Space 

For definitional purposes, the Air Force considers an object as being near-Earth irit takes 

less than 225 minutes to complete its orbit around the Emih. That is roughly 5,800 kilometers in 

altitude. All else is characterized as deep-space. 

All entities that operate in the space domain are increasingly concerned about orbital 

debris. Past practices, as well as recent events, both accidental and purposeful, have created a 

2 
22 

troublesome debris environment in low Earth orbit. In 2007. the People's Republic of China 

perfonned an anti-satellite test which successfully struck its target. one of their defunct weather 

satellites. In 2009. an active Iridium communications satellite and a non-operative Russian 

Cosmos satellite accidentally collided. Each ofthcsc near-Earth incidents resulted in thousands 

of pieces of debris large enough to track. As of March 1.2013. we continue to track 2,160 

pieces from the Iridium-Cosmos collision alone. Additionally, in 2012, a Russian BRIZ-M 

upper stage malfunctioned with a significant quantity of propellant remaining. This upper stage 

eventually exploded and we are now tracking almost 150 pieces of debris from this event. More 

troubling is that our modeling tells us that each event produced thousands more pieces of debris 

which are too small for our sensors to reliably track. At orbital velocities, these small objects 

still represent catastrophic potential threats to fragile spacecraft. Each subsequent collision, 

explosion or break-up leaves more debris in space, increasing the potential for further collisions 

and even more debris, a chain reaction that could exponentially increase the risk to activities in 

space. 

To support national security spacc operations in an environment of increasingly adverse 

environmental conditions, the JSpOC collects and processes data from a worldwide network of 

radar and optical sensors, as well as a dedicated space surveillance satellite. Each day the JSpOC 

creates and disseminates over 200,000 sensor taskings. The sensors then return nearly 500,000 

observations to the JSpOC for processing. JSpOC operators use this data to maintain a high 

accuracy catalog of space objects and perform over 1,000 satellite collision avoidance screenings 

daily. These operations form the basis of the United States' space situational awareness 

capability, which is then shared with other operators in the national security, civil and 

commercial sectors of space operations. 

Size (~fObjects and Distaflce Detected 

The JSpOC directs space surveillance sensors to track objects in space ranging in size 

from as small as a softball to as large as the International Space Station. Today, the JSpOC 

tracks approximately 23,000 objects in both near-Earth and deep-space. but there is an estimated 

half million plus human-made objects in Earth orbit that we are not tracking. The number of 

3 
23 

objects reliably catalogued by the JSpOC is expected to rise by as much as four or five times by 

2030 due to the steady growth in the on-orbit population, as well as the planned fielding of 

improved sensor capability. 

The systems Air Force Space Command supports were designed and fielded to meet 

requirements specific to national security missions. Some track objects in ncar-Earth orbit while 

others are focused on deep-space, primarily geosynchronous orbit; however, we can on occasion 

support other orbit profiles. For example, when the NASA Stardust spacecraft returned to Emih 

from collecting samples of the coma of a comet in 2006, we were able to modify certain 

parameters of existing models and use space surveillance sensors to track the Stardust sample 

return capsule in its parabolic return-to-Earth. 

Technologies and Processes 

As previously stated, Air Force Space Command sensors were developed to track manmade objects in Earth orbit. The Nation's CUITent capability to track asteroids, which orbit the 

sun, is largely driven by NASA. Air Force developmental telescopes arc used by the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory to tind and catalog asteroids under 

contract to NASA. And in somc cases, the JSpOC can task space surveillance sensors to help 

track close approaches by asteroids and help predict potential collisions with Earth-orbiting 

objects. For example, during the recent Asteroid 2012 DA 14 event, the JSpOC used orbit data 

for it from NASA's Near Earth Object Program OHicc at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to screen 

for potential coli isions with man-made objects in Earth orbit. 

The current sensor tasking and data processing system used by the JSpOC to accomplish 

the space situational awareness mission was designed in the 1980s, tlelded in the early 1990s and 

is nearing its capacity limits and end-of-life. We are in the process of fielding the next 

generation system, the JSpOC Mission System (JMS). With its open, service-oriented 

architecture, the JMS will supply the automation necessary to make better use of the tremendous 

volume of sensor data available. It will also enhance the Commander, JFCC SPACE capability 

to conduct space operations in a much more eHicient and much safer manner. 

4 
24 

COIle/usion 

Space situational awareness is foundational to civil, military and commercial space 

activities. Air Force Space Command forces and capabilities to detect. track, identify and 

characterize man-made objects in Earth orbit support the larger collaborative effort to maintain 

space situational awareness for the Nation. 

5 
25 

GENERAL WILLlA\1 L. SHELTON 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

GENERAL WILLIAM L. SHELTON 

Gen. William L. Shelton is Commander, Air Force 

Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. 

He is responsible for organizing, equipping, 

training and maintaining mission-ready ~paca and 

cyberspace forces and capabilities for North 

American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. 

Strategic Command and other combatant 

commands around the wond. General Shelton 

oversees Air Force network operations; manages 

a global network of satellite command and control, 

communications, missile warning and space 

launch facilities; and is responsible for space 

system development and acquisition, He leads 

more than 42,000 professionals assigned to 134 

locations worldwide, 

General Shelton entered the Air Force in 1976 as 

a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has 

served in various assignments, including research 

and development testing, space operations and 

staff work, The general has commanded at the 

squadron, group, wing and numbered air force 

levels, and served on the staffs at major command 

headquarters, Air Force headquarters and the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense. Prior to assuming his current position, General Shelton was the Assistant 

Vice Chief of Staff and Director, Air Staff, U,S.,Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C, 

EDUCATION 

1976 Bachelor of.Science degree in astronautical engineering, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, 

Colo. 

1980 Master of Science degree in astronautical engineering, U,S. Air Force Institute of Technology, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio 

1986 Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va. 1995 Master of Science degree in national securtty strategy, National War College, Fort lesley J. McNair, 

Washington, D,C. 

1996 Program for Senior Officials in National Security, Syracuse University and Johns Hopkins University 

1997 Fellow, Seminar XXI, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1, August 1976 - May 1979, Launch Facilities Manager, Launch Director and Technical Assistant to the 

Commander, Space and Missile Test Center, Vandenberg AFB, Calif. 

2, May 1979 - December 1980, Graduate Student, U.S. Air Force Institute ofTechnology, Wright-Patterson 

AFB, Ohio 

3, January 1981- July 1985, Space Shuttle Flight Controller, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 

4. July 1985 - January 1986, Student, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va. 

5. January 1986 - July 1988, Staff officer, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Air Force Space Command, 

Peterson AFB, Colo. 

6. August 1988 - August 1990, Staff Officer, Office of Space Plans and Policy, Office of the Secretary of the 

Air Force, Washington, D,C, 

7. August 1990 - June 1992, Commander, 2nd Space Operations Squadron, Falcon AFB, Colo, 

8. June 1992 - June 1993, Executive Officer to the Vice Commander, Air Force Space Command, Peterson 

AFB, Colo. 

9, June 1993 - July 1994, Commander, 50th Operations Group, Falcon AFB, Colo, 

10. August 1994 - June 1995, Student, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D,C. 

http://www.afmilJinformationibiosibioyrint.asp?bioID=7122&page=1 

Page 1013 

3/512013 
26 

GENERAL WILLIAM 1. SHELTON 

11. June 1995 - September 1997, Deputy Program Manager and Executive Assistant, Cooperative Threat 

Reduction Program Office, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and 

Biological Defense Programs, Washington, D.C. 

12. September 1997 - August 1999, Commander, 90th Space Wing, Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyo. 

13. September 1999 - July 2000, Chief, Space Superiority Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

14. July 2000 - November 2000, Director of Manpower and Organization, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Plans and Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 

15. November 2000 - May 2002, Director of Requirements, Headquarters Air Force Space Command, 

Peterson AFB, Colo. 

16. June 2002 - January 2003, Director of Plans and Programs, Headquarters AFSPC, Peterson AFB, Colo. 

17. January 2003 - May 2003, Director, Air and Space Operations, Headquarters AFSPC, Peterson AFB, 

Colo. 

18. June 2003 - January 2005, Director of Capability and Resource Integration (J8), USSTRA TCOM, Offutt 

AFB, Neb. 

19. January 2005 - May 2005, Director of Plans and Policy (J5), USSTRATCOM, Offutt AFB, Neb. 

20: May 2005 - December 2008, Commander, 14th Air Force (Air Forces Strategic), AFSPC, and 

Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, USSTRATCOM, Vandenberg AFB, Calif. 

21. December 2008 - July 2009, Chief ofWartighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, Office of the 

Secretary of the Air Force, the Pentagon, Washing1on, D.C. 

22. July 2009 - January 2011, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff and Director, Air Staff, U.S. Air Force, the 

Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

23. January 2011 - present, Commander, Air Force Space Command, PeterSon AFB, Colo. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. June 1995 - September 1997, Deputy Program Manager and Executive Assistant, Cooperative Threat 

Reduction Program Office, Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for NuClear, Chemical and 

Biological Defense Programs, Washington, D.C., as a colonel 

2. June 2003 - January 2005, Director of Capability and Resource Integration (J8), USSTRATCOM, Offutt 

AFB, Neb., as a brigadier general and major general 

3. January 2005 - May 2005, Director of Plans and Policy (J5), USSTRATCOM, Offutt AFB, Neb., as a major 

general 

4. May 2005 - July 2006, Commander, Joint Space Operations, USSTRA TCOM, Vandenberg AFB, Calif., as 

a major general 

5. July 2006 - December 2008, Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, 

USSTRATCOM, Vandenberg AFB, Calif., as a major general and lieutenant general 

BADGES 

Command Space Badge 

Master Cyberspace Badge 

Parachutist Badge 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Distinguished Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster 

Defense Meritolious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

Joint Meritorious Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with silver and two bronze oak leaf clusters 

Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with oak leaf cluster 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant June 2,1976 

First Lieutenant June 2, 1978 

Captain June 2, 1980 

Major May 1, 1985 

Lieutenant Colonel March 1, 1990 

Colonel Feb. 1, 1994 

Bligadier General Jan. 1,2001 

Major General July 1,2004 

Lieutenant General Dec. 20, 2007 

General Jan. 5, 2011 

(Current as of January 2013) 

http://www.a[milfinfonnationibioslbio...print.asp?bioID=7122&page=1 

Page 2 of3 

3/5/2013 
27 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, General Shelton. 

Administrator Bolden. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity also to appear today to discuss the 

topic of near-Earth objects, and before I formally begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as the 

new Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and I look forward to working with you in that capacity. 

I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman Edwards and Congressman Holt, who is not here, for the 

recent op-eds that you wrote that called more attention to this for 

the American public, which I think is really important. 

The events of February 15, 2013, were a stark reminder of why 

NASA has for years devoted a great deal of attention to near-Earth 

objects and why this hearing is so timely and important. The 

events of February 15 also highlight the wisdom of Congress, the 

Administration and NASA in enabling a human exploration of an 

asteroid. 

The predicted close approach of a small asteroid called 2012 

DA14 and the unpredicted entry and explosion of a very small asteroid about 15 miles above Russia that Dr. Holdren talked about 

earlier have focused a great deal of public attention on the necessity of tracking asteroids and other near-Earth objects and protecting our planet from them, something this Committee and NASA 

have been working on for over 15 years. Again, NASA has been focused on tracking asteroids and protecting our home planet from 

them well before these recent events. In fact, NASA’s focus in this 

area is evident from our fivefold increase in near-Earth object 

budgets since 2010, and literally dozens of people are involved with 

some aspect of our NEO research across NASA and its field centers. 

In addition to the resources NASA puts into understanding asteroids, the agency partners with university astronomers, space 

science institutes and other agencies across the country that are 

working to track and better understand these near-Earth objects, 

often with grants, interagency transfers and other contracts from 

NASA. 

The new public attention is not hard to understand. The coincidence of having these two very rare events happening on the same 

day along with the unfortunate injuries of over 1,000 people on the 

ground in Russia made this a very big news event. However, we 

should remember that the probability of any sizable NEO impacting the Earth any time in the next 100 years is extremely remote. 

To put these two recent events in context, very small objects 

enter the Earth’s atmosphere all the time. Current estimates are 

that on average, about 80 tons of material in the form of dust 

grains and small meteoroids enter the Earth’s atmosphere every 

single day, objects the size of a basketball arrive once a day, and 

objects as large as a car arrive about once per week. Our Earth’s 

atmosphere protects us from these small objects, so nearly all are 
28 

destroyed before hitting the ground and pose no threat to life here 

on Earth. However, the potential consequences of a significant impact are potentially very great indeed. Consistent with NASA’s role 

as established by Congress and prescribed in the President’s National Space Policy, NASA has taken a leadership role to pursue 

capabilities to detect, track and characterize near-Earth objects to 

reduce the risk of harm to humans from an unexpected impact on 

our planet. 

NASA is also developing new vehicles and capabilities including 

Orion and the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and the Space Launch 

System, which will enable human exploration of the solar system 

beyond low-Earth orbit. As the President stated in his April 15, 

2010, speech at the Kennedy Space Center, NASA’s intention is to 

‘‘send astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history’’ and 

NASA is working to accomplish this mission by 2025. In fact, 

NASA leads the world in the detection and characterization of 

NEOs and is responsible for the discovery of about 98 percent of 

all known NEOs. 

Now, here I will take a risk. There should be a chart coming up 

very soon. It is. Thank you. As shown in this graphic, the cumulative discovery of near-Earth asteroids started picking up dramatically in 1998 with the start of NASA’s Spaceguard Search program, 

and the number of known near-Earth asteroids has grown from a 

few hundred to nearly 10,000 in just 15 years, and I think it is not 

insignificant that it goes almost asymptotic when you look at 2005 

when the Congress, NASA and the Administration really picked up 

the emphasis on that. 

NASA continues to make progress toward the goals set for us by 

the Congress. To date, over 9,600 near-Earth asteroids of all sizes 

have been found. Larger asteroids pose a greater threat to the 

planet as a whole, and the percentage of asteroids we have identified tracks this relationship. We found 95 percent of the largest 

NEOs over 1 kilometer in size. Our current estimate is that we 

have also found about 60 percent of the NEOs that are between 

300 meters and 1 kilometer. As the graphic shows, we still have 

some work to do to find NEOs in the 140-meter class, and the next 

graphic please. You can see here the total discovered per size and 

you can see where we are lacking as the sizes go down. 

Our remote ground-based observations of comets and asteroids 

have been augmented by close-up reconnaissance data from our 

science missions. From 1997 to 2001, NASA’s near-Earth asteroid 

rendezvous flyby flew by two main asteroid belts before orbiting 

and landing on the near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros. Last August, our 

Dawn spacecraft departed the asteroid Vesta and is now on its way 

to a 2015 rendezvous with Ceres, the solar system’s largest asteroid. Launching in 2016, NASA’s OSIRIS–REx mission will return 

a sample of up to 2.2 pounds from an asteroid to Earth in 2023. 

Of course, NASA is working to accomplish an astronaut visit to 

an asteroid by 2025. This mission and the vital precursor activities 

that will be necessary to ensure its success should result in additional insight into the nature and composition of NEOs and will increase our capability to approach and interact with asteroids. 

NASA has a long history of observing comets and asteroids but 

as their importance as potentially hazardous objects has become 
29 

apparent, NASA has significantly increased its program of detection, reconnaissance and characterization. We have gained a nearly 

complete understanding of the population of NEOs over 1 kilometer 

in size, and we are making marked progress in protecting our planet from smaller but still dangerous objects. While we emphasize 

that the risks form impacts are remote, we remain absolutely committed to fulfilling our responsibility to find and track near-Earth 

objects. We will continue to scan the skies and update the Congress 

and the world on what we find. 

Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today, 

and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of General Bolden follows:] 
30 

Statement of 

Mr. Charles Bolden 

Administrator 

National Aeronantics and Space Administration 

before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

lJ.S. House of Representatives 

HOLD FOR RELEASE 

UNTIL PRESENTED 

BY WITNESS 

March 19,2013 

Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss 

the topic of Near Earth·Objects (NEOs). NEOs are defined as those non·manmade objects in space 

whose orbits bring them within 1.3 Astronomical Units of the Sun, or to a set distance to the Earth's orbit 

that is generally equivalent to approximately 50 million kilometers (31 million miles). 

The events of Februaty 15. 2013 were a stark reminder of why NASA has for years devoted a great deal 

of attention to Near Earth Objects and why this hearing is so timely and important. The predicted close 

approach ofa small asteroid, called 2012 DAI4, and the unpredieted entry and explosion ofa very small 

asteroid about 15 miles above Russia, have focused a great deal of publie attention on the necessity of 

tracking asteroids and other NEOs and protecting our planet from them something this Committee and 

NASA have been working on for over 15 years. The events of February 15th also highlight the wisdom of 

the Congress, the Administration and NASA in enabling the human exploration of an asteroid. 

The new public attention is not hard to nnderstand. The coincidence of having these two very rare events. 

happening on the same day, along with the unfortunate injuries to over 1,000 people on the ground in 

Russia, made this a very big news story. However, we should remember tbat the probability of any sizable 

NEO impacting the Earth anytime ill tbe next 100 years is extremely remote. The small fraction of 

objects we bave discovered which do have the potential to impact the Earth are tagged by the Minor 

Planet Center as Potentially Hazardous Objects (or PHOs) and arc subjected to further study and 

observation to assess just how hazardous they may be. Smaller ohjects. such as the recent impact in 

Russia, will always be difficult to detect and provide adequate warning; however. progress will be made 

ovcr tbe next decade in this area as well. 

To put these two recent events in context, very small objects enter the Earth's atmosphere all the time. 

The largerNEOs (those with a maximum physical dimension of more than a meter) arc generally referred 

to as either asteroids or comets, while smaller objects are refen'cd to as meteoroids. Current estimates arc 

that on average about 100 tOllS of material in the form of dust grains and small meteoroids entcr tbe 

Earth's atmosphere each day. Objects the size of a basketball arrive about once per day, and objects as 

large as a car arrive about once per week. Our Earth's atmosphere protects us from these small objects, 

so nearly all are destroyed before hitting the ground and generally pose no threat to life on Earth. 

However, while objects the size of the one that exploded over Russia, which we have assessed as a rocky 

asteroid about 17 meters in diameter and weigbing from 7.000 to 13.000 metric tons, enter the Earth's 
31 

atmosphere very rarely on human timescales, they do have serious consequenccs. NASA has been at the 

forefront in leveraging our own resources. as well as interagency, intC1l1atiollal, academic and commercial 

partnerships, to study both these rare and more common NEO close approach events, and to expand our 

knowledge about NEOs and the potential threat they pose to the Earth. The 2010 National Space Policy 

specifically directs NASA to takc a leadership role to "pursue capabilities, in cooperation with other 

departmcnts, agencies, and commercial partners, to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth 

objects to reduce the risk of harm to humans from an unexpected impact on our planet and to identify 

potentially resource-rich planctary objects." 

NASA leads the world in the detection and characterization ofNEOs, and is rcsponsible for the discovery 

of about 98 percent of all known NEOs. Over IS-plus years of collccting data on NEOs has helped to 

shape the scientific consensus about these objccts and the potential threat they pose to the Earth. NASA is 

leading a wide array of activities related to NEOs, including a long-standing ground-based observing 

campaign, focused flight missions to study both asteroids and comets, as well as conceptual studies and 

tcchnology development to improve our ability to lind N EOs. NASA uses radar techniques to bettcr 

charactcrize the orbits, shapes, and sizes of observable NEOs, and funds research activities to better 

understand thcir composition and nature. NASA also funds the key reporting and disscmination 

inli'astructure that allows for world-wide follow-up observations ofNEOs as wcll as research related 

activitics, including computer modeling, sample analysis and workshops to disseminate information about 

NEOs to the larger scientific and engineering community. Consistent with NASA's role as outlincd in 

President's National Space Policy, NASA continues to collaborate with the Executive Office of the 

Presidcnt and the Department of Defense on planning and exercises for responding to future hazardous 

NEOs. 

NASA is also developing new vehicles and capabilities, including the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 

and the Space Launch System, which will enable human exploration of the solar system beyond low Earth 

orbit. As the President stated in his April IS, 2010, speech at the Kennedy Space Center, NASA', 

intention is to H[send] astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in histOty." NASA is working to 

accomplish this mission by 2025. This mission, and the vital precursor activities that will be necessary to 

ensure its success, should result in additional insight into the nature and composition of NEOs and will 

increase our capability to approach and interact with asteroids. 

Detection-related Activities 

NASA was tasked by Congress in 1998 to catalog 90 percent of all the large NEOs (those of 1 kilometer 

or more in size) within 10 years; these would be large enough that should they strike Earth, it would result 

in a global catastrophe. NASA worked with a number of ground-based observatories and partners as part 

of our Spacegllard survey to reach that goal; NASA has now catalogued an estimated 95 percent of all 

NEOs over I km in size. None of these known large NEOs pose any threat of impact to the Earth anytime 

in the foreseeable future. 

As shown in the next graphic, the cumulative discovery of Near-Earth Asteroids, the largest subset of 

NEOs, started picking up dramatically in 1998 with the start of NASA's Spaceguard search program and 

the number of known NEOs has grown from a few hundred to nearly 10,000 in just 15 years. 

2 
32 

In 2005, as part of the NASA Authorization Act of2005 (P.L. 109-155), Congress also directed NASA to 

initiate the George E. Brown, Jr. Ncar-Earth Object Survey, to "detect, track, catalogue, and characterize 

the physical characteristics of near-Earth objects cqual to or greater than 140 meters in diameter" and set 

a goal for this program to achieve 90 percent completion by 2020. That effort is underway. NASA's 

NEO Observation Program currently funds three survey teams that operate five ground-based telescopes 

involved in the NEO search effort. Each team conducts independent operations for 14 to 20 nights per 

month, as weather permits, avoiding approximately a week on either side of the full moon when the sky is 

too bright to detect these extremely dim objects from the ground. 

NASA also leveraged its investment in the Wide-field Intj'ared Survey Explorer (WISE) spacccraft to 

discover NEOs. WISE was designed originally as an astrophysics mission that would scan the entire sky 

in infrared light to study the coolest stars and the universe's most luminous galaxies. After completion of 

its astrophysics mission, WISE's operations were extended specifically as a NEO-finding mission. 

NASA made investments, referred to collectively as NEO-WISE, to adapt existing software, add data 

pipelines, and to put in place data collection, archive and retrieval software for the new NEO-WISE 

database. Overall, NASA's investments in NEO-WISE resulted in the discovery of 146 previously 

unknown objects, including 129 near-Earth asteroids, of which 21 are Potentially Hazardous Objects, and 

17 comets. 

As noted in the following graphic, NASA continues to make progress toward the goals of the George E. 

Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey. To date, over 9,600 Ncar-Earth Asteroids of all sizes have been 

found. In addition [0 the 95 percent ofNEOs over 1 km in size, our current estimate is that we have also 

found about 60 percent of the NEOs that arc between 300 meters and I km. 

3 
33 

Risk Assessment and Characlericalion 

Observations from all observatories around the world arc sent to the international "clearinghouse" for 

small body observation data, the Minor Planet Center (MPC). The MPC maintains the database of 

observations and orbits on all known small bodies (asteroids, comets, dwarf planets, Kuiper Belt Objects, 

etc.) in the Solar System. It is funded by NASA and hosted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical 

Observatory's Center for Astrophysics. The MPC verifies and validates the observations by determining 

if they are of an already known object (by comparing them to the known orbits), or are indeed a new 

discovery. The MPC then dctcnnines and publishes an initial orbit for the new discovery so that 

observatories world-wide may look for the object and confirm its existence. 

Once a new object's orbit is secured, its potential for impacting the Earth is assessed. As mentioncd 

previously, well over 99 percent of all objects discovered have no potcntial for Earth impact even over 

many thousands of ycars, but the small fraction which do have some potential are tagged as PHOs by the 

Minor Planet Center. Marc dctailed and refined analyses of a PHO's orbit, and an assessment of the risk 

posed by a particular object, are conducted by NASA's NEO Program Office at the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory (JPL). Observations on PHOs are automatically forwarded to JPL and their orbits updated 

with high-precision analysis to detcnnine a level of probability of the object impacting the Earth in the 

next 100 to 200 years. The results of this analysis are routinely updatcd and published on the NEO 

Program website at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov. 

When an NEO passes close enough to the Earth to be scanned by ground-based radar, NASA funds 

targeted radar observations. When an object passes close enough to the Earth to achieve a measurable 

4 
34 

radar return (about 20 million miles depending on the size), this allows NASA to obtain additional 

information about these objects. As was the case with 2012 DA14, the primary facility currently being 

used by NASA for routine planetary radar is NASA's own Goldstone facility, part of our Deep Space 

.\fetwork (DSN). NASA also uses the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Areeibo Radio Telescope 

facility for planetary radar obscrvations. There are significant differences with the planetary radar 

capability at Arecibo compared to Goldstone. The Goldstonc radar is a 70-meter steerablc dish, allowing 

it to access objects significantly lowcr to the horizon than the more limited sky area accessible to the 

Arecibo radar. However, Arecibo is twice as powerful as Goldstone and has a much larger (304 meter) 

collection dish, which allows it to observe objects significantly farther away than Goldstone. Each plays 

an important role in the quick refinement of the orbit to a precision not obtainable by other means, and for 

understanding the object's size, shape and rotation rate. They can also aid in the detection of possible 

hinary objects (-15 percent ofNEOs), which in tum provides data lhat can be used to determinc their 

mass. 

NASA's NEO Observation (NEOO) Program has initiated development of several additional capabilities 

to the NEO detection network, with thc recent additional funding it received starling in FY2012. Somc of 

these involve collaboration on projects with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

and the U.S. Air Force, such as background detection of asteroids by the new Space Surveillance 

Telescope (SST), whieh is on track to start routinely providing observations this year. There is also the 

planned augmentation of the Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System or Pan-STARRS 

facility with a second aperture. The wide field of view survey capabilities of these two assets arc 

expected to provide a significant increase in NEO detection rate. 

An important new development project that was started last year is the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last 

Alert System Project, or ATLAS Project. NASA's NEOO program has funded a five-year grant to the 

University of Hawaii to develop this innovative system. It will couple modest-sized, commcrciallyavailable telescopes with custom charge-coupled device camcras and rapid sky survey software to cover 

the entire available sky each night, detecting any asteroid bright enough to be seen by its detectors. 

ATLAS will find 100-meter sized asteroids millions of miles away, and smaller objects as they come 

closcr to the Earth. It could provide days to weeks of warning of an object tens of meters in size that is on 

an impact trajectory with Earth. The prototype system is planned to begin sky testing by the end of 

calendar year 2014. 

However, ATLAS, like SST and Pan-STARRS, will still be limited to the night sky and by weather. The 

only way to overcome these impediments is to use the vantage point of space. This is the idea behind a 

privately funded effort by the B612 Foundation to build a space observatory called Sentinel. NASA is 

providing B612 technical and operations assistance through a Space Aet Agreement. Sentinel is being 

designed to find 1 OO-meter sized objects and larger that conld come ncar Earth's orbit. 

To find the more numerous smaller asteroids ncar Earth, NASA also is investigating development of an 

instrument that could be hosted on geo-synchronous platforms such as communications, TV broadcast or 

weather satellites. This instnllnent would be a modest-sized, wide field telescope with detectors that 

operate in the infrared bands where these faint asteroids are more easily detected against the cold 

background of space. Though limited by the telescope size that can be hosted by a commercial geosatellite, such a capability shows promise to increase the detection rate of ncar Earth asteroids. We plan 

to initiate this project with an instrument solicitation later this year. Thc NASA Science Mission 

Directorate is testing detectors initiated in its Discovery Program that may be used in such a hosted 

asteroid detection telescope. 

And, to further leverage international capabilities, NASA has been a leading participant in the NEO 

activities of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uscs of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS). Over 

5 
35 

the past several years, a working group on NEOs under the UNCOPUOS Scientific and Technical 

Subcommittee has been examining the topic of Earth-threatening NEOs. Results of that work led to 

rccommendations this year, endorsed by the Subcommittee. to broaden and strengthen the international 

network to detect and characterize NEOs, and to call for relevant national space agencies to form a group 

focused on designing reference missions for a NEO detlection campaign. NASA has been at the forefront 

of thcse activities and will continuc to take on that role. 

ReCOmlOissGnce Activities' 

NASA's remote ground-based observations of comets and asteroids have been augmented by close-up 

reconnaissance data from the agency's science missions. Since the main asteroid belt located between the 

orbits of Mars and Jupiter is the source of NEOs, it is important to study it to fully understand these 

objects. NASA's Galileo spacecraft flew by and studied the main-belt asteroids Gaspra in 1991 and Ida 

in 1993 on its way to Jupiter. NASA's Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous or NEAR mission (later 

renamed NEAR Shoemaker) flew by the main-belt asteroid 253 Mathilde in 1997, and beginning in 1988 

!lew by, then orbited, and in 2001 landed on the near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros. NASA is cooperating with 

the European Space Agency on its Rosetta mission, which encountered the main-belt asteroids 2867 

Steins in 2008 and 21 Lutetia in 2010, and is scheduled to rendezvous and land on the Near-Earth comet 

67PiChuryumov-Gerasimenko next year. NASA's Deep Space-l spacecraft flew by a small Mars 

crossing asteroid, 9969 Braille, in 1999. NASA's Stardust spacecraft flew by the main-belt asteroid 5535 

Annefrank in 2002. NASA's Deep Impact mission was specifically designed to impact and observe the 

effccts on a comet. After imaging the comet Temple 1 in July 2005, the larger "flyby" spacecraft pointed 

high-precision tracking telescopes at the comet and released the "impactor" spacecraft into the comet's 

path for a planned collision. NASA's Stardust spacecraft later flew by Tempel 1 in Febmary 2011, to 

further sludy what happened after the impact. NASA collaborated on Japan's Hayabusa mission which in 

2010 successfully returned a small amount of samples from its 2006 encounter with the ncar-Earth 

asteroid 25143 Itokawa; 10 percent of these microscopic samples will be available for research by U.S. 

scientists as a result of NASA's agreemcnt with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). 

Most recently, NASA's Dawn spacecratt spent a year orbiting and observing the large main-belt asteroid 

4 Vesta. Dawn provided close-up views of Vesta and unpreccdented detail about the giant asteroid. 

Dawn's observations confirmed that the astcroid had completely melted in the past, forming a layered 

body with an iron core. The spacecraft also revealed the collisions Vesta suffered in its southern 

hemisphere. The asteroid survived two colossal impacts in the last 2 billion years. Without Dawn, 

scientists would not have known about the dramatic troughs sculpted around Vesta, which are ripples 

from the two south polar impacts. Dawn departed Vesta last August. and is now on its way to its planned 

rendezvous in 2015 with Ceres, the only dwarf planet in the inner solar system and the largest asteroid, so 

large that it is estimated to contain a third of the mass ofthe entire main asteroid belt. 

These reconnaissance missions have greatly redefined what we know about asteroids and comets. These 

missions have observed asteroids that arc binary systems, like Ida and Dactyl, where two objects travel 

together through space orbiting each other, which provides us insight into how these objects arc formed 

and provide challenges for getting close to them. They have visited asteroids with primitive compositions 

that teach us about the origin of our solar system, and others that have undergone many of the samc 

processes as terrestrial planets, providing a mirror for understanding our own. For example, data frol11 our 

NEAR/Shoemaker mission snggcsts that Eros is a cracked but solid rock, probably a fractured chip off a 

larger body, made of somc of the most primitive materials in the solar syslem. Judging from the 

meteorites, we have many morc interesting varieties to visit in the future, from asteroids made of solid 

iron nickel alloys, to cosmic rubble piles, having collected hits and pieces over time and arc only loosely 

connected. 

A significant parI of NASA's exploration of asteroids is to characterize the variety of asteroid 

6 
36 

composition and other characteristics that have both fundamental science value and provide critical 

information to inform the potential risk of PH Os. To this end, NASA is moving toward confirmation 

later this year for the Agency's planned asteroid rendezvous and sample return mission, dubbed OSIRISREx (for Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer) that is 

planned to launch in 2016. After traveling three years, OSIRIS-REx will approach a near Earth asteroid, 

currently named 1999 RQ36, in 2019. 1999 RQ36 is believed to be the most exciting, accessible, volatile 

and organic-rich rcmnant currently known from the early Solar System; it also is thonght to have 

abundant regolith (a blanket of loose materials covering rock), comprised of fine gravel that is ideal for 

collecting a sizable sample. With this sample, scientists will be able to analyze the asteroid's composition, 

mineralogy and geology to learn more about it and other organic-rich B-type asteroids. Once within three 

miles of the asteroid, the spacecraft will hegin six months of comprehensive surface mapping. The 

science tcam then will pick a location from where the spacecraft's arm will take a sample of between 60 

and 1000 grams (up to 2.2 Ibs) for retum to Earth in 2023. The careful study of 1999 RQ36 will permit 

scientists to fully understand the context in which the sample was selected, which should greatly increase 

the scientific value of the sample. NASA recently sponsored a contcst for students worldwide to re-name 

1999 RQ36 and draw attention to the important issues surrounding NEOs. The contest deadline was 

December 2. 2012, and we anticipate announcing a winner in the coming months. 

NASA is also in discussions with our international partners to collaborate on sevcralmissions or mission 

concepts that could, in the future, grant access to U.S. researchers to valuable data on asteroids. NASA is 

working with JAXA on potential collaboration on the Japanese-led Hayabusa II mission. NASA is also 

discussing with the European Space Agency potential collaboration on two of their mission concepts: I) 

the Marco-Polo-R mission concept which is focused on returning a sample from a primitive ncar-Earth 

asteroid in the late 2020s, and, 2) the Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission 

concept that could be used to study the binary asteroid system Didymos with two spacecraft and see if a 

small interceptor can affect any the change in the relative orbit of the two bodies. 

Finally, NASA is working to accomplish an astronaut visit to an asteroid by 2025. This mission, and the 

vital prceursor activities that will be necessary to ensure its success, should result in additional insight 

into the nature and composition of NEOs and will increase our capability to approach and interact with 

asteroids. 

Conclusion 

NASA has a long history of observing comets and asteroids but as their importance has become apparent 

as potentially hazardous objects, NASA has significantly increased its program of detection, 

reconnaissance, and characterization. NASA '5 current program utilizes extensive ground-based telescope 

observations in partnership with academia, U.S. Air Force, the National Science Foundation, and many 

international groups as well. We have a nearly complete understanding of our largest NEO population. 

NASA has determined that it is unlikely that the world will suffer a global catastrophic impact over the 

next several hundred years similar to the dinosaur extinction event. We are making marked progress in 

assessing the risk to our planet from smaller objects that could produce regional disasters. NASA is 

regularly reevaluating the risk to our planet and constantly updating our knowledge of the NEO 

population. Smaller objects, such as the recent impact in Russia, will always be difficult to detect and 

provide adequate warning; howevcr, progress will be made over the next decade in tbis area as well. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look fOlward to responding to any questions 

you may have. 

7 
37 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 

Nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. 

Senate, retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles Frank Bolden, Jr., 

began his duties as the twelfth Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration on July 17, 2009. As 

Administrator, he leads the NASA team and manages its resources to 

advance the agency's missions and goals. 

Bolden's confirmation marks the beginning of his second stint with the 

nation's space agency. His 34-year career with the Marine Corps 

included 14 years as a member of NASA's Astronaut Office. After 

joining the office in 1980, he traveled to orbit four times aboard the 

space shuttle between 1986 and 1994, commanding two of the 

missions. His flights included deployment of the Hubble Space 

Telescope and the first joint U.S.-Russian shuttle mission, which 

featured a cosmonaut as a member of his crew. Prior to Bolden's 

nomination for the NASA Administrator's job, he was employed as the 

Chief Executive Officer of JACKandPANTHER LLC, a small business enterprise providing leadership, 

military and aerospace consulting, and motivational speaking. 

A resident of Houston, Bolden was born Aug. 19, 1946, in Columbia, S.C. He graduated from C. A. 

Johnson High School in 1964 and received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. Bolden 

earned a bachelor of science degree in electrical science in 1968 and was commissioned as a second 

lieutenant in the Marine Corps. After completing flight training in 1970, he became a naval aviator. 

Bolden flew more than 100 combat missions in North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, while 

stationed in Namphong, Thailand, from 1972-1973. 

After returning to the U.S., Bolden served in a variety of positions in the Marine Corps in California and 

earned a master of science degree in systems management from the University of Southern California 

in 1977. Following graduation, he was assigned to the Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Md., 

and completed his training in 1979. While working at the Naval Air Test Center's Systems Engineering 

and Strike Aircraft Test Directorates, he tested a variety of ground attack aircraft until his selection as 

an astronaut candidate in 1980. 

Bolden's NASA astronaut career included technical assignments as the Astronaut Office Safety 

Officer; Technical Assistant to the director of Flight Crew Operations; Special Assistant to the Director 

of the Johnson Space Center; Chief of the Safety Division at Johnson (overseeing safety efforts for the 

return to flight after the 1986 Challenger accident); lead aslronaut for vehicle test and checkout at the 

Kennedy Space Center; and Assistant Deputy Administrator at NASA Headquarters. After his final 

space shuttle flight in 1994, he left the agency to return to active duty the operating forces in the 

Marine Corps as the Deputy Commandant of Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy. 

Bolden was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General of the 1 st Marine Expeditionary Force in 

the Pacific in 1997. During the first half of 1998, he served as Commanding General of the 1st Marine 

Expeditionary Force Forward in support of Operation Desert Thunder in Kuwait. Bolden was promoted 

to his final rank of major general in July 1998 and named Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Japan. 

He later served as the Commanding General of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Marine Corps Air 

Station Miramar in San Diego, Calif., from 2000 until 2002, before retiring from the Marine Corps in 

2003. Bolden's many military decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal and the 

Distinguished Flying Cross. He was inducted into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame in May 2006. 

Bolden is married to the former Alexis (Jackie) Walker of Columbia, S.C. The couple has two children: 

Anthony Che, a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps who is married to the former Penelope 

McDougal of Sydney, Australia, and Kelly Michelle, a medical doctor now serving a fellowship in 

plastic surgery. 

www.nasa.gov 

.-

.-

E 

-c 

« 

« 

en 

« 

z 
38 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Administrator Bolden. 

I recognize myself for questions, and let me address the first one 

to Dr. Holdren and then perhaps, Administrator Bolden, to you as 

well. There seems to be general agreement based upon your testimonies that we are able to detect 90 to 95 percent of the nearEarth objects that are larger than 1 kilometer somewhere around 

60 percent of the objects that are over 300 meters, so my question 

is this. I haven’t heard yet nor have I seen yet what percentage of 

the near-Earth objects, the incoming asteroids that are 100 meters, 

what percentage of those objects are we able to detect, 100 meters 

being, I think, Dr. Holdren, you described in your written testimony as the size of a city destroyer. So what percentage of the 100- 

meter near-Earth objects can we detect, and do you have a figure 

for that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I believe at this point that number would be a little under 10 percent. The number for 140 meters and above is 10 

percent. The 100 would be a little under 10 percent. 

Chairman SMITH. Administrator Bolden, do you agree with that? 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir, that was on that second chart I 

showed where it looks like the less than 10 percent for—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. How many objects are we talking about 

that we are not able to detect that might be the city destroyers? 

General BOLDEN. Numbers of objects? 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know that answer, and 

that is one thing I cannot take for the record because—— 

Chairman SMITH. What was the 10 percent? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I can answer that question, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay, Dr. Holdren. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The estimates of how many objects exist, nearEarth objects in the range of 140 meters or above are between 

13,000 and 20,000 objects. So that is the number of which we have 

detected 10 percent. That is the much more challenging goal, which 

the Congress put before us to identify 90 percent of those by 2020. 

Chairman SMITH. Roughly 2,000 objects that are city destroyers, 

we are not detecting. Is that roughly right? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, more, because the number we are detecting is 

10 percent of 13,000 to 20,000 so—— 

Chairman SMITH. I was going in—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. So you were going the other way. Unfortunately, 

the number undetected—— 

Chairman SMITH. I was going 1,300 to 2,000, and I was going to 

the larger figure. That is why I said 2,000. 

General BOLDEN. So the number of undetected potential city killers is very large. It is in the range of 10,000 or more. 

Chairman SMITH. Ten thousand or more. Okay. Not reassuring, 

but what is reassuring, we hope, is the unlikelihood that one of 

those city destroyers would actually hit a city. As you pointed out, 

two to three percent of the earth’s area is urban area. 

Administrator, what programs, what improvements, what developments can we expect in the next, say, 2 years or 5 years to be 

able to better detect these thousands of near-Earth objects that 

might be life threatening? 
39 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, we continue our work, our collaboration with our international partners. That is very important. 

As Dr. Holdren mentioned earlier, he didn’t specify but it was a 

Spanish astronomer, amateur astronomer actually, or I think—— 

Chairman SMITH. Do you expect improvements in Earth-based— 

I mean telescopes, for example, that will enable us to better detect 

these? 

General BOLDEN. What we are really looking at is not improvements but increase in the numbers of space-borne assets. We really 

need to have space-borne assets that are able to look. We are cooperating right now with a Space Act Agreement with a private 

company called B612 that will be engaged in the identification and 

characterization of asteroids, and my hope is that there will be 

more. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And what percentage of these thousands 

would we be able to detect in the next few years that we are not 

detecting now? Any idea? 

General BOLDEN. If you talk about the 140-meter class, our estimate right now is at the present budget levels—that is present 

budget levels, not the going-down budget levels—it will be 2030 before we are able to reach the 90 percent level as prescribed by Congress to detect and characterize those 90 percent of the 140-meter 

class. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you for the answer, though, 

again, that is not particularly reassuring. Maybe we can help you 

out with the budget. Don’t know. 

General Shelton, last question for you. Was the Department of 

Defense aware of the meteor that exploded over Russia? 

General SHELTON. Mr. Chairman, not until we were tipped off by 

NASA. 

Chairman SMITH. And that was after the fact, or how far before 

the fact? 

General SHELTON. No, it was—I want to say it was two or three 

days preceding—— 

Chairman SMITH. Two or three days before it exploded over Russia? Okay. 

General SHELTON. I am sorry. You said the explosion. I was talking about DA14. 

Chairman SMITH. No, I am talking about the meteor that exploded over Russia. 

General SHELTON. We had no insight in that at all. 

Chairman SMITH. Even with satellites, even with everything 

else? 

General SHELTON. We were aware of the event when it occurred. 

Chairman SMITH. And not before? 

General SHELTON. Not before. 

Chairman SMITH. I just have to ask you, how then are we going 

to be aware of, say, incoming missiles if we couldn’t detect the meteor exploding over Russia? 

General SHELTON. Now, we did detect it. We were aware of the 

event. 

Chairman SMITH. But at the time of the event, not before? 

General SHELTON. Yes, sir, and we would have to take that into 

a different forum to talk in more detail. 
40 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, and that concludes my questions. The Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Holdren, in October 2010, the Congressional response to the 

direction in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act described roles and 

responsibilities for NASA, FEMA, DOD and State but is silent who 

has the overall responsibility, and I was wondering who in this Administration is the—who has the single responsibility to oversee 

the other activities of other agencies? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, NASA is responsible, has the overarching responsibility for detection and notification. NASA notifies FEMA, 

they notify the Department of Defense. On the question of mitigation, who would have the responsibility if an asteroid were discovered to be on a collision course, that would depend on the size of 

the asteroid and the amount of notice we had. For some deflection 

missions, you would want NASA to be in charge. For other kinds 

of deflection missions, you would want DOD to be in charge. So it 

does not make sense from the standpoint of the mitigation mission 

to specify in advance which agency would do it, but the notification—identification and notification responsibilities are unambiguous. 

Ms. JOHNSON. So when there is mitigation, do all of you come together or who takes the lead? What determines who takes the 

lead? 

Dr. HOLDREN. In that event, we would certainly all come together, and we are in fact exercising those kinds of communications. There is actually an exercise coming up in the middle of next 

month when we will exercise those interactions, communications 

and the exercise of responsibilities. There is a workshop actually 

coming up at the beginning of next month in which those interagency interactions will be further discussed and delineated. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We are talking about space debris and near-Earth objects that 

are—it seems to me that these two issues are not just American 

issues, and we are talking about the cost all this, what are we talking about in terms of over a 20-year period, the costs of actually 

coming up with a deflection and the cost of actually making the determination of what is heading in our direction? Dr. Holdren, or do 

any of you have estimates of cost? 

General BOLDEN. Mr. Rohrabacher, I can give you an estimate 

right now. We do it incrementally so we believe we have to detect 

and characterize first and then we have to concern ourselves, as 

Dr, Holdren says, with who is going to do the mitigating action or 

the deflection action. We have two concepts. One is about threequarters of a billion dollars for an infrared-based sensor that is 

placed in space, something that orbits Venus or at least is in geosynchronous orbit. B612, that I mentioned, their estimate for their 

effort is about a half a billion dollars, about $500 million dollars. 

So we are roughly in that range. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is that just for that one sensor that we are 

talking about? 
41 

General BOLDEN. That is just for—to try to put something in 

space that will help us to identify and characterize. I think all 

three of us agree, ground-based systems are great, Arecibo and others, but if you really want to find and detect asteroids, near-Earth 

objects early enough that we can do something, then you want that 

vehicle—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And the cost is? 

General BOLDEN. I gave you an example of two. I will take it for 

the record to get back to you. I think what you are asking for is 

a lifecycle cost for a program to mitigate. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t think any of us have—we have not developed that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it is in the billions of dollars, correct? 

General BOLDEN. Oh, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. You know, if one detection device is almost a 

billion—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, let me suggest that perhaps the billion 

dollars, and that would provide protection for not just the United 

States but for the world. 

General BOLDEN. Sir, anything we are talking about—this is 

not—as you pointed out, this is not an American issue. Anything 

that we do protects the planet. Anything that our international 

partners do protects the planet, and that is why you hear me talk 

all the time about the critical importance of international collaboration. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is what I want to ask you about on this. 

What steps have we taken to bring countries together that could 

contribute those billions of dollars as well as our own? 

General BOLDEN. Well, the U.N. Organization for Peaceful Cooperation of Space, U.N. COPUOS, has a very active ongoing activity and trying to help bring nations together and looking at detecting and tracking NEOs. We are a participant in that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There is not just one organization that is 

aimed specifically or—when was the last meeting of groups of people who represent countries that might want to get involved and 

contribute and have an overall part? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Congressman Rohrabacher, I can take that one. 

There was a meeting in Vienna in mid-February of this year just 

a month ago under the auspices of the U.N. Committee on Peaceful 

Uses of Outer Space. It was agreed there to stand up an international asteroid warning network and to stand up as well an 

international body that would deal with the mitigation question. 

There is already underway something called AIDA, the Asteroid 

Impact and Deflection Assessment, which is a joint effort of the European Space Agency and NASA, and I should add that the detection network that we already have is highly international in character. As Administrator Bolden mentioned, it was actually a Spanish observer who first discovered the asteroid that made the near 

miss on February 15. The Minor Planet Center, which is in substantial part funded by NASA and hosted by the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, is actually under the overall aus-
42 

pices of the International Astronomical Union, so it is all very 

international. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that number one, the cost of 

deflection of course, we are talking about the cost of detection, in 

one situation, the cost of having a deflection system is even more. 

I would suggest that this is one area of leadership that the United 

States could really take a role in and it would be good for all and 

it would create an international spirit of what we want to create. 

I would suggest especially including Russia in on this, and they 

may be able to make some major contributions, save us some 

money and actually make it a more effective system. 

And with that said, I would like to include all countries except 

China. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to ask Dr. Holdren, the National Science Foundation has 

indicated a next major new start as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, the LSST, which is intended to detect and catalog potentially hazardous objects, and what I would like to know is, one, 

what the technological contribution would be if the LSST were to 

make the overall detection and cataloging effort possible, and General Bolden, you talked about the prospect of land-based systems 

versus systems that we would put outside in our solar system, but 

the cost, to me, it seems would be rather significantly different. 

And then I would like to have some understanding of whether 

there might be some cost sharing that NASA might consider with 

improvements to the LSST to try to optimize it for NASA’s use, and 

get a sense as well of whether the challenges that we are facing 

and not meeting the 2025 deadline that—guideline that we have 

highlighted from the Committee. Are those technological challenges 

principally? Are they funding challenges? Is it some combination of 

cooperation challenges? I would like to better understand that, especially in this fiscal environment. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, let me just make a start and then I will turn 

it over to Administrator Bolden. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope would be an important addition to our capabilities but it is 

important to understand that all these capabilities work in tandem, 

that is, they share information. Some of the telescopes are better 

at detection. Others are better at characterizing the orbit or determining the reflectivity and the likely composition of the object, and 

so one always has to think of this as a network. We have telescopes 

in Arizona, we have telescopes in Italy, we have telescopes in the 

Czech Republic, and they are all linked together and they are all 

part of a network that provides the overall capability we have to 

detect these objects. The LSST alone when it comes fully to fruition 

would still not be able to enable us to identify and characterize 90- 

plus percent of the objects in less than about a dozen years. But 

in combination, the LSST and an orbiting infrared telescope of the 

kind Administrator Bolden was talking about could lower that time 

to something in the range of 6 to 8 years. 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, the only thing I will add, you 

know, we flew an infrared imaging satellite called WISE, and then 

we repurposed it while on orbit to look for asteroids, and we discov-
43 

ered hundreds in the deep field of the solar system, the universe, 

actually. It is that type of instrument that I talk about. That is 

what B612 wants to do. We are looking at ways to cost-share. The 

nucleus organization that Congressman Rohrabacher mentioned involving Russia, the 5-member organizations of what we call the 

International Space Station team, and that is 15-plus European nations, Russia, Japan, Canada and the United States, although our 

primary responsibility is operating the International Space Station, 

when the heads of agency get together, we talk about everything, 

and one of the big things we talk about is the threat of near-Earth 

asteroids. 

At risk of getting in trouble because Congressman Rohrabacher 

and I have a healthy agreement to disagree, and I will say this, 

it will be the decision of this Congress as to whether or not we ever 

cooperate or participate with China. It is the elephant in the room. 

I don’t talk about it because my public affairs and communications 

people tell me not to talk about it, but I don’t deal with China by 

direction of this Congress. We are the only agency of the Federal 

Government that does not have bilateral communications with 

China. This is an issue for the world. This is not an issue for the 

United States, so although Congressman Rohrabacher and I—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I will let Congressman Rohrabacher take his 

time talking about China, and I am sure we could have a whole 

hearing on it. Before we go, though, I wanted General Bolden to— 

you know, the whole identified mission that the President has set 

out to go to an asteroid, it seems rather lackluster, and so I have 

always had questions about whether ought to be a goal or we ought 

to think about, you know, sort of the tradeoff, Mars, instead. Thank 

you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Hall, chairman emeritus, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, of course I thank you for holding this 

very important hearing, and I thank the witnesses for their very 

valuable testimony. 

I had the privilege of serving on this Committee since 1981, and 

this topic has been the subject of periodic review and legislative direction, as the witnesses noted, in the 1990s during consideration 

of a NASA authorization bill. This matter came up, and it was really a discussion about asteroids. We had really a hearing on asteroids, as Mr. Rohrabacher remembers, and it was reported at that 

time that one had just passed the Earth that no one knew anything 

about but it missed us by 15 minutes. I hated to ask, was that just 

as good as it missing us by 1 minute or 30 seconds or what, but 

just the enormity of the damage that they could do to us. I offered 

an amendment at that time to set a goal of finding and cataloging 

within 10 years this population of comets and asteroids in an effort 

to be coordinated with the Department of Defense and space agencies of other countries. Other countries were invited to that hearing, but also told that we ought to have a world group because as 

Charlie said, it is a world problem. They were interested in attending but they weren’t interested in contributing anything to it, so 

none of them showed up for the hearing. 

But as our witnesses stated, from 1998 until 2011, more than 90 

percent of near-Earth objects with a diameter of 1 kilometer or 
44 

greater have been located. So today we know more about these but 

we also have more work to do, especially those that are smaller 

that could still have a devastating impact if they hit the Earth. 

So Dr. Shelton, let me ask you this. What capabilities do we need 

that we don’t currently possess to detect and track asteroids that 

might pose a threat to the Earth? 

General SHELTON. Sir, if you are talking about Department of 

Defense capabilities—— 

Mr. HALL. What do we have to do? What should we do? 

General SHELTON. Well, if you are talking about Department of 

Defense capabilities, we are focused on things in Earth orbit. Our 

sensors, and we have got a variety of them, are not focused on beyond the Earth. 

Mr. HALL. Well, once an object has been identified, what are our 

means of tracking it and how much time would we have to prepare 

if there were a threat to Earth? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Maybe I can take that, Congressman Hall. First 

of all, how much notice we have depends on the size of the object. 

The bigger it is, the further away we can see it and the more time 

we have. So there are some objects that we know are coming years 

in advance. There are other objects that are still big enough to 

cause damage that we only know about weeks in advance or days 

in advance. Obviously, we need to improve the capability to give us 

a large amount of notice, enough notice to mount a deflection mission if we see one on a collision course. Some of the capabilities we 

have been talking about, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, the 

orbiting telescope that the B612 Foundation is working with NASA 

to develop, all those capabilities will increase the warning time 

with respect to asteroids big enough to do serious damage. And 

again, the deflection options that would then be open to us would 

depend on the size of the object and the amount of notice we had. 

They would include—— 

Mr. HALL. Well, excuse me. The one that hit Russia, there is no 

question about that, and that is about all we know about it, why 

didn’t we know that was coming or on its way? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It came out of the sun, Congressman Hall. It came 

from a direction where our telescopes could not look. We cannot 

look into the sun. 

Mr. HALL. Well, if we can’t make that determination as to where 

it is going to come from, we ought to be able to do something no 

matter where it comes from if it is going to hit the Earth. 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is one of the reasons that an orbiting telescope—— 

Mr. HALL. That is why we are having this hearing today to ask 

you three men who know a heck of a lot more than we know about 

it to tell us. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would say, Congressman Hall, that the 

most important single thing we could do to improve our capacity 

to see any asteroid of potentially damaging size coming would be 

an orbiting infrared telescope of the sort that the B612 Foundation 

is working on. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you. I asked the question, if we saw one come 

toward Omaha, what could they do about it, and they said they 

could use a laser, and I went on and asked a second question. I 
45 

said, well, could the laser hit it right in the middle because I didn’t 

want to cause any more trouble than I had with Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I wasn’t going to suggest that half of it hit Los Angeles and the 

other half hit New York. I suggested that half of it might go to the 

Pacific Ocean and the other half go to the Atlantic Ocean. They 

really didn’t have an answer for that, and I doubt if you have. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, it would not be practical to have 

a laser powerful enough to split it in half. What you can do in principle if you have a very powerful laser is to cause jets of material 

heated by the laser to fly off of the asteroid and that is essentially 

the equivalent of a jet engine pushing the asteroid off course. There 

are other approaches to deflecting an asteroid. Those include hitting it with a very heavy impacter. They include approaching it, as 

we have already approached with robotic probes a number of asteroids and pushing it or towing it. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, and I will write you a letter for some 

more, and thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Those were interesting 

answers, Dr. Holdren. I appreciate that. 

The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you all for your interesting testimony. 

It has been well established in this testimony that the probability of an occurrence of a sizable NEO colliding with the Earth 

is quite small. I believe, General Bolden, you said extremely remote 

in your testimony. But it is also clear that the consequences could 

be enormous. For example, a strike, depending on the size of an asteroid, could bring a cloud of dust rivaling the most powerful volcanic explosion, or depending on where it hits could cause an enormous tsunami that would flood and destroy coastal regions. And I 

know you are all striving as we are to find the appropriate balance 

for investment without being unnecessarily alarmist. 

In the district—back to where it hits. In the district I represent 

in Oregon, there is a significant threat of a tsunami, especially 

from earthquakes. That is very real. Response preparedness is already a priority issue for my constituents. In fact, when I was in 

the legislature, we passed a bill that required the State to plan for 

the impacts of a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and a resulting tsunami, which scientists had determined would occur, will occur at 

some point in the future, so it is not planning for if, it is planning 

for when. And the State just released its resilience plan, which was 

partially funded through a FEMA grant, in February. The plan acknowledges the importance of preparing communities and infrastructure for a catastrophic event but it also places significant 

focus on the ability to respond once the event has occurred. 

And of course, this type of challenge has implications in the context of today’s conversation. How much do we plan for detection, 

how much do we plan for response? Of course, we should be investing in the science that will help us detect and prevent the impacts 

of NEOs but we also need to consider how we will respond if it not 

possible to alter the orbits and stop these NEOs from colliding. 

Dr. Holdren, your 2010 report indicates that depending on the 

projected damage and location, FEMA could help provide Federal 

assistance and coordinate local emergency services personnel into 
46 

integrated disaster response task forces. So could you talk a little 

bit more, please about how FEMA is approaching this role? How 

will they take into account different demographic and geographic 

characteristics in any given area? Thank you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. Wow, that is a really challenging question. You 

know, as we know, FEMA has a wide range of capabilities for responding to a wide variety of different kinds of emergencies and 

disasters. We are in the process, as I mentioned, of conducting exercises of various kinds in which FEMA is a participant, and thinking about and trying to work out the details of response strategies, 

depending on the nature of the impact, but as your question points 

out, those impacts could be very different. If a large asteroid 

strikes the ocean, as you point out, the impacts would largely come 

through the tsunami phenomenon, which is of course a phenomenon with which FEMA must also reckon since tsunamis can 

be caused in other ways. If a strike occurred over an urban region 

with sufficient force, the damage would resemble in some ways the 

damage from a massive earthquake, which is another event with 

which FEMA is familiar and prepared to respond. But these are 

going to be big challenges. I would not minimize the difficulty of 

responding adequately if a substantial asteroid strike should occur 

in the size range that we need to be particularly worried about. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And so what efforts are being made to engage the 

existing emergency response infrastructure? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, as I say, we are actually exercising those 

with tabletop exercises and with larger-scale exercises in which the 

various agencies go through a simulated event of this kind, and 

those kinds of exercises are really the best way we have when combined with analytical tools to figure out how to bring our capabilities effectively to bear. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

And either General Bolden or General Shelton, do you have any 

comments about finding that balance between preparing for detection and preparing for how we respond? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, I would just echo what you 

said. You hit the right word, and that is balance. You know, we 

could come out of this hearing and decide that we want to really 

pour money into NEO detection and characterization, and that 

would not be the right thing to do because there has to be a balance. My recommendation would be the President’s budget from 

2013, I think was pretty good. We have a plan that Dr. Holdren 

talked about but it depends on the passage of that budget. Going 

into 2014, we will come back again and try to give you what we 

see as a funding level to support a plan that Dr. Holdren addresses. So that is where we have to cooperate, Congress and the Administration, in striking that proper balance. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. My time is expired. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The gentleman from 

Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Reading from Dr. Holdren’s testimony, it says ‘‘Depending on its 

composition and velocity, an asteroid of 140 meters in diameter 

could have an impact energy in the range of 50 to 500 megatons 
47 

of TNT equivalent and would be capable of causing destruction 

over a large region,’’ emphasis there 50 to 500 megatons, and I 

have got other notes here that suggest that the Hiroshima atomic 

bomb was roughly 13 kilotons, so much, much, much, much smaller. If you could, could you please describe with greater detail what 

you mean by a ‘‘large region’’? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The size you are talking about, 140 meters, and 

you have got the numbers exactly right, could devastate the better 

part of a continent. 

Mr. BROOKS. We are talking about a very large region. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The fortunate—the only fortunate thing is that the 

estimated frequency with which objects of that size strike the 

Earth is about one in 20,000 years, or a probability of one in 20,000 

each year. Nonetheless, this falls directly in the category that we 

were talking about, low probability, very high consequence, therefore we need to take the risk seriously and we need to make the 

kinds of investments that would enable us to deflect an asteroid of 

that size were one to be discovered on a collision course. 

Mr. BROOKS. And you also used the word ‘‘destruction’’ in the 

context of this continent-sized area. Would human life be able to 

withstand that kind of impact and the way in which you use the 

word ‘‘destruction’’? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, clearly, if an asteroid of that size struck on 

land, there would be very large loss of life. If it struck in the ocean, 

it would produce, in all likelihood, a very large tsunami, which 

would be associated with large loss of life. If you say would humans 

survive on the Earth, the likelihood is yes. But there are concerns 

about the amount of dust and smoke that could be lofted into the 

atmosphere by such an impact. 

Mr. BROOKS. Do you have a judgment as to whether humans 

would survive on the continent impacted, if you limit it just to the 

impact continent? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, I believe the answer is yes. Is aid a substantial part of a continent. A bigger one, bigger still than 140 meters, 

could be a continent destroyer, and a bigger one still could be a civilization destroyer. You know, the one that hit 65 million years ago 

near what is now the Yucatan Peninsula is thought to have led to 

the extinction of the dinosaurs and most else that lived on Earth 

at the time. 

Mr. BROOKS. And if I read your written testimony correctly, that 

was roughly 10 kilometers estimated size? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Moving on, looking at the notes that I have been 

given by the HASC Committee, it suggests that we have identified 

so far thousands of objects in space, near-Earth objects in space, 

that are 300 to 500 meters in diameter, roughly 1,100, 1,200 that 

are roughly 500 to 1,000 meters in diameter, and roughly 900 that 

are a kilometer or more in diameter. So what I would like to know 

is, how much advance warning would the Earth’s population need 

if, say, one of these kilometer or larger size objects for us to be able 

to do something to prevent that object from hitting the Earth and 

causing the kind of massive devastating that you have described? 
48 

Dr. HOLDREN. Today, we would probably need years to mount 

such a mission. Over time, as we develop our capabilities to deal 

with this kind of threat, the lead time could be smaller. 

Mr. BROOKS. Let me focus in on that. How many years would we 

need? Let us say we found out today that there is an object of this 

size that is going to hit the Earth. How many years would we need 

today if we were to do whatever is necessary to try to put ourselves 

in a position to save the planet? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think I will refer that question to General Bolden. 

General BOLDEN. Well, if we did it according to the President’s 

budget presently, 2025 is the time that we think we will be able 

to send a human to an asteroid acting with some robotic means. 

That is on—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Let me interject for a moment. Let us assume that 

we know one is going to hit the planet, in which case I assume that 

we are going to accelerate things as quickly as we can. What is the 

fastest we can get it done where we could protect ourselves upon 

discovery of a 1-kilometer or larger object going to hit the Earth? 

General BOLDEN. Congressman, I will take it for the record and 

get back to you, but now you are talking about an intense effort, 

which, I mean, that significantly shortens the time. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, we would be intense. 

General BOLDEN. We have the systems and the technology available now to do that. You are talking about just pouring unlimited 

funds into it, and conceivably you could do it in 4 or 5 years. I don’t 

know. But let me get back to you. Don’t quote me on a number yet. 

But, I will work with General Shelton and his captain and, seriously, we will get you an answer. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, thank you for being here and testifying before 

us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time that you have allotted, 

and whatever time that is, I would love to help you shortening it. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Johnson. 

General Bolden, I represent Livermore, California, which has two 

of the NNSA labs, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia, and I imagine 

that when you talk about systems and technology, and if we were 

to require a weapon to deflect something that was incoming, a 

near-Earth object that was incoming, that some of that technology 

will have to be or has been designed at one of those laboratories. 

General BOLDEN. So if that a question—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Yes. 

General BOLDEN. If that were the decision, but again, I would go 

back to what Dr. Holdren said earlier. I would not consider a weapon to deflect or to save Earth against this type of threat. I would 

consider the development of appropriate technologies that could enable us to—we are talking about earliest detection, you are talking 

about deflecting. I mean, it is a tiny amount if you catch it far 

enough out. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Let us assume that it is late-stage detection. I 

imagine our choices get limited, right? 
49 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. That is not my bailiwick anymore. I 

don’t do bombs and rockets. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Well, General Shelton, those two laboratories in 

my district, I imagine they would play a critical role if we had a 

late-stage detection of one of these near-Earth objects. 

General SHELTON. Yes, sir, I would think so. I mean, there are 

only a limited number of ways to generate the amount of energy 

required and probably nuclear energy is what we are talking about 

here. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Is there a way to guarantee that one of these 

near-Earth objects does not hit on a Friday? Because right now in 

my district, all of the Federal employees at those laboratories are 

furloughed on Fridays. And I know in Congresswoman Edwards’ 

district, some of those NASA employees that are trying to detect 

these incoming objects, I think they are going to be furloughed on 

Fridays too. So—— 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. 

Mr. SWALWELL. No way to—— 

General BOLDEN. We are not planning to furlough employees. I 

just wanted to clarify that. So they will be there on Friday. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. 

General BOLDEN. But in seriousness, I have to go back again to 

say several things. One, these are remote occurrences. Two, the 

plan that the President has put forward I think will adequately address our technical capability to be able to deflect an asteroid in 

due time. If we find that we are tracking literally thousands of asteroids today. If the civilization destroyer that Dr. Holdren talks 

about, I mean, if we can’t discover that early enough, then there 

is something wrong with our systems. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Sure. So in our district, it is a fact: there are furloughs at our nuclear laboratories, and you are not concerned at all 

that sequestration affects our readiness to protect—— 

General BOLDEN. Sir, that wasn’t the question you asked. 

Mr. SWALWELL. So my question is—— 

General BOLDEN. I am very concerned with the effects of sequestration but that wasn’t the question, and so yes, I am very concerned about the effects of sequestration on all of our ability to do 

what it is you ask us to do. You are talking about impacting our 

ability to keep our facilities operating safely. You are talking about 

just the mental strain on our employees not knowing whether they 

are going to be able to come to work tomorrow. I try to assure them 

every time I can that I am not planning to furlough anybody, but 

they know better than I do that the Congress could take some action and all of a sudden the Administrator doesn’t have a clue what 

he is talking about because now I have got to lay people off. My 

intention is not to do that. If your question is, is there a bad effect 

of sequestration, yes, sir. 

Mr. SWALWELL. That is my question. 

General BOLDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SWALWELL. How about for General Shelton? 

General SHELTON. I will tell you, sir, just about my every waking 

moment these days is based on this topic. I just pulled the trigger 

on $508 million of reductions in just my major command alone 

from now until the end of the fiscal year, a 20 percent cut in pay 
50 

to my civilians. There are resources that are used for missile warning and missile defense that we won’t be able to operate at full capability. There are things that we use for space surveillance that 

we won’t be able to operate at full capability. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And General, do you think that makes us more 

or less prepared to handle a near-Earth objects? 

General SHELTON. That is not what we do. That is NASA’s responsibility. We contribute serendipitously at times but we are focused on things in Earth orbit. 

Mr. SWALWELL. So if you had to focus on something in Earth 

orbit, would it make you more or less prepared having to have 

these across-the-board cuts? 

General SHELTON. We are clearly less capable under sequestration. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. The gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank all 

three of you for your very detailed written testimony. You use a lot 

of facts that I frequently refer to that clearly indicate it is not a 

matter of if but when civilization will be threatened by an impact. 

Until the recent Russian impact, quite a few people thought those 

of us who were even aware of this or dared mention it were on the 

kooky side, and so one good thing about that is maybe a little bit 

of a wake-up call to reality for some people. 

Dr. Holdren, your testimony referred to the first-ever exercise, 

deflection exercise. I wonder if you could just share a little bit with 

us about how that went. 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not—the first-ever deflection exercise was a 

kinetic impact on an asteroid of medium size, which while interesting from the standpoint of the deflection it generated did not reflect the magnitude of the capability you would need for a late-notice deflection of an asteroid of threatening size. It was an interesting demonstration. 

One of the things I would like to reinforce is that the President’s 

proposal to land U.S. astronauts on an asteroid by 2025 will in fact 

exercise a number of the capabilities that would be necessary to 

have in our toolbox should an asteroid of threatening size be detected on a collision course. I would disagree with something Congresswoman Edwards said, that this is a lackadaisical program. I 

think it is a crucial program, and I think it is going to lead to 

major advances in capabilities which are not just interesting to 

demonstrate at a small scale but not enough to deal with a real 

threat. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. And I took her comment to mean she 

thought the approach to it might have been lackadaisical, not that 

it wasn’t necessary, you know, for whatever—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. For the record, I didn’t say that word. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Now, the Ranking Member asked about protocol, you know, who is in charge, and we got about three or four 

minutes of a chatter but we never got an answer about who is in 

charge, and so rather than asking for a response, I would just like 

to recommend that the next time that you all come before us you 
51 

give us a protocol and say this is who is in charge here, here is 

in charge here and here is in charge here, and it is just a very clear 

matter of protocol who is in charge in various instances, you know, 

as being preordained and preestablished.. I know you are going to 

corroborate and, you know, get this stuff done if we have an impact, but a good segment of the population thinks it is just a matter of calling Bruce Willis in, you know, and notwithstanding we 

don’t have a shuttle anymore, you know, it is impossible. But 

things that beg for an answer, you know, scary of course, that we 

only know about 10 percent of the huge threats and we virtually 

have no idea of the small threats like the one that went undetected, the recent impact in Russia. You know, what would we do 

if you detected even a small one like the one in Russia headed for 

New York City in three weeks? What would we do? Bend over and 

what? 

General BOLDEN. No, Congressman, I have to go back to what I 

said before. These are very rare events. From the information that 

we have on asteroids that we have discovered of all sizes, we don’t 

know of one that will threaten the population of the United States 

in three weeks, and we are trying very diligently as I said before 

with the President’s budget to put ourselves in a position where we 

advance the technologies so that three weeks will not be something 

that causes us to panic because we will be able to respond. 

We are where we are today because you all told us to do something, and between the Administration and the Congress, the bottom line is always the funding did not come, and I don’t care whose 

fault it is or if it is anybody’s fault. We all know what we are facing 

today and we are all sitting here today as the Congress and the 

Administration try to figure out sequestration, something that 

never should have happened. Nobody planned it to happen but we 

are facing it today. And so the answer to you is, if it is coming in 

three weeks, pray, if we find that out right now. And that is not 

bad policy. 

Mr. POSEY. That is reality. 

General BOLDEN. I am a practicing Episcopalian and I love what 

the Pope is doing right now. I will tell you, things have happened. 

You have got to pray. 

Mr. POSEY. The upside, I guess, is that there is more public 

awareness now of the importance of space to the survival of our 

species and it is not at some unknown point in the far-distant future that we can imagine. 

General BOLDEN. And sir, if I may, you said something that is 

so important. It would be very easy for this Congress and for the 

Administration to say—because we get the question all the time, 

why are we worried about exploring beyond low-Earth orbit, can’t 

we just put that off for 5 or 10 years. The reason that I can’t do 

anything in the next three weeks is because for decades we have 

put it off for the next 5 or 10 years. We don’t have contractors who 

go away from doing their job and then 5 years from now we call 

and say okay, we want to build a rocket. They will tell me, with 

whom; we don’t do that anymore. All those guys went over and 

they are now selling pizza, and I am not being facetious when I say 

that. And I apologize. You cause me to lose my temper sometimes 

when I—this is really important. 
52 

Mr. POSEY. Yes, it is. 

General BOLDEN. And it has to be continuous. The President has 

a plan but that plan is incremental, and we can not like him, we 

can not agree with him, we can not do a lot of things. It is the best 

plan we have, and if we want to save the planet, because I think 

that is what we are talking about, then we have to get together, 

that side and that side, and decide how we are going to execute 

that plan as expeditiously as possible. That is all I can tell you. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This use of the term ‘‘civilization threatening’’ or ‘‘civilization destroying’’ asteroids, remind me at what size would we say such an 

asteroid would be? 

Dr. HOLDREN. A 1-kilometer asteroid would be carrying energy in 

the range of tens of millions of megatons. That is as much or more 

energy as was in the combined arsenals of the United States and 

the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. An asteroid of that 

size, a kilometer or bigger, could plausibly end civilization. Nobody 

has the detailed models, the ability to calculate and detail, to tell 

you exactly what the threshold is, but when you are talking about 

tens of millions of megatons of explosive energy, you are putting 

civilization at risk. 

Mr. TAKANO. And I am hearing that we are relatively optimistic 

that we can develop systems at the right price points to be able to 

detect asteroids of this size with a sufficient amount of lead time 

to be able to do something about it. 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is the size range where we have already detected something in the range of 93, 94 percent of the asteroids of 

that size range that could come close to the Earth, and in that size 

range, we can be reasonably assured, especially as we make these 

additional investments going forward, of being able to detect them 

with quite a lot of notice. 

Mr. TAKANO. Let us scale it down to medium- to large-size citydestroying asteroids. What size would those be? 

Dr. HOLDREN. A city-destroying asteroid could be in the range of 

50-meter diameter carrying an energy in the range of 5 to 10 megatons. 

Mr. TAKANO. What sort of systems would we need to be able to 

detect that? You talked about more assets in our orbit, telescopes 

of that kind including those that could get around the issue of the 

sun. 

Dr. HOLDREN. We would want the infrared telescope in an orbit 

resembling that of Venus. It could be a Venus trailing orbit following the planet around, the planet Venus, which again is what 

the B612 Foundation is in fact working on. As Administrator Bolden mentioned, we actually had an experiment with an infrared telescope that was built for an orbiting telescope built for a different 

purpose. It is very good at finding asteroids. 

Mr. TAKANO. We spoke a lot about the cooperative nature of 

what would need to happen, nations coming together, but would 

there be also rivalrous kinds of impulses which might divide us? 

In fact if we were to detect objects of this size, would nations also 
53 

be concerned about that impacting the ability to detect missiles, for 

example? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I think these are very different capabilities. As 

General Shelton mentioned, going into detail about our missile-detecting capabilities would require a different forum, but they are 

quite different in nature from the capabilities we would need to detect and track asteroids. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, the chairman raised a question that I thought 

was rather interesting, did none of our current missile-detecting capabilities, did they fail to be able to detect the most recent asteroid, 

and you may not be able to answer that question. 

General SHELTON. I can. We did detect it, and as I said, it was 

at the time. It wasn’t predicted. It was detection at the time. 

Mr. TAKANO. So the missile detection capacities we have now I 

mean really are kind of—they are more in real time as opposed to 

time that we might be able to remediate the problem? 

General SHELTON. Yes, sir, and focused on two things. The infrared signature coming out the back end of a missile, we see that, 

and as soon as it either breaks the ground, if there is weather overhead, as soon as it breaks the clouds, we will see that. We will be 

able to tell you what type of missile it is. We will be able to tell 

you where that missile is going. We will be able to tell you where 

it is going to impact. So very solid missile-warning capabilities. 

Those infrared sensors can be used for other things but they can’t 

be used for predictive things out beyond Earth orbit. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. Thank you so 

much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Takano. The gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, is recognized. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just because I want to get my head around and try to really understand some of the base-level approach here, and Doctor, I was 

going to ask you first, and forgive me if I am equating a statement 

to you that was in someone else’s opening statement. A dangerous 

interaction, Earth and an object, was the statement one-out-of-a 

thousand-year event? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The one-in-a thousand-year event is the one of the 

magnitude that hit over the Tunguska, the asteroid impact over Siberia in 1908, and that was a 15-megaton class event. That is characteristic of one in a thousand years. The dimension of that asteroid was somewhere in the range of 50 meters. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Now, if I remember my old modeling classes, 

when you start getting into something with that far out in detail, 

you know, it is like the person that says it is a 500-year flood except we had three of them in the last 10 years, because you have 

such—your degree of confidence, your noise in that just becomes— 

it blows off the chart. So we always like to say one in a thousand 

but it is one in a thousand with, you know, a 20 percent lack of 

confidence. Does that sort of math also work for this? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, I would say certainly there is a lack of confidence of that size or greater but the real catch is that a one-ina-thousand-year event can occur at any time. The fact that on average one only expects these to happen once in a thousand years 

doesn’t mean that one won’t happen next year. 
54 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Often when we talk to certain non-statistical 

people, you try to explain that you can have the three 500-year 

floods in 10 years and then go 1,500 years without something. 

Okay. In the discovery of objects out there, how much are you 

finding is coming from the amateur astronomy community? I mean, 

if I remember correctly, you were telling me that—was it the gentleman—was it an amateur in Spain that saw the last one? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I am not sure it was an amateur. 

General BOLDEN. I don’t know that it was—we can find out 

whether it was an amateur astronomer. We just know it was an 

astronomer in Spain that made the discovery on 2012 DA14. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Is there—how formal or informal is that network out there of university amateurs, governmental astronomers, 

you know, scouring the skies, seeing things, reporting them? How 

does that mechanism work? 

Dr. HOLDREN. It is actually quite organized, quite formal and 

quite fast. That community of folks stay in constant communication. 

Let me take this opportunity to recommend a book, because it is 

not mine, a book by NASA’s head of the near-Earth Object Identification program, Dr. Donald Yeomans. It just came out this year, 

2013. It is called Near-Earth Objects: Finding Them Before They 

Find Us. Nice title. And he talks at great length about these networks, about the roles of amateurs, about the roles of professionals, 

who discovered what. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. You are beating me into where I was actually 

trying to go. Is there a way to take that network and incentivize 

it? I have a great interest in sort of distributive information, distributive networks, so lots of smart people all over the world with 

this their hobbies, and is there a way—should we be incentivizing 

that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is a great question, and we in OSTP are 

greatly in favor of crowdsourcing. We are greatly in favor of putting 

challenges out there, and in fact—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. You and I are about to become really good 

friends. 

Dr. HOLDREN. And these challenges we already know. We have 

used them across a domain of interesting problems, and I think 

there is no doubt we are going to have a challenge around asteroid 

detection. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And it is not answerable in 20-some seconds, 

but part of that is, okay, we see something. How far in advance 

with current technology do you have to see something to analyze, 

determine, you know, threat assessment and then react to it? 

Dr. HOLDREN. The analysis and threat assessment is pretty fast 

because once you see it, you can train on it various other instruments—the radio telescopes, optical telescopes, and use the combination of information available from them once they know where 

to look in the sky to characterize its trajectory and determine 

whether or not it is a threat. The long-time scale, the long pole in 

the tent, is deploying the capability to deflect one that you discover 

is on a collision course, and that is the issue where currently we 

would have to say the time scale is in the range of years, and I 

think Administrator Bolden suggested that he would get back to 
55 

the Committee on that, but I think his estimate, his initial estimate, is certainly reasonable. Even throwing a lot of resources at 

it, you would be talking 4 or 5 years to mount a deflection mission. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. The gentlewoman 

from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I too share some of the interest in this sort of crowdsourcing, and 

would just flag, since we have already had some hearings on big 

data, to perhaps follow up at a later time to think about what opportunities there are in other areas. We are also looking at the 

data side and how we might be able to collaborate on this worldwide problem, and I think that is very important. 

For General Bolden, if you could talk a little bit about what 

NASA’s procedure is for actually notifying our Federal agencies? 

You get notice of a NEO. What do you need to know? What triggers 

a notification warning and how does that actually work? 

General BOLDEN. Congresswoman, there are several organizations we notify. We notify the State Department, first of all, because they notify our international partners that there is an incident, and this is not just for asteroids. This would be for a satellite 

that has fallen back to Earth or something, and we have had to exercise that several times over the last two years. The first person 

I would notify would be Dr. Holdren as the President’s science advisor, and going back in response to Mr. Posey’s question, there is 

no question in my mind who is in charge, and I go to Dr. Holdren 

because he pulls the team together, whether it is DOD or NASA 

and everyone else, but I understand the thrust of the question. So 

we would notify other Federal agencies, FEMA, the State Department, and then go from there. And it is scenario dependent. It depends on what the characterization of the asteroid or the NEO happens to be. Sometimes it is just a matter of saying hey, we now 

have something else that has been added to the inventory, it is not 

an Earth-threatening orbit, and we do that. 

Ms. ESTY. Could you talk about whether there is an organized 

international warning network, or should there be? Is this something that is again scenario dependent or is there an actual formal 

network? 

General BOLDEN. Dr. Holdren mentioned the recent meeting in 

conjunction with U.N. COPUOS that actually the chair was an 

American, a NASA scientist, and from that meeting came the initial decision that we would organize, and I can get you more information on what they propose, because like everything else, it is a 

proposal for an international collaborative effort to do this. 

Dr. HOLDREN. If I could just add one thing to that. The Minor 

Planet Center, which I mentioned before, which is located at the 

Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, is a formal international entity to which everybody automatically feeds discoveries 

of new near-Earth objects. So there is already a formal network 

which functions to assemble all the information that is available 

from all these different telescopes around the world, and even the 

amateur astronomers know where to go with their findings. They 

go straight to the Minor Planet Center, and the Minor Planet Center then goes to the NASA operation at JPL, which is responsible 
56 

for working out the trajectory in coordination with these other 

groups. But the thing that is new, the international asteroid warning network, which emerged from this February 15th meeting in 

Vienna, will ramp up this whole effort and will add, I think, additional layers of capability as countries come together to say given 

these current scattered assets, what more do we need and how do 

we get it. 

Ms. ESTY. It seems to me that is very important for several reasons. Everybody is under budget constraints so that we should be 

more effectively deploying world resources in this range but also 

confidence building, which I worry about from a security point of 

view, that if other countries see this as threatening because we 

might use these technologies in some other way, it is going to be 

vitally important that we are sharing in a way that in fact respects 

the assets other countries have and we all get the benefit for worldwide resources. So if you have specific proposals as the outcome of 

the Vienna conference goes forward, I hope you will come back to 

us to help us bring those forward to leadership about new opportunities but in fact will be lifesaving, you know, planet-saving potentially but that will allow—will require greater collaboration. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Holdren, you said that the asteroid that hit Siberia was 15 

megatons. What was the name of that event? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That was Tunguska. 

Mr. WEBER. Tunguska? 

Dr. HOLDREN. T-u-n-g-u-s-k-a. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And then you said, I think, you all agreed 

there was 13,000 objects—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. Thirteen to 20,000 140 meters and above, so the 

number would be somewhat larger for asteroids 100 meters and 

above. 

Mr. WEBER. How close is the nearest one? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, it is not a question of how close it is now. 

The question is, how close will its orbit take it to the Earth in the 

near future. Right now, as Administrator Bolden has said, none of 

these asteroids hat we have found is on a collision course with the 

Earth. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. You also—well, I think it was you, General 

Bolden, that said the Russian meteor was hidden by the sun and 

it is the reason we didn’t detect it because it came straight out of 

the sun? 

General BOLDEN. I wasn’t, but that is correct. The folks in NASA 

when I asked the question of how did this happen, it came from 

out of the sun. 

Mr. WEBER. But my question is, when something comes right out 

of the sun directly at us, at some point we are able to identify it, 

General Shelton, you said. How much time do we have? Is that 10 

minutes, 2 hours? At what point does it become identifiable as it 

gets to the Earth’s atmosphere? 

General BOLDEN. Well, one thing, Congressman, I do have to reemphasize, we talk about these three week scenarios, that is so un-
57 

likely, and even the occurrence in Russia, that was not a citythreatening—if you were in Russia, that was a significant event, 

but that is not of the size that is the city-threatening, the regionthreatening, the other—— 

Mr. WEBER. But can you give me a time frame on how long we 

would have when one actually is in the—— 

General BOLDEN. It is my belief that we can identify in sufficient 

advance those that are the big threats, but we need to do better. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. We had the Hubble telescope up for a long 

time. Now we have replaced that—— 

General BOLDEN. It is still up. 

Mr. WEBER. It is still up, and you and I had the discussion in 

my office, we have a better telescope up. 

General BOLDEN. We are a little ways away. In 2018 we will 

launch the James Webb Space Telescope, but they are not in the 

asteroid NEO identifying—they are looking at totally different 

things. 

Mr. WEBER. Given the scenario of low funding and time being of 

the essence, could we make that change to where we could add on 

to that telescope so we get it up in space? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. Very simply, no, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Can’t do that? 

General BOLDEN. No, sir. We would not want to do that, to be 

quite honest. We have a plan right now, Dr. Holdren and I both 

have mentioned collaboration with private industry, with private 

organizations like B612. I don’t want anybody to think that B612 

is going to save the planet but they are doing what we need to do 

in terms of providing a means to identify—— 

Mr. WEBER. That was my question about that particular telescope. The ISS, if I remember correctly, orbits the Earth every 91 

minutes? 

General BOLDEN. That is about right. 

Mr. WEBER. How much of a role do they play in being able to 

identify and how much time do—— 

General BOLDEN. Right now we don’t utilize it at all, but as I 

talked about when I was in with you, we are learning every single 

day that ISS, although we thought it was not a platform that you 

would want to do Earth science, it is turning out to be a great platform, and we are learning more and more about it. We have a solar 

experiment that is going up, and there may be the capability to put 

something there, but that is not going to be the answer. 

Mr. WEBER. Six hours, six days, six weeks? 

General BOLDEN. I would not even like to fool anybody that ISS 

and anything we can put on it is going to answer this question. The 

types of things that Dr. Holdren mentioned and I mentioned earlier 

are the way we need to go. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. Two final questions and I have got to go. 

Who monitors this screen for all of these objects? Does it doing 

your iPhone when there is a threat coming? I mean, somebody has 

to got to be watching some instrument 24/7 to say oops, we picked 

one up. Who does that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That happens at the Minor Planet Center, where 

all the information from all of these sensing instruments around 

the world goes. 
58 

Mr. WEBER. And then final question. So you explode an asteroid, 

how do we know that we get total disintegration and we don’t have, 

instead of one big object coming at us, 20 very lethal objects? 

Dr. HOLDREN. You don’t know that. That is one of the reasons 

that blowing one up close to the Earth is not a great option. Deflecting it farther from the Earth so that it doesn’t hit us at all is 

a much better option. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Tank you, Mr. Weber. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. I forgot who it was earlier talked about 

an asteroid hitting an ocean and causing a tsunami. I guess depending on the size of the asteroid would be the correct answer to 

this question, but how far inland could a reasonably sized asteroid 

make water come in? Because that was really interesting to me. 

Dr. HOLDREN. There is a very interesting discussion of exactly 

that question in Dr. Yeomans’ book, and the answer is, we really 

don’t know because the dynamics of tsunamis caused by asteroid 

impacts are, number one, very complicated and not adequately investigated, and it depends on many factors including the slope of 

the ocean bottom close to the continent that is going to be most affected and it depends on a lot of other characteristics of the asteroid impact. So I think there is no simple answer to that question 

that we can give at this time. 

Mr. VEASEY. What about asteroids hitting other, you know, planet systems, or what sort of research do you have on that? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Well, there are a lot of craters out there. There are 

craters on the moon from asteroid impacts that we can see very 

clearly. 

Mr. VEASEY. Any recently that you—any recent craters on the 

moon? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would have to get back to you on that. I am not 

sure what the most recent impact on the moon is, but I think none 

very recent, but again, in geologic time, ‘‘recent’’ can be quite a 

stretch of time. But there is also lots of evidence of asteroids bashing into each other. If you look at the larger asteroids that are out 

there, they themselves are pitted with major craters that come 

from them bumping into each other. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. The gentleman from 

Utah, Mr. Stewart, is recognized. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. I know you 

and your careers and I have a great deal of respect for you, so 

thank for that. General Bolden, good to see you, sir. We spent some 

time at your place talking the other day, and I know that you are 

a former Marine pilot. As you know, I am a former Air Force pilot. 

My question is actually for General Shelton. As a senior Air 

Force officer with great wisdom and insight, is it your understanding, sir, as it is mine that Air Force pilots are the best pilots 

in the world? 

General SHELTON. I am going to have to say yes on that, sir. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, sir. I am surprised no one has asked 

that question yet. I am glad I was able to. 

General SHELTON. Actually, sir—— 
59 

General BOLDEN. That is fighter pilots of all services with the Air 

Force. I am an attack pilot. 

Mr. STEWART. You are a bigger man than I am because I have 

never landed on a carrier. 

Actually I have a couple of simple questions, then maybe a more 

detailed one. The first would be, you know, we spent a lot of time 

talking about detection avoidance, you know, and some of the uncertainties about that. I am curious about policy, public policy. If 

we were to determine that there was a threat and then even determined that it was actually potentially devastating, do we have a 

policy as to whether we would share that information with the public and how we would do that? And Dr. Holdren, I guess that is 

probably most appropriate for you. 

Dr. HOLDREN. My expectation would be that we would notify, but 

the first thing that would happen if information came in indicating 

that an asteroid had been detected to be on a collision course with 

the Earth and it was big enough to do serious damage, it would be 

exactly what happened after the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami affected Japan. Namely, there would be a gathering in the 

Situation Room within minutes in which we would have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we would have the Secretary of 

State, we would have the head of FEMA, we would have the Secretary of Homeland Security, we would have the head of NASA, we 

would have General Shelton, and there would be an intense discussion of the whole range of actions that the government would take 

in order to deal with the threat, whatever it was, and in that meeting, unquestionably there would be a discussion of who to notify, 

how fast, in what form. 

Mr. STEWART. And I understand that. I am curious, and maybe— 

and I am not advocating one way or the other. I am just curious, 

have you determined the protocol for advising the public? Is that 

part of that matrix? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I don’t know whether FEMA, which would have 

that responsibility, has developed a formal protocol. We could get 

back to you on that. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. I wish you would. I would be curious to 

know that. 

And the second thing, and we have all talked about it, maybe I 

am just not that bright, I am not sure I get it, but, you know, the 

saying, we don’t know what we don’t know, and you said that we 

have discovered 94 percent of the asteroids over 1 kilometer, for example, but if we don’t know what is out there, how do we know 

that we have discovered 94 percent of them? 

Dr. HOLDREN. That is actually a very good question, and it turns 

out that there are subtle statistical techniques that rely on sampling of subpopulations and what fraction of them you have see before in order to determine what fraction of the overall population 

you have actually seen. That is actually described again in wonderfully clear detail in Dr. Yeomans’ book. It was the best explanation 

of that that I have seen. 

Mr. STEWART. So you are interpolating there? You are drawing 

conclusions but you are fairly comfortable—— 

Dr. HOLDREN. You are drawing conclusions based on sampling. 
60 

Mr. STEWART. Right, but you are fairly comfortable with those 

figures? 

Dr. HOLDREN. Yes. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. And then the last question in the minute or 

so I have left, you know, we talk about detection being, you know, 

the first line of defense, and our efforts, and you mentioned some 

of the others as well, but I mean, is the United States the lead on 

this? Clearly, we are, but are other nations contributing to this detection effort in a meaningful way or is it almost entirely our efforts that are meaningful here? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, absolutely other nations are contributing in a 

meaningful way. There are important telescopes and data centers 

in Italy. That is a German-Italian collaboration. There is another 

one in Czechoslovakia. There are some—the LSST will be in Chile. 

There are some in Australia. And again, this domain is actually remarkable for the degree of international cooperation and interconnection compared to many others where we are not nearly as 

far along. 

Mr. STEWART. As it should be, of course, because we all got a dog 

in this fight. So those other entities, are they funded by the EU 

and other—they are not with American funding at all? Those are 

entirely independently funded efforts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. No, they are not entirely independently funded. 

For example, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope is being very 

substantially funded by NSF even though it is going to be in Chile, 

but of course, it will be an NSF facility in a sense. The Arecibo 

Radio Telescope in Puerto Rico is funded by NSF. 

Mr. STEWART. So even though these are located, geographically 

located around the world, they are primarily U.S. efforts? 

Dr. HOLDREN. I would have to get back to you on the international distribution of the funding. Certainly there is substantial 

funding from the European Space Agency. There is substantial 

funding from Germany, from Italy, from Czechoslovakia, from 

France, but I could not give you a percentage. 

Mr. STEWART. Again, if you would, I would appreciate that. 

Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. The gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Grayson, is recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, we could spend each year a million dollars on space 

threats, we could spend a billion dollars or we could spend a trillion dollars. I would like to hear from each one of you what we 

should spend. That is what we have to decide here. And specifically, I would like to hear either a number or formula, I think the 

Science Committee can deal with formulas, or some sort of list of 

the things that you think must be done without regard to what 

they cost. Let us start with you, Dr. Holdren. 

Dr. HOLDREN. The National Academy of Sciences just a couple of 

years ago came out with a report in which they actually addressed 

this question, and they looked at what you could do for $500 million a year, what you could do for $100 million a year, what you 

could do for 50. I would say on the basis of that, if we are just looking primarily at detection and characterization, that I think we 

would want to be spending upwards of $100 million a year. If we 
61 

are looking, as I think we must as well, at mitigation, then you 

would have to include the costs of carrying out the President’s goal 

of visiting an asteroid by 2025. Various estimates have been put 

forward of the cost of doing that, but it almost certainly would be 

in the range of $2 billion or more spread over the period between 

now and 2025. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. General Shelton? 

General SHELTON. Yes, sir. In my case, we are talking about geosynchronous orbit into the surface of the planet, so that, just that 

part of space that we are responsible for, probably 200 or 300 million a year-ish is what we are talking about, developing better sensors that are more sensitive to the space debris population that is 

growing, sensors that allow us to better catalog the activity that is 

there and characterize it as threats continue to grow in space both 

adversarial threats as well as environmental threats. We need to 

be able to characterize that much better than we have the capability to do today. So I would say that 200 to 300 million range is 

what we are talking about. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Good. Administrator Bolden? 

General BOLDEN. Sir, the only thing I will add, because Dr. 

Holdren pretty much answered it, I want to reemphasize, because 

we have identified 95 percent of those objects that are a kilometer 

and above and we have seen none that are on a collision trajectory 

with Earth, this is not an issue that we should worry about in the 

near term. However, as I said, the President has laid out a plan, 

and I would say that is a very good start. We have a lot of work 

to do but the funding that is presently laid out in the President’s 

budget is sufficient to get us there incrementally. We just have to 

move that plan forward. So you can’t stop. That is my point. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Now, tell us what kind of costs we would 

be facing if we spent nothing. It can be a worst-case scenario or a 

not-so-bad-case scenario, but the likely costs we would face if we 

did nothing. Let us start with you, Dr. Holdren. 

Dr. HOLDREN. This is a very tough question because there are 

different ways to present these things. If you take the expected 

value of the damage in terms of loss of human life integrated over 

a very long period of time, it comes out that the estimated loss of 

life from asteroid impact is only about 100 per year. That compares 

with a million per year for malaria, it compares with five million 

per year for tobacco. So it doesn’t look like a very big threat. But 

of course, that is not really a meaningful way to present a risk of 

this character where you are talking about a low probability of a 

very big disaster, and in those sorts of situations, we tend to invest 

in insurance to reduce the likelihood of a disaster we would regard 

as intolerable. If you say how big is the disaster, if you are talking 

about a 10-kilometer asteroid of the sort that exterminated the dinosaurs, what is the value of all of civilization? It is a very big 

number but is it meaningful as a number which you then divide 

by the 65-million-year return time? I think we just can’t get at it 

that way. 

Mr. GRAYSON. General Shelton, the costs of a worst-case scenario? 

General SHELTON. Well, again, from a DOD perspective, we 

would not be able to characterize the traffic on orbit, we would not 
62 

be able to avoid collisions on orbit, we would not be able to detect 

adversary activity on orbit, and our dependence on space, by the 

way, not only for our way of life but also for military operations 

is very high so we would sacrifice that. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and let me thank our 

witnesses today for their testimony. This has been a particularly 

interesting hearing. No doubt there will be some follow-up questions that will be addressed to you all, but thank you for being here 

and thank you for your expertise as well. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(63) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
64 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable John P. Holdren 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Part 1" 

Questions for the Record, Dr. John P. Holdren, Director. Office ofScienee and Technology Policy 

Executive Office of the President 

Questions suhmitted by Rep, Steven Palazzo. Chairman Subcommittee on Space 

1. Why have NASA and the Administration not acted on the five recommendations on planetary 

defense made to the administrator in 2010 by the NASA Advisory Council's ad hoc Task Force 

on Planetary Defense? 

The five recommendations made by the Task Force were to: Organize for Effective Action 

on Planetary Defense; Acquire Essential Search, Tracking, and Warning Capabilities; 

Investigate the Nature of the Impact Threat; Prepare the Response to Impact Threats; and 

Lead U.S. Planetary Defense Efforts in National and International Forums. NASA has 

acted on these recommendations in several ways. 

The purpose of NASA's Near Earth Object Observations (NEOO) Program is to coordinate 

NASA-sponsored efforts to detect, track, and characterize potentially hazardous asteroids 

and comets that could approach the Earth. In FY 2010, the NASA budget for the NEOO 

Program was $5.8 million. The final report of the NASA Advisory Conncil Ad-Hoc Task 

Force on Planetary Defense was provided to the NASA Administrator in October 2010. 

NASA's budget formulation process for the subsequent President's Budget resulted in an 

Administration request of $20.4 million for FY 2012. The FY 2014 budget for NASA 

includes $40.5 million for the NEOO Program for near-Earth asteroid detection, follow-up, 

and characterization. 

Within the increased investment in the NEOO Program, the 2014 Budget includes focused 

support for partnerships aud leveraging, including international aud commercial 

partnerships. The objectives of the enhanced NEOO Program are responsive to the Task 

Force's recommendations to Acquire Essential Search, Tracking, and Warning 

Capabilities; and Investigate the Nature of the Impact Threat. 

In addition, NASA has taken specific action to strengthen the leadership of U.S. planetary 

defense efforts in national and international forums. The NASA NEOO Program has 

provided essential leadership to the United Nations Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer 

Space's Science and Technology Subcommittee's action tcam on the NEO threat. Follow-on 

work will continue in international fora to develop a plan for an enhanced international 

asteroid warning network, impact disaster planning, space-mitigation mission planning 

should there be a credible threat, and advice on planning and response. 

To "Prepare the Response to Impact Threats," on April 3, 2013, the NEOO Program and 

the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

held a one-day simulation of impact disaster response with NEO observation, detection, and 

mitigation community experts and FEMA emergency· response personnel. Also, the 

Planetary Defense Conference, held this April in Flagstaff, AZ, conducted a half-day 

international impact-emergency-response exercise with participants from multiple 

1 
65 

countries. 

2. How often do we currently observe large meteors entering the atmosphere safely over the ocean? 

Every day, a continual iuflux of meteors strikes Earth's atmosphere. Most of them are dustsized particles, but they add up; it's been estimated that on a typical day, these particles 

total from 50 to 150 tons of matter. Asteroids of the order of a few meters in size strike the 

atmosphere roughly annually. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by water, 

and asteroids do not originate from any preferred direction in the sky, so we expect that the 

majority of these annual impacts by meter-sized asteroids take place over the oceans. 

Larger asteroid impacts are even less frequent; the probability of an asteroid as large as 140 

meters in diameter striking the Earth is estimated at 1 in 30,000 per year. 

3. What capabilities does the U.S. government already possess to detect and track asteroids? What 

level of fidelity is needed compared to the level of fidelity we have? 

NASA sponsors a number of activities relating to the search for NEOs under its Near Earth 

Object Observation (NEOO) program, including work at the international Minor Planet 

Center (MPC), located at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which collects 

and correlates NEO orbit data; research at two radio-telescope facilities that help provide 

precision tracking and characterization of NEOs; surveys conducted by ground-based 

optical telescopes; and activities at the NASA NEO Program Office at the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory (.JPL), which coordinates assessments ofNEO orbits and impact probabilities. 

There are also cooperative projects involving NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF, 

which has a key role within the United States for ground-based astronomical assets), and 

the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System 

(PanST ARRS) program, as well as lion-government academic and space research 

organizations. Additionally, NEO detection is a major science driver for the proposed Large 

Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). NASA is also working with the Canadian Space Agency 

(CSA) on processing of data that will be collected from the CSA Near-Earth Object 

Surveillance Satellite (NEOSSat) launched in February 2013. 

These assets constitute an effective program for discovering larger NEOs, but we need to 

improve our capabilities for the identification and characterization of smaller NEOs. 

Specifically, with our current or near-future capabilities, both on the ground and in space, 

it is unlikely that objects smaller than 100 meters in diameter on collision courses with the 

Earth will be detected with more than weeks of advance warning - a matter of some 

concern since the larger objects in this range could be city-destroyers. Small NEOs are 

difficult to detect in visible light from ground-based telescopes because the small, dark 

objects reflect only a small amount of visible sunlight. In contrast, telescopes sensitive to 

infrared light detect an object's heat, rather than reflected sunlight; even small, dark 

asteroids could be detected by a telescope sensitive to infrared light, making these 

capabilities particularly relevant for future NEO surveys. 

2 
66 

Questions for the Record 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

"Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Patt I" 

March 19.2013 

I. The B612 organization's space-based NEO detection telescope initiative (Sentinel) was 

mentioned during the hearing. What efficiencies. if any, in cost and in the detection of incoming 

NEOs. would Sentinel provide as compared to alternative approaches? 

The Sentinel mission concept is to employ a space-based infrared telescope on a satcllite in a 

Venus-trailing orbit in order to dctect and track asteroids from a vantage point that is very 

conducive to identifying potentially hazardous objects (PHOs) approaching Earth. 

Current analysis of the Sentinel capabilities indicate that it may be 100 times better at 

identifying near-Earth asteroids than all ground-based telescopes combined (not including 

the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope {LSST}). If the LSST is considered, this single 

spacecraft mission would be about 10 times better than all ground-based capabilities 

combined. Other space-based capabilities are being explored, including reactivation of 

NEO WISE (a previous secondary tasking of the WISE spacecraft), Canada's low-Earth 

orbit (LEO) NEOSSat, consideration of hosted payloads on spacecraft in geosynchronous 

(GEO) orbit, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) study work on the NEOCAM 

system. Space-based assets have the advantage of eliminating atmospheric aberrations 

compared to their ground-based telescope counterparts. 

a. What, ifany, role does the Administration anticipate NASA having in this initiative? 

NASA currently has a nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement with the B612 

Foundation for the Sentinel mission, signed iu .June 2012. A NASA Technical 

Consulting Team was established to support the B612 Project Concept and 

Integration Review (PCIR). NASA will also provide B612 access to its Deep Space 

Network for telecommunications with the Sentinel spacecraft for commanding and 

data downlink. 

b. Does NASA plan to obtain data from this organization's telescope? What would be the 

cost to NASA of Obtaining such data'? 

Per the nonreimbursable Space Act Agreement between NASA and the B612 

Foundation, NASA will receive all the data on a no-exchange-of-funds basis in 

return for technical and operational assistance during development and operations 

of the Sentinel spacecraft. NASA estimates the cost of the support provided to B612 

over the life cycle of Sentinel to be about $30 million. 

c. What are the Administration's plans should the B612 organization not obtain the private 

funding needed to develop its space telescope? 

The Administration and NASA are pursuing a broad, diverse, and balanced set of 

approaches to detecting, characterizing, and tracking asteroids, of which the B612 

organization is one important contributor. Lack of private funding to support key 

3 
67 

development milestones would have a negative impact on the ability of both the 

B612 Foundation and NASA to leverage this important element of the portfolio in a 

timely and efficient manner. If B612 doesn't obtain the necessary funding, other 

solutions will be explored, including greater public-private cooperation, interagency 

and/or international engagement, alternative mission concepts (internal or external 

to NASA), and de-scoping or delays to planned capability until the private funding 

is in place. 

2. According to NASA's Near Earth Object Program webpage, "While striking the early Earth 

billions of years ago, comets are thought to have created major changes to Earth's early oceans, 

atmosphere, and climate, and may have delivered the first carbon-based molecules to our planet, 

triggering the process of the origins of life . .. What changes to the Em1h system would be 

expected if an asteroid or comet were to impact Earth in the next century? 

The effect of an asteroid or comet impact is largely dependent on the size of the asteroid and 

where it strikes the Earth. For example, many small meteors strike the Earth's atmosphere 

and disintegrate entirely high in the atmosphere, never impacting the surface of the Eat·th. 

The 1908 explosion over Tunguska in Siberia, which leveled trees over an area of more than 

2,200 square kilometers (850 square miles), is thought to have been caused by a stony 

asteroid between 45 and 60 meters in diameter, imparting between 10 and 20 megatons of 

TNT equivalent. An energy release of this size could cause hundreds ofthousands of 

casualties and massive destruction if it occurred over an urban area. A similarly sized or 

even larger asteroid that made it to the surface intact could cause significant damage even if 

it hit the ocean, by virtue of the resulting tsunami. Depending on its composition and 

velocity, an asteroid of 140 meters in diameter could have an impact energy in the range of 

50 to 500 megatons of TNT equivalent and would be capable of causing destruction over a 

large region. Impacts from massive objects that are severalldlometers in size would have 

the most devastating worldwide effects. These impacts would include massive tsunamis if 

the object strikes the ocean and a massive cloud of dust and ash if it strikes land. The dust 

and ash would rapidly spread throughout the Earth's atmosphere, altering the temperature 

ofthe planet and preventing sunlight from reaching the surface, possibly for many years to 

come. 

3. The Committee has been in the forefront of U.S. policy on near-Earth object detection and 

monitoring for the past two decades. What priorities regarding U.S. government efforts in 

detection, tracking. and mitigation of potentially hazardous near-Eat1h objects as well as leading 

and effecting emergency response and preparedness should this Committee be considering as it 

discussed NASA reauthorization this year? 

Detecting, tracking, and mitigating potentially hazardous near-Earth objects have been 

priorities during this Administration. The President's 2014 Budget Request for NASA's 

Near Earth Object Observation Program proposed more than a ten-fold increase in funding 

(to $40.5 million from $4 million) from the 2009 funding level for NEO detection activities. 

Fnrther, the President's National Space Policy specifically directs NASA to "pursue 

capabilities, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, and commercial partners, to 

detect, track, catalog, and characterize near Earth objects to reduce the risk of harm to 

humans from an unexpected impact on our planet and to identify potentially resource-rich 

planetary objects." This guidance also reinforces NASA's roles and responsibilities with 

regard to NEOs, as well as those of other Federal departments and agencies including the 

4 
68 

Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland 

Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

OSTP has been working closely with several departments and agencies to draft plans and 

procedures, including potential mitigation strategies, that could be used in the unlikely 

event of an impending NEO impact threat. Under these plans, it is NASA's responsibility to 

provide initial notice of such a threat. Following such notification, communications 

resources and mechanisms already in place within FEMA would be used to communicate 

information domestically. The Department of State's diplomatic mechanisms would come 

into play for international communications as needed. DOD and NASA have already shown 

leadership by taking the initiative to run multi-agency disaster and deflection exercises, and 

by collaborating in the development of an international disaster and deflection response 

scenario for the recent Planetary Defense Conference hosted by the International Academy 

of Astronautics in Flagstaff, Arizona. 

4. What are the Administration's plans lor addressing policy and legal issues regarding NEOs-e.g., 

when and how to warn the public and whether to use nuclear explosives to detect an asteroid- be 

handled on national and international levels? What steps has OSTP taken to date to address such 

issues and what further actions will be pursued? 

The Executive Office of the President, in conjunction with Federal departments and 

agencies, is reviewing and assessing the legal and policy issues related to Near Earth 

Objects, in both public and private fora. Potential asteroid-impact mitigation strategies 

span a wide spectrum of options, with several study and analysis efforts ongoing both within 

NASA and across the broader community. OSTP provided a letter report to Congress in 

October 2010 outlining the broad issues related to planetary defense from asteroids. 

Integrated efforts continue, including the International Planetary Defense Conference on 

15-16 April, 2013 in Flagstaff, AZ, which included several interagency, industry, academia, 

and international components, and the bilateral NASA-FEMA Table Top Exercise on 

Planetary Defense, Warning, and Communication held in Washington on April 3, 2013. 

5. The Ad-floc Task Force on Planetary Defense of the NASA Advisory Council recommended in 

2010 that the cost of NASA Planetary Defense activities be explicitly budgeted by the 

Administration and funded by the Congress as a separate agency budget line, not diverted trom 

existing NASA science. exploration, or other mission budgets. Does the Administration plan to 

do so? Ifnot. why not 0 What types of analyses would need to be completed before a credible cost 

estimate for the activities recommended by the Task Force could be provided to Congress? 

NASA's NEOO Program is already budgeted as a distinct line item within the Science 

Mission Directorate's Planetary Science budget. Pursuant to Section 321 of the NASA 

Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-155), the NASA Administrator transmitted 

a report to Congress in March 2007, entitled "Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection 

Analysis of Alternatives." This report included very preliminary cost estimates for select 

architectures. The Ad Hoc Task Force incorporated that analysis into its review, but since 

over 5 years have now passed, a similar cost analysis would be necessary to produce a 

Cl'edible cost estimate. 

5 
69 

Questions for the Record 

Representative Donna F. Edwards 

'"Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors. Part I"' 

March 19,2013 

1. How important is thc proposed human mission to a near-Earth asteroid to the Administration's 

overall planning for mitigation of a potential NEO threat to the United States? Given the 

timcframe in which the human NEO effort is proposed (2020s) and the challenges that remain for 

such a mission, what additional or alternative approaches will the Administration pursue in order 

to inform mitigation decisions and plans that could maximize the preparedness of the United 

States and its international partners at thc earliest possible date? 

As part of the agency's overall asteroid strategy, NASA is planning a first-ever mission to 

identify, capture, and redirect an asteroid into a stable orbit around the Earth about 40,000 

miles outside that ofthe Moon. The overall mission is composed of three separate and 

independently compelling elements: the detection and characterization of candidate nearEarth asteroids; the robotic rendezvous, capture, and redirection of a target asteroid to the 

Earth-Moon system; and a crewed mission to explore and sample the captured asteroid 

using the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion crew capsule. Accomplishing this 

mission would represent an unprecedented technological achievement - raising the bar for 

human exploration and discovery, while demonstrating capabilities needed to protect onr 

home planet and bringing us closer to a human mission to Mars in the 20308. 

The proposed buman mission to a near-Earth asteroid is not being undertaken primarily 

for planetary-defense purposes, but rather to advance exploration capabilities and 

technologies while bringing side benefits in the planetary-defense domain. As part of the 

proposed mission, NASA is proposing to double funding for NEO detection, which will 

assist both in detecting a suitable target asteroid for the mission and in enhancing detection 

of potentially hazardous NEOs. NASA's enhanced NEO Observation Program will 

continue in parallel with the human asteroid mission and will take advantage of synergies 

that could benefit both efforts. Tbe planetary defense portion of tbe asteroid mission will 

also ntilize innovative methods (e.g. public-private partnerships, citizen science and 

crowdsourcing, prizes and challenges, etc.) to engage national and international partners to 

explore detection, tracking, characterization, and mitigation solutions for potentially 

hazardous NEOs. 

2. Since your October 2010 response to Congress, has anyone assessed the effectiveness of 

communication and coordination among U.S. government agencies involved in near-Em1h object 

surveying, detection, and characterization? What, ifany, improvcments are needed and how does 

the Administration plan to address those needs? 

Several Federal departments and agencies have significant roles in the pursuit of these 

goals, and they cooperate in important ways. NASA sponsors various activities relating to 

the search for NEOs, including the collection and correlation of NEO orbit data, precision 

tracking and characterization of NEOs, and assessments of NEO orbits and impact 

prohabilities in conjunction with other U.S. government agencies including the Department 

of Defense and U.S. Air Force, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), each of which 

6 
70 

plays a key role in fnnding ground-based astrouomical assets that are used to detect and 

track NEOs. In addition, the Minor Planet Center, located at the Harvard-Smithsonian 

Astrophysical Observatory, is a formally constituted international entity to which both 

professional and amateur astronomers feed discoveries of new near-Earth objects for 

follow-up and tracking. 

In reports issued in 2010, both the National Research Council and the NASA Advisory 

Council examined the NEO issue. While the focus of their recommendations varies, both 

groups agreed on the importance of Congressionally-directed efforts to detect, track, and 

characterize potentially dangerous asteroids. Both also point out that additional 

investments in technology and hardware are required to achieve the NEO-scarch goals in a 

timely manner. The President's FY 2014 Budget Request includes $40.5 million for NASA's 

NEOO Program to coutinue to improve NEO detection capabilities, a ten-fold increase over 

the 2009 budget of $4 million just five years ago. 

3. How well understood are the potential approaches to deflecting asteroids? What is the confidence 

level in the technologies that would be required? What information is needed to assess the various 

approaches, and how will decisions be made on which mitigation strategy to take? 

The most effective approach to mitigation of a potential asteroid impact threat is highly 

dependent on the scenario. Near-term impact of an asteroid tens of meters in diameter 

requires a siguificantly different approach than the threat of a larger object that might 

impact decades in the future. The orbit parameters ofthe potential impactor are also a 

significaut factor in determining an effective mitigation strategy. Therefore, a "toolkit" of 

mitigation approaches needs to be developed at the conceptual level to address the rauge of 

potential impact threats. While considerable thinking has gone into a variety of 

approaches, more extensive analysis will be required before any of them can be considered 

well understood. As a next step, in FY 2014, NASA's Office of the Chief Techuologist plans 

to develop a "roadmap" of mitigation techuologies. 

4. To what extent do international space agencies or international facilities contribute to NASA's 

NEO survey andlor a worldwide effort of surveying. tracking. and characterizing potentially 

hazardous near-Earth objects? Since your October 20 I 0 response to Congress, has the 

effectiveness of communication and data-sharing on near-Earth object tracking among nations 

been assessed? If not, are there plans to do so? 

NASA has taken specific action to strengthen the leadership of U.S. planetary defense 

efforts in nlltional and interulltional forums. The NASA NEOO l>rogram has provided 

essential leadership to the United Nations Committee ou Peaceful Uses of Outer Space's 

Science and Technology Subcommittee's action team on the NEO threat. Follow-on work 

iu iuternatioual fora will continue to develop a plan for an enhanced international asteroidwarning uetwork, impact disaster planuiug, space-mitigation mission planning should there 

be a credible threllt, and advice on plauning aud response. NASA is also working with the 

Canadian Space Agency (CSA) on processing of data that will be collected from the CSA 

Near-Earth Object Surveillauce Satellite (NEOSSat) lauuched in February 2012. There has 

not been a formal assessment of international efforts in near-Earth object tracking since the 

October 2010 report to Congress. 

5. What is the approximate cost for the U.S. govemment to have a seriolls near earth asteroids 

program and which agency should bear the brunt of that expense? 

7 
71 

The purpose of NASA's Near Earth Object Observations (NEOO) Program is to coordinate 

NASA-sponsored efforts to detect, track and characterize potentially hazardous asteroids 

and comets that could approach the Earth. In FY 2010, the NASA budget for the NEOO 

Program was $5.8 million. The FY 2014 budget for NASA includes $40.5 million for the 

NEO Program for near- Earth asteroid detection, follow-up and characterization. This 

increased funding is in support of human exploration as well as to protect our planet. 

a. NASA is the science agency, yet the Department of Defense is responsible for national 

defense - would this be a shared responsibility? 

The President's National Space Policy specifically directs NASA to "pursue 

capabilities, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, and commercial 

partners, to detect, track, catalog, aud characterize near Earth objects to reduce the 

risl< of harm to humans from an unexpected impact on our planet and to identify 

potentially resource-rich planetary objects." This guidance also reinforces NASA's 

roles and responsibilities with regard to NEOs, as well as those of other Federal 

departments and agencies including the Department of Defense, the Department of 

State, and the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

OSTP has beeu working closely with several departments and agencies to draft 

plans and procedures, including potential mitigation strategies, that could be used in 

the unlikely event of an impending NEO impact threat. Under these plans, it is 

NASA's responsibility to provide initial notice of such a threat. Following such 

uotification, communications resources and mechanisms already in place within 

FEMA would be used to communicate information domestically. The Department of 

State's diplomatic mechanisms would come into play for international 

communications as needed. DOD and NASA have already sbown leadership by 

taking the initiative to run multi-agency disaster and deflection exercises, and by 

collaborating in the development of an international disaster and deflection 

response scenario for the recent Planetary Defense Conference hosted by the 

International Academy of Astronautics in Flagstaff, Arizona. DOD could play an 

important role in the event of an impending NEO impact threat, depending on the 

approach deemed most appropriate for dealing with it 

b. When could "e reasonably expect such a program to corne on line of conrse, given the 

appropriate resources were so allocated? 

As described in the testimony and in the earlier responses, elements of a near-eartb 

asteroid mitigation program are already underway but at this time we are not in a 

position to provide a timeline nor a determination of what resources would be 

needed for a mitigation program tbat would actively defend from all potential 

asteroid threats. 

6. What is the likelihood of such a devastating impact from a ncar earth asteroid? Are the resources 

necessary for a credible program worth the cost given the low probability of stIch an occurrence 

in otIr lifetimes? 

As indicated in my written testimony, the Iikelibood of a devastating impact from a near8 
72 

Earth asteroid is very low when expressed as an annual probability. :"IIonetheless, 

improbable events do O<:Cllr, and if the potential conseqllences ror society are large - as is 

the case for impacts of asteroids in the tOO-meter or larger size range - it is prudent to 

invest in strategies for early warning and mitigation. 

9 
73 

Responses by Gen. William L. Shelton 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-OI-OOI 

Ilearing Date: March 19,2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congressman Palazzo 

Witness: Gcn Shelton 

Question: #1 

Question: Many of our space assets are also extremely vulnerable to NEOs. Given our reliance 

on these assets, what plans are in place to mitigate potential damage to our satellites and 

International Space Station? a. Do our current capabilities provide adequate tracking and 

warning of potential harmful impact to our space assets? b. What protocol has been established 

for giving advanced warning to U.S. government assets and are these also provided to the 

international community or commercial operators? 

Answer: '/oint Functional Component Command for Space (JFCC SPACE) sensors, command 

and control, and analysis functions are designed to track man-made objects in Earth orbit. They 

track objects from low Earth orbit (LEO) through medium Earth orbit (MEO) to geosynchronous 

Earth orbit (GI::O). They do not detect or track non-Earth orbiting objects. When alerted by 

NASA of an NEO that is expected to come close enough to the earth to threaten a satellite, 

including the International Space Station, JFCC SPACE will use NASA generated positional 

data to screen all active satellites for possible collisions. The Joint Space Operations Center 

(JSpOC) can then notify the owner/operators of those satellites of the threat. During the recent 

asteroid close approach, NASA detected and tracked that object. NASA then converted their 

data on the object to a format ./FCC SPACE/.lSpOC could use in its systems. This allowed 

JSpOC to perform conjunction assessment to detennine if any assets were at risk (they were not). 

a. Do our current capabilities provide adequate tracking and warning of potential harmful impact 

to our space assets? 

Answer: The JSpOC is 100% reliant on outside agencies such as NASA to identify nonmanmade objects that will come close enough to the earth to threaten satellites. JFCC SPACE 

has no ability to track or warn of these potential threats. There is, however, a working 

relationship between the .lSpOC and NASA for screening these threats when identified. Only 

NASA will be able to determine if their tracking and warning system is adequate. Again, JFCC 

SPACE detects and tracks man-made objects in Earth orbit, and requires NASA notification and 

NASA-collected data to have any oppoliunity to provide an assessment of risk to space assets. 

b. What protocol has been established for giving advanced warning to U.S. government assets 

and are these also provided to the international community or commercial operators? 

Answer: JFCC SPACE has 38 Space Situational Awareness agreements with owner/operators of 

satellites from many different countries. They coordinate with the State Department to release 

information to some foreign entities and share much of their information through the 

Spacctrack.org website. There are over 50,000 users of that website. This protocol is designed 

to report when there are possible conjunctions between EaI1h-orbiting man-made objects. JFCC 

SPACE could use it to report possible conjunctions between NASA-reported natural objects, but 

only if NASA provided the notification as well as data on the object that ./FCC SPACE could 

use. 
74 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-OI-002 

Hearing Date: March 19,2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congressman Palazzo 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #2 

Question: Can you describe to us the details of the recently signed Memorandum of Agreement 

between Air Force Space Command and NASA's Science Mission Directorate fi·om January 18 

of this year? 

Answer: The classified Memorandum of Agreement describes the process for the release of data 

on bolides (meteoric fireballs) to NASA, and it describes the specifics of what data can be 

provided and the format used to provide this data. 
75 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-OI-003 

Hearing Date: March 19.2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congressman Palazzo 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #3 

Question: How often do we currently observe large meteors entering the atmosphere safely over 

the ocean? 

Answer: Air Force Space Command only tracks man-made objects in Earth orbit. This question 

is in the purview of NASA. 
76 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-OI-004 

Hearing Date: March 19.2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congressman Palazzo 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #4 

Question: What capabilities does the U.S. government already possess to detect and track 

asteroids? What level of fidelity is needed compared to the level of fidelity we currently have? 

Answer: Air Force Space Command only tracks man-made objects in Earth orbit. This question 

is in the purview of NASA. 
77 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-01-005 

Hearing Date: March 19.2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congressman Palazzo 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #5 

Question: What unique characteristics can the U.S. Space Command offer to the overall asteroid 

detection and disaster mitigation program? How are these activities related to general space 

debris mitigation activities? 

Answer: Air Force Space Command equips United States Strategic Command 

(USSTRA TCOM) to detect and track man-made Earth orbiting objects using the Space 

Surveillance Network (SSN). If queued, and the asteroid or meteor is close enough, our sensors 

can detect and track. However, there is very limited capability to create orbits from these 

hyperbolic tracks. For general space debris mitigation, if NASA provided well defined trajectory 

and daily ephemeris data for an asteroid, the loint Functional Component Command for Space's 

(JFCC SPACE) Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) could provide satellite conjunction 

assessment to identify any close approaches with man-made satellites. 
78 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-OI-006 

Hearing Date: March 19,2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congresswoman Edwards 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #6 

Question: The National Research Council (NRC) reported in 2010 that data from DoD operated 

sensors in Earth orbit are capable of detecting the high-altitude explosion of small NEOs and that 

000 had shared this information with the NEO science community in the past. The NRC report 

included a recommendation that data from NEO airburst events observed by the U.S. Department 

of Defense satellites be made available to the scientific community. What are the pros and cons 

from your perspective of sharing data from NEO airburst events observed by 000 satellites and 

ground sensors with the scientific community? 

Answer: We are unaware of any specific benefit to the DoD for repoliing high-altitude 

explosions of small NEOs. However, we understand that the scientific community finds this 

type of data helpful in identifying NEO objects and locating meteoroids that make it to Earth's 

surface. Air Force Space Command does have an agreement to share some data on NEOs with 

NASA. However, details are classified in order to protect military capabilities. 
79 

CHARRTS No.: IISSTC-OI-007 

Hearing Date: March 19,2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congrcsswoman Edwards 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #7 

Question: You state in your prepared statement that the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) 

has recently assisted NASA in analyzing the orbit data from asteroid 2012 DA 14 which recently 

flew by Earth. You further describe current JSpOC data processing capacity limitations and 

ongoing efforts to field the next generation system. With the increased automation being made 

available, will JSpOC be able to provide NASA with a greater level of support in the near future, 

and if so, what kind of support? 

Answer: The first increment of the next generation system (JSpOC Mission System or JMS) 

became operational this year. The major capabilities now available to NASA include improved 

access to the space operational picture and basic space services over the SECRET Internet 

Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET). The next major increment delivered will provide NASA 

access to significant improvcments in space situational awareness in several areas. First, the 

JSpOC will be able to provide NASA with near-real-time, highly accurate positional information 

on all satellites and debris tracked by our Space Surveillance Network (SSN). Second, the 

JSpOC will provide NASA with conjunction assessment calculations on all possible 

conjunctions bctween manned missions, NASA satellites, and all other tracked objects in Earth 

orbit. Note that the primary limitation of this reporting is based on the capability of our SSN to 

track objects and not on the capacity of JMS. Future increments will allow JMS to use NASAsupplied asteroid track data to calculate potential conjunctions between the asteroid and satcllites 

in Earth orbit. 
80 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-OI-008 

Hearing Date: March 19,2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congresswoman Johnson 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #8 

Question: To what extent has DoD been involved in steps to address policy and legal issues 

relating to NEOs, e.g., when and how to warn the public and whether to use nuclear explosives 

to deflect an asteroid? 

Answer: Policy and legal issues relating to NEOs generally have not been part of the DoD 

dialog. DoD has been much more concerned with activity in earth orbit. 
81 

CHARRTS No.: HSSTC-01-009 

Hearing Date: March 19,2013 

Committee: HSSTC 

Member: Congressman Neugebauer 

Witness: Gen Shelton 

Question: #9 

Question: What is the likelihood of such a devastating impact from a near earth asteroid? Are 

the resources necessary for a credible program worth the cost given the low probability of such 

an occurrence in our lifetimes? 

Answer: Air Force Space Command only tracks man-made objects in Earth orbit. and therefore 

has not been part of the discussion on likelihood of impacts by asteroids, nor has the Command 

been part of the discussion on programs for detection of asteroids. 
82 

Responses by The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 

HOUSE COMMITIEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Part 1" 

Questions for the Record, General Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Questions submitted by Rep. Steven Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space 

1. Many of our space assets are also extremely vulnerable to NEOs. Given our reliance on 

these assets, what plans are in place to mitigate potential damage to our satellites and 

the International Space Station? 

a. Do our current capabilities provide adequate tracking and warning of potential 

harmful impact to our space assets? 

b. What protocol has been established for giving advanced warning to U.S. 

government assets and are these also provided to the international community or 

commercial operators? 

c. How often do you have to alter the path of the ISS to avoid a possible debris 

strike? Is a lot of propellant used in doing so? 

ANS~l!;. It is highly unlikely that the International Space Station (ISS) or other 

assets in space would be struck by a sizeable NEO; however, space-based assets are hit 

by micrometeoroids and very small space debris frequently. The Joint Space 

Operations Center (JSpOC) and the NASA Trajectory Operations Center (TOPO) 

teams continuously monitor for potential collisions with debris of any significant size, 

and provide adequate notification so that avoidance maneuvers can be planned and 

executed. 

A total of 15 Debris Avoidance Maneuvers (DAMs) have been performed by ISS and 

the Space Shuttle from 1998 to present. Of those, the ISS has performed 11 and the 

Space Shuttle performed 4 while attached to ISS. A typical DAM would use about 75 

kilograms of propellant. 

2. Does NASA have the ability to track objects that could potentially be harmful to 

astronauts engaged in deep space exploration? 

ANSWER: The risk ofimpact from a NEO of the type being tracked by NASA to a 

deep-space mission is considered minimal. Though the risk is also very limited, 

spacecraft on deep-space missions would more likely encounter micrometeoroids, and 

these would not be tracked. 

3. Please provide details ofthe recently signed Memorandum of Agreement between Air 

Force Space Command and NASA's Science Mission Directorate from January 18, 

2013. 
83 

ANSWER: The recently signed MOA will support the NASA NEO program's ability 

to share infonnation with the scientific community about fireball and bolide 

reports. Fireballs and bolides are astronomical tenns for exceptionally bright meteors 

that are spectacular enough to be seen over a very wide area. The NEO program 

provides a chronological data summary of the brightest fireball and bolide events 

provided by U.S. Government sensors; this data summary can be accessed 

at http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/fireballs/. 

4. How often do we observe large meteors entering the atmosphere safely over the ocean? 

ANSWER: Every day, a continual influx of meteors strikes Earth's atmosphere. Most 

of them are dust-sized particles, but it has been estimated that on a typical day, these 

particles total from 50 to 150 tons of matter. Asteroids of the order ofa few meters in 

size strike the atmosphere roughly annually. About 70 percent of the Earth's surface is 

covered by water and asteroids do not originate from any preferred direction in the sky, 

so we expect that the majority of these annual impacts by meter-sized asteroids take 

place over the oceans. Larger asteroid impacts are even less frequent; an asteroid as 

large as 140 meters in diameter striking the Earth is estimated to average about 1 in 

30,000 years. 

5. What capabilities does the U.S. government already possess to detect and track 

asteroids? What level of fidelity is needed compared to the level of fidelity we 

currently have? 

ANSWER: NASA sponsors a number of activities relating to the search for NEOs 

under its Near Earth Object Observation (NEOO) program, including; work at the 

international Minor Planet Center (MPC), located at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center 

for Astrophysics, which collects and correlates NEO orbit data provided by 

observatories around the world; surveys conducted by several search teams operating 

ground-based optical telescopes; activities at the NASA NEO Program Office at the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which coordinates assessments ofNEO orbits and 

computes impact probabilities; and, research at two radio-telescope facilities that 

provide precision tracking and characteri7..ation ofNEOs. There are also cooperative 

projects involving NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), which has a key 

role within the United States for ground-based astronomical assets, and the U.S. Air 

Force (USAF) Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System 

(FanST ARRS) program, as well as non-government academic and space research 

organizations. Additionally, NEO detection is a major science driver for the proposed 

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. NASA is also working with the Canadian Space 

Agency (CSA) on processing of data that will be collected from their recently launched 

Near-Earth Object Surveillance Satellite (NEOSSat). 

These assets constitute an effective program for discovering larger NEOs, and we are 

working to improve our capabilities for the identification and characterization of 

smaller, few hundred meter sized NEOs. Small NEOs are difficult to detect in visible 
84 

light from ground-based telescopes because the small, dark objects reflect only a small 

amount of visible sunlight. In contrast, telescopes sensitive to infrared light detect an 

object's radiated heat, rather than reflected sunlight; even small, dark asteroids could be 

detected by a telescope sensitive to infrared light, making these capabilities particularly 

relevant for future NEO surveys. However, these sensors must operate outside the 

Earth's atmosphere to be effective. 

6. Please provide a status update on the activities of NASA's Near Earth Objects Office. 

ANSWER: The purpose of NASA's Near Earth Object Observations (NEOO) 

Program is to coordinate NASA-sponsored efforts to detect, track:, and characterize 

potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that could approach the Earth. As noted in 

the response to Question 5, the NEOO Program continues to support a number of 

activities relating to the search for NEOs with our partners. In particular, the Minor 

Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has 100M observations ofNEOs in its 

database and 27,000 observations are added daily. Today, the NEOO Program has 

catalogued more than 95 percent of all NEOs over one-kilometer in size and about 25 

percent of the 140-meter or larger sized NEO population has been discovered. The 

current discovery rate ofNEOs is approximately 1,000 per year, up 50 percent since 

2007. None of the NEOs found to date has a significant chance of hitting Earth in the 

next century. Thus the near-term risk of an unwarned impact from a large asteroid, and 

hence the majority of the risk from all NEOs, has been reduced by more than 90 

percent. 

7. In 1998, NASA commenced an effort with the goal of discovering and tracking over 90 

percent of the near-Earth objects larger than one kilometer by the end of 2008. How 

successful was that effort, what can we learn from it today? 

ANSWER: By the end of2010, the NEOO Program had reached the goal of 

cataloguing more than 90 percent of all NEOs over one-kilometer in size at a cost of 

less than $50M. NASA worked with a number of ground-based observatories and 

partners as part of our Spaceguard survey to reach that goal; and NASA has now 

catalogued more than 95 percent of all NEOs over one-kilometer in size. 

Through this process, we have learned that partnerships such as these are essential to 

meeting the future goals of detecting smaller objects. As such, NASA's NEOO 

Program has initiated development of several additional capabilities to the NEO 

detection network, with the recent additional funding it received starting in FY 2012. 

Some of these involve collaboration on projects with the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force, such as background detection of 

asteroids by the new Space Surveillance Telescope (SST), which is on track to start 

routinely providing observations in 2013. There is also the planned augmentation of 

the USAF Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS) 

facility with a second aperture. The wide field of view survey capabilities of these two 

assets are expected to provide a significant increase in NEO detection rate. 
85 

8. When asteroid expeditions are at the center of human spaceflight plans for NASA, and 

when commercial companies are taking an interest in finding and then profiting from 

asteroids, and when our ability to avoid a cosmic catastrophe depends absolutely on the 

knowledge of the orbits of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of asteroids, why has 

NASA not funded the effective space-based search telescope needed for all these 

missions? With Chelyabinsk, will it now receive priority? If not funded, are we to 

conclude that NASA is not serious about pursuing any of these space endeavors? 

ANSWER: NASA leads the world in the detection and characterization ofNEOs, and 

provides critical funding to support the ground-based observatories that are responsible 

for the discovery of about 98 percent of all known NEOs. However, ground-based 

telescopes will always be limited to the night sky and by weather. The only way to 

overcome these impediments is to use the vantage point of space. The privately funded 

B612 Foundation is planning to build a space observatory called Sentinel that would 

launch in 2018 and detect 100-meter sized objects and larger that could come near 

Earth's orbit. Sentinel will employ an infrared telescope from a Venus-orbit that will 

look out directly opposite the Sun at the space surrounding Earth's orbit in order to see 

and track near Earth objects. NASA is working collaboratively with the B612 

Foundation by providing technical assistance and operational support through a Space 

Act Agreement. A NASA Technical Consulting Team was established to support the 

B612 project reviews. NASA will also provide B612 access to our Deep Space 

Network for telecommunications with the Sentinel spacecraft for commanding and data 

downlink. NASA is also evaluating reactivating our NEOWISE activity, a very 

successful use of an Earth-orbiting, Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) space 

telescope that was used in 2010-2011 to fmd and physically characterize near-Earth 

objects. 

To find the more numerous smaller asteroids near Earth, NASA's Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and Science Mission Directorate 

(SMD), through the Joint Robotic Precursor Activity (JRPA) office, are studying 

instrument concepts for a mission of opportunity to be hosted on a U.S. government or 

commercial spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit that would be capable of detecting and 

tracking asteroids in orbits very similar to Earth's. This modest-sized, wide field 

telescope would have detectors that operate in the infrared bands where these faint 

asteroids are more easily detected against the cold background of space. NASA 

released a Request for Information (RFJ) in August 2012 and is studying the instrument 

concepts that were submitted. Work is also underway to draft an Announcement of 

Opportunity (AO) to request proposals for Phase A studies. It is likely that NASA 

could fund up to three instrument concepts for Phase A studies, culminating with a 

down select to one proposal in FY 2014. 
86 

Questions for the Record 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

"Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Part Ilf 

March 19, 2013 

1. Will sequestration cause a delay to meeting the Congressionally-mandated goal of 

detecting 90 percent ofNEOs 140 meters in diameter and larger by 2020? If so, by 

how long? 

ANSWER: The purpose of NASA's Near Earth Object Observations (h'EOO) 

Program is to coordinate NASA-sponsored efforts to detect, track, and characterize 

potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that could approach the Earth. 

Currently, sequestration will not have an effect on NEOO Program funding; 

however, long-term sequestration (past the current fiscal year) could potentially 

impact programs and projects across the Agency and will be assessed by the 

Science Mission Directorate as needed. 

2. What would be required for NASA to detect 90 percent ofNEOs 15 meters in 

diameter and larger by 2020? What approach(es) would NASA recommend be 

taken to achieve that goal? 

ANSWER: To find 90 percent of 15 meter NEOs by 2020 would require a 

program of multiple space-based telescopes to accomplish when it may be several 

decades before Earth again is hit by something larger than 15 meters. Such a 

program is currently not achievable with the existing budget profile. The approach 

within the NEOO Program in the President's FY 2014 budget request is to expand 

the existing NEO detection and characterization activities to detect the NEO 

population at a measured pace. Making available more time on existing groundbased observatories, such as the USAF Pan-STARRS, the NASA Infra-Red 

Telescope Facility (IRTF), or the Space Surveillance Telescope (SST), would be the 

first step. 

While ground-based surveys are making excellent progress increasing the discovery 

rate, it would require a space-based infrared NEO telescope to significantly increase 

the current detection rate. Such a telescope would capture the asteroid's solar 

energy re-radiated in the infrared and do so without interruptions from daylight and 

weather. Not only would such a telescope efficiently discover NEOs, it could 

(unlike ground-based optical discovery telescopes) also estimate their diameters to a 

confidence level of about 20 percent. The B612 Foundation has announced plans to 

philanthropically fund an effort to operate an infrared telescope in a Venus-like 

orbit. NASA has signed a Space Act Agreement with B612 to provide advisory 

information as well as spacecraft tracking and navigation support. NASA has also 

funded an advanced infrared detector development that could be employed on an 

infrared telescope operating at the Sun-Earth L 1 position. 
87 

In addition, NASA is advancing work on instrument concepts for a mission of 

opportunity to be hosted on a U.S. government or commercial spacecraft in 

geosynchronous orbit that would be capable of detecting and tracking asteroids in 

orbits very similar to Earth's. NASA is also evaluating reactivating our NEOWISE 

activity, a very successful use of an Earth-orbiting, Wide-field Infrared Survey 

Explorer (WISE) space telescope that was used in 2010-2011 to find and physically 

characterize near-Earth objects. 
88 

Questions for the Record 

Representative Donna F. Edwards 

"Threats from Space: A Review ofD.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Part 1" 

March 19, 2013 

1. It is clear that threats from objects 30-50 meters in diameter or smaller, such as the 

one that unexpectedly entered the atmosphere and exploded over Russia can cause 

harm. 

• Is NASA's current NEO survey program capable of identifying threats from 

objects of this size? 

• If not, how important is it to start identifying this class of small threatening 

objects if we are to come up with an effective protection strategy? 

• How difficult a task would it be? 

ANSWER: Since 1998, NASA has supported several ground-based optical 

telescope facilities for discovering and following-up NEOs. The progress for 

finding NEOs larger than one kilometer has been very impressive with a total 

discovery completion rate of more than 95 percent. Howcver, there are vastly more 

small NEOs with much larger impact probabilities than large ones. NASA's NEOO 

Program is capable of identifying these objects; however, the current discovery 

completion for 30-40 meter sized objects is now less than one percent. While 

NEOs in this size range can cause local property damage and injuries, our current 

focus is on completing the Congressionally-mandated survey ofNEOs larger than 

140 meters, which can cause much more serious damage. 

Small NEOs are difficult to detect in visible light from our current ground-based 

telescopes because the small; dark objects reflect only a small amount of visible 

sunlight. In contrast, telescopes sensitive to infrared light detect an object's radiated 

heat, rather than reflected sunlight; even small, dark asteroids could be detected by 

a telescope sensitive to infrared light, making these capabilities particularly relevant 

for future NEO surveys. However, these sensors must operate outside the Earth's 

atmosphere to be effective. 

2. As you know, the Ad-Hoc Task Force on Planetary Defense of the NASA Advisory 

Council was set up to advise the Council Chairman, you, and NASA Mission 

Directorates on future agency actions related to Planetary Defense. The Task Force 

made five recommendations in October 2010 on how NASA should organize, 

acquire, investigate, prepare for, and lead national and international efforts in 

Planetary Defense. How were these recommendations subsequently addressed by 

NASA? What has happened to this Ad-Hoc Task Force since 201O? 

ANSWER: The five recommendations made by the Task Force were to: Organize 

for Effective Action on Planetary Defense; Acquire Essential Search, Tracking, and 

Warning Capabilities; Investigate the Nature of the Impact Threat; Prepare the 

Response to Impact Threats; and Lead D.S. Planetary Defense Efforts in National 
89 

and International Forums. NASA has acted on thesc recommendations in several 

ways. 

The purpose of NASA's Near Earth Object Observations (NEOO) Program is to 

coordinate NASA-sponsored efforts to detect, track, and characterize potentially 

hazardous asteroids and comets that could approach the Earth. In FY 2010, the 

NASA budget for the NEOO Program was $5. 8M. The fmal report of the NASA 

Advisory Council Ad-Hoc Task Force on Planetary Defense was provided to the 

NASA Administrator in October 2010. NASA's budget formulation process for the 

subsequent President's budget request resulted in an Administration request of 

$20M for the NEOO Program in FY 2011 and $20.4M for FY 2012. The FY 2014 

budget request for NASA includes $40.5M for the NEOO Program for near-Earth 

asteroid detection, follow-up and characterization. 

Within the increased investment in the NEOO Program, the FY 2014 budget request 

includes focused support for partnerships and leveraging, including international 

and commercial partnerships. The objectives of the enhanced NEOO Program are 

responsive to the Task Force's recommendations to Acquire Essential Search, 

Tracking, and Warning Capabilities; and Investigate the Nature of the Impact 

Threat. 

In addition, NASA has taken specific action to strengthen the leadership of U.S. 

planetary defense efforts in national and international forums. The NASA NEOO 

Program has provided essentialleadershlp to the United Nations Committee on 

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space action team on the NEO threat. That group is 

developing a plan for an enhanced international asteroid warning network, impact 

disaster planning, space-mitigation mission planning should there be a credible 

threat, and advice on planning and response. 

To "Prepare the Response to Impact Threats" on Apri13, 2013, the NEOO Program 

and the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) held a one-day simulation of impact disaster response with NEO 

observation, detection and mitigation community experts and FEMA emergencyresponse personnel. Also, the Planetary Defense Conference, hosted in April 2013 

in Flagstaff, AZ, conducted a half-day international impact-emergency-response 

exercise with participants from multiple countries. 

3. In your prepared statement you noted that "NASA also is investigating development 

of an instrument that could be hosted on geo-synchronous platforms such as 

communications, TV broadcast or weather satellites" to detect the more numerous 

smaller asteroids near Earth. When do you anticipate this instrument being 

available? How much will it cost and what is your level of confidence that other 

entities will host the instrument on their platforms? 

• What are the expected outcomes from such a program and what are the 

criteria for determining whether or not to continue using this approach for 

NEO detection? 
90 

ANSWER: To find the more numerous smaller asteroids near Earth, NASA's 

Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and Science 

Mission Directorate (SMD), through the Joint Robotic Precursor Activity (JRPA) 

office, are studying instrument concepts for a mission of opportunity to be hosted 

on a U.S. government or commercial spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit that would 

be capable of detecting and tracking asteroids in orbits very similar to Earth's. This 

modest-sized, wide field telescope would have detectors that operate in the infrared 

bands where these faint asteroids are more easily detected against the cold 

background of space. NASA released a Request for Information (RFI) in August 

2012, and is studying the instrument concepts that were submitted Work is also 

underway to draft an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) to request proposals for 

Phase A studies. It is likely that NASA could fund up to three instrument concepts 

for Phase A studies, culminating with a down select to one proposal in FY 2014. 

This effort has the goal of being ready to deploy the first hosted instrument by the 

end of2016 for a cost ofless than $50M. 

4. A NEO object, Apophis, estimated at 325 meters in diameter, has been the focus of 

much attention and monitoring since it was discovered in 2004. It is projected to 

have a significant threat of potential impact at some point in the future. What is 

NASA's current assessment of Apophis' threat and what is needed to improve our 

understanding of the threat? 

ANSWER: Any significant probability of Apophis impacting the Earth in 2029 

was eliminated within a few weeks of its discovery using archived images that 

allowed a significant extension of the observed orbital track. A small possibility (1 

in a few thousand) of impact remained in 2036 until radar observations collected in 

early 2013 eliminated that event as well. There remains an incrementally small 

chance of impact in 2068, but it is now assessed at less than 3 in a million. 

5. How important is the Arecibo Observatory to NASA's NEO activities? 

ANSWER: The Arecibo Observatory is home to the world's largest and most 

sensitive single-dish radio telescope, and is one of two radar facilities we use for 

tracking and improving our knowledge ofNEOs. As NEOs are discovered and 

come into its effective range, the Arecibo Observatory conducts follow-up radar 

observations to measure specifics such as the distances, sizes and spin rates of the 

objects, which improve our knowledge of their orbits and help calculate the risks of 

potential impacts. The rotation rate, shape and reflectivity gathered from the 

Arecibo images can also give us information about the asteroids' density and 

surface properties. 
91 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE RANDY NEUGEBAUER (R-TX) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Threats from Space: 

A Review of U.S. Govcrnment Efforts to Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors, Part I 

1. What does NASA consider an adequate annual funding level for planetary defense 

activities? 

ANSWER: NASA sponsors a number of activities relating to the search for NEOs 

and planetary defense related activities under its Near Earth Object Observation 

(NEOO) program, including work at the intemational Minor Planet Center (MPC), 

located at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which collects and 

correlates NEO orbit data; research at two radio-telescope facilities that help 

provide precision tracking and characterization ofNEOs; surveys conducted by 

ground-based optical telescopes; and activities at the NASA NEO Program Office 

at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which coordinates assessments ofNEO 

orbits and impact probabilitics. The NEOO program funding was $20AM in FY 

2012. The FY 2014 President's budget request increases this funding to $40.5M, to 

enhance existing assets that detect and characterize NEOs and initiate development 

of an instrument that could be hosted on geo-synchronous platforms to detect the 

more numerous smaller asteroids near Earth. 

2. What is the likelihood of such a devastating impact from a near earth asteroid? Are 

the resources necessary for a credible program worth the cost given the low 

probability of such an occurrence in our lifetimes? 

ANSWER: Although impact of a large asteroid is an exceeding rare event, one of 

the key conclusions ofthe 2003 NASA report entitled "Study to Determine the 

Feasibility of Extending the Search for Near-Earth Objects to Smaller Limiting 

Diameters" was that "the benefits derived from all (NEO) search systems match or 

exceed their costs within the first year of operation." Especially for the larger 

NEOs, current search efforts are well worth their modest costs, since an early 

discovery of an Earth threatening NEO would allow the time to safely deflect it 

with existing technologies. As the search for NEOs continues, and more and more 

of them are discovered and tracked one hundred or more years into the future, their 

risks to Earth can be evaluated. More than 95 percent of the largest NEOs (I 

kilometer and larger) have already been discovered for a total cost ofless than 

$70M spread over 15 years, and it is reassuring to know that none represent a 

serious impact threat in the next one hundred years. Despite the low probability of 

a devastating NEO impact, it seems prudent to continue to invest in strategies for 

early warning and mitigation. 
92 

Question for the Record 

Representative Ami Bera 

Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors, Part 1" 

March 19,2013 

1. Astronomy is one of our oldest natural sciences, studied and researched by ancient 

civilizations before the invention of the telescope, and other modem technologies and 

sciences. Dating back to 2500 B.C., early records reveal that people kept detailed 

astronomical accounts of objects they discovered and that practice continues today. 

In the United States, tens of thousands of amateur astronomers create home 

observatories or assemble at professional observatories and collaborate on fmding new 

celestial objects, ranging from stars, planets, asteroids, etc. These amateur astronomers 

are found across the globe, even in my home county of Sacran I ento , CA as a part of the 

Astronomy Connection of Sacramento (T AC-SAC) and are making incredible 

discoveries every day. 

My question is for you General Bolden. What steps can Congress and NASA take to 

further create and facilitate this open source of information sharing to increase our eyes 

in the sky for detecting near-Earth objects? How can NASA leverage the passion of 

amateur astronomy and engage the thousands that practice it to help increase our 

knowledge and awareness of the asteroids and meteors that are located near Earth? 

ANSWER: Since 1998, NASA has supported several ground-based optical telescope 

facilities and received observations from numerous amateur astronomers for 

discovering and following-up NEOs. The international community ofNEO researchers 

is well coordinated and has been working cooperatively for several years. In addition, 

the international communication and data sharing channels are operating successfully. 

Once a NEO discovery is made, a combination of professional and amateur 

astronomers provide the critically important follow-up optical observations that allow 

accurate orbits to be computed and the NEO's motion to then be accurately predicted 

for more than one hundred years into the future. Radar observations, if available, are 

especially good for orbit refinement and for determining the NEO's size, shape and 

rotation characteristics. In addition, many amateur astronomers provide an observed 

time history of the NEO's ability to reflect light and hence, if these objects are 

irregularly shaped, these types of observations can be used to determine the rotation 

rate of the NEO. Given the success of this coordinated effort, NASA will continue to 

leverage the knowledge and awareness of the NEO community in its entirety. 
(93) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
94 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE STEVE STOCKMAN, COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for focusing Congress’ attention on taking 

effective action on the threats, and solutions to, potentially dangerous meteors and 

asteroids. 

The Chelyabinsk meteor, the flyby of asteroid 2012 DA14, and the 1908 Siberian 

Tunguska event all offer the dramatic lesson that tracking and mitigating such objects must become a national priority. 

We know a large meteor or asteroid could destroy a city and kill millions of people. Unlike in 1908, we now have the ability—and therefore the responsibility—to 

take effective actions for identifying and avoiding a potentially catastrophic collision. 

Under current funding levels, NASA will not be able to meet the Congressional 

requirement to identify 90% of all objects 140 meters in diameter or larger by 2020. 

Altering the trajectory of an object in the Earth’s path could not be accomplished 

within decades at current funding levels. 

Therefore these objectives must be met with additional and sufficient funds rather 

than reducing or cancelling funding for existing NASA programs. ‘Robbing Peter to 

pay Paul’ would only result in half-hearted efforts which would fail to address the 

threat from asteroids while at the same time crippling our existing space program. 

A poorly-funded program will yield poor results. 

I am a tireless budget-slasher; however, science, space; and yes, planetary defense 

are among the few government programs essential to our future. 

Advances in technology for planetary defense may provide spinoffs for propulsion 

to take Americans to Mars and beyond; for cleaning up space debris which threatens 

satellites and the International Space Station; as well as for more everyday-life applications. 

This is of course a worldwide threat, and other nations should participate in developing solutions. However as with all smart space partnerships, it is in our distinct national interest that the United States lead the effort. This will assure that 

the majority of the technology developed will directly benefit the U.S. economy, and 

will give the U.S. the ability to block the transfer of our most advanced technology 

to our potential adversaries. The same technology to track and alter the course of 

asteroids could have military applications. 

The threat from asteroids and meteors is real. America must take the lead to develop practical and effective solutions, reap the technological benefits—lest a decade 

or two from now we regret our inaction. 
95 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY DR. DANTE LAURETTA, DEPARTMENT OF PLANETARY SCIENCES, 

LUNAR AND PLANETARY LABORATORY
96 

OSIRIS-REx Asteroid Sample Return Mission 

OSIRIS-REx is the United States' premier asteroid mission. It will visit asteroid 1999 RQ36, a carbon- and 

water-rich object that is also one of the most potentially hazardous near-Earth asteroids. NASA selected 

this mission for its New Frontiers program in May 2011. The Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the 

University of Arizona leads the mission. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD is 

responsible for mission project management. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Littleton, CO will build 

and operate the spacecraft. The mission Website is t:mQ;Uosiris-reJ:<.,jQl.arLzQQa.ed_u/. 

OSIRIS-REx stands for Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, and Security, Regolith 

Explorer. OSIRIS-REx will survey asteroid 1999 RQ36 to understand its physical and chemical properties, 

assess its resource potential, refine the impact hazard, and return a sample of this body to Earth for 

detailed scientific analysis. This mission is scheduled for launch in 2016 and will rendezvous with the 

asteroid in 2018. Sample return to Earth occurs in 2023. 

OSIRIS-REx is essential to maintain US leadership in near-Earth space in an era of substantial 

international interest in asteroid exploration. Other nations are actively interested in asteroids as a 

target for exploration. The Japanese Aerospace and Exploration Agency (JAXA) is developing the 

Hayabusa 2 sample return mission to asteroid 1999 JU3, the Chinese probe Chang'e-2 has successfully 

flown by near-Earth asteroid Toutatis, and the European Space Agency is developing a mission to 

intercept and impact asteroid Didymos in 2022. 

Asteroid 1999 RQ36 is a potential Earth impactor. It is a 500-m-diameter asteroid that would enter the 

Earth's atmosphere with a velocity of 12.9 km/s resulting in impact energy of almost 3,000 megatons. 

The combined probability of an impact in the late 22nd century (between 2169 - 2199) is 1 in 1,410, one 

of the highest for any known asteroid (see bJ:!Q;//neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a101955.html). 

The primary source of uncertainty in assessing the long-term impact probability of asteroids is the 

Yarkovsky effect, a force that changes the orbit of small rocky objects when they absorb sunlight and 

then re-emit that energy as heat. OSIRIS-REx will not only investigate the asteroid properties that result 

in this phenomenon, but also directly measure the Yarkovsky acceleration. OSIRIS-REx thus serves as a 

"transponder mission," a mission to a potentially hazardous asteroid with the dual objectives of refining 

the orbit to ascertain whether an impact is impending and characterizing the object to faCilitate a 

possible deflection mission. 

OSIRIS-REx is developing critical technologies for exploring near-Earth asteroids including: 1) 

measurement of the global characteristics of an asteroid, 2) accurate navigation to a specific location on 

the asteroid surface, 3) successful contact and acquisition of material from that surface, and 4) safe 

return of the sample to Earth. These operational capabilities are essential as humanity explores nearEarth space to increase our understanding of Solar System bodies and develop in situ resource 

utilization. 

A natural extension of the University of Arizona's established experience and knowledge in planetary 

science, the OSIRIS-REx mission seeks to understand the Solar System scientifically, prepare for human 

exploration, and assess the risk of one of the most threatening potentially hazardous asteroids. 

I'd like to thank Congressman David Schweikert and the US House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology for the opportunity to submit these comments for the record. 

Sincerely, 

fuat.: 
97 

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Material requested for the record by Rep. Rohrabacher during the 

March 19, 2013, NEO hearing. 

To prepare for the unlikely event where the Earth would be threatened by a collision with a near-Earth object (NEO), we believe an enhanced program would include a steady effort of ground-based observation and monitoring of the detected 

hazards as they are found (lifecycle cost estimate of up to $600M over 20 years). 

Further enhancements could include space-based surveys to provide more timely detection of the hazardous population, and technology demonstration missions to test 

deflection techniques. The costs of these further enhancements are difficult to precisely estimate, but might be on the order of $2.5 – $3B. 
98 

Material requested for the record by Rep. Brooks during the March 19,2013, NEO 

hearing. 

The most impoliant way to prevent the collision of the Emih with a large asteroid is to 

find the potentially hazardous objects and characterize their orbits as early as possible. 

NASA's FY 2014 budget request doubles the funding for our Near-Earth Object 

Observation (NEOO) activities to increase the pace at which we are discovering and 

characterizing NEOs of all sizes. No known I-kilometer or larger NEO is an impact 

hazard to the Emih within at least the next century, and we have evidence that we now 

know of over 95 percent of them. Even current survey capabilities should allow us to 

find a I-kilometer or larger NEO long before it presents any impact threat to the Emih. 

However, if we assume that a I-kilometer sized object was discovered and found to be on 

a collision course with the Earth, there are several factors to consider when estimating the 

time needed to respond, In short, how quickly we can diveli a large asteroid is very 

much dependent on the scenario, 

The three main components of a deflection timetable are: I) the time requircd for 

spacecrafl: development and launch; 2) the time of flight required to reach the object; and, 

3) the time needed to effect the deflection so that the object misses the Earth entirely 

(which varies bascd on the technique). Our preliminary estimate is that it would take 1-2 

years to build and develop the spacecraft needed for such a mission. The travel time to 

reach the object will depend on the orbit of the object, the launch vehicle used, and the 

inclination of the object's orbit with the Earth's orbit; depending on the scenario, the time 

of flight could be between I and 3 years. Finally, the various deflection techniques that 

could be used (which are spelled out in some detail in the National Researeh Couneil's 

repOli entitled "Defcnding Planet Emih: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard 

Mitigation Strategies: Final RepOli:' especially in Chapter 5) eould take an additional I 

to 3 years to have the desired effect on the orbit of the object so that it misses the Earth 

with an acceptable margin of safety. 
99 

Material requested for the record by Rep. Schweikert during the March 19, 20B, 

NEO hearing. 

2012 DAll was discovered on February 23,2012, by the Observatorio Astron6mico de 

La Sagra (Astronomical Observatory at La Sagra), which uses a half meter-class wide 

field of view telescope located in the mountains of southern Spain. The telescope is 

operated remotely by a team of citizen scientists tlll1ded in part by ESA's Space 

Situational Awareness program for both NEO and space debris observations. They could 

best be described as "semi-pro" astronomers, as they are highly skilled with the detection 

and astrometric techniques; however, many on the team have other full-time professions. 

However, it is the NASA-funded professional survey teams (i.e., Catalina Sky Survey, 

Lincoln Ncar-Earth Asteroid Rcsearch (LINEAR), etc.) that have made more than 98 

percent of the NEO discoveries since 1998. Only about I percent of discoveries have 

come from the amateur community since that timc, a percentage that is dropping off as 

we pursue the smaller sized population. 
100 

Material requested for the record by Rep. Esty during the March 19,2013, NEO 

hearing. 

There already exists a very collaborative international network of both professional and 

amateur astronomers who report all observations on NEOs to the International 

Astronomical Union sanctioned Minor Planet Center (MPC), hosted by the Smithsonian 

Astrophysical Observatory at Cambridge, MA. and fully funded by NASA's Near Earth 

Object Observation Program. This network existed informally for many decades prior to 

start of NASA 's program. but since its inception we have done many things 10 enhance 

the operations of the MPC, suppoli dedicated survey teams to greatly increase the 

detection rate, and created the capability at our Jet Propulsion Laboratory to rapidly 

provide more precision orbit determination and assess the potential for an impact threatcollective capabilities that are often referred to as the "Spaceguard" network. Also as 

part of that network a team of astrodynamicists at the University of Pisa, Italy, does 

parallel analysis of precision orbits so that we can check our answers with them. 

The work we have been involved with at the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer 

Space in relation to an International Asteroid Warning Network is to encourage more 

patiicipation in addition to the existing effort from across the member states to enhance 

the detection and observation capabilities, and to establish more formal repoliing and 

information exchange on any detected hazard so that all nations will have equal access to 

any knowledge of a potential asteroid threat. 
(101) 

THREATS FROM SPACE: 

A REVIEW OF PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS 

TO TRACK AND MITIGATE ASTEROIDS 

AND METEORS, PART II 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
102 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

[:ongress of the 'tinited ~tates 

iRonsc of 'RqlfCsElltatincs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

225-6371 

u.s. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Threats from Space: 

A Review of u.s. Government Efforts 

to Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors, Part 2 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 

2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. Ed Lu, Chairman & CEO, B612 Foundation 

EDDIE BERNiCE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANK1NG MEMBER 

Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Manager, Near-Earth Objects Program Office, Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory 

Dr. Michael F. A'Hearn, Vice-Chair, Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and 

Hazard Mitigation Strategies, National Resource Council 
103 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

HEARING CHARTER 

Threatsfi'ol11 Space. Part II: 

A Review of Private Sector Efforts 

10 Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors 

Wednesday, April 10,2013 

2:00p.m. 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

At 2:00 p.m. on April 10,2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will hold a 

hearing titled Threats/i'om Space, Part If: A Review of Private Sector E/jiJrls to Track and 

Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors. This is the second hearing this Congress where the Committee 

examines the tracking, characterization and mitigation of Near Earth Objects. The hearing will 

focus on the most viable near-term initiatives within the private sector and the international 

coordination needed to identify and characterize potentially hazardous near Earth objects. 

Witnesses: 

• Dr. Ed Ln, Chairman & CEO. B612 Foundation 

• Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Manager, Near-Earth Objects Program Office, Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory 

• Dr. Michael F. A 'Heal'll , Vice-Chair, Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys 

and I-Iazard Mitigation Strategies, National Research Council 

Overview 

On Friday, February 15, 2013, two events occurred that received worldwide attention. 

An unforeseen meteor (estimated 50 feet in diameter) exploded in the sky above the Russian city 

of Chelyabinsk releasing the equivalent of a 300 kiloton bomb, about twenty times the explosive 

energy of the atomic blast used over the city of Hiroshima. This blast injured nearly 1,200 

people and resulted in an estimated $33 million in property damage. On the same day, a small 

asteroid (150 feet in diameter) discovered by amateur astronomers and tracked closely by NASA 

passed safely by the Ealih, but within the orbital belt of geostationary satellites. Until it entered 

our atmosphere, the Russian meteor went completely undetected. According to NASA, the two 

Page 1 of2 
104 

events were unrelated, hut raised puhlic awareness of the potential threat from Near Earth 

Ohjects (NEOs). 

On March 19,2013, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing 

titled "Threats from Space: A Review of U.S. Government Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroid and Meteors." That hearing addressed the U.S. government's plans and programs to 

identify, catalog, and coordinate the threat ofNEOs. 

This hearing will look heyondjust the U.S. Government (0 hear about public-private 

partnership, commercial private sector, and philanthropic initiatives to survey the sky for 

asteroids and comets. 

Some of the overarching questions: 

• Do we have the tools and technology ncccssary to detect and track Near Eatih Objects'? 

• What are the most viable efforts to focus on in the next 5 to 7 years that will yield the most 

progress in identifying and cataloging the NEO threat? 

• Are we tracking the right size objects, specifically the ones that can cause significant harm? 

• Once we identify an object, what are our means of tracking it? 

• What are our contingencies and mitigation capabilities if we determine there is a threat from 

a NEO impact? 

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has been 011 the forefront of the issues 

surrounding Near Earth Objects. For example, the NASA Authorization Acts 01'2000 and 2005 

directed NASA to conduct a survey of the population ofNEOs and study mitigation plans. 

NASA estimates 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids orbit within the vicinity of the Emih. 

NASA NEO Asteroid Size Model Crecl!' rJ':',S':',:JPL-Caltech 
105 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing, which is titled ‘‘Threats from Space, 

Part II: A Review of Private Sector Efforts to Track and Mitigate 

Asteroids and Meteors.’’ I will recognize myself for an opening 

statement and then the Ranking Member. 

A few weeks ago, our Committee held a hearing to review U.S. 

Government efforts to track incoming asteroids and meteors. 

Today, we will follow up by focusing on nongovernmental efforts. 

The substantial public interest in this issue indicates the broad 

fascination with the subject. As witnesses said in our previous 

hearing, the events of February 15, when an asteroid passed close 

by the Earth and a meteor struck Russia, were unique in their occurring on the same day. And I am going to hold up a piece of the 

asteroid that exploded above Russia on February 15. Maybe I ought 

to take it out of the bag here. Let me—and I am assuming this is 

not toxic. Is that right? But there it is, a nice size bit of meteorite 

there, a gift from the Russians. It was given to us by the Principal 

Investigator of NASA’s Asteroid Sample Return Mission, which is 

slated to launch in 2016. 

In our first hearing, testimony about the government’s efforts 

was not reassuring. Most troubling to me was the fact that of the 

up to 20,000 asteroids that could be labeled as city destroyers, we 

have identified only 10 percent. And we are unlikely to have the 

means to detect 90 percent until 2030. 

Detecting asteroids should not be the primary mission of NASA. 

No doubt the private sector will play an important role as well. We 

must better recognize what the private sector can do to aid our efforts to protect the world. 

Today’s hearing will help us understand the level of risk, as well 

as what capabilities we have and those we will need. The President’s FY 2014 budget proposal brings necessary attention to this 

issue in general, but a consensus will have to be reached within 

Congress before progress can actually be made. 

This won’t be an effort for one agency, one company, or one country. And in these fiscally challenging times, we can’t afford duplication or the inefficient use of our resources. The more we discuss 

and understand the challenges we face, the easier it will be to facilitate possible solutions. 

Now, I will recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman 

from Texas, Ms. Johnson, for her comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAMAR S. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Good afternoon. A few weeks ago, our Committee held a hearing to review U.S. 

Government efforts to track incoming asteroids and meteors. Today, we will follow up by focusing on nongovernmental efforts. 

The substantial public interest in this issue indicates the broad fascination with 

this subject. As witnesses said in our previous hearing, the events of February 15, 

when an asteroid passed close by the Earth and a meteor struck Russia, were 

unique in their occurring on the same day. 

This is a piece of the asteroid that exploded above Russia on Feburary 15th. It 

was given to me by the Principal Investigator of NASA’s asteroid sample return 

mission, which is slated to launch in 2016. 
106 

In our first hearing, testimony about the government’s efforts was not reassuring. 

Most troubling to me was the fact that of the up to 20,000 asteroids that could be 

labeled as ‘‘city destroyers,’’ we have identified only 10%. And we are unlikely to 

have the means to detect 90% until 2030. 

Detecting asteroids should not be the primary mission of NASA. No doubt, the 

private sector will play an important role as well. We must better recognize what 

the private sector can do to aid our efforts to protect the world. 

Today’s hearing will help us understand the level of risk, as well as what capabilities we have and those we will need. The President’s FY 14 budget proposal brings 

necessary attention to this issue in general, but a consensus will have to be reached 

within Congress before progress can be made. 

This won’t be an effort of one agency, one company, or one country. And in these 

fiscally challenging times, we can’t afford duplication or the inefficient use of our 

resources. The more we discuss and understand the challenges we face, the easier 

it will be to facilitate possible solutions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Good afternoon. I want to join the Chairman in 

welcoming our witnesses to today’s hearing. You each have deep 

experience and expertise directly related to the hearing topic, and 

I look forward to your testimony. 

As the Chairman has indicated, this hearing is the second that 

the Committee has held in the opening months of the 113th Congress on the topic of asteroids. 

Last month’s meteor over Russia and the close passage of a nearEarth asteroid both stimulated public interest in the potential 

threat posed by asteroids and comets. And this second hearing is 

certainly a reflection of that interest. 

I will not attempt to repeat the sentiments I expressed at our 

first hearing on this topic and instead will confine myself to a few 

brief comments. 

First, it is clear that from last month’s hearing there is still a 

lot of work to be done to track and characterize asteroids that could 

potentially impact the Earth and that even relatively small asteroids could do significant damage if they hit in a heavily populated 

area. So I hope that our witnesses today will help us better understand what will be needed to complete the existing survey, as well 

as perhaps extend it to a smaller size asteroid. 

Second, I want to be one to better understand both the strengths 

and limits of NASA relying on private organizations such as the 

B612 for detection of potential Earth-impacting asteroids. My problem is not with the efforts of such organizations to address what 

they see as an important problem. Instead, my concern is that we 

have reached a point where our government has to hope that nongovernmental organizations will somehow do what the government 

should be doing but it apparently is unwilling to pay for it. However, if the protection of the planet is not an appropriate role for 

the Federal Government, I am not sure what is. And finally, before 

I close, I will note that the President’s just-released budget request 

proposes to invest in a number of asteroid-related initiatives. We 

will need to closely examine the President’s proposals in the coming weeks to fully understand what is being proposed. So I am not 

going to comment on them in any depth today. Instead, I will simply say that I deeply hope that whatever new initiatives are being 

proposed will be accomplished accompanied by adequate funding of 

their own rather than being funded by cannibalizing other important NASA programs. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not give us 

sustainable and effective NASA programs. And I hope we will all 
107 

resist the temptation to do so as we try to address the challenges 

posed by near-Earth asteroids.Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good afternoon. I want to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses to today’s hearing. You each have deep experience and expertise directly related to the 

hearing topic, and I look forward to your testimony. 

As the Chairman has indicated, this hearing is the second that the Committee 

has held in the opening months of the 113th Congress on the topic of asteroids. Last 

month’s meteor over Russia and the close passage of a near-Earth asteroid have 

both stimulated public interest in the potential threat posed by asteroids and comets, and this second hearing is certainly a reflection of that interest. 

I will not attempt to repeat the sentiments I expressed at our first hearing on 

this topic and instead wil confine myself to a few brief comments. First, it is clear 

from last month’s hearing that there is still a lot of work to be done to track and 

characterize asteroids that could potentially impact the Earth. And that even relatively small asteroids could do significant damage if they hit a heavily populated 

area. So I hope that our witnesses today will help us better understand what will 

be needed to complete the existing survey as well as perhaps extend it to smallersized asteroids. 

Second, I want to better understand both the strengths and limits of NASA relying on private organizations such as B612 for detection of potential Earth-impacting 

asteroids. My problem is not with the efforts of such organizations to address what 

they see as an important problem. Instead, my concern is that we have reached a 

point where our government has to hope that nongovernmental organization will 

somehow do what the government should be doing but is apparently unwilling to 

pay for. However, if the protection of the planet is not an appropriate role for the 

Federal Government, I’m not sure what is. 

Finally, before I close, I will note that the President’s just-released budget request 

proposes to invest in a number of asteroid-related initiatives. We will need to closely 

examine the President’s proposals in the coming weeks to fully understand what is 

being proposed, so I’m not going to comment on them in any depth today. Instead, 

I will simply say that I deeply hope that whatever new initiatives are being proposed will be accompanied by adequate funding of their own rather than be funded 

by cannibalizing other important NASA programs. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will 

not give us sustainable and effective NASA programs, and I hope we will all resist 

the temptation to do so as we try to address the challenge posed by near-Earth asteroids. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Other Members’ 

statements will be made a part of the record. And I will introduce 

our witnesses now. 

Our first witness is Dr. Ed Lu. Dr. Lu is the CEO of the B612 

Foundation, which aims to build, launch, and operate the Sentinel 

Space Telescope to help find and track threatening asteroids. He is 

a former NASA astronaut who flew three space missions and spent 

six months aboard the International Space Station. From 2007 to 

2010, he led the Advanced Projects Group at Google. His teams developed imaging technology for Google Earth Maps, Google Street 

View, and energy information products, including Google Power 

Meter. He is also the co-inventor of the gravity tractor, a spacecraft 

able to controllably alter the orbit of an asteroid. And he has published scientific articles on high-energy astrophysics, solar physics, 

plasma physics, cosmology, and statistical physics. He holds a 

bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Cornell and a Ph.D. 

in astrophysics from Stanford University. 

Our second witness is Dr. Donald Yeomans. Dr. Yeomans is a 

Senior Research Scientist, Supervisor for the Solar System Dynamics Group, and Manager of NASA’s Near-Earth Object Program Office at Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. His re-
108 

search focuses on the physical and dynamical modeling of comets 

and asteroids. He was a Radio Science Team Chief for the NearEarth Asteroid Rendezvous Mission. He has received 15 NASA 

Achievement Awards and asteroid 2956 was named 2956 Yeomans 

in honor of his professional achievements. Dr. Yeomans received 

his Bachelor of Arts degree from Middlebury College and his Ph.D. 

in astronomy from the University of Maryland. 

Our final witness is Dr. Michael A’Hearn. Dr. A’Hearn is a Professor in the Astronomy Department at the University of Maryland. 

He is the Principal Investigator for the Deep Impact Mission and 

NASA’s Discovery Impact Mission in NASA’s Discovery Program 

and for the Small Bodies Node of NASA’s Planetary Data System. 

His research emphasizes the study of comets and asteroids. Dr. 

A’Hearn received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics from Boston College and a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Now, we welcome you all. Thank you for being here. And Dr. Lu, 

we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ED LU, 

CHAIRMAN AND CEO, B612 FOUNDATION 

Dr. LU. Thank you, Members of the Committee, and thank you, 

Chairman Smith, especially for your leadership on this issue. 

So my name is Ed Lu, and I am CEO of the B612 Foundation. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee to describe the B612 Foundation and its Sentinel Space Telescope project and the importance of that project. 

The B612 Foundation is a Silicon Valley-based nonprofit that is 

building, launching, and operating the Sentinel Space Telescope, 

which will find and track threatening asteroids. So NASA, at the 

direction of Congress, has found and tracked 95 percent of the 

large asteroids, those larger than a kilometer, that would likely 

end civilization were they to hit. So they have done a great job on 

that. And none of these civilization-enders is known—thus far discovered—is known to be on an impact course anytime in this upcoming century. So that is the good news. 

But NASA has not even come close to finding and tracking the 

one million smaller asteroids that might only just wipe out a city 

or perhaps collapse a rural economy if they hit in the wrong place. 

I would like to clarify something, and so I thought this image 

might be of help. I just show here a football stadium, which I understand now is Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, and we show a couple 

of asteroids there, but just for scale. 

A 140-meter asteroid is not shown here, but it would roughly fit 

inside that stadium. And that is the size—when they hit, that 

would release about 100 megatons of energy, which is roughly five 

times all the munitions used in World War II. Okay. So that is 

much larger than a city killer. That is a regional killer. Okay. And 

NASA discovered and observed, tracked less than 10 percent of the 

asteroids in that size range, sort of the stadium-sized ones. 

A 40-meter asteroid, which is the larger of these two, is what you 

would really call a city killer. The last one to hit was in 1908 in 

Tunguska, and that had an impact energy about three to five 
109 

megatons of energy. It destroyed about 1,000 square miles of Siberian forest. And we have observed and tracked well less than one 

percent of the million or so asteroids of that size. So if you ask how 

many city killers out there have we found and have tracked? Less 

than one percent is the answer. And there is about a 30 percent 

chance that there will be another impact of a city killer sometime 

this century, somewhere on the surface of the Earth. Just for reference, the smaller one shown there is about the size of the one 

that struck Chelyabinsk last month. 

So we simply don’t know when the next catastrophic asteroid impact is going to be, because we simply haven’t yet tracked the great 

majority of asteroids. Again, less than one percent of these city killers have been tracked. Yet we have the technology to deflect asteroids, and Dr. A’Hearn will probably talk a little bit about Deep Impact. It is—you—which is an experiment to actually hit an asteroid 

with a small spacecraft, and that is all you really need to do in 

most cases if you find the asteroids well in advance and—because 

you can’t deflect an asteroid that you haven’t yet tracked. Our technology is useless against something we haven’t found. 

So that is why our number one priority from the standpoint of 

planetary defense is to find and track asteroids as soon as practical. You can’t deflect an asteroid you haven’t yet found, or for that 

matter, you can’t capture it, you can’t visit it, you can’t mine it, you 

can’t explore it until you have found it. 

So finding and tracking the roughly one million or so city killer 

asteroids in a reasonable time frame requires a system that can 

find tens to hundreds of thousands of them per year, right? If you 

are going to get to a million, you need to find them at a very high 

rate. Anything less than that, from a planetary defense standpoint, 

is just playing around the edges. 

So this task of finding those smaller asteroids cannot be done 

even by large ground-based telescopes, optical telescopes, and it especially cannot be done by small telescopes. So—and that is because asteroids are not only small but they are dark. Their color 

is often as dark as charcoal, and that makes them really dim. So 

these smaller asteroids are only spotted currently when they come 

very, very close to the Earth. So, because most of the large asteroids have been found, unfortunately, that means that amateur astronomers and people with smaller telescopes can no longer substantially contribute to this particular effort, nor will small spacebased optical telescopes such as have been proposed by some commercial companies, they will not make a dent in this problem. 

But the fact that asteroids are dark can be used to our advantage, because when they are small and dark, they absorb light from 

the sun and they are warmed. And that means they are brighter 

than the background sky if you observe them in infrared. And 

when you observe them in infrared, you can see them at much 

greater distances than you can with optical telescopes. 

So as described in the National Academies report ‘‘Defending 

Planet Earth,’’ if you want to find a substantial fraction of city killer asteroids, you need a space-based infrared telescope. So that is 

what the B612 Foundation is doing. Our Sentinel Space Telescope 

is going to launch in 2018. It will orbit the sun about 30 million 

miles closer to the sun than the Earth in a solar orbit that is simi-
110 

lar to the orbit of Venus, and that means Sentinel will not have 

a blind spot because—like Earth-based telescopes, which can only 

look at night looking away from the sun. Sentinel will always look 

away from the sun, looking outwards at Earth’s orbit. 

So it will find and track as many asteroids as have been discovered by all other telescopes combined just in the first month of operation. Over six and a half years it will find over half a million 

asteroids, including more than 90 percent of the sort of stadiumsized ones, the regional killers, and the majority of those that are 

just city killers, the larger of these two asteroids. These asteroids 

will be tracked accurately enough to know if any of them is going 

to be on a course to hit Earth this century. 

So to carry out this mission, the B612 Foundation has assembled 

perhaps the finest technical team I have had the privilege of working with in my nearly two decades of involvement in aerospace, including 12 years as a NASA astronaut. The fact that we were able 

to recruit such a team is, I think, a testament to the inspiring and 

urgent nature of this mission. As we tell these people, who 

wouldn’t want to have a chance to save the world? And that is really what I think drew them to the mission. 

So our major partner in transmitting our data back, as well as 

allowing some NASA experts to sit on some of our technical review 

panels, including, for instance, Dr. Yeomans here. The data generated by Sentinel will not only protect the people of planet Earth 

but will form the basis of future exploration and scientific missions. 

So a unique aspect of B612 is that we are carrying out this mission as a nonprofit. We do not receive any government financial 

support, and we are relying upon donations from individuals and 

foundations. These donors understand the importance of cataloging 

the environment we inhabit and the solar system, and they as individuals are making Sentinel happen because they know that our 

future may depend upon it. 

So make no mistake, raising this amount of money philanthropically with no expectation of financial return from our donors is 

challenging. But being a nonprofit has forced us to be very focused, 

and I believe it has made us resourceful. Our progress has been 

swift and we are approaching now the second of our eight milestones leading up to launch. 

The B612 Foundation is managing this project in an innovative 

Silicon Valley fashion with the rigor of a NASA project. So we are 

able to carry out this mission at what we believe to be about 60 

percent of the cost as if it had been procured via federal procurement. 

So I should point out that the core technologies that Sentinel 

uses that allow us to detect dark objects via their infrared admissions would be useful to a number of federal agencies, including 

NASA, and there may be an opportunity to expand our existing 

public-private partnership with NASA in a manner that leverages 

our private donations, accelerates our technical progress and, in 

the end, provides the data that could protect us all. 

So we can protect the Earth from asteroid impacts, but we can’t 

do it if we don’t know where those asteroids are. And that is why 

the Sentinel telescope is so important. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay, Dr.—— 
111 

Dr. LU. I can’t think of a more inspiring mission. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lu follows:] 
112 

Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee 

on Science, Space and Technology 

Hearing on Threats from Space: A Review of Private and International 

Efforts to Track and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors 

April 10, 2013 

Dr. Edward T. Lu 

CEO - B612 Foundation 

My name is Ed Lu, and [am the CEO of the 13612 Foundation. Thank you for the oppotiunity to 

testify before the House Science, Space and Technology Committec to describe the 8612 

Foundation Sentinel Space Telescope project and its importance. The 8612 Foundation is a 

Silicon Valley based nonprofit that is building. launching, and operating the Sentinel Space 

Telescope, which will nnd and track threatening asteroids. 

NASA's Spaceguard Survey has already discovered more than 90 percent of asteroids 

larger than 1 km. Why mnst we identify and track asteroids smallel' than this? 

The impact of a I km or larger asteroid would have energy of 40 thousand megatons, and would 

likely end human civilization regardless of where on the Earth it occurs. However smaller yet 

still potentially catastrophic asteroids are still largely not tracked. For example, (he impact of a 

140 meter asteroid would release several times more energy than all the munitions used in 

WWII. Yet have only observed and tracked less than 10% of asteroids in this size range. The 

impact of a 40 meter asteroid "city killer" such as the one that struck Tunguska on June 30, 1908 

obliterated nearly 1000 square miles. Yet we have only observed and tracked less than I % of 

asteroids in this size range. We have the technology to deflect asteroids to prevent an impact on 

Earth, but this technology is useless until we find asteroids first. We cannot deflect (or for that 

matter capture, visit, or explore) an asteroid that we haven't yet fOllnd. We simply do not know 

when the next catastrophic asteroid impact will be, because we have not yet tracked the great 

majority of asteroids. 

Why is an infrared space telescope needed to discover and track these smaller yet still 

dangerous asteroids? 

1 
113 

Asteroids are not only small but are often as dark as charcoal. That makes asteroids dilTicult to 

spot with ground based optical telescopes because not only are they dim, but the background sky 

is bright. But the fact that asteroids are dark can be used to our advantage if we observe in 

infrared, Asteroids are much easier to detect in inll'ared because they are \varmer and thus 

brighter than the background sky in these wavelengths, and can therefore be seen at much greater 

range using infrared as opposed to optical. Such infrared observations can only be made from 

space, as the Earth's atmosphere absorbs these infrared wavelengths of light. The National 

Academies Report "Defending Planet Earth" published in 20 I 0 describes how finding a 

substantial fraction of "city killer" asteroids like the 1908 Tunguska asteroid will require a space 

based infrared telescope. 

finding and tracking the roughly I million asteroids of this size in a reasonahle timeframe 

requires a system capable of finding tens to hundreds of thousands of asteroids per year. This 

cannot be done even by large ground based optical telescopes, and it especially cannot be done 

by small optical telescopes. That means amateur astronomers unfortunately will not 

substantially contribute to this effOli, and neither will small space based optical telescopes which 

some commercial companies have proposed to operate. Such a task requires an infrared space 

telescope. 

Why is it critical to place Sentinel in Solar orbit (similar to the planet Venus)? 

Asteroids that will hit Emih have orbits that cross Earth's orbit, and therefore are sometimes 

located in the direction of the Sun when viewed from Earth. Earth based telescopes cannot 

observe these asteroids when they are located in their "blind spot''' i.e. when they are interior to 

the Earth. However, Sentinel will orbit the Sun interior to the Earth, in a solar orbit similar to 

that of the planet Venus. From that vantage point. Sentinel will be able to continuously look 

outwards away from the Sun while scanning Emih's orbit. This vantage point combined with 

Sentinel's ability to track asteroids from greater distances. means that Sentinel will typically be 

able to track an individual asteroid for several months at a time, which allows the orbit of that 

asteroid to be determined accurately. This is critical because many asteroids will have orbits 

which at first may appear to pose a threat to Ealih until fUlihcr observations can be used to refine 

our knowledge of the asteroid orbit well enough to rule out an impact. This is problem for 

telescopes located on or near Earth. as many asteroids can only be observed for a few weeks and 

then cannot be observed for long periods of time (often many years) because these asteroids 

recede in their orbits to the other side of the Sun for extended periods. Sentinel \vill orbit the Sun 

every 8 months, and so it will be able to observed and track these asteroids much more 

t1'equcntly, and therefore will be able to refine the orbits of such asteroids much faster. This will 

reduce incidences of asteroids having long periods of uncertainty slIch as we witnessed for the 

asteroid Apophis frol11 2004 until about 20 I 0 (when our data was insufficient to be able to rule 

out an impact with Earth). 

2 
114 

What is the role of the B612 Foundation and what makes it unique? 

The B612 Foundation is a Silicon Valley based nonprofit that is philanthropically funded. We 

are funding, building. launching and operating the Sentinel Space Telescope. Because the 

problem of asteroid impacts is inherently a worldwide problem. the B612 Foundation has donors 

and supporters from around the world. 

Our prime contractor is Ball Aerospace, located in Boulder, CO. Ball has previously built the 

Kepler Space Telescope, and the Spitzer lnti'ared Space Telescope on which Sentinel is largely 

based. We do have some non-financial supp011 from NASA, \\hich is providing use orthe 

antennas of the Deep Space Network for telemetry and tracking. in addition to some technical 

consulting. 

One of the unique aspects of the Sentinel mission is the way it is being managed. We are 

procuring Sentinel under commercial fixed price terms, much like communications and Earth 

observing spacecraft are procured. This is the first interplanetary mission to be managed in this 

fashion. We believe this is possible because Ball Aerospace has substantial experience with 

similar missions and much of Sentinel is based on that hardware, because there are no 

fundamentally new technologies which must be developed, and because both B612 and Ball have 

assembled world class technical teams. The B612 Foundation is managing this project in an 

innovative Silicon Valley fashion but with the rigor ofa NASA project. 

What is the status of the Sentinel Space Telescope project'! 

Sentinel is planned to launch in July 2018. The technical and management teams at both B612 

and Ball are largely in place. There arc 8 major milestones between project inception and 

launch. The first major milestone, the Concept and Implementation Review. was completed in 

September of2012. The next major milestone. the Systems Definition Review, is scheduled for 

late fall of2013. Prototype infrared imaging detectors have been fabricated and are currently in 

test. 

3 
115 
116 

Dr. Ed Lu, Chairman and CEO 

Ed Lu is a former NASA astronaut who flew three space missions including 6 months on the 

International Space Station. 

From 2007-2010, he led the Advanced Projects group at Google, where his teams 

developed imaging technology for Google Earth/Maps, Google Street View, and energy 

information products including Google PowerMeter. 

He is the co-inventor of the Gravity Tractor, a spacecraft able to controllably alter the orbit of 

an asteroid. He has published scientific articles on high-energy astrophysics, solar physics, 

plasma physics, cosmology, and statistical physics. He holds a PhD in astrophysics from 

Stanford University, and a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from Cornell 

University. 
117 

Chairman SMITH. You are at nine minutes and we need to move 

on. Are you—can you conclude? 

Dr. LU. That was my conclusion. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Good timing. 

Dr. Yeomans. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD K. YEOMANS, MANAGER, 

NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS PROGRAM OFFICE, 

JET PROPULSION LABORATORY 

Dr. YEOMANS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss some issues related to 

near-Earth objects, and thank you all for your continuing interest 

in this topic. 

As noted by the Chairman, back on February 15, Friday, we had 

a 40 meter-sized object that passed within 17,200 miles of the 

Earth’s surface and passed 5,000 miles within the geosynchronous 

ring of communication satellites that were announcing its arrival. 

Sixteen hours earlier on the same day, we had an impact over 

Chelyabinsk, Russia, of an 18 meter-sized object coming in at 

42,000 miles per hour weighing 11,000 tons. And although I have 

been upstaged by Chairman Smith, I also have a piece of the rock 

that you may want to look at after the hearing. 

My point is that the close approach was a 1-in-40 year event for 

an object of this size getting that close. The impact of the smaller 

object over Chelyabinsk is a 1-in-100 year event, so very unlikely 

events do happen sometimes on the same day within 16 hours. Asteroid impacts with the Earth are extremely unlikely, but they 

could cause global problems. But if we discover them early enough, 

we have the technology to deflect them. 

Significant progress has been made to discover and understand 

the physical characteristics of near-Earth asteroids, largely as a result of NASA-supported efforts. For example, as pointed out, over 

90 percent of those near-Earth asteroids larger than a kilometer 

have been found, and we have integrated their motions for 100 

years into the future, and none of them represent a threat. About 

25 percent of 140 meter-sized objects have already been found, and 

likewise, they do not represent a threat. 

So the goal is to find and track 90 percent of the 140 and larger 

sized objects, and in so doing, we will reduce the threat of all objects of all sizes to a 99 percent level. 

A thousand new near-Earth asteroids are discovered each year, 

almost all of them as a result of NASA-supported surveys. Twentyseven thousand new asteroid observations per day are added to the 

archives at the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

and there is an increasing pace with which observations of nearEarth asteroid physical characteristics are being taken, including 

optical measurements, near infrared measurements, and radar 

measurements. 

The vast majority of near-Earth asteroid discoveries are currently being made by the Catalina Sky Survey near Tucson, Arizona, the Pan-STARRS Survey in Hawaii, and the Linear Program 

near Socorro, New Mexico. And these surveys are continuously improving their discovery efficiencies, and the next generation of 
118 

near-Earth asteroid survey telescopes and cameras are under development. 

However, as pointed out by Ed, still undiscovered are 50 to 100 

of the largest near-Earth asteroids and several thousand nearEarth asteroids larger than 140 meters. In fact, there was a twokilometer—a new two-kilometer-sized asteroid that was announced 

today, so we still have a handful of large ones to find and several 

thousand of the smaller ones that are 140 meters and larger. 

A dramatic increase in the near-Earth asteroid discovery efficiencies is achievable using space-based infrared telescopes, either 

in a Venus-like orbit, as pointed out by Ed, or located about a million miles on the sunward side of the Earth at the so-called L1 

point. The goal is to find the large near-Earth asteroids early 

enough to mount a deflection mission if necessary. The easiest and 

fastest deflection technique involves impacting a spacecraft on the 

asteroid with a rendezvous spacecraft there to monitor the success 

and verify that the object was moved just enough so that in 10 or 

20 years, when it was predicted to hit the Earth, it would miss by 

a wide margin. 

What about the undiscovered millions of small near-Earth asteroids larger than 30 meters that are most likely to hit the Earth, 

the city killers, as Ed pointed out? Finding most of these nearEarth asteroids would be extremely challenging. Perhaps a costbenefit study could establish the appropriate threat levels where it 

would make more sense to simply warn of an asteroid impact rather than finding it early enough to mount a deflection campaign. 

NASA is currently supporting a program called ATLAS at the 

University of Hawaii that is designed to find small objects a few 

days or a few weeks prior to impact. And the objective there, of 

course, is civil defense. If you find it several days in advance, you 

could evacuate if the object was threatening a populated area. 

So, in summary, with the current near-Earth asteroid threat 

identification process in place, and with considerable augmentations to NASA’s Near-Earth Object Observation Program, we can 

determine which near-Earth objects represent potential future 

threats and do so with enough time to either deflect the larger objects or warn of the arrival of the smaller ones. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Yeomans follows:] 
119 

Statement of 

Donald K. Yeomans 

HOLD FOR RELEASE 

UNTlL PRESENTED 

BY WITNESS 

April 10, 2013 

Manager, NASA Near-Earth Object Program Office 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today to discuss the progress and plans being made to discover, track and characterize the 

population of near-Earth objects that may pose threats to Earth. 

The Importance of Near-Earth Objects: Ncar-Earth objects, commonly called NEOs, 

are comets and asteroids that can pass within about 28 million miles of the Earth's orbit. 

While icy active comets may occasionally pass close to Earth, it is the difficult-to-find, 

but far more numerous asteroids that are of most concern in near-Earth space today. 

Ncar-Earth objects are scientifically important because they represent the bits and pieces 

left over from the solar system formation process. Collisions with the early Earth likely 

brought much of the water and carbon-based materials that were the building blocks of 

life. Once life did form, subsequent collisions punctuated evolution, allowing only the 

most adaptable species to evolve further. We humans likely owe our origins and current 

position atop the food chain to these near-Earth objects. 

While the vast population of near-Earth objects is a relatively recent discovery, they arc 

of utmost importance in the study of the solar system's origin and our own origins, and 

they will likely playa major role in the future, providing building materials, water and 

fucl resources for interplanetary exploration and development. It is ironic that the nearEarth objects that arc the easiest to reach for robotic or human exploration, and the easiest 

to exploit for their mineral and material wealth, are the same objects that represent the 

most serious potential threats to Earth. While finding them is important for future space 

resource development, wc also need to find them - before they find us. 

A Recent Hit and a Miss: Less than two months ago, on Friday, February 15,2013, a 

60·foot sized asteroid, traveling at 42,000 miles per hour, entered the Earth '5 atmosphere 
120 

near Chelyabinsk in central Russia. It was heated and violently compressed by the 

atmospheric pressure and exploded about 14 miles above the surface, producing a 

descending shock wave with an energy of approximately 440 thousand tons of TNT 

explosives. Most of the asteroid itself was reduced largely to dust, but it also produced 

thousands of small fragments which fell to the ground as meteorites. Over 1,200 people 

were injured by the effects of the shock wave - mostly from broken glass. Given the 

millions of similarly sized objects in Earth's neighborhood, a collision by one would be 

expected about once every 100 years on average. Coincidently, only 16 hours later, a 

larger 130-foot asteroid called 2012 DA 14 that we had been tracking for a year came 

from a different direction, passing within 17,200 miles of the Earth's surface, 5,000 miles 

within the ring of communications satellites broadcasting the news of its arrivaL An 

approach this close to Earth's surface by an object of this size is expected to occur every 

40 years or so, on average. So, on the same day, we witnessed a once in a lOO-year event 

and an unrelated once in a 40-year event. Here we have a nice example for science 

teachers to show that even extremely unlikely events in nature do happen even two on 

the same day, 

Because it was found a year in advance, we were able to accurately predict the close 

Earth passage of asteroid 2012 DAl4 on February 15, and we knew that it would not hit 

the Earth. However, the small asteroid that impacted the Earth's atmosphere over Russia 

arrived unannounced because it came from the direction of the Sun, and was hence 

unobservable with Earth-based telescopes. Discovering and identifying relatively small 

Earth impactors among the millions of asteroids in the Earth's neighborhood represents a 

significant challenge. Because there are so many more smaller asteroids than larger ones, 

the smaller ones hit the Earth's atmosphere more frequently. There are about ten million 

20-meter sized asteroids like the one that explodcd over central Russia two months ago, 

and their frequency of collision with the Earth is about once every 100 years, on average. 

When these small ones do hit, we expect them to break up in the atmosphere and cause 

only localized damage on the ground. Asteroids larger than one kilometer, on the other 

hand, could not only penetrate the atmosphere and impact the Earth's surface, they could 

also cause ejecta clouds that can affect weather patterns, produce firestorms and acid rain, 

and seriously harm global society and economics. The number of such large asteroids, 

however, is far smaller, only about 1000, and the frequency with which they impact the 

Earth is much lower, only about once every 700,000 years on average. But, the events of 

February 15,2013, demonstrate that cven cxtremely improbable events can happen, and 

that it is prudent to pay attcntion to the problem of finding and tracking all potentially 

hazardous near-Earth asteroids. And the focus should not be restricted to just the large 

near-Earth asteroids; mid-sized objects in the 100 to 500 meter range also pose a serious 

risk, since they could devastate an entire regional area. 

The Spaceguard Goal: The population of near-Earth objects one kilometer and larger 

appropriately received the most attention in the early years of NASA's Near-Earth Object 

Observations program. In May 1998, a NASA representative announced plans to the 

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics: NASA would find and track at least 

90% of all the ncar-Earth objects larger than one kilometer; this became known as the 

"Spaccguard" goaL In December 2005, President Bush signed into law the George E. 

2 
121 

Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, that gave NASA a broader and more ambitious 

goal, to detect and track at least 90% of the ncar-Earth objects larger than 140 meters in 

diameter, and to characterize the physical properties of a representative sample of this 

population. 

Significant Progress Has Been Made: When I last had the honor to address this 

Committee in November 2007, about 80% of the NEOs one kilometer or larger had been 

discovered and only a few percent of the smaller 140 meter objects. Today, the 

Spaceguard goal of discovering 90% of the large NEOs has been excecded and about 

25% of the 140 meter or larger sized NEO population has been discovered. Today. the 

discovery rate of NEOs is about 1000 per year, up 50% since 2007. The Minor Planet 

Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has 100 million observations of NEOs in its 

database and 27 ,000 observations are added daily. Fully 96% of all NEOs were 

discovered by NASA-funded surveys. The vast majority of all current NEO discoveries 

are being made by the Catalina Sky Survey, operating near Tucson, Arizona, the PanSTARRS survcy operation atop Haleakala, Maui, Hawaii, and the LINEAR survey near 

Socorro, New Mexico. 

None of the NEOs found to date have more than a tiny chance of hitting Earth in the next 

century. Thus the near-term risk of an unwarned impact from large asteroids, and hence 

the majority of the risk from all NEOs, has been reduced by more than 90%. Assuming 

none are found to be an impact threat, discovering 90% of the 140 meter sized objects 

will further reduce the total risk to the 99% level. By finding these objects early enough 

and tracking their motions over the next 100 years, even those rare objects that might be 

found threatening could be deflected using existing technologies. For example, a 

spacccraft could purposely ram the asteroid, modifying its orbital velocity by a very small 

amount, so that over several years its trajectory would be modified and its predicted 

impact of Earth in the future avoided by a safe margin. The autonomous spacecraft 

navigation required to effect such a collision was successfully demonstrated in July 2005 

when NASA's Dcep Impact spacecraft purposely rammed comet Tempel 1 to better 

understand the comet's structure and composition. 

There have also been dramatic increases in the rate with which observations have been 

made to understand the physical nature of these NEOs, their so-called "characterization". 

These include infrared observations that are used to infer asteroid sizes and compositions 

and radar observations that are used to determine asteroid sizes, shapes, rotation rates and 

whether or not an asteroid has a moon. For example, since 2007 when I last addressed 

this Committee, there has been a 250% increase in the number of infrared observations of 

NEOs made at the NASA supported Infrared Telescope Facility in Hawaii. During 2012 

alone, the number of radar detections of NEOs at both the Goldstone facility in California 

and the Arecibo facility in Puel10 Rico has tripled compared to the average of the 

previous ten years. Largely as a result of NASA support, there has been extraordinary 

progress in the last six years for the discovery and physical characterization of NEOs. 

There has also becn significant progress within the NEO Action Team associated with the 

UN Committce on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) to encourage and 

3 
122 

integrate more international efforts for NEO detections, for addressing deflection issues 

and for establishing protocols to be used by the international community in response to a 

potential NEO threat. 

Possible Next Steps For Ground-Based Systems: There is still much work to be done. 

About 50-100 NEOs larger than one kilometer remain undiscovered, along with about 

13,000 NEOs larger than 140 meters and millions of objects larger than about 30 meters 

in extent - the approximate minimum size for a common stony asteroid to cause 

significant ground damage. 

It is important that the current NEO discovery snrveys, operating with one to two meterclass optical telescopes continue their nightly searches and continue to improve their 

equipment, operations and data processing. These ground-based optical telescopes will 

continue to significantly add to the count of large NEOs discovered, but the current 

search assets will not be able to reach the goal of finding nearly all of the population of 

140-meter sized objects within a reasonable time period because of their limited 

capability to detect these very dim objects. 

The existing Pan-STARRS 1 (PS I) system operates a I.S-meter aperture telescope on the 

island of Maui but this instrument only focuses its attention on NEO observations for 

about 11 % of its observing time because of other science objectives. Even so, PS 1 

currently provides about 25% of the NEO discoveries, second only to the Catalina Sky 

Survey. Suitable funding to increase the percentage of time devoted to NEO searches on 

Pan-ST ARRS 1 , at the expense of other science, would accelerate the current NEO 

discovery rate, as would the full time or part time use of a second Pan-ST ARRS2 

telescope that is nearing completion adjacent to the Pan-STARRS I facility on Maui. 

An important planned future contributor is the Space Surveillance Telescope (SST), a 

3.5-meter wide-field telescope that is being developed by MIT's Lincoln Laboratory for 

DARPA and the US Air Force. When fully operational in late 2014, this telescope will 

scan a wide region centered on the equatorial band of the night-time sky. Investigations 

are ongoing to better understand the efficiency with which this telescope will discover 

NEOs and what sort of scheduling might be intermingled with its prime mission of manmade space object surveillance to carry out these NEO observations. 

The most effective, ground-based NEO detection telescope that is currently in planned 

development is the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), a SA-meter aperture, widefield telescope that is planned to begin operations in Chile in the early 2020s. To be 

funded by the National Science Foundation and a consortia of private and international 

agencies and universities for a variety of science programs, simulations have suggested 

that the shared use of LSST could catalog approximately 25% of the 140 meter sized 

NEOs within 5 years of operations and about 45% in ten years. 

The View From Space: Especially for the popUlation of undiscovered sub-kilometer 

sized objects, space-based infrared telescopes would be a more efficient discovery system 

than the current ground-based optical surveys. This is because asteroids emit 

4 
123 

considerable heat, not just reflected sunlight, and this heat makes them bright in the 

infrared wavelengths, but these wavelengths are also unfortunately heavily filtered by the 

Earth's atmosphere. In addition, the view from an observatory orbiting the Sun interior 

to the Earth's orbit would have far better viewing coverage of hazardous objects farther 

away from Earth. Furthermore, a space-based telescope would not have to deal with 

downtime due to weather and daylight. Ground-based telescopes have difficulty 

distinguishing a large, dark asteroid from a small, bright asteroid, often making asteroid 

size measurements very uncertain. On thc othcr hand, space-based infrared 

measurements can infer an asteroid's size with an uncertainty of only about 10% and its 

reflectivity to about 20%. These types of measurements were demonstrated in 2010 

when the highly successful NEOWISE effort mined asteroid discoveries, sizcs and 

reflectivities in the data produced by the Wide-field Infrared Survcy Explorer (WISE) 

satellite. 

If the goal is to complete the survey of 140 meter sized objects more quickly, the 20 10 

National Research Council report entitled "Defending Planet Earth" indicated that a 

space-bascd infrared telescope in either a Venus-like orbit or interior to the Earth on the 

Sun-Earth line (Ll point) would be far more efficient finding NEOs than would existing, 

or planned, ground-based optical surveys. For the more numerous population of smaller 

NEOs that can still do significant ground damage, an infrared telescope at L 1 would be 

well positioned [0 find those smaller objects making close Earth approaches. A 

successful space-based IR survey telescope in a Venus-like orbit would be very effective 

in discovering NEOs further in advance and providing positional observations 

unavailablc from Earth-based telescopes. Together these observations would allow a 

faster refincmcnt of an asteroid's orbit so that impact predictions could also be updated 

more quickly. I-Ienee these space-based observations might provide an early "all clear" 

and avoid otherwise unneccssary concern and unneeded deflection mission planning or 

initiation. 

Threat Mitigation vs. Threat Warnings: For the millions of small NEOs, in the range 

of 30 to 50 meters, it would be extremcly challenging to find the majority of this 

population far enough in advance to first determine which ones represent a threat and 

then deflect them safely away from Earth. And meeting such a challenge may not be cost 

effective. It may be sufficient to simply detect these small asteroids a fcw days or weeks 

prior to Earth impact so that appropriate warnings could be made and cvacuations 

undertaken similar to hurricane emergencies in the unlikely case where populated areas 

of Earth would be threatened. A warning of this typc would also assure affected nations 

that thc coming explosive blast would be a natural phenomena rather than a hostile act. 

The NASA-funded ground-bascd ATLAS system currently under development at the 

University of Hawaii is a relatively low cost, wide-field telescopic survey designed to 

patrol the entire accessible night sky every night to provide suitable impact warnings for 

small asteroids on ncar-term Earth impacting trajectorics. Simulations suggest that the 

ATLAS system, consisting of 3 to 4 sites worldwide, will find almost all objccts larger 

than 30 meters coming at us fi'om the night sky and providc a week's warning time. 

Current search programs are designcd to find larger potentially hazardous objects well in 

5 
124 

advance of a predicted impact so that existing technologies (e.g., spacecraft rendezvous 

and impacts) could be employed to deflect the object out of harm's way. One of the 

issues with which policy makers will need to wrestle is where to draw the line as to the 

minimum NEO size that represents so large a threat as to require detlection attempts. 

Objects below that limit would then require only advance warning. Cost benefit studies 

would shed some light on this issue. 

Summary: The NASA-supported NEO observations program is proceeding extremely 

well, and the rate with which NEOs arc being discovered and physically characterized is 

increasing each year. There are viable options for accelerating the current NEO search 

efficiencies either using next-generation, ground-based optical surveys or the even more 

efficient space-based infrared surveys. The use of both ground-based and space-based 

assets would be the most effective option for quickly finding 90% of the NEO population 

larger than 140 meters. Robust future NEO search programs and the attendant physical 

characterization efforts could provide a large number of target bodies for scientific study, 

for future robotic and human exploration and for future resource development. These 

same surveys could also identify which of the discovered NEOs represent potential future 

threats and do so with enough time to either deflect the object, or warn of its arrivaL 

6 
125 

Donald K. Yeomans 

At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Don Yeomans is a JPL Fellow, Senior Research 

Scientist, Manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office and Supervisor of the 

Solar System Dynamics Group, 

Dr. Yeomans was the Radio Science Team Chief for NASA's Near-Earth 

Asteroid Rendezvous mission and the NASA Project Scientist for the Japanese mission 

that landed upon, and returned a sample from, a near-Earth asteroid, He was also a 

scientific investigator on NASA's Decp Impact mission that successfully impacted comet 

Tempel I in July 2005, 

He provided the accurate predictions that led to the recovery of comet Halley at 

Palomar Observatory on October 16, 1982 and allowed the discovery of 164 BC 

Babylonian observations of comet Halley on clay tablets in the British Museum, His 

group at JPL is responsible for providing predictions for future close Earth approaches 

and impacts by comets and asteroids, 

Dr, Yeomans has received 19 NASA Achievement Awards including an 

Exceptional Service medal and a Distinguished Service Medal- NASA's highest award. 

Asteroid "2956" was renamed asteroid "2956 Yeomans" to honor his professional 

achievements. 
126 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Yeomans. I was also going to 

mention the book you wrote that just came out this year called 

‘‘Near-Earth Objects: Finding Them Before They Find Us.’’ That is 

a nice subtitle. But I appreciate your writing about this subject, 

and who knows, maybe anticipating the publicity that subject 

would have this year as well. Thank you for your testimony. 

Dr. A’Hearn. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL F. A’HEARN, VICE CHAIR, 

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW NEAR-EARTH OBJECT SURVEYS 

AND HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES, 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Dr. A’HEARN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the invitation to appear today and to discuss a variety of 

aspects of the near-Earth object hazard. I will talk a little bit less 

about finding them than Don and Ed had done and more about 

what to do about it. 

Once we complete the George E. Brown survey down to 140 meters, we have taken care of a large fraction of the risk where we 

can get long advanced warning, and therefore, have plenty of time 

to mount a mitigation campaign. As was just pointed out regarding 

the ATLAS survey, that is designed for late discoveries, and as we 

go to really small ones, late discoveries will be a different kind of 

issue, because then we don’t have time to do mitigation other than 

an evacuation for 30- to 50-meter city killer—and that is really 

more than a city. Tunguska was 2,000 square kilometers. You can, 

in principle, do evacuation, but if you get much larger than that, 

75 meters, 100 meters, evacuation is no longer practical, and you 

need to have a plan in place with tested technologies to try to do 

mitigation on relatively short notice, because these are likely to be 

shorter notice than the ones we have been discovering so far where 

we have been aiming for years of advanced warning and plenty of 

time to plan how to mitigate. 

The mitigation is a key part of the hazard issue, and when the 

National Research Council issued its report, it suggested programs 

at a variety of different levels depending on how much insurance 

you wanted to buy basically. And if you really want to include mitigation as part of that, it is up at the couple of hundred million dollars a year level in order to include mitigation. 

Now, it is interesting that most of what we—much of what we 

know about mitigation so far has come from research programs. 

They are the ones that provide the physical characteristics. Earthbased remote sensing tells us about the sizes of the different asteroids, tells us about their surface composition, but not necessarily 

their interior. For a few of them, such as binaries, we can get interior bulk densities. But missions to these objects—we just heard a 

mention earlier from the Chairman of the sample return mission 

that will be launched in 2016. That mission will tell us a great deal 

about the structure of an asteroid—the internal structure and what 

the materials are, and therefore, what kind of techniques will work 

efficiently for mitigation. 

The Deep Impact Mission, of which I was a principal investigator 

in 2005, carried out an impact on the nucleus of comet Tempel 1. 
127 

It showed first that cometary nuclei are remarkably porous. That 

makes them harder to push around than, say, a solid iron asteroid. 

And the rocky asteroids, which are fragmented, are somewhere in 

between. It demonstrated new techniques for autonomous navigation to lead to an impact. Whether you are doing a kinetic impact 

or a standoff nuclear explosion, it demonstrated how difficult the 

attitude control is when you get close to some of these. Milligram 

pieces of dirt or rock were bouncing our third-of-a-ton spacecraft 

around by many degrees, causing serious pointing problems. That 

is an important thing you need to do if you are developing mitigation. 

So these research programs are important because they are the 

only ones that are now providing us information on physical characteristics. Unfortunately, the Discovery Program has been devastated. It was originally conceived as at least one new mission 

every two years. In the 1990s there were six missions. In the 2000s 

there were five, the last of which was in 2007. Then, there was a 

five-year gap until the one that was selected in 2012, namely InSight, the mission to Mars. And with NASA’s current plans, the 

announcement of opportunity for the next one won’t be until 2015, 

which means selection to fly in 2017. So we are down to two per 

decade instead of the five a decade the decadal survey recommended and which was the basis for the original program. Frequent opportunities to go to space are critical. 

Also, just as it is important to partner with the private sector, 

it is crucial to also partner internationally for mitigation because 

mitigation can be seen as threatening. And we need to develop real 

mechanisms. We have talked a lot with potential international 

partners. We need to be talking to people who aren’t our partners 

such as the Chinese, people who might think something we did in 

space was a threat rather than trying to help, and that needs to 

be something that we need to look very carefully at in the near future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. A’Hearn follows:] 
128 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

THREATS FROM SPACE: A REVIEW OF PRIVATE AND INTERNATIONAL 

EFFORTS TO TRACK AND MlTlGA TE ASTEROIDS AND METEORS 

Michael F. A'Hcarn 

Professor Emcritus 

Dept. of Astronomy, University of Maryland 

10 April 2013 

Mr. Chairman and mcmbers of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today to discuss the potential threats of ncar-Earth objects (NEOs) in thc contcxt of the 

NRC report on this topic that was issued in 2010. I was the chainnan of the mitigation 

sub-pancl for the NRC report, but today I am not reprcsenting the NRC, nor NASA, nor 

the University of Maryland. 

The NRC Study: As mandatcd by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2008, NASA commissioncd the NRC to study Snrveys for Ncar-Earth Objects and 

Hazard Mitigation Strategies. The Steering Committee was chaired by Dr. Invin Shapiro 

of Harvard University and the two sub-panels, one for Surveys and Characterization and 

one for Mitigation Strategies, were chaired by Dr. Faith Vilas, then Dircctor of the MMT 

Observatory in Arizona, and by myself, respectively. The committee had a wide variety 

of expertise, ranging over the entire scope of the impact hazard problem. Several public 

hearings wcre held, with testimony from numerous experts, some of whom were 

advocates of specific projects while others were expelis in impact prediction and risk 

communication, and yet others wcrc policy experts. 

Thc committcc concluded that the money being expended at that time on NEO surveys 

was inadequate to meet the congressional mandate of finding 90% of potential impactors 

larger than 140 III on any reasonable time scale. The committce did not make a spccific 

recommcndation on the forward path, but described fonvard paths for surveys and 

discovery as a function of how much money Congress wished to appropriate to "buy 

insurancc" against an impact. The amount of money to be appropriated would directly 

aftect the time line. The committee also recommended initiating a search for potential 

impactors in the 50-140-m range. The committee noted that there arc basically four 

approaches to mitigation evacuation for the smallest impactors, slow push-pull 

techniques, such as the gravity tractor, for moderately sized impactors with long warning 

times, and then kinctic impactors and standoff nuclear explosions for successively larger 

impactors and/or shorter waming times. A research program to better understand thcse 

mitigation approaches was recommended. Actual mitigation experiments in space were 

suggested, provided sufficicnt funding was provided, and overall programs were 

described for three different levels of funding. 
129 

The committee's report, Defending Planet Eal1h - Near-Earth-Object Surveys and 

Hazard Mitigation Strategies, was released in 2010. The remainder of this testimony 

concems the details of some of these recommendations, both as recommended by the 

NRC and including my personal perspectives 011 the issues. 

Impactors <140 meters: At the time of the NRC report, results newly published at that 

time indicated that previous modeling of impacts, by scaling from nuclear explosions of 

known yield, were incorrect due to the rapid downward motion of an extemal impactor 

compared to a nuclear explosion, for which the souree can be considered to be at a fixed 

altitude. These results, which are still neither refuted nor explicitly confirmed, show that 

substantial damage can be intlicted by objccts that arc even smaller than 50 meters in 

diameter. To be specific, thc new calculations suggcsted that the Tunguska event, which 

in 1908 flattened every tree over roughly 2000 square km in Sibcria, was due to a body in 

the range of30-50 meters diameter. Bascd on our knowledge of the sizc distribution of 

NEOs, that corresponds to an event that should occur roughly every century or two. For 

comparison, the best estimate of the Chclyabinsk meteor in February, which caused one 

building collapse and lots of broken windows with mauy people injured, is that it had a 

diameter of 15-20 meters, much smaller than any of the previous estimates of a hazardous 

size. The size of the Chelyabinsk meteor is better known than most since the trajectory 

has yielded a reliable vclocity and the recovered samples can be used to infcr the density 

ofthc body. Such an event should occur every several decades. Thus it is elear that 

objeets much smaller than 140 meters are frequent and are capable of significant damage 

on EaI1h, although most of these impacts in the past went unnoticcd because they 

occurred over the ocean or over very sparsely inhabited land areas. Detailed modeling of 

the effects of small impactors, say from Chelyabinsk-size to 140-m diamcter, is a gap that 

should be filled, although most of the computer codes to tackle this problem accurately 

are under restricted access. 

It is widely understood that small objects are much more abundant than large ones in 

nearly all the populatiolls of the solar system, and specifically among the NEOs. VelY 

roughly, a 14-m NEO is 1000 times more likely than a 140-m NEO. Thus thc "next" 

significant impactor will most likely be closer in size to Chclyabinsk than to 140 meters. 

It therefore is important to plan for such an event, evcn if the hazard to life is small. 

A key issue for the small impactors is that they are normally so faint prior to impact that 

we do not know how to detect them very far in advance. Many of them can only be 

discovcred days to weeks beforc impact. Fortunately, this limitation coincides with the 

fact that the region of destruction by such an impactor is sut1icicntly small that 

cvacuation (aka "duck and cover") is a realistic mitigation to minimize loss of life (but 

not propcrty damage). You will hear about current efforts related to the ATLAS system 

from Dr. Yeomans and about the privatc venture to dcploy the Sentinel system from Dr. 

Lu. All other things being equal, space-bas cd systems offer a major advantage in 

principle, as long as the orbit is sunward from the Earth, such as at Earth's L1 Lagrange 

point, bccause it avoids the nced for multiple sites on the ground. However, a cost 

bcnefit analysis must be undertaken that includes, limiting magnitude, wavclength range 

of operation, and the data processing approach. The ATLAS system alone is not 

sufficient for reliable detection because it consists of only two tcleseope systems, i.e., 

2 
130 

telescopes at only two sites, but it is designed to be sufficiently low in eost that other 

countries could realistically deploy similar systems, thus providing 24-hour coverage of 

both northern and southern hemispheres. The real issue then will be simply 

implementing the real-time coordination among the systems. 

Programs at Various Funding Levels: The NRC report noted that any program dealing 

with NEO hazards as policy, as opposed to programs dealing with NEOs as scientific 

targets, should be considered as a form of insurance. The hazard is different from other 

terrestrial hazards, however, in that the insurance can be used to prevent damage rather 

than paying for restoration after damage. The question should be thought of, therefore, as 

a question of how much insurance the nation should by. The committee then described 

three different scenarios, depending on how much insurance was being bought, with 

rather arbitrary levels being chosen for the scenarios. 

At a level of $10 million per year, the then operating survey programs could continue, as 

could a modcst research program into issues related to the NEO hazard. This level would 

not meet the congressionally mandated George E. Brown survey to detect 90% of 

potential impactors larger than 140 meters in diameter. 

I note that current spcnding in NASA's NEO program has increascd to roughly 820 

million per year, allowing some new initiatives such as the ATLAS program, operations 

of the PanSTARRS system (currcntly only one telescope but soon to be two telescopes), 

and research grants into mitigation related topics. Spending for the Large Synoptic 

Survey Telescope is not included in these totals that telescope, if operated in NEO 

survey mode only, could meet the 140-meter goal relatively quickly. 

At a level of $50 million per year, operation of a telescope such as LSST could be funded 

for NEO-optimized searches, although this assumes construction funding for 

astronomical research, e.g., from NSF. Alternatively, an in-Hight mitigation mission 

might be feasible if conducted as a minor part of an international partnership. 

At a level of$250 million per year for a decade, the advanced surveys to 140 meters 

could be completed, either from the ground or from space, and a unilateral mitigation 

experimcntal mission would be feasiblc. 

Nonc of the NRC's recommended funding levels addrcssed the question of impactors 

smaller than 140 meters. With current technology, late detection appears to be the only 

feasible approach. Limits for the Scntinel system are not readily available to me, nor are 

the actual limits of thc ATLAS system so I eannot comment on their relative 

contributions. Thc NEO program office at JPL has funded an independent study to assess 

the capability of the ATLAS system. 

One also needs to remember that, once the George E. Brown survey to 140 meters is 

complete (90%), the remaining unidentified impactors include both the smaller impactors 

and the long-period comets. Although the long-period comets very rarely impact Earth, 

cumulatively they are likely to lead to as many or more deaths as the much more frequent 

small events. They have been ignored up to this point because they have bcen such a 

3 
131 

small il'action of the total threat, but that situation will change dramatically. One has to 

dceide whether to deal with the small, frequent events or with the rare, large events, or 

both, analogous to deciding whether to deal with frequent auto accidents or infrequent 

large airliner or ship accidents or both. 

Intemational Coopemtion and Collaboration: International collaboration is very 

important in the entire effort to deal with the impact hazard, from discovery, through 

impact prediction, to mitigation. Unfortunately, despite considerable discussion at the 

individual scientist level and considerable discussion at the governmentallcvel up to the 

United Nations, the U. S. is the only nation with a funded, active and effective 

survey/discovery program. Canada has just launched (February 20 (3) and Germany will 

soon launch a small satellite designed to discover sub-populations ofNEOs, but the U.S. 

is still the predominant nation in funding an active program for tracking NEOs, both 

through the JPL NEO Program Office and through funding the entire operation of the 

Minor Planet Center that is nominally sponsored by the International Astronomieal 

Union. 

It should be pointed out that the only terrestrial impactor ever predicted in advance was 

2008 TC3, an impactor much smaller (roughly 4 meters) than the Chelyabinsk metcor. 

This was discovered less than one day before impact, by R. Kowalski at the Catalina 

survey, based in Arizona. The impact was predicted only because the Catalina survey 

included a (NASA-funded) telescope in Australia in addition to the telescopes in Arizona, 

which allowed very rapid follow up data, and it was the combination of data from both 

telescopes that allowed the rapid prediction of the impact, including a prediction of the 

time and location of impact, both of which were extremely accurate. Thus an 

internationally distributed, and closely interactive, network of telescopes is critical for 

predicting small impactors. Fortunately, 2008 TC, was so small that it caused no damage 

on the Sahara Desert in northern Sudan where it entered Earth's atmosphere, although 

small pieces were subsequently recovered days later. 

The area in which international collaboration is even more important is mitigation, due 

largely to the fact that incolTectly changing the orbit of a potential impactor could merely 

move the impact site from one country to another, with obvious international 

implications. Even the Chelyabinsk meteor was claimed by a fringe politician in Russia 

to be an American weapons test, but fbrtunately the Russian Academy of Sciences was in 

the foretront of public announcements, clearly declaring that this was a natural meteor. 

Unfortunately, there has been even less international discussion on this topic than on the 

survey/discovery/prediction topic, although there have been discussions within the UN's 

Action Team 14 ofCOPUOS. This is an area in which international collaboration, not 

just discussion, must be established before action is needed. 

Contributions of Basic Research to Detection, Charactel"ization, and Mitigation: 

There is considerable overlap between basic scientific research on comets and asteroids, 

i.e., on the bodies that include NEOs, and policy-based work on the issues of hazard 

prediction and mitigation. However, the focus is very different between the two areas 

and consequently there are significant activities that are not included in one focus or the 

other. It is for this reason that NEO hazard activities require a separately identified 

4 
132 

source of funding, associated with national policy, that is not taken out of the scientific 

programs. 

The research activities related to surveys and discovering bodies arc aimed at finding 

statistically significant samples to enable interpretation, and these were the precursors of 

the specific hazard surveys, which are aimed at discovering as close to all of the objects 

as is practical (widely being taken to be 90% of the estimated total population). The 

research surveys, coupled with the work of dynamical researchers studying the orbits of 

the bodies, are what led to the recognition of the scale of the hazard and many of the 

individuals involved in those surveys are also involved in the hazard-driven surveys. 

Research activities are also directly related to mitigation, but clearly distinct from actual 

mitigation planning. One of the key issues in mitigation, and for that matter even in 

predicting the scale of the damage from an impact, is to understand the physical 

properties of the impactors. Research programs using remote sensing have shown 

unambiguously that there is a wide variety of physical characteristics among the NEOs, 

ranging from likely coherent bodies that are the source of iron meteorites through really 

porous cometmy nuclei that are likely to have been the source of the dinosaur-killer K-T 

impact 65 million years ago. Remote sensing can study a large number of objects and 

they are sensitive primarily to surface propeliies of the objects, to their size, and in some 

eases to a crude measure of their shape and their density. 

Important, detailed characteristics of the NEOs can only be Iearncd from in situ studies 

and PI-lcd, competitively selected missions, under NASA's Discovery and Ncw Frontiers 

programs, provide the key mechanism to carry out these studies. Such missions can only 

be used to study a very few targets for budgetary reasons. A team led by Mike Belton 

and myself proposed the Deep Impact mission to the Discovcry Program many years ago 

purely as a scientific mission, with only two sentcnces in the proposal about the possible 

pcripheral benefits for NEO hazard mitigation. What the mission did for hazard 

mitigation was to demonstrate active targeting to impact on a small body, the nucleus of 

comet 9P/Tempeli (a technique needed for our science but also a technique needed tor 

mitigation) and it also demonstrated the very porous nature of comctary nuclei (probably 

10% ofNEOs arc inactive cometary nuclei). The observations ofthe ejecta were used 

both to determinc the bulk density (much cmpty space inside!) and to estimate the 

momentum transfer efficiency of the impact as relatively low (roughly 2), a critical 

parameter for altering an NEO's orbit with a kinetic impactor. The mission also showed 

the challenges of attitude control in the last minute of approach to a cometary nucleus. 

These results havc been presented to various groups directly concerned about mitigation, 

such as the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The results of the subsequent flyby of 

comet HaJiley 2 as part of the EPOXI mission showed the diversity among cometary 

nuclei and the hcterogeneity trom place to place on a single nucleus, both of which must 

be takcn into account in mitigation. 

The OSIRIS-REx mission, scheduled for launch in 2016, is a very different mission to a 

different type ofNEO, the asteroid 1999 RQ36. This mission will return a sample ofthe 

asteroid to Earth for detailed analysis, but while at the asteroid it will also produce, for 

example, a dctailed map of the gravity. In addition to the material properties learned from 

5 
133 

the retumed sample, gravitational mapping can be used to understand the internal 

structure of the asteroid, critical infornlation for understanding how to mitigate by 

changing the orbit, whether by kinetie impact, or nuelear explosion, or even with a 

gravity traetor, which depends less 011 the physical structure but docs depend on the bulk 

density and the shape. 

These competitively chosen "research" missions arc not sufficient to completely addrcss 

mitigation, but they provide most of the neccssary information on the range of physical 

propclties one might encounter. Unfortunately, the NASA budget for planetary 

exploration has been such that NASA's Discovery program (competitively selected, PIled missions with a cost cap of$425M in the latest round), have been devastated 

compared to even a decade ago. The NRC's recent decadal survey of planetary science 

recommended that NASA's priorities should be first to maintain a cadre of good 

researchers, and then to maintain a regular cadence, averaging a new start every two 

years, for the smallest missions (the Discovery Program), then the New Frontiers 

program (similar to the DiseovelY Program but for missions twice as expensive), and 

finally flagship missions (center directed missions that have lately cost more than 52 

billion). Although not every mission in Discovery and New Frontiers is relevant to 

hazard mitigation (the most recent selection ill the Discovery program is a mission to 

Mars), restoring Discovery to the originally intended cadence of research missions would 

significantly help with the mitigation effort by ensuring the existence of other missions to 

comets and asteroids to provide infornlation necessary for mitigation. 

Ultimately, however, specific mitigation missions must be considered as discussed above 

under program levels. They should be funded over and above the research program and 

they could be either separately funded add-ons to scientific missions or stand-alone 

missions, or international collaborations, with the intemational collaboration a high 

priority. Note that once the range of physical properties is understood, it is still very 

difficult to determine the physical properties of an actually threatening NEO without 

sending a mission to it, a possibility with very early discoveries but not with late 

discoveries. 

What Should be Done in the Event of an Identified NEO Threat? After an NEO 

threat is identitied, the initial steps are well defined. NASA is the lead agency for 

identifying threats and they have a reporting path through the U.S. govemment that 

covers all relevant federal agencies and the POTUS. Reporting to other countries is also 

urgent and should be done through the U.N. in order to reach all governments. In 

addition, there should be direct communication with countries and intemational agencies 

that have relevant capabilities for mitigation. Immediately following the alert, it is 

crucial to share all available data publicly. This is routine for the positional observations 

of the NEO and for the resultant orbital computations through the Minor Planet Center 

and through JPL's NEO Program Office. Beyond this, however, it is crucial to share all 

available information on the physical characteristics of the NEO from whatever source 

and on the details of the impact prediction. In the case of2008 TC}, which presented no 

hazard, this information was communicated through the channels normally used 

worldwide by astronomers and infomlation was made readily available to news media. 

6 
134 

The next steps depend critically on the nature ofthc threat - how big the impact will be, 

how far in thc future it will occur, and where it will occur. An all-out effort to detemline 

the charaeteristics ofthc particular impactor is crucial remote sensing being needed in 

any case and, if time permits, a mission to characterize the NEO should be initiated in 

order to optimize the mitigation. Short waming times, however, may preclude an 

advance characterization mission and in that case the range of expected propertics must 

be used to design a fail-safe mitigation. Action paths are, to my limited knowledge, not 

yet in place domestically. For a small impactor, a plausible route is through FEMA. For 

a larger impactor, however, either thc military or NASA might be the one to take charge. 

For truly large impactors, the lead country and agency should be coordinated among 

those countries that have the capability to cxecute any mitigation. This decisionlaction 

tree should be fleshed out and made publicly available long before any speeific thrcat is 

idcntified. 

7 
135 

Biographical Information 

Michael F. A'Hearn 

At the University of Maryland, Michael F. A'Heam is a Professor Emeritus and Research 

Professor of Astronomy, having retired as a Distinguished University Professor of 

Astronomy in 2011. His research has cmphasized the observational and experimenta I 

study of comets and asteroids and what they can teach us about the origin of our own 

planetary system. He has also taught a wide variety of courses in astronomy. 

Dr. A'Heam has played leading roles in observational studies of comes and asteroids 

including many of the early measurements of asteroid diameters via occultations and the 

most extensive survey of the composition of comets from ground based observations. He 

has worked extensively with telescopes in orbit dating from the earliest days of 

ultraviolet astronomy. Using observations at all wavelengths, he participated in the first 

discovery of several molecules in comets and he has used the chemical composition to 

study the origin of comets. More recently he was the principal investigator for NASA's 

Deep Impact mission, the only mission ever to target a high velocity impact at any of the 

solar system's small bodies, excavating a crater in the nucleus of comet Tempel I on 4 

July 2005 that was tens of meters deep and some 40-50 meters in diameter. He was 

subsequently the Principal Investigator for NASA's EPOXI mission, which studied 

extrasolar planets and flew past comet Hartley 2 in November 2010. He is a member of 

two instrument teams on ESA's Rosetta mission and is the PI for the Small Bodies Node 

of NASA's Planetary Data System. 

Dr. A'Ileam holds a BS in physics from Boston College (1961) and a PhD in astronomy 

from the University of Wise on sin (1966). He has authored more than 200 papers in 

refereed scientific journals in addition to a variety of other articles. NASA has twice 

awarded him the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (2006 and 2012) and in 

2008 he received from the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary 

Science the Kuiper Prize for a distinguished career in planetary science. He has taken 

leadership roles on several panels for the National Research Council of the National 

Academies, including chairing the Mitigation Panel of the Committee to Review NcarEarth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies. 
136 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. A’Hearn. I will recognize myself for questions. 

Dr. Lu, given the fact that we do have budget constraints and 

that funding is limited, what is the most—single most important 

thing we could do in this, say, next three- to five-year time period 

to detect these threatening asteroids? 

Dr. LU. Well, if you are going to ask what is going to find the 

most number of these asteroids that—of anything that is currently 

planned, I think it is Sentinel pretty—by a pretty good margin. 

And if you were to ask, you know, to get to what Congressman 

Johnson mentioned, which is, you know, we are a private organization—— 

Dr. LU [continuing]. There are opportunities to accelerate our development. You know, we could, in principle, deepen our relationship with our currently existing public-private partnership if we 

wanted to accelerate that. We understand again that the technology that we are developing—the core technologies are useful for 

lots of other things that the Federal Government finds important, 

and so, you know, one of the possibilities is to accelerate the technology development. 

Another possibility is if this data is worthwhile to NASA, if it is 

important to NASA, perhaps we could work out something where 

this data is purchased from us, and that way NASA only pays for 

it if the data is good and they could work with us to make sure 

that the—as they already are, that the quality of the data is what 

they need. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lu. 

Dr. Yeomans, I am sure there is an answer to this that I should 

know, but we have always been told that in the case of near-Earth 

objects, the only alternative is to move them out of their orbit or 

deflect their trajectory so that there is no direct impact, and it 

doesn’t do any good to explode those objects because then we just 

get a shower of near-Earth objects, many more but they are smaller. Is it—would it be possible to explode an incoming asteroid with 

such force that the pieces would be so small that they would burn 

up coming into the Earth’s atmosphere? So is that a realistic alternative or not? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Yes, it is actually. There has been some work done 

by Dave Dearborn at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories using computer simulations. If you insert an explosive charge and detonate 

it, you often get the fragments going off at such velocities and directions that what little does hit the Earth does so with very little 

damage. 

Chairman SMITH. Why is so much, therefore—so much time, so 

much effort, so much focus on moving it out of its current trajectory? Why not more focus on what you just described? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Well, it is actually considerably easier to run into 

it and slow it down a tiny little bit than to land on it and plant 

an explosive device and—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Another practical answer as well. 

Dr. YEOMANS. It is technologically easier. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Dr. A’Hearn, you mentioned about the 

time with—that would—we would have or not have if we detected 

an incoming object and had to deflect it. What would be the aver-
137 

age time that we would have, say, of a city killer-sized asteroid? 

I guess it depends on whether you are using ground-based telescopes or space-based telescopes, but say in the next three to five 

years, how much time would we have if we developed the Sentinel 

program and were able to detect these objects? 

Dr. A’HEARN. I will defer questions on the sensitivity of Sentinel 

to Ed Lu—— 

Dr. A’HEARN [continuing]. But in general, it is important to remember we have only ever detected one incoming object before it 

hit. 

Chairman SMITH. We have a long way to go—— 

Dr. A’HEARN. That was less than a day out. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Dr. Lu—— 

Dr. A’HEARN. And that was very small. 

Chairman SMITH. Do you have any ideas on how much—— 

Dr. LU. The goal for Sentinel is to find things decades before they 

hit so that you can deflect them rather than evacuate. 

Chairman SMITH. We have plenty of time. At our first hearing, 

Dr. Holdren made the point, I think, that only two percent of the 

Earth’s surface consists of urban areas and so that further diminishes the possibility of a city sustaining a direct hit. I am not sure 

that is much consolation to those who live in rural areas by the 

way, but at least it was interesting as far as the amount of damage 

that might occur. 

But thank you all. You have answered my questions. 

And the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member Ms. 

Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Lu, I realize that details over NASA’s proposal in its FY 2014 

budget request to conduct a mission to an asteroid with humans 

and other asteroid-related activities are just trickling out. A story 

over the weekend reported concerns about the asteroid initiative 

from two sources. One worried that NASA’s activities may interfere 

with the private-sector efforts. Another was critical of the absence 

of international collaboration. Based on what you have read or 

know of NASA’s plans, are such concerns warranted? 

Dr. LU. I don’t think so. I believe that—you know, I, as much as 

anybody, want our human spaceflight program to have a clear, defined, and inspiring goal. However, I don’t think—this mission 

should not be confused of one that is planetary defense. That is a 

very—it is a different mission—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Um-hum. 

Dr. LU [continuing]. What that proposed mission is to do. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Dr. Yeomans, can you share details on NASA’s asteroid detection effort or efforts that are scheduled to benefit from 

the increase for the coming fiscal year? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Yes, it is my understanding that the asteroid retrieval mission is primarily a technology test of the solar electric 

propulsion system. It is also a rendezvous with a small asteroid 

with an attempt to bring it back into a lunar orbit. It has components for NASA’s human exploration program. And, of course, the 

most challenging first part of this whole mission idea is to find a 

suitable target. So the plus-up that you mentioned in the budget 

will certainly provide a commensurate increase in the number of 
138 

objects that are discovered and could be utilized for space resources, scientific investigations, planetary defense, as well as a 

target for this mission. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Dr. A’Hearn, did you have any comment? 

Dr. A’HEARN. No, I have no further comments. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Now, in the first round of hearings 

that we had, there was mention of an orbiting telescope, which we 

don’t have access to. Could either of you comment on the value of 

having an orbiting telescope? 

Dr. LU. Well, the Sentinel is an orbiting telescope—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. It is. 

Dr. LU [continuing]. But it does not orbit the Earth. It orbits the 

sun. But it is a space telescope. 

Dr. YEOMANS. There is also—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Dr. YEOMANS. There is also a concept where you have a spacecraft a million miles sunward of the Earth also orbiting the sun, 

but it is closer to Earth and could be looking out toward near-Earth 

asteroids as well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. So in view of the seemingly increased interest for 

activity of the asteroids, how do you see an investment in an orbiting telescope that would orbit the sun or in a place it is not orbiting now? Do you see any value? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Oh, yes. Yes, as Ed mentioned, the benefit of having a telescope in space is several-fold. First of all, you can use an 

infrared detection system, and these objects are much brighter in 

the infrared and much easier to find than in the optical region. You 

don’t have problems with weather or day and night. You can observe these objects from a viewpoint that the Earth cannot, so you 

sometimes get an advanced warning in that respect. So it is a far 

more efficient system from space. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Any other comment? 

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, the Chairman Emeritus is 

recognized for his questions. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I probably ought to just write a book on this, my questions, because I have so many. And this is your second hearing, is that 

right? 

Mr. HALL [continuing]. And I admire you for it. You are almost 

seeking something that is impossible from the numbers even than 

that I have heard here. 

Olin ‘‘Tiger’’ Teague, whose picture is right over there, ought to 

be known as the father of NASA. And you might even become the 

father of characterizing Earth objects and how close they are. But 

I think you are going to have to have some overseas hearings. We 

have had this second one and four more just like this probably 

won’t yield any definite answers. But it is a very interesting matter, a very interesting item. 

But how could we ask—and maybe, Dr. Yeomans, on to the near 

objects program, like in the 2013 worldwide attention in the city 

of Chelyabinsk in Russia—injured a lot of people but didn’t kill 

anyone is what I understand. And the others that I remember and 
139 

that we have heard about, a lot of injuries, but what—they didn’t 

know it was coming and didn’t know what we—when we had that 

hearing—and I think I testified to this before—we found out in 

that hearing that one had passed Earth and just missed us by 15 

minutes. And that could be a jillion miles away, but that is where 

they put it. It had missed Earth by 15 minutes, and nobody even 

knew it was coming until it had come and gone. 

So—and we made every effort to get in touch with nations like 

Japan, Spain, Italy, England, France to send somebody over here 

to testify with us because it has to be a world for us if we are going 

to really do anything about it. We can’t pave the way like we spent 

34 billion on global warming. My President spent 34 million on 

that and haven’t done anything on it. 

But it looks like we are going to have to have world input to ever 

be anywhere near efficient on making the determination that all 

the people in the world that I want. But we couldn’t get any interest at all. And I think this Chairman of this Committee that that 

would be a very good thing if you could have some hearings, maybe 

in England, be at the places and get their interest up because it 

is going to take their working with us to make anything happen. 

I guess the only question I would have is, Dr. Yeomans, whether 

you know of any private organizations that are involved in nearEarth object detection like Boeing or Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas or Texas Instruments? You know, I would like to get them into 

it but they can’t do it themselves. So that is just something to 

think about. Do you have any suggestions on the private organizations and how they might work into it? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Well, Ed—— 

Mr. HALL. They said at one time a laser could affect them just 

a little bit but it didn’t say how much. 

Dr. YEOMANS. That is true. If you had a laser nearby, you could 

ablate the front side and introduce a thrust in the opposite direction. But in terms of the international cooperation, I couldn’t agree 

more. In fact, the European Space Agency has been getting more 

and more interest in this near-Earth asteroid discussion. Recently, 

they are actually funding the so-called NEOShield program to look 

at various mitigation options, including kinetic impactors. 

There is an activity within U.N., COPUOS, the Committee on the 

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and NASA is involved with that 

working group to try and define an international warning system, 

with the response protocols that would be required in the event of 

an incoming object. Who would be in charge? Who—— 

Mr. HALL. Dr. Lu suggested NASA. The reason I thought about 

‘‘Tiger’’ Teague, Olin Teague, and all the work he did in even getting it off the ground and supporting it with funds that we don’t 

have today. And we can’t go to Mars until people can go to the grocery store, so I don’t know how we are going to talk about protecting the world if we don’t have world support. And it would be 

a great thing for this Chairman if the government doesn’t have the 

money to send them, he has personal wealth if he could maybe 

take four or five of us over there. And I think he is going to tell 

me my time is over. I yield back what time I do have. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 
140 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. I wanted to follow up a little 

bit on—we have had discussion previously about this international 

issue which, Doctor, you had mentioned. Can you explain to us 

what is currently done in terms of data sharing? And perhaps, Dr. 

Lu, if you could discuss if you have even contemplated now for your 

project, it not being a governmental project, being private nonprofit, what you would contemplate being that data-sharing aspect 

for your organization? 

Dr. LU. Yeah, I—you know, our intention as a public nonprofit 

is to put the data out there so as many scientists can see the data 

and use the data and warn people if there is things in the data 

that show that something is going to hit the Earth. So that is our 

plan. 

But actually, if I could add one other thing. Don’t get the impression that finding asteroids—while it is a lot of money—is something that requires enormous amounts of money. For instance, I 

mean our telescope, which will find and track a great majority of 

these asteroids, is less than the cost of—there is a road-widening 

project in the San Francisco Bay area in the town of Burlingame 

that is more expensive than our telescope. And that is why we 

went about this as a private fundraising effort. We are less expensive than a museum. There is a wing of an art museum in San 

Francisco that cost more than our project. And that is privately 

raised money. It is not enormous. I mean, it is a lot for individuals, 

but it can be done. 

Ms. ESTY. If I can follow up, actually. That was very helpful, because I did want to ask a little bit more. What are the specifics? 

What are your plans if you—obviously, we know that in the past 

NASA has encountered cost overruns for a variety of reasons. What 

are your plans as an organization if you discover, say, in the development or in the research phase that something you anticipated 

will work does not quite work the way you expect it? Would you 

go back to funders? What does that do? How—and also, frankly, 

how close are you to raising the $450 million that you have budgeted? When will you start? Will you do it in tranches if you don’t 

have it ready? What are your plans for ensuring that? Because we 

are hearing from everyone if you don’t have the money set at the 

outset, you end up embedding cost overruns because it just takes 

longer. 

Dr. LU. We are using existing technology to the extent we can, 

and we actually have a firm fixed price contract, which is—so in 

other words, the risk is borne by our contractor Ball Aerospace. 

And yes, we are raising the money in tranches. This year, our 

goal—fundraising goal is $20 million. And we are well on our way 

towards that for this year. 

Ms. ESTY. So how much of the total do you have—would that 

have you at? 

Dr. LU. Well, this really is our first full year since we have begun 

our fundraising. We announced on June 28 of last year. Our needs 

were quite small last year, in the single-digit millions. This year, 

they are accelerating, and next year they will accelerate even more, 

so our peak spending rate will be in the range of $100 million for 
141 

a year or so, and then it will taper back down. But we can finance 

this over a much longer period. 

Ms. ESTY. And just a question for all of you somewhat. If we 

have congressional mandates that, say, previously would have been 

directed to NASA as a governmental organization and Congress 

says we need to see this data because we need to make decisions, 

for the doctors who are not in the private entity, how would you 

contemplate we should—would structure that? And how would that 

operate? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Well, I think it is important to point out that 

NASA does have a Space Act Agreement with the Sentinel group 

for providing navigation and tracking of their spacecraft. Once 

their data are taken, it would come through the NASA channels. 

It will go to the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

then it would come to our program office at JPL, and then we 

would interact with our Italian colleagues and we would post our 

results for the world. So it is quite a transparent data-sharing process even though it is privately funded, for the most part. 

Dr. A’HEARN. Yes, I was just going to comment that in my experience the data on finding and tracking near-Earth objects and on 

predicting the orbits of them all becomes very public very quickly. 

There has never been a problem getting the data. The only problems are what to do with it. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you all very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I will try to be as fast 

as I can here. 

First of all, I would like to note—— 

Chairman SMITH. And Mr. Rohrabacher, if you will suspend for 

a minute, I want to let the Members know that after this series 

of questions, we are going to recess for about 45 minutes so we can 

go conduct three votes, and then we will resume the markup after 

the votes. 

And the gentleman continues to be recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And number one, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree with 

Chairman Hall and his recommendation that we work with you 

and Members of both sides of the aisle to try to find international 

cooperation on an effort that deserves to be not just the responsibility of the American taxpayers but people of the Earth united 

against this common threat. 

Let me note there are other groups like the Planetary Society, 

headed up by Bill Nye, who are very involved with this issue. And 

I have a statement that I would like—of Mr. Nye that I would like 

to put in the record at this point. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information may be found in Appendix II.] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Next, I would mention there are two recently formed companies 

that have as their goal mining asteroids: the Planetary Resources, 

Deep Space Industries. Both of these companies have impressive 

teams, and I would hope that at some future date we might be able 
142 

to bring them to testify about their activities and the expertise that 

they are developing. 

Dr. Lu, I found your testimony to be very interesting. We have 

to assume that either road construction in San Francisco is incredibly expensive or that we have in some way brought down the cost 

of your efforts—space efforts. I find—and it was your testimony 

that B612 does not in any way receive any taxpayer funding? 

Dr. LU. That is correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Congratulations, Dr. Lu. I want to say that 

for the record, congratulations. And I understand that the Sentinel 

mission under the Foundation actually has been operating with 

fixed-term prices that you are dealing with your—with the companies that you have to deal business with. Is that correct? 

Dr. LU. That is correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So you have a fixed-price term. We have been 

told over—again and again, Mr. Chairman, that we can’t have 

these fixed-price contracts. For example, with our polar weather 

satellites, oh, you can’t have a fixed-price contract. Perhaps this 

private sector group here that doesn’t receive any of our government money is showing us how we can keep some of the costs 

down. 

And let me just suggest that we need to get more private money, 

more international cooperation. This is a serious threat to the—not 

only to the well-being but even, perhaps, to the survival of humankind on this planet, and it deserves us to work together and to do 

so in a cost-effective way. And we can’t do anything nowadays unless it is in a cost-effective way. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I just will leave it at that. And I appreciate your efforts 

and am totally supportive. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. And I 

know this subject has been of long-time interest to you as well. 

As I say, we are going to recess for about 45 minutes, and then 

I hope Members who still have questions will return. And if you 

all can possibly stay, that would be great. I understand one witness 

may have to leave, and if that is the case, we understand that as 

well. So thank you all, and we will return and we will recess until 

about 45 minutes from now. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PALAZZO. [Presiding] I want to thank the witnesses for staying behind for this important Committee hearing. 

And at this time, I am going to recognize Ms. Bonamici for five 

minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you so much for your testimony and thank you for staying. Sorry we had to leave to vote. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about how we respond. And Dr. 

A’Hearn, in your prepared statement, you indicate the Academies’ 

2010 report provided options geared to how much money Congress 

wished to appropriate to buy insurance against an impact, and you 

described evacuation for small impactors is one approach to mitigation and noted the panel’s recommendation that a research program be instituted to better understand mitigation approaches. 
143 

I represent a district in Oregon that contains coastline, and my 

constituents on the coast are frequently talking about being prepared, emergency preparedness for tsunamis and earthquakes, and 

so these are certainly analogous situations. 

In our prior hearing, there was a discussion about evacuations in 

response to a meteor incident. So what would be the nature of the 

recommended research as it applies to evacuations? I know that 

when we are talking over in the Oregon coast now they don’t have 

a lot of time from the time they find out about a tsunami to get 

upland. So what do you see as the most cost-effective insurance, 

and can you talk a little bit about preparing for a meteor impact, 

please? 

Dr. A’HEARN. I think the most important issue is that we don’t 

have a really solid theory of how big a tsunami you will get from 

a given size impact. There are simulations that disagree by huge 

factors on how big a tsunami you will get at various places. So on 

that specific issue, I think that is the key thing that needs to be 

done. It depends on the size of the impact or, of course, depends 

on the velocity it comes in, the speed, and it depends on the density. You know, is it really solid or is it mostly porous? But for any 

given case even, there are disagreements in the theoretical literature on what the effect will be. 

So that is the biggest issue. Once you know how big the tsunami 

will be, then you will get a better feeling for how far you have to 

evacuate to get to high ground. And I am not familiar with how 

much time is needed in any specific area. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Sure. That is dependent, I think, on the geography. 

And to all the panel members, how should the policy—how 

should we approach the policy and legal issues in addressing warning the public? My constituents at home are worried about finding 

a job and about too many kids in the classroom, so—and on the 

coast, they are worried about a tsunami and they went through, 

you know, after the earthquake in Japan, some emergency preparedness, but there is still a lot to do. So what is the best way 

for us as policymakers to approach this warning and preparedness, 

and how should we handle that on national and international levels? What is your advice? 

Dr. YEOMANS. If I could respond. There is an ongoing effort within the United Nations’ Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer 

Space to address these issues, and one of the key issues, as you 

noted, is how do we best warn the public, give them the facts without scaring them? So on the international level within this Committee, these discussions are ongoing. And that is one of the issues 

that is front and center. We don’t have a process in place. I mean, 

we are scientists so we can say we are going to impact probably 

at such and such a time, but that is not necessarily the most effective communication with the public. So we have to bring in folks 

who are more experienced in communicating risks, not just scientists. I would suggest that perhaps once these discussions are 

completed in, hopefully, another year, then effective communications would come out of that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Dr. Lu, do you have any input on—— 
144 

Dr. LU. Yeah, my opinion is that we should not find out what the 

impact of a large asteroid is in the ocean and—because we have the 

technology to prevent that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Um-hum. 

Dr. LU. And we should go out there and find these asteroids, find 

out if any of them are going to hit us, and the deflect it. And I 

think we can do that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And my time is about to expire. 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Posey for five minutes. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Somebody mentioned climate change study a little while ago. You know, asteroids took care 

of that at one time, and if it happens again, we will not have global 

warming. They can fix that forever. 

Out of curiosity for the three of you, the Administration is excited about privatizing space to the greatest extent possible. What 

do you think would be an appropriate number for an X prize type 

of arrangement for identifying and destroying an asteroid, just off 

the top of your head, all three of you, starting with Dr. Lu? 

Dr. LU. Well, if you ask the question—I mean what would it take 

to find these asteroids first for the first part of the X prize. It is 

really a two-step process. 

Mr. POSEY. Right. 

Dr. LU. I would lay a number out that would be equivalent to 

whatever—you know, some fraction of what NASA would have 

spent if they did it themselves. And that number is probably in the 

range, according to the NRC report, $800 million to a billion. So 

pick some fraction of that. That is why we think we can do it for 

$450 million, and that is what our contract specifies. But if you put 

the prize somewhere around there, then NASA is guaranteed to 

save money if it succeeds. 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah, and if it doesn’t, the money is never spent. 

Dr. LU. Exactly. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. How about—that is to find one. Does that include destroying it? 

Dr. LU. No, but I think if you—once you find them, remember 

that you will now know if there is something that is going to hit 

that is a definite threat in the next century. And now you have got 

time to do it right. And also I think money is also no object if something is really barreling down on the Earth and you know the time, 

date, and place that thing is going to hit. I think we can come together and solve that issue. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Yeomans? 

Dr. YEOMANS. I would add that NASA already has 15 years of 

experience in this area of identifying objects. They have three programs underway, ground-based optical detection. I would suggest 

perhaps a study that could be undertaken to see whether we could 

leverage those assets to improve what is already there by bringing 

online new technology and new telescopes along with studies to 

flesh out what is the most effective way of deflecting an object that 

is found on an Earth-threatening trajectory. 

My comment would be, we should leverage existing activities and 

facilities. 
145 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Well, it is my understanding the Small Bodies 

Assessment Group at Lunar Planetary Institute was chartered for 

the specific purpose of evaluating those types of missions and the 

priorities of the scientific community for near-Earth objects. How 

has NASA collaborated or leveraged its information with this group 

in planning of the Asteroid Capture Mission? 

Dr. YEOMANS. I am not intimately involved with the connection 

between the Small Bodies Assessment Group and this mission that 

you mentioned. So I am not aware of what has and what has not 

been communicated between those two. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Are either of the others familiar with it, Dr. 

A’Hearn? 

Dr. A’HEARN. I know essentially nothing more about this mission 

than I have read in the newspapers and in Administrator Bolden’s 

release this morning. I am not aware that the Small Bodies Assessment Group has been given any information on it. They may have 

been, but I am not aware of it, so I am not going to comment further. 

Mr. POSEY. That was my feeling and that is why the question. 

Dr. Lu. 

Dr. LU. I also am not aware of the connection between the two. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. You know, all of your written testimony mentioned obviously the asteroid mitigation, and I know we have to 

identify them before we can divert them or destroy them. We all 

knew that. But, you know, assuming that the development of a 

strategy and technology would take a considerable time, you know, 

obviously perhaps years, what steps do you think we should be taking in the meantime in case our search uncovers a threat, which 

we all know is not a matter of if but when? 

Dr. LU. I think it would be prudent to do a deflection demonstration mission, pick an asteroid that you know is not anywhere near 

hitting the Earth and show that you can deflect it in a controlled 

manner so that it doesn’t break up into pieces where you don’t 

know where they are going and so on. I think that can be done. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. 

Dr. A’HEARN. I would agree that a demonstration deflection mission is an appropriate thing to do, and a deflection mission is ideally suited for the international collaboration that I think is needed 

in this area, because typically you need to send two spacecraft, one 

of which does the deflection and the other of which monitors the 

effectiveness of it. Depending on whether you are doing a gravity 

tractor or kinetic impactor or—we presumably would not do a nuclear one as a test and the ability to have international collaboration on coordinating two spacecraft is important to get the various 

countries trusting that we are not trying to divert something to 

land somewhere else. 

Mr. POSEY. Interesting. I hadn’t thought about that but I think 

you are correct. Dr. Yeomans, Mr. Chairman, can he finish? 

Dr. YEOMANS. Can I add something? There is an interesting concept pertinent to your point whereby NASA would use the excess 

launch capability for the InSight spacecraft to Mars, have a colaunch of an impactor much like the Deep Impact mission, and that 

would go and collide with the asteroid that the Osiris Rex mission 

has already picked for their target. So the Osiris Rex mission is al-
146 

ready resident, and you would have this impactor coming in, and 

you can measure the deflection. So it is a nice leveraging of an existing launch and an existing rendezvous spacecraft. So that would 

be one instructing deflection demonstration. 

Mr. POSEY. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALAZZO. You are welcome. I now recognize Mr. Stewart for 

five minutes. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thanks for 

being here. It gives me faith in our future knowing that there are 

people a lot smarter than me who are working on some of these 

things. 

I am not going to ask in real detail. I would like to just kind of 

encapsulate what I think we have said but bring some clarity to 

it before with some very quick questions. But before we do, can I 

just divert for just a second with this, and that is, you know, the 

old formula E = MC2, and you have talked a lot about the mass 

of these meteorites, potential, you know, objects, but is velocity a 

consideration, too? In other words, are some of the smaller ones, 

are they traveling at such a speed that they would have an equally 

devastating outcome or are most of these objects kind of traveling 

at about the same speed out there? 

Dr. LU. Most of them are—well, they are orbiting the sun, so the 

typical velocities that they hit is really independent of the size of 

the asteroid, and that is between 15 and, say, 25 kilometers per 

second. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. 

Dr. LU. So 40,000 miles an hour or so. 

Mr. STEWART. So that is—I mean that is a fairly good range. Fifteen to 25 is, what, 40 percent or something like that? But their 

velocity doesn’t really matter. It really is just the size and the 

weight of the object? 

Dr. LU. Well, it is a combination of the destructive power, it is 

a combination of the speed and the mass. But from the standpoint 

of deflection, it doesn’t much matter. 

Mr. STEWART. Okay. Yes, sir, Dr. A’Hearn. 

Dr. A’HEARN. I was going to just add to that. Indeed, 15 to 25 

kilometers per second is the right ballpark for the asteroids. It is 

one of the things you have to keep in mind, however, if you deal 

with the cometary impact hazard. Those come in at more like 30 

to 70 kilometers per second. Now, they are very infrequent compared to the asteroids, but one of a given size will be much more 

damaging because of that high speed of entry compared to the asteroid. 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah, okay. And I appreciated your visual that you 

showed us at the beginning. It kind of gives us a sense of the scope 

there. 

I know there was a recent comet that was discovered in January 

that was looking like it was going to have a near miss with Mars, 

and it would have been a devastating event for—had that, you 

know, impacted the Earth, a dinosaur killing type event. And as 

I recall, it was two years is what the, you know, estimated impact 

time would be. Of course, we know it is going to miss it now. If 

that had been directed toward Earth in two years, is there realistically anything we could have done? 
147 

Dr. LU. It would be very difficult. 

Mr. STEWART. Probably not, is that true? 

Dr. LU. Yeah. 

Mr. STEWART. So can you give me an idea? I know you are speculating, but I mean what—how much time do we need? Do we need 

10 years. Do we need 20? Do we need eight? I mean, how long do 

we need before we could actually do something even if we detected 

an object that was going to impact the Earth? 

Dr. LU. I think with 10 years you can do this in a controlled 

manner with backups and so on. Certainly, with 20 years you could 

do that. It gets much more difficult the closer in it is, and that is, 

again, the importance of getting early warning, because the closer 

it is to you, the more you need to deflect it by to get it to miss. 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah 

Dr. LU. So it gets much, much harder the earlier—the less warning you have. 

Mr. STEWART. Let’s put that aside, that consideration of the energy to deflect it. In two years from now, could we—are we technologically capable of launching something that could intercept it? Dr. 

A’Hearn, you seem to be shaking your head ‘‘no.’’ 

Dr. A’HEARN. No. If we had spacecraft plans on the books already, that would take a year—I mean a typical small mission like 

a Discovery class mission takes four years from approval to start 

to launch. Okay. Now, a really accelerated military program would 

be faster than that but that is a couple of years still. 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah. 

Dr. A’HEARN. And you would have to have something ready to 

launch, basically, if you wanted to do it on very short notice. Ten 

years, 20 years, then you have got time to plan it. Five years or 

less, it is really hard unless you have thought the problem through 

and design things, maybe have components built, maybe have a 

full system but—— 

Mr. STEWART. Because what we need, we have nothing like this 

right now. We are not taking an existing weapons system or existing vehicle and modifying it. We are really starting from scratch 

to do this, true? 

Dr. A’HEARN. Well, you would try to use it from existing components. I mean you could—you would—if you were going to do a kinetic impact, you might scale up what was done for Deep Impact 

to larger launch vehicle, larger impactor, and things like that. So 

it is not quite starting from scratch, but it is starting from a pretty 

low point. 

Mr. STEWART. Yeah. Okay. And then last question—well, I tell 

you what, I am out of time. I would love to talk with you further, 

but I appreciate you—again you being here. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable 

testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of 

the Committee may have additional questions for you, and we will 

ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain open 

for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from 

Members. 

The witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(149) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
150 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Ed Lu 

Response by Edward Lu, CEO B612 Foundation to questions following the April 10, 2013 House 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing on "Threats from Space". 

Response to questions from Rep. Steven Palazzo: 

1) Do we have the tools and technology necessary to detect Near Earth Objects (NEOs)? 

Once we identify an object, what are our means of tracking it? 

Response: Currently deployed asteroid detection and tracking systems are only able to find at 

most about 1000 Near Earth Objects (NEOs) per year. So they are insufficient to find and track 

the 1 million NEOs large enough to destroy a city. The B612 Sentinel Space Telescope, will be 

able to discover and track over 100 thousand NEOs each year, and so will be about 100 times 

more effective than all current systems combined. By repeatedly observing these asteroids, we 

can accurately measure their orbits. The orbits, once measured, are stable on roughly a 

timescale of 100 years, so asteroids in general do not need to be continually tracked once their 

orbits are determined. 

2) What categories ofNEOs do we currently track, and which of these present potential 

cause for concern? 

Response: The NASA Spaceguard survey has successfully found over 90 percent of asteroids 1km 

or larger, which is large enough to wipe out human civilization. The Spaceguard survey is 

progressively more incomplete for smaller asteroids. Asteroids of size 40 meters are large 

enough to destroy a city, and the Spaceguard survey has only found about 0.5% of these. In 

other words, the vast majority of asteroids capable of doing great harm (destroying a city or 

more) are not currently tracked. 

3) Both Dr. Holdren and Administrator Bolden testified to our committee in March that we 

have a long way to go to accomplish the goals established by Congress in the NASA 

Authorization Act of2005 of detecting 90 percent of the NEOs with a diameter of 140 

meters or greater by 2020. What are the most important steps that should be taken in the 

next five years to accomplish thesc goals? 

Response: As described in the National Academies report "Defending Planet Earth", the most 

effective thing we can do to finding these asteroids is to deploy an infrared space telescope into 

a Venus-similar orbit around the Sun. 

4) Can you describe the potential range of damage caused by impacts from NEOs? 

Response: At the small size range, an 18 meter rocky asteroid like we saw over Chelyabinsk on 

February 15, 2013 is capable of causing structural damage to buildings due to the shock wave 

produced in the atmosphere. A 40 meter asteroid like we saw in Tunguska in 1908 would cause 
151 

a multiple megaton explosion, and is capable of completely obliterating a city. A 140 meter or 

larger asteroid would have an explosive energy of more than 100 megatons, and is capable of 

destroying an area equivalent to a small state. Depending on where these asteroids hit, the 

consequences could range from minor up to global economic collapse. A 1km asteroid would 

likely end human civilization, no matter where on Earth it struck. 

5) What are the areas in which there is a lack of knowledge or understanding of near Earth 

objects? What barriers does the private sector face in gaining the knowledge necessary to 

quantify and mitigate the risk ofNEO impacts? 

Response: There is much scientific research still to be done to understand NEOs. But from the 

standpoint of protecting the Earth from asteroid impacts, the first and foremost thing that must 

be done is to find and track these asteroids. All other questions are secondary since we cannot 

defend ourselves from an asteroid we have not found yet. The B612 Sentinel Space Telescope 

will be able to find these objects. We are a private philanthropic organization and our principal 

barrier is the speed at which we can raise donations. 

6) From where you operate, how would you describe the level of coordination between 

governments and outside organizations? What improvements need to be made? 

Response: The B612 Foundation has an agreement with NASA in which NASA provides no 

money, but agrees to allow use of its Deep Space Network to communicate with Sentinel. In 

exchange, the B612 Foundation will make this data generally available to the public. 

7) What can the U.S. government do to encourage the advancemcnt of private sector 

technologies that detect and track NEOs? 

Response: The B612 Foundation would be interested in exploring ways in which it could work 

with the Federal Government to accelerate the deployment of Sentinel. There is an 

opportunity to show US leadership in protecting not only US territory but the entire world, and 

to do it in an innovative fashion that furthers commercial and nongovernmental space 

exploration. Not only would this benefit the world, but the fundamental technology of Sentinel 

which allows it to accurately track small dark objects in space would be useful in specific ways to 

several agencies of the U.S. government. 

8) Should the cleanup of space debris primarily be a government issue, or is this something 

in which the private sector should be involved? What are the potential benefits to private 

organizations that become involved in the business of space-debris removal? 

Response: We have no particular expertise or involvement in space debris cleanup. 

9) How can the U.S. government and the private sector work together to best utilize their 

combined resources? 
152 

Response: The B612 Foundation is pioneering the use of commercial procurement and 

management practices for interplanetary space mission deployment. We are interested in 

working with the US Government to explore ways to expand our innovative private-public 

partnership. The B612 Foundation has already put together one of the most experienced 

spacecraft development teams in the world, and has made significant technical progress on 

Sentinel. But we believe we can move even faster with if we were to work collaboratively with 

certain federal agencies. If resources were available and agreements could be worked out, we 

believe that launching and deploying Sentinel by 2016 is possible. 

10) What can the U.S. government learn from the private sector's efforts to identify and 

characterize NEOs? Conversely, what can the private sector learn from the U.S. 

government's detection efforts? 

Response: Much of the technology and know-how that will go into Sentinel is a result of 

government investment in space technology. It is crucial that the government continue to 

invest in such advanced technology. 

II) The 8612 Foundation's SENTINEL Mission is projected to discover more than 98% of 

all NEOs known to humanity during its six and a half year mission. What about the other 

2%'1 What are the odds that a "continent destroyer" wi II be among those that evade 

detection'? 

Response: This question misstates the capabilities of Sentinel. The correct statement is that 

once Sentinel has completed its mapping of asteroids, we will have discovered about 1 million 

NEOs. And very nearly all of them (more than 98%) will have been discovered by Sentinel. 

12) What is the current system for international coordination in the event of an imminent 

NEO threat? What recommendations do you have to improve that system? 

Response: There is no yet agreed upon protocol for coordination of an imminent asteroid 

threat, although there is currently a process that has been proposed through the United Nations 

Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 

\3) Do you know of any international private organizations that are involved in NEO 

detection or mitigation? If so, in what ways could they contribute to the combined 

detection and mitigation efforts of the U.S. government and private sector and foreign 

government? 

Response: We do not know of any other private organizations (international or otherwise) 

besides the B612 Foundation with the plans or capability to discover and track asteroids at the 

scale of Sentinel. Given that there are a million NEOs that are "city killer" or larger, in order to 
153 

make a significant dent in this problem requires a system capable of finding a hundred thousand 

or more asteroids per year. No other system besides Sentinel has this capability. 

14) Have there been discussions and agreements on how much involvement in the mitigation 

process foreign governments are willing to provide to the U.S. government in the event of 

a NEO where destruction is limited to U.S. soil? How much aid is the U.S. willing to 

provide in a converse situation? 

Response: We do not know of any such discussions. It should be noted though that if a large 

asteroid is found on a collision course with Earth, the likely cost of deflecting that asteroid 

would be insignificant compared to the potential loss should it be allowed to hit. 

15) Considering the low probability of a devastating NEO impact, are detection and 

mitigation projects \vorth their high costs? 

Response: A system to detect and track NEOs, which is the first step in protecting Earth from the 

hazard of asteroid impacts, is not expensive compared to the potential losses. Sentinel for 

instance has a budget which would be less than 1% of the current NASA budget. The benefits 

though are incalculable. 

16) The President's Budget places NASA's asteroid strategy as a more visible component of 

the agency's mission, particularly in regard to human spaceflight. The agency is 

proposing combining agency efforts to ultimately have a human mission planned for 

2021. What are your thoughts about the Administration's proposal? Specifically. can the 

varioLis components NASA says it needs for a human mission benefit the overall goals 

we are discussing here today? 

Response: The very small asteroids (approximately 25 feet across) that are potential targets of 

the proposed asteroid capture missions are too small to represent a threat to Earth. 

Response to questions from Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson: 

I) This Committee is working on reauthorizing NASA for FY 2014 and beyond. In your 

view. what priorities with regard to NEOs do we need to address in legislation? How do 

we ensure that private-sector and international initiatives arc effectively leveraged and 

integrated into a global response? 

Response: We feel that a concerted effort must be made to find and track the roughly 1 million 

asteroids large enough to destroy a city. less than 1% of such NEOs are currently tracked, which 

means that we are nearly certain to be blindsided by the next such object to hit Earth unless we 

do something about it. This is a chance to show American technical and scientific leadership 

because this truly is a global problem. 
154 

2) What arc the challenges involved in assimilating NEO detection and characterization 

input from multiple observing platforms? How could this be done? 

Response: Assimilating data from multiple observing problems is not an issue as this is already 

currently done. All observations of NEOs from telescopes around the world are funneled 

through the Minor Planet Center in Cambridge MA. Sentinel will also send its data to the Minor 

Planet Center. 

3) In the past, NASA has experienced significant cost growth in several of its space science 

programs. 

a. What is the basis for your cost estimate for developing the Sentinel telescope and 

what gives you confidence that the estimate can be met? 

b. Has 8612 requested an independent verification of the cost estimate? 

c. Do you have a "Plan 8" if the cost becomes significantly greater than what is 

currently estimated? 

Response: Sentinel is based on the designs of 2 previously flown spacecraft, the Kepler Space 

Telescope and the Spitzer infrared Space Telescope, both of which were built by our contractor 

Ball Aerospace. Because Ball has based the design of Sentinel on these successful programs, 

they were confident enough in their cost estimates to offer a firm fixed price proposal for 

Sentinel. In addition, B612 Foundation has completed a Program Concept and Implementation 

Review, in which the Sentinel project was reviewed by an independent review team (which 

included several NASA engineers and SCientists). Because Sentinel is being built and managed 

under a fixed price contract, the risks of cost overruns are borne by Ball Aerospace. Appropriate 

reserves have been built into the cost of the contract. 

4) You attribute 8612's ability to use commercial contracting practices as the reason why it 

can develop Sentinel for less cost than NASA. 8612 indicates that this can be done 

because requirements are stable and a firm-fixed price for the spacecraft can be used. 

Are there any technologies in Sentinel that require development, and if so, what is the 

risk of these encountering cost increases? 

Response: The only new technology development being done for Sentinel involves its infrared 

imaging detectors. Before Ball issued its proposal for Sentinel, 8612 Foundation funded a 

detector feasibility study between 2 competing detector subcontractors. On the basis of this 

work, both Ball and B612 agreed that the remaining detector work, while challenging, was an 

acceptable risk. And based upon this initial study, we were able to select a prime detector 

manufacturer while keeping the other manufacturer as a backup. To understand the risks even 

better, we have funded and built subscale detector prototypes, and have tested these 

prototypes under their planned operating temperature. We believe we understand the 
155 

detector development risk. These risks and costs, as well as the appropriate reserves have been 

built into the main Sentinel contract. 

5) Since B612 intends to provide free access of the data to the public, are there 

modifications to the data you will provide to NASA that form the basis for the Space Act 

Agreement established between the two parties? Would NASA need to enter into a data 

buy arrangement in addition to the SAA? 

Response: We do not plan to modify the data provided to NASA and the public. The NASA Space 

Act Agreement with B612 Foundation stipulates the data that will be provided. If the federa I 

government wishes to work more closely with B612 to accelerate the development of Sentinel, 

this will require federal investment, and data purchases are one of many possibilities for 

structuring such an arrangement. 

Response to questions from Representative Steve Stockman: 

I) What are the key technology demonstrations that would need to be conducted for 

deflecting asteroids'? 

Response: The scientific community agrees that asteroid deflection is possible with current 

technology, but it would certainly be advantageous to carry out a test mission on a nonthreatening asteroid. But the key point is that all these technologies are useless against an 

asteroid we have not discovered yet. The very first priority must be to find and track asteroids. 

2) What is the state of the readiness of the technology Jar the various methods of deflecting 

asteroids? 

Response: The three principal methods of deflecting asteroids are kinetic impactors, gravity 

tractors, and nuclear standoff explosions. It would be feasible to test any of these technologies 

on a non-threatening asteroid. 

3) What would be the effective range (in time/distance) of applicability of each different 

method of deflection? 

Response: With many years of advance notice, deflecting an asteroid only requires a very tiny 

change in the asteroid trajectory to enable a successful deflection. With less than a few years 

notice, in general there are no known technologies for preventing an asteroid impact. That is 

why it is critical that asteroid search programs be carried out soon to avoid the situation 

where we only have late notice and our only option is to evacuate the area and hope for the 

best. 
156 

Responses by Dr. Donald K. Yeomans 

HOUSE CO.MMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Threats from Space: A Review of Private Sector Efforts to Track and Mitigate Asteroids 

and Meteors, Part II" 

Questions for the Record, Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Near-Earth Objects Program Office 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Questions submitted by Rep. Steven Palazzo. Subcommittee on Space 

1. Do we have thc tools and technology necessary to detect Near Earth Objects (NEOs)? 

Once we identifY an object, what are our means of tracking it? 

ANSWER: Since 1998, NASA has supported several ground-based optical telescope 

facilities for discovering and following-up NEOs. The progress for finding NEOs larger 

than one kilometer has been very impressive with a total discovery completion rate of 

more than 95 percent. Once a NEO discovery is made, a combination of professional and 

amateur astronomers provide the critically important follow-up optical observations that 

allow accurate orbits to be computed and the NEO's motion to then be accurately 

predicted for more than one hundred years into the future. Planetary radar observations, if 

available, are especially good for orbit refinement and for determining the NEO's size, 

shape and rotation characteristics. In addition, many amateur astronomers provide an 

observed time history of the NEO's ability to reflect light and hence, if these objects are 

irregularly shaped, these types of observations can be used to determine the rotation rate 

of the NEO. The Minor Planet Center (MPC) is the worldwide central node for receipt 

and distribution ofNEO observation data. The MPC, which is fundcd by NASA and 

located at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, collects and correlates 

NEO observation data from a variety of sources including amateur and professional 

astronomers for worldwide dissemination. 

2. What categories ofNEOs do we currently track, and which of these present potential 

cause for concern? 

ANSWER: NEOs are defined as those asteroids and comets that can approach the 

Earth's orbit to within about 30 milliou miles. In near-Earth space, asteroids outnumber 

comets one hundred to one. Of particular concern are the so-called potentially hazardous 

asteroids that can approach the Earth's orbit to within 5 million miles. Those near-Earth 

asteroids that are in Earth-like orbits about the sun are of most concern because they can 

repeatedly approach the Earth. Currently, all discovered NEOs and the subset of 

potentially hazardous asteroids are being tracked with ground-based optical telescopes to 

ensure that enough observations are available to confidently predict their orbital paths, 
157 

3. Both Dr. Holdren and Administrator Bolden testified to our eommittee in Mareh that we 

have a long way to go to accomplish the goals established by Congress in the NASA 

Authorization Act of 200S of detecting 90 percent of the NEOs with a diameter of 140 

meters or greater by 2020. What are the most important steps that should be taken in the 

next five years to accomplish these goals? 

ANSWER: The total population ofNEOs with diameters 140 meters and larger is 

thought to be about 20,000 and NASA-supported surveys have discovered about 2S 

percent of this population. It is very unlikely that the existing ground-based optical 

surveys will reach 90 percent completion at this size range by 2020, but NASA is 

evaluating systcms that could make it possible by 2030 and will implement enhancements 

and acquire the required additional capability as soon as we are able to do so. 

The B612 Foundation plans for Ball Aerospace to build an infrared space-based NEO 

discovery telescope. This type of telescope would efficiently capture the heat (infrared 

re-radiated sunlight) from dark asteroids and could do so without the interruptions due to 

weather and daylight that affect ground-based assets. The B612 Foundation plans to 

philanthropically fund this effort and NASA has signed a Space Act Agreement with 

B612 to provide advisory information as well as spacecraft tracking and navigation 

support. In addition, NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate 

and Science Mission Directorate, through the Joint Robotic Precursor Activity office, are 

studying instrument concepts for a mission of opportunity to be hosted on a US 

Government or commercial spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit that will be capable of 

detecting and tracking asteroids in orbits very similar to Earth's; NASA released a 

Request for Information (RFJ) in August 2012 and is studying the instrument concepts 

that were submitted. 

4. Can you describe the potential range of damage caused by impacts from NEOs? 

ANSWER: There are vastly more small NEOs than large ones, so the most likely impact 

will be due to a relatively small NEO. At the small end of the NEO population size range, 

NEOs with diameters of20-30 meters would be expected to cause air blasts that could 

cause local destruction of property and injuries (including possible fatalities) ifthey were 

to impact over populated areas. The Chelyabinsk Russia air blast of February IS, 2013, 

was caused by a near-Earth asteroid approximately 20 meters in size and the more 

powerful Tunguska blast over Russian Siberia in 1908 was due to an object of about 30-

SO meters in diameter. Impacting NEOs of about 140 meters in diameter would cause 

regional devastation over land and possibly cause tsunamis in the more likely event they 

impacted into the oceans. NEOs larger than a kilometer or two would be expected to 

cause catastrophic effects for all nations, but especially in third world countries that lack 

the resources to recover from extensive crop failures and widespread infrastructure 

damage. 

S. What are the areas in which there is a lack of knowledge or understanding ofNEOs? And 

what barriers does the private sector face in gaining the knowledge necessary to quantify 

and mitigate the risk ofNEO impacts? 
158 

ANSWER: In terms of the effects caused by the impacts of relatively large NEOs, the 

expected damage due to water impacts and the subsequent generation of tsunamis is an 

area of great uncertainty. Givcn that the Earth's surface is about two thirds covered with 

oceans, an ocean impact is the most likely scenario but the efficiency with which a NEO 

impact could cause a tsunami is not well understood. 

Deflection techniques are another area in need of further study. While considerable 

thinking has gone into a variety of approaches (including a purposeful collision by a high 

speed spacecraft as well as redirection of the NEO's path by use of thrusting), more 

extensive analysis will be required before any of them can be considered well understood. 

The success with which the currcnt surveys have undertaken the NEO discovery 

searches, as well as the success of the subsequent follow-up observations and 

characterization studies, is largely due to the cooperative efforts of NASA and several 

diverse entities within the academic community. By means of~ASA's annual peerreview proposal process, funding is provided to the most promising, innovative and 

successful NEO researchers. It is di fficult to think of a more efficient process for 

exploiting the widespread expertise and knowledge centers that are required for 

addressing the complex NEO issues. 

6. From where you operate, how would you describe the level of coordination between 

governments and outside organizations? What improvements need to be made? 

ANSWER: Under the auspices of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space (UN COPUOS), Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, there has been an 

ongoing effort by the Subcommittee's NEO Working Group to provide an international 

framework for the detection and warning for NEOs that may represent a threat to Earth. 

An International Asteroid Warning Nctwork (IA WN) has been proposed to link together 

the institutions that are already performing many of the proposed functions ofthe lAWN. 

Many of thesc functions are already being successfully carried out by NASA sponsored 

efforts. In addition, a Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMP AG) has been 

proposed to facilitate the gathering of necessary NEO data and to coordinate among the 

international entities that would likely be involved in mitigation and civil defense 

activities. While improvement to coordination efforts among international partners should 

continue, there has been an excellent start to these activities. There is reason to believe 

that the ongoing process will be successful in providing international guidelines and 

protocols that will guide a futnre international response to a threatening NEO. 

7. What can the U.S. government do to encourage the advancement of private sector 

technologies that detect and track NEOs? 

ANSWER: NASA support and funding has been key to the success of the search and 

post-discovery follow-up and characterization observations ofNEOs. Without this 

government support, none of this success would have been possible. As an example, 

NASA is working collaborativcly with the privately funded B612 Foundation by 

providing technical assistance and operational support through a Space Act Agreement 
159 

on their efforts to build a space observatory to detect 1 DO-meter size objects and larger 

that could come near Earth's orbit. NASA will also provide B612 access to our Deep 

Space Network for telecommunications with the spacecraft for commanding and data 

downlink. 

However, the private sector also has a very important role to play. The sophisticated 

telescopes, sensors, computers and other technologies used to provide and analyze the 

data taken on NEOs are largely a result of work done by the private sector. By providing 

the necessary support to NASA's NEO Observations Program, the best peer-reviewed 

innovative ideas are funded to discover, follow-up and physically characterize the 

population ofNEOs. The recipients of these successful proposal grants often tum to lhe 

private sector to provide the technology to carry out their innovative ideas. This process 

insures a steady stream of new ideas that push the private sector providers to advance 

lheir technologies and remain competitive. 

8. Should the cleanup of space debris primarily be a government issue, or is this something 

in which the private sector should be involved? What are the potential benefits to private 

organizations that become involved in the business of space-debris removal? 

ANSWER: NASA, with the help of DoD, industry, and academia, has completed an 

extensive review of orbital debris removal concepts. None ofthese concepts currently 

meet minimum requirements for technical maturity and affordability. However, as 

directed by the President's National Space Policy (2010), NASA and DoD are continuing 

to pursue development of early-stage technologies and techniques to mitigate and remove 

on-orbit debris, reduce hazards, and increase understanding of the current and future 

debris environment. 

Any remediation of the near-Earth space environment, if and when it happens, will 

necessarily involve an international effort. International treaties prevent a country from 

removing space objects which do not belong to it and the U.S. is responsible for less than 

one-third of all cataloged debris now in Earth orbit. In fact, only 6% of all objects now in 

low Earth orbit with a mass larger than one metric ton (these are lhe objects with highest 

potential for causing future damage) belong to the U.S. 

Early-stage technology work on debris removal technologies has begun and will likely 

continue in order to develop the capabilities necessary in time for potential future 

operations. Unlike the recycling of waste on Earth, orbital debris does not yet have an 

intrinsic value which would support a purely commercial undertaking. Efforts to date 

have been conductcd by national governments, although the capabilities of the private 

sector could be leveraged in the future. 

9. How can the U.S. government and the private sector work together to best utilize their 

combined resources? 

ANSWER: As noted in the response to question 1, the NASA supported NEO 

Observations program is already working closely with the private sector to bring into use 
160 

the most sophisticated technologies. The U.S. space program has always heen a driving 

force for private sector technology innovation. 

10. What is the current system for international coordination in the event of an imminent 

NEO thrcat? What recommendations do you have to improve that system? 

ANSWER: As noted in the response to question 6, there is a successful, ongoing 

international process to coordinate the international response to a NEO threat, either an 

imminent threat or one that is years into the future. 

11. Do you know of any international private organizations that are involved in NEO 

detection or mitigation? If so, in what ways could they contribute to the combined 

detection and mitigation efforts ofthe U.S. government and private sector and foreign 

governments? 

ANSWER: There are several private organizations already involved in NEO detection 

and mitigation in cooperation with NASA the European Space Agency, and the European 

Commission. For example, in the U.S., there are plans for Ball Aerospace to build an 

infrared space-based NEO discovery telescope for the B612 Foundation. The B612 

Foundation plans to philanthropically fund this effort and NASA has signed a Space Act 

Agreement with B612 to provide advisory information as well as spacecraft tracking and 

navigation support. Dr. Ed Lu has testified concerning this concept. In Europe, the 

Astrium Company is working with NEOShield, currently funded by a European 

Commission grant, to make plans for a NEO deflection demonstration mission as well as 

providing technical support for a number ofNEO deflection studies being undertaken by 

NEOShield. NASA personnel are already involved with these NEO efforts and NASA 

will continue to look for ways to leverage the expertise and resources of the private sector 

and foreign governments. 

12. Have there been discussions and agreements on how much involvement in the mitigation 

process foreign governments are willing to provide to the U.S. government in thc event of 

a NEO where destruction is limited to U.S. soil? How mueh aid is the U.S. willing to 

provide in a converse situation? 

ANSWER: Mitigation of an impact is an international issue and will require a cooperative 

response by all space-faring nations. While there have been preliminary discussions about 

the mitigation process among space-faring nations under the auspices of UN COPUOS, 

these diseussions are ongoing and have not reaehed the level of detail required to address 

the issue of which nation, or nations, would be authorized to attempt a NEO deflection 

mission. In addition, there have not yet been substantive discussions on how the 

necessary resources would be provided for a NEO mitigation campaign. These issues will 

be addressed in future meetings of UN COPUOS or among teehnically capable nations. 

13. How would you characterize the U.S. government's participation in UN COPUOS as it 

relates to asteroid detection and disaster mitigation? 
161 

ANSWER: As noted in the response to question 6, the U.S. government, with NASA in 

the lead, is currently participating in a productive, ongoing effort within UN COPUOS to 

establish an International Asteroid Warning Network (IA WN) and a Space Mission 

Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG). While the vast majority of the NEO discoveries, 

follow-up and characterization observations to date have been carried out by NASA, the 

European Space Agency, Japan, Russia and other nations are becoming more engaged 

and these cooperative efforts are being encouraged as a result ofthe UN COPUOS 

activities. 

14. NEO detection and mitigation is an international concern. How are foreign governments 

contributing to the costs of U.S. government NEO detection technologies, and vice versa? 

For example, what is the U.S. government's involvcment in the Near Earth Object 

Dynamic Site compared to that of foreign governments, and is this an adcquatc 

distribution of cost sharing and responsibility? 

ANSWER: There has been no direct funding exchanged between NASA and its 

international partners for NEO activities, but there have been significant cooperative 

efforts and information exchanges between these partners. NASA is currently providing 

the vast majority of resources for the discovery, follow-up and physical characterization 

ofNEOs through support of projects at US institutions. NASA-supported projects have 

discovered approximately 98% of all NEOs. Howevcr, the European Space Agency's 

(ESA) Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Program is now funding a one-meter 

telescope in Tenerife that provides valuable follow-up observations and ESA also 

completely funds the Ncar-Earth Object Dynamic Site (NEODyS) in Pisa, Italy. This 

latter site presents the results of orbital computations and, if appropriate, impact 

probability calculations for all discovered NEOs and it provides a valuable cross check 

on the parallel efforts being carried out by the NASA-supported NEO Program Office 

located at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The JPL and Pisa offices are in constant 

communication to verify their respective orbital and impact probability computations. In 

those rare cases when an object has a non-zero impact probability in the near future, JPL 

and Pisa cross check one another before posting results on their respective websites. 

ESA's SSA program is also funding a NEO data collection activity in Germany where all 

the physical characteristics for known near-Earth objects are archived and made available 

to the international cornmunity via their website. The NEOShield effort, funded by the 

European Commission and noted in the response to question 11, is also active in studying 

the various techniques that could be used to deflect or disrupt a NEO on an Earth 

threatening trajectory. Japan's very successful Hayabusa mission achieved a rendezvous 

with near-Earth object Itokawa in 2005 and returned a small sample from the surface of 

this object in June 2010. NASA provided some spacecraft tracking and spacecraft 

navigation support and several U.S. members of the scientific community participated on 

the Hayabusa Science Team. Japan is currently planning a Hayabusa 2 mission to another 

near-Earth asteroid and there will likely be continued cooperative efforts with NASA 

participation. These Hayabusa NEO rendezvous missions, along with NASA's 

rendezvous mission to near-Earth asteroid Eros in 2000, the rendezvous and sample 

return mission OSIRIS-REx, and the planned first-ever mission to identify, capture, and 
162 

redirect an asteroid into orbit around the Moon for future astronaut rendezvous and 

sampling are, and will be, important sources for the detailed understanding of near-Earth 

object structures and compositions. Russia is also undertaking studies to better 

understand the optimal techniques for deflecting near- Earth asteroids. 

15. Considering the low probability of a devastating NEO impact, are detection and 

mitigation projects worth their high costs? 

ANSWER: An early discovery of an Earth-threatening NEO would allow the time to 

safely deflect it with existing technologies. As the search for NEOs continues, and more 

and more of them are discovered and tracked one hundred or more years into the future, 

their risks to Earth can be evaluated. More than 95 percent of the largest NEOs (l 

kilometer and larger) have already been discovered for a total cost ofless than $70 

million spread over 15 years, and it is reassuring to know that none represent a serious 

impact threat in the next one hundred years. Despite the low probability of a devastating 

NEO impact, it seems prudent to continue to invest in strategies for early warning and 

mitigation. 

16. The Presidcnt's Budget places NASA's asteroid strategy as a more visible component of 

the agency's mission, particularly in regard to human spaceflight. The agency is 

proposing combining agency efforts to ultimately have a human mission plmmed for 

2021. What are your thoughts about the Administration's proposal? Specifically, can the 

various components NASA says it needs for a human mission benefit the overall goals 

we are discussing here today? 

ANSWER: The FY 2014 President's budget contains funding to accelerate technology 

development in areas important in their own ways for exploration, including advanced 

solar propulsion. It also provides funds to begin planning for an Asteroid Redirect 

Mission (ARM) that would utilize advanced solar propulsion technologies to rendezvous 

with, and redirect, a small NEO (about 7 meters in diameter) and bring it back into a 

stable orbit in the lunar vicinity for sampling by astronauts. While the ARM planning is 

not driven by science objectives, the necessary search for a suitable target asteroid would 

certainly provide an increase in the discovery rate ofNEOs along with a concomitant 

increase in the characterization of this population. Since the stringent requirements for a 

suitable ARM target body dictate that these targets be in rather Earth-like orbits, this 

population of Earth's closest celestial neighbors would be better characterized than is 

currently the case. Those NEOs that are most easily reached by spacecraft, or most 

suitable for round trip human exploration, are the same objects that represent the greatest 

likelihood of striking Earth. A better understanding of this population would benefit both 

planetary science and planetary defense. 
163 

Questions from Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson to Dr. Yeomans 

1. This Committee is working on reauthorizing NASA for FY 2014 and beyond. In your 

view, what priorities with regard to NEOs do we need to address in legislation? How do 

we ensure that private-sector and international initiatives are effectively leveraged and 

integrated into a global response? 

ANSWER: To best understand and characterize specific NEOs, early detection is key. 

The approach within the NEO Program in the President's FY14 budget request is to 

expand the existing NEO detection and characterization activities. This includes making 

available more time on existing ground-based observatories capable of detecting or 

characterizing NEOs, such as Pan-STARRS or the Space Surveillance Telescope (SST). 

Also, the President's budget contains funding for an Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) 

that would utilize advanced solar propulsion technologies to rendezvous with, and 

redirect, a small NEO (about 7 meters in diameter) and bring it back into a stable orbit in 

the lunar vicinity for possible study by astronauts. Whilc the ARM planning is not driven 

by science objectives, the necessary search for a suitable target asteroid would certainly 

provide an increase in the discovery rate ofNEOs along with a simultaneous increase in 

the characterization of this population. Since the stringent requirements for a suitable 

ARt\1 target body dictate that these targets be in rather Earth-like orbits, this population 

of Earth's closest celestial neighbors would be better characterized than is currently the 

case. A better understanding of this population would benefit both planetary science and 

planetary defense. 

Deflection techniques are another area in need of further study. While considerable 

thinking has gone into a varicty of approaches (including a purposeful collision by a high 

speed spacecraft as well as redirection ofthe NEO's path by use ofthrusting), more 

extensive analysis will be required before any of them can be considered well understood. 

The on-going international cooperative mission studies and NEO data gathering are 

effective ways to leverage the resources and expertise in the international community. 

2. What are the risks, if any, of relying on non-government organizations to provide data 

needed to meet a congressional mandate? If such non-governmental capabilities are 

delayed or become unavailable, what options would the government have to obtain the 

needed data? 

ANSWER: NASA has established a Space Act Agreement with the B612 Foundation on 

their Sentinel Project to provide some technical advice, spacecraft tracking and 

navigation services as well as processing the observations through the existing NASAsupported Minor Planet Center and NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office. While 

NASA fully supports the Sentinel activity, NASA continues to monitor its progress and 

assess its viability, and more robust alternative options are being studied. In addition, 

NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) and Science 

Mission Directorate (SMD), through the Joint Robotic Precursor Activity (JRPA) office, 
164 

are studying instrument concepts for a mission of opportunity to be hosted on a US 

Government or commercial spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit that will be capable of 

detecting and tracking asteroids in orbits very similar to Earth's; NASA released a 

Request for Information (RFI) in August 2012 and is studying the instrument concepts 

that were submittcd. Another alternativc would be to place a space-based infrared 

telescope at a location about one million miles on the sunward side of the Earth at the socalled L1 point. This would allow continuous observations and image downlinks of nearEarth objects down to sizes below 100 meters. NASA is committed to satisfYing the 

Congressional mandate to find and track 90% of the near-Earth asteroids larger than 140 

meters that are Earth impact hazards. 

3. What are the key challenges to meeting Congressional direction on surveying, detecting, 

and characterizing near-Earth objects equal to or greater than 140 meters in diameter by 

2020? In your opinion, is this a technological issue or are budgetary resources the key 

pacing item? 

ANSWER: The key challenge in meeting the Congressional direction outlined in the 2005 

NASA Authorization Act is to efficiently detect the remaining thousands of undiscovered 

140 meter and larger sized NEOs within the next several years. 

While ground-based surveys are making excellent progress increasing the discovery rate, 

it will require a space-based infrared NEO telescope to significantly increase the current 

detection rate. The expertise and technology exist to build, launch and operate an infrared 

telescope, located either in a heliocentric orbit at a distance similar to that of the planet 

Venus or located on the Earth-Sun line about one million miles sunward of Earth (at thc 

so-called first Lagrange point, or Ll). The B612 Foundation has announced plans to 

philanthropically fund an effort to operate an infrared telescope in a Venus-like orbit. 

NASA has signed a Space Act Agreement with B612 to provide advisory information as 

well as spacecraft tracking and navigation support. Dr. Ed Lu has testified conceming 

this concept. NASA has also funded an advanced infrared detector development that 

could be employed on an infrared telescope operating at thc Sun-Earth Ll position. In 

addition, NASA is advancing work on instrument concepts for a mission of opportunity 

to be hosted on a US Government or commercial spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit that 

will bc capable of detecting and tracking asteroids in orbits very similar to 

Earth's. NASA is also evaluating reactivating our NEOWISE activity, a very successful 

use of an Earth-orbiting, Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) space telescope 

that was used in 2010-2011 to find and physically characterize near-Earth objects. 

4. What are the challenges involved in assimilating NEO detection and characterization 

input from multiple observing platforms? How could this be done? 

ANSWER: NEO detection, foHow-up observations and physical characterization 

measurements are already being carried out at multiple international observatories and 

coordinated within a few NASA and ESA supported facilities. The discovery and followup observations are forwarded to the international central clearing house at the NASAsupported Minor Planet Center (MPC) and from there these observation are forwarded to 
165 

both the computational centers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the NEODyS 

facility in Pisa, Italy. This latter facility is supported by the European Space Agency's 

Space Situational Awareness program. In turn, the MPC, JPL and the NEODyS facilities 

provide observing predictions (ephemerides) to the observer community. At JPL, 

observing position, velocity and range predictions are provided to observers at the 

planetary radar facilities at Goldstone's 70-meter antenna in southern California and to 

observers at the 305-rnetcr antenna located in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. JPL's automated 

Horizons on-line ephemeris service provides more than 80,000 ephemeris products daily 

to the international research communities. While challenges will arise for assimilating 

NEO detection and characterization inputs from multiple ground-based and space-based 

platforms, the successful track record for ground-based observing platforms suggests 

these challenges will be met in a straightforward manner. 

5. To what extent do international space agencies or international facilities contribute to 

NASA's NEO survey and/or a worldwide effort of surveying, tracking, and 

characterizing potentially hazardous near-Earth objects? How effective is communication 

and data-sharing on near-Earth object tracking among nations? What is the degree of 

international involvement in studying deflection options for NEOs? W11at more could be 

done? 

ANSWER: The international community ofNEO researchers is well coordinated and has 

been working cooperatively for several years. The international communication and data 

sharing channels are operating well. 

While NASA has been responsible for almost all of the NEO discoveries and the efforts 

to physically characterize a representative sample of these objects, there has been recent 

progress in NEO research in the international community as well. In particular, there are 

ongoing efforts, funded by the European Space Agency, to collect and archive the 

existing physical data on NEOs, to compute orbits and predict close Earth approachcs in 

parallel with similar efforts at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and to provide the critically 

important post-discovery follow-up observations that allow accurate orbits to be 

determined for recently discovered NEOs. Under a grant provided by the European 

Commission, the NEOShield program is carrying out studies to determine the optimal 

techniques for NEO deflection and as well as outlining plans for an asteroid deflection 

demonstration mission. The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has 

successfully carried out the rendezvous mission Hayabusa to near-Earth asteroid Itokawa 

and returned a small sample to Earth in June 2010 so that the international community 

can carry out detailed analyses to determine the elemental composition of this NEO. 

JAXA is also making plans for a Hayabusa 2 mission to rendezvous with, and return a 

sample from, another near-Earth asteroid. U.S. scientists are interacting or participating 

with the ESA, European Commission and JAXA activities. In addition, Russian scientists 

have carried out a number of studies to investigate options for deflecting NEOs. 

All international discovery and follow-up observations as well as preliminary orbital 

computations for NEOs are carried out at the NASA-sponsored Minor Planet Center 

(MPC) in Cambridge Massachusetts. The MPC is the recognized international 
166 

clearinghouse for these data and its work is carried out under the auspices of the 

International Astronomical Union. The MPC collects and archives these data, notifies the 

international observing community which objects need follow-up observations and is the 

first agency to announce the possibility of short term Earth close approaches or impacts. 

The MPC has been in continuous operation since 1947 and is instrumental in the effective 

and timely communication of };'EO discoveries, coming close Earth approaches and 

future NEO observing opportunities. 

Because the first step in deflecting hazardous NEOs is to fmd them early enough to allow 

a successful mitigation campaign, the emphasis to date has appropriately been on the 

NEO search, follow-up and characterization efforts. Nevertheless, there have been 

several studies carried out to investigate the optimal techniques and mission designs to 

deflect NEOs. For example, JPL personnel carried out a 2012 study to better understand 

the viable mission options for deflecting a NEO designated 2011 AG5 in the unlikely 

event that this object's non-zero impact probability in 2040 remained a possibility. While 

recent observations of this object allowed its orbit to be refined to such an extent that the 

2040 Earth impact possibility was ruled out, the study outlined the steps necessary for 

planning, designing and launching an impacting spacecraft to deflect a hazardous NEO. 

Finally, under the auspices of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outcr Space (UN COPUOS), Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, there has been an 

ongoing effort by the Subcommittee's NEO Working Group to provide an international 

framework for the detection and warning for NEOs that may represent a threat to Earth. 

An International Asteroid Warning Network (IA WN) has been proposed to link together 

the institutions that are already performing many of the proposed functions of the IA WN. 

Many of these functions are already being successfully carried out by NASA sponsored 

efforts. In addition, a Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG) has been 

proposed to facilitate the gathering of necessary NEO data and to coordinate among the 

international entities that would likely be involved in mitigation and civil defense 

activities. While improvement to coordination efforts among international partners should 

continue, there has been an excellent start to these activities. There is reason to believe 

that the ongoing process will be successful in providing international guidelines and 

protocols that will guide a future international response to a threatening NEO. 
167 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"Threats from Space: A Review of Private Sector Efforts to Track and Mitigate Asteroids 

and Meteors, Part II" 

Questions for the Record, Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Near-Earth Objects Program Office 

Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Questions submitted by Rep. Steve Stockman 

• What are the key technology demonstrations that would need to be conducted for 

deflecting asteroids? 

ANSWER: Deflection techniques are an area in need of further study. While 

considerable thinking has gone into a variety of approaches, including a purposcful 

collision by a high speed spacecraft as well as redirection of the NEO's path by use of 

thrusting. The proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission, which intends to use advanced solar 

electric propUlsion technologies to rendezvous with and redirect a small NEO, could also 

inform potential asteroid deflection techniques. Regardless the chosen method, more 

extensive analysis will be required before any of them can be considered well understood. 

• What is the state of the readiness of the technology for the various methods of deflecting 

asteroids? 

ANSWER: The most effective approach to mitigation of a potcntial asteroid impact threat 

is highly dependent on the scenario. Near-term impact of an asteroid tens of meters in 

diameter requires a significantly different approach than the threat of a larger object that 

might impact decades in the future. The orbit parameters of the potential impactor are 

also a significant factor in determining an effective mitigation strategy. Therefore, a 

"toolkit" ofrnitigation approaches needs to be developed at the conceptual level to 

address the range of potential impact threats. While considerable thinking has gone into 

a variety of approaches (including a purposeful collision by a high speed spacecraft as 

well as redirection ofthe NEO's path by use ofthrusters), more extensive analysis will be 

required before any of them can be considered well understood. As a next step, in FY 

2014, NASA's Office of the Chief Technologist plans to develop a roadmap of mitigation 

technologies. 

• What would be the effective range (in time/distance) of applicability of each different 

method of deflection? 

ANSWER: The most effective deflection methods are not carried out when an impacting 

object is on its fmal trajectory with only a few days or even weeks before impact, but 

rather several years and many orbits of the Sun away from the predicted time of impact. 

The most important element of any deflection method is to fmd the hazardous object as 

early as possible. Each NEO deflection campaign would depend upon several variables 
168 

including the size, mass, rotation and composition of the NEO as well as the time 

available before impact. 
169 

Responses by Dr. Michael F. A’Hearn 

Threats from Space: A Review of Private Sector Efforts to Track 

and Mitigate Asteroids and Meteors, Part II 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Response to Additional Questions 

Michael F. A'Hearn 

p.lof14 M. F. A'Hearn 
170 

Questions from Rep. Steven Palazzo 

1. Do we have the tools and technology necessary to detect Near Earth Objects 

(NEOs)? Once we identify an object, what are our means of tracking it? 

We certainly havc thc tools to discover the larger "NEOs and tools to discover ones 

down to 140m are under development. We have a fully functioning system to collect 

observations and caleulate orbits in order to dcteI111ine which objects are NEOs and 

which of those are likely to be threatcning. Tracking the objects after discovcry, in order 

to detcrmine reliable orbits, is casily done with relatively small telescopes and many 

observers p311icipate in this activity. 

Thcre arc only two tools we will bc lacking if all the planned facilities arc completed 

arc 1) a tool to detect "all" (realistically 90%) of the NEOs smaller than 140m in 

diameter and down to the smallest ones that do significant damage, somewhere around 

30-50 111 in diameter, and 2) a tool to detect long period comets sufficiently tar in advance 

to react. 

2. What categories of NEOs do we currently track, and which of these present 

possible cause for concern? 

We currently track all discovercd NEOs cxccpt thc vcry smallcst ones that arc too 

faint to be tracked and most of which arc too small to cause significant damagc on Earth. 

Of the ones wc do track, most have becn shown to prescnt no hazard to Earth for a 

century or more. There is, however, a subset of such objects that have frequent close 

passages by Earth. If one of those passcs the Earth through a relatively small volume of 

space (smaller than the accuracy of our predictions), the NEO can then be deflected onto 

an orbit that docs impact Earth years or decades later. 

3. Both Dr. Holdren and Administrator Bolden testified to our committee in 

March that we have a long way to go to accomplish the goals established by 

Congress in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 of detecting 90 percent of 

the NEOs with a diameter of 140 meters or greater by 2020. What are the 

most important steps that should be taken in the next five years to 

accomplish these goals? 

As far as I know, it is no longer possible to achieve the goal of discovering 90% of 

thc impactors down to a diameter of 140m by 2020. The facilities that could do this on 

reasonable time scales inclnde 1) thc Large Synoptic Survey Telcscopc, which is fundcd 

primarily for other science through NSF and DOE funding together with private 

partnerships, but which is not schedule to begin operations until 2021 or so, 2) the 

Sentinel System, about which we have heard in this hearing and which expects to be able 

to complete the survey by about 2023 or 2024 (launch in 2017 or 2018 and 6 v., years of 

surveying), 3) a satellite based on NASA's WISE satellite with tcchniques developed 

under the NEOWISE program, which was proposed (but which did not win in a purely 

scientific competition) to bc placed at the L I Lagrangian point between Sun and Earth, 

and 4) the Space Surveillance Telescope discussed by Dr. Yeomans and funded by 

DARPA and the U. S. Air Force, and about which I have no infonllation. 

p.20f14 M. F. A'Hearn 
171 

As a practical matter of devclopment time and survey time, I doubt that there is 

anything that could be done to achieve the goal by 2020, although completion on slightly 

shorter time scales than cunently planned is probably possible with significantly 

acceleratcd funding. 

4. Can you describe the potential range of damage caused by impacts from 

NEOs? 

NEOs are capable of causing evcry imaginable type of damage from none at all up to 

a global catastrophe resulting in the extinction of many species, including humankind. 

The most common events will be events like the one that oecuncd in Chclyabinsk, Russia 

on FeblUary 15 of this year. More than 100 people were injured, mostly by f1ying glass, 

and one building collapsed. Such events should occur every several decades, although 

some will occur over uninhabited areas, including the oceans. NEOs greater than 1-2 km 

in diameter can cause global devastation, including dramatic climatie change and 

extinction of specics. Ifwe excludc the long-period comets, we have discovered >90% of 

these objects and shown that none of the discovercd ones present a threat within the next 

century or more. These events, including the very infrequent impacts of long period 

comets, arc likely to occur on average only once every 100 million years. An event that 

occurs onee a centUlY would be one that could wipe out a city if the impact occurred over 

or close to the city. 

5. What are the areas in which there is a lack of knowledge or understanding of 

NEOs? And what barriers does the private sector face in gaining the 

knowledge necessary to quantify and mitigate the risk of NEO impacts? 

The most significant gap in our understanding ofNEOs is in their internal structure 

and compositioll. These parameters have a large effect on the amount of damage that 

would be caused by an impact and also a large effect on the effeetiveness of any 

mitigation technique, whether aimed at altering the NEO's trajectory or at destruction of 

the NEO. 

I am not aware that the private sector faees any more obstacles than does NASA in 

gaining the knowledge, at least in principle. Most of NASA's satellites and launeh 

vehicles and even gronnd-based telescopes are developed by private industry. The 

characterization knowledge is generally pUblic. The only area in which private industry 

would face an obstacle is in simulating in detail the amount of damage from an impact, 

since most of the computer codes that one would usc for this arc also used to simulate 

weapons tests and are therefore under tightly restricted access. Private induslly might 

face practical issues of scale of operations and financing. 

6. From where you operate, how would you describe the level of coordination 

between governments and outside organizations? What improvements need 

to be made? 

p.30f14 M. F. A'Hearn 
172 

As one who works with NASA primarily on the scientific side rather than on the 

NEO-hazard side, it appears to me that the coordination between the government and 

outside organizations regarding the NEO hazard is working well. 

7. What can the U. S. government do to encourage the advancement of private 

sector technologies that detect and track NEOs? 

In my personal view, encouragement of private sector technologies should be limited 

to the sharing oflargc resources, of which only a small fraction of the resource is needed 

by the private venture. The Sentinel project, for example, will downlink its data to Earth 

using NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) but the project needs only a very small 

fraction of the total capacity of the DSN, which NASA uses to communicate on a regular 

basis with a vcry large number of spaceeraft. Providing a small portion of the DSN, at no 

cost or even at a low pro-rated cost, represents a huge cost savings for a private venture 

that could not realistically build a complete downlink system at reasonable cost unless the 

spacecraft were very close to Earth. Any similar capabilities of the government that are 

expensive because of the scale of the operation, and of which the private venture needs 

only a small fraction, could be provided in a similar way as an encouragement. 

8. Should the cleanup of space debris primarily be a government issue, or is this 

something in which the private sector should be involved? What are the 

potential benefits to private organizations that become involved in the 

business of space-debris removal? 

The existence of space debris is a consequence of both governmental and private 

activities, and the governmental activities have been by many different countries and 

organizations. Similarly, both government and private industry benefit from the removal 

of space debris. The entire population of Earth will benefit from removing large pieces 

of space debris in low-Earth orbit (LEO), i.e., debris that will undergo atmospheric drag 

and plunge to Earth. Removing space debris is a task that can certainly be carried out by 

private industry provided they can find a profit in doing so. Thus it appears to me that 

there is a role tor private industry both in perfonning the clearance of space debris and in 

the funding of that eff0l1, but there is also a role in the funding for governments around 

the world. 

9. What is the current system for international coordination in the event of an 

imminent NEO threat? What recommendations do you have to improve that 

system? 

Currently all international coordination is through the UN's Committee on Peaceful 

Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). Certainly the UN is key in ensuring that all countries 

are made aware of the situation. I think that multi-lateral coordination directly among the 

countries capable of playing a major role is the next essential step. Ideally, the 

multilateral discussions would include a COPUOS representative to ensure that the same 

infOimation is available to everyone. 

p. 4 of14 M. F. A'Hearn 
173 

10. Do you know of any international private organizations that are involved in 

NEO detection or mitigation? If so, in what ways could they contribute to the 

combined detection and mitigation efforts of the U. S. government and 

private sector and foreign governments? 

There are many groups of amateur astronomers around the world, many using 

remotely operated telescopes far from their homes, who have professional class 

telescopes. Although they do not survey to first discover NEOs, they do discover some. 

More importantly, they provide the very rapid follow-up observations that are necessary 

to detel111ine the orbits of newly discovered asteroids. Without these amateurs and the 

smaller number of professionals doing follow-up, many of the newly discovered asteroids 

would be lost and we would never know whether they are hazardous NEOs or not. These 

groups are already well integrated into the process through the International 

Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center (MPC, physically located at the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics but funded entirely by NASA). 

Intcrnationally most of the survey projects are, at lcast in part, govcmmentally funded 

in olle way or another. The satellite recently launched by Canada (NEOSA T) and the one 

in development in Germany are both government funded. Ground-based surveys may be 

funded in part by universities or other entities but in most cases the funding is ultimately 

derived lI'om the national governments. 

Thus the only private initiatives of which I am aware are the domestie B6l2 

Foundation's Sentinel project, the mostly domestic LSST Corporation's LSST, and this 

loose collaboration of amateurs. There may bc some additional private organizations, , 

but if so I am not aware of them. 

11. Given that mitigation efforts for an NEO impact would be determined on a 

case-by-case basis, can you discuss dome of the more general, across-theboard mitigation strategies that both private entities and governments could 

implement? 

In our NRC study, we assumed that mitigation would be undertaken using the least 

disruptive technique capable of mitigating the hazard. With that assumption, there are 

only four classes of tcchniques for mitigation. For thc smallest impactors, say up to 30-

50 mcters (up to Tunguska-class events), evacuation is the simplest mitigation against 

loss of life, although this docs not mitigate against property damagc. For somcwhat 

larger impactors, say up to 200 meters, provided one has several dccades of advance 

waming, slow push/pull techniques can changc the orbit of an NEO cnough to miss 

Earth. Many different tcchniques have been proposed to slowly push or pull a small 

NEO, but the most studied technique, which is also among the most independent of the 

physical properties of the NEO, is the gravity tractor. Sincc the gravity tractor can only 

apply a very small force to pull the NEO, it must operate for years to decades in order to 

change the orbit of the NEO sufficiently. For a subset ofNEOs that have repeated close 

cncounters with Earth, it is often sufficient to change the orbit just enough to avoid a 

certain space near-Earth at a future encounter (a space often te11l1ed a kcyhole) so that 

one docs not need to act quite as far in advance. Moving up the scale, a kinetic impaetor 

can change the NEO's orbit enough to miss Earth for small NEOs with only years of 

p. 5 of14 M. F. A'Hearn 
174 

operation or NEOs up to a couple ofkm with decades of operation. For larger NEOs, the 

only known technique that is sufficiently powerful is a nuclear weapon, best executed as 

a standoff blast that vaporizes one side oflhe NEO to push it in the opposite direction. 

More details are provided in my response to Representative Stockman. 

12. Considering the low probability of a devastating NEO impact, are detection 

and mitigation projects worth their high costs? 

The low probability of a devastating impact certainly raises the question of how much 

one should spend on this effort and one's attitude toward risks varies dramatically iI'om 

one person to another. What sets these events apart from most other natural disasters is 

the fact that we know, at least in principle and to a large extent in practice, how to prcdict 

AND PREVENT the event. To illustrate the probability, an cvcnt similar to Chelyabinsk, 

with more than 100 people injured (primarily by flying glass) but nobody killed, should 

occur every several decades or several times a century. An event like Tunguska, which 

flattened every tree over 2000 km2

, should occur ever 1-2 centuries. This is devastating 

at the local level but not at the national or global level. 

Becausc thc likelihood of an event is low, and since people's tolerance of risks varies 

dramatically, the extent to which the govemmcnt should address the issue is basically a 

political decision on the dcgree of risk aversion or risk tolerance of the American people. 

I could only rcport on my personal sense of risk, which is quite likcly not representativc. 

I am personally sufliciently risk tolerant that I would not sacrifice NASA's science or 

exploration programs, but would be happy to see the effort funded as an increment to 

NASA's budget This is consistent with the phrascology in the NRC report, which 

represented a consensus of the steering committee of the NRC committee. 

13. The President's Budget places NASA's asteroid strategy as a more visible 

component of the agency's mission, particularly in regard to human 

spaceflight. The agency is proposing combining agency efforts to ultimately 

have a human mission planned for 2021. What are your thoughts about the 

Administration's proposal. Specifically, can the various components NASA 

says it needs for a human mission benefit the overall goals we are discussing 

here today? 

I am very disappointed in the current plans orthe administration for NASA. For as 

long as I can remember, the Science and Human Exploration Divisions set their own 

priorities with good interactions when synergy between the two made sense (e.g., 

scientific instruments/experiments on the shuttle and on the space station; retum of 

samples from the moon for scientific analysis) but the bulk of the two programs was set 

by scientific goals on the one hand and human exploration goals on the other. The 

administration's current plan appears to subordinate planetary science to human 

exploration, meaning that the best science is likely to be excluded. The president's 

budget also goes contrary to the recommendations of the NRC's recent decadal survey of 

planetary science. The decadal survey placed goals in priority order I. Maintain the 

scientitie excellence in the community, b) bring the Discovery Program back up to the 

frequent launches for which it was created with a new Announcement of Opportunity at 

p. 6 of 14 M. F. A'Hearn 
175 

least every two years, c) bring the New Frontiers Program to its planned level (it is close 

to the planned level now), d) keep the flagship missions up to their planned level of I per 

decade. Regrettably, the president's budget has inverted the priorities with more money 

being spent on flagships than on any of the other categories in order to have two flagship 

missions to Mars in this decade, while providing funding for at most two Discovery 

missions in this dccade. The proposed second flagship mission is also not consistent with 

the decadal survey's priority for the next flagship, at least to the extcnt that they plan a 

clone of Curiosity. Only a significantly modificd Curiosity could support the priority of 

the dec ada 1 survey, namely to cache samples for return to Earth. 

There is overlap between the president's proposed approach and today's issues of 

NEO diseovety and hazard mitigation, but the administration's goals arc sufficiently 

natTOW that the overlap is not large. Finding only asteroids that would allow a short 

round-trip travel time to Earth is very different from finding all NEOs that might be 

hazardous. On the other hand, the 140-m survey under discussion here, would certainly 

address the needs of the human exploration program. The characterization of an NEO via 

human exploration would certainly overlap, and, if appropriately designed, could 

completely address, the eharacterization needs for mitigation for the particular type of 

NEO chosen for the human explorationl11ission. Addressing the characteristics of other 

types ofNEOs for mitigation would not be addressed at all. 

p. 70f14 M. F. A'Hearn 
176 

Questions from Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

1. This Committee is working on reauthorizing NASA for FY2014 and beyond. 

In your view, what priorities with regard to NEOs do we need to address in 

legislation? How do we ensure that private sector and international 

initiatives are effectively integrated into a global response? 

In my view, the highest priority for the NEO surveys is to provide adequate funding 

that is not raided from the science budget (which ineludes most of the characterization 

efforts). I also note that NASA's budget is not the only source ofU. S. Govemment 

funding tor NEO surveys, since the LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope) is being 

built for purely scientific reasons but with direct applicability to the NEO surveys and is 

funded in large part by taxpayer funds through both NSF and DOE. 

I note that the surveys to 140m, aka the George E. Brown survey, search for all the 

NEOs larger than a given size (all is used to mean 90% as most of us understand it, since 

we can define 90% in a statistically reliable way but we can not define, a priori or even a 

posteriori, the exact number ofNEOs to be found). ffthat given size is above the 

minimum size for causing substantial damage, and 140m diameter is certainly well above 

that minimum size, then one is not searching for the most common impactors. The 

number ofNEOs > 140m in diameter is far smaller than the number ofNEOs large 

enough to cause major damage but smaller than 140m. NASA has recently begun an 

effol1 to deal with the smallest ones that can cause major damage by funding a twotelescope version of the ATLAS system, which can providc enough waming of small 

impactors to evacuate endangered areas if they are not too large. 

Noting the uncertainties that remain in mitigating the hazard from NEOs, and noting 

that mitigation can be seen as a thrcat by certain countries if undertaken by another 

country that is not entirely trustcd, I think that the other priority in funding for an NEO 

program should be initiating mitigation studies. For geo-political safcty, this effort 

should be intcmational and should involve countries that might not trust the US fully. A 

basic research program on mitigation can be entirely domestic, although undcl1akcn so as 

not to duplicate any non-US efiorts, but practicalmitigatioll experiments must be 

international. Since the key driver hcre is a social need, this would need to be a program 

funded from additional funds, not funds diverted from othcr NASA programs. 

Integrating the private sector is straightforward for any space-based ei1ort, since all 

space-based eHorts discussed publiely would rely on NASA's DSN for communications. 

Thus NASA can easily insist on appropriate data sharing and program coordination as a 

condition of access to the DSN. Integrating thc international effort is much more 

difficult. NASA officials have been good at pursuing the issues - at international 

scientific meetings, in discussions, with other space agencies, and in activities of the UN 

such as COPUOS. However, ensuring intemational collaboration will likely require 

effort on the more purely political side, bc it the State Department or the OfIice orthe 

President or some other agency, since it requires dccisions by other sovereign entities to 

commit substantial funds. NASA can cnsure collaboration with some other space 

agencies, such as ESA and JAXA, in scientific space missions since those are all elcarly 

p. 80f14 M. F. A'Hearn 
177 

in the mandate of those agencies and the U.S. has significant assets to trade in the DSN 

and in the scientific and technical work force of the U.S. 

2. What are the risks, if any, of relying on non-government organizations to 

provide data needed to meet a congressional mandate? If such nongovernmental capabilities are delayed or become unavailable, what options 

would the government have to obtain the needed data. 

There are risks in any approach to meeting the congressional mandate regarding 

surveys for NEOs. Space missions are inherently risky but have high payoff. Oroundbased telescopes are Jess risky and much lower cost, but also less etTicicnt in carrying out 

the search. The major risk for any approach, even one funded directly by the US 

govemment, is the funding schedule. A key management lesson T Ieamed in running the 

Deep Impact project is that one has to plan for the "unknown unknowns". - the technical 

issues that arc totally unforeseen. There are more of these in space missions than in 

building a ground-based telescope, but they occur in all projects involving new 

technology. Funding and extra schedulc margin to deal with these "unknown unknowns" 

must either be built in at the outset or the projcct may run out of either funding and 

schedule. Onc of the known unknowns, i.e. a known sccnario that might or might not 

oceur, is a funding risk, whether it is withdrawal of a donor from an NOO or 

sequestration of govemment funding or inconsistent appropriations. 

The risks are primarily on thc construction and deployment side with smaller risks 

due to inadequatc data pipelines. Risks of non-delivery or delayed delivery of data, oncc 

the data arc takcn, are quite small and, in past cxpcrience have been a problem primarily 

in ventures like PanSTARRS that arc funded by thc U. S. military. NOOs, such as the 

B612 Foundation and thc LSST Corporation, have no motive to withhold data, nor do 

most intemational partners. They are limited first by funding risks and secondarily by 

technical risks. 

The best stratcgy for ensuring against failure of an enterprise opcratcd by an NOO (or 

by an international partner) is not to duplicate the effort but rather to be investing in 

altemative projects that would servc the NEO discovery goal, pcrhaps less efficiently, but 

could also provide other benefits, such as a scientifie retum or even an additional 

mitigation return such as in characterization of the NEOs. 

3. What are the key challenges to meeting Congressional direction on 

surveying, detecting and characterizing near-Earth objects equal to or 

greater than 140 meters in diameter by 20207 In your opinion, is this a 

technological issue or are budgetary resources the pacing item? 

As noted in my reply to Representative Pallazo, I am doubtful that anything can be 

done at this late date to complete the survey to 140 meters by 2020. If substantial 

funding had been provided at the time of our NRC report, it would have been possiblc to 

complete the survey not much beyond 2020, but the time to develop the hardware for 

survcys limits thc spced with which the survey can be completed. Funding becomes thc 

critical stcp in minimizing the time to completion but, absent a erash program like the 

Manhattan project, it is the normal engineering and construction process that limits the 

p. 9 of14 M. F. A'Hearn 
178 

time scale for completion. The B612 Foundation proposed to complete the survey by the 

about 2023 or 2024, but that assumes that they will be able to obtain sufficient funding to 

match their desired spending profile. The LSST is not scheduled to even be operational 

until 2021. Other potential survey satellites, such as the one that has been proposed 

based on WISE and NEOWISE, would need years to develop and launch followed by 

years to conduct the survey, so such a satellite would not complete the survcy until some 

time in the next decade. 

4. What are the challenges involved in aSSimilating NEO detection and 

characterization input from multiple observing platforms? How could this be 

done? 

The assimilation of data for the detection ofNEOs is already working well since 

virtually all relevant observers around the world immediately report their results to the 

IAU's MPC. The observers themselvcs analyze the images to determine accurate 

positions and transmit those positions to the MPC, usually in near-real time and almost 

always within 24 hours. The staff-members at the MPC are familiar with the vagaries of 

the many different platforms used for discovering NEOs and of the individual observers. 

The MPC is in elose collaboration with the NEO program of1ice at JPL for newly 

discovered objects that turn out to be NEOs. The only challenge is ensuring that the 

MPC is adequately fi.ll1ded for computing power and staff - according to the director of 

the MPC (in a private conversation some months ago), they are adequately funded now 

and the currently planned budget is adequate for the foreseeable future. Their entire 

funding comes from NASA. 

The assimilation of data for the characterization ofNEOs generally is not in such 

good shape. The observational data, obtained primarily under scientitlc research 

programs, must be analyzed by the individual observer since the observer is the only one 

who knows cnough dctails about the instrument and the observational procedures to do 

thc analysis. These analyses, which are much more varied than the analysis of images for 

positions of new objects, can take anywhere from a day or two for particularly intcresting 

cases, to years for larger surveys that asscmble data on many objects bctore analyzing 

them. The results arc thcn published in the refereed scientific literature, becoming widely 

available anywhcre from 6 months to many years after thc data were obtained. For 

particular cases of interest (such as thc target of the OSIRIS-Rcx mission), rcsults are 

often madc available very quickly. Some ofthe observers also scnd their data to the 

Small Bodies Node (SBN) of NASA's Planctary Data System, which archives all data 

relatcd to small bodies, including NEOs, from NASA's missions, but which also accepts 

data voluntarily submitted by individual researchers. Since the U. S. Govemment 

(primarily but not exclusively through NASA) funds only a small fraction of the 

observers who characterize NEOs, there is financial leverage only over this small fraction 

to analyze the data quickly and provide public data quickly. 

The SBN is the most obvious repository for most of the data and even non-US 

investigators provide data to SBN, but the fraction of observers who do so is small. 

Some ofthc key results, particularly the radar studics from Arecibo and Goldstonc, tend 

to provide their data directly to the NEO program office rather than to SBN, although 

some aspects of the data are also submitted to SBN. Small steps could be requiring US 

p.l00f14 M. F. A'Hearn 
179 

funded investigators to archive their data publicly (at SBN) within a certain time (which 

might require extra funding to those observers), coupled with a special effort by SBN to 

reach out to the non-US observers on a regular basis (an effort which is not within thc 

cun-cnt scope ofSBN). One could work with non-US space agencies to have them 

archive characterization data from their regions but this is entirely outside the present 

scope of those non-US archiving groups. 

S. How did Deep Impact, the science mission for which you were the principal 

investigator, contribute to understanding mitigation approaches? Are there 

other potential opportunities for demonstrating mitigation techniques while 

also carrying out high-priority science investigations? 

On the purely technology sidc, Deep Impact demonstrated the auto-navigation 

technology for targeting a small body of arbitrary, unknown shape and rotational statc. 

Deep Impact also dcmonstrated the importance of rapid orientation corrections since tiny 

(a small fraction of an ounce) pieces of debris in the vicinity of the comet or asteroid can 

produce large pointing errors in a 113 ton spacccraft at the high approach speeds needed 

for a kinetic impactor and likely unavoidable for a nuclear blast. 

On the scientific side, it is important to notc that there is a wide variety of properties 

among the NECk Ideally for mitigation one would like to know the physical properties 

of the actual impactor, but for now we can only know the range of properties and whether 

those properties correlate with quantities easily measured fi'om Earth. Results from Deep 

Impact are applicable only to the 10% or so ofNEOs that arc thought to be extinct 

cometary nuclei. Among the scientific results with technological implications, Deep 

Impact showed that cometary nuclei are extremely porous ~ 50% or more empty space 

inside the object. Deep Impact also allowed a rough estimate of the momentum transfer 

efficiency, roughly 2 (the range can be from 1 to about 10), a key parameter for 

predicting the effectiveness of kinetic impactors and one that is closely related to the 

properties needed to detenl1ine the effect of a nuclear blast. There is some evidence, not 

yet fully accepted, that the impact triggered additional spontaneous outgassing at the 

impact site. If confimlcd, the implications for mitigation need to be explored since the 

active area points in different directions as the object rotates so the net effect could be to 

enhance the deflection or it could be to decrease the deflection. 

p.ll of14 M. F. A'Hearn 
180 

Questions submitted by Rep. Steve Stockman 

What are the key technology demonstrations that would need to be 

conducted for deflecting asteroids? 

Since there is more than onc deflection techniquc, cach appropriate in a different 

portion of parameter space (see discussion in response to the question about range), For a 

gravity tractor, the technology of station keeping while pulling the asteroid and while the 

asteroid rotates, changing the gravitational force on the spacecraft, needs to be 

demonstrated, For a kinetic impactor, the technology of targeting a small and/or rapidly 

rotating NEO needs to be demonstrated, The teehnology of controlling thc dct1eetion 

also needs to be demonstrated, For a nnclear stand-off blast, one would have to violate 

numerons international treaties to demonstrate the technology, Fortunately, the targeting 

technology is the same as for the kinetic impactor, while we would need to rely on 

theoretical simulations for the effeet, just as we rely on sueh simulations for upgraded 

nuclear weapons, 

What is the state of the readiness of the technology for the various methods 

of deflecting asteroids? 

Some of the technologies are well understood but others arc not. Navigation to an 

NEO is routine in NASA's Planetary Science Division, provided the orbit of the target is 

well known. Auto-navigation at high speed to deliver either an impactor or a nuclear 

weapon was demonstrated by NASA's Deep Impact mission, but this particular target, 

choscn for scientific reasons rather than f()r mitigation testing, was a relatively "easy" 

target in being large and in a well defined orbit and in having a relatively simple shape. 

The technology for the case of an NEO with a poorly defined orbit, or a very small NEO 

(and small ones are the most common ones), or one with a very elongated shape (such as 

the nucleus of comet Hartley 2), or very fast spin period has never been demonstrated. 

The largest uncertainty for either a nuclear blast or a kinetic impactor is the nature of the 

target and the key parameters arc expected to span a wide range among the NEOs. 

What would be the effective range (in time/distance) of applicability of each 

method of deflection? 

It is important to note that the various techniques for deflection have very different 

upper limits, but the lower limit is similar for all the techniques. We assume that actual 

mitigation would use the lowest capability technique that is adequate, because this would 

also be the most precise and reliable technique. In other words, each technique works up 

to a certain size NEO and down to a certain advance waming time. The length ofihe 

waming time needed depends critically on the level of readiness to launch, so I will 

address only the time needed from actual launch time. I will also assume capabilities for 

launch vehicles, in-space propulsion, and so on that are foreseeable in the next decade 

independent of any NEO mitigation program. The two key factors arc the time to get to 

p. 12 of14 M, F. A'Hearn 
181 

the target and the time to act on the (arget. Ideally the dcfketion is applied very far from 

Earth since this minimizes the deflection needed - this could be on the opposite side of 

the sun or beyond the orbit of Mars, so that a small change in the orbit of the NEO leads 

to a large change in the place or time at which the NEO intersects Earth's orbit. Travel 

times to the target could be several months but could range up to a couple of years 

depending on the details of the NEO's orbit. 

A nuclear standoff blast (or possibly several such blasts from a succession of 

launches) can work for the largest known NEOs, up to 10-20 km, with advance warning 

of 5 years and can work for medium NEOs, with advance warning of order a year. 

Kinetic impacts can work for NEOs up to about 1-2 km with several decades of warning 

and for 100-m NEOs with a few years of warning. Slow push/pull techniques, of which 

the gravity tractor seems to be the most straightforward, can work for NEOs up to a few 

100 m with many decades of warning and for NEOs of 100m with 1-2 decades of 

warning. Many NEOs have orbits that approach Earth and then go on to hit Earth only if 

they pass through a relatively small region, oftcn called a keyhole, where they are 

deflected by Earth's gravity such that they hit Earth years or decades later. In this case, 

the deflection required is small compared to what is needed for NEOs that do not have 

keyholes, so any technique can work with a much shorter warning time. Thcre is a 

practical lower limit on the warning time for any NEO of up to a year or two because of 

the flight time to reach the NEO before it is too close to be deflected. The only possible 

exception might be an NEO small enough to be entirely destroyed into very small pieces, 

instead of being deflected, by a nuclear blast. The figure bclow, taken from the NRC 

report, shows the typical range of applicability in time and size (but not in distance from 

Earth). The boundaries are fuzzy both because of uncertainties in our knowledge and 

because of intrinsic variations of physical properties from one NEO to another. 

p. 13 of 14 M. F. A'Hearn 
182 

Ready to Launch Build and Launch 

10000 

---. 1000 E 

'-

Q) 

--Q) 

E 

co 

0 100 

50 

20 

10 

1 2 5 10 20 50 100 

Warning Time (Years) 

p.14of14 M. F. A'Hearn 
(183) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
184 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE STEVE STOCKMAN, COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee on 

this most important topic. 

Our Nation—indeed, our world—faces threats in the future from asteroids too 

small to be detected by our present means but large enough to do unspeakable damage to our population centers. Witness the recent event in Russia, which has raised 

worldwide awareness of the potential threat. Clearly, it is important for us to increase the sophistication of our space sensors so we can detect them in advance. But 

once we spot them, we must ask: what can we do to protect the people? 

This Committee is to be commended for its recognition of this important issue, 

and I appreciate this opportunity to address a unique technology that could provide 

us with a potential arrow for our quiver of planetary defense. That unique capability 

is being developed by a small, high-technology American company named Ad Astra 

Rocket, located in Webster, Texas next to NASA’s Johnson Space Flight Center. 

The company is perfecting the ‘‘VASIMR’’ plasma rocket engine, a game-changing 

electric propulsion system which originated at NASA under the leadership of its inventor, Dr. Franklin Chang Dı ́az, a former NASA astronaut. Incidentally, more than 

four years ago, during his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing testimony, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden described the 25-year efforts of Dr. Chang Dı ́az and his 

small team at NASA who kept this technology alive on only ‘‘a small stipend’’ from 

NASA. 

Since it spun off from NASA in 2005, Ad Astra has continued VASIMR development—at a much faster pace and exclusively with private funds that brought the 

technology to a high state of maturity. At a power level of 200 kilowatts, their prototype is one of the most powerful plasma rockets operating in the world. It has been 

fired reliably more than 10,000 times in their vacuum chamber. 

I know this is not the only advanced rocket being studied today. Other technologies, such as hall thrusters and ion engines, are being developed by NASA. 

However, while NASA remains an American space technology powerhouse, the 

world has changed since the opening of the space age in the 1950s and 60s, and 

U.S. innovation in rocket technology is no longer confined to NASA. It exists as well 

in small entrepreneurial start-ups such as Ad Astra and others that help maintain 

our nation’s technological edge razor sharp. The government must keep pace with 

this changing paradigm and resist becoming a de-facto competitor with the private 

sector. It must ensure that fair and open competition is promoted and supported at 

all levels. Judging from its recent performance results, the VASIMR technology certainly deserves the opportunity to show what it can do. 

Now one of those potential missions—and the major focus of our hearing today— 

is rocket technology to help us avoid a near Earth asteroid collision by deflecting 

it away from the Earth. In response to this, Ad Astra recently undertook a study 

on how this might be accomplished. Their concept involves a solar powered robotic 

craft, propelled by Ad Astra’s high power VASIMR rockets that, upon arriving at 

the asteroid, uses the plasma exhaust of one of its two engines (the other is used 

to keep the craft in place) to gently push the object for days or weeks, depending 

on the asteroid’s trajectory. A recent numerical simulation successfully demonstrated the deflection of a 40,000 ton asteroid similar to the one that barely 

missed Earth last February and larger than the one that actually hit Russia. In 

their study, the team also assumed—as it actually happened—only one year advance warning to execute the mission. This was just an initial concept evaluation. 

The team is now further developing the full range of their mission capability. The 

rocket used is the 200kW VASIMR VF–200, the same model being tested in the laboratory today, and the same model the company wishes to test on the ISS in 2016. 

The technology has multiple applications which go far beyond asteroid deflection, 

and include more economical space station re-boost, satellite deployment, retrieval 

and mitigation of orbital debris. This propulsion technology also enables larger payloads and much faster robotic and ultimately human missions to Mars and other 

points in deep space. 

The Company’s next step is to test the engine on the International Space Station 

in early 2016—a test which will validate the technology for commercial use. Ad 

Astra has signed an agreement with NASA to move forward on this test. As a National Laboratory, the U.S. portion of the ISS offers a unique test environment for 

this technology, and beyond accomplishing this important demonstration, Ad Astra’s 

proposed electric power and propulsion test facility would actually enhance the ISS 

research infrastructure by providing an unprecedented power storage capability that 

would enable other high power experiments of great importance to developing a robust human space exploration framework. 
185 

Ad Astra continues to commit its resources to achieving this critical milestone. In 

my opinion, this is a valuable technology for NASA to invest in, both for the planned 

2016 validation test on ISS, as well as for asteroid deflection and space debris cleanup. With such investments, the VASIMR team is prepared to step forward and undertake a number of game-changing near-term missions for NASA and the commercial space sector. These will help maintain U.S. innovation and leadership in the 

new frontier of commercial space and ultimately help pave the way for a robust and 

economically sustainable exploration of the solar system. 

At a recent hearing before this Committee on asteroids, a number of experts were 

concerned that there were no good answers or solutions on the horizon for dealing 

with the threats from asteroids. Mr. Chairman, American ingenuity, such as the 

VASIMR electric propulsion technology, will lead the way as part of the solution to 

the threat from asteroids. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
186 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE DONNA F. EDWARDS

It was clear from the first hearing the Committee held on this issue a few weeks 

ago that the problem of near-Earth objects (NEO) impacting Earth and possibly 

causing great harm is worrisome but preventable—if we put our minds and resources into it. 

It is also clear that this Committee has been at the forefront of ensuring that 

NASA be tasked with detecting such NEOs. 

Unfortunately, it appears that at the present time, we still have a way to go. 

Just take what recently transpired in Hawaii. 

According to media reports, construction and staff jobs at the Pan-STARRS telescope system in Hawaii, which is used for near-Earth object observation, among 

other purposes, had to be rescued by an anonymous $3 million donation after federal funding was cut. 

Imagine that, a capability critical to saving the world from potentially hazardous 

asteroids needed to be saved by a private donor. 

But wait, it doesn’t stop there. Because of the recent sequester, NASA is suspending, effective immediately, all education and public outreach activities. In terms 

of scope, this includes all education and public outreach efforts conducted by programs and projects. 

Needless to say, it will be hard to increase public awareness of what NASA is 

doing in detecting NEOs under this suspension. 

At this hearing, we will hear how nongovernment entities are proposing to use 

their own funds to save the Earth by detecting, characterizing, and perhaps even 

deflecting asteroids. 

Some of these entities are driven by a noble cause, to save humanity, and are 

banking on philanthropists to finance their efforts. 

Others, who are planning to mine asteroids to extract ore and minerals, see their 

efforts as useful for detection and characterization, since one needs to know where 

these asteroids are and what their composition is likely to be before a mining mission is chosen. 

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great if the government doesn’t have to foot 

the entire bill for proposed missions and technologies. 

But what happens when something does not work, or when donations or investor 

contributions do not materialize? Is it prudent for the world to solely bank on the 

success of these nongovernment efforts? What happens when a private initiative is 

no longer an option? Would the government need to step in? 

So there are a number of questions this Committee should be examining, and I 

look forward to hearing from our witnesses on their perspectives. 
187 

PLANETARY SOCIETY REPORT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ROHRABACHER

. .' ' .. : .- '.' •... :'. 

LANETARY ." , .. ,. . . . • Sru:IEiTY , , 

, - . . ~ ~... , 

Preventing Asteroid Impact Written Testimony submitted to the 

Uuited Stales Congress by The Planetary Society 

April 9, 2013 

Introduction 

Public lnterest in the Asteroid Thre"t 

subject and donations to 

The Plan,etaJry ,;oeiiety and NEOs 

and if it wi II hit Eruth. 

hearings 

The 

impact near Chelyabinsk 

grants. Th" Plane,tar'v S"ci"ty bas awarded 38 grants to observers in 15 countries on 5 

continents. 17 at the Planetary 

Defense Conference. 
188 

The Planetary Society has also filled a range of other niches, from funding professional 

observers in the 1980's, to currently funding research in Scotland on a potential new asteroid 

deflection technique usingspacecrafi based lasers to vaporize rock on an asteroid to create jets of 

material that will change its speed and direction slightly, altering its orbit and preventing it from 

impacting the Earth. We also support a project finding more impact scru:s on Earth that tell tales 

of past impacts. Total NEO related grants from The Planetary Society have totaled nearly a half 

million doHru's, which is quite a sum for our relatively small non-profit organization. 

The Plruletary Society also invests time and materials to educate the public about the NEO threat. 

We participate as a Non-Govel1lmental Organization on Action Team 14 of the United Nations 

Near Earth Object Working Group, working the intel1lational aspects of the NEO threat. 

NASA and NEOs 

NASA itself is providing testimony about their NEO programs. The Planetary Society, 

representing the general public, encourages increased funding for NASA's NEO programs. 

At current low funding levels for NEO work, NASA does an admirable job, including the 

funding ofthe most productive NEO discovery programs in the world. The Planetary Society, 

including its members, recommends increased support of all kinds, from hearty thanks (for 

potentially saving the world) to increased financial support. 

The NEO threat is a global issue on several fronts. Disasters could be international in 

destruction and certainly would be international in disaster relief. Deflection of a dangerous 

asteroid would imperil other parts of the world before the target point moved off the Earth. 

Some of the most efficient deflection techniques use weapon type teclmology. Despite the 

international nature oftlle problem, NASA is uniquely poised to be the leader in all aspects of 

the asteroid threat. 

We encourage NASA, and we recommend additional support for NASA, to expand its roles in 

all aspects of the asteroid threat: 

• Finding - we can't prevent a disaster or even evacuate if we don't know what NEOs 

exist. This is already NASA's key role, but can be expanded, particularly to fInd smaller 

"city killer" sized asteroids, whether using ground based or space based assets 

• Tracldng - just knowing they are there isn't enough - we have to know if they are 

headed to Earth 

• Characterizing - in addition to general science, we must understand the physical 

characteristics of potentially dangerous asteroids, e.g., solid or fluffy, one asteroid or a 

binary pair. 

• Deflection techniques - Though finding and tracking are the fIrst steps, right now, we 

have no mature deflection techniques. Asteroids are spinning or tumbling, which may 

render velocity changes quite difficult to achieve. To be prepared, we should develop the 

techniques and test them before we need them. Some techniques are better suited to 

larger asteroids, some to smaller, etc. We need to make sure we can make them work. 

• Political planning and agreement - We strongly recommend establishing intemational 

agreements now. Beginning negotiations after we find an asteroid headed toward Earth 

could prove disastrous. These activities have at least now st81ied, i.e., through the United 
189 

Æ 

Nations, but there is much more that can be done, including the various processes that 

must be put in place depending on the composition of the object, its spin, its size, and the 

length of our waming time, 

Conclusions 

The Planetary Society will continue to find niches where we can contribute in the world of 

NEOs. Our nature as a public-supported, international group allows us nimbleness and 

flexibility, e.g., to support qualified amateurs around the world, or to provide quick, critical seed 

funding to jump-start an interesting project that needs a boost. But, there are many things that 

only a national space agency can address, whether dne to financial scale, or due to the 

government level representation with the international community. 

Asteroid impact stands as the only preventable nahlral disaster. In the wake of the events of 

February ]5, the time is ripe for action. We must invest in asteroid detection and mitigation for 

the sake of all humankind.