Predicting and Comprehending Predicting and Comprehending Asteroid - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Clark R. Chapman

Southwest Research Inst. Boulder, Colorado, USA

Clark R. Chapman

Southwest Research Inst. Boulder, Colorado, USA

“Interface 2003”: 35th Symposium on the Interface: Computing Science & Statistics Salt Lake City, Utah 15 March 2003 “ “Interface 2003 Interface 2003” ”: 35th Symposium on the : 35th Symposium on the Interface: Computing Science & Statistics Interface: Computing Science & Statistics Salt Lake City, Utah 15 March 2003 Salt Lake City, Utah 15 March 2003

Predicting and Comprehending Asteroid Impacts Predicting and Comprehending Asteroid Impacts

Invited Session: Prediction of Catastrophic Events Invited Session: Prediction of Catastrophic Events

Fertile Ground for Fertile Ground for Applications of Statistics Applications of Statistics

The processes that formed the planets 4.6 billion years ago left many small remnant

• bjects: comets (beyond the outer planets) and

asteroids (in a “belt” between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter). Some of them occasionally cross the Earth’s orbit and can strike our planet...if it happens to be there at the same time. The processes that formed the planets 4.6 billion years ago left many small remnant

• bjects: comets (beyond the outer planets) and

asteroids (in a “belt” between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter). Some of them occasionally cross the Earth’s orbit and can strike our planet...if it happens to be there at the same time.

Comets and Asteroids

Jupiter’s orbit Sun Asteroid Belt

Two asteroids colliding Two asteroids colliding Comets Comets

Comets come from far beyond Jupiter

We are Here! We are Here!

NEOs

The Hazard from Asteroids and Comets: Overview

The Earth encounters interplanetary

projectiles, ranging: (a) tiny, harmless

• nes; (b) gigantic, destructive ones…

(and everything in between).

The most dangerous ones are very rare

but very destructive. Smaller impacts, with greater chances of happening soon, also merit practical concern by relevant public

• fficials.

This extreme example of a natural disaster

(tiny chances of happening, but with huge consequences) challenges a rational response by citizens and policy-makers.

The Little Prince Meteorite punctured roof in Canon City, CO Global catastrophe

Sizes, Impact Frequencies of NEOs

D u s t D u s t Boulder Boulder B u i l d i n g B u i l d i n g M

• u

n t a i n M

• u

n t a i n

S e c

• n

d S e c

• n

d Week Week Millenniunm Millenniunm 500,000 yr 500,000 yr 100 Myr 100 Myr

Leonid meteor shower Leonid meteor shower Peekskill meteorite Peekskill meteorite Tunguska, 1908 SL9 hits Jupiter 1994 SL9 hits Jupiter 1994 K-T mass extinctor, 65 Myr ago

Smallest, most frequent Smallest, most frequent Huge, extremely rare Huge, extremely rare

1 5 k m 1 5 k m

What Do We Know About the Impact Hazard?

How many asteroids and comets there are of

various sizes in Earth-approaching orbits (hence, impact frequencies are known).

How much energy is delivered by an impact (e.g.

the TNT equivalence, size of resulting crater).

How much dust is raised into the stratosphere

and other environmental consequences.

Biosphere response (agriculture, forests, human

beings, ocean life) to environmental shock.

Response of human psychology, sociology,

political systems, and economies to such a catastrophe.

WE KNOW THIS…

Very Poorly Somewhat Very Well Very Well I ’ l l b e c

• m

i n g b a c k t

• t

h i s !

Potential Impacts of Practical Concern

OBJECT DIAM. IMPACT ENERGY CHANCE PER 100 YR CHARACTER OF DAMAGE >3 km 1.5 mil. MT 1 in 50,000 Global climate disaster, most killed, civilization destroyed >1 km 80,000 MT 0.02% Devastation of large region or an entire ocean rim >300 m 2,000 MT 0.2% 5 km crater; huge tsunami or destruction of small nation >100 m 80 MT 1% Exceeds greatest H-bomb; 1 km crater; locally devastating >30 m 2 MT 40% Stratospheric explosion; damage within tens of km >10 m 100 kT 6 per century Broken windows, little serious damage on ground >3 m 2 kT 2 per year Blinding flash, could be mistaken for atomic bomb

Visualize the Widely Different Impact Scenarios

Global, civilization-

threatening horror (>2 km

diam., 1 chance in 10,000 21st C.)

Regional catastrophe (e.g.

tsunami destroys everything within few km of Pacific Rim)

(300m-1.5km, 0.2% chance 21st C.)

Devastating local disaster

(30m - 300m, 40% chance 21st C.)

Blinding Hiroshima-scale

flash in sky (happens every few

years)

Media hype, false alarm

(happens every few months)

OVER KASHMIR? OVER ISRAEL? HOW WOULD THE GENERALS RESPOND?

Tsunami S t r a t

• s

p h e r i c D u s t

Risk vs. Scale of Impact

Annual fatalities

peak for events near the global “threshold size”, about 2 km

Orange/yellow

zone illustrates

• ur range of

uncertainties for agricultural disaster due to stratospheric dust

Tsunamic risk

very uncertain

What Can We Do about This? What Are We Doing about It?

We can use telescopes to

search for asteroids and comets that might be on a collision course with Earth during this century (Spaceguard Survey)

If one is found (among all

those that we can certify as not a threat), then we could mitigate (evacuate, amass food supplies, move the asteroid so it won’t hit, etc.)

How Does a Scientifically Illiterate Public React to Asteroids?

Here’s a case of very low statistical Here’s a case of very low statistical

• dds, but the potential catastrophe
• dds, but the potential catastrophe

could destroy civilization... could destroy civilization...

Asteroid Impacts are “Chancy”

We’re all familiar with people who think they We’re all familiar with people who think they will win the lottery, who build homes on the will win the lottery, who build homes on the 100 100-year floodplain because last year’s flood year floodplain because last year’s flood was was the 100 the 100-year flood according to the Army year flood according to the Army Corps of Engineers…and so on. This is Corps of Engineers…and so on. This is not not encourtaging about the possibility for rational encourtaging about the possibility for rational thinking about asteroids! thinking about asteroids!

Public Education about Probabilities Public Education about Probabilities

(2003 UPDATE: This

statistic has changed in the last few years as we have discovered most of the mile- wide asteroids and learned that those won’t strike Earth this century: now there’s a slightly better chance of getting a Royal Flush than death-by-asteroid next year!)

(2003 UPDATE: This

statistic has changed in the last few years as we have discovered most of the mile- wide asteroids and learned that those won’t strike Earth this century: now there’s a slightly better chance of getting a Royal Flush than death-by-asteroid next year!)

A Royal Flush

• It is more likely that a mile

It is more likely that a mile-

• wide asteroid will

wide asteroid will strike Earth next year than strike Earth next year than that the that the next poker next poker hand you are dealt will be a royal flush. hand you are dealt will be a royal flush. Odds: 1 to 649,739

Chances from Dying from Selected Causes (for U.S.A.)

By terrorism (mostly due to

• Sept. 11th attacks)

Source: John Pike

20th Century Catastrophes: We

have much more to worry about than impacts!

Averaged over long durations, the death rate expected

from impacts is similar to that from volcanoes.

(Asteroids similar)

This is what we have to worry about this month

Fatality Rates Compared with Accidents and Natural Hazards

10 10 5 5

• 5

5

• 10

10

• 15

15 (100000 km) (100000 km)

• 15

15

• 10

10

• 5

5 5 5 10 10 15 15 (100000 km) (100000 km)

The “Scary” Case of 1997 XF11

• In March 1998, head-

lines warned of pos- sible impact in 2028.

• The next day, old data

ruled it out…but the prediction was badly mistaken.

This Week is the Fifth Anniversary of the Scare

1997 XF11 Error “Ellipse”

Original “back Original “back-of

• f-the

the- envelope” calculation reported envelope” calculation reported in a Press Statement by the in a Press Statement by the Minor Planet Center at Harvard Minor Planet Center at Harvard Actual Monte Carlo calculations Actual Monte Carlo calculations

• f very elongated error ellipse,
• f very elongated error ellipse,

done by Muinonen from same done by Muinonen from same data available to Minor Planet data available to Minor Planet Center (it took several days of Center (it took several days of computer time) computer time)

Earth Part of very elongated error ellipse

1997 XF11 Error Ellipse: Details

Returns in 2040 from 2027 Encounter with 1999 AN10

Many asteroid orbits are in physical Many asteroid orbits are in physical resonances (they do resonances (they do not not intersect intersect Earth’s orbit randomly like particles Earth’s orbit randomly like particles- in in-a-box). And they are moving box). And they are moving chaotically. chaotically. Within an error ellipse for a particular Within an error ellipse for a particular near near-miss, there are many, tiny “keyholes” miss, there are many, tiny “keyholes” through which the asteroid could pass through which the asteroid could pass that would bring it back to Earth impact that would bring it back to Earth impact some years or decades hence some years or decades hence --

• - so it is

so it is difficult to rule out future impacts. difficult to rule out future impacts.

1998 OX4 Virtual Asteroids for January 2046 (Milani et al., 2003)

Earth

The Problem: In 1999, asteroid 1998 OX4 passed close to Earth, The Problem: In 1999, asteroid 1998 OX4 passed close to Earth, but telescopic but telescopic positional data were sparse. positional data were sparse. Could it have passed through a keyhole that would Could it have passed through a keyhole that would aim it AT Earth in 2046? aim it AT Earth in 2046? Monte Carlo calculations show a circumstance that gets Monte Carlo calculations show a circumstance that gets uncomfortably close to Earth. We can accurately trace back the uncomfortably close to Earth. We can accurately trace back the orbit of this

• rbit of this

“virtual asteroid”, look for it at “its” next close approach, an “virtual asteroid”, look for it at “its” next close approach, and see if the real d see if the real asteroid is actually there. If not, we’re safe from 1998 OX4. asteroid is actually there. If not, we’re safe from 1998 OX4.

Dangerous V.A.

Asteroid Size Distribution: How Often Impacts

• f Different Energies Happen

Two Weeks of Near-Earth Asteroid Searching by Spaceguard Survey

What are the observational biases of these various search progra What are the observational biases of these various search programs? How ms? How do they affect our knowledge of the size do they affect our knowledge of the size-

• and orbital

and orbital-

• distributions?

distributions?

In the Post 9/11 World... Does the remote threat of an asteroid catastrophe have anything to teach us?

NEO Impacts in the Context of Natural Hazards and Civil Defense

Impact hazard has similarities and dissimilarities

compared with more familiar disasters

Similarities include: nature of damage partly caused by

familiar forces (fire, high wind, quake, falling debris, flood)

Dissimilarities: impacts happen anywhere; no analogs to

“aftershocks”; no radioactivity or enemy soldiers

Though a major impact could happen, it is much

less likely than a familiar natural disaster

For every future impact that will kill thousands to

hundreds of thousands of people, there will likely be hundreds of floods, typhoons, and earthquakes that will each kill just as many

Public Perception

While “known” to many from movies and the news, a

serious impact disaster has never been experienced in recorded history.

The tiny chances and huge consequences are

extremely difficult for people to relate to.

The impact hazard is “dreadful” (fatal, uncontrollable,

involuntary, catastrophic, increasing…) and apocalyptic (with religious or superstitious implications for many). Public response to a real impending impact is expected to be exaggerated (e.g. Skylab falling).

Experience with news media hype and misinformation

suggests we need more science literacy among journalists and citizens in general.

Badly Misleading News Stories in 2002 Alone

2002 EM7 came from a “blind spot,” it was a near-

miss, so the Spaceguard Survey is inadequate

• Many NEOs are found departing. Goal never was to catch one just before
• impact. Reflects basic misunderstanding of survey approach.

2002 NT7 “is on an impact course with Earth”

(BBC, July 2002) and other hyperbole

• It was a scientifically interesting case of a very small chance of impact

many years from now; as usual, a few days of further observations reduced the chances to zero.

“Impact dangers less than we thought” (attributed

to Brown et al., Nature, Nov. 2002)

• Brown et al. studied harmless objects 1 to 10 m in size; no implications

for “Tunguskas” let alone for the several km NEOs, which actually dominate the hazard, statistically.

Hazard Scales: The Challenge of Simply Communicating Risk to Citizens

The well-known Richter Scale has been refined over decades. Americans wrestled last month with how to deal with “orange”. The Torino Scale has had modest effectiveness, challenges.

Richter Scale (Earthquakes) Terrorism Scale Predicted Asteroid Impact Scale

Comparisons of Terrorist Threat and Impact Hazard

Similarities

Threats are new, “dreadful”, poorly understood, raise fears Few have been (or, in all likelihood, will be) killed...but

many could be killed

Both strike randomly, in place and time

Dissimilarities

Terrorism is consciously done (so retribution is demanded)

while impacts are an “act of God”

We can do something concrete about the impact hazard

(search for the body that may impact, deflect it, or evacuate ground-zero); battling terrorism is like the “war on drugs”

We spend vast sums to battle terrorists, a few million $

annually to search for asteroids (and how much on flu vaccination programs that might save 20,000 annually?)

Post-September 11th Insights

We’ve “learned” to fear the unexpected in

what seems like an ever more risky world -- whether or not it truly is.

(Asteroids appear to be an increasing danger, even though they aren’t, due to increasing “near misses”.)

“Objective” measures of death and damage

(e.g. ~3000 deaths and property damage in lower Manhattan) do not begin to predict the nature

• f public responses and the resulting

potential losses (e.g. economic recession).

“Who was to blame for not foreseeing this

kind of disaster?” (we seek villains in government, for 9/11,

for the Columbia disaster…who will be blamed if an asteroid strikes?)

Two-tiered Approach to Dealing with Irrational Risk Responses

Public officials must be prepared to

deal with disproportionate responses

The public politically demands that they do There are real psychological, economic, and

• ther consequences

Politicians, educators, and science

journalists must endeavor to teach citizens how to evaluate more rationally the risks that affect them

Generally, fear would be reduced; rational

concern would lead to constructive response

Our national and personal resources would

be employed more cost-effectively

Current Dilemma. (FEMA has

shown little interest, for example.)

What should we do to develop the institutional capability to respond to a predicted or actual impact? What should we do to develop the institutional capability to respond to a predicted or actual impact? Astronomers have tried to take the first step... Astronomers have tried to take the first step...