Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/17/2013 07:15 pmI’m not exactly high on the UN as well but what they do have is an organizational body representative of the dictatorships on Earth.Fixed that for you.QuoteThe U.S. more than likely would lead such an effort and contributions from member states could be based on some kind of proportion of GDP...As long as control of the project is also based on proportion of GDP.The US should not be so stupid as to hand over its money to an organization controlled by corrupt Third World oligarchs.
I’m not exactly high on the UN as well but what they do have is an organizational body representative of the dictatorships on Earth.
The U.S. more than likely would lead such an effort and contributions from member states could be based on some kind of proportion of GDP...
Quote from: Lar on 02/18/2013 04:24 amThis veers into politics... but asteroid defense is a "tragedy of the commons" situation, I think... you can't realistically defend "just the US" can you? I can envision situations where you let the asteroid hit if it wasn't your country but I suspect that would play really badly.For large enough asteroids, it doesn't matter where it hits... the whole Earth is going to have a very bad day.Even medium-sized asteroids can cause worldwide devastation if they hit the ocean (which covers 3/4 of the surface); the resulting tsunami could inundate coastal areas in many nations.And ideally, if you were actually going to try to deflect asteroids, you'd want to detect them early enough that you don't yet really know where they're going to impact.So I don't see your concern as being real, except for the case of small asteroids that are discovered late enough that we know right away where they're going to hit... and in that case I doubt we could deflect them anyway, only warn/evacuate.
This veers into politics... but asteroid defense is a "tragedy of the commons" situation, I think... you can't realistically defend "just the US" can you? I can envision situations where you let the asteroid hit if it wasn't your country but I suspect that would play really badly.
See also http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50840661/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.USJNYNf4ARc which is a story about a UN study group.
I agree with UN as a nonstart, you'd just make the bureaucracy squared.NATO might rub many the wrong way. There are still important people who seem to not have gotten the memo that cold war is over. Conspiracies of covert military/ASAT aspirations would be endless.Maybe a loose coalition of the willing, countries that have a credible space organization of their own (NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ISRO etc) or are part of such (ESA). Other nations would be just dead weight in this matter, sorry.
Quote from: R7 on 02/18/2013 07:29 pmI agree with UN as a nonstart, you'd just make the bureaucracy squared.NATO might rub many the wrong way. There are still important people who seem to not have gotten the memo that cold war is over. Conspiracies of covert military/ASAT aspirations would be endless.Maybe a loose coalition of the willing, countries that have a credible space organization of their own (NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ISRO etc) or are part of such (ESA). Other nations would be just dead weight in this matter, sorry.I would argue that the USA should just go it alone, in the spirit of noblesse obige. If other countries want to kick in, that's great, but not really necessary. Reasonably, spending new monies at the rate of $1B/year would not be unreasonable, and would not break the bank, and would make great progress compared to the current spending level of ~$4M/year....
Thinking of this a bit more... Why should this be the responsibility of a space agency alone? Why not a joint effort by NASA and the USAF? The same could be said of the other agencies and the respective air forces/ air defense... Each can bring their own experts, assets and funds to a global program.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/19/2013 10:39 pmThinking of this a bit more... Why should this be the responsibility of a space agency alone? Why not a joint effort by NASA and the USAF? The same could be said of the other agencies and the respective air forces/ air defense... Each can bring their own experts, assets and funds to a global program.The mission would carry additional funding with it. Each agency would want the entire mission. Moreover, having worked joint NASA/DOD efforts for many years, I would say that either agency could do the job but splitting it between them would result in significantly higher costs because of the need for coordination and their different ways of doing business. DOD is currently capable of intercepting satellites in LEO but NASA has more experience with deep space missions.
When I worked the NRC NEO report a few years ago we found that there was zero interest in this subject on the USAF side. To be totally accurate, there was a single USAF officer (I think he was a major) who was interested in the subject, but he had no clout and no support. (An aside: it is not unusual to find majors and captains who embrace some goofy space ideas--see: SUSTAIN, or SBSP--that don't ultimately get funding.)NASA was not enthusiastic about it, but that was because of two reasons. The first is that NASA was being forced to support ground-based telescopes and the AA for science at the time really didn't like doing that. It's NSF's job to support ground-based telescopes. The second is that this was an unfunded mandate from Congress and no money came along with it. I think that at least some people at NASA would embrace the NEO survey/mitigation issue if there was funding involved. But they do not want to have to carve money out of stuff they like, care about, and do well, to take on a mission that they don't view as one of their own and did not think was important.There is a very good reason why NASA should be the lead agency on any U.S. effort on NEO detection/survey and mitigation, however: it is civilian. It is much harder to get foreign countries involved in cooperating with a U.S. government agency if it is military in nature. I would add to that the fact that NASA still has a very good reputation around the world, so it is more attractive to work with them.
I agree NASA still had a lot of credibility outside of U.S. and taking the lead would ease relations. This really could be a State Department issue in dealing with foreign nations. From a military, side NATO seems to work pretty well with 28 member countries. Once again you nailed it with the issue of funding... I hope it doesn’t take a quasi-apocalyptic event to get the attention of world leaders....
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/20/2013 10:16 pmI agree NASA still had a lot of credibility outside of U.S. and taking the lead would ease relations. This really could be a State Department issue in dealing with foreign nations. From a military, side NATO seems to work pretty well with 28 member countries. Once again you nailed it with the issue of funding... I hope it doesn’t take a quasi-apocalyptic event to get the attention of world leaders....I actually think that NASA has more credibility than State.