Comments
This forum post builds on a proposal by Jordan Stone (me), Jim Buhler, Youssef Saleh, and Kosuke Ikeya. Read that proposal here (it's much shorter than this post and I expect most people to just read the proposal unless you're very interested in space governance or asteroid impacts).
TLDR: Near-Earth asteroids are in largely stable orbits at the moment, and asteroid mining companies are going to alter those orbits intentionally or, more likely, incidentally. Various scenarios exist for incidental asteroid orbit alteration, like altering gravitational interactions by removing mass, accidental collisions, artificial propulsion forces from ejecta, an artificially enhanced Yarkovsky effect, and landings on or launches from the surfaces of asteroids. So, over the next 100 years, the largest contributor to the probability of a global catastrophic asteroid impact will likely come from cumulative artificial alterations to the orbits of near-Earth asteroids. Currently there is no effort to prevent this, even in the United Nations working group on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities. But solving this problem is convincingly tractable - the creation of best-practice guidelines to avoid orbit alterations and the creation of a body to coordinate between entities conducting space activities and planetary defense would mitigate most of the risk. I lay out a roadmap for this in the post.
Asteroid impacts pose a range of hazards, including property damage, loss of human life, damage to infrastructure, ecological disruption, and existential risk. They are a well-established risk with a clear precedent for causing extinction events. However, to quote Toby Ord in the Precipice: “no other existential risk is as well-handled as that of asteroids and comets". There exist many international organizations that form an impressive (but not perfect!) pipeline for detecting asteroids, assessing risks, and when it becomes necessary, organising a deflection mission. It basically works like this:
87% of near-Earth asteroids larger than 1 km have been detected, however, the vast majority of hazardous asteroids (>20 m) have not. New initiatives like the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, ADAM::THOR, and upcoming NEO Surveyor mission will continue to bridge this knowledge gap. Another gap in planetary defense is the lack of a proven mechanism to deflect asteroids larger than 1 km (i.e., the ones we care about most). Additionally, we have no ready-to-deploy defense mission for any size asteroid that might approach us with little warning time[2]. But overall, while many global experts do remain concerned about natural asteroid impacts, I don't lose sleep over them.
It seems to me that planetary defense systems will become so robust over the next 100 years that the most conceivable way for an asteroid to impact us would be by a subversion of that system. So, when assessing asteroid impact probability, artificial activities may be the biggest factor. Asteroid orbits may be deliberately changed for research and mining, or in the future, habitation. NASA actually proposed a mission to remove a large boulder from an asteroid and put it in orbit around the moon back in 2013, but decided against the mission in 2017 due to funding limitations. Instead, they launched the OSIRIS-REx mission in 2022 which retrieved 122 grams of material from the asteroid Bennu.
In 2015, the USA created the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which basically allows space mining companies to mine space resources and sell them for a profit. In 2017, Luxembourg followed suit, also allowing companies to mine space resources. These policies were designed to incentivize asteroid mining, and they allow space mining companies to operate in space by applying for a permit granted by a national government. This system notably bypasses international approval[3].
Since then, many companies have appeared with the goal of mining asteroids. These companies are receiving fairly substantial quantities of funding, they include AstroForge ($40M funding), Origin Space ($7M funding), Karman+ ($20M funding), Starpath ($12M funding), and the Asteroid Mining Corporation ($1M funding). In line with NASA's Artemis programme and China's International Lunar Research Station, there is also momentum from companies aiming to mine on the moon, like iSpace (with $55M funding). Lunar mining is relevant mainly because it brings up timelines for implementing policies around space mining - an international framework on space resource activities will probably come about before 2030[4].
Particularly the story of AstroForge gives reasons to decrease asteroid mining timelines by quite a lot. They were founded in 2022, and by 2024 they had received $40 million in funding and launched their first mission to prospect an asteroid for mining in February 2025. The asteroid they targeted was within 0.007 astronomical units (AU) of Earth, or about 1 million kilometres. For reference, the moon is about 400,000 kilometres away. 0.05 AU is considered close enough to Earth to be classified as a potentially hazardous asteroid by the planetary defense community. AstroForge lost communication with their probe on its way to the asteroid.
Loss of communication, operational errors, and malfunctions in spacecraft are common. So if asteroid mining companies begin to intentionally alter the orbits of asteroids so that they are in orbit around the moon or Earth (as previously planned by NASA), the asteroid could be altered into an unintended trajectory. Currently, no space agency or company is planning on altering the orbit of an asteroid intentionally[5] (except, of course, for the organization "Open Asteroid Impact"). But given potentially shorter timelines for transformative AI, I think this scenario is worth bearing in mind. Currently, there is no clear framework that would be capable of sanctioning or lawfully preventing a mission that would pose a significant threat to Earth should it go wrong.
What worries me more though are accidental asteroid orbit alterations from upcoming missions. The vast majority of asteroid mining missions will target near-Earth asteroids to reduce transport costs. As of July 2025, there are 2486 known asteroids with orbits close enough to Earth to be designated as "potentially hazardous asteroids (PHAs)". So far, all asteroid mining and sample return missions have targeted asteroids in this class. To be clear, this post primarily concerned with alterations the orbits of near-Earth asteroids (or more accurately PHAs), not the much farther asteroids in the main belt.
The rest of this section deals with different scenarios for incidental asteroid orbit alteration.
The shapes of asteroids are irregular, and therefore, so are their gravitational influences on approach. They also rotate at a range of speeds, so approaching them or landing on them is extremely challenging (see gif). So accidental collisions may be common, nudging asteroid orbits into unintended trajectories - the DART mission altered the orbit of a 160m wide asteroid by smashing into it. That asteroid is large enough to cause major regional damage and loss of life.
Another scenario is extremely likely given the goals of asteroid mining. By removing mass from an asteroid, you can alter its trajectory and the trajectories of nearby asteroids due to altered gravitational influences. This is particularly true for asteroids existing in clusters or asteroids with satellites (which is about 2% of asteroids).
Other effects are likely to be cumulative. Releasing mining ejecta or launching a spacecraft from an asteroid would generate a propulsion force that could alter an asteroid's orbit[6]. Additionally, orbiting around an asteroid with a spacecraft could introduce orbital resonance effects, slowly altering the asteroid's orbit. Or the sustained use of thrusters around an asteroid, or landing on an asteroid, would impart an orbit-altering force.
If any of those forces are applied unevenly, then you could change the spin rate of an asteroid too. If the spin rate becomes high enough you can induce rotational fragmentation (the first gif below) - 1 asteroid turns into many smaller asteroids, basically turning a sniper rifle bullet that just misses us into a shotgun shell. As an example, the ejecta created from the DART mission impact will intersect with Mars' orbit within a decade. This ejecta is only meteor-shower strength, but it'd likely be a different story for rotational fragmentation.
Natural forces like the Yarkovsky effect[7] already alter the orbits and rotation speeds of asteroids. The Yarkovsky effect is a force caused by the absorption of thermal radiation by an asteroid. As the asteroid rotates, the radiation is released, generating a minor propulsion force, which, over time, can noticeably alter the orbit of an asteroid or change its spin rate. This effect is mostly trivial but has an impact on long timescales. However, by attaching highly reflective or absorptive artificial structures like shiny satellites or solar panels to an asteroid, the Yarkovsky effect could be amplified.
Overall, these impacts separately are unlikely to significantly alter the orbit of an asteroid. However, cumulative effects over time could cause asteroids that presently pass by Earth to have significantly different long-term trajectories. If these activities become extensive in near-Earth space, then we could have a really big problem.
Asteroid monitoring and impact prediction may be undermined if asteroid orbits are altered without communication with the appropriate planetary defense organizations. If you alter the orbit of an asteroid, then the official asteroid catalog data at the IAU Minor Planet Center is no longer accurate. This data is used for predicting impacts to Earth, so you undermine the system. This of course has a simple solution - share your activities so the data can be updated. However, it probably won't be that simple. Information about asteroid mining mission plans might be considered proprietary information so may not be shared[8]. Additionally, countries may not share data or they may advance operations despite safety risks due to concerns about reputational damage, loss of contracts, or maybe a bid to keep a competitive advantage. So the data might not get to where it needs to be to ensure that Earth is kept safe from asteroid impacts[9]. I think there are some convincing solutions to this though in the next section.
The kind of scenario that feels most real to me is an asteroid with a 0.5% chance of impact in 2040 gradually being altered to a 10% chance due to negligence or lack of oversight, so a deflection mission has to be launched.
However, an asteroid impact hazard might evolve rapidly. Asteroids have a limited astrometric observation window as they move relative to the Earth and the Sun, so usually observatories can get a small arc of its total orbit which they extrapolate for an impact prediction. This works fine for natural impacts because orbits remain very regular, so we can predict its orbit for up to 100 years in the future or more. That's why there was such a rush to make lots of observations of the recently discovered asteroid 2024 YR4, which currently has a 4% chance of hitting the moon in 2032:
The final glimpse of the asteroid as it faded out of view of humankind’s most powerful telescopes left it with a 4% chance of colliding with the Moon on 22 December 2032.
2024 YR4 will become observable again in 2028, 4 years before a potential impact. If an asteroid orbit is altered while it is out of view[10], it means that there may be a very short warning time to plan, build, and launch a deflection mission as it fades back into view of Earth with an altered trajectory. If numerous mining missions are subtly altering the orbits of near-Earth asteroids without predicting the effects then oh my are we in for a rocky century.
A short warning time is also a plausible scenario for an asteroid capture disaster, where an asteroid is on a trajectory for insertion into Earth orbit, but a spacecraft malfunction causes it to be nudged into an impact trajectory while en-route[11]. That may make a deflection extremely difficult or impossible.
Artificially-induced asteroid impacts also complicates the question of liability around deflecting an asteroid. Currently, there are some complications around who pays to deflect an asteroid. For example, who pays if country A is threatened by an impact but only country B can launch a deflection mission. And who is responsible if an asteroid is going to impact a country, they launch a deflection mission, but it fails such that the asteroid is only partially deflected and impacts another country? A human-induced impact threat complicates this issue further. Are the culpable parties liable for financing the deflection mission, or the damages should it fail? Various frameworks may be interpreted to assign liability differently, pointing to companies[12], nations[13], or the international community[14]. Existing infrastructure like the Space Mission Planning and Advisory Group (SMPAG) would have to adapt to these new considerations - they currently have plans for responses to natural asteroid impacts, but those plans might have to be adapted in an artificial impact scenario.
Overall, the potential impact on planetary defense is significant. Asteroid mining companies will target near-Earth asteroids, so any alterations to their orbits would be very risky. Additionally, they will target metal-rich asteroids, which (quoting a colleague) "would punch through the atmosphere like a bullet through paper". Finally, many of these scenarios involve potentially short warning times for an impact, so I think there's a big problem to solve.
Metaculus predicts that space mining may be profitable as early as 2048 (median = 2068), but scientific missions and mining prototype missions are already ongoing (e.g. OSIRIS-REx, Odin, Hayabusa). So in an ideal world, solutions to asteroid orbit alteration hazards would already be in place. Additionally, even though the risk is plausibly negligible until the 2040s, international frameworks governing space resource activities are likely to be put in place this decade. A working group on the "Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities" closes in 2027 and an international framework on space resources activities is expected to come out of it.
A new international body may be needed to address the technical, legal and logistical aspects of this emerging hazard. It would support existing infrastructure like the Space Mission Planning and Advisory Group (SMPAG) and the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN) by pursuing four primary goals:
The body that would tackle each of these goals has been named the "Panel on Asteroid Orbit Alteration", and I'll cover each of those goals separately now.
The Panel on Asteroid Orbit Alteration would contain experts in fields like orbital dynamics, spacecraft proximity operations, space policy, and planetary defense. There's definitely a lot of existing expertise from academics involved in the DART and Hera missions (focused on asteroid orbit alteration for defense). Some questions that I think need answering (please feel free to answer them!):
That's it. Lots of research to do and currently no funding to do it. These research would ideally be conducted at universities, and feed into an international panel rather than having that panel conduct research.
International treaties or agreements are extremely difficult to implement, particularly during the current geopolitical climate and global leadership situation. International guidelines are an easier alternative. Some examples include the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, the Policy on Planetary Protection, and the Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Space Activities. So, based on the answers to the questions in the research section, guidelines could be created to avoid hazardous asteroid orbit alteration. Guidelines are great because they're a lot easier to create than an international treaty and they can be updated over time to respond to technological advancements. The key is to have a team of well respected, and ideally impartial, international experts produce the guidelines, and compliance primarily rests on international scrutiny of those who do not follow them.
One example that I think is a particularly useful analogue is the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection's "Policy on Planetary Protection" (the PPPPPP[15]). The PPPPPP was created by scientists to provide guidelines to avoid contaminating the surfaces of other celestial bodies, which would really mess up scientific investigations. The policy is followed by space agencies and companies around the World. It requires certain missions to send an organic inventory (a list of all organic molecules that may be introduced), and it categorises areas in space based on the importance of preventing their contamination, requiring differing levels of decontamination and cleaning of equipment for each. This policy is followed around the World, and is only broken in accidental cases, like when an Israeli lander full of tardigrades crashed on the moon.
The International Panel may produce similar guidelines to be followed by anyone, space agency or company, that might alter the orbit of an asteroid. Something like "Guidelines for Missions to Near-Earth Objects".
Compliance with these guidelines can be supported by national licensing schemes as well as international scrutiny, so, for example, the USA may decide to only give out a licence to mine an asteroid to companies that agree to follow the guidelines. National licensing schemes also allow actors to share data even if they may be hesitant to disclose orbit-altering activities internationally due to proprietary or geopolitical concerns. Additionally, liability insurance might be quite high for asteroid mining activities, and following the guidelines would certainly help with your no-threats-to-civilization discount. So overall, I think there are lots of different mechanisms to ensure compliance[16].
The guidelines might require missions to near-Earth asteroids to send an orbital impact assessment and risk assessment to the International Panel prior to launch. The PAOA may also require a statement on liability - who is responsible for correcting your mistakes if you mess with the orbit of an asteroid?
The guidelines may also outline best practices for missions based on the proximity of an asteroid to Earth. In total there are 2483 known potentially hazardous asteroids (with orbits within 0.05 AU of Earth), so I don't think it would be an impossible task to define maximum orbit alteration thresholds for these asteroids. It certainly isn't a more ambitious task than the task that was set to detect >90% of asteroids larger than 140m, of which there are estimated to be about 15,000.
Best practices might include active methods to avoid orbit alteration, like collecting ejecta so that it doesn't impart a propulsion force, replacing the mass of an asteroid with a cheaper material to avoid gravitational influences, or generating counterforces to any incidental forces.
Artificial alterations to asteroid orbits will change orbital parameters, undermining impact prediction. The "reactive approach" is to conduct observational follow ups on asteroids that might have been altered by, say, asteroid mining activities. The "proactive approach" (which would be required in addition to the reactive approach) is to predict orbital parameters in a worst case scenario from each mission[17]. If the potential impacts could be over the defined orbit alteration thresholds for each asteroid, then a risk assessment should be in place to prevent that.
A robust and (very) scalable system is required for communicating potential asteroid orbit alterations to the IAWN (for observational follow ups) or the IAU Minor Planet Center (for updating data on asteroid orbit parameters, particularly if the asteroid is out of sight). Information and data should be shared between space agencies and companies and the planetary defense infrastructure. That would look something like this:
Alternatively, reaching sufficient communication between 'orbit alterers' and the planetary defense infrastructure may be achievable by expanding the responsibilities of the IAWN slightly without creating a new body. Observatories that are part of IAWN may receive a notification if a follow up observation of an asteroid is necessary. However, later down the line, asteroid orbits that are altered out of sight from Earth may require location signalling technology (i.e., bounce the signal around the sun) or orbital impact modelling[18]. Crucially, this information does not require companies or countries to divulge potentially privileged data about their technology or plans, as the information would relate to ongoing activities and would not have to include details about what exactly they're using to alter an asteroid's orbit. But ensuring this data is collected and transferred to the appropriate bodies would be a significant workload, far beyond the current scope of the IAWN.
Ensuring compliance with international guidelines or reacting to a global hazard created by one entity are challenging geopolitical problems. It would be useful to have a body or team responsible for developing solutions and discussing these issues with national authorities, planetary defense organizations, and the international community.
I'll focus on a couple of potential solutions for (1) compliance and (2) liability.
Briefly[19], compliance with the guidelines might be enforced through national space mining licensing schemes like the ones in the USA and Luxembourg. It seems quite simple: "we, the US Government, will give you a license to mine asteroids if you comply with those guidelines for not posing an asteroid impact risk". Having a Panel on Asteroid Orbit Alteration to discuss this process with Governments seems very valuable. And other national oversight schemes for asteroid mining may be quite different, so the PAOA would be essential to communicate with countries around the World. Additional compliance mechanisms might be based on motivations from insurance requirements, similarly requiring companies to adhere to guidelines to be insured.
Liability for any hazards posed by asteroid mining might be solved using an analogue from the oil mining industry. They have something called the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds:
The International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds) provide financial compensation for oil pollution damage that occurs in Member States, resulting from spills of persistent oil from tankers. [...] The IOPC Funds are financed by contributions paid by entities that receive certain types of oil by sea transport. These contributions are based on the amount of oil received in the relevant calendar year, and cover expected claims, together with the costs of administering the Funds.
Following this example, countries that receive space resources can contribute to a global fund that would pay for any asteroid monitoring, deflection operations, or natural disaster responses should those fail. This model breaks down when the hazard is x-risk-level. Kevin Kohler has also suggested a "Cosmic Endowment Fund" inspired by The International Seabed Authority's Common Heritage Fund:
A Cosmic Endowment Fund that receives royalties for the exploitation of space resources, reinvests them into a broad asset portfolio, and returns dividends to the United Nations, states, or individuals would be required to fulfill this function.
This model could be expanded to cover hazards from incidental asteroid orbit alteration, and fund the creation of a stronger planetary defense infrastructure to prevent catastrophes. These ideas and past precedents are just a starting point.
Alternatively, companies might pay towards the running of the international panel using ESG funds, which in some countries are required donations for many industries.
The most opportune time to act is now, while activities are still limited to commercial prototypes and scientific missions, and there is sufficient time for research and discussion. Also, given the accelerating pace towards transformative AI, large scale asteroid mining operations could be conducted sooner than currently anticipated.
Many organizations exist that the Panel on Asteroid Orbit Alteration's membership and structure can be modeled from, such as the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection, which is able to balance independent expertise with representation from actors.
There are past examples of organizations that have formed to address an issue in the space sector. For example, the issue of planetary protection was first brought to IAC (International Astronautical Congress) by the IAF (International Astronautical Federation) in 1956, which prompted the US National Academy of Sciences to form the Committee on Contamination by Extraterrestrial Exploration (CETEX), later moved under the remit of COSPAR, and we got the PPPPPP.
More recently, the SMPAG and the IAWN were formed after an action team under the Association of Space Explorers produced a report outlining hazards from near-Earth asteroids. The report was written by international experts led by Apollo 9 Astronaut Rusty Schweickart, and outlined exactly what these new organizations should do. It was presented to UN COPUOS and the organizations were created.
Based on these past efforts, a two-pronged approach can be followed to form the Panel on Asteroid Orbit Alteration through UN COPUOS:
An international working group should be created with expertise in asteroid mining, planetary defense, space policy and law, and commercial space, with a particular focus on proximity operations and orbital dynamics. With input from industry (such as AstroForge and Origin Space) and national space agencies (particularly the USA, Japan, and Luxembourg), the team would investigate hazards from asteroid orbit alteration and expand on the role of the PAOA.
This action team would operate impartially with the facilitation and championing by an international NGO like the Hague Institute for Global Justice or the International Institute of Space Law. The team’s findings would culminate in a report presented to COPUOS for discussion and, ideally, endorsement.
We are starting up some research projects at the Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC) to help answer the questions too. The SGAC has a range of project groups containing projects led by volunteers. One of those project groups is the "Near-Earth Object project group" which will be able to host some initiatives to address asteroid orbit alteration risks. This would be a support structure for the action team.
Engagement with states that may be able to advocate for the proposal at the United Nations would also be very effective. This can be achieved by communicating with space agencies or national governments or by presenting at international conferences like the IAC (where leads of space agencies from around the World turn up).
I'll reassess asteroid impacts on the ITN framework with a focus on preventing hazards from anthropogenic asteroid alteration.
The main argument against this being important in the near term is that artificial activities will disproportionately affect smaller asteroids. So, this does not necessarily increase the probability of human extinction or a global catastrophic risk from an asteroid impact. I could be wrong about this though as larger asteroids are more likely to be targeted for mining. The DART mission (testing asteroid deflection by smashing a probe into an asteroid) significantly altered the orbit of Dimorphos, a 160m wide asteroid. This is an asteroid large enough to cause major regional destruction - an asteroid that size hitting a populated area would be extremely catastrophic. Basically anything larger than 20 m is enough to penetrate the atmosphere and potentially cause death[21]. Larger artificially-induced asteroid impacts will become more likely as space capabilities become more powerful and asteroid capture missions begin.
Asteroid capture disasters have clear existential-risk level consequences if they go wrong. However, the fact that the risks are so clear means that the likelihood that they'll be taken seriously is very high. So, I rank this lower on importance than the incidental risks. Things could still go wrong though, like a spacecraft malfunction (potentially malicious) could cause an asteroid intended for Earth or Lunar orbit to impact Earth. And I might be underestimating the probability that a crazy rich person launches an asteroid capture mission without international oversight or approval (an asteroid capture mission is a lot easier than creating AGI!).
I think that ensuring the incidental risks are handled now ensures that there's a platform on which to prevent a global catastrophe when our spacefaring capabilities are greater - it sets an expectation of oversight. So tackling the incidental risks also helps tackle the future asteroid capture risks.
A reason to be more concerned about artificial activities is that asteroid mining companies aim to mine asteroids that are close to Earth to make transport easier - no need to fly back to an asteroid millions of kilometres away, just go to a nearby asteroid. So the risk might have lower severity than natural asteroid impacts, but a higher likelihood. For example, AstroForge targeted an asteroid within 0.007 AU of Earth - a potentially hazardous asteroid is designated as within 0.05 AU of Earth. 0.007 AU is about 3-4 times the distance from Earth to the moon.
To address a common misconception about asteroids that I don't want to reinforce, I want to make it clear that asteroids are extremely spread out. Space is huge. You would probably see no asteroids if you flew through the asteroid belt 100 times. Altering the orbit of a random asteroid is not a problem. The problem is that potentially hazardous asteroids will be altered incidentally, and that asteroid capture missions will intentionally put asteroids on orbits very close to Earth.
Additionally, the possibility that a hazard appears suddenly due to an asteroid fading out of astrometric observational windows and then fading back in on an altered trajectory is concerning. And, as mentioned before, companies are likely to target metallic asteroids which can punch right through the atmosphere and create a much larger catastrophe.
The deadline for addressing hazards posed by asteroid orbit alteration isn't when asteroid mining becomes common, but when the norms are decided. A global framework on space resource activities is expected soon, probably by 2028, mainly because lunar mining timelines are much shorter. So addressing this challenge early will make sure it's considered as the foundational policies are created - and then the resulting panel or mitigation procedures will be able to have a significant role in protecting Earth from the 2040s on. Addressing hazards posed by asteroid orbit alteration once the actors are already used to a lack of oversight would be much more challenging.
Overall, on importance, I think the risk will start out negligible and easy to handle, but it will be important to take it seriously from the outset to set a good foundational framework and expectation of oversight for the space mining industry. When the asteroid mining industry expands significantly in the future (or in the near-term if there is an intelligence explosion), I think asteroid orbit alteration will become an important global hazard with the potential for x-risk-level consequences.
There's a collision of worlds here. As discussed in the intro, asteroid impact risks have been extremely well handled by the international community. However, the for-profit areas of space have a less impressive record, with the amount of satellites and space debris in orbit rapidly approaching a crisis point[22]. So there is no reason to expect responsible behaviour in a new branch of planetary defense arising from the non-profit sector even though it has historically been so well handled by Governments.
There are certainly hurdles in attempting to establish a new international body through the United Nations, enforcing guidelines that may reduce the profits of companies, and coordinating international agreement in an increasingly competitive sector.
Resistance may come from companies or states interested in asteroid mining for profit. If space mining companies could contribute to a global catastrophe, then their insurance costs may become prohibitively high. So, some entity may attempt to discredit the research[23], downplay the risks, or assign self-serving intentions to the proponents of safety measures. Maybe naively, I don't see this being a huge problem. As stated above, a lot of the problem is actually fairly easy to solve, and asteroid mining companies would most easily avoid public backlash and high insurance costs by collaborating with the advancement of safety measures. This is far from unheard of, like global air traffic control, safety ratings and pollution limits for the automotive industry, and "Responsible Care" in the chemical industry.
But in my experience so far working on this problem, I've found it very tractable. The B612 Foundation have been exceptionally helpful in awarding me and 3 others the Schweickart Prize for our proposal to address this risk, sharing the idea, and building momentum within the planetary defense community. I have discussed the issue with leaders in planetary defense and have received lots of support and advice. I've now drafted a plan for a working group to be formed at an international organization with links to COPUOS, and I'm quite confident that it will go forward.
So overall, on tractability, the problem is quite easy to prevent with effective communication and guidelines. Some resistance is certainly expected, but there are some workarounds that could keep everyone happy. The problem has been caught quite early, so there are a handful of pioneers and researchers to chat to - this isn't yet about regulating a multi-billion dollar industry. It won't ever be as tractable as it is now.
Risks from capturing an asteroid into Earth's orbit are very clear and there has been some work on regulating its risks, like this paper. However, almost no one has done any research on incidental asteroid orbit alterations from asteroid mining. The United Nations COPUOS Working Group on the "Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities", where one might expect to find this problem, makes no mention of risks from asteroid orbit alteration.
Overall, on neglectedness, the associated asteroid impact risk is very well handled by many international organizations, but the specific risks posed by incidental asteroid orbit alteration are totally neglected in research and policy circles.
In the effective altruism community, asteroid Impacts have not received as much attention as other global catastrophic risks, primarily because they are natural risks and the probability of a civilization-ending impact is extremely low: 1 in 1,000,000. However, we might have overlooked upcoming activities that may bring asteroid impacts into the artificial category[24]. This is the table from The Precipice:
When this table was produced, what I'm describing made up a bit of the "Unforeseen anthropogenic risks" category. Maybe that can now be ~ 1 in 31.
How much should this forum post adjust your probability of an existential catastrophe occurring due to an asteroid impact within the next 100 years? There has been no research on incidental asteroid orbit alterations, so it's very difficult to say for sure. I think the risk is much greater than 1 in 1,000,000. Maybe I'd estimate the probability of an existential catastrophe occurring due to asteroid orbit alteration as ~ 1 in 1000, with the probability of a regional catastrophe occurring at ~ 1 in 50. That's not a "business as usual" estimate. If no one addresses this risk, a catastrophe requiring an international response is very likely.
It's the type of thing where we'd likely receive a wake-up call before something extremely catastrophic occurred though, like a small near-Earth asteroid is altered such that it is put on a collision course or near-miss with Earth but we can deflect it or it doesn't cause that much damage. At that point we'd probably make sure it doesn't happen again. Then again we still have nukes after quite a few wake-up calls[25]. Maybe there will be quotes (edited from quotes about AI safety) like[26]:
“The way to beat China in the [space resources] race is to outrace them in [resource acquisition], not saddle [asteroid mining companies] with European-style regulations. Growth and development of [the asteroid mining industry] will bolster our national security, create new jobs, and stimulate economic growth. This hearing will help us find ways to remove restraints on the [space resource] supply chain and unleash American dominance in [space capabilities].” [source]
"Many [asteroid mining companies] would probably agree that powerful technology needs to be developed responsibly, but that we'll only develop an informed perspective by actually trying things, instead of designing safety protocols in a vacuum. [...] Advancing [the asteroid mining industry] is how we gain a better understanding of its risks." [source]
The bottom line is that near-Earth asteroid orbits will be changed, intentionally or not, by upcoming space activities. This is important and will become extremely important, and is currently completely neglected. The solutions I've outlined are quite tractable and urgent in their window for implementation, and will probably eliminate the short-term risk and set a foundation for reducing the long-term risk.
Asteroid orbit alteration risks:
Current legal framework on space resource activities:
Asteroid mining activities:
Point out flaws in my logic/reasoning in this post
Young people (under 35[27]) with expertise in a relevant topic[28] who would be keen to join volunteer research teams with the Space Generation Advisory Council to work on this problem would be very welcome to contact me.
I'd really appreciate hopping on a call if you have experience dealing with resistance to safety-related proposals from (potentially) industry or government to talk strategy, pitfalls, and preparations for resistances (opinionated takes are most welcome). I can show you my master plan for implementing the ideas :)
Donate to the B612 Foundation who have been supporting this proposal (this pot goes to the Asteroid Institute initiative of B612): https://b612foundation.org/donate/
I've outlined the questions I think need answering above, and I think some independent work on answering them (or examining them) within the EA community would be cool.
Thanks to Danica Remy, Jim Buhler, and in particular, Joel Marks, for extensive comments and contributions to this post. Thanks also to my coauthors on the original proposal, Jim Buhler, Youssef Saleh, and Kosuke Ikeya.
It's actually a binary asteroid system, with one asteroid orbiting around another. The orbit of the orbiting asteroid was altered by smashing a probe into it, and the full change in its orbit around its parent asteroid could be observed.
An interstellar object is likely to do this. It "would not be detectable by feasible means until it is approximately as close to the Sun as the orbit of Jupiter."
Not necessarily bad but also kind of maybe bad ._.
The building blocks are in place for an international framework: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/assets/rechtsgeleerdheid/instituut-voor-publiekrecht/lucht--en-ruimterecht/space-resources/bb-thissrwg--cover.pdf
The United Nations COPUOS Working Group on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities ends in 2027.
Most plans I've seen for mining asteroids seem to have timelines that pick up in the 2030s.
And anecdotally, it's just what a lot of people in the community are expecting.
Though, there may be some not-so-public plans to alter the orbit of an asteroid 👀
This is really dependent on the size of the asteroid and the asteroid's movement direction relative to the direction of the force applied. Forces acting perpendicular to the asteroid's movement direction have less of an impact on the asteroid's trajectory.
a.k.a YORP effect
An interesting example here is the Chicxclub impact (the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs). Scientists were originally not allowed access to scientific data on the site as this was considered properietary information due to oil mining plans. This likely delayed a major scientific discovery for about a decade - the discovery that brought attention to asteroids as an existential risk.
This scenario feels uncomfortably likely. Take the case of the Boeing 737 MAX, a critical software system called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) was installed to compensate for aerodynamic changes in the aircraft design. However, Boeing did not fully disclose the existence or function of MCAS to pilots, regulators, or airlines, citing proprietary concerns and competitive pressures. As a result, pilots were not trained on how to handle MCAS malfunctions, and regulatory bodies did not have the data needed to properly assess its safety. This lack of transparency contributed to two fatal crashes (Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302) and the deaths of 346 people.
This would probably be uncommon in the first phases of asteroid mining, as they would target asteroids near to Earth. But as human activities expand in space, this may become common. Asteroids can still be "near-Earth asteroids" even if their orbits put them quite far away from Earth at times, like 2024 YR4.
This scenario is more complicated than it sounds.
Each asteroid has a "risk corridor", which is like a line that stretches across the Earth. An asteroid could impact anywhere along this line, and the line gets shorter as more observations are made of the asteroid. However, the line's location can be known with very high certainty with limited observations, and the line never moves, only gets shorter.
Say an asteroid mining company is putting an asteroid into Earth orbit and its risk corridor completely misses Earth like this:
O |
Imagine that line stretches out to make a huge circle that goes up over your head and back in through the bottom of your screen. It would be very difficult for the asteroid to be altered accidentally onto a collision course with Earth because its hard to move an asteroid with a force perpendicular to its movement direction, i.e. it's very hard to move that whole orbit slightly to the left. However, if the risk corridor was like this:
|
O
Same imagined orbit, but slightly to the left and up. Every force applied in the opposite direction to the asteroid's movement direction decelerates the asteroid, which makes the orbit slightly smaller and could put the asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
So the level of risk from a malfunction or error is dependent on the orbit of the asteroid and plan for insertion into Earth orbit.
Implied by national policies from the USA and Luxembourg, and from Luxembourg's contribution to a working group on the "Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities":
The Law on the Exploration and Utilization of Space Resources sets out the following [...] a full liability of operator for caused damages
As implied by the Liability Convention: Foster, W., The convention on international liability for damage caused by space objects. Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international, 1973. 10: p. 137-185.
Implied by initiatives in the planetary defense community, like the SMPAG and IAWN. Most notably, the report that outlined their creation is entitled: Asteroid Threats, a Call for Global Response
This acronym is not widely used. PPP is used though.
I have intentionally avoided the mention of making any kind of moral appeal to not create an x-risk. I've been hanging around EA long enough now to know that moral appeals are not enough.
This might be required if asteroids are mined outside of their astrometric observation window.
Simulate the orbit of the asteroid with the predicted disturbance forces from the activities.
as I covered this above
This is really high level. I have a more detailed version of this diagram that I'd love to share with anyone experienced in international policy.
The Chelyabinsk meteor (2013, ~20 m) exploded in the atmosphere and caused over 1,000 injuries, mostly from broken glass due to the shockwave.
With exceptions being from anti-satellite weapons tests
The research actually doesn't exist yet. That's part of what I'm trying to advocate for.
Or, more accurately, the dichotomy between natural and artificial x-risks is breaking down as humanity's power grows. I did not feel the need to separate artificial and natural in my post about x-risks to a spacefaring civilization.
...everything is a spectrum. No big surprise there. The question is "to what extent is the prevention this existential threat within our control?"
It's possible this categorization of x-risks into natural and artificial is harmful, preventing us from seeing actions we can take to prevent an x-risk from occurring.
It seems to me that it would be good to be very prepared to respond to a wake-up call, as the attention can motivate action to put in place regulation. Like the 1984 Bhopal disaster motivated chemical industry regulations, 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout motivated safety measures in the oil and gas industry, and WW2 motivated the creation of the UN.
(Alexa set a reminder for 20 years)
The Space Generation Advisory Council requires all members to be under the age of 35, but it is also a great place to start up collaborative research projects in the space sector.
Orbital dynamics, spacecraft proximity operations, international policy, space policy, (general) modelling, planetary science, astrophysics
