1. ESA, SSA-NEO, and politics
Detlef Koschny
Eduard Igenbergs
This set of presentations will give an overview of ESA’s involvement in activities related to the impact threat. It is not expected from the student that he/she remembers everything – rather you should have heard everything at least once. If needed, your brain should tell you ‘I have heard this before’ and you should go to this lecture, look up what was presented, then come and ask.
Image credit: ESA
Disclaimer: The following explanations are my personal interpretations – this is not a formal ESA document. 1

2. Outline Part 3 (UN): Part 1 (ESA): How does ESA work? ESA programmes
The decision process within ESA’s SSA programme
Part 2 (SSA-NEO):
History of the SSA-NEO programme
Current activities
Future plans
Part 3 (UN):
The United Nations (UN) and the NEO threat – history of the Action Team 14 (AT 14)
How do the UN work
Proposed decision process
To avoid crowding too much text on the slides, additional information is given, where appropriate, in these notes. If you use these viewgraphs to study on your own, make sure you read them along with the text in the viewgraphs itself.
ESA = European Space Agency
SSA = Space Situational Awareness, one of ESA’s programmes
NEO = near-Earth object
UN = United Nations
IAU = International Astronomical Union

3. Part 1 - How does ESA work? ESA is a public organization
=> All info available on the web. Suggested reading:
– ‘about us’ – ‘for member state delegations’
Gives organigrammes, budget, overview presentation, yearly reports

4. How does ESA work? 22 member states + 1 affiliated member ESA
ESA has currently (Jun 2016) 22 member states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada takes part in some projects under a Cooperation agreement.
Implicit goal: The money given to ESA by its member states should flow back, in the proper percentage, to industry and institutions in the member states. This is accounted for per Programme (e.g. within SSA) and called ‘geo-return’.
MP-RSSD-HO-002/1b 15 Jan 2008
SSA-NEO-ESA-HO-0155/1.0; 07 Jan 2014, p. 4 4

5. How does ESA work? 22 member states + 1 affiliated member ESA Council
Advisory
Structure
ESA has currently (Jun 2016) 22 member states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada takes part in some projects under a Cooperation agreement.
Implicit goal: The money given to ESA by its member states should flow back, in the proper percentage, to industry and institutions in the member states. This is accounted for per Programme (e.g. within SSA) and called ‘geo-return’.
The top-level governing entity of ESA is the Council. An ‘advisory structure’ supports its work, it depends on the programme.
Footnote: ESA is not an EU organisation. 16 out of the 22 member countries are also EU countries, and several programmes have overlaps though.
MP-RSSD-HO-002/1b 15 Jan 2008
SSA-NEO-ESA-HO-0155/1.0; 07 Jan 2014, p. 5 5

6. The funding for them is agreed for 4 years
Programmes are agreed for 10 years at the council meetings on ministerial level
The funding for them is agreed for 4 years
What to do is proposed by the ‘advisory structure’ – see the following viewgraphs
SSA-NEO-ESA-HO-0155/1.0; 07 Jan 2014, p. 6 6

7. From: http://esamultimedia. esa
Part of the advisory structure. For each optional programme there is a ‘Programme Board’. It is made up of Delegates from the member countries, typically representatives of the national space agencies or research ministries.
Several committees – independent of the programme – ensure that everything is done correctly. 7

8. ESA programmes can be… Mandatory Optional Science
Pay based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Pay based on interest
Mandatory
Optional
Science
General Studies Programme (GSP)
International Space Station
Microgravity research
Telecommunications
Earth Observation
ESA’s activities fall into two categories – ‘mandatory’ and ‘optional’. Programmes carried out under the General Budget and the Science Programme budget are ‘mandatory’; they include the agency’s basic activities (studies on future projects, technology research, shared technical investments, information systems and training programmes).
All Member States contribute to these programmes on a scale based on their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The other programmes, known as ‘optional’, are only of interest to some Member States, who are free to decide on their level of involvement.
Optional programmes cover areas such as Earth observation, telecommunications, satellite navigation and space transportation. Similarly, the International Space Station and microgravity research are financed by optional contributions.
studies on future projects, technology research, shared technical investments, information systems and training programmes
Space Situational Awareness
All others…

9. ESA budget per programme, 2016
(From:

10. How are decisions taken in ESA’s Space Situational Awareness (SSA) programme?

11. ESA SSA key players and responsibilities
Director General
directs
Advisory Group for D/OPS
advises
Director of OPS
directs
Programme Board
directs
ESA SSA Core Team
supports
ESA Technical Staff
proposes
User group
Consists of experts, stake holders, and user representatives (space agencies, political decision makers, …)
Advises both Core Team and Programme Board on requirements, architecture, implementation
Programme Board
Consists of Delegates to ESA of the subscribed countries (political people)
Decides on requirements, architecture, implementation (normally based on documentation prepared by Core Team)
They meet typically twice per year, normally at ESA Headquarters in Paris.
Director General
Can override decisions by Programme Board
Decides on locations based on recommendations by the Programme Board
ESA Core Team
Consists of the Programme Manager, three Segment Managers, Ground Segment Manager, some other people dedicated 100 % to SSA
Acts as ‘executive’ – manage the implementation of the programme following the directives from the Programme Board
Responsible for technical decisions
Prepare and follow design and implementation as done by industry/institutes (Statement of Work, progress meetings…)
Contractors
Consist of industry or institutes
Actually perform the work as defined by Core Team
Report to Core Team
advises
report
OPS = Directorate of Operations
User Group
Contractors (Industry, institutes)

12. Process for SSA contracts
Program Declaration
Presented, finalized, and agreed at Ministerial Council
Political level
Work plan
Yearly; approved by Programme Board
Write Statement of Work
+ contract docs
Tender Evaluation Board
ESA
1. Programme Declaration
Gives a top-level overview of the plan for typically 4 years
Content based on e.g. architectural design work from previous phase, or at least previous discussions
Side note: The architectural design is based on ‘Mission Requirements’, ‘User Requirements’, ‘System Requirements’ – see later
Defines funding envelope (discussed with Delegates in advance)
2. Work plan
Produced for each year
Lists all contracts to be started in that year, with associated budget (within the envelope of the Programme Declaration)
Approved by the Programme Board
3. Statement of Work
Produced by ESA, typically by the future Technical Officer (TO)
Contracts officer adds contractual documents
Put out on ESA tender system EMITS
4. Proposal
- Proposal teams write proposal
Submit to ESA within deadline
5. Tender Evaluation Board
Evaluates proposals
Makes recommendation on the one to be selected, on technical grounds
Approval process within ESA to finalize the selection
6. Kick-off
Kick-off with selected industry
ESA contact is ‘Technical Officer (TO)’
We normally follow the old-fashioned ‘waterfall’ approach for development, i.e. requirements documentation, reviews.
EMITS
Write proposal
Kick-off
Industry/ institutes

13. Contracts http://emits.esa.int ESA contracts are normally competitive
Exceptionally: Direct negotiation
But: geo-return has to be ensured…
Invitations to Tender (ITTs) go out publicly on EMITS (ESAs Invitation to Tender System) –
Typically industry monitors EMITS regularly to see new ITTs and respond
In response to ITT, a proposal has to be submitted within a given deadline
The proposals are evaluated following strict criteria by an ESA-inernal ‘Tender Evaluation Board’
The write a report documenting the results of the evaluation. Each proposer can request to see the part of the report related to his/her proposal.
Within a programme like SSA, the proposed ITTs are previously documented in a ‘Work Plan’ which is provided to the Programme Boards. Can be requested via the national Delegates (or Google, e.g. on the Chinese space agencys web site)

14. Part 2 – the NEO segment 14

15. Part 2: The SSA-NEO segment
History
Current status
Future
“The January 1, 1801 discovery of the dwarf planet Ceres set the stage for one of the great dramas in the history of astronomy.  An Italian monk, Giuseppe Piazzi ( ), discovered a faint, nomadic object through his telescope in Palermo, correctly believing it to lie in the orbital region between Mars and Jupiter where Kepler registered a gap in his harmonic scheme.” (from
We won’t go back that far though.

16. Start of SSA-NEO Summary of status presented ESA-internally by DVK
‘Space Situational Awareness and near-Earth objects’, 07 Dec 2007, SSA-NEO-ESA-HO-0001
What is already there?
Minor Planet Center
NASA’s NEO programme
NEODyS (orbit computation and impact prediction)
Spaceguard Central Node’s priority list
US Surveys
Study activities at ESA – aiming at deflecting an asteroid
What could be done?
Statement in the presentation: “Collision predictions are done in Europe on very personal initiatives of some dedicated scientists -> would need proper funding and a long-term commitment!”
NEODyS in Pisa – computing orbits, predicting impact risks
Spaceguard Central Node by INAF/Rome, main asset ‘priority list’, showing NEOs in need of observation

17. Definition: “Space Situational Awareness”
The objective of the Space Situational Awareness (SSA) initiative is to support the European independent utilisation of and access to space for research or services, through providing timely and quality data, information, services and knowledge regarding the environment, the threats and the sustainable exploitation of the outer space.
From the SSA Programme Declaration, ESA/C/SSA-PP(2008)2
An (over-?) simplified translation:
We will provide a service to inform the customers (governments, disaster management, scientists, the public/press…) about the situation of natural and artificial objects in space. This will allow us to better protect our satellites and our planet.

18. The European SSA Programme
Three ‘segments’:
Space Weather (SWE)
Near-Earth Objects (NEO)
Surveillance and Tracking (SST) of satellites and space debris
<- Proton and electron fluxes (NOAA)
Some history:
In the beginning, SWE + NEO were grouped into one ‘element’ (thus ‘SN’ as abbreviation for some contracts). SST was considered the most important and relevant part of the programme.
At the council meeting on ministerial level, SST almost fell off the table. Due to some reshuffling it is still in the programme. But the NEO segment is now an independent element.
ISS Station from 400 km, VSW Munich, 80 cm aperture

19. The European SSA Programme
Preparatory phase (2009 – 2012) approved at ESA’s council meeting on ministerial level in Nov 2008 (50 MEUR) as an optional programme
After confirmation at ESA’s council meeting on ministerial level in Nov 2012: Phase 2 (a bit below 50 MEUR)
At council meeting on ministerial level Dec 2016 we’ll ask for the continuation into Phase 3 - >120 MEUR will be requested for 4 years (not clear how much we’ll get)
time
Preparatory Phase
Phase
Phase 3
???

20. A two-tier approach Mission requirements Top-down User requirements
System requirements
Architectural design
Implementation
We are here
Final system
How do we actually find out what we want to do in detail? We follow a two-tier approach. This avoids that we only produce paper in the beginning, but allows a detailed study of the needs following the usual requirements philosophy.
User Requirements and System Requirements underwent several formal reviews, involving the User Representative Group (i.e. the community) and industry (e.g. the CO-I and CO-II study teams, performing top-level design studies).
Precursor system
Existing assets
Bottom-up

21. SSA-NEO Mission Statement
“To establish and support a European capability for the protection of its critical space and ground infrastructure from threats by potential asteroid impacts”

22. SSA-NEO setup NEOs Minor Planet Center (US) ESA others
SSA tasking centre
Political entities
National Cooperatingtelescopes
SSA sensors
Space missions
- Risk assessment
Obs. Planning
Phys. Properties
SSA-NEO Coordination Centre
- Databases
- Light curves
- Shape models
General users
Space mission studies
National research expertise
NEO image credit: JAXA
SSA-NEO-ESA-DR-0017/1.6, 16 Jan 2014

23. NEO Coordination Centre – ESRIN, Italy
18 Feb 2013
SSA-NEO Coordination Centre - inaugurated 22 May 2013

24. SSA-NEO operational structure
Maintenance &
Development
Team
Operations Team
SSA-NEO Management
Data System management
Development manager
Operations manager
Web Portal support
Applications support
Front Desk Operator(s)
Test & Validation
support
Science Support Team
ICT – Informatics and Communications Technology
COTS – Commercial Off-the-shelf products
OS – Operating system
HW - Hardware
ICT
Support
Team
ICT management
COTS support
ICT manager
OS support
HW support

25. Activities within SSA-NEO
Management
Develop and operate the system (see web pages)
Observations (lecture #02)
Space missions, impact effects (lecture #08 and #09)
Political activities (see 3rd part of lecture)
Public relations (web stories, TV/radio interviews)

26. Example from work plan

27. SSA-NEO approach for phase 2 Activities starting 2013/2014
WP-ID
Title
Budget
(K€)
Duration (months)
P2-NEO-101
SSA NEO Precursor Services Operation and Maintenance
350 15
P2-NEO-102
NEO ICT Support (*) 50 24
P2-NEO-201
SSA NEO Pre-cursor Services Enhancements
150
P2-NEO-301
NEO Survey Telescope Detailed Design
800
P2-NEO-401
Improved NEO Data Processing Capabilities (*)
250 18
P2-NEO-501
SLA for NEO Physical Properties 25 12
P2-NEO-502
SLA for NEO Orbital and Impact Risk Information
125
P2-NEO-503
SLA for NEO OGS Observations
P2-NEO-504
NEO Observations with Cooperating Sensors
100
P2-NEO-601
NEO Segment Technical Support (*)
300
SLA = Service-Level Agreement
Upcoming contracts in 2014, provided for information only.
(*) Ground Segment Manager responsibility – details see

28. SSA-NEO approach for phase 2 Activities starting 2013/2014
ProcurementI D
Title
Included Activities
Budget
In K€
ITT issue date/Duration
P2-NEO-I
SSA NEO Precursor Services Operation, Maintenance and Enhancement; P2-NEO-101, P2-NEO-201
500
Q months
P2-NEO-II
Improved Data Processing Capabilities; P2-NEO-401
250
Q months
P2-NEO-III
NEO Service Level Agreements
P2-NEO-501, P2-NEO-502, P2-NEO-503
200
Q months
P2-NEO-IV
NEO Observations with Cooperating Sensors; P2-NEO-504
100
Q months
SSA ICT support; P2-NEO-102 and others
50 for NEO
Has started
NEO Survey Telescope Detailed Design
800
2014
Improved data processing capabilities
Q1 2014
Technical Support
300 for NEO

29. Break…

30. UN-level activities – how to react to a potential impact threat?
History
Status
How are the UN structured?
Where do we stand?
UN = United Nations

31. History of the Action Team #14
Key element: The (now defunct) ‘Action Team #14’. What was it?
In 1999, the NEO issue came to the attention of the UN during the Unispace III conference (3rd UN conference on the exploration and peaceful uses of outer space)
Resulted in 40 ‘recommendations’
If a country offered to take the lead in following up any of the recommendations, an ‘Action Team’ would be installed
AT 14 meeting Feb 2013

32. Unispace 3 conference 1999 as the starting point of UN’s interest
See: A/Conf. 184/6 (
The Space Millennium: Vienna Declaration on Space and Human Development, Resolution 1 , para (1) (c)
(i) To improve the scientific knowledge of near and outer space by promoting cooperative activities in such areas as astronomy, space biology and medicine, space physics, the study of near-Earth objects and planetary exploration;
(iii) To improve the international coordination of activities related to near-Earth objects, harmonizing the efforts directed at identification, follow-up observations and orbit prediction, while at the same time giving consideration to developing a common strategy that would include future activities related to near-Earth objects.

33. Interlude: What do all the names mean?
2001:‘Action Team on NEOs’, also known as ‘Action Team 14’ was established by COPUOS. Two phases:
Assessment phase
Implementation phase
… “develop draft recommendations for the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on the international response to the NEO threat []. As endorsed by the Subcommittee, the recommendations pass on for consideration by COPUOS. If COPUOS endorses the recommendations, they move on to the UN General Assembly.“
The UK offered to lead this effort. Richard-Tremayne Smith (UK) was the first chair, followed by Richard Crowther (UK). The current chair is Sergio Camacho (Mexico).
Interlude: What do all the names mean?

34. The United Nations General Assembly Security Council COPUOS STSC
Legal SC
NEO WG
Other WGs: Long-term sustainability; WG of the whole, WG on NPS
Same level COPUOS: The Conference on Disarmament, Committee on Sustainable Development, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
The Action Team was typically meeting ‘in the margins of’ the STSC meetings and COPUOS meetings; they also do ‘inter-sessional’ work via and/or other meetings.
Sponsors for their work are the Association of Space Explorers (former astronaut Rusty Schweikart was pushing this a lot) and the Secure World Foundation
The NEO Working Group is part of the STSC
The STSC meets in February every year in Vienna
COPUOS meets in June every year in Vienna
The General Assembly meets in October every year (but this seems to be more flexible, tbc) in New York
COPUOS = Committee for Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
STSC = Scientific and Technical Subcommittee
NEO WG = NEO Working Group
Action Team 14

35. 2001:‘Action Team on NEOs’, also known as ‘Action Team 14’ was established by COPUOS. Two phases:
Assessment phase
Implementation phase
… “develop draft recommendations for the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on the international response to the NEO threat []. As endorsed by the Subcommittee, the recommendations pass on for consideration by COPUOS. If COPUOS endorses the recommendations, they move on to the UN General Assembly.“
AT-14 milestone: 2008 report by the Association of Space Explorers “Asteroid Threats: A call for Global Response” (see and
The final AT-14 report was presented in February 2013 to the STSC; at COPUOS in June 2013; at General Assy in New York in October 2013
A key player of the ASE: Former astronaut Rusty Schweikert
The UK offered to lead this effort. Richard-Tremayne Smith (UK) was the first chair, followed by Richard Crowther (UK). The current chair is Sergio Camacho (Mexico).
Why do things take so long? Because the UN works by consensus. This means: It took 5 years to produce the recommendations, but now everybody is behind them.
Interim reports can be found at

36. Presented graphically
To be said in addition: Both IAWN and SMPAG should report regularly (every February) to the STSC/COPUOS. If there is an imminent threat on short notice, inform the Office for Outer Space Affairs. They can inform the members of COPUOS via a so-called ‘Note Verbale’.
Plus: Yearly reports to COPUOS
Note: This is slightly different from what was proposed in the 2008 report by the ASE

37. From STSC report
Proposed to STSC for its session in February 2013: ‘Recommendations of the Action Team on near-Earth objects for an international response to the near-Earth object impact threat’:
Finally agreed was what’s written in the ‘Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its fiftieth session, held in Vienna from 11 to 22 February 2013’, see p :

38. Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, Fifty-sixth session (12-21 June 2013), A/68/20, p. 19

39. Acceptance by General Assembly: Oct 2013

40. A bit more detail… Plus: Yearly reports to COPUOS
The following slides give a bit more detail on each of the groups.
Plus: Yearly reports to COPUOS

41. Status - IAWN Information, Analysis and Warning Network (IAWN)
Workshop in Mexico City, January 2010
Most elements of IAWN essentially exist: observing teams, modellers, risk analysts
Fall 2012: Telecon to start formation of an IAWN Steering Group, hosted by NASA
12/13 Jan 2014: Formation of steering group, Boston, MA
Optical Ground Station – ESA’s 1-m telescope used ~4 nights per month for asteroids
Screenshot of NEODyS, the European system to predict possible impacts

42. 42

43. Status – Space Missions Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG)
1st dedicated Action Team meeting: Hosted by ESA in Darmstadt, Oct 2010
2nd dedicated Action Team meeting: Hosted by NASA in Pasadena, Aug 2011
Draft Terms of Reference were written
Discussed by a first ’SMPAG preparation meeting’ with space agencies in the margins of COPUOS STSC meeting, Feb second meeting on 08 Jun 2012
Third meeting Feb 2013 in Vienna
Official formation: Feb 2014, ESOC, Darmstadt
Several meetings took place since then – see
Members of the SMPAG should be Delegates formally nominated by COPUOS member states; they should come from space agencies or offices, plus selected experts.
In the 2nd meeting in Vienna we will finally agree on the ‘Terms of Reference’; have presentations on ongoing work related to the topic of asteroid deflection missions; and discuss the future work plan. Most important item in my opinion: Define ‘critera’ – when do we need a deflection mission, when is evacuation enough?
Participants of the ‘MPOG’ (now SMPAG) preparation meeting, ESOC, Darmstadt, Oct 2010.

44. Status – interaction with disaster management organisations
To be part of IAWN
To understand needs for information distribution – Meetings Sep 2013 Apr 2014 in CH; Dec 2014 at ESOC with CH + D, Jun 2015 with Romania, Switzerland, Germany, Luxembourg, UK, Sweden
NEO Information Plan was agreed between ESA and member state delegations in spring 2016 – describes information flow (see lecture #07)

45. Current process @ ESA Defined in ‘NEO information plan’ Impact warning
When a credible impact threat occurs
1 %, 50 years
Affects our assets
Information release
A predicted close flyby or hit of a small object which may generate interest in the public
Impact prediction for another planet or the Moon
Procedure to follow for an ‘impact warning’
Validation of prediction via independent system
Publish orbit info on internet (as usual)
Calculate impact zone, estimate energy release, publish
Calculate impact effects on ground, give best and worst cases
Prepare information for political entities, emergency response agencies, and the media/public (orbit prediction, position measurements, impact probabilities, impact time, size/mass estimate…)
Distribute this information as ‘impact warning’
Update information regularly, coordinate with other entities
After impact: Confirmation of precise time/location, estimation of size and energy release, have a ‘lessons learned’ debriefing

47. Summary
We learned how ESA functions; in particular we saw how a typical optional programme (SSA-NEO) works
We now are familiar with the structure of the UN
We know where the topic of NEOs fits in

48. Exercise Prepare for ‘war game’ – read the threat description
Form different groups that will discuss in the next lecture a recommendation to UN COPUOS (via IAWN) on what to do:
You have been asked by the IAWN steering group to participate in this activity. You are either representing:
Emergency response agencies of the different countries
Asteroid experts from the different countries
Note: Depending on the country, you may have different interests
Where do you expect the asteroid to hit, what will be the chance?
If it hit, what will be the damage?
What would you recommend your UN Delegate to propose? ‘Take the hit’ –evacuate or not? Deflect? Who’ll pay? How to do it? What’s the risk for other countries?
Prepare discussion points that you want to bring into the discussion of a working group that will prepare a statement for IAWN to present to COPUOS.