Uniqueness

The aff bans asteroid mining

Hlimi 14 [Tina Hlimi, Canadian lawyer with a Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Environmental Sciences
from McGill University, 2014, “THE NEXT FRONTIER: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPLICATIONS OF NEAR-EARTH ASTEROID MINING,” ANNALS OF AIR AND SPACE LAW,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2546924]/Kankee
Given the rapid pace of globalisation and global partnerships, joint launching and extraction projects are becoming more prevalent. In the case
of two or more NEA launching States, the nations would need to ascertain which of the States must register the spacecraft (Article II (2)). Each
State would also need to provide the United Nations Secretary General with information pertaining to the space object in its registry, namely:
the name of the launching State (s), the space object registration number, the location, the time, the orbital parameters, the nodal period and
the inclination at the time of launch (Article IV). The relevance of the Registration Convention is that it ties spacecraft to State Parties, thereby
allowing potential liability to be traced. This would apply to NEA commercial exploits in the event of outer space damage (Article VI).49 During
the international space law enactment period (1960s-1980s), space-faring activities were State dominated and the law reflected the primary goal
of preserving peace in outer space.50 This has morphed over the years. Eilene Galloway captures the changing space climate succinctly by
putting forth that: "The task of formulating space law in the 21st century is different from that which suddenly skyrocketed beyond the Earth
when Sputnik I was orbited on 4 October 1957". 51 It was only during the Cold War era when academics realised that the international space law
framework was unable to handle private entity development in outer space. As Lee provides: The framers of the treaties in the 1960s had not
envisaged that artificial satellites would orbit the world before the end of the century and deliver many services that people now take for
granted. These activities, such as remote sensing, weather prediction, direct television broadcasting, telecommunications, global positioning
systems and human settlement on permanent space stations have torn apart the thin fabric of the existing space law framework [...]52 The
initial focus
on peace preservation resulted in the inflexibility of international space law and its inability to
deal with present day realities like commercial mining.53 This has resulted in volatility and uncertainty for
NEA mining entities and potential NEA investors, as it leaves their legal rights and liabilities in limbo.
54Although most NEA mining firms are still adamant about developing NEA resources, some expertslike Wayne White advise that "If you
really are talking about a multibilliondollar endeavor, if I were the lawyer for that company, I would say, 'Don't
make that investment until we have legislation in place". 55 White's statement rings true as private-entities have
to surpass numerous hurdles concerning liability, natural resource appropriation and environmental contamination,
in order to successfully mine NEAs. A. LIABILITY AND NEA MINING
Given the novelty encompassing NEA mining endeavours, space liability is a vital consideration for private entity NEA mining firms. At present
there is no precedential case law in the area of space liability. The only case which had the potential of raising a liability claim is the Cosmos954
settlement, where a satellite belonging to the Soviet Union disintegrated over a large expanse of northern Canada in 1978. Cosmos954 was
resolved through settlement, without the need to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism (Articles XIV-XX) of the Liability Convention.56 Had
the agreement utilised the Liability Convention (e.g. Article XII on "damages") the process would have been drawn out and quite expensive. It
may have also acted as a deterrent to any future, nonState commercial exploits.57 Article VI of the OST was the first international space law
provision to outline the principles of liability. It specifically outlines: the responsibility of States for their national space activities, whether such
activities occur by public or private entities (e.g. NEA mining firms); the guarantee that State activities will abide with the OST and with
international law; States' responsibility to authorise and supervise, where required, the activities of private entities in outer space; 58 and joint
international responsibility for the actions of international organisation of which a State is a member.59 In the case of the latter, if an asteroid
has been pushed too close to the Earth by a private entity, thereby risking the chance of piercing the atmosphere and disintegrating over a State,
then the first State may be required to restore the second State to the position they were in prior to the damage (restitutio in integrum) in
accordance with Article VI.60 Article VII of the OST ties into the 1972 Liability Convention, which assigns "absolute liability" (Article II) to the
launching State, even for private entity activities, if damage is caused by a State's space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft flight,
and fault-based liability if the damage is caused elsewhere (Article III). "Damage" is defined under Article I of the Liability Convention to mean
loss of life, personal injury, impairment of health, loss or damage to property of States or persons (natural or juridical), or property of
intergovernmental organisations.61 Hence, if a Canadian NEA private entity inflicts outer space damage to a Chinese Satellite, Canada will be
held responsible as the overarching superior. Liability is necessary in the realm of NEA mining as space activities are fundamentally risky and
perilous. As a result, third party States should have some type of legal protection against damage, injury or loss caused by other States in the
outer space.62 Similar to the OST (Article IV and V OST), the Liability Convention contemplates numerous launching parties through its
provisions on joint and several liability (Article V). This is nevertheless easier said than done as the question of whose liability would overcome
the others remains unrequited, 63 and is one of the many legal issues that must be resolved prior to NEA mining expeditions. Further, with the
advent of commercial players, joint and several liability is far more complex than it was in the past. In theory there could be four NEA launching
States. One State may provide the launch, the second State may loan the facility used for the launch, the third State may own the physical facility,
which may be situated on the territory of a fourth State. This would make joint liability difficult to pinpoint and apportion, yet this scenario is
entirely realistic given modern commercial exploits and partnerships. In order to navigate this polemic issue, private NEA seeking entities could
launch their spacecraft from international waters (e.g. a platform or a ship) or from the Antarctic in line with the 1959 Antarctic Treaty's
preamble citing use of the territory "in the interest of all mankind". 64 If this remains problematic, confusion could be resolved with the
introduction of a supplementary Protocol to the OST.65 Article VI of the Liability Convention asserts that liability shall be exonerated where: [a]
launching State establishes that the damage has resulted either wholly or partially from gross negligence or from an act or omission done with
intent to cause damage on the part of a claimant State or of natural or juridical persons it represents. In order to be considered for exoneration,
States and corporations (e.g. private and multinational space sector) seeking to partake in NEA exploration and exploitation must comply with
international law under Article VI. Furthermore, with regard to lexicon, some academics have found it difficult to reconcile "responsibility" under
Article VI of the OST and "liability" under Article VII of the same Treaty. The contemplation between "responsibility" and "liability" could
potentially, if not addressed or interpreted, create a loophole for private entity NEA mining exoneration. Article VI and VII may be distinguished
by interpreting the former as imposing a regulatory responsibility on States without any liability on the State, and the latter as prescribing
liability (e.g. compensation). Despite this clear-cut application, legal ambiguities linger depending on which version of the OST is being utilised.
The French version, uses "responsabilité internationale" for both Article VI and VII. The Spanish version of the text, like the French, also states
"responsables internationalement" for both provisions. Based on this divergence, most commentators believe under Article VI and VII of the OST
that both denote "liability" for a State and/or corporation. Lee argues that: if there is to be no differentiation in meaning between
"responsibility" under Article VI and "liability" under Article VII, then Article VI must be interpreted to mean that States are to be internationally
liable for national space activities conducted by both public and private entities. 66 This coincides with international law jurisprudence, as
exemplified in the Chorzów Factory case, which affirmed that: [It] is a principle of international law, and even a general conception of law, that
any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation. . . . the Court has already said that reparation is the indispensable
complement of a failure to apply a convention, and there is no necessity for this to be stated in the convention itself.67 Therefore, issues of legal
ambiguity and interpretation must be resolved prior to the succeeding stage of space exploration and exploitation. This is necessary to prevent
relentless litigation over space law provisions, even if the likelihood of causing damage on Earth are rare or unlikely.68 B. NEAR-EARTH ASTEROID
MINING AND INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW TREATIES Article 1 of the OST suggests that outer space (including the Moon and other celestial
bodies) is open for exploration (without discrimination) and use by all States for the benefit of humankind, irrespective of their economic
development. Article 1 of the OST corresponds with Article 4 of the Moon Agreement [emphasis added]: Article I: Outer Space Treaty The
exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all
countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. Outer space, including
the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality
and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies. There shall be freedom of scientific
investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation
in such investigation. Article 4: Moon Agreement 1. The exploration and use of the Moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be
carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard
shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living and conditions of
economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. With regard to the exploration and
exploitation of celestial bodies, the OST and Moon Agreement have been interpreted in three ways. The first view is endorsed in this essay,
namely that "for benefit and in the interest of all countries", the primary sentence in both articles, suggests a "generalised mission statement
rather than positive and specific duty" for States or private entities exploiting NEAs to share the derived benefits. The subsequent two
interpretations, however, could serve to hinder NEA mining. An "obligation imposed on the activity rather than the results derived thereof"
serves to heighten equitable sharing and liability on NEA exploration and exploitation rather than focusing on the outcome of mining. The third
interpretation is a "positive duty to share the benefits derived from space activities." This is by far the least desirous interpretation for NEA
mining corporations because it will inhibit monetary gains and instead necessitate some sort of beneficial sharing of financial and tangible
mining benefits. Lee clarifies that the "[o]bligation does not arise until the State or its private entities have gained a benefit that is capable of
being shared on an equitable basis". 69 Further, Jakhu argues that "equitable sharing" does not necessarily denote "equal sharing", an issue
which requires further clarification. 70 Therefore, "for the benefit and in the interest of all countries" does not impose a positive duty on States
to ensure that all outer space activities are advantageous to other States. Rather, this statement is an aspirational proposal that outer space
activities should be generally, and not necessarily tangibly beneficial to all other States. Hence, if one State's private entity is harvesting NEAs,
this may be categorised as beneficial for all OST signatories as the private entity is furthering scientific research and knowledge in addition to
conceivably discovering sustainable solutions for commodity and hydrologic depletion. This interpretation is likely the most widely accepted in
light of past commercial space activities including broadcasting, remote sensing, and telecommunications.71 Nevertheless, a shortcoming of this
interpretation is that one State cannot subjectively decide what is beneficial for another State. For instance, one State harvesting NEAs may find
it beneficial for reasons of scientific exploration and ensuing economic benefits, whereas another State may not consider NEA harvesting
advantageous for a variety of reasons such as the creation of outer space debris or back contamination of extraterrestrial matter.72 Despite the
lack of consensus, several academics have concluded that the phrase "for the benefit and in the interest of all countries" simply implies a moral
obligation to be beneficial (to the best of a State's ability) and not detrimental to other States even if no tangible benefit is provided to other
States. This characterisation works best for the advancement of NEA mining by corporate entities. Finally, the "free access" principle may
inevitably create issues for NEA mining with respect to proprietary rights. Free access applies to geographic areas on celestial bodies and the
freedom of any State to explore and use a celestial body. This is problematic for private entity mining, as it adds a hurdle to private property
claims when extracting the entire NEA. Thus, a private entity mining an asteroid cannot hinder the right of another commercial entity from freely
accessing the same celestial body. 73 The concept unquestionably jeopardises NEA commercial harvesting as terrestrial mining rights are
often exclusive. The only exception to the free access provision is if the private entity were to start mining on the same asteroid in a manner,
which interfered with the operations of the other party. However, if the "asteroid were large enough to accommodate two independent mining
operations, both could likely proceed, each gaining ownership of whatever material they extract." 74 The solution seems to lie in celestial
extraction and not the extraction of a whole NEA, which is what private entities are anticipating. C. THE OUTER SPACE TREATY AND THE
APPROPRIATION OF CELESTIAL BODIES

A regime of real property rights would provide legal and political certainty. Investors and settlers could
predict the outcome of a conflict with greater certainty by analogizing to terrestrial property law. Settlers
and developers would also be reassured knowing that other nations would respect their right to remain at a
given location.75 The appropriation of celestial bodies is a contentious and unresolved area of the law, stemming back to the 1945 United
Nations Charter where the drafters aspired to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". 76 Regions that were previously
considered terra nullius (e.g. the Moon and the deep seabed) were subsequently labelled common heritages of mankind (CHM) due to the
looming conflicting proprietary and resource claims. Although the Antarctic Treaty makes reference to common interest, ("[r]ecognizing that it is
in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica [...] shall not become the scene or object of international discord") 77 it has nevertheless deferred
addressing the issue of title and sovereignty to a later time, similar to the Moon Agreement's Article 11 (5) on the CHM. Scott explains: The
agreement to disagree regarding sovereignty has been reconfirmed in agreements concluded subsequent to the Antarctic Treaty. Despite a Third
World push in the 1980s and early 1990s to have the Common Heritage of Mankind principle accepted as the basis for a new international
Antarctic regime, the unresolved question of national sovereignty continues to underpin debate on all Antarctic issues, including current
concerns such as the management of tourism and establishment of a secretariat.78 Nevertheless, the idea of non-appropriation for reasons of
international relations has long been advocated, thus resulting in present day setbacks for the appropriation of natural resources in space.
Hence, the international space legislation governing celestial natural resources is extremely complex, particularly in light of the multifaceted
nature of international space law treaties (e.g. OST, Moon Agreement) and the endless interconnectedness of treaty provisions in conformity
with Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which requires subsequent treaties to be considered in light of the
antecedent treaty for guidance.79 Since most private entities plan to harvest NEAs by 2020, fewer than seven years remain to sort through the
legal ambiguities currently plaguing international space law and thwarting NEA appropriation and investment. Article
II of the OST is one
ofthemost widely cited provisions regarding celestial natural resource appropriation. The outdated
provision prohibits the appropriation of outer space (which includes the Moon and other celestial
bodies) through national appropriation. Article II Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject
to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
[Emphasis added] At first glance Article II seems to bans any prospective State-run NEA harvesting mission. This is a highly controversial
provision, as it is perhaps the most significant barrier to State and private entity mining. Various sources claim that private entities fall under
"national appropriation" whereas others argue that private entities do not, thereby leaving this matter unresolved and possibly creating a legal
loophole for private entity mining. Art Dula is a firm believer that non-state entities have the right to mine celestial bodies. He also believes that
the OST's statement of "use" (Article I and II) permits exploitation and that nothing in the OST bans non-state entities from mining the resources,
despite the phrase "national appropriation". Nevertheless, opponents argue that "what
applies to sovereign States probably
also applies to private companies" 80 notwithstanding the wording "national appropriation". This is fitting in light of
other articles in the OST as well as the Registration and Liability Conventions. For instance Article VI of the
OST, which assigns liability asserts "State Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for
national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on
by governmental agencies or by nongovernmental entities[...]". 81 Again, in accordance with Article 31(3) of the VCLT, 82
all subsequent treaties must take public-private affiliation into consideration, thereby eliminating the
textual loophole created by Article II on "national appropriation". Thus, based on Article VI, opponents have claimed that
the non-appropriation doctrine implicitly includes private entities, accordingly prohibiting private appropriation. In line with this interpretation,
Francis Lyall and Paul Larsen jointly interpret
Article II of the OST to mean that no one, "neither a government nor a
person", may claim title over a celestial body and specifically an asteroid and the mineral resources
housed within. 83 To support this proposition, they cite Gregory William Nemitz vs. NASA,et al, 84 a recent US decision
from the Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuitregarding the appropriation of a celestial body. The facts of the case
are simple: Nemitz registered a claim on the asteroid 433 Eros, so when NASA sent a satellite to probe the asteroid Nemitz
demanded that NASA pay parking feesfor landing its satellite on "his property". NASA refused to pay citing Article II
of the OST on non-appropriation by a private entity. Despite the outcome, it is nevertheless important to emphasise that this
is an American decision which concerns complete, as opposed to partial, asteroid ownership— an unprecedented state of affairs.85 In addition
to utilising Article II of the OST,the
1979 Moon Agreement closed the ostensibly
private entity loophole on "national appropriation" by enacting Article 11(3) which prohibits "State,
international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or
nongovernmental entity or of any natural person" from claiming property rights to "the surface nor the
subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place". This means that in addition to
States being unable to appropriate the Moon or other celestial bodies, neither can private entitieslike
Nemitz. Nevertheless, the miniscule ratification figures render the Moon Agreement feeble in international space law, which has regrettably
resulted in academics and scientists frequently overlooking the Agreement.86 In addition to these varying perspectives regarding the
appropriation of celestial bodies there are three prevailing viewpoints on Article II and the appropriation of natural resources: First, the OST
does not permit private entity (nor State) appropriation of extraterrestrial material, as discussed above; second, the OST permits private entity
appropriation of small amounts of extraterrestrial material (through the "national appropriation" loophole) and; third, the OST permits private
entity appropriation of extraterrestrial materials (e.g. the entire asteroids).

Link

Asteroid mining avoids resource scarcity on earth

Science Clarified 11 (Science Clarified, How will humans mine asteroids and comets,
http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-As
teroids-and-Comets.html, 04-13-11, NC)
The discussion of the monetary worth of asteroids and comets must not divert attention
from the other major reason to pursue the dream of mining these objects. Namely, the
metals, minerals, and volatiles acquired in such operations would help conserve supplies of
these materials on Earth. At present, these supplies are marginally sufficient to sustain the
planet's present population. But that population will inevitably grow and supplies of a
number of metals and other commodities will begin to run out. Also, processing metals and
minerals (separating them from the rocky mixtures in which most are trapped) pollutes
Earth's air, soil, and water. This problem will be eliminated entirely in space mining since
all of the processing will take place far from Earth. At first glance, it would seem that such
operations would simply shift the pollution problem from Earth to outer space. But this
need not be the case. William Hartmann explains: Some writers have raised the specter of
humanity despoiling the solar system, in the same manner that over-industrialization is
beginning to despoil Earth's environment. But . . . with a careful balance of research and
exploitation, we could learn from and process materials in space in a [clean] way that would
[also] begin to take the pressure off Earth's ecosystem. A transition from Earth-based
manufacturing to interplanetary manufacturing could eventually reduce
pollution and ravaging of Earth by an Earth-based society bent on ripping the last
dwindling resources from the land. 43 There is another dimension to human acquisition
and consumption of cosmic resources, however. Nearly all the experts agree that by the time
space mining becomes widespread, only a small percentage of the materials mined will end
up on Earth. Instead, a major portion of these resources will be used to construct and
sustain human colonies and cities floating in space. Space, they say, will become a vast new
frontier that will attract many people born on Earth, helping to stabilize or at least slow the
growth of the planet's population. (And of course, over time even more people will be born
in space.)

Internal Link
Resource Scarcity is the biggest threat to global security - if exacerbated it will culminate in
global war
Trainer 2 (Ted, Senior Lecturer @ University of New South Wales “If you want affluence, prepare for War,” Democracy &
Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy; July 2002, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p281-299)

‘President Carter last week issued a clear warning that any attempt to gain control of
the Persian Gulf would lead to war.’ It would ‘… be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States’.65 ‘The US is ready to take military action if
Russia threatens vital American interests in the Persian Gulf, the US Secretary of
Defence, Mr Brown, said yesterday.’66 Klare’s recent book Resource Wars discusses
this theme in detail, stressing the coming significance of water as a source of
international conflict. ‘Global demand for many key materials is growing at an
unsustainable rate. … the incidence of conflict over vital materials is sure to grow. …
The wars of the future will largely be fought over the possession and control of vital
economic goods. … resource wars will become, in the years ahead, the most distinctive
feature of the global security environment.’67 Much of the rich world’s participation in the conflicts taking place throughout the world is
driven by the determination to back a faction that will then look favourably on Western interests. In a report entitled, ‘The rich prize that is Shaba’, Breeze begins,
‘Increasing rivalry over a share-out between France and Belgium of the mineral riches of Shaba Province lies behind the joint Franco– Belgian paratroop airlift to Zaire. …

Then there is potential

These mineral riches make the province a valuable prize and help explain the West’s extended diplomatic courtship …’68

conflict between the rich nations who are after all the ones most dependent on
securing large quantities of resources. ‘The resource and energy intensive modes of
production employed in nearly all industries necessitate continuing armed coercion
and competition to secure raw materials.’69 ‘Struggles are taking place, or are in the
offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of the world product, within
the industrial world over their share of industrial resources and markets …’70

Impact

Resource wars will increase in frequency and have a large magnitude

Klare No Date (Michael, Professor at Hampshire Collage, Resource Conflict,
http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/resource/index.html, Google Scholar, NC)
Historically, many wars have been fought over the possession or control of vital
resources: water, arable land, gold and silver, diamonds, copper, petroleum, and so
on. Conflict over resources figured prominently in the inter-imperial wars of the
16th,
17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and laid the groundwork for World War I. Resource
conflict was less prominent during the Cold War period, when ideological disputes
prevailed, but has become more prominent in the Post-Cold War era. Indeed, many of
the conflicts of the 1990’s—including those in Angola, Chechnya, Chiapas, Congo,
Indonesia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan—were driven largely or in part
by competition over the control of critical sources of vital materials. As was true in the
past, conflict over resources remains a significant feature of the world security
environment. One can of course that the current resurgence of conflict over resources
 is nothing more than a return to past practice, when such disputes were a common
feature of the international landscape. To some degree, this is true. But it is also
evident that resource conflict is becoming more frequent and more pronounced in
some areas as the demand for certain materials comes to exceed the available supply.
For example, an acute shortage of arable land and
fresh water seems to have been a significant factor in several conflicts, including those
in Chiapas, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe. The same conditions appear to be developing in
other areas of scarcity.
At: Mining infeasible
Mining is feasible – our knowledge of asteroids increased drastically. Sonter 06 - ( Mark Sonter.
scientific consultant working in the Australian mining and metallurgical industries. Department of Civil and Mining Engineering in
University of Wollongong,. “Asteroid Mining: Key to the Space Economy,”, February 2006,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/key.html/. TQ)

Return of resources from some of these NEAs to low or high earth orbit may therefore be competitive versus earth-sourced
supplies. Our knowledge of asteroids and comets has expanded dramatically in the last
ten years, with images and spectra of asteroids and comets from flybys, rendezvous, and impacts (for example asteroids
Gaspra, Ida, Mathilde, the vast image collection from Eros, Itokawa, and others; comets Halley, Borrelly, Tempel-1,
and Wild-2. And radar images of asteroids Toutatis, Castalia, Geographos, Kleopatra, Golevka and other...These
images show extraordinary variations in structure, strength, porosity, surface features. The total
number of identified NEAs has increased from about 300 to more than 3,000 in the
period 1995 to 2005. The most accessible group of NEAs for resource recovery is a
subset of the Potentially Hazardous Asteroids ( PHAs). These are bodies (about 770 now discovered) which approach
to within 7.5 million km of earth orbit. The smaller subset of those with orbits which are earth-orbit-grazing give intermittently
very low delta-v return opportunities (that is it is easy velocity wise to return to Earth).These
are also the bodies
which humanity should want to learn about in terms of surface properties and
strength so as to plan deflection missions, in case we should ever find one on a
collision course with us. Professor John Lewis has pointed out (in Mining the Sky) that the resources of the solar
system (the most accessible of which being those in the NEAs) can permanently support in first-world comfort some quadrillion
people. In other words, the resources of the solar system are essentially infinite… And they are
there for us to use, to invest consciousness into the universe, no less. It's time for humankind to
come out of its shell, and begin to grow!! So both for species protection and for the expansion of
humanity into the solar system, we need to characterize these objects and learn how
to mine and manage them. Once we learn how to work on, handle, and modify the orbits of small near-earth
objects, we will have achieved, as a species, both the capability to access the vast resources of the
asteroids, and also the capability to protect our planet from identified collision
threats.