Read the published starting point.
Version 1.0 on OpenAIRE sets out the proposed architecture, assumptions, and open questions.
Independent research program Concept stage
From an idea
to evidence.
TURAI studies whether a prepared, shared response could reduce harm from certain asteroid threats discovered with little warning.
Terrestrial Unified Response to Asteroid Impacts
Research first. Action only if justified.01 / PROGRAM
01 / THE RESEARCH QUESTION
Could preparation change the outcome?
Version 1.0 proposes an international network of ready Earth-based capabilities. The research program exists to test the idea, challenge its assumptions, and find where it fails.
INITIAL STUDY BANDAbout 50–150 m
An approximate diameter range for selected scenarios, not a formal size class or a promise of coverage.
TIME HORIZONShort warning
Cases where a tailored space mission may be impractical. The actual window must be modeled for each scenario.
DECISION RULELess expected harm
Any intervention has to compare favorably with observation, civil protection, and standing down.
How this relates to DART. NASA's DART mission struck the roughly 160 m moonlet Dimorphos and demonstrated a kinetic impactor for deflection. It was a long-lead test, not a complete solution for large objects or short-warning events. TURAI asks a different, still unproven question about terrestrial interception and possible disruption. NASA mission overview ↗
02 / START HERE
A simple way in.
Choose a question you can test.
Use the version roadmap below. Criticism, failed cases, and alternatives are welcome when backed by a clear method.
Propose a bounded contribution.
Send a short note describing your question, approach, and field of expertise to Akhilbabu Laxman Turai on LinkedIn.
New to the vocabulary? The terminology guide defines the terms used throughout this program.
03 / VERSION ROADMAP
One question leads to the next.
The numbers describe the proposed focus of each paper series. Only Version 1.0 is published. Later topics and timing will change with the evidence.
1.xFOUNDATION
V1.0 PUBLISHED
V1.0 PUBLISHED
Define the core idea.
Set the threat scope, compare existing approaches, state the decision rule, and identify the assumptions that must survive testing.
- Scenario definitions
- Architecture and research questions
- Clear failure and stand-down criteria
2.xPROPOSED
WHERE
WHERE
Study location and reach.
Which regions could host a useful network, and for which trajectories? Screen geography, warning time, logistics, legal access, backup coverage, and fairness. Site choices follow feasibility, not a map alone.
- Scenario-based reachability
- Regional network options
- Redundancy and equity
3.xPROPOSED
HOW
HOW
Test the physical response.
Can an Earth-launched system intercept an incoming object in time? Study trajectory, guidance, coupling, and possible disruption. Model fragments and failure modes before making any claim that an intervention is safer.
- Interception feasibility
- Deflection versus disruption
- Verification and abort conditions
4.xPROPOSED
CONSEQUENCES
CONSEQUENCES
Measure what reaches Earth.
Compare an intact impact, atmospheric breakup, and possible fragment paths. Include people, infrastructure, and uncertainty in the expected-harm assessment.
- Airburst and surface effects
- Transferred and residual risk
- Civil protection options
5.xPROPOSED
GOVERNANCE
GOVERNANCE
Design the rules and test them.
Examine who confirms a threat, who may authorize an action, how affected states are consulted, and how liability and peaceful-use safeguards could work.
- Decision and exercise studies
- Verification and accountability
- Evidence for possible treaty talks
These studies overlap. A promising location is only provisional until physics, consequence, and governance work support it. A series can also conclude that an approach is infeasible.
04 / HOW TO JUDGE A RESPONSE
The aim is less harm, not more action.
“Shoot it down” is an understandable shorthand, but breaking an asteroid apart does not make its energy disappear. Some fragments may still reach Earth or widen the affected area.
ObserveDeflect if feasibleIntercept or disrupt if saferProtect peopleStand down
A response should proceed only when evidence supports a meaningful reduction in expected harm. Civil protection can be necessary with or without an intervention.
05 / TAKE PART
Bring a method. Bring a challenge.
The program needs researchers across asteroid science, flight dynamics, atmospheric effects, civil protection, public policy, and space law. A useful contribution can be a model, a critique, a legal analysis, or a better question.
SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL
Test the assumptions.
Define scenarios, model reachability and fragment outcomes, compare baselines, and publish limitations.
LAW & GOVERNANCE
Test the decision path.
Examine sovereignty, authorization, liability, verification, consultation, and peaceful-use safeguards.
REGIONAL EXPERTISE
Connect research to place.
Study local risk and institutional context. Future consultations with governments would depend on evidence, invitations, and formal processes.
WORK WITH TURAI
Contact Akhil on LinkedIn Start with one clear research question.
Share your proposed question, method, and any relevant publication or expertise. Scope, credit, and authorship should be agreed before joint work begins.
Contributors may later be invited to join consultations in countries where they have national or professional ties. Participation in meetings or treaty negotiations cannot be promised and would require invitations and the relevant diplomatic approvals.
06 / FOUNDATION & SOURCES
Trace the proposal.
An abstract submitted to the IAF for GLEX 2025 introduced the broad response idea. Version 1.0 turns it into a more explicit architecture and research agenda. The proposed series above are the next questions, not published results.
REFERENCE POINTSNASA planetary defense ↗NASA CNEOS Sentry ↗UN Office for Outer Space Affairs: IAWN & SMPAG ↗
TURAI is an independent research proposal by Akhilbabu Laxman Turai. It is not an operational defense system or a concluded treaty and does not represent or claim endorsement from NASA, the IAF, the UN, or other institutions cited here. Any treaty would require states to negotiate and decide its terms.