why is privatizing space travel beneficial

The Pros and Cons of Private Space Exploration

Space exploration isn’t just limited to NASA and other government entities anymore. Recently, we’ve seen a switch from government-owned agencies to private space companies. As a result, many wealthy individuals are interested in exploring space for different reasons. While private space exploration has numerous benefits for the entire planet, many wonder about the downsides.

Let’s dive into private space exploration and examine the pros and cons.

What Is Private Space Exploration?

Richard branson, establishing contact with extraterrestrial life, are you over the moon about private space exploration.

Let’s start by defining space exploration as using technology and astronomy to explore outer space. Space exploration enables us to confirm or reject the scientific theories developed on Earth.

The 20th century was a turning point for space exploration due to numerous discoveries and milestones. Humans have successfully launched the first satellite, sent the first mammal to space, taken the first photograph of Earth from its orbit, landed on the moon, traveled to outer space, etc. While these discoveries are incredible, space exploration has existed for centuries, and everything humans have learned in the past has made the achievements possible.

Until the beginning of the 21st century, most space exploration was directed by government-owned agencies like NASA (the U.S.), Roscosmos (Russia, previously the Soviet Union), ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), ISRO (India), etc. Then, we noticed an emergence of private space companies. While government-owned agencies continued to operate, private companies started conducting their own research to achieve different goals.

What exactly is private space exploration? It’s still the use of technology and astronomy to explore outer space. The only difference is that private space exploration is funded by an entity instead of a government agency. Most private space companies are owned by wealthy individuals investing millions of dollars into the technology and workforce.

Major Players

You may have heard of the space race, a 20th-century competition between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The two countries competed to prove their superiority in terms of technology and achievements. The Soviet Union was the first to launch an Earth-orbiting satellite and send a mammal — a dog named Laika — into space. The U.S. was the first to launch a weather satellite to space and obtain photos of Earth. Then, the Soviet Union hit back and sent the first man to space. Ultimately, the U.S. won the race by being the first to send men to the moon.

Today, we are in the middle of another competition: the billionaire space race. Several major players have entered the space exploration and tourism industry with different ambitions and goals they want to achieve as soon as possible. Here are some of these players:

Richard Branson is a British entrepreneur and business magnate. He’s known as the founder of the Virgin Group, a corporation that owns more than 400 companies worldwide.

In 2004, Branson founded Virgin Galactic, a spaceflight company headquartered in California. Branson established the company because he recognized the importance of space tourism and commercial spacecraft.

On July 11, 2021, Branson and three employees traveled to outer space. Branson became the first private space company owner to travel to space and the first person to travel in the space vehicle he funded.

Jeff Bezos is an American businessman known for founding Amazon. As of July 2022, Bezos is the second-wealthiest person in the world, with a net worth of over $135 billion. In 2000, Bezos founded a human spaceflight startup called Blue Origin.

The company’s primary goals are reducing costs, increasing space travel safety, and developing a revolutionary launch vehicle.

In 2022, Jeff Bezos became the second human to travel to space in a vehicle he funded, only nine days after Richard Branson. New Shepard’s vehicle is among the top innovations because it uses clean-burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, making it one of the cleanest space vehicles ever.

We can’t talk about the major players in the private space industry without mentioning Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest person with a net worth of more than $220 billion.

In 2002, Elon Musk founded SpaceX, a company that designs, manufactures, and launches spacecraft and rockets. Musk’s goals are reducing space transportation costs and creating reusable innovative space vehicles. The ultimate goal is to colonize Mars.

Although Musk hasn’t traveled to space (yet), unlike Branson and Bezos, his company has made the headlines several times. In 2010, SpaceX became the first company to successfully launch a payload to orbit and return it to Earth. Moreover, the company’s Starlink satellites provide information to the NOAA and improve space weather forecasts that are vital for safe space exploration. Musk stated that Starlink satellites would offer internet access from every Earth location once fully operational.

Besides the three, many other notable names in the industry want to take the lead in the billionaire space race. Hence, many can’t help but wonder whether the privatization of space exploration is the right path.

Private space exploration has its advantages and drawbacks. Let’s check them out.

Many people claim private space exploration has numerous benefits. Here are some of them.

Traveling to space was only a dream until the second half of the 20th century. We’ve seen many innovations and technological advancements that have allowed humanity to reach numerous milestones. Yet, although we’ve learned a lot about outer space, the vast majority of the universe remains unknown.

This uncertainty and the challenges of space exploration represent the driving force for innovations. We are hungry for knowledge, excitement, and discoveries. This results in a continuous effort to develop more advanced, reliable, and efficient systems.

Private space company owners may have different ambitions, but they all contribute to the modernization and development of the technology used for space exploration.

Private space exploration supports innovation and prosperity. We’ve already seen artificial satellites, cleaner vehicles, and other ground-breaking discoveries, so who knows what’s next?

Inspiration

In 2021, millions of people watched Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos fly to space in the vehicles their companies developed. If anything, such missions show us that anything’s possible, sparking curiosity and inspiration.

Private space exploration pushes the limits and inspires people to think outside the box (or the planet). It makes us question our limits, expands our views, and plants seeds for new ideas. Learning more about the universe allows us to change our perspectives and priorities.

A great example of how space exploration can affect us is the Earthrise photo of Earth taken from lunar orbit in 1968. This photo shows the Earth and some of the moon’s surface. In the photo, our planet looks isolated and fragile, and many think it shows how small we are and how we need to take care of the Earth.

Partnership

Contrary to popular belief, private space companies can’t do whatever they want. They must follow specific laws and regulations that allow them to operate and conduct research. Although there is a division between the public and private sectors, like in any other industry, these two sectors often work together.

SpaceX and NASA are excellent examples of a partnership between a private space company and a government-owned agency. SpaceX has become NASA’s “space taxi” because the company transports NASA’s astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).

This and similar partnerships can only encourage more discoveries and innovations.

New Discoveries

All private space company owners entered the industry for a reason. Whether it’s colonizing Mars or creating reusable space vehicles, one thing is sure: the ambitions and dreams of these wealthy individuals have and will lead us to new discoveries about the universe.

Investments

As you may know, space exploration is costly. Every mission costs millions of dollars, not to mention the added costs of research, preparation, and construction of the space vehicles. Hence, it’s no surprise that all private space company owners are wealthy.

These individuals know how expensive space exploration is and are willing to invest billions of dollars into the industry. But, of course, they invest this money to achieve their goals. But it’s essential to look at the big picture here. Any discovery by private space companies could be beneficial for all of humanity.

Addressing Global Challenges

We often forget how dependent we are on space technology. For example, many don’t know that NASA is responsible for discovering the technology for vacuum cleaners, invisible braces, and even baby formula. In addition, space exploration allows us to enjoy the internet, navigation, camera sensors, and cardiac pumps.

Therefore, space exploration isn’t just about space. Learning about and overcoming the challenges related to space exploration has led to many discoveries in areas like health and medicine, transportation, public safety, IT, the environment, etc.

Thanks to space exploration, we may be able to combat some challenges we’re faced with on Earth, including disease, air pollution, and climate change, to name a few.

Knowledge Generation

Space exploration enables us to learn so much about the universe. In fact, space is so big that we will probably never be able to explore it entirely. Everything we learn about outer space can be used not only for further space exploration but for other sectors and industries.

After all, we are curious creatures with an insatiable thirst for knowledge. Looking at the last few centuries, we can see how far our drive to learn and improve has gotten us.

More Jobs for People From Space Industry

According to the Space Foundation , more than 140,000 people work in the private space industry in the U.S., which is impressive. Since the sector is growing rapidly, private space companies hire more people. All kinds of workers are needed, regardless of their educational background. Besides astronauts and scientists, companies are hiring administrative workers, IT experts, engineers, electricians, chemists, and essential support personnel.

One of the biggest mysteries is whether life exists outside of our planet. Although we still don’t have the answer, private space exploration could help us find extraterrestrial life, if there is any. While the universe is vast, and the chances of us stumbling upon extraterrestrial life forms are minimal, there’s always hope.

Now that we’ve discussed the benefits of private space exploration, it’s time we looked at some drawbacks.

Space exploration is costly. While wealthy individuals owning private space companies have no problem investing billions of dollars into the latest technology, one can’t help but wonder whether this is a waste.

Many people argue this money could go elsewhere. For example, the money invested in private space exploration could be used to improve human lives on Earth in numerous ways. Instead of investing in space exploration, billionaires could invest in medicine, environmental protection, renewable energy sources, and fighting poverty.

Although many people criticize private space exploration, there isn’t much we can do to stop it. After all, private space company owners have money to invest and can support whatever cause they believe in.

Traveling to space is risky and, unfortunately, can result in tragedies. Unfortunately, in the last few decades, many people have lost their lives in space.

While technology has come a long way and space travel has become much safer, it doesn’t mean there’s no risk. Even after years of research and millions of dollars invested in the best equipment, tragedies can still happen.

Everyone who decides to travel to space, whether for scientific or commercial purposes, enters the rocket knowing they may not return to Earth.

Closed Circle

Private space exploration is reserved only for billionaires like Bezos, Musk, or Branson. Hence, this industry is limited to a few privileged individuals. This sparks an ongoing debate about whether the new billionaire space race benefits humanity. Many argue that private space exploration is only a way for wealthy individuals to enjoy self-indulgent adventures; others claim these individuals are vital for solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Either way, private space exploration remains a closed circle to most “ordinary” people.

Space exploration isn’t really the best way to preserve the environment. Since figuring out a way to fight pollution is one of the burning topics, it’s understandable many are against space exploration in general.

With the emergence of private space companies and their satellites and launch vehicles, we’ve seen an increase in space traffic. But unfortunately, every launch takes a toll on our environment; the carbon left behind affects the stratosphere and damages the ozone layer.

While some space vehicles like Bezos’ New Shepard are less damaging to the environment than others, the adverse effects are still present.

International Tensions

We’ve already mentioned the space race from the 20th century that involved the two Cold War participants, the Soviet Union and the U.S. The two countries raced to achieve spaceflight superiority.

As more private space companies emerge from different countries, many fear that conflicts of interest and disagreements could lead to international tensions.

Health Concerns

Although it may seem fun on TV, spending time in space isn’t exactly a walk in the park. There are numerous health concerns one needs to be aware of.

Spending a lot of time in a confined space with no family and friends can affect our mental health. While on a mission, astronauts have no privacy and no ability to stretch their legs or even breathe fresh air. Although every astronaut needs to undergo extensive screening and evaluation before they’re hired, their behavior can change once they’re in space for an extended period. Anyone who spends days or months in space can suffer from symptoms like sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and fatigue.

Another health concern is space radiation. The radiation from space increases the risk of cancer, cardiovascular problems, and cognitive impairment and slows cell regeneration.

Spending time in space causes bone and muscle loss. Astronauts can slow this down by exercising while on a mission, but some bone and muscle loss is inevitable for now.

As you can see, space exploration takes a toll on human health in many ways. Hence, one can’t help but wonder whether achieving some wealthy entrepreneur’s dream is worth jeopardizing human lives.

One of the worst aspects of space exploration is that the results are never guaranteed. One can invest billions of dollars, hire the best experts, and spend years conducting research, and there could still be no results or ground-breaking discoveries.

So, maybe this money, time, and resources could be redirected to something else where the results could be more likely to benefit humanity.

We’ve placed this in both the pros and the cons. Why? While discovering extraterrestrial life would be significant, there’s no way of knowing whether this would be good or bad. We can’t say if the potential extraterrestrial life forms are peaceful. They may have the power to destroy our entire planet, so many who believe there’s life out there say exploring space is like poking a bear.

Some support private space exploration, while others argue it wastes time and valuable resources. Either way, it seems this industry is here to stay, so it’s best to focus on the positive aspects and accept this shift towards the private sector. Although dangerous and unpredictable, private space exploration may be the path toward exciting new discoveries.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Get your Space Exploration And Astronomy Free Guide

We will never send you spam. By signing up for this you agree with our privacy policy and to receive regular updates via email in regards to industry news and promotions

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Commercial Space Age Is Here

• Matthew Weinzierl
• Mehak Sarang

In May of 2020, SpaceX made history as the first private company to send humans into space. This marks not only a tremendous technological achievement, but also the first indication that an entirely new “space-for-space” industry — that is, goods and services designed to supply space-bound customers — could be close at hand. In the first stage of this burgeoning economy, private companies must sell to NASA and other government customers, since today, those organizations are the only source of in-space demand. But as SpaceX has demonstrated, private companies now have not just the desire, but also the ability to send people into space. And once we have private citizens in space, SpaceX and other companies will be poised to supply the demand they’ve created, creating a market that could dwarf the current government-led space industry (and eventually, the entire terrestrial economy as well). It’s a huge opportunity — now our task is simply to seize it.

Private space travel is just the beginning.

There’s no shortage of hype surrounding the commercial space industry. But while tech leaders promise us moon bases and settlements on Mars, the space economy has thus far remained distinctly local — at least in a cosmic sense. Last year, however, we crossed an important threshold: For the first time in human history, humans accessed space via a vehicle built and owned not by any government, but by a private corporation with its sights set on affordable space settlement . It was the first significant step towards building an economy both in space and for space. The implications — for business, policy, and society at large — are hard to overstate.

• MW Matthew Weinzierl is the Joseph and Jacqueline Elbling Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. His teaching and research focus on the design of economic policy and the economics and business of space.
• MS Mehak Sarang is a Research Associate at Harvard Business School and the Lunar Exploration Projects Lead for the MIT Space Exploration Initiative.

Partner Center

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 29 January 2019

One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space

• Victor L. Shammas 1 &
• Tomas B. Holen 2  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  10 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

29k Accesses

32 Citations

117 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Outer space is becoming a space for capitalism. We are entering a new era of the commercialization of space, geared towards generating profits from satellite launches, space tourism, asteroid mining, and related ventures. This era, driven by private corporations such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origins, has been labeled by industry insiders as ‘NewSpace'—in contrast to ‘Old Space', a Cold War-era mode of space relations when (allegedly) slow-moving, sluggish states dominated outer space. NewSpace marks the arrival of capitalism in space. While challenging the libertarian rhetoric of its proponents—space enterprises remain enmeshed in the state, relying on funding, physical infrastructure, technology transfers, regulatory frameworks, and symbolic support—NewSpace nevertheless heralds a novel form of human activity in space. Despite its humanistic, universalizing pretensions, however, NewSpace does not benefit humankind as such but rather a specific set of wealthy entrepreneurs, many of them originating in Silicon Valley, who strategically deploy humanist tropes to engender enthusiasm for their activities. We describe this complex as ‘capitalistkind'. Moreover, the arrival of capitalism in space is fueled by the expansionary logic of capital accumulation. Outer space serves as a spatial fix, allowing capital to transcend its inherent terrestrial limitations. In this way, the ultimate spatial fix is perhaps (outer) space itself.

Similar content being viewed by others

Participatory action research

Changes in tornado risk and societal vulnerability leading to greater tornado impact potential

Safeguarding China’s long-term sustainability against systemic disruptors

Introduction.

On 6 February 2018, the California-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp., also known as SpaceX, launched its first Falcon Heavy rocket, a powerful, partially reusable launch vehicle, into space from Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 39 in Florida. With its significant thrust and payload capacity, the Falcon Heavy had the ‘ability to lift into orbit nearly 64 metric tons…a mass greater than a 737 jetliner loaded with passengers, crew, luggage and fuel' (SpaceX, 2018 ). Multiple reusable parts, including first-stage boosters (and, in later versions, composite payload fairing) Footnote 1 provided a lift capacity nearly twice that of the next-most powerful rocket in operation, the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Delta IV Heavy, and at nearly one-third the cost. With this first Falcon Heavy test flight, which produced widespread public enthusiasm and outpourings of support from both politicians and industry observers, Footnote 2 SpaceX demonstrated that private corporations were busy redefining the domain of space exploration. SpaceX seemed to usher in an era differing markedly from that other period of astronautical excitement, the Cold War-era space race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Additionally, visions once restricted to the domain of science fiction now seemed increasingly attainable, freed from the (alleged) impediments of slow-moving nation-states: with the ascendancy of private corporations like SpaceX, satellite launches, space tourism, asteroid mining, and even the colonization of Mars seemed increasingly achievable (Cohen, 2017 ; Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a , 2007b ; Klinger, 2017 ; Lewis, 1996 ).

In this sense, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy also carried a crucial ideological payload: the very idea of private enterprise and capitalist relations overtaking outer space. Footnote 3 The Falcon Heavy conveyed this idea quite concretely. Onboard the rocket was an electric car, a Tesla Roadster (said to be Elon Musk’s personal vehicle), which functioned as the rocket’s ‘dummy load', playing David Bowie’s ‘Space Oddity' and ‘Life on Mars?' on repeat on the car’s stereo system. An enticing marketing stunt viewed by millions online through SpaceX’s YouTube live stream—with 2.3 million concurrent views, it was the second biggest live stream in YouTube history (Singleton, 2018 )—the Falcon Heavy test flight embraced the logic of ‘cool capitalism' (Schleusener, 2014 ), with in-jokes referencing Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy , while heralding the arrival of a commercialized space age, dubbed by industry insiders as the age of ‘NewSpace'. Footnote 4

But how are we to understand NewSpace? In some ways, NewSpace signals the emergence of capitalism in space. The production of carrier rockets, placement of satellites into orbit around Earth, and the exploration, exploitation, or colonization of outer space (including planets, asteroids, and other celestial objects), will not be the work of humankind as such, a pure species-being ( Gattungswesen ), but of particular capitalist entrepreneurs who stand in for and represent humanity. Crucially, they will do so in ways modulated by the exigencies of capital accumulation. These enterprising capitalists are forging a new political-economic regime in space, a post-Fordism in space aimed at profit maximization and the apparent minimization of government interference. A new breed of charismatic, starry-eyed entrepreneurs, including Musk’s SpaceX, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, and Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, to name but a selection, aim at becoming ‘capitalists in space' (Parker, 2009 ) or space capitalists. Neil Armstrong’s famous statement will have to be reformulated: space will not be the site of ‘one giant leap for mankind', but rather one giant leap for capitalistkind . Footnote 5 With the ascendancy of NewSpace, humanity’s future in space will not be ‘ours', benefiting humanity tout court, but will rather be the result of particular capitalists, or capitalistkind, Footnote 6 toiling to recuperate space and bring its vast domain into the fold of capital accumulation: NewSpace sees outer space as the domain of private enterprise, set to become the ‘first-trillion dollar industry', according to some estimates, and likely to produce the world’s first trillionaires (see, e.g., Honan, 2018 )—as opposed to Old Space, a derisive moniker coined by enthusiastic proponents of capitalism-in-space, widely seen to have been the sole preserve of the state and a handful of giant aerospace corporations, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in Cold War-era Space Age.

Under Donald Trump’s presidency, the adherents of NewSpace have found a ready political partner. The commercialization of outer space was already well under way with Obama’s 2010 National Space Policy, which emphasized ‘promoting and supporting a competitive U. S. commercial space sector', which was ‘considered vital to…continued progress in space' (Tronchetti, 2013 , p. 67–68). But the Trump administration has aggressively pursued the deregulation of outer space in the service of profit margins. Wilbur Ross, President Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, has eagerly supported the private space industry by pushing the dismantling of regulatory frameworks. As Ross emphatically stated, ‘The rate of regulatory change must accelerate until it can match the rate of technological change!' (Foust, 2018a ). Trump has proposed privatizing the provision of supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) while re-establishing the Cold War-era National Space Council, which includes members from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, ULA, and a series of NewSpace actors, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin. Ross was visibly enthusiastic about SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy launch in February 2018 and seemed to embrace Musk’s marketing ploy. ‘It was really quite an amazing thing', Ross said. ‘At the end of it, you have that little red Tesla hurdling [sic] off to an orbit around the sun and the moon' (Bryan, 2018 ). That same month, Ross spoke before the National Space Council, commenting appreciatively that ‘space is already a $330 billion industry' that was set to become a ‘multitrillion-dollar one in coming decades'. He noted that private corporations needed ‘all the help we can give them' and said it was ‘time to unshackle business activity in space' (Department of Commerce, 2018 ).

Secretary Ross’s remarks followed on the heels of the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act, a U.S. House of Representatives bill introduced in 2017, which, in a remarkable volte-face, unilaterally declared that ‘space is not a global commons', a crucial departure from ratified international treaties that paved the way for private property rights and the exploitation of precious resources in outer space. In case anyone had missed this little-noticed policy démarche, tucked away in the midst of an obscure piece of legislation, one of Trump’s supporters, the executive director of the National Space Council, Scott Pace, publicly reiterated that ‘outer space is not…the “common heritage of mankind”, not “res communis”, nor is it a public good' (Pace, 2017 ). Instead, outer space was quickly being recast as a private good or a space for private property. As the United States became ‘ “open for business” in space' (Smith, 2017 ), in the words of one Republican congressman, space itself was being opened up to the interests of private enterprise.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 established space as terra nullius. One of the treaty’s premises is that no celestial body can be claimed as the property of any particular state, so that ‘outer space…is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means'. Footnote 7 While this does not prevent nations from extracting resources from celestial bodies, there is a clear requirement that these activities benefit all of Earth’s inhabitants (Tronchetti, 2013 , p. 14; Lyall and Larsen, 2009 ), paving the way for kind of communism in space which precludes the proclivities of capitalistkind. As noted, however, the Outer Space Treaty’s assertion of space as a commons has come under pressure in recent years, at first in the form of so many quasi-comical ventures, bordering on fraudulent shams, with a flourishing online trade in ‘lunar property'— ‘Everybody Is Saying It…Nothing Could Be Greater Than To Own Your Own Crater!' Footnote 8 —including the production of seemingly authentic land deeds that remain practically unenforceable and contravened by treaty obligations anyway. More recently, its status as commons has been denied by President Trump and leading US Republicans. Communism in space was a possibility only so long as space was materially inaccessible to capitalistkind: as space becomes a probable site of profitable ventures, the Outer Space Treaty’s proto-communism must falter and fade away.

Certain parallels exist between the exploration and colonization of outer space and similar maritime ventures back on Earth. To take but one limited aspect of the overlapping legal issues raised by these two areas, that of resource exploitation: the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) established that the ‘seabed and ocean floor' beyond a nation’s territorial waters (or ‘the Area') are the ‘common heritage of mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole'. Like outer space, Earth’s seabed is part of the commons. Similarly, the International Seabed Authority, which was established to oversee the 1982 convention, is to ‘provide for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits derived from activities in the Area' (UN, 1982 , p. 71). In principle, then, any profits arising from, e.g., the mining of polymetallic nodules, are to be shared with all of humankind, including ‘developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them' (UN, 1982 , p. 56). Whether this is likely is to happen is, according to a recent review, likely to be hampered by two factors. First, the commercial exploitation of seabed metals, which is first and foremost a technical issue, ‘seems as far away as ever' (Wood, 2008 ). Second, and perhaps more importantly, the political climate surrounding the creation and ratification (with the exception of the United States) of the 1982 convention has now appreciably shifted: ‘Much of the ideological passion that characterized the debates in the First Committee of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, and to some degree also in the Preparatory Commission, have now subsided' (Wood, 2008 ). As with outer space, the ocean floor becomes a legal site of contestation the moment states and corporations are technically capable of exploiting it.

This article adopts an approach broadly derived from the critical theory tradition to analyze NewSpace. Drawing on David Harvey’s notion of spatial fixes, as well as key theoretical insights from such varied thinkers as Hegel, Marx, Bourdieu, and Deleuze and Guattari, this article asks in what ways the NewSpace paradigm can be rethought through a critical (neo-Marxist) political economy framework. Below, we advance three crucial arguments. First, there is an expedient conflation of capitalist interests with a universalizing notion of the interests of humanity. Second, the state continues to play an important role in supporting capital accumulation in space; a key tension in this area is the question of the continued role of the state in facilitating and financing NewSpace ventures—a role that is simultaneously downplayed and even, on occasion, dismissed by NewSpace actors themselves. Finally, we reassess the commercialization of space through Harvey’s concept of the spatial fix, arguing that outer space serves as an important outlet for surplus capital, a site of knowledge production and technological innovation, and a potential reservoir of untapped raw materials. While the future is inherently uncertain, the article spotlights the expansive tendencies of global capital and describe the ways NewSpace actors themselves have come to view outer space as the probable future site of a post-terrestrial form of capital accumulation.

The universalization of capitalism

The 2010s may very well be remembered as the ‘Age of NewSpace', the decade when outer space was turned into a capitalist space, when private corporations pushed the price of launches, satellites, and space infrastructure downwards, exerting what industry insiders call the ‘SpaceX effect' (Henry, 2018 ), centered on the technological achievement of ‘reusability', recovering used rocket boosters for additional launches, promising to drastically reduce the price of going to space (Morring, 2016 ). As one report observes, ‘Not only has the number of private companies engaged in space exploration grown remarkably in recent years, these companies are quickly besting their government-sponsored competitors' (Houser, 2017 ). What the rockets, shuttles, ships, and landing pods will carry beneath their payload fairing or in their cargo hold, however, along with supplies and satellites, is the capitalist worldview, a particular ideology—just as Robinson Crusoe, in Marx’s ironic retelling in Capital , ‘having saved a watch, ledger, ink and pen from the shipwreck… soon begins, like a good Englishman, to keep a set of books' (Marx, 1976 , p. 170), brings with him English political economy—'Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham', as Marx ( 1976 , p. 280) says elsewhere—to his desert island.

In early 2018, astronomers across the world learned that a New Zealand start-up, Rocket Lab, which aimed to launch thousands of miniature satellites into orbit around Earth (so-called ‘smallsats'), had planned to launch a giant, shining ‘disco ball'—the ‘Humanity Star'—into orbit around Earth. It was an elaborate marketing stunt masked by humanistic idealism. ‘No matter where you are in the world, or what is happening in your life', said Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck, ‘everyone will be able to see the Humanity Star in the night sky' (Amos, 2018 ). Many astronomers expressed outrage at these plans, fearing that the light from the Human Star would threaten their ability to carry out scientific observations. But while these astronomers were incensed by the idea of a bright geodesic object disrupting their ability to carry out observations, concerns with the effects of the arrival of capitalistkind on their ability to collect data were non-existent. The astronomical community was angered by the idea of a material, concrete, visible object polluting “pure” scientific data, but it paid less attention to the (invisible and abstract) recuperation of the night sky as it was brought into the fold of capitalism.

In an interview, Beck was quizzed about the Humanity Star and asked by a reporter about the difficulties of generating profits in space (Tucker, 2018 ). To this Beck replied, ‘It has always been a government domain, but we’re witnessing the democratization of it…[I]t [is] turning into a commercially dominated domain'. Beck established an equivalence established between the dissolution of space as the rightful domain of states and the advent of profit-making ventures as signs of ‘democratization'. In space, according to Beck’s logic, democratization involves the disappearance of the state and the rise of capital. The argument, of course, is impeccably post-statist: on this account, states are monolithic, conservative Leviathans beyond the reach of popular control; corporations, on the other hand, are in principle representatives of the everyman: in the age of the start-up, any humble citizen could in theory become an agent of disruption, a force for change, an explorer of space, and a potential member of the cadre of capitalistkind. Following this logic, the question for the entrepreneurs of NewSpace is how to monetize outer space, which means turning space into a space for capital; their question is how they can deplanetarize capital and universalize it, literally speaking, that is, turn the Universe into a universe for capital. In this light, Peter Beck’s distortion of democratic ideals appears eminently sensible, equating democratization with monetization, that is, capital liberated from its earthly tethers.

Emblematic of this capitalist turn in space was the founding of Moon Express in 2011, composed of a ‘team of prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneurs…shooting for the moon with a new private venture aimed at scouring the lunar surface for precious metals and rare metallic elements' (Hennigan, 2011 ). Following Google’s Lunar XPRIZE—an intertwining of Silicon Valley and NewSpace’s capitalistkind—which promised a $20 million prize for the first private company to land a spacecraft on the Moon, travel 500 meters, and transmit high-definition images back to Earth, all by March 2018, Footnote 9 Moon Express claimed that it would be capable of landing on the lunar surface and earn the cash prize. Their stated goal was twofold: first, to mine rare resource like Helium-3 (a steadily dwindling scarce resources on Earth), gold, platinum group metals, and water, and, second, to carry out scientific work that would ‘help researchers develop human space colonies for future generations' (Ioannou, 2017 ). The ordering is telling: first profits, then humanity. These were the hollow, insubstantial promises of a venture-capitalized NewSpace enterprise: in early 2018, Google announced that none of the five teams competing for the Lunar XPRIZE, including Moon Express, would reach their stated objectives by the 31 March deadline and they were taking their money back (Grush, 2018 ). In this sense, it was typical for NewSpace in its formative years: a corporate field populated by (overly exuberant) private enterprises who promised more than they could deliver. But the belief in NewSpace is real enough. In a tome bursting with the optimism of NewSpace, Wohlforth and Hendrix claim that ‘the commercial spaceflight industry is transforming our sense of possibility. Using Silicon Valley’s money and innovative confidence, it will soon bring mass space products to the market' ( 2016 , p. 7).

The trope of humanity plays a key role in the rhetoric of the adherents of NewSpace. To fulfill the objectives of NewSpace, including profit maximization and the exploitation of celestial bodies, the symbolic figure of a shared humanity serves a useful purpose, camouflaging the conquest of space by capitalism with a dream of humanity boldly venturing forth into the dark unknown, thereby also providing the legitimacy and enthusiasm needed to support bolster the legitimacy of NewSpace. So long as the stargazers and SpaceX watchers are permitted their fill of ‘collective effervescence', to use Durkheim’s ( 1995 , p. 228) concept, capitalist entrepreneurs will be able to pursue their business interests more or less as they please. The spectacle of outer space is crucial in this regard.

Crucially, however, and despite this spectacle, SpaceX’s technology might not necessarily be more sophisticated than its competitors or predecessors. Some industry insiders have rebuffed some of the more the spectacular claims of NewSpace’s proponents, arguing that launch vehicle reusability requires a (perhaps prohibitively) expensive refurbishing of the rocket engines involved in launches: ‘The economics will depend on how many times a booster can be flown, and how much the individual expense will be to refurbish the booster…each time' (Chang, 2017 ). Reusability may be a technological dead-end because of the inherently stressful effects of a rocket launch on the launch vehicle’s components, with extreme limitations on reusability beyond second-use as well as added risks of malfunctions that customers and insurers are likely to wish to avoid. Furthermore, the Falcon Heavy still has not matched the power and payload capacity of NASA’s Saturn V, a product of 1960s military-industrial engineering and Fordist state spending programs. What SpaceX and other NewSpace corporations do with great ingenuity, however, is to manage the spectacle of outer space, producing outpourings of public fervor, aided by a widespread adherence to the ‘Californian Ideology' (Barbrook and Cameron, 1996 ), or post-statist techno-utopianism, in many postindustrialized societies.

The very centrality of these maneuvers has initiated a new phase in the history of capitalist relations, that of ‘charismatic accumulation'—certainly not in the sense of any ‘objective' or inherent charismatic authority, but with a form of illusio , to speak with Bourdieu, vested in the members of capitalistkind by their uncanny ability to spin mythologizing self-narratives. This has always been part of the capitalist game, from Henry Ford and onwards, but the charismatic mission gains a special potency in the grandiose designs of NewSpace’s entrepreneurs. Every SpaceX launch is a quasi-religious spectacle, observed by millions capable of producing a real sense of wonder in a condition of (legitimizing) collective effervescence.

Outer space necessarily reduces inter-human difference to a common denominator or a shared species-being. An important leitmotiv in many Hollywood science fiction movies, including Arrival (2016), is that a first encounter with an alien species of intelligent beings tends to flatten all human difference (including ethnoracial and national categories), thereby restoring humankind to its proper universality (see also Novoa, 2016 ). Ambassadors of Earth as a whole, not representatives of particular nations, step forth to meet alien emissaries. But even in the absence of such an encounter, the search for habitable domains (or rather, profitable locales) beyond Earth will necessarily forge a shared conception of the human condition, initiated with the Pale Blue Dot photograph in 1990. Typical of this sentiment are the words of the astronomer Carl Sagan, who famously observed of this photograph: ‘On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives'.

This naïvely humanistic vision has been one of the dominant tropes in the discourse on space since the 1950s, and it remains strong today, as with the claims of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) that their task is to ‘uphold the vision of a more equitable future for all humankind through shared achievements in space'. This representational tendency mobilizes humanism to generate enthusiasm about space-related activities. But such representations are increasingly being recuperated by capitalist enterprise, so that it is not humankind but its modulation by space capitalists that will launch into the dark unknown. It is not humankind but capitalistkind that ventures forth. In early 2018, NASA was set to request $150 million in its 2019 budget to ‘enable the development and maturation of commercial entities and capabilities which will ensure that commercial successors to the ISS…are operational when they are needed', only one of many signs that space is becoming a space for capitalism. According to one estimate, the value of just one single asteroid would be more than $20 trillion in rare earth and platinum-group metals (Lewis, 1996 ), a precious prize indeed for profit-hungry corporations. Footnote 10 Even the UNOOSA spoke vociferously in favor of the commercialization of space, appealing variously to the ‘industry and private sector' and elevating the ‘space economy' to a central pillar in its Space2030 Agenda (including the ‘use of resources that create and provide value and benefits to the world population in the course of exploring, understanding and utilizing space'), even as the UN agency falls back on a humanistic, almost social-democratic vision of the equitable distribution of benefits (and profits) from space mining, exploration, and colonization (UNOOSA, 2018 ).

We find evidence of this strategic humanism in all manner of pronouncements from NewSpace entrepreneurs. To take but one example: Naveen Jain, the chairman and co-founder of MoonEx, a lunar commercialization firm, has claimed that ‘from an entrepreneur’s perspective, the moon has never truly been explored'. The moon, Jain has claimed, ‘could hold resources that benefit Earth and all humanity' (Hennigan, 2011 ). We should note the recourse to the trope of all of humanity by this NewSpace entrepreneur, mimicked in the 1979 Moon Agreement, a UN treaty, which also held that the Moon’s resources are ‘the common heritage of mankind' (Tronchetti, 2013 , p. 13). Footnote 11 In a purely factual sense, of course, Jain is wrong: Google Moon offers high-resolution images of the lunar surface, Footnote 12 and the moon has already been explored, in the sense of being mapped, albeit rudimentarily and with room for further data collection. Crucially, however, these cartographic techniques have not been put to capitalist uses: mapping minerals, for instance, or producing detailed schemata that might one day turn the Moon into a ‘gas station' for commercial space ventures, as Wilbur Ross, Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, has proposed (Bryan, 2018 ). What is lacking, in short, are capitalist maps of the Moon, i.e., a cartography for capital. But as Klinger ( 2017 : 199) notes, even though no one is ‘actively mining the Moon' at present, at least ‘six national space programs, fifty private firms, and one graduate engineering program, are intent on figuring out how to do so'; furthermore, Klinger draws attention to mapping efforts that have revealed high an abundance of rare earth metals, thorium, and iron in the Moon’s ‘Mare Procellarum KREEP' region (Klinger, 2017 , p. 203).

We have already noted that it is not humanity, conceived as species-being, a Gattungswesen , that makes its way into space. The term Gattungswesen , of course, has a long intellectual pedigree, harking back to Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, and others. The term can ‘be naturally applied both to the individual human being and to the common nature or essence which resides in every individual man and woman', Allan Wood ( 2004 , p. 17) writes, as well as ‘to the entire human race, referring to humanity as a single collective entity or else to the essential property which characterizes this entity and makes it a single distinctive thing in its own right'. Significantly, the adherents of NewSpace often resort to the idea of humanity in its broad universality (e.g., Musk, 2017 ), but this denies and distorts the modulation of humanity by its imbrication with the project of global (and post-global, i.e., space-bound) capitalism. It is precisely the sort of false universality implied in the humanism of the supporters of NewSpace that Marx subjected to a scathing critique in the sixth of his Theses on Feuerbach . Here Marx noted that the human essence is not made up of some ‘abstraction inherent in each single individual' ( 1998 , p. 570). Instead, humans are defined by the ‘ensemble of social relations' in which they are enmeshed. Under NewSpace, it is not humanity, plain and simple, that ventures forth, but a specific set of capitalist entrepreneurs, carrying a particular ideological payload, alongside their satellites, instruments, and supplies, a point noted by other sociologists of outer space, or ‘astrosociologists' (Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a , 2007b ).

The spatial fix of outer space

No longer terra nullius, space is now the new terra firma of capitalistkind: its naturalized terroir, its next necessary terrain. The logic of capitalism dictates that capital should seek to expand outwards into the vastness of space, a point recognized by a recent ethnography of NewSpace actors (Valentine, 2016 , p. 1050). The operations of capitalistkind serve to resolve a series of (potential) crises of capitalism, revolving around the slow, steady decline of spatial fixes (see e.g., Harvey, 1985 , p. 51–66) as they come crashing up against the quickly vanishing blank spaces remaining on earthly maps and declining (terrestrial) opportunities for profitable investment of surplus capital (Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a , p. 49–78).

A ‘spatial fix' involves the geographic modulation of capital accumulation, consisting in the outward expansion of capital onto new geographic terrains, or into new spaces, with the aim of filling a gap in the home terrains of capital. Jessop ( 2006 , p. 149) notes that spatial fixes may involve a number of strategies, including the creation of new markets within the capitalist world, engaging in trade with non-capitalist economies, and exporting surplus capital to undeveloped or underdeveloped regions. The first two address the problem of insufficient demand and the latter option creates a productive (or valorizing) outlet for excess capital. Capitalism must regularly discover, develop, and appropriate such new spaces because of its inherent tendency to generate surplus capital, i.e., capital bereft of profitable purpose. In Harvey’s ( 2006 , p. xviii) terms, a spatial fix revolves around ‘geographical expansions and restructuring…as a temporary solution to crises understood…in terms of the overaccumulation of capital'. It is a temporary solution because these newly appropriated spaces will in turn become exhausted of profitable potential and are likely to produce their own stocks of surplus capital; while ‘capital surpluses that otherwise stood to be devalued, could be absorbed through geographical expansions and spatio-temporal displacements' (Harvey, 2006 , p. xviii), this outwards drive of capitalism is inherently limitless: there is no end point or final destination for capitalism. Instead, capitalism must continuously propel itself onwards in search of pristine sites of renewed capital accumulation. In this way, Harvey writes, society constantly ‘creates fresh productive powers elsewhere to absorb its overaccumulated capital' (Harvey, 1981 , p. 8).

Historically, spatial fixes have played an important role in conserving the capitalist system. As Jessop ( 2006 , p. 149) points out, ‘The export of surplus money capital, surplus commodities, and/or surplus labour-power outside the space(s) where they originate enabled capital to avoid, at least for a period, the threat of devaluation'. But these new spaces for capital are not necessarily limited to physical terrains, as with colonial expansion in the nineteenth century; as Greene and Joseph ( 2015 ) note, various digital spaces, such as the Internet, can also be considered as spatial fixes: the Web absorbs overaccumulated capital, heightens consumption of virtual and physical goods, and makes inexpensive, flexible sources of labor available to employers. Greene and Joseph offer the example of online high-speed frequency trading as a digital spatial fix that furthers the ‘annihilation of space by time' first noted by Marx in his Grundrisse (see Marx, 1973 , p. 524).

Outer space serves at least two purposes in this regard. In the short-to medium-term, it allows for the export of surplus capital into emerging industries, such as satellite imaging and communication. These are significant sites of capital accumulation: global revenues in the worldwide satellite market in 2016 amounted to $260 billion (SIA, 2017 , p. 4). Clearly, much of this activity is taking place ‘on the ground'; it is occurring in the ‘terrestrial economy'. But all that capital would have to find some other meaningful or productive outlet were it not for the expansion of capital into space. Second, outer space serves as an arena of technological innovation, which feeds back into the terrestrial economy, helping to avert crisis by pushing capital out of technological stagnation and innovation shortfalls.

In short, outer space serves as a spatial fix. It swallows up surplus capital, promising to deliver valuable resources, technological innovations, and communication services to capitalists back on Earth. This places outer space on the same level as traditional colonization, analyzed in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right , which Hegel thought of as a product of the ‘inner dialectic of civil society', which drives the market to ‘push beyond its own limits and seek markets, and so its necessary means of subsistence, in other lands which are either deficient in the goods it has overproduced, or else generally backward in creative industry, etc.' (Hegel, 2008 , p. 222). In this regard, SpaceX and related ventures are not so very different from maritime colonialists and the trader-exploiters of the British East India Company. But there is something new at stake. As the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Diamandis has gleefully noted: ‘There are twenty-trillion-dollar checks up there, waiting to be cashed!' (Seaney and Glendenning, 2016 ). Capitalistkind consists in the naturalization of capitalist consciousness and practice, the (false) universalization of a particular mode of political economy as inherent to the human condition, followed by the projection of this naturalized universality into space—capitalist humanity as a Fukuyamite ‘end of history', the end-point of (earthly) historical unfolding, but the starting point of humanity’s first serious advances in space.

What role, then, for the state? The frontiersmen of NewSpace tend to think of themselves as libertarians, pioneers beyond the domain of state bureaucracy (see Nelson and Block, 2018 ). ‘The government should leave the design work and ownership of the product to the private sector', the author of a 2017 report, Capitalism in Space , advocates. ‘The private companies know best how to build their own products to maximize performance while lowering cost' (Zimmerman, 2017 , p. 27). One ethnographer notes that ‘politically, right-libertarianism prevails' amongst NewSpace entrepreneurs (Valentine, 2016 , p. 1047–1048). Just as Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the opponents to the Iraq War as ‘Old Europe', so too are state entities’ interests in space exploration shrugged off as symptoms of ‘Old Space'. Elon Musk, we are told in a recent biography, unlike the sluggish Big State actors of yore, ‘would apply some of the start-up techniques he’d learned in Silicon Valley to run SpaceX lean and fast…As a private company, SpaceX would also avoid the waste and cost overruns associated with government contractors' (Vance, 2015 , p. 114). This libertarianism-in-space has found a willing chorus of academic supporters. The legal scholar Virgiliu Pop introduces the notion of the frontier paradigm (combining laissez-faire economics, market competition, and an individualist ethic) into the domain of space law, claiming that this paradigm has ‘proven its worth on our planet' and will ‘most likely…do so in the extraterrestrial realms' as well (Pop, 2009 , p. vi). This frontier paradigm is not entirely new: a ‘Columbus mythology', centering on the ‘noble explorer', was continuously evoked in the United States during the Cold War space race (Dickens and Ormrod, 2016 , pp. 79, 162–164).

But the entrepreneurial libertarianism of capitalistkind is undermined by the reliance of the entire NewSpace complex on extensive support from the state, ‘a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups' that in the case of Musk’s three main companies (SpaceX, SolarCity Corp., and Tesla) has been underpinned by $4.9 billion dollars in government subsidies (Hirsch, 2015 ). In the nascent field of space tourism, Cohen ( 2017 ) argues that what began as an almost entirely private venture quickly ground to a halt in the face of insurmountable technical and financial obstacles, only solved by piggybacking on large state-run projects, such as selling trips to the International Space Station, against the objections of NASA scientists. The business model of NewSpace depends on the taxpayer’s dollar while making pretensions to individual self-reliance. The vast majority of present-day clients of private aerospace corporations are government clients, usually military in origin. Furthermore, the bulk of rocket launches in the United States take place on government property, usually operated by the US Air Force or NASA. Footnote 13

This inward tension between state dependency and capitalist autonomy is itself a product of neoliberalism’s contradictory demand for a minimal, “slim” state, while simultaneously (and in fact) relying on a state reengineered and retooled for the purposes of capital accumulation (Wacquant, 2012 ). As Lazzarato writes, ‘To be able to be “laissez-faire”, it is necessary to intervene a great deal' ( 2017 , p. 7). Space libertarianism is libertarian in name only: behind every NewSpace venture looms a thick web of government spending programs, regulatory agencies, public infrastructure, and universities bolstered by research grants from the state. SpaceX would not exist were it not for state-sponsored contracts of satellite launches. Similarly, in 2018, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—the famed origin of the World Wide Web—announced that it would launch a ‘responsive launch competition', meaning essentially the reuse of launch vehicles, representing an attempt by the state to ‘harness growing commercial capabilities' and place them in the service of the state’s interest in ensuring ‘national security' (Foust, 2018b ).

This libertarianism has been steadily growing in the nexus between Silicon Valley, Stanford University, Wall Street, and the Washington political establishment, which tend to place a high value on Randian ‘objectivism' and participate in a long American intellectual heritage of individualistic ‘bootstrapping' and (allegedly) gritty self-reliance. But as Nelson and Block ( 2018 , p. 189–197) recognize, one of the central symbolic operations of capitalistkind resides in concealing its reliance on the state by mobilizing the charm of its entrepreneurial constituents and the spectacle of space. There is a case to be made for the idea that SpaceX and its ilk resemble semi-private corporations like the British East India Company. The latter, “incorporated by royal charter from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I in 1600 to trade in silk and spices, and other profitable Indian commodities,” recruited soldiers and built a ‘commercial business [that] quickly became a business of conquest' (Tharoor, 2017 ). SpaceX, too, is increasingly imbricated with an attempt on the part of a particular state, the United States, to colonize and appropriate resources derived from a particular area, that of outer space; it, too, depends on the infrastructure, contracts, and regulatory environment that thus far only a state seems able to provide. Its private character, like that of the East India Company, is troubled by being deeply embedded in the state. As one commentator has observed of SpaceX, ‘If there’s a consistent charge against Elon Musk and his high-flying companies…it’s that they’re not really examples of independent, innovative market capitalism. Rather, they’re government contractors, dependent on taxpayer money to stay afloat' (cit. Nelson and Block, 2018 , p. 189).

Perhaps this should not come as a surprise. As Bourdieu ( 2005 , p. 12) observed, ‘The economic field is, more than any other, inhabited by the state, which contributes at every moment to its existence and persistence, and also to the structure of the relations of force that characterize it'. The state lays out the preconditions for market exchanges. Under neoliberalism, the state is the preeminent facilitator of markets. The neoliberal state is not so much a Minimalstaat , night watchman state, or slim state as it is the prima causa of market society (see, e.g., Wacquant, 2012 ). Similarly, in the political theory of Deleuze and Guattari, any economic development presupposes the political differentiation caused by the state (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004a , p. 237–238). Even in the global environment of contemporary capitalism, the market cannot operate without the state becoming integrated with capitalism itself, as ‘it is the modern state that gives capitalism its models of realization' (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004b , p. 480). For capitalism to survive in outer space, the state must create a regulatory environment, subsidize infrastructure, and hand down contracts – in short, assemble outer space as a domain made accessible in legal, technical, and economic ways.

Universalizing capital

As Earth’s empty spaces are filled, as our planet comes to be shorn of blank places, capitalistkind emerges to rescue capitalism from its terrestrial limitations, launching space rockets, placing satellites into orbit, appropriating extraterrestrial resources, and, perhaps one day, building colonies on distant planets like Mars. But why limit ourselves to Mars? As of mid-2017, NASA’s Kepler observatory had discovered more than 5000 exoplanets—planets that seem like promising alternatives to Earth, located at an appropriate distance from their respective suns in the famed ‘Goldilocks zone'. These ‘planetary candidates', as they are known—that is, candidates for the replacement of Earth, capable of supporting human life with only minimal technological augmentation or cybernetic re-engineering—are above all viable candidates for selection by specific capitalists seeking to discover new profitable ventures beyond the limits of an Earth-bound capitalism. Space reveals the impotence of the neoliberal, post-Fordist state, its incapacity and unwillingness to embark on gigantic infrastructural projects, to project itself outwards, and to fire the imagination of (actual) humankind. Capitalistkind steps in to fill the vacuum left behind by a state that lacks what Mann ( 2012 , p. 170) calls ‘infrastructural power'. The old question, the question of Old Space, was quite simply: is this planet a viable site for humankind, a suitable homeland for the reproduction of human life away from Earth? But the new question, the question for NewSpace, will be: can this celestial body support capitalistkind? Will it support the interests of capitalist entrepreneurs, answering to the capitalist desire for continued accumulation?

While some elements of the astrosociological community, such as the Astrosociology Research Institute (ARI), Footnote 14 insist on elucidating the “human dimension” in outer space, Dickens and Ormrod recognize that this humanization-through-capitalism really involves the ‘commodification of the universe' ( 2007b , p. 2). While Dickens and Ormrod develop similar arguments to those sketched here—from their concept of an ‘outer spatial fix' to their argument about outer space becoming woven into circuits of capital accumulation—they were writing at a time when their remarks necessarily remained speculative: the commercialization of space was still in its infancy. In an inversion of Hegel’s owl of Minerva, reality has since largely confirmed their ideas and caught up with theory. Above all, when considering the various ventures ongoing in space today, it is not so much the universalizing human dimension as the specifically capitalist dimension that is striking. With the advent of NewSpace, outer space is becoming not the domain of a common humanity but of private capital.

The arguments laid out above mirror an ongoing turn in critical scholarship away from the notion of the Anthropocene towards a more rigorously political-economic concept of Capitalocene, premised on the ‘claim that capitalism is the pivot of today’s biospheric crisis' (Moore, 2016 , p. xi). Just as the exponents of the concept of Capitalocene emphasize that it is capitalism, and not humanity as such, that is the driving force behind environmental transformation, so too does the notion of capitalistkind emphasize that it is not humankind tout court but rather a set of specific capitalist entrepreneurs who are acting as the central transformative agents of and in outer space, with the ‘ever-increasing infiltration of capital' into what was formerly the domain of the state (Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a , p. 6). We can also think about these issues in terms of what Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos ( 2015 ) terms ‘spatial justice'. This concept captures the fact that struggles over justice are often struggles to occupy space, as the term is more conventionally understood, as with urban battles over the ‘right to the city' (Harvey, 2008 ), to provide just one example. But the same also holds true for outer space: there is an ongoing struggle over the right to take up space in outer space. So far, the capitalist side appears to be winning. As the proto-communism of the Cold War-era Outer Space Treaty is abandoned—in tandem with the increased technological feasibility of exploiting resources and accumulating profits in outer space—spatial justice in outer space increasingly comes to mean the ‘justice' of capital, capitalistkind taking the place of humankind. It is comparatively easy to declare that outer space is a commons, as the Outer Space Treaty did in the late 1960s, when that domain is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible to capital; with the heightened accessibility of outer space, however, it is unsurprising that central political agents, such as President Trump’s administration, should seek to dismantle this regulatory framework and ensure the smooth functioning of capital accumulation beyond the terrains of Earth.

What kind of capitalism is being projected into space? The complexity of state-market relations is sufficient to force us to hedge against a simplified reading of space commercialization: it is not a matter of states against markets, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Instead, as Bratton ( 2015 ) suggests, we are witnessing the emergence of a ‘stack', a complex intertwining of commercial, geopolitical, and technological concerns, which challenges previous notions of state sovereignty. This can be seen as a hybridized state-market form, with technology playing a central role in reciprocal processes of political and economic transformation. On the one hand, outer space was in some sense always already the domain of marketization, albeit to a limited extent, even during the Cold War, from the first commercial satellite launch in the early 1960s to President Ronald Reagan’s implementation of the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, which aimed to encourage private enterprise to take an interest in an emerging launch market. As Hermann Bondi, the head of the European Space Organization, wrote in the early 1970s, ‘It is clear…that there must be three partners in space, universities and research institutions on the one hand, the government on the second and industry on the third' (Bondi, 1971 , p. 9).

On the other hand, outer space still remains firmly within the domain of the state and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future, with the likely continued importance of military uses of satellite technology and the weaponization of Earth’s orbit—crucially, the Outer Space Treaty only prohibits nuclear arms and other ‘weapons of mass destruction' in space, not conventional weapons, such as ballistic missiles. One novel element in this phase of capitalism-in-space is the interrelationship between Silicon Valley, NewSpace, and the state (see, e.g., Vance, 2015 ). Silicon Valley’s capitalist class, including Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, play an outsize role in NewSpace. Behind and around these figures, however, remains the state—through its weighty fiscal, regulatory, military, and symbolic investments. Footnote 15 To take but one example: In June 2018, SpaceX won a $130 million contract with the U.S. Air Force to launch an ‘Air Force Space Command' satellite onboard a Falcon Heavy rocket (Erwin, 2018 ).

Fredric Jameson’s ( 2003 , p. 76) oft-quoted observation that it is easier to imagine the end of humankind than the end of capitalism, is realized in the ideals and operations of capitalistkind. Elon Musk has observed that the goal of SpaceX is to establish humankind as a ‘multiplanetary species with a self-sustaining civilization on another planet' whose purpose is to counteract the possibility of a ‘worst-case scenario happening and extinguishing human consciousness' (Vance, 2015 , p. 5). But couldn’t we view this idealistic assertion on behalf of humanity in another way? It is not human consciousness, over and against what the writer Kim Stanley Robinson ( 2017 , p. 2) calls ‘mineral unconsciousness' (i.e., the mute, geological reality of the natural universe), so much as a specifically capitalist consciousness that is at stake. While the actions of capitalistkind may primarily be aimed at ensuring the future survival of the human species, an additional result is to ensure that the very idea of capitalism itself will outlive a (distantly) possible extinction event. Capitalism is a self-replicating system, pushing to expand ever outwards, using a territorializing strategy of survival. As David Harvey notes, ‘a steady rate of growth is essential for the health of a capitalist economic system, since it is only through growth that profits can be assured and the accumulation of capital be sustained' ( 1990 , p. 180). In this respect, outer space is ideal: it is boundless and infinite. As Earth comes to be blanketed by capital, it is only to be expected that capital should set its sights on the stars above. The actions of capitalistkind serve to bolster the capitalist mode of production and accumulation: it is not only life but capital itself that must outlive Earth—even into the darkness of space.

A payload or rocket fairing is the ‘nose cone' of the rocket, or ‘launch vehicle' that protects its cargo (or ‘payload'), such as satellites or scientific instruments, from the aerodynamic forces in play during a rocket’s flight into space.

Emblematic of this tendency was US President Donald Trump’s tweet upon learning of the successful Falcon Heavy test flight: ‘Congratulations @ElonMusk and @SpaceX on the successful #FalconHeavy launch. This achievement, along with @NASA’s commercial and international partners, continues to show American ingenuity at its best!' The privatization of space is continuously imbricated with the broader geopolitical (or universo-political) ambitions of the world’s dominant superpower, including the launching of satellites, perhaps even weapon systems, for the purposes of ‘national security', which serves to complicate the rhetoric of libertarianism expressed by the proponents of NewSpace. Even capitalism-in-space is fundamentally shaped by the actions of the state, if only because markets are, as Bourdieu ( 2005 ) reminds us, created and upheld by the state.

In this article, ‘outer space' is understood as the area extending past the so-called Kármán line, set at 100 km above Earth’s sea level, including ‘the moon and other celestial bodies', which follows the definition of outer space laid out in Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty. As the space law scholar Fabio Tronchetti ( 2013 : viii) notes, ‘[M]any argue that the lower border of outer space should be set at an altitude of 100 km above sea level (62.5 miles)'. We follow this practice in this article, taking ‘outer space' to be the region above this imaginary boundary as well as the objects and entities contained within it.

For a play-by-play account of the space industry, produced by and for industry insiders, one might consult the informative (but emic and adulatory) news portal, SpaceNews.com.

Ironically, despite the NewSpace entrepreneurs’ talk of saving humanity from a dying planet by turning humankind into a multiplanetary species (e.g., Musk, 2017 ), the accelerating NewSpace race may actually accelerate catastrophic global climate change, owing to the deleterious (and largely unmeasured) effects of burning liquid rocket fuels in the atmosphere (see Toohey et al., 2009 ), which may feed the imperative to find alternatives to Earth. For the first time in the report’s history, the United Nations 2018 Quadrennial Global Ozone Assessment was set to include estimates of the effects of rocket launches on Earth’s atmosphere.

In this article, the meaning of the term ‘capitalistkind' is twofold. On the one hand, it denotes universalizing, humanistic representations of capitalist activities, where capitalism is portrayed as a system of and for the entirety of humankind, said to benefit the entire human species, and comes to be equated with humanity. On the other hand, the term points to a particular array of capitalist agents responsible for the operations of private enterprise in space. More than a pun, then, the idea of capitalistkind captures the strategic appropriation of humanistic universality by a particular group of ideologically self-conscious, spacefaring capitalists.

See Article II of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (also known as the Outer Space Treaty) (e.g., UNOOSA, 2017 , p. 4).

Interestingly, the Lunar Registry recognizes the problems of staking out property ownership in inaccessible locations: ‘Remember: the only recognized historic precedent in international law for property ownership is actual occupation of that property ', the company notes in a response to FAQs (emphasis in original). Thus, a commercial offering that appears to be part joke, part scam, actually emphasizes a serious point: it is relatively easy to declare that celestial bodies are a part of the commons so long as the usage and ownership of that commons remains only a theoretical, non-actualized possibility. Again, it is worth recalling that everyone can be a communist in space so long as space remains technologically inaccessible to capitalism.

See the XPRIZE website for more information on the rules and contestants: http://lunar.xprize.org/ .

Such estimates often assume, rather naively, that the price of commodities would not be adversely affected by the sudden influx of tremendous quantities of such resources into the marketplace. Lewis also falls into the humanist trap of thinking that the potential fruits of outer space will necessarily serve ‘as resources for humankind' ( 1996 , p. 98), rather for capitalistkind.

Tellingly, none of the major ‘space powers' are parties to the 1979 Moon Agreement, precisely because of its proto-communistic demand that the spoils of the lunar surface and subsoil be shared equitably amongst all nations (see, e.g., Tronchetti, 2013 , 13–14).

Google Moon offers a fascinating composite of extant lunar imagery, drawing on data collections maintained by the US Geological Survey, NASA’s Ames Research Center, and the US National Academy of the Sciences’ Universities Space Research Association, among others, see, e.g., https://www.google.com/moon/ .

Consulting SpaceX’s log of launches reveals that the overwhelming majority of launches take place from places like Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or Cape Canaveral in Florida, overseen by USAF and NASA, i.e., the state.

This and similar formulations can be found on the Astrosociology Research Institute’s wide-roaming website: http://www.astrosociology.org/ .

The complex intertwining of cutting-edge technologies, profit-maximizing corporations, and regulatory political structures in outer space has perhaps most memorably rendered been by the science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson in his Mars Trilogy (see, e.g., Robinson, 2017 ).

Amos J (2018) ‘Disco ball’ put into space from NZ. BBC.com. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42808180 . Accessed 24 Jan 2018

Barbrook R, Cameron A (1996) The Californian ideology. Sci Cult 6(1):44–72

Article   Google Scholar  

Bondi H (1971) Europe’s space effort and gravitation. In: Bondi H, Oliphant M, James LB, Mueller GE, Hage G eds. Pioneering in outer space: a course of lectures on selected topics in modern physics and space flight. Heinemann, London, p 9–61

Google Scholar  

Bourdieu P (2005) The social structures of the economy. Polity Press, Cambridge

Bratton B (2015) The stack: on software and sovereignty. MIT Press, Cambridge

Bryan B (2018) Trump’s commerce secretary wants to turn the moon into a ‘gas station for outer space’. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/wilbur-ross-moon-space-gas-station-2018-2?r=US&IR=T . Accessed 22 Feb 2018

Chang K (2017) Recycled rockets could drop costs, speed space travel. The New York Times , 30 March. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/science/space-x-reuseable-rockets-launch.html

Cohen E (2017) The paradoxes of space tourism. Tour Recreat Res 42(1):22–31

Deleuze G, Guattari F (2004a) Anti-oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Continuum, London

Deleuze G, Guattari F (2004b) A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Continuum, London

Department of Commerce (2018) Secretary Ross: a bright future for U.S. leadership of space commerce. Commerce.gov. https://www.commerce.gov/news/secretary-speeches/2018/02/secretary-ross-bright-future-us-leadership-space-commerce . Accessed 21 Feb 2018

Dickens P, Ormrod JS (2007a) Cosmic society: towards a sociology of the universe. Routledge, London

Dickens P, Ormrod JS (2007b) Outer space and internal nature: towards a sociology of the universe. Sociology 41(1):609–626

Dickens P, Ormrod JS (2016) Introduction: the production of outer space. In: Ormrod JS, Dickens P (eds) The palgrave handbook of society, culture and outer space. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, p 1–43

Durkheim É (1995) The elementary forms of religious life.The Free Press, New York, NY

Erwin S (2018) SpaceX wins $130 million military launch contract for Falcon Heavy. SpaceNews , 21 June. https://spacenews.com/spacex-wins-130-million-military-launch-contract-for-falcon-heavy/

Foust J (2018a) Commerce Department pressing ahead with commercial space regulatory reform. SpaceNews , 5 March. http://spacenews.com/commerce-department-pressing-ahead-with-commercial-space-regulatory-reform/

Foust J (2018b) DARPA planning responsive launch competition. SpaceNews , 12 February. http://spacenews.com/darpa-planning-responsive-launch-competition/

Greene DM, Joseph D (2015) The digital spatial fix. tripleC 13(2):223–247

Grush A (2018) It’s official: no one is going to win the Google Lunar X Prize competition. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/23/16924020/google-lunar-x-prize-competition-moon-no-winner . Accessed 23 Jan 2018

Harvey D (1985) The urbanization of capital. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

Harvey D (1990) The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell, Cambridge

Harvey D (2006) The limits to capital.Verso, London

Harvey D (1981) The spatial fix—Hegel, von Thunen, and Marx. Antipode 13(3):1–12

Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Rev 53(September–October):23–40

Hegel GWF (2008) Outlines of the Philosophy of Right. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Hennigan WJ (2011) MoonEx aims to scour moon for rare materials. Los Angeles Times , 8 April. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/08/business/la-fi-moon-venture-20110408

Henry C (2018) France, Germany studying reusability with a subscale flyback booster. SpaceNews , 8 January. http://spacenews.com/france-germany-studying-reusability-with-a-subscale-flyback-booster/

Hirsch J (2015) Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies. Los Angeles Times , 30 May. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Honan D (2018) The first trillionaires will make their fortunes in space. Big Think . http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-first-trillionaires-will-make-their-fortunes-in-space

Houser K (2017) Private companies, not governments, are shaping the future of space exploration. Futurism , 12 June. https://futurism.com/private-companies-not-governments-are-shaping-the-future-of-space-exploration/

Ioannou L (2017) Billionaire closer to mining the moon for trillions of dollars in riches. CNBC.com. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/billionaire-closer-to-mining-moon-for-trillions-of-dollars-in-riches.html . Accessed 31 Jan 2017

Jameson F (2003) Future city. New Left Rev 21(May-June):65–79

Jessop B (2006) Spatial fixes, temporal fixes and spatio-temporal fixes. In: Castree N, Gregory D (eds.) David Harvey: a critical reader. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, p 142–166

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Klinger JM (2017) Rare earth frontiers: from terrestrial subsoils to lunar landscapes. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

Lazzarato M (2017) Experimental politics: work, welfare, and creativity in the neoliberal age. The MIT Press, London

Lewis JS (1996) Mining the sky: untold riches from the asteroids, comets, and planets. Helix Books, New York, NY

Lyall F, Larsen PB (2009) Space law: a treatise. Ashgate, Farnham

Mann M (2012) The sources of social power: volume 1, a history of power from the beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Marx K (1973) Grundrisse: introduction to the critique of political economy. Vintage Books, New York, NY

Marx K (1976) Capital: volume I. Penguin, London

Marx K (1998) The German ideology: including theses on Feuerbach and introduction to the critique of political economy. Prometheus Books, New York, NY

Moore JW (ed.) (2016) Anthropocene or capitalocene? Nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism. PM Press, Oakland

Morring F Jr (2016) Making the shift from expendable to reusable launchers. Aviation Week. http://aviationweek.com/space/making-shift-expendable-reusable-launchers . Accessed 2 Nov 2016

Musk E (2017) Making humans a multi-planetary species. New Space 5(2):46–61

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Nelson PN, Block WE (2018) Space capitalism: how humans will colonize planets, moons, and asteroids. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Book   Google Scholar  

Novoa A (2016) Alien life matters: reflections on cosmopolitanism, otherness and astrobiology. Cosmop Civil Soc J 8(1):4392. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v8i1.4392

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Pace S (2017) Space development, law, and values. Keynote speech, IISL Galloway Space Law Symposium Cosmos Club, Washington, D.C.

Parker M (2009) Capitalists in space. Sociol Rev 57(1):83–97

Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos A (2015) Spatial justice: body, law, atmosphere. Routledge, New York, NY

Pop V (2009) Who owns the moon? Extraterrestrial aspects of land and mineral resources ownership. Springer, Heidelberg

Robinson KS (2017) Red Mars. Del Rey, New York, NY

Schleusener S (2014) Neoliberal affects: The cultural logic of cool capitalism. In: Fluck W, Pease DE (eds.) REAL: yearbook of research in english and American literature: volume 30: towards a post-exceptionalist American studies. Narr Verlag, Tübingen, p 307–326

Seaney R and Glendenning J (2016) Navigations through a legal asteroid belt. Harvard Law Pol Rev. http://harvardlpr.com/2016/03/14/navigations-through-a-legal-asteroid-belt/

SIA (2017) State of the satellite industry report. https://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SIA-SSIR-2017.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Singleton M (2018) SpaceX’s Falcon heavy launch was YouTube’s second biggest live stream ever. The Verge. http://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16981730/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-youtube-live-stream-record . Accessed 6 Feb 2018

Smith M (2017) New commercial space bill clears House Committee. SpacePolicyOnline.com. https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/new-commercial-space-bill-clears-house-committee/ . Accessed 8 June 2017

SpaceX (2018) Falcon heavy. http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy . Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Tharoor S (2017) Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India. Penguin, London

Toohey D, Peinemann M, Ross P (2009) Limits on the space launch market related to stratospheric ozone depletion. Astropolitics 7(1):50–82

Tronchetti F (2013) Fundamentals of space law and policy. Springer, Heidelberg

Tucker I (2018) One man’s mission to conquer space. The Guardian , 11 February. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/11/one-mans-mission-to-conquer-space-peter-beck-humanity-star

UN [United Nations] (1982) United Nations convention on the law of the sea. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf . Accessed 10 Dec 1982

UNOOSA [United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs] (2017) United Nations treaties and principles on outer space. http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/ST_SPACE_061Rev01E.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2019

UNOOSA [United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs] (2018) UNOOSA partnerships with industry and the private sector. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/informationfor/industryandprivatesector/index.html . Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Valentine D (2016) Exit strategy: profit, cosmology, and the future of humans in space. Anthropol Q 85(4):1045–1067

Vance A (2015) Elon Musk: how the billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla is shaping our future. Virgin Books, London

Wacquant L (2012) Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Social Anthropol 20(1):66–79

Wohlforth C, Hendrix AR (2016) Beyond earth: our path to a new home in the planets. Pantheon Books, New York, NY

Wood AW (2004) Karl Marx (2nd Edition). Routledge, London

Wood M (2008) International Seabed Authority (ISA). Wolfrum R (ed.) In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1180?prd=EPIL . Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Zimmerman R (2017) Capitalism in space: private enterprise and competition reshape the global aerospace launch industry. Center for New American Security (CNAS), Washington, D.C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Oslo Metropolitan University, Work Research Institute (AFI), Oslo, Norway

Victor L. Shammas

Independent scholar, Oslo, Norway

Tomas B. Holen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor L. Shammas .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shammas, V.L., Holen, T.B. One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space. Palgrave Commun 5 , 10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0218-9

Download citation

Received : 30 October 2018

Accepted : 10 January 2019

Published : 29 January 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0218-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Private space industry is helping to change the game

Having witnessed the spectacle of billionaires , contest winners , teen socialites — even, soon, "Star Trek" legend William Shatner — launching into space this year, Americans could be forgiven for assuming that the whole venture has simply become a playground for the rich and famous.

But the private space industry isn't just a rivalry between oligarchs. It's also revolutionizing the global economy in ways that may be less obvious. Space tourism is one small piece of a rapidly growing and highly profitable sector.

Led by companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin , private companies have driven down launch costs to record lows, making it cheaper and easier to send thousands of satellites into orbit for a wide array of commercial uses.

Workers at Relativity Space, a smaller startup, use 3D printers to manufacture rocket parts piece by piece, fuse them with lasers and then launch them for $12 million a pop. The process, which is designed to speed the typical timeline to manufacture a rocket, can make 95 percent of the parts in 60 days.

"We get paid by people like NASA, the DOD, so, government entities," co-founder and CEO Tim Ellis told "MTP Reports."

"But there's also a huge commercial market that's hundreds of billions of dollars from companies that have telecom satellites," he said.

And, much as NASA technology ended up filtering down to a variety of other uses on Earth, Ellis hopes to use the company's 3D printing methods to solve spaceflight challenges in a variety of ways.

Commercial satellites power imaging software like Google Maps, beam television into homes and help planes and boats stay connected in remote locations. SpaceX's Starlink service is working to provide broadband internet through a network of over 1,700 satellites.

For those who can't afford launches of their own, private companies will sell the use of their satellites to perform a variety of tasks.

Will Marshall, CEO of Planet Labs, sells image surveillance services powered by 200 satellites to businesses, including NBC News, as well as nonprofit and government institutions.

"We've changed the business models, really, so that anyone that wants a picture, we've already taken it of your area," Marshall said.

Private clients use Planet's satellites to track farming conditions across vast areas. Scientists use the data to track climate change in real time and detect changes in emissions from fires and deforestation. A think tank even detected over 100 suspected nuclear silos in China by using Planet's imaging services.

"I think that that's just the new world as it is. It's going to be a more transparent one," Marshall said.

It's a major shift from our old conception of space as largely the purview of superpowers that have poured tens of billions of dollars into space programs to showcase their engineering prowess and push the limits of science and exploration.

Some of that is still going on: China's space agency plans to go to the moon, and the U.S. would like to return. Meanwhile, NASA will probe the origins of the universe with the James Webb Space Telescope, which it plans to launch this year. Such projects cost billions, but the benefits are primarily better for scientific research, and they boost national pride.

"I've never heard of any NASA satellite that generates revenue, OK?" Bill Ochs, who oversees the Webb project, said with a laugh. "We're nonprofit. Big time."

The old romantic notion of space as the final frontier is also driving its entrepreneurs, who grew up reading sci-fi novels and idolizing astronauts. Like Musk, Ellis said his ultimate goal is to spearhead a flight to Mars. Bezos, whose space company, Blue Origins, is Ellis' former employer, envisions moving all heavy manufacturing into orbital stations.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of money to be made here on Earth.

To learn more about commercial spaceflight and watch exclusive interviews with industry leaders, check out this week's episode of "MTP Reports" on Peacock .

Benjy Sarlin is policy editor for NBC News.

Jacob Ward, a technology correspondent for NBC News, is a 2018-19 Berggruen Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where he is writing a book about how artificial intelligence will shape human behavior. 

Ezra Kaplan is a producer for NBC News.

The privatized frontier: the ethical implications and role of private companies in space exploration

By maanas sharma tuesday, september 7, 2021.

In recent years, private companies have taken on a larger role in the space exploration system. With lower costs and faster production times, they have displaced some functions of government space agencies. Though many have levied criticism against privatized space exploration, it also allows room for more altruistic actions by government space agencies and the benefits from increased space exploration as a whole. Thus, we should encourage this development, as the process is net ethical in the end. Especially if performed in conjunction with adequate government action on the topic, private space exploration can overcome possible shortcomings in its risky and capitalistic nature and ensure a positive contribution to the general public on Earth.

The implications of commercial space exploration have been thrust into the limelight with the successes and failures of billionaire Elon Musk’s company SpaceX. While private companies are not new to space exploration, their prominence in American space exploration efforts has increased rapidly in recent years, fueled by technological innovations, reductions in cost, and readily available funding from government and private sources.[1] In May 2020, SpaceX brought American astronauts to space from American soil for the first time in almost 10 years.[2] Recognizing the greatly reduced costs of space exploration in private companies, NASA’s budget has shifted to significantly relying on private companies.[3] However, private space companies are unique from government space agencies in the way they experience unique sets of market pressures that influence their decision-making process. Hence, the expansion of private control in the space sector turns into a multifaceted contestation of its ethicality.

The most obvious ethical concern is the loss of human life. Critics contend that companies must answer to their shareholders and justify their profits. This contributes to a larger overall psyche that prioritizes cost and speed above all else, resulting in significantly increased risks.[4] However, the possible increase in mishaps is largely overstated. Companies recognize the need for safety aboard their expeditions themselves.[5] After all, the potential backlash from a mishap could destroy the company’s reputation and significantly harm their prospects. According to Dr. Nayef Al-Rodhan, Head of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy’s Geopolitics and Global Futures Programme, “because there were no alternatives to government space programs, accidents were seen to some degree as par for the course… By comparison, private companies actually have a far more difficult set of issues to face in the case of a mishap. In a worst case scenario, a private company could make an easy scapegoat.” [6]

Another large ethical concern is the prominence capitalism may have in the future of private space exploration and the impacts thereof. The growth of private space companies in recent years has been closely intertwined with capitalism. Companies have largely focused on the most profitable projects, such as space travel and the business of space.[7] Many companies are funded by individual billionaires, such as dearMoon, SpaceX’s upcoming mission to the Moon.[8] Congress has also passed multiple acts for the purpose of reducing regulations on private space companies and securing private access to space. From this, many immediately jump to the conclusion that capitalism in space will recreate the same conditions in outer space that plague Earth today, especially with the increasing push to create a “space-for-space” economy, such as space tourism and new technologies to mine the Moon and asteroids. Critics, such as Jordan Pearson of VICE, believe that promises of “virtually unlimited resources” are only for the rich, and will perpetuate the growing wealth inequality that plagues the world today.[9]

However, others contend that just because private space exploration has some capitalist elements, it is by no means an embodiment of unrestricted capitalism. A healthy balance of restricted capitalism—for example, private space companies working through contracts with government agencies or independently under monitoring and regulation by national and international agreements—will avoid the pitfalls that capitalist colonialism faced down here on Earth. Even those who are generally against excessive government regulation should see the benefits of them in space. Lacking any consensus on definitions and rights in space will create undue competition between corporations as well as governments that will harm everyone rather than helping anyone. To create a conducive environment for new space-for-space exploration, one without confrontation but with protection for corporate astronauts, infrastructure, and other interests, governments must create key policies such as a framework for property rights on asteroids, the Moon, and Mars.[7,10]

Another key matter to note is restricted capitalism in space “could also be our salvation.”[11] Private space exploration could reap increased access to resources and other benefits that can be used to solve the very problems on Earth that critics of capitalism identify. Since governments offset some of their projects to private companies, government agencies can focus on altruistic projects that otherwise would not fit in the budget before and do not have the immediate commercial use that private companies look for. Scott Hubbard, an adjunct professor of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University, discusses how “this strategy allows the space agency to continue ‘exploring the fringe where there really is no business case’” but still has important impacts on people down on Earth.[12]

Indeed, this idea is a particularly powerful one when considering the ideal future of private companies in space exploration. Though there is no one set way governments will interact with companies, the consensus is that they must radically reimagine their main purpose as the role of private space exploration continues to grow. As governments utilize services from private space companies, “[i]nstead of being bogged down by the routine application of old research, NASA can prioritize their limited budget to work more on research of other unknowns and development of new long-term space travel technologies.”[13] According to the Council on Foreign Relations, such technologies have far-reaching benefits on Earth as well. Past developments obviously include communications satellites, by themselves a massive benefit to society, but also “refinements in artificial hearts; improved mammograms; and laser eye surgery… thermoelectric coolers for microchips; high-temperature lubricants; and a means for mass-producing carbon nanotubes, a material with significant engineering potential; [and h]ousehold products.”[2] Agencies like NASA are the only actors able to pursue the next game-changing missions, “where the profit motive is not as evident and where the barriers to entry are still too high for the private sector to really make a compelling business case.”[8] These technologies have revolutionized millions, if not billions, of lives, demonstrating the remarkable benefits of space exploration. It follows then that it is net ethical to prioritize these benefits.

This report concludes that the private sector, indeed, has a prominent role to play in the future of space exploration. Further, though private space exploration does bring the potential of increased danger and the colonization of space, these concerns can be effectively mitigated. Namely, strong government frameworks—particularly international ones—will minimize possible sources of ethical violations and ensure an optimal private sector role in space. This also allows government agencies to complete significantly more difficult, innovative projects which have transformative benefits for life on Earth.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Ms. Denise Foster for her continued support and academic encouragement as well as Ms. Amanda Ashmead for her re-introducing him to the topic. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

• Simberg, R. (2017, August/September). “The surprisingly long history of private space exploration.” Reason Foundation. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Markovich, S. J., Chatzky, A., and Siripurapu, A. (2021, February 23) “Space exploration and U.S. competitiveness.” Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved April 18, 2021. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Sheetz, M. (2019, March 12). “NASA budget reveals even more reliance on private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.” CNBC. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Chang, K. (2019, April 11). “Moon landing by Israel’s Beresheet spacecraft ends in crash.” The New York Times . Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Toman, M. (2020, June 16). “Space: The Next Great Market Opportunity, with Michael Toman.” Hosted by Kristin Hayes. Produced by Elizabeth Wason. Resources. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Al-Rodhan, N. (2015, August 14). “The privatization of space: When things go wrong.” Geneva Cent. for Security Policy. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Weinzierl, M., and Sarang, M. (2021, February 12). “The commercial space age is here.” Harvard Bus. Rev. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Davenport, C. (2021, February 25). “As private companies erode government’s hold on space travel, NASA looks to open a new frontier.” The Washington Post . Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Pearson, J. (2019, May 10). “American capitalism is suffocating the endless possibilities of space.” VICE. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Oduntan, G. (2016, September 12). “SpaceX explosion shows why we must slow down private space exploration until we rewrite law.” The Conversation. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Spring, T. (2016, June 3). “A case for capitalism, in regards to space travel.” Medium. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Salazar, D. E. (2018, October 12). “How will private space travel transform NASA’s next 60 years?” Space.com. Last accessed May 5, 2021.
• Shi, L. (2019, December 12). “The implications of the privatization of space exploration.” The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Last accessed May 5, 2021.

Maanas Sharma is a senior at the School of Science and Engineering at Dallas. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Interdisciplinary Public Policy and, at his core, he is passionate about transdisciplinary equitable policy and incorporating social-scientific understanding to quantitative policy solutions. He has written extensively on STEM-informed policy, criminal justice reform, and more. The views expressed are solely personal.

Note: we are using a new commenting system, which may require you to create a new account.

How bad is space tourism for the environment? And other space travel questions, answered.

Six questions to consider before launching yourself into space.

by Rebecca Heilweil

For many, the rise of commercial space tourism is a vulgar display of wealth and power . Amid several global crises, including climate change and a pandemic, billionaires are spending their cash on launching themselves into space for fun. When Amazon founder Jeff Bezos told reporters after his first space tourism trip on Tuesday that Amazon customers and employees had “paid” for his flight, that only intensified that criticism.

But critics won’t deter Bezos and the other superrich. Space tourism is now a reality for the people who can afford it — and it will have repercussions for everyone on Earth.

In fact,all signs indicate that the market for these trips is already big enough that they’ll keep happening. Jeff Bezos’s spaceflight company Blue Origin already has two more trips scheduled later this year , while Virgin Galactic , the space firm founded by billionaire Richard Branson, has at least 600 people who have already paid around $250,000 each for future tickets on its spaceplane.

Now, as the commercial space tourism market (literally) gets off the ground, there are big questions facing future space travelers — and everyone else on the planet. Here are answers to the six biggest ones.

1. What will people actually be able to see and experience on a space trip?

The biggest perk of traveling to space is the view. Just past the boundary between space and Earth, passengers can catch a stunning glimpse of our planet juxtaposed against the wide unknown of space. If a passenger is riding on a Virgin Galactic flight, they will get about 53 miles above sea level. Blue Origin riders will get a little bit higher, about 62 miles above sea level and past the Kármán line, the internationally recognized boundary between Earth and space. Overall, the experience on both flights is pretty similar.

The view is meant to be awe-inducing, and the experience even has its own name: the Overview Effect . “​​When you see Earth from that high up, it changes your perspective on things and how interconnected we are and how we squander that here on Earth,” Wendy Whitman Cobb, a professor at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, told Recode.

Another perk of these trips is that space tourists will feel a few minutes of microgravity, which is when gravity feels extremely weak . That will give them the chance to bounce around a spacecraft weightlessly before heading back to Earth.

But Blue Origin’s and Virgin Galactic’s flights are relatively brief — about 10 and 90 minutes long , respectively. Other space tourism flights from SpaceX, the space company founded by Elon Musk , will have more to offer. This fall, billionaire Jared Isaacman, who founded the company Shift4 Payments, will pilot SpaceX’s first all-civilian flight, the Inspiration4 , which will spend several days in orbit around Earth. In the coming years, the company has also planned private missions to the International Space Station, as well as a trip around the moon .

These trips are meant to be enjoyed by space nerds who longed to be astronauts. But there’s another reason rich people want to go to space: demonstrating exclusivity and conspicuous consumption. More than a few people can afford a trip to Venice or the Maldives. But how many people are privileged enough to take a trip to space?

“What a nice way of showing off these days than to post a picture on Instagram from space,” Sridhar Tayur, a Carnegie Mellon business professor, told Recode.

2. Does commercial space travel have any scientific goals, or is it really just a joyride?

Right now, space tourism flights from Virgin Galactic and Blue Originhave only reached suborbital space , which means that flights enter space but do not enter orbit around Earth. Scientifically, that’s not a new frontier. Though these current flights use new technology, suborbital flight with humans aboard was accomplished by NASA back in the early 1960s , Matthew Hersch, a historian of technology at Harvard, told Recode.

Right now, it’s not clear these trips will offer scientists major new insights, but they might provide information that could be used in the future for space exploration. In fact, these trips are also being marketed as potential opportunities for scientific experiments. For instance, the most recent Virgin Galactic flight carried plants and tested how they responded to microgravity .

These private companies primarily see opportunities in their commercial vehicles that can be reused at scale, which will allow the same rockets (or in Virgin Galactic’s case, spaceplanes) to go to space again and again, which lowers the overall cost of space tourism.

Billionaires and their private space companies also see the development of these rockets as an opportunity to prepare for flights that will do even more, and go even farther, into space. Bezos, for instance, has argued that New Shepard’s suborbital flights will help prepare the company’s future missions, including its New Glenn rocket, which is meant for orbital space.

“The fact of the matter is, the architecture and the technology we have chosen is complete overkill for a suborbital tourism mission,” Bezos said at Tuesday’s post-launch briefing . “We have chosen the vertical landing architecture. Why did we do that? Because it scales.”

Beyond potential scientific advancements in the future, suborbital spaceflight might also create new ways to travel from one place on earth to another. SpaceX, for instance, has advertised that long-haul flights could be shortened to just 30 minutes by traveling through space.

3. Is it safe?

Right now, it’s not entirely clear just how risky space tourism is.

One way space tourism companies are trying to keep travelers safe is by requiring training so that the people who are taking a brief sojourn off Earth are as prepared as possible.

On the flight, people can experience intense altitude and G-forces. “This is sustained G-forces on your body, upwards of what can be 6 G in one direction — which is six times your body weight for upwards of 20 or 30 seconds,” Glenn King, the chief operating officer of the Nastar Center — the aerospace physiology training center that prepared Richard Branson for his flights — told Recode. “That’s a long time when you have six people, or your weight, pressing down on you.”

There’s also the chance that space tourists will be exposed to radiation, though that risk depends on how long you’re in space. “It’s a risk, especially more for the orbital flight than sub-orbital,” explains Whitman Cobb. “Going up in an airplane exposes you to a higher amount of radiation than you would get here on the ground.” She also warns that some tourists will likely barf on the ride.

There doesn’t seem to be an age limit on who can travel, though. The most recent Blue Origin flight included both the youngest person to ever travel to space, an 18-year-old Dutch teenager, as well as the oldest:82-year-old pilot Wally Funk.

4. How much will tickets cost?

The leaders in commercial space tourism already claim they have a market to support the industry. While Bezos hinted on Tuesday the price would eventually come down — as eventually happened with the high prices of the nascent airline industry — for now, ticket prices are in the low hundreds of thousands, at least for Virgin Galactic . That price point would keep spaceflight out of reach for most of humanity, but there are enough interested rich people that space tourism seems to be economically feasible.

“If you bring it down to $250,000, the wait times [to buy a ticket] will be very long,” Tayur, of Carnegie Mellon, told Recode.

5. What impact will commercial space travel have on the environment?

The emissions of a flight to space can be worse than those of a typical airplane flight because just a few people hop aboard one of these flights, so the emissions per passenger are much higher. That pollution could become much worse if space tourism becomes more popular. Virgin Galactic alone eventually aims to launch 400 of these flights annually.

“The carbon footprint of launching yourself into space in one of these rockets is incredibly high, close to about 100 times higher than if you took a long-haul flight,” Eloise Marais , a physical geography professor at the University College London, told Recode. “It’s incredibly problematic if we want to be environmentally conscious and consider our carbon footprint.”

These flights’ effects on the environment will differdepending on factors like the fuel they use, the energy required to manufacture that fuel,andwhere they’re headed — and all these factors make it difficult to model their environmental impact. For instance, Jeff Bezos has argued that the liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel Blue Origin uses is less damaging to the environment than the other space competitors (technically, his flight didn’t release carbon dioxide ), but experts told Recode it could still have significant environmental effects .

There are also other risks we need to keep studying , including the release of soot that could hurt the stratosphere and the ozone. A study from 2010 found that the soot released by 1,000 space tourism flights could warm Antarctica by nearly 1 degree Celsius. “There are some risks that are unknown,” Paul Peeters, a tourism sustainability professor at the Breda University of Applied Sciences, told Recode. “We should do much more work to assess those risks and make sure that they do not occur or to alleviate them somehow — before you start this space tourism business.”Overall, he thinks the environmental costs are reason enough not to take such a trip.

6. Who is regulating commercial space travel?

Right now, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has generally been given the job of overseeing the commercial space industry. But regulation of space is still relatively meager.

One of the biggest areas of concern is licensing launches and making sure that space flights don’t end up hitting all the other flying vehicles humans launch into the sky, like planes and drones. Just this June, a SpaceX flight was held up after a helicopter flew into the zone of the launch.

There’s a lot that still needs to be worked out, especially as there are more of these launches. On Thursday, the Senate hosted a hearing with leaders of the commercial space industry focused on overseeing the growing amount of civil space traffic .

At the same time, the FAA is also overseeing a surging number of spaceports — essentially airports for spaceflight — and making sure there’s enough space for them to safely set up their launches.

But there are other areas where the government could step in. “I think the cybersecurity aspect will also play a very vital role, so that people don’t get hacked,” Tayur said. The FAA told Recode that the agency has participated in developing national principles for space cybersecurity, but Congress hasn’t given it a specific role in looking at the cybersecurity of space.

At some point, the government might also step in to regulate the environmental impact of these flights, too, but that’s not something the FAA currently has jurisdiction over.

In the meantime, no government agency is currently vetting these companies when it comes to the safety of the human passengers aboard. An FAA official confirmed with Recode that while the agency is awarding licenses to companies to carry humans to space , they’re not actually confirming that these trips are safe. That’s jurisdiction Congress won’t give the agency until 2023.

There doesn’t seem to be an abundance of travelers’ insurance policies for space. “Passengers basically sign that they’re waiving all their rights,” Whitman Cobb said. “You’re acknowledging that risk and doing it yourself right now.”

So fair warning, if you decide to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for a joyride to space: You’d likely have to accept all responsibility ifyou get hurt.

Most Popular

Stop setting your thermostat at 72, leaks about joe biden are coming fast and furious, do other democrats actually poll better against trump than biden, the caribbean has a defense system against deadly hurricanes — but it’s vanishing, the lawsuit accusing trump of raping a 13-year-old girl, explained, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Technology

The Supreme Court handed down a hugely important First Amendment case today

What, if anything, is AI search good for?

Two ways to go wrong in predicting AI

Is Nvidia stock overvalued? It depends on the future of AI.

The Supreme Court hands an embarrassing defeat to America’s Trumpiest court

What if quitting your terrible job would help the economy?

The baffling case of Karen Read

Why is everyone talking about Kamala Harris and coconut trees?

Did the media botch the Biden age story?

What should an electric car sound like?  Video

The Pros and Cons of Privatized Space Exploration

Not everybody is over the moon about it

Last week, Avatar director James Cameron  painted a rosy picture of privatized space exploration, suggesting that the president's anemic NASA budget will clear the way for competitive market forces to jump-start the industry. In the days since, others have come forward to praise Obama's plan to divert national funding to private aeronautics companies. But not everyone is thrilled to see NASA become such a low priority for the government (and almost no one has echoed Cameron's sentiment that "rockets really run on dreams").

• While America Rests, Others Won't   Charles Krauthammer is dismayed at the thought of the U.S. falling behind other nations. "Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China."
• NASA Is Irreplaceable in the Public Imagination   In a New York Times roundtable, John Logsdon argues that "the principal benefits from human spaceflight are intangible, but nevertheless substantial." The moon missions of the '60s instilled in Americans a sense of "international prestige and national pride," something Logsdon thinks is best produced by initiatives at the federal level.
• A Sensible Division of Labor   Foreign Policy's Esther Dyson thinks Obama's proposed marriage of public funds with private development resources is for the best. Dyson reaches back into the past for a telling analogy:

The U.S. Defense Department may have created the Internet, but had it kept control of the technology, it's unlikely the Web would have become the vibrant public resource it is today. That credit goes to the investment and activity of private citizens and private companies, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

• What Would Marx Do? Probably Not This   At The Huffington Post, James Bacchus dryly points out that the president's vision for a private space industry doesn't square with one of the most common criticisms leveled at him. "If the President is a socialist, as so many of his adversaries claim, his space proposals certainly don't show it. He wants to stake the future of much of the U.S. manned space program on the success of free private enterprise."

Pros And Cons Of Privatized Space Travel

Over the last decade, private companies like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX have begun to challenge government-run programs conducting space exploration and investigating the possibility of establishing life on other planets. The Onion outlines the pros and cons of privatized space travel.

Allows the wealthy to finally look down on every other living thing at once

Lets people go straight to space without the red tape of demonstrating qualifications or reason to

Related Content

Could finally give Red Bull the opportunity to kill a monkey in a test flight

People no longer have to be really fit to go into space

99 percent of potential casualties will be rich assholes

Space very cold, dark

Would distract Elon Musk from finally figuring out how to transport people between Los Angeles and San Francisco

Hidden oxygen-supply fees

Only available in-flight entertainment option still random midseason episode of This Is Us

Mankind not yet ready to view heavens through majesty of Pepsi Space Experience

As private satellites increase in number, what are the risks of the commercialization of space?

The Global Risk Report says some governments “are encouraging private space activity to further national ‘territorial’ claims. Image:  Unsplash/ NASA

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Douglas Broom

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Space is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

Listen to the article

• Around 11,000 satellites already orbit the Earth, together with tons of space junk.
• Life on the planet increasingly depends on space technology.
• As the risk of collisions grows, is it time to think again about how we use - and govern - space?
• Read the Global Risks Report here .

Space is getting more crowded and more commercialized. This is leading to a growing risk of collisions between satellites and space junk, and means that new regulations on the use of space are urgently needed.

Those are some of the conclusions of the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2022 , which warns that if satellites fail, whether due to natural or human events, the consequences for life on Earth could be profound.

Global navigation and communication systems are heavily dependent on space technology, the report says, but so too are energy and water supplies, financial infrastructure, broadband internet and television and radio services.

Yet if a single piece of space junk strikes just one satellite, it could cause a cloud of debris that takes out many more and results in a “cascading effect” on critical services. That’s according to one theory, called the Kessler Effect.

“With such possibilities becoming likelier in a congested space, the lack of updated international rules around space activity increases the risk of potential clashes,” the report says.

Crowded space

Around 11,000 satellites have been launched since Sputnik 1 became the first human-made object to orbit the Earth in 1957, but almost seven times that number are planned to join them over the coming decades, the report notes.

There are also an estimated half a million pieces of debris in orbit, presenting a growing threat to our use of space. A piece of space junk even hit the International Space Station (ISS) in May 2021, making a hole in a robotic arm.

Only 3% of those surveyed for the Global Risks Report say that mitigation measures to prevent conflict in space are effective, while 59% think they are still at an early stage and 17% believe they have not even started.

Space regulation falling behind

Since 1967, 110 countries have ratified the United Nations Outer Space Treaty , which bans the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space. But the report points out that space regulation has not kept pace with evolving technologies and new military threats.

It says there is a “pressing need” for an international body to govern the launching and servicing of satellites, to establish space traffic control and provide common enforcement principles to back them up.

The 1972 Space Liability Convention covers only spacecraft, but the report says that clarity is needed on how to deal with the likes of Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic ships, which launch from a plane and use wings to help them land.

Virgin Galactic is just one example of a growing trend towards private investment in space technology. Elon Musk’s SpaceX rockets are already delivering satellites and supplies for government agencies such as NASA , including Christmas gifts to the ISS crew.

Early space exploration was the exclusive province of governments. But the Global Risk Report says some governments “are encouraging private space activity to further national ‘territorial’ claims, or to foster the development of high-value jobs … as well as enhancing their military or defence-oriented presence”.

In the United States, SpaceX’s Starship rocket has been selected to carry NASA astronauts to the moon as part of the Artemis programme, which also aims to send humans to Mars. Starship will be the first US-manned lunar mission since Apollo 17 landed in December 1972 .

Increased private investment in space is also driving down the cost of launching satellites into orbit, says the report. Lower costs mean more organizations can launch smaller satellites, opening up the prospect of innovations such as space-based energy generation and even tourism.

Have you read?

The big space clean-up - and why it matters, how many space launches does it take to have a serious climate impact, in pictures: the history of space travel, space arms race.

Among the less welcome aspects of new space technologies is the development of hypersonic weapons – missiles that are so fast and agile they can evade conventional defences. The report says a “hypersonic arms race” is already underway.

“Gaps in space governance render arms races even more likely,” says the report. “New rules are unlikely in the near future, as there is little agreement over key issues such as boundaries, control over space objects, or dual-use systems. Any further decline in cooperation on space governance will only exacerbate risks,” it adds.

Warning that critical space technology is vulnerable to hazards other than space junk, the report calls for space powers to work together to avoid conflict and agree standards and norms for space operations.

“Critically, and like other realms where technology is developing at a faster pace than its regulation, bringing private-sector actors into the agreement processes will help ensure that such pacts reflect both commercial and technical realities,” the report concludes.

Emerging and frontier technologies can help tackle social, economic and health challenges. But designed improperly, they could exacerbate the problems that they are intended to address.

For this reason, the World Economic Forum will launch its inaugural Global Technology Governance Summit on 6-7 April 6-7. The first-ever event will be hosted with Japan to create a collaborative neutral space where senior leaders, CEOs, board members, startups, innovators, entrepreneurs, academics, policymakers and civil society can come together to discuss and share issues related to the governance and protocols critical to new technologies.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Fourth Industrial Revolution .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

How governments can attract innovative manufacturing industries and promote 4IR technologies like AI

M.B. Patil and Alok Medikepura Anil

June 24, 2024

How we can best empower the future of business in APAC with GenAI

John Lombard

AMNC24: What you need to know about AI & entrepreneurship

Pooja Chhabria

June 23, 2024

IDEA: Investing in the Digital Economy of Azerbaijan

Cities are sizing up the generative AI skyline. But first, they have to establish the ground rules

Sara Al Hudaithy and Anu Devi

June 4, 2024

EU's new AI rules set to enter into force, and other digital tech stories to read

June 3, 2024

Private Space Travel Is Worth the Risk, If Done Right, Experts Say

NEW YORK — Space tourism and commercial  space mining projects are ushering in a new era of human spaceflight, but their success of private spaceflight will depend on ensuring safety and reducing the cost, experts say.

Spaceflight companies such as SpaceX or Space Adventures, Ltd. could make the dream of space travel a reality for some, and may take on the role NASA once had in pushing the frontier of space, a panel of experts said during the 2014 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate debate here Wednesday (March 19) at the American Museum of Natural History.

Some speakers looked to U.S. history for comparison to the potential of private spaceflight today. [ The First Space Tourists: A Photo Timeline ]

The 19th-century adventurers Lewis and Clark, for example, weren't the actual people who colonized Montana, said Michael Gold, director of Washington, D.C., operations and business growth for the Bigelow Aerospace, a company that is developing private inflatable space stations . It was the homesteaders, the farmers and the businessmen who followed later.

"You can't just go to space like Montana homesteaders and pitch a tent," said Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum's Hayden Planetarium and the host of the new show " Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey ." Tyson moderated Wednesday night's debate, which had the theme of "Selling Space."

In addition to Gold, the panel included several luminaries in human spaceflight, including Wanda Austin, president and CEO of The Aerospace Corporation; John Logsdon, space policy analyst and professor emeritus at George Washington University; Elliot Pulham, CEO of the Space Foundation; Tom Shelley, president of Space Adventures, Ltd. and Robert Walker, former chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

The risk of private space travel

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Like all new forms of travel, private spaceflight carries significant risks. But the panelists said they didn't see the risks as insurmountable.

Ultimately, a bad safety record would hurt companies. "There's a perception that commercial space is less safe," Gold said. But "if we have a bad day, we lose everything."

But beyond having a good safety record, it's important to understand the risks, Austin said. "It doesn’t matter how safe [a spaceship] has been, it matters what one you're sitting on."

Tyson said for him, it's about the reward. He wouldn't accept a 1 percent risk of dying to get to low-Earth orbit, but he might accept a 10 percent risk of dying to be the first person on Mars .

A costly voyage

The price of space travel is another hurdle facing the fledgling commercial spaceflight industry.

Space Adventures, Ltd., caters to space tourists (multimillionaire Dennis Tito was their first customer ) by buying space on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Right now, the cost of a seat is $52 million.

A price tag like that restricts space travel to "the 1 percent of the 1 percent," Tyson said, to which Shelley replied, "you've got to start somewhere."

And NASA actually paid more than $52 million per astronaut, other panelists pointed out. The space agency currently pays about $70 million per seat to fly American astronauts on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft , under its latest deal with Russia's Federal Space Agency.

Still, it will be a while before a family who goes to Disneyland for vacation can save up enough to go take a vacation in space, Shelley admitted.

Then there's the issue of the carbon footprint from allowing rich people to take a joyride in space. "We've got to pollute for a little while before people invest in a product that doesn't pollute," Shelley said. (Though the idea wasn't too popular with the audience.)

Tyson later brought up the topic of buying property in space. "I understand you want to sell space on the moon ?" he asked Gold.

The Outer Space Treaty prevents countries from claiming land in space. But allowing individuals to buy property could be an incentive to go to space, Gold said. "You should be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor."

Finally, the panelists made a passing mention of China and other countries with space programs. If China were to put military bases on Mars, Tyson said, the United States would send manned missions there in a heartbeat.

After the debate, Tyson and the panelists met with journalists in a roundtable discussion that lasted late into the evening, with discussions ranging from asteroid mining to Tyson reflecting on the success of "Cosmos."

So would Tyson himself take the chance to go to space?

Absolutely, he told Space.com. But he said would rather take the 100th trip than the first.

Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter and Google+ . Follow us   @Spacedotcom ,   Facebook  and Google+ . Original article on  Space.com .

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

SpaceX to launch NASA gamma-ray space telescope in 2027

NASA announces Artemis 2 moon mission backup astronaut — Andre Douglas will support 2025 lunar liftoff

Streaks in space! ISS astronaut's incredible timelapse photos highlight ghostly solar panels and lovely star trails

Most Popular

• 2 SpaceX targeting July 31 for launch of historic Polaris Dawn astronaut mission
• 3 How 'Star Wars: The Acolyte' created a fresh new look for the Jedi (exclusive interview)
• 4 Under the moon's surface, magnetized lava may create 'lunar swirls'
• 5 SpaceX to launch NASA gamma-ray space telescope in 2027

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

The Privatization of Space: When Things Go Wrong

A few weeks ago, Space X’s Falcon 9 rocket carrying an unmanned Dragon capsule destined for the International Space Station (ISS) exploded.

The explosion was likely caused by a failed  strut . In October of last year, Orbital Sciences had a rocket destined for the ISS explode for unrelated reasons, just after they were awarded a $1.9 billion  contract  with NASA. In the wake of these incidents, it may be time to assess the implications of private sector involvement in state-sponsored space programs.

Over the past few years, private companies such as Space X and Virgin Galactic have been hailed as the new major players in space. Indeed, they are effectively changing how space exploration is conducted and how related technology is developed and implemented. From an operational point of view, private companies are able to implement decisions and fund projects much faster than most governments can.

These companies have been able to complete missions that only governments had been able to previously, and have garnered major contracts with NASA. But although this takes pressure off of governments and introduces a more competitive environment for space-related innovation, outsourcing government projects can lead to complications, or at the very least, a shift in how space exploration is conducted.

The most cited benefit of the shift to private space exploration is cost. These companies must bid for NASA contracts, which lowers the taxpayer cost of these missions, as some research and development R&D costs are absorbed by the company.  Governments and private companies also function differently in terms of the different interest groups to whom they are responsible. NASA is beholden to the government and the taxpayer, while private companies must deal with a more complex web of investors/shareholders, the bottom line, and the need to keep a secure contract.  Yet with these benefits, there are new challenges that must be addressed; perhaps the greatest of which is “what happens when something goes wrong”? Rocket missions and space travel are inherently difficult and risky; it’s only a matter of time before this becomes a bigger issue.

Government space programs are no strangers to failed launches, or to  human casualties . In fact, the only space  program  which has no known casualties to date is China’s. Private companies have yet to amass significant casualties, with the only death occurring during a failed Virgin Galactic  test flight  in 2014. But because that flight was not part of a mission to the ISS and was not tied to any government contract, the implications were different. If an astronaut from NASA were killed in a launch orchestrated by a private company, there may be far-reaching effects both for NASA and for the company in question.

As aforementioned, governments are most likely not held accountable to the same degree as private companies are, as a government can control to some degree how transparent it wants to be. Furthermore, because there were no alternatives to government space programs, accidents were seen to some degree as par for the course. For instance, while the Challenger and Columbia disasters affected NASA’s operations (including an over two year hiatus form launching shuttles), it did not halt the space program. By comparison, private companies actually have a far more difficult set of issues to face in the case of a mishap. In a worst case scenario, a private company could make an easy scapegoat if ever a government’s legitimacy were to be threatened due to a mishap.

So far, Space X has had a practically flawless track record: under contract with NASA, it has already made seven trips to the ISS. NASA has a strong vested interest in these companies, even geopolitically speaking, as they end the Russian  monopoly  in supplying the ISS. Space X plans on sending humans to space in 2017, and NASA has publicly  said  that this last incident will not hinder that goal.

So far, so good. While these companies remain private, they still have to answer to their investors, and to governments, but otherwise have quite a large amount of freedom. What will happen when they go on the market? Overnight, the company would have to  answer to its shareholders and function in a very different dynamic. The bottom line for a company is arguably more intensely scrutinized than where a government is investing its tax dollars. Given the benefits of private space exploration, it would behoove the government to stand behind such companies when things do go wrong. Whether in the form of subpar profits or launch explosions, the government should remain supportive of these companies. Either way, the shift to using private companies is well underway, and both companies and governments have a lot to gain from such a partnership. Still, it is important to forsee the change in dynamic that will undoubtedly occur once the going gets tough.

This article  originally  appeared on the  ISN Blog .

Professor Nayef Al-Rodhan is a philosopher, neuroscientist, and geostrategist. He is Honorary Fellow, St. Antony's College, Oxford University, United Kingdom, Director of GCSP's Geopolitics and Global Futures Department, Switzerland, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study, University of London, United Kingdom, Member of the Global Future Council on Frontier Risks at the World Economic Forum, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA). In 2014, he was voted as one of the Top 30 most influential Neuroscientists in the world, in 2017, he was named amongst the Top 100 geostrategists in the World, and in 2022, he was named as one of the Top 50 influential researchers whose work could shape 21st-century politics and policy.

Time to read: 5 minutes 10

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Many in U.S. have confidence in what private space companies will accomplish

Most Americans express confidence that private space companies will make meaningful contributions in developing safe and reliable spacecraft or conducting research to expand knowledge of space, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey .

Private companies such as SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are becoming increasingly important players in space exploration. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has paid private companies $6.8 billion to develop launch systems that might send astronauts into space as early as this year. These companies are also setting their sights on going to the moon or Mars in the future.

A large majority of Americans (81%) are confident that private space companies will make a profit from these ventures. Some 44% of Americans have a great deal of confidence that private space companies will be profitable, and an additional 36% have a fair amount of confidence.

But Americans are also cautiously optimistic that private companies will make contributions that benefit U.S. exploration efforts. At least two-thirds of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence that private space companies will build safe and reliable rockets and spacecraft (77%), conduct basic research to increase knowledge and understanding of space (70%) or control costs for developing rockets and spacecraft (65%).

There is more skepticism about whether private companies will minimize human-made space debris. Some 48% have at least a fair amount of confidence that private companies will minimize space debris, while 51% have not too much or no confidence. Space debris increasingly poses a hazard to orbiting satellites and space stations. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump signed a policy directive requiring the federal government to update its practices in mitigating space debris.

The small share of the public that is highly attentive to space news – those who say they have heard “a lot” about NASA in the past year and “a lot” about private space companies – is especially likely to express confidence in private space companies. Almost all of those who are most attentive have at least a fair amount of confidence that these companies will build safe and reliable spacecraft (95%) or control costs when developing spacecraft (92%).

In contrast, those who are least attentive to space news are less likely to have confidence in these private firms. For example, 60% of this group say they have at least a fair amount of confidence that private space companies will build safe and reliable rockets and spacecraft.

Men are also more likely than women to express confidence in private space companies’ abilities in these areas. Around three-quarters of men (74%) have at least a fair amount of confidence these companies will control costs for developing spacecraft, compared with 56% of women. And 85% of men say they have at least a fair amount of confidence that private companies will build safe and reliable spacecraft, while 69% of women say this.

Even though many Americans express confidence in private companies in these areas, most still see a key role for NASA. About two-thirds say it is essential that NASA continue to be involved in space exploration (65%), while one-third believe private companies will ensure enough progress is made in space exploration even without NASA’s involvement (33%).

• Business & Workplace

Brian Kennedy is a senior researcher focusing on science and society research at Pew Research Center .

Mark Strauss is a former writer/editor focusing on science and society at Pew Research Center .

Is College Worth It?

Half of latinas say hispanic women’s situation has improved in the past decade and expect more gains, a majority of latinas feel pressure to support their families or to succeed at work, a look at small businesses in the u.s., majorities of adults see decline of union membership as bad for the u.s. and working people, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Subscribe to BBC Science Focus Magazine
• Previous Issues
• Future tech
• Everyday science
• Planet Earth
• Newsletters

The unintended consequences of privatising space

If the quest to become an interplanetary species becomes entirely propelled by profits, we risk losing sight of the values that make space exploration so important.

The forces driving human expansion into space are changing. For decades, the world’s most fearsome superpowers chose space as the battleground on which to fight for scientific superiority.

The United States and the USSR sprinted to the stars, spurred on by the nationalist bluster of the Cold War. Pride and paranoia fuelled the race, as two clashing political philosophies went head to head in a galactic face-off - the communist all-for-one spirit of the Soviets against the fearless frontier cowboys of the United States.

When the Cold War cooled, and later the Soviet Union collapsed, the two countries began to cooperate. The end of international competition in the cosmos failed to take space exploration to new levels, however, and something of a lull took hold of humanity’s ambitions in the wider Universe.

Read more about space exploration:

• Space exploration: how might the next 50 years progress?
• Who will be next to land on the Moon?
• Space mining: the new goldrush

Space enthusiasts often express a bitter regret that after the Moon landing in 1969, progress stalled. By now we were supposed to have bases on the lunar surface, hotels orbiting the Earth, and colonies on Mars. The reality has been a lot less inspiring.

Government-led agencies have achieved amazing things since the Moon landings, but none have captured the attention of the world in the same way. Some of those jaded space-lovers happened to be extremely wealthy and took it upon themselves to build a private space sector capable of re-energising the pursuit of our cosmic goals.

Now, these companies have taken up the baton, and the likes of SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and many other companies are looking to make up lost ground in the mission to explore and ultimately colonise the Solar System.

This presents the world with an interesting question. If space is a clean slate, abundant with opportunity and a sense the species can “reset” its mistakes, is the private sector and capitalism the best driving force to take us there?

In 2009, when SpaceX celebrated its first successful launch, the company did something very simple that hadn’t been done before - it published its prices. This allowed a host of entrepreneurs to put together business plans and investment proposals which had real figures, and a clear path to profits. This was a landmark moment for the private space sector. Not only was the price to launch into space transparent, it was also dropping steadily.

There are many industries in space, most of which have been operating for decades already. The most prominent is the satellite sector, which has been launching great hunks of metal into lower Earth orbit ever since the success of Sputnik in 1960.

Boosted by cheaper launch prices and new microsatellite technology which has seen devices shrink to the size of a loaf of bread, companies are now launching more and more satellites into space, and that has consequences. The small area of space around our planet is becoming quite crowded, and the potential for damaging and expensive collisions has increased.

This is just one area where the private sector is gaining ground and making a large impact. Space tourism - a concept only enjoyed by seven people so far - is about to make a resurgence, led by Virgin Galactic.

And as the International Space Station approaches the end of its lifespan, it seems inevitable a private company will either take over operation of the most expensive public project ever or will launch their own versions.

These are all activities relatively close to home, but they will have major repercussions - both good and bad - here on Earth. An increase in space tourism could spread the benefits of the overview effect, where astronauts see the world from outside its atmosphere, and appreciate its fragility and lack of borders. If more people were to view the world in such a way, the theory goes, they would appreciate the futility of war and the need to care more for a planet in dire need of better treatment.

When the European Space Agency launches a mission into space, Mark McCaughrean explains the hurdles they have to leap to finally get it off the ground

But space tourism companies need to make money, and it’s never going to be cheap to send anyone to space. In the worst-case scenario, the practice becomes another symptom of the world’s massive inequality problem, where the rich pay hundreds of thousands to go into space for a matter of minutes, while the millions on the surface struggle to feed themselves.

In the 1990s, the Russians attempted to privatise the Mir space station, but before business took off, they brought the craft crashing down to Earth as the nation cooperated with America on the ISS.

There are several companies now looking to establish the world’s first private space station. This would bring obvious benefits - it would open up space as a laboratory to anyone who could pay, and would theoretically bring down the costs of manufacturing in space.

But space isn’t the bastion of free-floating freedom some think it is, and it’s ripe for exploitation by monopolies. A space station operator, for example, could decide which fibre optics manufacturer could use its facility and which could not. The fibre optics produced in a zero-gravity environment are much cleaner and more valuable than that produced on Earth, meaning that one company would have a massive advantage, and the space station would decide who had access to the best manufacturing conditions.

That’s just one example of a potential monopoly, but if you go further into the future of space exploration, things only get more frightening.

Read reader Q&As about space:

• Could we launch plastic into space to reduce pollution on Earth?
• Is space a perfect vacuum?
• Is it true that NASA smells everything before it is sent into space?

Imagine a colony on the Moon or Mars run by a corporation. That one company would control everything the colonists need to survive, from the water to the oxygen to the food. That’s a dangerous amount of power for any company, but it’s a very real scenario.

So what stops a major corporation landing on the Moon and setting up a colony? One very old document. The Outer Space Treaty was signed in 1967 by all of the major space-faring nations, and explicitly states nobody can go to another planet or the Moon and claim that territory for their own.

It’s a very important document, but it’s flawed. For one thing, the private space sector wasn’t around when the treaty was written so it’s not clear how some of the rules would be applied to private companies. And secondly, given the ambitions of many countries and corporations, there’s no way it’s going to last much longer. Anyone with a plan to land on the Moon or Mars and stay there is going to run into the Outer Space Treaty, and the smart money is on the wealthy and powerful winning out against an old loophole-ridden document.

Politicians such as Ted Cruz in the United States have already called for changes to be made to the treaty, and given the increasing amounts of money private space companies spend on lobbying in the United States, more such attempts will follow. It’s imperative that the space community as a whole takes this issue on to ensure the needs of all, and not just the private sector, are taken into account should any alterations be made.

The further we look into the future of humans in space, the more reality resembles science fiction. That’s why it’s difficult to make people take the issues which could potentially arise seriously. But now is the time to consider the problems that could arise from a commercially-led space race, and take the necessary small steps now to avoid potentially disastrous consequences in the future.

The Consequential Frontier: Challenging the Privatization of Space (Melville House Publishing) by Peter Ward is available from 17 October 2019 (Pre-order for £17.99 at Hive )

Follow Science Focus on Twitter , Facebook , Instagram and Flipboard

Share this article

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy policy
• Cookies policy
• Code of conduct
• Magazine subscriptions
• Manage preferences

Why We Should Be Spending More on Space Travel

L et’s stipulate one thing: there’s absolutely no reason for us to go to space. It does nothing to feed us, to clothe us, to protect us, to heal us. It’s dangerous and hideously expensive too, a budget-busting luxury that policy makers and administrators have spent decades trying to defend—always unsuccessfully because the fact is, there’s no practical defense for it. So stand down the rockets, take down the space centers, pocket the money and let’s move on. Still want the adventure of going to space? That’s what they make movies for.

Now that we’ve established that, let’s stipulate the opposite: Space is precisely where the human species ought to be going. We accept that we’re a warring species. We accept that we’re a loving species. We accept that we’re an artistic and inventive and idiosyncratic species. Then we surely must accept that we’re a questing species. Questing species don’t much care for being stuck on one side of an ocean and so they climb aboard boats—indeed they invent boats—to cross it. They don’t much care for having their path blocked by a mountain and so they climb it for no reason other than finding out what’s on the other side. Accept that, and you can’t not accept that we have to embrace space.

April 12 marks the 60th anniversary of the day Yuri Gagarin became the first human being in space , taking off in his Vostok 1 spacecraft, spending 88 minutes making a single orbit of the Earth, and returning home to a species that seemed forever been changed by his efforts. The date will mark, too, the 60th anniversary of the by-now familiar argument that journeys like Gagarin’s and all of the ones that followed achieve nothing that can be touched and pointed to as a practical dividend of the effort made and the resources expended.

I found myself turning the old debate this way and that over the last week, when I was reading a column in the Guardian with the provocative headline, “Revive the U.S. space program? How about not,” by essayist Nicholas Russell. It opens with a mention of Gil Scott-Heron’s 1970 spoken word poem, “Whitey on the Moon,” which compellingly lamented the hard social truth that the U.S. was spending $24 billion in 1960s money on the Apollo program at the same time 10% of Americans were living in poverty, with Blacks suffering at three times the rate of whites.

“Was all that money I made last year (for Whitey on the moon?)” Scott-Heron wrote. “How come there ain’t no money here? (Hm! Whitey’s on the moon.)”

Russell goes on to cite the estimated cost of the new Artemis lunar program , which some analysts have placed at $30 billion; the role—a troubling one as he sees it—of the military in so many space projects, and the ongoing scourge of racism and inequality on Earth that persists while we still keep looking spaceward. Then he mentions, by way of caution, a University of Arizona proposal to send seed, spore, sperm and egg samples of 6.7 million terrestrial species to the moon as a sort of space ark in case life on Earth should come to an end. “When the vastness of space is cited as a means of escape from disaster, it’s exceedingly difficult not to believe nihilism acts as the prime motivator,” Russell argues. “Rather than sparking inspiration, it speaks of blatant fatalism about what is worth saving, a preference for the lofty and unpopulated … with delusions of innovation and heroism.”

Russell is right about some things—especially about the continuing blight of racism. But expenditures on space and expenditures on social programs have never been a zero-sum proposition, any more than any dollar the U.S. government spends on anything at all—the military, farm subsidies, tax cuts for corporations—is by definition a dollar not spent on something else. And the Artemis price tag is indeed high—but only if you look at it as a standalone figure. In the context of the federal budget? NASA funding currently accounts for just 0.4% of the total the government spends each year—down from 4% in the golden era of Apollo. The military’s role in the space program is inevitable, even if Russell sees it as regrettable. Rockets are rockets, after all, and physics is physics, and if the first machines that blasted humans off the Earth were originally designed as ballistic missiles, well, that was what the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had on the shelf. What’s more, every Soviet R-7 rocket or American Atlas that was used to send an astronaut or cosmonaut to orbit was one fewer that could be used in a theater of war.

And as for that space ark? Well yes, it does suggest a certain fatalism. But the fact is, we are eminently capable of screwing the global pooch, to paraphrase the old Mercury astronauts. Unless you’re confident that no autocrat or hermit king with nuclear weapons and a button in reach won’t do something impulsive, storing the Earth’s genetic essence for safekeeping does not seem like a completely insane idea.

That doesn’t mean space exploration is inherently nihilistic, however. Look at the old footage of the global reaction to the Apollo 11 moon landing . Watch the worldwide relief when the Apollo 13 crew —three people the vast majority of the planet had never met—made it home safely. Consider the reaction today when a rover lands on Mars or a spacecraft whizzes past Pluto or a pair of women aboard the space station perform the first all-female spacewalk.

Yes, we can live without traveling to space. Indeed, we did perfectly well over all of the millennia that preceded April 12, 1961. We can meet most of our needs when we stay on Earth—we can raise our families and earn our salaries and feed our bellies. But we feed something less literal, more lyrical when we extend ourselves as far as we can. Once that meant crossing an ocean. Now it means more. Space is out there—and we should be too.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Welcome to the Noah Lyles Olympics
• Melinda French Gates Is Going It Alone
• What to Do if You Can’t Afford Your Medications
• How to Buy Groceries Without Breaking the Bank
• Sienna Miller Is the Reason to Watch  Horizon
• Why So Many Bitcoin Mining Companies Are Pivoting to AI
• The 15 Best Movies to Watch on a Plane
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Jeffrey Kluger at [email protected]

Why the Pentagon’s overtures to the private space industry are good news for Europe

The Pentagon is pushing to forge agreements with private companies at home and from allied countries. Known as the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve (CASR), the initiative will involve embedding the private sector into operations to maintain crucial satellite-enabled capabilities, including communications, navigation, surveillance, and missile detection. To be eligible for the new scheme, private companies with excess capacity will have to show they can support the DoD under potential wartime scenarios when requested.

Such a move goes well beyond the usual relationships forged between the government and contractors. And it hasn’t come out of nowhere. For at least a year, Colonel Knisley and the Space Systems Command Commercial Space Office have been discussing plans to put in place a commercial space reserve so it has access to commercial satellite services during conflict. In August 2023, the Space Systems Command asked contractors to submit their comments on the CASR, modeled on the Air Force Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, which gives the government access to commercial airlines for transport at times of need.

The Pentagon has cited growing threats from China, as well as Russia, to disrupt American satellites. Earlier this month, China launched four high-resolution remote-sensing satellites; it plans to have launched 10 satellites by the end of this year. The U.S. remains the world’s space and military superpower, but China is accelerating its own efforts in both areas. Meanwhile, fears of a conflict over Taiwan persist.

The Pentagon’s overtures to the private sector provide further proof that future conflicts will be decided not only on the ground but also in space. Satellites are already essential military infrastructure. They are the hardware that enables critical military (and civilian) capabilities such as precise navigation and secure communication irrespective of conditions. The real advances in such fields are happening in the private sector, where the profit motive fuels constant innovation. Deeper collaboration with the private sector makes more technology available, more reliably, and gives the DoD access to the most sophisticated technology on the market.

In areas where private companies in countries allied with the U.S. have developed off-the-shelf products that the U.S. military can buy and use straight away, it makes no sense for the military to deploy precious resources developing proprietary technology of a similar kind. Far better to trust its allied partners to keep developing the technology it needs in these areas, so it can narrow its own focus to its most critical capabilities. This boosts interoperability—an important area of focus for U.S. decision-makers. Networks, as Ret. General Joe Votel recently said, have become a key organizing principle for successful businesses, from Amazon to Uber, and the same must now be done in the defense sector. As the former general noted , we must move from “industrial-base thinking” to “network thinking.”

For private companies in Europe and elsewhere to be able to keep building what the U.S. needs, they have to understand America’s aims. The CASR program, in providing more access to the commercial sector can help commercial companies get a clearer picture of U.S. strategic ambitions, tactical needs, and threat information. With the U.S. and the U.S. Space Force Space Systems Command now forging closer ties with the private sector, there is a greater opportunity for the private sector to align innovation with the evolving needs of the U.S. government in a dynamic geopolitical landscape.

The world, regrettably, is becoming more volatile. The Western powers are feeling the pressure to stay at the forefront of innovation. And that means looking to space, where the technology of tomorrow is fast becoming the technology of today. The silver lining is that closer collaboration between the U.S. and its allies will be a boost to the private space sector.

More must-read commentary published by  Fortune :

• Booz Allen Hamilton CEO : America needs a whole-of-nation approach in its great power competition with China
• NYC comptroller:  Food delivery apps  are blaming minimum pay for inflation. It’s baloney
• ‘Sometimes, the facts don’t matter’:  Attacks on DEI  are an anti-capitalist war on American prosperity
• No one wants  another pandemic —but bird flu has already flown the coop

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of  Fortune .

Latest in Commentary

Why the nation of Alan Turing is poised to revolutionize AI despite the recent dip in investment, according to a venture capitalist

Lurching to the right on migration won’t save Europe’s mainstream parties. Here’s why

The U.K. is bucking the trend as Europe bleeds foreign direct investment. Here’s why

America’s productivity growth is recovering to pre-Great Financial Crisis rates. Europe has more work to do

Big Tech is pouring billions into British AI investments—but the U.K. risks becoming a sidekick to U.S. tech giants

Most popular.

Elon Musk vows Bill Gates will be ‘obliterated’ if he doesn’t stop shorting Tesla

Professionals would rather ‘super-commute’ for over 4 hours a day and keep their pandemic-style suburban life than live near the office

Steve Ballmer, who was once Bill Gates’ assistant, is now richer than his onetime mentor

NEETS are not working by choice—but a ‘perfect storm’ is creating a pool of highly trained and willing workers who are the ‘new unemployables’

A WFH ‘culture war’ has broken out across Europe, with the U.K. leading the charge as the most WFH-friendly country, while France lags behind

Tractor Supply’s DEI reversal to appease right-wing critics could fracture its surprisingly diverse ‘exurban’ customer base

Why Should We Explore Space? What Are the Benefits for Us?

By Dr. Gary L. Deel   |  03/15/2024

For centuries, humans have been fascinated by the mysteries of the universe, driving us to venture beyond our planet and explore unknown environments beyond our solar system. In today’s world, the question of why we should embark on space exploration voyages goes beyond mere curiosity.

Ultimately, space exploration is a necessity with wide-ranging implications. It’s not just an endeavor; instead, it involves both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits to humanity.

Space Exploration Advances Scientific Understanding

At the core of our pursuit for space exploration lies humanity’s thirst for knowledge. The universe – with its galaxies, stars, and planets – awaits our full understanding.

By venturing into space, scientists can utilize a multitude of instruments – such as probes, satellites, and state-of-the-art telescopes. They can gather data about celestial bodies and investigate the universe in its natural state.

Exploring our solar system and beyond it not only deepens our comprehension of the cosmos, but also contributes significantly to advancements in astrophysics and cosmology.

Space exploration plays a huge role in expanding our understanding of the universe – from studying planets to learning the mysteries of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and other groundbreaking subjects.

Space Exploration Is an Opportunity to Search for Other Habitats and Alien Life

The search for other potential habitats and intelligent life is an integral part of space exploration. Scientists examine the atmospheres of exoplanets and identify potentially habitable celestial bodies to determine if conditions exist that could support life beyond our planet.

Space exploration is also a chance to answer the question of whether we are alone in the vastness of the universe or if distant civilizations actually exist. It offers greater insights into the origins and existence of life itself.

Space Exploration Is a Catalyst for Developing Technology and Economic Prosperity

The challenges of space exploration act as a catalyst for innovation and drive advancements in fields like astrobiology and astrochemistry, which leads to cutting-edge developments with far-ranging implications here on Earth. Many scientific breakthroughs have applications across different industries, benefiting society as a whole.

GPS Technology and Other Valuable Space Exploration Spin-Offs

Throughout history, numerous technological products used for space exploration, such as cell phone cameras, solar panels, and emergency beacons that use satellite technology, have seamlessly transitioned into everyday technologies commonly used by most of the world's population. A prime example is the Global Positioning System (GPS), which relies on satellite navigation to provide location information.

Originally created for space missions, GPS has now become an important part of our lives. It influences a wide range of industries – including transportation and agriculture – while also offering precise location-based services around the world.

The Economic Promise of Space Exploration

But the economic advantages of space exploration go beyond mere technological advancements. The growth of the space travel industry – involving both government space agencies and private companies – contributes to job creation and economic progress.

Collaborative efforts between private entities in space exploration drive competition and innovation in this sector. As a result, there are technological advancements that benefit not only space missions but also various industries here on Earth.

Space Exploration Serves Human Survival Interests

Despite Earth’s nature, it is not impervious to celestial threats that have the potential for catastrophic consequences on human life as we know it. One crucial aspect of space exploration is the identification and monitoring of near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids and comets that could pose a risk to our planet.

Developing the capability to detect, track, and potentially mitigate the impact of NEOs plays a critical role in defense strategies. Space exploration provides us with the tools, space resources, and knowledge to protect our planet from the dangers that exist in the vastness of space.

The Potential for Colonization

Exploration efforts also give humanity an opportunity to establish a presence beyond our own planet. As our population continues to grow and Earth’s resources become more and more strained, the idea of colonizing space must evolve from being merely a dream to a potential solution for ensuring the long-term survival of our species. Perhaps one day, we might see a space settlement on Mars or other environment that could be made hospitable to human life.

By learning how to live in space environments such as the International Space Station (ISS) and other spacecraft, we can gain important insights into the challenges of sustainable space life, such as managing resources, discovering how the human body can remain healthy in space environments, creating life support systems, and being responsible stewards of our environment. Hopefully, these lessons for space explorers can also be applied back on Earth to avoid further catastrophes by interactions with other countries.

Space Exploration Fosters International Cooperation and Trust

Because space exploration is collaborative, it can foster cooperation and diplomacy between different countries. Geopolitical tensions often dominate the relations between different countries, but space missions requiring the joint efforts of two or more countries can bring them together as they pursue common goals.

The International Space Station, for example, involves collaboration with space agencies from the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada. All of these agencies must work together in an international partnership to maintain a continuous human presence in space.

Participating in projects for exploring space goes beyond mere scientific cooperation, however. It also helps build trust among nations, facilitates the exchange of expertise, and promotes peaceful collaboration that will ultimately benefit the next generation of humanity.

The collective experience of venturing into the vastness of space brings people together, and it gives them a purpose, regardless of their political or cultural differences.

The Exploration of Outer Space Inspires Us to Improve Ourselves

The exploration of space showcases humanity’s curiosity and our determination to conduct research and overcome challenges. New technologies in the space race – such as the Apollo moon landings, the James Webb Space Telescope, robotic spacecraft, the space shuttle program, and the construction of the International Space Station – not only demonstrated the capabilities of human innovation, but they also left an everlasting impact on all of us.

For everyone, the iconic images of Earth as seen from space with the aid of advanced technology instilled a sense of interconnectedness and environmental awareness. Through satellite imagery, we developed a greater appreciation of Earth’s beauty.

Investing in space exploration sends a message to society about the potential within each individual. The obstacles involved with space travel require qualities such as creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and perseverance, attributes that are all crucial for addressing the social, economic, and national security problems faced by humanity.

Exploring Space Fosters Societal Values That Will Benefit Humanity

By creating a culture that embraces space exploration as important, we can develop a society that values education, innovation, and the relentless pursuit of knowledge. It creates the groundwork for a future where humanity pushes boundaries and makes important achievements.

Additionally, the exploration of space will inspire future generations. Children and young adults growing up in a world touched by the wonders of space exploration and human spaceflight are far more likely to be captivated by fields like science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The impact of the space program and space exploration on education is profound. It can inspire students to dream big, think smart, and pursue private-sector or public-sector careers that contribute to the advancement of knowledge and technology .

Space exploration is like embarking on a journey of self-discovery. It’s an opportunity to understand our role in the universe, and it’s a testament to the unwavering human spirit of curiosity and determination.

As we continue to study other planets in our solar system and elsewhere, marvel at the beauty of the night sky, and contemplate the universe’s mysteries that are yet to be discovered, venturing into space is a transformative endeavor that aims to improve humanity.

APU Space Studies Degrees

Degree programs focused on space studies like the ones provided by American Public University (APU) are useful for students seeking a greater understanding of space exploration. These programs typically include courses that cover fields such as astrophysics, astronomy, planetary science, space programs, and space technology.

The hands-on learning opportunities incorporated in these programs allow students to apply their knowledge to real-world situations through activities like online laboratory work, research, and practical projects.

In our space studies programs, the courses are carefully designed to promote specific learning goals. For example, one master’s-level course called "SPST631 Astrophysical Studies" delves into various aspects of astrophysics. Students explore subjects like star properties, galaxy characteristics, diversity on other planets, and cosmic structure dynamics, while simultaneously examining their underlying processes.

The space studies courses offered at APU also integrate the knowledge from other fields. This holistic approach allows students to appreciate the significance of space administration and space exploration. Ultimately, our space studies programs equip individuals with knowledge, practical skills, and a multidisciplinary mindset, enabling them to contribute to the continuous exploration of our expansive universe.

For more information about our space studies degrees, visit our program page .

• Call: 877-755-2787
• Email: [email protected]
• Chat: Live Chat

New D.C. crafting & community space blends making, art and cocktails

We all could probably use some more "good spirits." A new community space between Shepherd Park and Takoma promises just that.

Why it matters: In a moment of exceptional political upheaval in our nation's capital, might I recommend some crafts?

Zoom in: Merry Pin opened in mid-June and is many things: coffee and cocktail bar; seller of yarns and needles, paper crafts and fabric art supplies; and space for private events and casual hangs .

• As young people ditch booze , it's also a perfect space to host a party that revolves around an activity besides drinking (more on that later).
• During my recent visit, I encountered a gray-haired woman knitting at the bar with a granddaughter-looking companion. She told me she supported the business' Kickstarter campaign . She'd been looking for such a place!

State of stitch: Merry Pin, whose name borrows from an English idiom "to be in good spirits," was co-founded by Madeleine Odendahl, Michele Molotsky, and Megan Flynn ("Three Crafty Ms," as the fundraiser put it). Naturally, they're running this business on the side.

• It's two floors, with the downstairs primarily dedicated to commerce/coffee and the upstairs filled with purple love seats, pastel-painted chairs and long working tables for structured or unstructured crafting.
• They already have a robust calendar for the summer: a Bridgerton craft soiree on July 5 (yes, that "Bridgerton," $12/ticket), a Hand Building Clay Workshop (July 10, $60/ticket), an Intro to DIY home decor (July 16, $25/ticket), and a Punch Needle 101 Workshop (Aug. 4, $45/ticket).
• A Crafty Brunch (weekends only) and happy hour menu (4:60-6:30pm, Monday-Friday) just debuted.

The vibe: All ages-friendly and a community space where even the light fixtures are fun and reminiscent of elementary school. Roll up your sleeves, feel no shame.

• Similar businesses exist in other cities, like Happy Medium in New York, which opened in 2021 and has locations in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

If you go: My partner's birthday party was Merry Pin's very first private event — a candle-making workshop for a dozen of us.

• I bought the cake and candles (thank you, Saku Saku Flakerie ). Our instructor-owner Flynn kindly guided us from bags of soy wax to scented candles in mismatched jars. Some were adorned with dried flowers, and we also got to select three fragrance oils ahead of time.
• Also available to purchase for the group were assorted non-alcoholic HOP WTR and a running tab of caffeinated drinks. We bought snacks, but they helpfully had utensils and plates on site.
• We are in our tender early 30s and cleared out by 7pm.

The bottom line: Adults need more wholesome play.

• Full disclosure, we did post game with burgers at Slash Run .

Photo: Merry Pin

Get more local stories in your inbox with Axios Washington Dc.