Geonarratives of outer space: How astronaut memoirs narrate conquest

Virtual reality technologies have given rise to a new breed of space travel, enabling touring of cosmic environments without leaving the Earth. These tours democratize participation in space tourism and expand its itineraries – reproducing while also altering the practices of tourism itself. The chapter explores the ways in which they alter modes of establishing "authentic" tourism destinations and experiences, rendering outer space into a stage for the performance of space travel, while themselves facilitating novel avenues for its social organization and technological assertion. Virtual space tourism not only reflects the progression and metamorphoses in tourist practice and production but also has the potential to influence both the aspirations and prospects of our space futures. Keywords Virtual reality Experience Media technologies Touring Simulation Citation Damjanov, K. and Crouch, D. (2019), "Virtual Reality and Space Tourism", Space Tourism (Tourism Social Science Series, Vol. 25), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 117-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1571-504320190000025007 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2019 Emerald Publishing Limited Introduction During 2016, NASA's Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida offered the public exclusive tours of Mars. Rather than launching its visitors into orbit and space-shipping them to the neighboring planet, its exhibition space was transformed into a Martian landscape. However, there was no rusty red dust covering the ground, the hazy pink skies did not appear overhead, and there was no sudden drop in temperature or atmospheric pressure. Instead, the room became part of the virtual reality (VR) installation Destination: Mars (2016). Visitors were individually fitted with a headset which enabled them to "walk into" a realistic 3D simulation of the red planet. Wearing the Microsoft HoloLens, they were able to experience an augmented or mixed reality in which a virtual rendition of imagery collected by the sensory apparatus of the Curiosity rover was overlaid upon the layout of the exhibition space, allowing them to experience the sensation of moving through an alien environment. This was enabled by the adaptation of software called OnSight, originally co-developed by Microsoft and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to support Curiosity's operations by aiding the rover's command in analyzing terrain and determining pathways. The sightseers followed Curiosity's tracks and were led through several Martian sites by a digital holographic projection of astronaut Buzz Aldrin and rover driver Erisa Hines from Jet Propulsion Laboratory; they toured the key scientific activities and discoveries that make it possible for the visitors to "be there." Through Destination: Mars terrestrial space tourists shared an "immersive" interaction with the landscape of another planet (see Chapter 2 for discussion of terrestrial space tourism). While unique, this experience of touring places in outer space from the Earth is becoming increasingly common; this VR attraction set on Mars signposts far wider developments in VR technologies, in the practice and production of tourism and in the nature of space travel. Destination: Mars is just one of the many virtual tours that feature outer space in their itineraries. There is an increasing host of VR packages that offer forms of tourism set beyond the globe. They span a range of destinations, proposing journeys across our solar system and beyond – from a 3D Virtual Tour of the International Space Station to StarTracker VR – Mobile Sky Map (2016), which enables its user to "dive into a 3D star field" (2016, n.p.). Generated from the imagery and data gathered through the enterprise of space exploration, these tours combine diverse virtual interfaces with equipment such as goggles and headsets, wands, data gloves, and head-mounted displays to provide immersive simulations of environments in which to move, see, and interact with virtual artefacts. A range of them can be accessed through desktop computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, and gaming consoles at home or while on move. Others are presented at public forums for group experiences such as Destination: Mars, or Lockheed Martin's Mars Experience (2017), which transformed a school bus into a setting for a trip to Mars, its windows acting as the screens through which to experience a virtual journey on the red planet. Increasingly "out there" in their varied forms, these virtual tours not only register a popular interest in outer space, but also suggest the emergence of a distinct form of space tourism – one which harnesses the intermediation of technologies, the synthesizing possibilities of VR, and our collective aspiration toward outer space. The proliferation of these remote space tours emerges from ongoing developments in VR technologies. Since hesitant beginnings in the late twentieth century, VR technology has grown significantly in scale. Advances in hardware and software – in particular the rise of affordable domestic headsets such as Google Cardboard, Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Samsung Gear VR, and Oculus Rift – have brought VR to the masses, providing what they describe as "fully immersive" experiences "with realistic graphics, directional audio and HD haptic feedback" (HTC Vive, n.d., n.p.). Propelled by ever-present market forces, the consumption of virtual realities has become an everyday activity for many, with "reaches far beyond gaming and entertainment" (Scolaro, 2016, n.p.), and it is anticipated that consumer spending on VR will grow from "$108.8 million in 2014 to $21.8 billion worldwide by 2020" (Ewalt, 2015, n.p.). The virtual tour has thus far emerged as one of the most noteworthy and popular forms of VR application; tourism industries themselves increasingly incorporate them in order to market their products, to inspire consumers, and to enhance their experience of certain destinations. However, VR is used not only as a means of attracting visitors to museums, galleries, noteworthy places and panoramas, or particular hotels and resorts, but also as a form of tourism itself. Its purview is to give a preview of a destination, and also to enable an intrinsic kind of "armchair" travel. VR tours have increased not only the overall numbers of those who can be considered "tourists", but also the display of destinations exponentially – their synthetic worlds now even take the users to locations that they would otherwise be unable to visit, places which are expensive, dangerous, or impossible to reach. It is no surprise, then, that outer space is one of the key directions being taken by the evolving courses of virtual tourism. It is an inhuman environment, financially and logistically inaccessible to most, and thus far very few have toured it. Set in outer space, the VR tour promises the experience of traveling its expanses while never leaving the Earth. As a means of exploring the cosmos, it might thus also indicate the evolution of space travel, in general, and of space tourism in particular. The design of these armchair tours emerges from transactions between the hard-science and creative industries which gather around the exotica of outer space to provide novel, virtual modes of its exploration. VR technologies are prominently used for astronaut-training simulations and a range of space activities such as scientific research, planning, and aerospace engineering. For example, a HoloLens aboard the ISS is used to "provide virtual aid to astronauts" (NASA, 2015, n.p.), augmenting procedures with holographic images superimposed onto objects the astronaut is interacting with and allowing those on the Earth to "see from an astronaut's point-of-view and send them drawings and other visual instructions on how to complete tasks" (Franzen, 2016, n.p.). NASA has developed various VR applications designed to advance and bolster space endeavors, such as systems that assist "scientists in planning rover drives and even holding meetings on Mars" and make "studying Martian geology as intuitive as turning your head and walking around" (NASA, 2017a, 2017b, n.p.). These virtual advances in outer space are increasingly finding their way into public culture. Destination: Mars (2016), for instance, was not only adapted from the VR set-up used in Mars operations, but after its time as an attraction in Florida, it was further re-developed into a freely available application – Access Mars: A WebVR Experiment (2017), which now allows "anyone with an Internet connection [to] take a guided tour of what […] scientists experience" (NASA, 2017a, 2017b, n.p.). Part of an interest in outer space and its exploration more broadly – transposed from the fields of science to the marketplace – such products have, in other words, opened up the cosmos as a public tourist domain. Combining educational and entertainment content with the novelty of virtual environments, they contribute to the gradual domestication of outer space and the socialization of its exploration – moving space tourism from the province of the very few, into the realm of the masses. VR tours set in outer space are the outcome of ongoing innovations in informatics, media, and communication technologies that have been profoundly altering the domain of tourism. Facilitating the production, circulation, and consumption of tourist sights and experiences, these developments have not only complemented, but also increasingly constituted, the registers of travel. These technologic conditions have created a situation in which tourist experiences are no longer only contained within classic modes of travel but also exist as an experience of "simulated mobility through the incredible fluidity of multiple signs and electronic images" (Urry, 1995, p. 148). As part of this, VR augments tourism. The VR experience is equated with tourist experiences, contributing to a more general movement which conflates real and representational spaces, meaning places are not "fixed or given", but "emerge as 'tourist places'" when they are "assembled" or "produced through networked mobilities of capital, persons, objects, signs and information" – as "places to play" (Urry & Larsen, 2011, p. 119). At the same time, VR tours of space extend the arena of tourism beyond the confines of the globe, affording the experience of space travel for all. As part of the new socio-spatial interface that complicates distinctions between home and away, the presence and the absence, authentic and staged (Hannam, Butler, & Paris, 2014), they amplify the metamorphoses that technologic advances have conferred upon tourist modes and suggest the prospective forms they may take. The effects of VR space tourism are many and varied, and their repercussions are yet to be established. VR itself is still an emerging medium, and extraterrestrial tours still an undeveloped manner of travel. However, our primary aim in this chapter is to review the recent and current forms of virtual space tours in their nascent stages, to chart their proliferation and growing sophistication by providing examples of their different manifestations, emphases, and the range of locations they include in their itineraries. We consider how these synthetic spaces transpose the practice of touring into outer space, explore how virtual space travel might influence the constitution of our "touristic" disposition, and suggest some of the changes that VR space tours appear to introduce into the broad motivations undergirding our desire to "go beyond." Outlining the range of "immersive" experiences offered to VR space tourists, we suggest that this medium not only appears to widen the stage upon which we are able to perform the role of tourist – elongating its acquisitive gaze and complicating its prerequisites of physical presence – but also contributes to the greater mapping of outer space as a tourist site. We close with a brief consideration of the potential limitations and future possibilities of virtual tourism in outer space, reflecting upon the ways in which these tours technologically extend the tourist into the spectacle of space exploration as well as reveal a social and organizational capacity to influence the direction of space tourism and also our collective aspirations in outer space – to determine, in other words, the very conditions of how we approach, arrange, conquer, or acquire, new places to travel. Virtual Reality Experiences of Space Tourism Accelerations of interest and investment in progressing the itineraries of space tourism and the capacity and applications of VR technologies have rendered outer space into an infinitively travelable site. While the journeys of the very few tourists who have ventured beyond the globe have consisted mostly of visits to the ISS, the affordances of VR are permitting space travel into myriad other destinations, supplying tours of popular celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars or more exotic locations such as the planet "40 light years away" featured in NASA VR: On the Surface of Planet TRAPPIST-1d (2017, n.p.). VR technologies have the potential to change not only the entertainment industries, information consumption, and the mobility of the masses, but also the way we interact with the world. If on the Earth, virtual travel enables "transcending geographical and often social distance through information and communications technology" (Szerszynski & Urry, 2006, p. 116), set in outer space, it "transcends" the terrestrial geographies of this world, redefining the ambits of tourism and our relationship with outer space. VR space tours compound the novelties of a virtual environment and space travel; this amalgam, in which both form and content appear new and different, gives birth to a tourist who is part of a "culture of flows" and the hybrid "spaces of 'in-betweenness'" (Rojek & Urry, 1997, p. 11). However, the question that continues to undergird "virtual tourism" (and the idea of simulated travel and movement more generally) concerns the authenticity of the experience itself; as a setting, outer space only further complicates this uncertain and undecided purview. What we know of the experience of space travel can only be garnered from the limited records of people who can claim first-hand experience, but what we do know of outer space is that it is essentially an inhuman environment, a place in which our presence is both restricted to temporary sojourns and necessarily sustained by technology, where all humans are in effect tourists. By crafting an interpretation of outer space based upon the wealth of techno-scientific data generated through its observation and exploration, VR tours strive to simulate a realistic sense of presence "out there", attempting to bring their audiences as closely as possible to the cosmos without having to leave the Earth. But there are limits to this, and there are as yet no "genuine" replications of inhuman space environments as VR experiences. While a VR gaming simulation like Adr1ft (2016) might realistically recreate the "nauseating" and enclosed sensation of floating in zero gravity in a spacesuit, it disregards most of the physics and atmospheric effects of outer space – which ultimately undercuts the illusion of real presence that it sets out to establish. Similarly, Destination: Mars (2016) makes it possible to "walk on Mars" in the steps of rovers without the need for oxygen or any thought given to the effects of radiation or a different surface gravity; the authenticity of the experience wavers at the realization that Mars is a place where we cannot be without technological artifice. Yet, it is perhaps also the realization of this utter reliance upon technologies that returns a certain authenticity to the prosthetic VR experience. While travel in outer space means surrounding yourself in a "bubble" of mediating technologies, touring in VR is an immersion in a technologically created digital environment. In this sense, VR technology could be a suitable substitute for real space travel; technological necessity makes the experience of one continuous with the other. That said, VR space tours are nonetheless consistently concerned with their own presentation or performance of a "real" experience. What the VR industry categorizes under the de facto term experiences are packaged and presented as interactive real-time simulations. For example, a variety of space apps offered through Oculus like Hello Mars (2017) and its rendition of the "7 minutes of terror" landing sequence "created strictly based on NASA's public data & research" (Oculus, 2018a), Solar System (2015) in which one "can almost feel the structure of distant planets and moons under the feet" (Oculus, 2018b, n.p.), or Discovering Space 2 (2017), which lets one "[e]xperience the mood and atmosphere of worlds far away from home" (Oculus, 2018c, n.p.) – are all (among many others) marketed as in some way "realistic" experiences. This authenticity is, however, produced through their design – the hardware and software that they rely upon becoming a necessary part of the equation, influencing questions of perception, imitation, and reality. These mimetic environments are increasing in sophistication, becoming more precise, more accurate, but also more able to trick the eyes and mind, and at the same time, they are becoming more accepted as legitimate sites of social practice and authentic interaction. If the "touristic consciousness is motivated by its desire for authentic experiences" (MacCannell, 2013, p. 101), then the consciousness of the VR tourist complicates our conceptions of what is authentic and reopens questions of what is "real" experience. It is an experience of travel that occurs only through the simulation of presence and interaction with a synthetic environment, and while tourists might these their experiences there will for be they perhaps for authentic experiences, and (MacCannell, 2013, p. While their authenticity might be (MacCannell, 2013, p. VR tours nonetheless a distinct form of what as the of p. with and physical – but also not the of the – the forms of authenticity that VR tourism are to both activity and than the or the of certain p. The authenticity in the VR experience of space itself – and the of a experience, our sense of presence is through As the experience of as authentic is not an that or from the experience of a out there" pp. the experience with particular ways of to and VR tourists in space do not as they were in a by the experience of being in the presence of authentic do they feel the of places or as than questions of and how the toured objects are the experience" of this of tourism or by the of tourist p. As a of the VR experience is then in part a projection of the tourist onto the technologic possibilities of the medium – of new of the world. 1995, p. that the of being both and VR a of digital environments – the as information and spaces – an experience of and between in physical movement and in electronic (Hannam, & Urry, 2006, p. it the & Paris, 2015, p. of tourist places – and new or conceptions of experience, that might new of In this sense, VR itself might our experience of the extraterrestrial – a which only further questions of how tourist experiences of might to our collective sense of and moving in place and space. While VR itself complicates the geographical nature of VR in outer space still more to the idea that tourist practice experience, a sense of If real tourism is there" – a experience of physical – be there as and what is in most tourism" p. – then the of virtual space can offer in the way of a tourist In virtual tourism in outer space those which are to the to travel to particular places – such as of and to – appear to be by the practices of digital and the and of information and technologies. This is not to that VR the need for physical space or experience with that is forms of VR space tours some the bodies of tourists and and in certain physical spaces, but this terrestrial is only a stage set to be overlaid with of data and images designed to with and the VR space tours incorporate various to simulate environments and enhance a sense of For example, Lockheed Martin's Mars Experience (2017) a Martian dust with atmospheric effects to the HD displays that the windows of the moving school While VR presence is still through such experiences also haptic and while provide presence in VR – the that your virtual are your n.p.), a set of and the movement of the into VR equipment is and of into the activity and experience of There have been many other examples in which sensation is with virtual the experience of space travel, for instance, the (2017) which used HTC in with visual and effects to simulate the experience of VR are increasingly toward different forms of the and indicate the potential to become However, their between the and technology a new kind of a new medium of sensory experience that a place of and an of the tourist and technology, virtual travel in space of tourism as and & p. while possible and that would otherwise be beyond experience" & Larsen, 2006, p. in what as an of these of outer space the of reality to a – and as a of new of and the of a market in synthetic p. If authenticity itself no longer appears as an then it is only In VR, the for real experiences of exotic places the for places that are as This is in part through social but also in the of and the of digital However, as into a kind of tourist it an of p. in outer space, these are and through the technologies of VR, the of a form of a of a and VR tours offer an and all experience" 2016, p. This is what as that both the performance of and the of the design of the place and (2016, p. While individually their experiences, virtual space tourists themselves become in the of extraterrestrial destinations and ultimately tourist places beyond the Earth. If authenticity is and 2016, p. then the of VR itself a of what and This is not a of but as an of the of (2016, p. this the experiences of VR tours are as the toured objects and sites are as an of the illusion that A tourist in virtual outer space might in there is no authentic tourist experience" (Urry, 1995, p. on the Earth it. While tourism might "authentic" spaces into suitable for its ongoing the environment has no of or any of the host to and thus its authenticity is one which is of and otherwise p. While VR a that is perhaps real than reality beyond the an experience of more than the tourist experience itself is not of the world. As space VR might be but as a is a real one – it is a being a it is real to a tourist and thus to or in tourism" p. any space travel itself an VR products that offer to technologically extend the interest in p. are thus part of the practice and production of tourism and as experiences within its Virtual space tours from our beyond the planet. the humans who the Earth have only been as far as the of outer space have been well and and with increasing in which no has yet digital of extraterrestrial space are virtual spaces in are with of celestial objects, and and the courses of of or at and out our into space. space in this sense appears as a with tourist with the of and travel VR space tours from these of space they are set in a space and themselves it for As they may the that has been – a virtual environment accessed of of might not a sense of or suggest the experience of exploring the Yet, it is in this that places are as and become tourist destinations, complete with to visit, to sights to see, and sites to Through and images of and providing as of VR tours outer space for all the practices and that tourism might into virtual locations like on Mars or the technologies like Curiosity and the ISS, and like Buzz themselves become which are

Extra-Planetary Digital Cultures

The monopoly on human spaceflight has been held by a handful of governments and their space programs for over the last fifty years. With the successful launch of Scaled Composite’s SpaceShipOne , c orporations may soon be able to take advantage of new launch vehicle technologies and end governmental monopoly of human spaceflight. Private human spaceflight will enable corpora tions to expand their reach beyond E arth , enter ing a new economic era with as much uncertainty as ever in the expanding commercial frontier of outer space . However, legal challenges will present the major obstacle to corporations operating in outer space. Outer space is a high risk environment and given the dangerousness of such economic activity corporations will not be allowed to operate without some rules or regulation . Moreover , without the ability to profit, corporations will lose their incentive to en gage in outer space commerce. Therefore, outer space law must balance corporate and public interests to ensure safety, equity and market efficiency. In turn, the shape of future civilization in outer space will depend on how national and international law develop s over time in response to the pressures of corporate expansion. This paper thus seeks to perform two tasks: first, to critically review the major legal challenges facing corp orate expansion into outer space, particularly United States and internati onal space law ; and second, provide an evaluation of “laissez -faire ” proposals for human expansion into outer space and their impact on future space society. I. Introduction he monopoly on human spaceflight has been held by a handful of governments and thei r space programs for over the last fifty years. With the successful launch of Scaled Composite’s SpaceShipOne , corporations may soon be able to take advantage of new launch vehicle technologies and end governmental monopoly of human spaceflight. Private hu man spaceflight will enable corporations to expand their reach beyond Earth, entering a new economic era with as much uncertainty as ever in the expanding commercial frontier of outer space. Corporations are well established in outer space. Many private s pace firms develop, build and launch vehicles and payloads , while working closely with governments. Nevertheless, many corporations are confined to specialized sectors of space commerce due to the economically prohibitive nature of human spaceflight. Howev er, legal challenges will present the major obstacle to corporations operating in outer space. Outer space is a high risk environment and given the dangerousness of such economic activity corporations will not be allowed to operate without some rules or re gulation. Moreover, without the ability to profit, corporations will lose their incentive to engage in outer space commerce. Therefore, outer space law must balance corporate and public interests to ensure safety, equity and market efficiency. In turn, the shape of future civilization in outer space will depend on how national and international law develops over time in response to the pressures of corporate expansion. This paper thus seeks to perform two tasks: first, to critically review the major legal c hallenges facing corporate expansion into outer space, particularly United States and international space law; and second, provide an evaluation of “laissez -faire” proposals for human expansion into outer space and their impact on future space society.

The mainstream interpretation of State responsibility for Non-Governmental Entities (NGEs) with respect to their commercial operations in outer space may hinder the further development of the commercial space industry. Specifically, that interpretation produces broad responsibility for nation-states (States) under international law and derivative consequences for States and NGEs, but the international space community might avoid the otherwise harsh practical consequences that are likely to hamper the continued growth of commercial activities by NGEs in outer space by reexamining and reinterpreting a few aspects of existing law. This article (1) examines mainstream interpretations of State responsibility for NGEs with respect to their commercial operations in outer space; (2) embraces Curtis Schmeichel’s work and his rejection of “national activities” as an all-encompassing concept that renders States responsible for nearly all of their NGEs’ activities and extends his contextual analysis to the remainder of Article VI 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 (Outer Space Treaty or OST); and (3) proposes a reinterpretation of present international space law concerning State responsibility by arguing that the “authorization and continuing supervision” requirement with respect to NGEs, as set forth in the second sentence of OST Article VI, is independent of carrying out activities “in conformity with the provisions set forth in the [OST].” Pursuant to that reinterpretation, each State that is a party to the OST and the 1972 Liability Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (Liability Convention), recognizing its liberation from the need to ensure its NGEs’ conformity with the OST but respecting the remaining potential international liability for outer space activities by its NGEs (which might flow therefrom pursuant to Article VII of the OST and Article III of the Liability Convention, respectively), might endeavor to minimize the likelihood that such activities result in injurious consequences by regulating such activity. Accordingly, a State’s recognition of its ex post international liability for its NGEs’ injurious conduct in outer space may result in its ex ante adoption of authorization regimes and supervisory regulations specifically designed to limit that liability without the burden of, or need to, ensure such NGEs’ adherence to the provisions of the OST when they are not engaged in national activities. As private sector activities in outer space expand, such an approach to the OST’s Article VI should reduce the regulatory load States must shoulder to comply with their duties to authorize and continually supervise NGEs’ non-national activities in outer space while correspondingly increasing the discretion such States may exercise in fulfilling those duties. In summation, this article proposes a drastic narrowing of States’ responsibility for NGEs’ activities in outer space, which should enable States to reduce their supervisory burden or otherwise tailor their supervisory role for the non-national activities of their NGEs’ in outer space in a manner consistent with such States’ own respective interests and agendas free of the need to ensure those NGEs’ “compliance” with the OST. States’ liability for NGEs’ actions in outer space, however, would not be altered by the reinterpretation of the OST proposed in this Article. But a State’s liability for its NGEs’ activities in outer space is based on comparative fault. States who have laws and regulations governing NGEs’ activities in outer space could argue that they should shoulder less comparative fault than States who lack such laws and regulations; this, coupled with the “stickiness” of liability under international space law (i.e., a launching state retains liability for its space objects indefinitely), should mitigate “race to the bottom” fears for States vis-a-vis their NGEs’ activities in outer space.

The discussion on the delimitation, and hence definition of 'outer space' as an area, and subsidiary to that on the need or desirability to have such a delimitation and definition, harks back to the beginning of the space age. Until then, it had been quite clear that every state exercised full sovereignty over the sky above its territory and territorial waters, whilst no one felt the need for finding out how high upward such sovereignty would exactly extend. With Sputnik, for the first time the practical question arose however whether there indeed was an upper limit to airspace, and if so, where it would lie. The debate since then has mainly been a theoretical one, partly because several important space-faring nations did not consider it necessary or even appropriate to establish a legally relevant fixed boundary between 'outer space' and 'airspace' as 'geographical' areas for human activities. It is the main thrust of this paper, firstly, that this situation is changing. It is contended that in particular the recent adventures of SpaceShipOne which for a brief moment 'dipped' into outer space if one agrees that outer space begins at an altitude of 100 km bring the question of where 'outer space' begins back on the table. Consequently, wherever that question is indeed considered relevant, in the absence of any international agreement on such a delimitation or definition, viz. the need or desirability to establish one, other legally relevant means are sought to deal with the issue. Secondly, such development of alternate means has, in turn, its own indirect impact at the international legal plane. Such various developments as Australian national law referring to a lower boundary for outer space and the need to choose for certification of SpaceShipOne and crew may, in the end, through the mechanism of formation of international custom and opinio juris, lead to a customary legal rule. The current paper thus, firstly, briefly recapitulates the discussion of the last decades on delimitation and definition of outer space, secondly, refers to a few events which directly touch upon this issue, thirdly, tries to analyse the legal aspects of the solutions chosen to deal with that, including the vexing question of formation of customary law, and finally tries to draw some conclusions with respect to the overarching question: if the sky is the limit, where does it end?

At the early stage of humankind’s Space Age, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America showed an inclination to non-militarize outer space, but distrust also prompted them to carry out a series of high-altitude nuclear tests. In the end, while the non-militarization aspiration materialized on celestial bodies, in the outer void space between them only Weapons of Mass Destruction were prohibited. The last few decades have witnessed the incremental militarization of the Earth orbits. The initial phase of militarization, primarily for surveillance and early warning, was conducive to international peace and security. It is in the next phase, when space systems were integrated into warfighting capabilities and Ballistic Missile Defense systems, that outer space embarked on its reduction into a domain of conflicts. This trend was subtle in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, and didn’t become clear until the new millennium when new space powers emerged. Today, space-based weapons and terrestrial Anti-Satellite Weapons (ASATs) form the primary security concerns for space powers, depending on their relative space capability. The disparity is difficult to reconcile, putting space arms control literally on a halt. As States with counter-space capability are also highly reliant on space, there is a growing voluntary moratorium against the test and use of debris-generating ASATs and conflicts in space are likely to take an electronic and/or cyber form. The recent rise of the strategy of “deterrence and superiority” in space, however, may distract from the formation of this voluntary moratorium, aggravate an arms race in outer space, and even increase the risk of a full-scale conflict in space.

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.

As one of the calibration reference targets used to calibrate the cross-track infrared sounder (CrIS) earth scene (ES) measurements, the stable deep space (DS) reference spectrum in the 30-scan DS calibration moving window is very important for the accuracy of the calibrated ES radiances. The DS view changes when the lunar radiation intrudes into the observation field of view (FOV). In the original CrIS lunar intrusion (LI) detection algorithm implemented in the operational ground processing system, the contaminated DS spectra were not effectively removed from the DS moving window due to large threshold values and the assumption that the first DS spectrum in the moving window was not contaminated. As a result, inaccurate, degraded, or invalid ES radiances were produced in the operational CrIS sensor data record (SDR) during LI events. In this article, an improved LI detection algorithm is developed and implemented into the operational system. First, the new algorithm efficiently finds a contamination-free DS spectrum in the DS 30-scan calibration moving window to use as the reference spectrum. Second, based on the phase characteristics of the complex raw DS spectra during LI events, the LI band-dependent thresholds were derived to effectively reject the contaminated DS spectra and to make the valid DS window size consistent among the three CrIS bands. The new LI algorithm implemented in the operational system shows a successful detection and removal of all the lunar-contaminated DS spectra in the DS moving window, resulting in an improved calibration of ES radiances during LI events.

Antarctica and outer space have a lot in common. Like Antarctica, outer space is dangerous for humans; like Antarctica, outer space has a high strategic value; like Antarctica, outer space is quite interesting for research purposes. This means a lot for lawyers because the nature of a space has a great impact on its legal status. Nevertheless, for historical reasons Antarctica and outer space are rather different as far as their legal statuses are concerned. In fact, despite the existing claims by some states on Antarctica, on the one hand, and the acceptance of the nonappropriation principle of outer space, on the other, the common natural, strategic, and scientific aspects of both spaces make a comparison of their legal framework and governance very efficient. In 1959 activities in Antarctica were already important, and the Antarctic Treaty succeeded in breaking the vicious circle that impeded scientific activities on this disputed territory.1 The freezing of the claims and refusal of new claims made possible efficient scientific activities on the cold continent. Outer space activities were at their very beginning, and the cold war and a significant balance between both superpowers made possible the recognition of a legal status that in many ways was copied from the Antarctic Treaty. Both Antarctic and outer space activities were boosted by the International Geophysical Year, 1957–1958. Sputnik, the first artificial satellite of the Earth, was launched on 4 October 1957; Explorer 1 launched on 1 February 1958, opening the way to the discovery of the Van Allen belt. Fifty years later, it is interesting to go on comparing both regimes. Doing so, we must keep in mind that outer space is much more sensitive for strategy and defence than Antarctica; the vision of a dominance of the Earth through space dominance is commonplace in geostrategic theories. Economically, outer space is also quite important, for instance, in telecommunications and remote sensing. Still, on many issues, this comparison may be quite useful. For a lawyer and a specialist in space law the hypothesis for this paper is that we have a rather evolved legal framework for outer space, but we have too few cooperation mechanisms. For the time being, the treaties governing outer space are Outer Space as International Space: Lessons from Antarctica

Purpose In light of the discussions on outer space property management, this conceptual review paper aims to discuss and evaluate if, when and under which conditions certain land management and property right frameworks can apply to allocate and/or restrict property rights in outer space. Design/methodology/approach This paper applies a pragmatic review approach which seeks to better understand if and how the basic tenets of the land management frameworks could better shape and revise the challenges in outer space regulations. Findings Despite the fact that regulatory guidelines on outer space rights are existing, the analysis shows that these lack a number of practical tools and measures aiming at intervening if stakeholders do not follow the rules. With the use of land management frameworks, it is possible to derive policy options for making the outer space management more practical and action-oriented, in particular for the removal of space debris. These include amongst others more attention for formulating global public restrictions in outer space, incorporating regulatory guidelines for accessing open space regimes, addressing responsiveness and robustness in adherence and compliance to regulations Research limitations/implications Given the conceptual and discursive character of the paper, there are no specific empirical data, yet several recommendations for further research include expanding the boundary work between the land management and regulatory outer space domain. Practical implications The insights derived from land management and real estate related property theories could potentially provide new starting points for (re)formulating the regulatory framework for outer space property discourses. Social implications Interpreting the outer space regulations from known and practiced land management perspective helps to bridge the policy–society knowledge and necessity gap on outer space activities. Originality/value The specific land management perspective and discursive analysis on outer space debris provide new options for devising and extending regulatory guidelines for assigning responsibilities on outer space debris and debris rights, restrictions and responsibilities.

Risk Factors for Pediatric Deep Neck Infection Revisit After Emergency Department Discharge for Pharyngitis or Localized Neck Symptoms.

Sixty years later, Professor Paul B. Larsen revisits and discusses seven outer space legal issues identified by early space law experts and their current impacts on space policy. The first section addresses the ambiguous boundary of the non-sovereign outer space legal regime which, increasingly causes states to claim control of non-sovereign outer space. Second, Larsen analyzes how the lack of outer space regulation by an international agency like the International Civil Aviation Organization has encouraged states to seek to control outer space unilaterally. Third, although the original aim of space law experts was for outer space to be free for exploration and use by all states, increasingly, outer space is being controlled by competing groups of states. Fourth, outer space was originally dedicated to peaceful use with minimal allowance for the military uses then in effect, but now military uses are voluminous and growing, with conflicts possible in the near future. Fifth, all persons in outer space were originally military acting as envoys of mankind to be rescued in the event of accidents. However, the sixth section explores how persons in outer space are increasingly now employed by competing non-governmental operators or perform military functions, not acting as envoys of mankind. Lastly, the adoption of a private international law convention on liability might require non-governmental operators to obtain adequate insurance coverage to reimburse for conjunctions, as a condition for permission to enter outer space.

The state’s right to outer space is far from clear delimitation. Outer space is a typical commons, which means every sovereign state has the right to use the outer space and no state has the right to exclude others from using the outer space. The logic of tragedy of commons equally applies in outer space which means the resource of outer space will inevitably be over-used - for example, the space debris. Space debris is the collateral pollution of the exploration of outer space, which can be categorized in negative externality. The article seeks to frame the space debris problem in perspective of basic property theory.With an increasing feasible access to outer space for both states and individuals, the property rights logic underlying space treaties as a whole needs to be re-evaluated. Privatization is the way to overcome tragedy of the commons, outer space in this article. As a kind of overuse of outer space, space debris mitigation problem should be re-conceptualized reassessed in light of proper rights theory. De facto property rights of outer space resources have existed all the time despite its informal legal status. Three approaches of international community to space debris mitigation are proposed by the article along with analysis of cost thereof. As a priority issue of space exploitation, justification of limited property rights to outer space resources has been analyzed in the light of real constraints and challenges to international collective action to space debris mitigation. Despite of the prematureness of comprehensive outer space regulation framework, the advance of technology has made space debris mitigation a really pressing, if not the most emergent, issue in outer space exploitation.

<p indent="0mm">During deep space exploration activities, solar conjunction occurs due to changes in the relative motion between the Earth, the spacecraft and the Sun. During solar conjunction, the main beam of the antenna of the ground deep space TT&amp;C equipment is aligned with the spacecraft as well as the sun. At this time, the strong electromagnetic radiation generated by the sun will enter the main beam of the ground deep space TT&amp;C antenna and bring strong interference to the spacecraft signal received. Therefore, solar noise is an important factor affecting the performance of deep space TT&amp;C communication link. During China’s first Mars Exploration Mission—Tianwen-1, the opportunity of the Sun-Earth-Mars angle-off less than 5° will be used for the first time, that is, from September 23 to October 23, 2021, the <sc>35 m</sc> diameter deep space TT&amp;C equipment of China’s Deep Space Tracking and Control Network located in Kashi, Xinjiang and Jiamusi, Heilongjiang. The influence of solar noise on the TT&amp;C communication link of Tianwen-1 during solar conjunction was studied, the latest experimental results were obtained, and the preliminary law of the influence of solar noise on the X band TT&amp;C link of China’s deep space TT&amp;C equipment when the distance from the Earth is 400 million kilometers was obtained. The completeness and correctness of the downlink telemetry data after frame synchronization of the deep space TT&amp;C station were verified, and the effect of solar noise on the reception performance of the deep space TT&amp;C station was evaluated by calculating the frame error rate of the telemetry received. According to data analysis, when the azimuth deviation angle is less than 3°, the influence of solar thermal noise increases, and when the azimuth deviation angle is less than 1°, the influence of solar thermal noise increases significantly. When the deviation angle is less than 2°, the influence of solar thermal noise increases, and when the deviation angle is less than 0.5°, the influence of solar thermal noise increases significantly. Since the Tianwen-1 Mission is in the midst of an 11-year lull in solar activities, the impact of solar noise is relatively small. During the extended mission of Tianwen-1, the ground deep space TT&amp;C system will continue to monitor the influence of the TT&amp;C link during solar conjunction, and strive to obtain the influence information of a complete solar activity cycle, so as to provide more accurate reference for the analysis of the influence of solar noise in the subsequent deep space exploration activities. Considering that Ka-band will be an important frequency band for deep space TT&amp;C communication in the future, it is necessary to further strengthen research and experimental verification of the influence of solar noise on the deep space TT&amp;C link at Ka-band.

The article is dedicated to outer space as a space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, open for exploration and use by all. Celestial bodies are natural resources of the common heritage of humanity. Their exploration and use for the benefit and discovery of all countries is the result of the ownership of all mankind. However, since the end of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, outer space has gradually become militarized. This is due to changes in the system of warfare, which is likely to be heavily transformed in the coming future. In this transformational system, all domains of warfare will be interlinked and outer space will play a significant role. One example of such processes is the Gulf War, also called the First Space War, in which the US Army successfully used the outer space systems for its Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) activities. Since then, outer space has become an integral part of US military operations. Consequently, other great powers like Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China are also trying to develop the same capability to counter US dominance in outer space. Simultaneously, the US is continuing its counter-space capabilities to maintain the dominance in outer space. The growing dependence on outer space is not only applicable to the military operation but also to commercial and civilian activities. As a result, great powers are more actively engaging in various space and counter-space activities to pursue their national interests; such activity turns outer space into an arena for inter-state rivalry.