Outer Space Resources Research Articles

Geek saviours to the rescue? Primitive accumulation, astropropriation, and exoimperialism in NewSpace entrepreneurship

In this paper, we examine the contemporary commercial space race – colloquially known as NewSpace – from a Marxian, technofeminist and decolonial perspective. Theorising the emergent entrepreneurial activities aimed at the human colonisation and exploitation of outer space as part of an ongoing process of primitive accumulation, we contribute innovative conceptualisations of 21st century entrepreneurial space adventurism as exoimperialism, and the privatisation of outer space resources as astropropriation. We develop the notion of geek saviourism as a function of the new geek hegemony within normative white masculinity, used to justify species-level risk under the auspices of homo entrepreneurus, a subgenre of homo economicus. Our critical examination exhorts extreme caution regarding NewSpace entrepreneurial activities, given the longstanding trajectory of entrepreneurial coloniality they reproduce, the mythoi from which they stem, and the devastatingly unequal sociogeny they can generate.

Corrigendum: Integrating outer space as a global commons with private property rights to outer space resources

Corrigendum: Integrating outer space as a global commons with private property rights to outer space resources

The Common Heritage of Mankind and the Rights of Future Generations in Outer Space Exploration: The Ethical Frontier

This article explores the ethical frontiers of outer space exploration, focusing on the common heritage of mankind and the rights of future generations. It delves into the historical evolution of international space law, examines key treaties and agreements, and applies Elinor Ostrom's principles of resource management to space governance. The article emphasizes the importance of ethical considerations, such as the rights of future generations, and provides a comparative analysis of different ethical theories relevant to space exploration. By integrating stakeholder perspectives, including those of non-space-faring nations and private companies, the article proposes new governance models for the sustainable and equitable management of outer space resources. The findings suggest that a balanced approach, considering diverse viewpoints and ethical implications, is crucial for the future of space exploration.

Integrating outer space as a global commons with private property rights to outer space resources

Inspired by the US government’s denial that outer space is a global commons, and the heated discussion in China regarding property rights in outer space resources, this article looks at this controversial term: “global commons”. It finds that this term was mostly adopted as a political, rather than legal, term. As a result of the over-emphasis on the implications of global commons on the property rights to outer space resources, states that plan to develop private space mining may avoid calling outer space a global commons. This article argues that this response may not be necessary. It then examines the real purpose of the global commons discourse by analogizing the tragedy of commons and thus puts forward the suggestion to adopt the non-exclusive use standard to govern the activities of space resource extraction by private parties. This solution will allow countries to continue to view outer space as a global commons while liberalizing private parties’ activities in outer space resource development and extraction. Moreover, China’s initiative of the global community of shared future possesses the potential to serve as the overarching concept to govern its future outer space activities, including space mining.

Legal Regulation of Commercial Exploitation of Outer Space Resources and China’s Countermeasures

Legal Regulation of Commercial Exploitation of Outer Space Resources and China’s Countermeasures

Moon-Earth: Prospects for a lunar-centric scenario for space development after 2030

Gerard K. O’Neill idea of large habitats built from outer space resources in his 1974 Physics Today article “The Colonization of Space” resulted in a flurry of speculation and research and development work aimed at use of lunar resources to build large-scale solar-power satellite (SPS) to generate revenue to pay for space colonization. As the enormity of the technical and financial challenges to achieve space colonization research interest began to wane particularly with realization that the U.S. having reached the Moon before the USSR, was no longer driven to achieve more as the Nation faced the Oil Embargo and growing domestic concerns. Currently, the state of technology development and knowledge of lunar resources has created conditions where a lunar centric model of space development appears increasingly feasible offering the possibility of not only more rapid development in outer space, but also to impact long term sustainable development on Earth by reducing the need for terrestrial resources for industrial development in Earth orbits, cislunar space and the Moon. In effect, lunar industrial development can contribute increasingly to achieve sustainable development on Earth. This, however will raise challenges to address governance of space traffic and resource access and use on the Moon as unlike 1974 many countries are developing the capacity to reach and operate in cislunar space and on the Moon.

An Asteroid Mining Model Based on Input and Output Equity

With the progress of science and technology and the rapid consumption of earth resources, the exploitation of outer space resources such as planetary mining has become an international hot issue. The power gap between countries in today’s world is so wide that how to realize the so-called fairness has become a problem worth thinking. Firstly, we establish an Input Output Equity Model (IOEM) to measure global equity. We define global equity as the balance between the input of human and material resources in the management and construction of a country and the overall strength of the country. Ten sets of data from many countries are divided into four categories: Science and technology, Traffic, Workforce and Energy consumption. We used the Entropy Weight method (EWM) based on TOPSIS comprehensive evaluation to determine the weight of each part and index, comprehensively evaluated 12 countries covering six continents and calculated their input equity index. Then we compared the index with the GDP of each country and found that the overall trend was consistent. This shows that there is a balance between input and output, which verifies the rationality of the model. We then establish the Asteroid Mining Model (AMM) to evaluate and predict the Asteroid Mining capabilities of various countries. In combination with the whole process of asteroid mining and the analysis of main components, we choose these three indicators: Scientific Research (SR), Exploitation of Mineral (EM) and Aeronautics and Astronautics (AA) to measure. We use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the weights of the three factors and calculate Asteroid Mining Model (AMI) for each country. Then, the model is applied to two representative countries, China and Colombia, and the future is predicted by fitting. According to the results, it is concluded that the asteroid mining industry has a good development prospect. Next, we use correlation analysis to discuss the impact of the asteroid mining industry on global equity and conclude that there is a correlation between the decision index of asteroid mining and equity index, among which the correlation coefficient between aircraft and equity index reaches 0.9290. It can be concluded that the development of asteroid mining in the future will inevitably affect global equity. Furthermore, in order to explore how changes in asteroid mining will affect global equity in different ways, we carry out multiple linear regression analysis of variables from macro and micro perspectives respectively and find that the development of asteroid mining industry will indirectly affect global equity through its impact on computers and researchers. Finally, based on our findings, we propose policy recommendations for the development of asteroid mining to the United Nations from the perspective of global equity. Our advice can be summed up as “Inspire, Share and Collaborate”. We hope that while promoting scientific and technological development and exploration of outer space, all countries will enjoy friendly cooperation and common development so as to realize a fair and beautiful vision of the universe.

Definition of “Armed Conflict” in Outer Space

Countries should follow the principle of peaceful development when developing and utilizing outer space resources and rights, but the increasing militarization or weaponization of space is contrary to this basic principle. The militarization or weaponization of space not only creates tension in international relations but also greatly increases the danger of armed conflicts in space. According to the basic theory of international humanitarian law, it can be deduced that once an armed conflict in outer space breaks out, the existing international humanitarian law can be applied. Then, determining the definition of “armed conflict in outer space” and the possible types of “armed conflict in outer space” are the prerequisites for the application of international humanitarian law. Although no armed conflict in outer space has actually broken out yet, it does not prevent us from conducting tentative research on the concept of “armed conflict” in combination with the characteristics of outer space activities.

Asteroid Mining Impact Prediction Model

According to the Outer Space Treaty of the United Nations, "Space exploration shall be the common domain of all mankind," and all mankind should share outer space resources. With the continuous advancement of science and technology, the gap in comprehensive strength between countries is increasing, and there is a gap in the acquisition of outer space resources between countries. In order to measure the fair distribution of this resource, we quantify the fairness and formulate relevant policies by collecting data to build a model.

Research on the Impact of Asteroid Mining on Global Equity Based on Entropy Weight Method and Polynomial Regression

It has been 60 years since humankind first entered outer space. Looking back, aerospace workers have made countless sweat and efforts on the way to visit the universe. In the future, if asteroid mining becomes a reality, the resources and wealth contained in it will be enormous. Only by rational distribution and efficient utilization of resources can we fairly benefit the people of the world. In this paper, we define "global equity" as the negative effect of the degree of discretization of the comprehensive strength index of all countries in the world. The global equity index model is established. The model selects the indicators such as economy, politics, education, military strength, and scientific research investment, obtains the weight by using the entropy weight method, calculates the comprehensive strength index of each country, calculates the standard deviation of the comprehensive strength of each country after interval processing, and then negative processing to obtain the global equity index. Then, we verify the model by region. Finally, a prediction model is established for the scale development of the asteroid mining industry, and it analyzes and calculates the profitability of three types of countries after the exploitation of outer space resources. It is included in the calculation of the national strength index to calculate the global equity index in the base year (2020) and 2034-2039. The least-squares cubic polynomial regression fitting is used to show the future trend of the global equity index intuitively. It is concluded that the development of the space mining industry will deteriorate global equity.

On the Legal Dilemma of Ownership and Exploitation Right of Outer Space and Its Resources and China's Solutions

The principle of common heritage of mankind embodies the requirement of developing countries for the distribution of ownership of world resources (including outer space) that cannot be seized by some countries. The allocation of ownership under the principle of common heritage of mankind contributes to the equitable distribution and use of the world's resources across countries and generations. The principle of common heritage of mankind is essentially the ownership of resources. Facing the increasingly frequent activities in outer space as such, however, there is no chance for international laws to play their role in regulating those activities. The contracting system adopted in the early stage of China's reform and opening up could be used for tackling the dilemma faced by the utilization of outer space resources and the distribution of benefits.

The commons institution of Antarctica: a roadmap to governance of mankind resources

Purpose This paper aims to draw on Ostrom’s commons theory to analyse the governance regime of Antarctic as a commons institution. Antarctic is a peculiar territorial space on Earth, which due to its unique characteristics constitutes a global common resource that very much resembles outer space resources. On these grounds, the paper highlights successful, and less successful, arrangements developed in the Antarctic commons to be considered as a blueprint or roadmap towards the governance of outer space resources as a commons. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses first, the social-ecological system (SES) framework to outline the characteristics of Antarctic as a commons institution, and second, Ostrom’s design principles to assess the commons institution of Antarctic. The Antarctic commons institution is used next, as an analogy to reflect on the challenges outer space global resource face and the way it could be managed. Findings The paper concludes that Antarctic enjoys a functional, credible and successful commons institution that should reinforce the twofold governance structure it exhibits. Similar cases of global common resources, such as these of outer space, that seek to establish a similar commons institution should take into account issues related the benefits spectrum and the credible commitment of actors to engage in different levels of the governance regime. What matters is not necessarily the form of the regime but rather how the commons as an institution functions, whether it fulfils the needs and interests of the driving actors and, on these grounds, how credible these arrangements are in the eyes of the committed members. Research limitations/implications Both Antarctica and outer space are rather unique cases and domains of multiple resources. Practical implications The paper provides an analogy to consider sustainable appropriation of global resources (“global commons”) for peace and prosperity to all. Originality/value The paper is original, in the sense that according to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no published work has identified Antarctic as a commons institution or has used the aforementioned methodologies to analyse Antarctica as a commons and to employ their findings in providing directions for the design of appropriate governance frameworks for other resources that exhibit the characteristics of global commons, such as these of the outer space.

Taxation of Outer Space Income Resulting from Air Transport or Employment Activities: Is the OECD Model Convention an Appropriate Tool?

Space related activities (resulting for example from space tourism or exploration and exploitation of outer space resources) will likely generate in near future increasing revenue. Currently, the issues of the ‘taxability’ or taxation of such revenue in an international context have not been questioned or examined. It is rather assumed that the current version of the OECD Model Convention constitutes a proper legal tool to apprehend and resolve space related tax issues. The OECD Model Convention, however, relies on some fundamental principles, such as the concepts of residence (requiring a physical presence) or state’ sovereignty, which seem prima facie not very well adapted to resolve space related tax issues. The purpose of the present contribution is therefore to check and verify this simple assumption, at the light of two specific issues: international transport issues and international employment issues. International taxation, OECD Model Convention, taxation of outer space income, (income from) air transport activities, Art.8 OECD Model Convention, (income from) employment activities.

Management of outer space economic resources – legal and political challenges

Outer space resources of celestial bodies are accessible for the leading space-faring nations and their private space corporations. The absence of international legal mechanisms of distribution and management of space resources could lead to a severe international conflict, pollution of celestial bodies, and duplication of space projects. The US interpretation of article II of the Outer Space Treaty, which allows usage of the resources of celestial bodies, leads to competition and even conflict with an alliance of Russia and China. There is a strong need for an above-national vision, which can consolidate the efforts of states and private actors, enlarge their capacity for space exploitation and decrease the tension in international relations.

Correction to: Partial Ownership for Outer Space Resources

Due to a lapse the manuscript without revision was published. The original article has been updated.

Partial Ownership for Outer Space Resources

The most widely adopted agreement on space law, the Outer Space Treaty (OST) (1967), actively promotes international partnerships and peaceful uses of outer space. It also forbids any claims of sovereignty or private property on celestial bodies; however, nothing is explicitly written about the use of resources that can be found there. Other texts, like the Moon Agreement (1979), attempted to extend provisions on this regard, but only 18 nations ratified this agreement, probably because it also contains obligations that remove all incentives for the private industry to participate in the exploitation of outer space resources, such as the obligation to disclose all discoveries and share the benefits between all state parties. Today, most missions are scientific, so there is no need to compete for using space resources. If tomorrow society wants to incentivize participation, and leverage the available funds, from the private sector to explore and exploit outer space, an allocation mechanism that allows to dispute the use of resources needs to be set up. On Earth, this is achieved by the private property system and commercial competition. However, private property is not allowed by the OST, because it has a right of exclusion, and everyone shall be free to use space resources if it does not interfere with activities of other nations. An exclusivity of use for the first nation to exploit a given resource is not desired either and is precisely why the OST was established in the first place. In full compliance with the OST, this paper introduces the concept of Partial Ownership of Outer Space Resources (POOSR). This system allows to compete for the use of resources, without granting monopoly, as it always keeps the competition for ownership open. It is based on the introduction of a Harberger tax and a Partial Ownership system, that allows to expose commonly-owned resources (such as outer space asteroids, or planetary surface areas) to the efficiency of allocation provided by market dynamics, while preserving the incentives for investment to the current owners and preventing resource locking. This paper shows how such system would foster investments from private entities, as well as how it would benefit to all the international entities or nations participating to it. The synergy between such system, international regulations, and national laws, to establish a regulation for space mining and other outer space activities is also discussed.

Colonizing other planets is a bad idea

Should humans seek to colonize outer space? I say no. I have worked in the space community for 35 years with a variety of programs and projects ranging from science to human space flight. My view as a social scientist is that humans are not sufficiently advanced, technologically and socially, to be establishing colonies on Mars, or any other place in space. Except for the threads of Russian cosmism, the ideology of space colonization and exploitation is largely Western, and Christian, as noted above. It appears to be some interpretation of Christian dominion, or dominionist, theology that drives colonization advocates to declare that humans are destined to fill the universe, that humans “must” colonize Mars, that outer space resources are there for the taking.The ideology of space exploration is in need of rejuvenation. The author advocates a visionof a human future in space in which humanity finds its way to a collective peaceful existence on Spaceship Earth, a way to work together to preserve life here and to look for life out there. Perhaps at some point in the distant future, humans might be ready –technologically and socially – to live together peacefully on other planets. But we are not there yet.

Structuring the Discourse on the Exploitation of Space Resources: Between Economic and Legal Commons

A critical discussion is reemerging in space policy, economics, and law: on the classification, use and possible ownership of space resources, and the governance of these activities in terms of rules and institutions. The US legislation from 2015, recognizing the right of US citizens to all asteroid resources they obtain, clearly signals that “money time” has come, in every meaning. Planetary Resources, Inc. has declared this new legislation “the single greatest recognition of property rights in history”. Yet, the discourse on space resources, which are widely—but not necessarily duly—regarded as “commons”, is unstructured and crippled by the confusion of the notion and essence of “commons” between the economic and the legal meanings. This article provides a critical analysis of the “commons” feature of outer space and outer space resources, based on economic analysis and legal theory. More importantly, this article seeks to provide the structure for this important discourse. The first critical step is to distinguish between (i) commons as an economic term and (ii) commons as a legal regime. The first refers to a type of goods or resource used by multiple users, and the second refers to a property rights regime, the ownership over the resource. A mistake, often made, is the confusion between the economic notion of “commons” and the legal sense of the same concept. An “economic commons”, such as a lake, may have different property rights regimes as it may be private property, government property, or “legal commons”. The second critical differentiation is between the different parts of space (e.g. orbits, celestial bodies, and void space) because some may be “commons” (economic and/or legal) while others may not. Asking whether “space” is commons wrongly puts numerous things in a single basket is a sweeping generalization and, in the economic sense, utterly meaningless. Another important distinction is between resource systems and resource units. If we get the questions wrong, i.e. by confusing the terms and mixing different subjects of inquiry, we will not, by definition, find the right answers. Furthermore, the article demonstrates that the notion of “global commons”, often applied to outer space, is of limited or unclear meaning, and it does not imply the property rights regimes in the domains and resources it presumably describes, including outer space. The article opens with making the aforementioned three distinctions in section two. Sections three and five present, separately, the economic and legal notions of “commons” and examine whether some parts of space qualify as economic and/or legal commons, whereas section four presents the limitations of the notion of “global commons”, thus leading to section five. The article concludes by connecting the economic and legal discussions to the search for appropriate governance models for each part of space. As the article demonstrates, the real questions in the discourse are much more complex than “is space commons?”. Although this article provides preliminary answers to the questions it raises, its main contribution is the reshaping of the question(s) currently being asked and the structuring of the discourse on space resources and their governance.

Where No Law Has Gone Before: Space Resources, Subsequent Practice, and Humanity's Future in Space

Outer space, the “final frontier,” is the subject of countless science fiction books and movies that display humanity’s deep fascination with the possibilities of our species living among the stars. An inevitable and necessary part of any human society in space is the existence of laws that govern our activities and interactions with each other and our surroundings, including the use and ownership of the natural resources found in outer space. These “space resources” are now at the center of modern space law debates because the current treaty regime governing outer space leaves the existence and nature of rights to use and own space resources subject to broad interpretation. In response to burgeoning private sector interest in mining space resources, the U.S. passed legislation in 2015 purporting to recognize the right of private parties to own space resources. However, rather than clarifying the legal situation, this new law has occasioned a spirited debate over whether it comports with the United States’ obligations under the Outer Space Treaty. Much scholarship has been devoted to interpreting the obligations of the Outer Space Treaty pertaining to space resources. Most of this scholarship has concentrated on an analysis of the text itself and the preparatory work that went into the development of the Treaty. However, scholars remain divided in their analysis of the meaning of the Treaty’s obligations. This Note examines how the subsequent practice of states parties to the Outer Space Treaty, including the recent U.S. legislation, informs the interpretation of the treaty regime that governs outer space and space resources.

In dreams begin responsibilities – environmental impact assessment and outer space development

Although exploitation of outer space resources is still considered science fiction by many, spacefaring nations as well as private entrepreneurs such as SpaceX and Deep Space Industries are plannin...