- Email: [email protected]
Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science
Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Space Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol
Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science* James S.J. Schwartz Department of Philosophy, Wichita State University, 1845 North Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 22 August 2014 Accepted 22 August 2014 Available online xxx
I argue that the moral justification for space science is more compelling than the moral justification for space development. Thus, we ought to reemphasize the status of science as a major stakeholder in space, especially when entertaining policies which might encourage the kinds of space development activities (e.g. resource exploitation) that are liable to conflict with the scientific uses of space. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Space science Space development Ethics Space policy
1. Introduction In order to reach its space objectives the United States Government is increasingly partnering with and depending on the private sector.1 However, many from the private sector retain the perception that the current regulatory environment is not especially conducive to widespread private investment in space development. It is commonly argued that dramatic increases in private investment in space development will occur only alongside the implementation of new policies designed to encourage such investmentdby relaxing insurance requirements, reducing range fees, establishing a basis for property rights in space, etc.2 This paper investigates whether and to what extent we can morally justify such regulatory shiftsdprimarily those intended to encourage activities like space settlement and space resource exploitation. I argue that the moral force behind these space development activities is relatively weak, and thus provides little impetus for moving to a regulatory environment that would mitigate the perceived obstacles to space development. Meanwhile, space science activities are subject to a relatively strong moral justification. And so, to the extent that space * An early version of this paper was presented to the Working Group on Science and Society, sponsored by the Humanities Center at Wayne State University, in February 2014. I thank those in attendance for comments and discussion, including Graeme Cave, Travis Figg, John James, Barry Johnson, Marsha Richmond, and Bruce Russell. Thanks also to Travis Figg, Paul Graves, and two anonymous referees, for commenting on earlier versions of this paper. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 See, e.g. the FY 2015 White House NASA Fact Sheet: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/ default/files/files/FY15_White_House_NASA_Fact_Sheet.pdf. 2 See, e.g. Refs. [1e7].
development and space science activities are likely to conflict, policies should prioritize space science activities. Conflicts are most likely to occur over competition for terrain, wherein development activities compromise sites of scientific interest (e.g. on the Moon, Mars, the aste roids, etc.). Although such conflicts are unlikely to arise in the immediate future, that does not eliminate their relevance to contemporary policies and funding priorities, since our actions today will affect the viability of space science in the future. I submit this as evidence that we ought to reemphasize the status of science as a major stakeholder in discussions about space settlement and space resource exploitation. I begin in Section 2 by assessing the usual justifications given in support of space development, viz., that space development is needed to satisfy our obligations to ensure species survival and to improve overall human welfare.3 I argue that we must distinguish between a variety of forms of space development, and that our survival and
3 Another common sort of argument, which I find thoroughly unconvincing, appeals to our alleged destiny as humans or to our purported “nature” as explorers, frontiers-people, etc. The idea that we as humans have a destiny, if not intended metaphorically, is unscientific, and should be dismissed for that reason. But most likely it is intended as a metaphor for our purported nature as explorers, etc. While it may be true that certain individuals experience a “natural” desire to explore, etc., one commits the fallacy of composition when imputing this quality to humanity in general [[8] p. 570]. Moreover, one commits the naturalistic fallacy when using such a claim to justify exploratory and frontieresettlement activities. Just as the “natural” or innate tendencies of certain individuals to commit acts of violence fails to justify those acts, so too do the natural or innate tendencies of explorers and frontierspeople fail to justify their actions qua explorers and frontiers-people. It is true that there are further reasons for judging violent acts to be wrong, just as there are further reasons for judging exploration and space frontier settlement to be good, but my point is simply that such further reasons are requireddthe mere presence of a desire, natural or otherwise, is no justification at all.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010 0265-9646/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
2
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
welfare duties only justify a small subset of space development activities. This support, though extant, is weak. No form of space development is, except over the very long term, actually likely to ensure human survival or to improve human welfare. In Section 3 I argue that the duty to scientifically examine the universe provides strong support for space science activities, as these activities involve important research that can only be conducted in concert with space science missions. Section 4 discusses possible sources of conflict between development and science, leading to my recommendation in the concluding section that we must reserve a substantial role for science as we envision forward-looking space development policies. The substratal value of this discussion is to serve as a clarification of some of my previous work, in which I have argued that we have a moral obligation to support “space exploration” [9]. With the benefit of hindsight I realize how vague and unhelpful such a claim isd‘space exploration’ is often used as a blanket term covering many varieties of space activities, and it is highly doubtful that we have a duty to support all forms of space operations. Thus I hope to show that our obligation to support “space exploration” primarily covers the scientific examination of the Solar System, and covers space development only secondarily (if at all). Throughout I shall take it for granted that we have obligations (a) to ensure our survival as a species; and (b) to improve overall human welfare. I shall also provide a provisional justification for a further obligation (c) to scientifically examine the universe. Although the wider public largely accepts (a) and (b), it does not appear to as enthusiastically endorse (c), and this is pragmatically relevant for space advocates. I suspect that one reason why it is difficult to justify space research to the wider public is that the wider public only dimly understands the value of science, scientific research, and scientific exploration. In this sense, space science is only one kind of scientific exploration. We can discuss the comparative value of this kind of science ad nauseum, but that will be, at best, only half of the battle. We also need to convince the public, governments, etc., of the value of science more generallyda task that will surely require more than the provisional discussion provided here (and which falls beyond the purview of this paper).
2. Space development Before considering justifications for space development (and for policy changes designed to encourage space development) it is first necessary to clarify what is meant by the term ‘space development’. Usage varies widely, and covers (but is not limited to) the following types of activities4: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Developing space real estate Exploiting space resources Space tourism Space settlement Continuing and expanding satellite services Satellite servicing Space-based energy solutions Materials research/space manufacturing Space vehicle and other technology design/construction Technology transfer5
4 For a useful sectoring of the political and economic impact of operations in space, see Ref. [10]. 5 The usual connotation here is the idea of “spin-off” technologies, i.e., the repurposing of space technologies for use on Earth. However, as Ref. [11] discusses, the oft-neglected reverse idea also appliesdmuch of “space development” involves the repurposing of non-space technologies for use in space.
Thus, ‘space development’ refers not to any one activity but instead to a cluster of economically-minded activities. This point will remain relevant throughoutdas we consider the strength of the moral justifications available to space development (and to policies designed to promote space development), we must accept the very real possibility that not all forms of space development warrant our moral approbation. 2.1. Justifying space development The two questions I shall entertain in this section are: what moral justifications are available to space development? and should such justifications underwrite using space policy to promote space development? I would like to begin this discussion by focusing on policy concernsdin particular, on why many view a policy shift as necessary for encouraging space development. The simple fact is that many would-be investors view space development as an unlikely source of revenue. Even if a would-be investor is comfortable dealing with the large up-front costs and long time-horizons involved, the regulatory environment severely constrains many of the more grandiose development projects, e.g. lunar and asteroid mining. The current regulatory environment is based on the Outer Space Treaty (OST). Relevant provisions include Article I, which states that “[t]he exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries,” as well as Article II, which states that “[o]uter space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means” [12]. These provisions are generally understood to preclude any kind of ownership of space resources.6 Several commentators identify a more liberal regulatory environment as a means for encouraging space development. For instance, Ricky Lee claims that “one of the major inhibiting factors to the commercial exploitation of mineral resources from celestial bodies is the absence of an appropriate legal framework to govern such activities” [[6] p. 315], and that “[f]or such a venture to be profitable or at least financially feasible, there must be legal and regulatory certainty for the conduct of such activities” [ibid. p. 317; emphasis added]. Such certainty does not obtain under the OST, according to Lee [ibid.]. John Jurist et al. mention lobbying in particular when it comes to reducing the costs (and hence, increasing the profitability) of engaging in space operations: The critical factors in making orbital access cheaper than $1000 per lb are lobbying, negotiating, or exiting to lower range fees, lobbying to lower liability insurance standards, auctioning payload and liability insurance, and self-insuring the vehicle. Even the best engineering will not help, if $1000 to $1300 per lb is consumed by range fees and insurance. [[5] p. 329] These sentiments form part of what Ozgur Gurtuna describes as the “Destination Problem”: … there is very little need for serving destinations in space on a regular basis. Currently, the only destination served regularly is the International Space Station … with the exception of the ISS, all space products and services are destined to serve end users
6 Many view the prohibition on national appropriation as indirectly precluding a legal means for defending ownership claims, but it has been argued that the Outer Space Treaty's prohibition on national appropriation directly implies a prohibition on private appropriation; see Ref. [4]. Of course, given the right catalysts, a spacefaring nation might simply decide to withdraw from the treaty, clearing the way for it to assert sovereignty over space resourcesdsee Ref. [13] for discussion.
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
on Earth … Without a clear commercial need to establish sustained robotic and/or human presence on the Moon, Mars and other planetary bodies, the case for high volume production of launch vehicles will be limited. [[14] pp. 23e24] In other words, without any economic reasons for servicing destinations other than LEO, there will be no development of space. How could the space frontier be opened up? The solution on offer is to use policy to encourage the commercial servicing of more and more destinations in space. But the drafting of regulations encouraging space development is morally commendable only if encouraging space development is morally commendable in the first place. To demonstrate this, proponents commonly point to two duties: Our duty to ensure the survival of the human species; and our duty to improve overall human welfare.7 The thought here is that pursuing space development is (or is likely to be) necessary for satisfying these duties. Such considerations give rise to distinct, though related, arguments: 1. Our survival obligation dictates that we have a moral duty to ensure the survival of the human species for as long as is possible. 2. The finiteness of Earth's habitability means that Earth will not permanently ensure our survival (either because of some global disaster, or because of the heating of the sun). 3. The necessity of development for survival hypothesis is that supporting space development is (or is likely) the only way we can ensure species survival, should a global disaster render Earth uninhabitable. 4. Thus, supporting space development is (likely) necessary for ensuring human survival for as long as is possible. 5. Our welfare obligation dictates that we have a moral duty to improve overall human welfare. 6. The finiteness of Earth's resources implies that there will likely come a time when Earth's resources alone cannot secure improvements in overall human welfare. 7. The necessity of development for welfare hypothesis is that supporting space development is (or is likely) the only way we can access new stores of raw materials for human consumption. 8. Thus, supporting space development is (likely) necessary for improving overall human welfare. These arguments might not correspond exactly to the position of any particular advocate of space development, but I believe that they neatly capture the general position. Do these arguments provide an ultimately defensible justification for space development, and in turn, for policies which encourage such development? At this stage I offer the following observation: The survival obligation and the welfare obligation do not provide a carte blanche justification for space developmentdsuch justification accrues only for activities that are likely to ensure either species survival or improvements in human welfare. Thus, even if the arguments are otherwise unproblematic, they lend no support at all to activities which are unlikely to satisfy either the survival obligation or the welfare obligation. In my estimation, this rules out supporting space tourism as a moral duty. Suborbital flights, hotels in LEO, etc., are extremely unlikely to impact our survival chances and our overall
7 These are not of course the only obligations that advocates have drawn upon, but they are the most common (and so, presumably, the most persuasive to advocates).
3
welfare. Furthermore, given that we are also interested in motivating a shift in space policy, we do not need to consider activities that are already pursued (or are supportable) in the current policy environment. Thus we can remove from consideration: satellite services; satellite servicing; space-based energy solutions; materials research; space vehicle design and construction8; and technology transfer. The remaining space development activities are: ▪ Developing space real estate ▪ Exploiting space resources ▪ Space settlement Henceforth, my primary concern shall be to examine to what extent the above arguments justify these three activities. As I remarked in the Introduction, I do not wish to contest either the survival obligation or the welfare obligation. Neither do I wish to contest the finiteness of Earth's habitability. However, the remaining premises are problematic.
2.2. Space development and survival The necessity of development for survival assumes that the pursuit of space development activities would result in a situation in which humanity is better positioned to survive a global catastrophe on Earth. But only permanent, self-sustaining space settlements would have this capability. If a colony or mining outpost depended on routine material and/or personnel exchanges with Earth, it would also fail should Earth become uninhabitable. Further, it seems doubtful that supporting space development will actually help ensure species survival over anything except the very long term. Perhaps the most pressing threat to our survival is the expanding human population and its drain on vital resources. But in order to mitigate this threat, space settlements would have to provide room for millions if not billions of humans. It is doubtful that we could accomplish this quickly enough for space settlement to significantly mitigate the anthropogenic threats to Earth's habitability. What is more likely is that we will have to deal with population issues well before we are in a position to resettle large numbers of humans in space.9 Tony Milligan puts this point nicely: … if human resettlement could help to alleviate population pressures, and hence alleviate anthropogenic global warming, then this would count strongly in favor of meeting our duty to extend human life at the expense of other duties. But if, as seems likely, the timescale for extensive resettlement is all wrong, if it could only be relevant to some distant and future environmental crisis rather than our own and present crisis, it will not weigh quite so heavily … As a more historic consideration, the fact that we have, for a long time, neglected our duties towards the non-human and have focused primarily (sometimes exclusively) upon human interests may weigh just as strongly in favour of accepting that our humanfocused duties should not prevail. [[15] p. 193] Here Milligan also suggests that a conflict of duty is lurking in the background. Perhaps we have other duties that in this case trump our duty to ensure species survivalda clue I shall take up in Section 3.
8 At least domestic vehicle design and construction (in the United States). The US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) prohibit the export of many rocket propulsion and control technologies, and is often viewed as impeding space development. 9 It also bears mentioning that space settlement in itself does little if nothing to prevent future population growth on Earth (without continuous emigrations).
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
4
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
Nevertheless I agree that establishing permanent space settlements is necessary over the very long term. And we should not ignore the worry that by failing to encourage space development today, we may not have the necessary capabilities when such development becomes (in the long run) required for our survivalda point I will return to (after a fashion) at the end of Section 4. However, supporting space development is not the only means of developing the infrastructure for space settlement. Other activities, e.g. the human scientific examination of space, would likely provide this infrastructure as well.
have become on the whole happier or better off. What is more likelydthat the exploitation of space resources would be conducted primarily for the benefit of all humans, or that such exploitation would be conducted primarily for the benefit of the (already wealthy) sponsoring corporations? Alan Marshall thinks the answer is clear: … the development of even more resources is not likely to provide for the necessities of most of the world's people. New resources contribute to the consumptive wants of the wealthy, not to the needs of the populous poor. [[18] p. 42]
2.3. Space development and welfare The finiteness of Earth's resources and the necessity of development for welfare assume a close, mutual correspondence, between increases in human welfare and access to new raw materials. Such a correspondence is generally invoked in support of activities like asteroid mining and lunar mining (along with the development of property rights and other real estate policies needed to underwrite space resource exploitation). Here I shall focus on the claim that access to new raw materialsdin particular, access to the materials of the Moon and the asteroidsdcorresponds to increases in basic human welfare. There is, to be sure, a staggering amount of raw materials available in our Solar System. Notable abundant (though perhaps not easily accessible) resources include helium-3, water, nickel, iron, and platinum-group metals. The estimated economic value of these materials is similarly staggering. Estimates of individual medium- and large-sized metal rich asteroids range in the billions and trillions of dollars.10 Charles Cockell estimates that value of all of the asteroid material in the Solar System is on the order of “several billion dollars for each man, woman and child alive” [[17] p. 59].11 Thus the use of space resources offers vast economic potential. However, we should be mindful of two often overlooked issues. First, we do not yet know how large influxes of materials from space will impact prices, and hence, the profitability of space resource exploitation. Although an asteroid rich in platinum-group metals might be worth a trillion dollars at current market values, a would-be exploiter could only expect this kind of return if she carefully adjusted supply to maintain prices (or to set prices just low enough to out-compete Earth-based firms).12 There is, accordingly, a non-negligible possibility that asteroid mining would neither dramatically increase the supply of, nor dramatically lower the prices for, any mined resources (at least for resources also available on Earth). Though the net impact here would likely be positive (due to a somewhat enhanced supply and somewhat lower prices), there is reason to doubt that it would occasion dramatic improvements in human welfare. However, an assessment of the probability of this outcome (and others) must wait on further research on the economic and social impact of space resource exploitation. Second, assuming that space resource exploitation would produce economic growth, we should not avoid asking the question: who would benefit from this growth? Just because the economy will have grown does not mean that the human population will
10
For a somewhat dated economic evaluation, see Ref. [16]. Cockell, of course, is primarily interested in providing direct scientific and environmental reasons for supporting space exploration; the reader should not take this citation as evidence that he unconditionally supports space resource exploitation. 12 Moreover, a would-be exploiter would also have to prevent her Earth-based competition from successfully lobbying for regulations that protect Earth-based mining operations. 11
I share Marshall's skepticism to at least some extent. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore the strong possibility that asteroid and lunar mining would only exacerbate existing inequalities. Such a possibility strongly undermines the idea that the welfare obligation supports profit-driven space resource exploitation. There is of course a tension here. Only those individuals, corporations, and nations with the necessary capital to take the risks in the first place are likely to engage in asteroid and lunar mining. And we could not expect these individuals, corporations, and nations to take these risks without some expectation of profit. But this only points to the issue at handdif asteroid and lunar mining are conducted for the purpose of drawing a profit, it is unlikely that these activities would lead to overall improvements in human welfare (at least from a social justice perspective). Thus, without further comment, we can supply no moral justification for a for-profit asteroid or lunar mining operation. Such a justification might be available, however, for the kind of exploitation permitted under the Moon Agreement [19],13 in particular Article 11, which calls for the establishment of an international regime to “to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible.” To serve the social justice issues discussed above, however, we would require a decidedly non-libertarian interpretation of the language of Article 11, which in addition calls for the “safe development of the natural resources of the moon,” the “rational management of those resources,” and an “equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration.” After all, precisely what counts as “safe development,” “rational management,” and “equitable sharing” will vary significantly from stakeholder to stakeholder.14
2.4. Conflicts of duty? I do not wish to give the impression that I view space development as a bad thing or as something to be avoided at any cost. On the contrary, I believe that space development has great potential. All I am suggesting thus far is that space development does not (except in the very long term) effectively serve the duties typically cited as justifying space developmentdour duties to survive and to improve human welfare. Consequently, these duties do not at this time provide compelling moral support for policies encouraging space settlement and resource exploitation.15
13
Which, of course, has not been signed by any spacefaring nation. See Ref. [4] for an argument that the Moon Agreement is not an obstacle to resource exploitation. 15 Granted it is not clear that regulatory changes on their own would dramatically increase private support for space development. Surely the large up-front costs and long time-horizons would still discourage most investors. Governments would therefore still be required to take the initiative providing financial support for space development activities. 14
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
However, I would like to reach for a somewhat stronger conclusion, viz., that there is something good about the fact that the currently regulatory environment is viewed as discouraging space development. Like Milligan, I believe that a conflict of duty arises which undermines the space development justifications derived from the survival obligation and the welfare obligation. Milligan expresses his concerns as they apply to large-scale lunar mining (for helium-3). He offers three reasons for the claim that lunar mining is not permissible by default: 9. The Moon is culturally significant and therefore should not be treated as a mere resource [[20] p. 3]. 10. The Moon has planetary integrity and thus is a locus of intrinsic value, and therefore should not be treated as a mere resource [ibid. pp. 3e4].16 11. It is “integral to our humanity” to develop a “sense of care and belonging” to the places in which we reside. By treating the Moon as a mere resource, we “risk losing sight of [the ethical task of] being at home in a larger region of space, a task which is different from learning to live in or near to a mining district” [[20] p. 4]. According to Milligan, (9)e(11) highlight several duties that, in the case of lunar mining, conflict with our duties to ensure species survival and to improve human welfare. One can easily imagine (9)e(11) implicating similar conflicts of duty when considering other forms of space development. It falls beyond the purview of this paper to assess the strength of the duties underlying (9)e(11). However, in Ref. [22] I argue that similar considerations do not succeed in establishing a moral prohibition on terraforming. Most of the arguments therein apply to space resource exploitation in general, and I shall not pause to rehearse my reasoning here.17 What I would like to do instead is offer another potential source of conflictdone that I believe is compelling, and one that space advocates should already recognize as compelling: our duty to scientifically examine the universe. 3. Space science I maintain that we have a duty to scientifically examine the universe, and as a corollary, I hold that space science is a vital component of this examination. Thus the pursuit of space science is implicated by our duty to scientifically examine the universe. Space science, like space development, comes in many forms. Space science includes (but is not limited to): astrobiology; astronomy; climatology and atmosphere studies; comparative planetology; geodesy; human biology and medicine; materials research; meteorology; physics; and tectonics. But the duty to examine provides holistic support for space sciencedall forms of space science are likely to contribute to our basic understanding of the universe. And in most cases, conducting space exploration missions is the only feasible way of gathering the necessary data for performing effective research. Thus the duty to examine also supports conducting missions which aim to gather scientific data.
16 The idea of “planetary integrity” derives from the “formed integrity” of Ref. [21], according to which an object has formed integrity when it is the product of a natural, “formative” process. Presumably an object has planetary integrity when it is the product of the kinds of natural processes that “form” planets. 17 Ref. [22] discusses Holmes Rolston's [21] position on the intrinsic value of celestial objects (which is relevant to (10)), and Robert Sparrow's [23] virtue-ethics objections to terraforming (which are relevant to (11)). The reader should note that, concerning (11), Milligan does not mention [23] but rather the work of Hanna Arendt (with which I am unfortunately not familiar). But from Milligan's discussion of (11), the position he advocates is very similar to Sparrow's position.
5
I realize that some will regard me as engaging in mere assertion when I claim that we have a duty to scientifically examine the universe. I agree that this duty requires justification. Though I am not at the moment prepared to endorse any particular way of justifying this duty, I would at least like to relay several possible sources of justification, if only to demonstrate the feasibility of this task. On the one hand, we could attempt to justify the obligation to scientifically examine the universe as a basic dutydthat is, as a duty that does not serve any other duty.18 After all, knowledge does not have to be good for something in order to be good itself. One provisional argument for this conclusion holds that increasing our scientific understanding of the universe is a basic, intrinsic good. Thus we ought to support activities that are likely to produce increases in our scientific understanding of the universe (so long as they interfere minimally or not at all with other duties of comparable importance). Given how remarkably effective space exploration has been, is, and will continue to be, at increasing our scientific understanding of the universe, we can conclude that this justification strongly supports space science.19 The weak point of this strategy is that claims of intrinsic value, even if justified, do not necessarily establish overriding duties. For instance, although we place a great deal of intrinsic value on individual human lives, nonetheless we may legitimately hold that there are possible situations in which it is acceptable (or even obligatory) to take a human life. Nonetheless I think enough has been said to warrant believing that the survival- and resource-based justifications for space development are weak enough that they are easily overridden, and thus are easily overridden by the examination-based justification for space sciencedeven if the duty to examine is comparatively weaker than our survival- and welfare-duties. On the other hand, we might attempt to show that the obligation to scientifically examine the universe is a derived dutydthat we have a duty to examine because doing so will help us to satisfy other more basic duties. That is essentially the strategy I proposed in Ref. [9], where I argued that both human survival and environmental duties justify space exploration. The environmental case perhaps bears further mention. Surely we will be unable to effectively mitigate global warming without a large influx of data about our planet's atmosphere and climate.20 But it would also be extremely useful to have extensive general knowledge about climatology and atmospheric science, which can only be acquired by examining the atmospheres and climates of other worlds. Thus we could easily justify certain forms of space science on account of their usefulness to solving environmental problems here on Earth (as Ref. [17] discusses at length). But this kind of reasoning does not provide a general justification for space science. var [24], Such a general justification is offered by Gonzalo Mune var's position, which is which I will outline only briefly. Mune inspired by certain influential views in the philosophy of science,21 involves establishing a series of claims about the serendipity of var first argues that: science. Mune 12. Serendipity is the natural (practically inevitable) result of scientific change.
18
Thanks to Travis Figg for much useful discussion here. No doubt space science is not the only form of inquiry strongly justified in this way. 20 The indispensability of Earth observation satellites for, e.g. climatology and atmosphere studies, geodesy, meteorology, and tectonics are well known and I will not rehearse them here. 21 In particular, the accounts of science and scientific change advocated by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. 19
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
6
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
By improving our basic scientific understanding of the universe, we become better able to solve existing problems, and we also become better able to anticipate and solve previously unknown problems. The inevitable outcome of this progression of our understanding is the serendipitous development of a myriad of beneficial tools and var next argues that: technologies. Mune 13. Scientific exploration leads to scientific change. In other words, in order to produce improvements in our basic understanding of science, scientific theories must be subjected to constant testing; we must remain on the lookout for novel observations, falsifying observations, and for observations that elude explanation. Such observations serve as spurs for scientific change, and can only be obtained by engaging in scientific exploration. var argues that: Finally, Mune 14. Space exploration; i.e., space science, is very likely to contribute to the transformation of our views. From which it follows that we have a sufficient justification for investing in space science. On this view, then, the serendipitous consequences of scientific exploration in space (and scientific exploration more generally) are ultimately what justify space science (and scientific research more generally). Let me remind the reader that it has not been my goal to defend any particular strategy for justifying the duty to examine. Rather, I hoped only to provide some indication of how such a justification might go. I trust that the above paragraphs provide at least some evidence here, and I will now describe how space science can come into conflict with space development. 4. Conflicts between space science and space development Let me first repeat that I have no in-principle objection to space development; my concerns arise when space development risks conflicting with space science. Indeed, when space development clearly does not conflict with space science, I believe that the marginal societal benefit of space development provides it with some degree of support. Though I grant that few conflicts exist at present, as space development and science capabilities improve, so too will the chances that development and science activities interfere with one another. Consider, for instance, the case of lunar science. There is a remarkable amount of science to do on the Moon, including: analyzing the lunar surface to study the bombardment history of the inner solar system; investigating the lunar surface and subsurface to understand the evolution of the EartheMoon system; determining the location and extent of lunar volatiles; studying the interactions between the lunar atmosphere (insubstantial as it may be), regolith, and volatiles; as well as conducting astronomical observations from the lunar farside.22 All of these activities could be jeopardized by large-scale development on the lunar surface. For instance, the mining of lunar regolith for helium-3, aluminum, and other resources, would require the excavation of vast tracts of the lunar surface.23 This process might help us to understand the composition of the lunar surface. However, if conducted without regard for other forms of scientific inquiry, a mining operation could destroy or otherwise disrupt important sites of scientific study. One might inadvertently excavate a site that was crucial for studying the evolution of the inner solar system; extensive activity on the lunar farside might interfere with farside astronomy,
22 23
This list is derives from Ref. [25]. See Ref. [[20] pp. 2e3] for discussion and references.
etc. That is not to say that lunar mining would necessarily reduce the viability of lunar science24 (though one wonders about mining in the context of lunar atmosphere studies). The problem, rather, is that science can go entirely overlooked as a stakeholder in discussions about the exploitation of space resources.25 This is unfortunate, given that, if I am correct, we have a stronger obligation to support space science than we do to pursue the exploitation of space resources. Mutatis mutandis, similar concerns apply as we consider exploitation and settlement elsewhere in the solar system, e.g. of Mars and the asteroids. Without prioritizing scientific examination, there is a significantly increased risk of development activities compromising important sites of scientific interest. A particularly acute case is the risk of development activities contaminating sites of interest on Mars in the search for life. Though the possibility of contamination is currently mitigated by non-binding (though widely implemented) planetary protection policies, it is doubtful that space developers, for whom scientific knowledge is not an end itself, would abide by non-binding planetary protection policies. Here is perhaps the appropriate occasion to raise the following objection26: Suppose I am correct in thinking that the significant benefits of space development will only be realized over the long term. But if I am being honest with myself, the significant benefits of space science will only be realized over the long term as well. So if it is important today to emphasize the role of space science as a major stakeholder in space, why isn't it equally important today to emphasize a similar role for space development? I have two points to make in response. First, while it may be true that the indirect societal benefits of space research will take time for their realization, the direct scientific payoffs occur relatively quickly in the forms of data analysis, scholarly publication, public dissemination of significant findings, etc. Second, the likely conflicts between science and development are highly asymmetrical in a way that places science in the vulnerable position. Scientific research generally does not exhaust the resources of a location like development activities, e.g. mining, so often do. There is much viable science that can be conducted only prior to developmentdthat is, before settlement or exploitation contaminates, disturbs, or destroys sites of scientific interest. But most sites of scientific interest, provided they are not permanently preserved for study, will remain viable for development even after their scientific novelty wears off. Therefore, since space science is more vulnerable than space development, more concern should be given to the safeguarding of space science objectives. Moreover, effective development could greatly benefit from the results of scientific study, which would provide developers with a greater understanding of the available resources, the consequences of their extraction and use, etc. 5. Conclusion There is a need, as we contemplate policies which might in future facilitate space development, to recall that: space science ought to remain a major stakeholder in space policy discussions; and that numerous space development activities (e.g. resource exploitation and settlement) will be likely to interfere with space science activities. After all, the greater the freedom developers have to act in
24
On this point see Ref. [26]. For instance, David Livingston's “code of ethics for conducting business in outer space” nowhere mentions the importance of science or the need to safeguard the viability of scientific study in space [27]. Similarly, Lee's discussion of the “competing interests” in space resource exploitation [[6] pp. 275e295] does not include a category for science. Lee does include a category for environmental protection, which, though not stressed by Lee, is often linked to scientific preservation. 26 Thanks to an anonymous referee for raising this objection. 25
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
space, the more likely they will be to successfully lobby for further concessions (and to prolong these concessions beyond necessity). One way of limiting the momentum of this kind of bootstrapping is for the space science community to retain a permanent and influential voice in space policy discussions. Perhaps the space science community could use its position to help redirect private-sector energies away from development and towards science.27 The private-sector is, of course, capable of conducting valuable scientific research. For the moment, however, governments remain the primary purchasers of scientific data derived from space exploration (with the possible exception of Earth observation data), and it is not clear for how long would-be developers will remain content merely to help satisfy government science objections, especially given the transient nature of many government space projects. But regardless of whether space science will in future be conducted mostly within the public sector or mostly within the private sector, we still ought to take measures to emphasize and reemphasize the status of science as a major stakeholder when engaging in discussions about regulations related to the use of space resources. References [1] Brearley Andrew. Mining the moon: owning the night sky? Astropolitics 2006;4:43e67. [2] Cooper Lawrence. Encouraging space exploration through a new application of space property rights. Space Policy 2003;19:111e8. [3] Fabian Robert. Space economic development in the province of all mankind: if no one goes, we all lose. Astropolitics 2003;1:89e98. [4] Jakhu Ram, Buzdugan Maria. Development of the natural resources of the moon and other celestial bodies: economic and legal aspects. Astropolitics 2008;6:201e50. [5] Jurist John, Dinkin Sam, Livingston David. Low cost earth orbit access: a look at physics, economics, and reality. Astropolitics 2005;4:295e331. [6] Lee Ricky. Law and regulation of commercial mining of minerals in outer space. New York: Springer; 2012. [7] Vedda James. Challenges to the sustainability of space exploration. Astropolitics 2008;6:22e49. [8] Dark Taylor. Reclaiming the future: space advocacy and the idea of progress. In: Dick S, Launius R, editors. Societal impact of spaceflight. NASA Publication SP-2007-4801; 2007. p. 555e71. [9] Schwartz James. Our moral obligation to support space exploration. Environ Ethics 2011;33:67e88.
7
[10] Johnson Stephen. The political economy of spaceflight. In: Dick S, Launius R, editors. Societal impact of spaceflight. NASA Publication SP-2007-4801; 2007. p. 141e91. [11] Simpson Michael. Spin-out and spin-in in the newest space age. In: Morris L, Cox K, editors. Space commerce: the inside story by the people who are making it happen. Aerospace Technology Working Group; 2010. p. 75e94. [12] United Nations Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. January 27, 1967. article I, T.I.A.S. 6347. [13] Hickman John. How plausible is Chinese annexation of territory on the moon? Astropolitics 2012;10:84e92. [14] Gurtuna Ozgur. Fundamentals of space business and economics. New York: Springer; 2013. [15] Milligan Tony. Property rights and the duty to extend human life. Space Policy 2011;27:190e3. [16] Lewis John. Mining the sky: untold riches from the asteroids, comets, and planets. New York: Basic Books; 1997. [17] Cockell Charles. Space on earth: saving our world by seeking others. London: MacMillan; 2007. [18] Marshall Alan. Development and imperialism in space. Space Policy 1995;11: 41e52. [19] United Nations agreement governing the activities of states on the moon and other celestial bodies. December 5, 1979. 1363 U.N.T.S. 3. [20] Milligan Tony. Scratching the surface: the ethics of Helium-3 extraction. In: Proceedings of the 8th IAA Symposium on the Future of Space Exploration: Towards the Stars, Torino, Italy, 3e5 July 2013. [21] Rolston III Holmes. The preservation of natural value in the solar system. In: Hargrove E, editor. Beyond spaceship earth: environmental ethics and the solar system. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books; 1986. p. 140e82. [22] Schwartz James. On the moral permissibility of terraforming. Ethics Environ 2013;18(2):1e31. [23] Sparrow Robert. The ethics of terraforming. Environ Ethics 1999;21:227e45. var Gonzalo. The dimming of starlight. Oxford: Oxford University Press; [24] Mune in preparation. [25] Crawford IA, Anand M, Cockell CS, Falcke H, Green DA, Jaumann R, et al. Back to the moon: the scientific rationale for resuming lunar surface exploration. Planet Space Sci 2012;74:3e14. [26] Cockell Charles, Horneck Gerda. Planetary parks e formulating a wilderness policy for planetary bodies. Space Policy 2006;22:256e61. [27] Livingston David. A code of ethics for conducting business in outer space. Space Policy 2003;19:93e4. [28] Genta Giancarlo. Private space exploration: a new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta Astronaut; [in press]. [29] Pomerantz William. Moon 2.0: private planetary exploration and the new lunar economy. In: Morris L, Cox K, editors. Space commerce: the inside story by the people who are making it happen. Aerospace Technology Working Group; 2010. p. 7e26.
27 Thanks to an anonymous referee for making this suggestion. For further discussion see Refs. [28,29].
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Space Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol
Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science* James S.J. Schwartz Department of Philosophy, Wichita State University, 1845 North Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67260, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 22 August 2014 Accepted 22 August 2014 Available online xxx
I argue that the moral justification for space science is more compelling than the moral justification for space development. Thus, we ought to reemphasize the status of science as a major stakeholder in space, especially when entertaining policies which might encourage the kinds of space development activities (e.g. resource exploitation) that are liable to conflict with the scientific uses of space. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Space science Space development Ethics Space policy
1. Introduction In order to reach its space objectives the United States Government is increasingly partnering with and depending on the private sector.1 However, many from the private sector retain the perception that the current regulatory environment is not especially conducive to widespread private investment in space development. It is commonly argued that dramatic increases in private investment in space development will occur only alongside the implementation of new policies designed to encourage such investmentdby relaxing insurance requirements, reducing range fees, establishing a basis for property rights in space, etc.2 This paper investigates whether and to what extent we can morally justify such regulatory shiftsdprimarily those intended to encourage activities like space settlement and space resource exploitation. I argue that the moral force behind these space development activities is relatively weak, and thus provides little impetus for moving to a regulatory environment that would mitigate the perceived obstacles to space development. Meanwhile, space science activities are subject to a relatively strong moral justification. And so, to the extent that space * An early version of this paper was presented to the Working Group on Science and Society, sponsored by the Humanities Center at Wayne State University, in February 2014. I thank those in attendance for comments and discussion, including Graeme Cave, Travis Figg, John James, Barry Johnson, Marsha Richmond, and Bruce Russell. Thanks also to Travis Figg, Paul Graves, and two anonymous referees, for commenting on earlier versions of this paper. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 See, e.g. the FY 2015 White House NASA Fact Sheet: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/ default/files/files/FY15_White_House_NASA_Fact_Sheet.pdf. 2 See, e.g. Refs. [1e7].
development and space science activities are likely to conflict, policies should prioritize space science activities. Conflicts are most likely to occur over competition for terrain, wherein development activities compromise sites of scientific interest (e.g. on the Moon, Mars, the aste roids, etc.). Although such conflicts are unlikely to arise in the immediate future, that does not eliminate their relevance to contemporary policies and funding priorities, since our actions today will affect the viability of space science in the future. I submit this as evidence that we ought to reemphasize the status of science as a major stakeholder in discussions about space settlement and space resource exploitation. I begin in Section 2 by assessing the usual justifications given in support of space development, viz., that space development is needed to satisfy our obligations to ensure species survival and to improve overall human welfare.3 I argue that we must distinguish between a variety of forms of space development, and that our survival and
3 Another common sort of argument, which I find thoroughly unconvincing, appeals to our alleged destiny as humans or to our purported “nature” as explorers, frontiers-people, etc. The idea that we as humans have a destiny, if not intended metaphorically, is unscientific, and should be dismissed for that reason. But most likely it is intended as a metaphor for our purported nature as explorers, etc. While it may be true that certain individuals experience a “natural” desire to explore, etc., one commits the fallacy of composition when imputing this quality to humanity in general [[8] p. 570]. Moreover, one commits the naturalistic fallacy when using such a claim to justify exploratory and frontieresettlement activities. Just as the “natural” or innate tendencies of certain individuals to commit acts of violence fails to justify those acts, so too do the natural or innate tendencies of explorers and frontierspeople fail to justify their actions qua explorers and frontiers-people. It is true that there are further reasons for judging violent acts to be wrong, just as there are further reasons for judging exploration and space frontier settlement to be good, but my point is simply that such further reasons are requireddthe mere presence of a desire, natural or otherwise, is no justification at all.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010 0265-9646/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
2
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
welfare duties only justify a small subset of space development activities. This support, though extant, is weak. No form of space development is, except over the very long term, actually likely to ensure human survival or to improve human welfare. In Section 3 I argue that the duty to scientifically examine the universe provides strong support for space science activities, as these activities involve important research that can only be conducted in concert with space science missions. Section 4 discusses possible sources of conflict between development and science, leading to my recommendation in the concluding section that we must reserve a substantial role for science as we envision forward-looking space development policies. The substratal value of this discussion is to serve as a clarification of some of my previous work, in which I have argued that we have a moral obligation to support “space exploration” [9]. With the benefit of hindsight I realize how vague and unhelpful such a claim isd‘space exploration’ is often used as a blanket term covering many varieties of space activities, and it is highly doubtful that we have a duty to support all forms of space operations. Thus I hope to show that our obligation to support “space exploration” primarily covers the scientific examination of the Solar System, and covers space development only secondarily (if at all). Throughout I shall take it for granted that we have obligations (a) to ensure our survival as a species; and (b) to improve overall human welfare. I shall also provide a provisional justification for a further obligation (c) to scientifically examine the universe. Although the wider public largely accepts (a) and (b), it does not appear to as enthusiastically endorse (c), and this is pragmatically relevant for space advocates. I suspect that one reason why it is difficult to justify space research to the wider public is that the wider public only dimly understands the value of science, scientific research, and scientific exploration. In this sense, space science is only one kind of scientific exploration. We can discuss the comparative value of this kind of science ad nauseum, but that will be, at best, only half of the battle. We also need to convince the public, governments, etc., of the value of science more generallyda task that will surely require more than the provisional discussion provided here (and which falls beyond the purview of this paper).
2. Space development Before considering justifications for space development (and for policy changes designed to encourage space development) it is first necessary to clarify what is meant by the term ‘space development’. Usage varies widely, and covers (but is not limited to) the following types of activities4: ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Developing space real estate Exploiting space resources Space tourism Space settlement Continuing and expanding satellite services Satellite servicing Space-based energy solutions Materials research/space manufacturing Space vehicle and other technology design/construction Technology transfer5
4 For a useful sectoring of the political and economic impact of operations in space, see Ref. [10]. 5 The usual connotation here is the idea of “spin-off” technologies, i.e., the repurposing of space technologies for use on Earth. However, as Ref. [11] discusses, the oft-neglected reverse idea also appliesdmuch of “space development” involves the repurposing of non-space technologies for use in space.
Thus, ‘space development’ refers not to any one activity but instead to a cluster of economically-minded activities. This point will remain relevant throughoutdas we consider the strength of the moral justifications available to space development (and to policies designed to promote space development), we must accept the very real possibility that not all forms of space development warrant our moral approbation. 2.1. Justifying space development The two questions I shall entertain in this section are: what moral justifications are available to space development? and should such justifications underwrite using space policy to promote space development? I would like to begin this discussion by focusing on policy concernsdin particular, on why many view a policy shift as necessary for encouraging space development. The simple fact is that many would-be investors view space development as an unlikely source of revenue. Even if a would-be investor is comfortable dealing with the large up-front costs and long time-horizons involved, the regulatory environment severely constrains many of the more grandiose development projects, e.g. lunar and asteroid mining. The current regulatory environment is based on the Outer Space Treaty (OST). Relevant provisions include Article I, which states that “[t]he exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries,” as well as Article II, which states that “[o]uter space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means” [12]. These provisions are generally understood to preclude any kind of ownership of space resources.6 Several commentators identify a more liberal regulatory environment as a means for encouraging space development. For instance, Ricky Lee claims that “one of the major inhibiting factors to the commercial exploitation of mineral resources from celestial bodies is the absence of an appropriate legal framework to govern such activities” [[6] p. 315], and that “[f]or such a venture to be profitable or at least financially feasible, there must be legal and regulatory certainty for the conduct of such activities” [ibid. p. 317; emphasis added]. Such certainty does not obtain under the OST, according to Lee [ibid.]. John Jurist et al. mention lobbying in particular when it comes to reducing the costs (and hence, increasing the profitability) of engaging in space operations: The critical factors in making orbital access cheaper than $1000 per lb are lobbying, negotiating, or exiting to lower range fees, lobbying to lower liability insurance standards, auctioning payload and liability insurance, and self-insuring the vehicle. Even the best engineering will not help, if $1000 to $1300 per lb is consumed by range fees and insurance. [[5] p. 329] These sentiments form part of what Ozgur Gurtuna describes as the “Destination Problem”: … there is very little need for serving destinations in space on a regular basis. Currently, the only destination served regularly is the International Space Station … with the exception of the ISS, all space products and services are destined to serve end users
6 Many view the prohibition on national appropriation as indirectly precluding a legal means for defending ownership claims, but it has been argued that the Outer Space Treaty's prohibition on national appropriation directly implies a prohibition on private appropriation; see Ref. [4]. Of course, given the right catalysts, a spacefaring nation might simply decide to withdraw from the treaty, clearing the way for it to assert sovereignty over space resourcesdsee Ref. [13] for discussion.
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
on Earth … Without a clear commercial need to establish sustained robotic and/or human presence on the Moon, Mars and other planetary bodies, the case for high volume production of launch vehicles will be limited. [[14] pp. 23e24] In other words, without any economic reasons for servicing destinations other than LEO, there will be no development of space. How could the space frontier be opened up? The solution on offer is to use policy to encourage the commercial servicing of more and more destinations in space. But the drafting of regulations encouraging space development is morally commendable only if encouraging space development is morally commendable in the first place. To demonstrate this, proponents commonly point to two duties: Our duty to ensure the survival of the human species; and our duty to improve overall human welfare.7 The thought here is that pursuing space development is (or is likely to be) necessary for satisfying these duties. Such considerations give rise to distinct, though related, arguments: 1. Our survival obligation dictates that we have a moral duty to ensure the survival of the human species for as long as is possible. 2. The finiteness of Earth's habitability means that Earth will not permanently ensure our survival (either because of some global disaster, or because of the heating of the sun). 3. The necessity of development for survival hypothesis is that supporting space development is (or is likely) the only way we can ensure species survival, should a global disaster render Earth uninhabitable. 4. Thus, supporting space development is (likely) necessary for ensuring human survival for as long as is possible. 5. Our welfare obligation dictates that we have a moral duty to improve overall human welfare. 6. The finiteness of Earth's resources implies that there will likely come a time when Earth's resources alone cannot secure improvements in overall human welfare. 7. The necessity of development for welfare hypothesis is that supporting space development is (or is likely) the only way we can access new stores of raw materials for human consumption. 8. Thus, supporting space development is (likely) necessary for improving overall human welfare. These arguments might not correspond exactly to the position of any particular advocate of space development, but I believe that they neatly capture the general position. Do these arguments provide an ultimately defensible justification for space development, and in turn, for policies which encourage such development? At this stage I offer the following observation: The survival obligation and the welfare obligation do not provide a carte blanche justification for space developmentdsuch justification accrues only for activities that are likely to ensure either species survival or improvements in human welfare. Thus, even if the arguments are otherwise unproblematic, they lend no support at all to activities which are unlikely to satisfy either the survival obligation or the welfare obligation. In my estimation, this rules out supporting space tourism as a moral duty. Suborbital flights, hotels in LEO, etc., are extremely unlikely to impact our survival chances and our overall
7 These are not of course the only obligations that advocates have drawn upon, but they are the most common (and so, presumably, the most persuasive to advocates).
3
welfare. Furthermore, given that we are also interested in motivating a shift in space policy, we do not need to consider activities that are already pursued (or are supportable) in the current policy environment. Thus we can remove from consideration: satellite services; satellite servicing; space-based energy solutions; materials research; space vehicle design and construction8; and technology transfer. The remaining space development activities are: ▪ Developing space real estate ▪ Exploiting space resources ▪ Space settlement Henceforth, my primary concern shall be to examine to what extent the above arguments justify these three activities. As I remarked in the Introduction, I do not wish to contest either the survival obligation or the welfare obligation. Neither do I wish to contest the finiteness of Earth's habitability. However, the remaining premises are problematic.
2.2. Space development and survival The necessity of development for survival assumes that the pursuit of space development activities would result in a situation in which humanity is better positioned to survive a global catastrophe on Earth. But only permanent, self-sustaining space settlements would have this capability. If a colony or mining outpost depended on routine material and/or personnel exchanges with Earth, it would also fail should Earth become uninhabitable. Further, it seems doubtful that supporting space development will actually help ensure species survival over anything except the very long term. Perhaps the most pressing threat to our survival is the expanding human population and its drain on vital resources. But in order to mitigate this threat, space settlements would have to provide room for millions if not billions of humans. It is doubtful that we could accomplish this quickly enough for space settlement to significantly mitigate the anthropogenic threats to Earth's habitability. What is more likely is that we will have to deal with population issues well before we are in a position to resettle large numbers of humans in space.9 Tony Milligan puts this point nicely: … if human resettlement could help to alleviate population pressures, and hence alleviate anthropogenic global warming, then this would count strongly in favor of meeting our duty to extend human life at the expense of other duties. But if, as seems likely, the timescale for extensive resettlement is all wrong, if it could only be relevant to some distant and future environmental crisis rather than our own and present crisis, it will not weigh quite so heavily … As a more historic consideration, the fact that we have, for a long time, neglected our duties towards the non-human and have focused primarily (sometimes exclusively) upon human interests may weigh just as strongly in favour of accepting that our humanfocused duties should not prevail. [[15] p. 193] Here Milligan also suggests that a conflict of duty is lurking in the background. Perhaps we have other duties that in this case trump our duty to ensure species survivalda clue I shall take up in Section 3.
8 At least domestic vehicle design and construction (in the United States). The US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) prohibit the export of many rocket propulsion and control technologies, and is often viewed as impeding space development. 9 It also bears mentioning that space settlement in itself does little if nothing to prevent future population growth on Earth (without continuous emigrations).
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
4
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
Nevertheless I agree that establishing permanent space settlements is necessary over the very long term. And we should not ignore the worry that by failing to encourage space development today, we may not have the necessary capabilities when such development becomes (in the long run) required for our survivalda point I will return to (after a fashion) at the end of Section 4. However, supporting space development is not the only means of developing the infrastructure for space settlement. Other activities, e.g. the human scientific examination of space, would likely provide this infrastructure as well.
have become on the whole happier or better off. What is more likelydthat the exploitation of space resources would be conducted primarily for the benefit of all humans, or that such exploitation would be conducted primarily for the benefit of the (already wealthy) sponsoring corporations? Alan Marshall thinks the answer is clear: … the development of even more resources is not likely to provide for the necessities of most of the world's people. New resources contribute to the consumptive wants of the wealthy, not to the needs of the populous poor. [[18] p. 42]
2.3. Space development and welfare The finiteness of Earth's resources and the necessity of development for welfare assume a close, mutual correspondence, between increases in human welfare and access to new raw materials. Such a correspondence is generally invoked in support of activities like asteroid mining and lunar mining (along with the development of property rights and other real estate policies needed to underwrite space resource exploitation). Here I shall focus on the claim that access to new raw materialsdin particular, access to the materials of the Moon and the asteroidsdcorresponds to increases in basic human welfare. There is, to be sure, a staggering amount of raw materials available in our Solar System. Notable abundant (though perhaps not easily accessible) resources include helium-3, water, nickel, iron, and platinum-group metals. The estimated economic value of these materials is similarly staggering. Estimates of individual medium- and large-sized metal rich asteroids range in the billions and trillions of dollars.10 Charles Cockell estimates that value of all of the asteroid material in the Solar System is on the order of “several billion dollars for each man, woman and child alive” [[17] p. 59].11 Thus the use of space resources offers vast economic potential. However, we should be mindful of two often overlooked issues. First, we do not yet know how large influxes of materials from space will impact prices, and hence, the profitability of space resource exploitation. Although an asteroid rich in platinum-group metals might be worth a trillion dollars at current market values, a would-be exploiter could only expect this kind of return if she carefully adjusted supply to maintain prices (or to set prices just low enough to out-compete Earth-based firms).12 There is, accordingly, a non-negligible possibility that asteroid mining would neither dramatically increase the supply of, nor dramatically lower the prices for, any mined resources (at least for resources also available on Earth). Though the net impact here would likely be positive (due to a somewhat enhanced supply and somewhat lower prices), there is reason to doubt that it would occasion dramatic improvements in human welfare. However, an assessment of the probability of this outcome (and others) must wait on further research on the economic and social impact of space resource exploitation. Second, assuming that space resource exploitation would produce economic growth, we should not avoid asking the question: who would benefit from this growth? Just because the economy will have grown does not mean that the human population will
10
For a somewhat dated economic evaluation, see Ref. [16]. Cockell, of course, is primarily interested in providing direct scientific and environmental reasons for supporting space exploration; the reader should not take this citation as evidence that he unconditionally supports space resource exploitation. 12 Moreover, a would-be exploiter would also have to prevent her Earth-based competition from successfully lobbying for regulations that protect Earth-based mining operations. 11
I share Marshall's skepticism to at least some extent. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore the strong possibility that asteroid and lunar mining would only exacerbate existing inequalities. Such a possibility strongly undermines the idea that the welfare obligation supports profit-driven space resource exploitation. There is of course a tension here. Only those individuals, corporations, and nations with the necessary capital to take the risks in the first place are likely to engage in asteroid and lunar mining. And we could not expect these individuals, corporations, and nations to take these risks without some expectation of profit. But this only points to the issue at handdif asteroid and lunar mining are conducted for the purpose of drawing a profit, it is unlikely that these activities would lead to overall improvements in human welfare (at least from a social justice perspective). Thus, without further comment, we can supply no moral justification for a for-profit asteroid or lunar mining operation. Such a justification might be available, however, for the kind of exploitation permitted under the Moon Agreement [19],13 in particular Article 11, which calls for the establishment of an international regime to “to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible.” To serve the social justice issues discussed above, however, we would require a decidedly non-libertarian interpretation of the language of Article 11, which in addition calls for the “safe development of the natural resources of the moon,” the “rational management of those resources,” and an “equitable sharing by all States Parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration.” After all, precisely what counts as “safe development,” “rational management,” and “equitable sharing” will vary significantly from stakeholder to stakeholder.14
2.4. Conflicts of duty? I do not wish to give the impression that I view space development as a bad thing or as something to be avoided at any cost. On the contrary, I believe that space development has great potential. All I am suggesting thus far is that space development does not (except in the very long term) effectively serve the duties typically cited as justifying space developmentdour duties to survive and to improve human welfare. Consequently, these duties do not at this time provide compelling moral support for policies encouraging space settlement and resource exploitation.15
13
Which, of course, has not been signed by any spacefaring nation. See Ref. [4] for an argument that the Moon Agreement is not an obstacle to resource exploitation. 15 Granted it is not clear that regulatory changes on their own would dramatically increase private support for space development. Surely the large up-front costs and long time-horizons would still discourage most investors. Governments would therefore still be required to take the initiative providing financial support for space development activities. 14
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
However, I would like to reach for a somewhat stronger conclusion, viz., that there is something good about the fact that the currently regulatory environment is viewed as discouraging space development. Like Milligan, I believe that a conflict of duty arises which undermines the space development justifications derived from the survival obligation and the welfare obligation. Milligan expresses his concerns as they apply to large-scale lunar mining (for helium-3). He offers three reasons for the claim that lunar mining is not permissible by default: 9. The Moon is culturally significant and therefore should not be treated as a mere resource [[20] p. 3]. 10. The Moon has planetary integrity and thus is a locus of intrinsic value, and therefore should not be treated as a mere resource [ibid. pp. 3e4].16 11. It is “integral to our humanity” to develop a “sense of care and belonging” to the places in which we reside. By treating the Moon as a mere resource, we “risk losing sight of [the ethical task of] being at home in a larger region of space, a task which is different from learning to live in or near to a mining district” [[20] p. 4]. According to Milligan, (9)e(11) highlight several duties that, in the case of lunar mining, conflict with our duties to ensure species survival and to improve human welfare. One can easily imagine (9)e(11) implicating similar conflicts of duty when considering other forms of space development. It falls beyond the purview of this paper to assess the strength of the duties underlying (9)e(11). However, in Ref. [22] I argue that similar considerations do not succeed in establishing a moral prohibition on terraforming. Most of the arguments therein apply to space resource exploitation in general, and I shall not pause to rehearse my reasoning here.17 What I would like to do instead is offer another potential source of conflictdone that I believe is compelling, and one that space advocates should already recognize as compelling: our duty to scientifically examine the universe. 3. Space science I maintain that we have a duty to scientifically examine the universe, and as a corollary, I hold that space science is a vital component of this examination. Thus the pursuit of space science is implicated by our duty to scientifically examine the universe. Space science, like space development, comes in many forms. Space science includes (but is not limited to): astrobiology; astronomy; climatology and atmosphere studies; comparative planetology; geodesy; human biology and medicine; materials research; meteorology; physics; and tectonics. But the duty to examine provides holistic support for space sciencedall forms of space science are likely to contribute to our basic understanding of the universe. And in most cases, conducting space exploration missions is the only feasible way of gathering the necessary data for performing effective research. Thus the duty to examine also supports conducting missions which aim to gather scientific data.
16 The idea of “planetary integrity” derives from the “formed integrity” of Ref. [21], according to which an object has formed integrity when it is the product of a natural, “formative” process. Presumably an object has planetary integrity when it is the product of the kinds of natural processes that “form” planets. 17 Ref. [22] discusses Holmes Rolston's [21] position on the intrinsic value of celestial objects (which is relevant to (10)), and Robert Sparrow's [23] virtue-ethics objections to terraforming (which are relevant to (11)). The reader should note that, concerning (11), Milligan does not mention [23] but rather the work of Hanna Arendt (with which I am unfortunately not familiar). But from Milligan's discussion of (11), the position he advocates is very similar to Sparrow's position.
5
I realize that some will regard me as engaging in mere assertion when I claim that we have a duty to scientifically examine the universe. I agree that this duty requires justification. Though I am not at the moment prepared to endorse any particular way of justifying this duty, I would at least like to relay several possible sources of justification, if only to demonstrate the feasibility of this task. On the one hand, we could attempt to justify the obligation to scientifically examine the universe as a basic dutydthat is, as a duty that does not serve any other duty.18 After all, knowledge does not have to be good for something in order to be good itself. One provisional argument for this conclusion holds that increasing our scientific understanding of the universe is a basic, intrinsic good. Thus we ought to support activities that are likely to produce increases in our scientific understanding of the universe (so long as they interfere minimally or not at all with other duties of comparable importance). Given how remarkably effective space exploration has been, is, and will continue to be, at increasing our scientific understanding of the universe, we can conclude that this justification strongly supports space science.19 The weak point of this strategy is that claims of intrinsic value, even if justified, do not necessarily establish overriding duties. For instance, although we place a great deal of intrinsic value on individual human lives, nonetheless we may legitimately hold that there are possible situations in which it is acceptable (or even obligatory) to take a human life. Nonetheless I think enough has been said to warrant believing that the survival- and resource-based justifications for space development are weak enough that they are easily overridden, and thus are easily overridden by the examination-based justification for space sciencedeven if the duty to examine is comparatively weaker than our survival- and welfare-duties. On the other hand, we might attempt to show that the obligation to scientifically examine the universe is a derived dutydthat we have a duty to examine because doing so will help us to satisfy other more basic duties. That is essentially the strategy I proposed in Ref. [9], where I argued that both human survival and environmental duties justify space exploration. The environmental case perhaps bears further mention. Surely we will be unable to effectively mitigate global warming without a large influx of data about our planet's atmosphere and climate.20 But it would also be extremely useful to have extensive general knowledge about climatology and atmospheric science, which can only be acquired by examining the atmospheres and climates of other worlds. Thus we could easily justify certain forms of space science on account of their usefulness to solving environmental problems here on Earth (as Ref. [17] discusses at length). But this kind of reasoning does not provide a general justification for space science. var [24], Such a general justification is offered by Gonzalo Mune var's position, which is which I will outline only briefly. Mune inspired by certain influential views in the philosophy of science,21 involves establishing a series of claims about the serendipity of var first argues that: science. Mune 12. Serendipity is the natural (practically inevitable) result of scientific change.
18
Thanks to Travis Figg for much useful discussion here. No doubt space science is not the only form of inquiry strongly justified in this way. 20 The indispensability of Earth observation satellites for, e.g. climatology and atmosphere studies, geodesy, meteorology, and tectonics are well known and I will not rehearse them here. 21 In particular, the accounts of science and scientific change advocated by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. 19
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
6
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
By improving our basic scientific understanding of the universe, we become better able to solve existing problems, and we also become better able to anticipate and solve previously unknown problems. The inevitable outcome of this progression of our understanding is the serendipitous development of a myriad of beneficial tools and var next argues that: technologies. Mune 13. Scientific exploration leads to scientific change. In other words, in order to produce improvements in our basic understanding of science, scientific theories must be subjected to constant testing; we must remain on the lookout for novel observations, falsifying observations, and for observations that elude explanation. Such observations serve as spurs for scientific change, and can only be obtained by engaging in scientific exploration. var argues that: Finally, Mune 14. Space exploration; i.e., space science, is very likely to contribute to the transformation of our views. From which it follows that we have a sufficient justification for investing in space science. On this view, then, the serendipitous consequences of scientific exploration in space (and scientific exploration more generally) are ultimately what justify space science (and scientific research more generally). Let me remind the reader that it has not been my goal to defend any particular strategy for justifying the duty to examine. Rather, I hoped only to provide some indication of how such a justification might go. I trust that the above paragraphs provide at least some evidence here, and I will now describe how space science can come into conflict with space development. 4. Conflicts between space science and space development Let me first repeat that I have no in-principle objection to space development; my concerns arise when space development risks conflicting with space science. Indeed, when space development clearly does not conflict with space science, I believe that the marginal societal benefit of space development provides it with some degree of support. Though I grant that few conflicts exist at present, as space development and science capabilities improve, so too will the chances that development and science activities interfere with one another. Consider, for instance, the case of lunar science. There is a remarkable amount of science to do on the Moon, including: analyzing the lunar surface to study the bombardment history of the inner solar system; investigating the lunar surface and subsurface to understand the evolution of the EartheMoon system; determining the location and extent of lunar volatiles; studying the interactions between the lunar atmosphere (insubstantial as it may be), regolith, and volatiles; as well as conducting astronomical observations from the lunar farside.22 All of these activities could be jeopardized by large-scale development on the lunar surface. For instance, the mining of lunar regolith for helium-3, aluminum, and other resources, would require the excavation of vast tracts of the lunar surface.23 This process might help us to understand the composition of the lunar surface. However, if conducted without regard for other forms of scientific inquiry, a mining operation could destroy or otherwise disrupt important sites of scientific study. One might inadvertently excavate a site that was crucial for studying the evolution of the inner solar system; extensive activity on the lunar farside might interfere with farside astronomy,
22 23
This list is derives from Ref. [25]. See Ref. [[20] pp. 2e3] for discussion and references.
etc. That is not to say that lunar mining would necessarily reduce the viability of lunar science24 (though one wonders about mining in the context of lunar atmosphere studies). The problem, rather, is that science can go entirely overlooked as a stakeholder in discussions about the exploitation of space resources.25 This is unfortunate, given that, if I am correct, we have a stronger obligation to support space science than we do to pursue the exploitation of space resources. Mutatis mutandis, similar concerns apply as we consider exploitation and settlement elsewhere in the solar system, e.g. of Mars and the asteroids. Without prioritizing scientific examination, there is a significantly increased risk of development activities compromising important sites of scientific interest. A particularly acute case is the risk of development activities contaminating sites of interest on Mars in the search for life. Though the possibility of contamination is currently mitigated by non-binding (though widely implemented) planetary protection policies, it is doubtful that space developers, for whom scientific knowledge is not an end itself, would abide by non-binding planetary protection policies. Here is perhaps the appropriate occasion to raise the following objection26: Suppose I am correct in thinking that the significant benefits of space development will only be realized over the long term. But if I am being honest with myself, the significant benefits of space science will only be realized over the long term as well. So if it is important today to emphasize the role of space science as a major stakeholder in space, why isn't it equally important today to emphasize a similar role for space development? I have two points to make in response. First, while it may be true that the indirect societal benefits of space research will take time for their realization, the direct scientific payoffs occur relatively quickly in the forms of data analysis, scholarly publication, public dissemination of significant findings, etc. Second, the likely conflicts between science and development are highly asymmetrical in a way that places science in the vulnerable position. Scientific research generally does not exhaust the resources of a location like development activities, e.g. mining, so often do. There is much viable science that can be conducted only prior to developmentdthat is, before settlement or exploitation contaminates, disturbs, or destroys sites of scientific interest. But most sites of scientific interest, provided they are not permanently preserved for study, will remain viable for development even after their scientific novelty wears off. Therefore, since space science is more vulnerable than space development, more concern should be given to the safeguarding of space science objectives. Moreover, effective development could greatly benefit from the results of scientific study, which would provide developers with a greater understanding of the available resources, the consequences of their extraction and use, etc. 5. Conclusion There is a need, as we contemplate policies which might in future facilitate space development, to recall that: space science ought to remain a major stakeholder in space policy discussions; and that numerous space development activities (e.g. resource exploitation and settlement) will be likely to interfere with space science activities. After all, the greater the freedom developers have to act in
24
On this point see Ref. [26]. For instance, David Livingston's “code of ethics for conducting business in outer space” nowhere mentions the importance of science or the need to safeguard the viability of scientific study in space [27]. Similarly, Lee's discussion of the “competing interests” in space resource exploitation [[6] pp. 275e295] does not include a category for science. Lee does include a category for environmental protection, which, though not stressed by Lee, is often linked to scientific preservation. 26 Thanks to an anonymous referee for raising this objection. 25
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010
J.S.J. Schwartz / Space Policy xxx (2014) 1e7
space, the more likely they will be to successfully lobby for further concessions (and to prolong these concessions beyond necessity). One way of limiting the momentum of this kind of bootstrapping is for the space science community to retain a permanent and influential voice in space policy discussions. Perhaps the space science community could use its position to help redirect private-sector energies away from development and towards science.27 The private-sector is, of course, capable of conducting valuable scientific research. For the moment, however, governments remain the primary purchasers of scientific data derived from space exploration (with the possible exception of Earth observation data), and it is not clear for how long would-be developers will remain content merely to help satisfy government science objections, especially given the transient nature of many government space projects. But regardless of whether space science will in future be conducted mostly within the public sector or mostly within the private sector, we still ought to take measures to emphasize and reemphasize the status of science as a major stakeholder when engaging in discussions about regulations related to the use of space resources. References [1] Brearley Andrew. Mining the moon: owning the night sky? Astropolitics 2006;4:43e67. [2] Cooper Lawrence. Encouraging space exploration through a new application of space property rights. Space Policy 2003;19:111e8. [3] Fabian Robert. Space economic development in the province of all mankind: if no one goes, we all lose. Astropolitics 2003;1:89e98. [4] Jakhu Ram, Buzdugan Maria. Development of the natural resources of the moon and other celestial bodies: economic and legal aspects. Astropolitics 2008;6:201e50. [5] Jurist John, Dinkin Sam, Livingston David. Low cost earth orbit access: a look at physics, economics, and reality. Astropolitics 2005;4:295e331. [6] Lee Ricky. Law and regulation of commercial mining of minerals in outer space. New York: Springer; 2012. [7] Vedda James. Challenges to the sustainability of space exploration. Astropolitics 2008;6:22e49. [8] Dark Taylor. Reclaiming the future: space advocacy and the idea of progress. In: Dick S, Launius R, editors. Societal impact of spaceflight. NASA Publication SP-2007-4801; 2007. p. 555e71. [9] Schwartz James. Our moral obligation to support space exploration. Environ Ethics 2011;33:67e88.
7
[10] Johnson Stephen. The political economy of spaceflight. In: Dick S, Launius R, editors. Societal impact of spaceflight. NASA Publication SP-2007-4801; 2007. p. 141e91. [11] Simpson Michael. Spin-out and spin-in in the newest space age. In: Morris L, Cox K, editors. Space commerce: the inside story by the people who are making it happen. Aerospace Technology Working Group; 2010. p. 75e94. [12] United Nations Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. January 27, 1967. article I, T.I.A.S. 6347. [13] Hickman John. How plausible is Chinese annexation of territory on the moon? Astropolitics 2012;10:84e92. [14] Gurtuna Ozgur. Fundamentals of space business and economics. New York: Springer; 2013. [15] Milligan Tony. Property rights and the duty to extend human life. Space Policy 2011;27:190e3. [16] Lewis John. Mining the sky: untold riches from the asteroids, comets, and planets. New York: Basic Books; 1997. [17] Cockell Charles. Space on earth: saving our world by seeking others. London: MacMillan; 2007. [18] Marshall Alan. Development and imperialism in space. Space Policy 1995;11: 41e52. [19] United Nations agreement governing the activities of states on the moon and other celestial bodies. December 5, 1979. 1363 U.N.T.S. 3. [20] Milligan Tony. Scratching the surface: the ethics of Helium-3 extraction. In: Proceedings of the 8th IAA Symposium on the Future of Space Exploration: Towards the Stars, Torino, Italy, 3e5 July 2013. [21] Rolston III Holmes. The preservation of natural value in the solar system. In: Hargrove E, editor. Beyond spaceship earth: environmental ethics and the solar system. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books; 1986. p. 140e82. [22] Schwartz James. On the moral permissibility of terraforming. Ethics Environ 2013;18(2):1e31. [23] Sparrow Robert. The ethics of terraforming. Environ Ethics 1999;21:227e45. var Gonzalo. The dimming of starlight. Oxford: Oxford University Press; [24] Mune in preparation. [25] Crawford IA, Anand M, Cockell CS, Falcke H, Green DA, Jaumann R, et al. Back to the moon: the scientific rationale for resuming lunar surface exploration. Planet Space Sci 2012;74:3e14. [26] Cockell Charles, Horneck Gerda. Planetary parks e formulating a wilderness policy for planetary bodies. Space Policy 2006;22:256e61. [27] Livingston David. A code of ethics for conducting business in outer space. Space Policy 2003;19:93e4. [28] Genta Giancarlo. Private space exploration: a new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta Astronaut; [in press]. [29] Pomerantz William. Moon 2.0: private planetary exploration and the new lunar economy. In: Morris L, Cox K, editors. Space commerce: the inside story by the people who are making it happen. Aerospace Technology Working Group; 2010. p. 7e26.
27 Thanks to an anonymous referee for making this suggestion. For further discussion see Refs. [28,29].
Please cite this article in press as: Schwartz JSJ, Prioritizing scientific exploration: A comparison of the ethical justifications for space development and for space science, Space Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.08.010